Interesting quote from Simon Pegg about Paramount

[Galactus]

So the script for Star Trek 3 which Simon Pegg was involved in writing had feedback from Paramount that it was too 'Star Trek-y' he had an interesting thing to say about how Paramount viewed Star Trek: Into Darkness.

“’Avengers Assemble’, which is a pretty nerdy, comic-book, supposedly niche thing, made $1.5bn dollars. ‘Star Trek: Into Darkness’ made half a billion, which is still brilliant.

“But it means that, according to the studio, there’s still $1bn worth of box office that don’t go and see ‘Star Trek’. And they want to know why.”

Considering that TMNT '14 like Into Darkness grossed under half a billion do you think that Paramount is looking quite deeply about what went "wrong" with TMNT?

To wear my earnest hat for hat for a moment I think expecting either movie to do the same as Avengers is an unrealistic expectation. Avengers had a number of movies preceding made as quasi-commercials to hype people for it. Guardians of the Galaxy tapped into that to some extent also.

But since Paramount view half a billion as underwhelming how will they view TMNT's level of success? I've said before I believe going with a cheaper director known for making the most of a small budget and using a script they were never fully on board with but ended up buying is signs of belt tightening but what will they do about tone?

You might think they'll try and emulate the movies of the Marvel Cinematic Universe which would be better but as I've said a lot of their main selling point lies in their shared universe, something which doesn't really apply to TMNT and I'm not sure they get the other reasons Marvel movies work.

The other possibility is they try and emulate (even more) their own billion dollar movie series Transformers. Even with that series experiencing a commercial decline I can still see them going in that direction. So what do you think?

[Candy Kappa]

Too "Star trek-y"...

oh, lords.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Didn't see the Star Trek remake films, but they didn't look "Star Trek-y" at all.

[plastroncafe]

They "looked" Star Trekky, but they weren't actually Star Trek, and honestly...that was the problem.

People are going out in droves to see the new Mad Max, not because there's suddenly a HUGE fanbase for post apocalyptic car movies, but because it's a movie that does what it does, and does it well.

(Or so I'm told, I haven't seen it yet.)

The Star Trek reboots look good, but they don't have a whole lot of soul to them. People aren't die hard Trekkers just because they like space, but because they found something in the characters that resonated with them. There were stories that made them think and view the world around them in a different way.

Avengers at least had that first part going for it, the new Trek Movies...well...they looked good.

[IndigoErth]

If anyone in there has even once thought "too Ninja Turtley," they deserve a boot to the face.

I can't say I know a thing about the financial business of the box office and film making, but if they look at one movie that made 1 billion and another that made 1/2 billion and decide that something went 'wrong,' that it missed a half billion it was owed... they're idiots. Sure, part of their job may be to consider what will get people there to see it and maybe they'll wonder what they can improve to increase sales (and probably choose all very stupid reasons because they know close to zero about the true audience), but people aren't flipping robots that show up to hand you money just because you made a movie. :roll: No one owes you a cent for making a film.

Maybe it's a slow month and people are putting their money elsewhere? Maybe it just has more of a niche audience than another film does. Maybe it has a niche audience and you completely ignored that fact and tried to appeal to people who otherwise aren't usually interested in the general topic/franchise/characters. (Example: you could - to do a reverse of the usual "sex sells" plot - do a Power Rangers movie with a bunch of super hot guys casted in an attempt to draw female viewers... but guess what, I'm not interested in Power Rangers so I'm probably not going to see it.)

[Candy Kappa]

I'd imagine the script wasn't dumbed down enough for Paramount's taste. :roll:

The first one was alright, have not seen into darkness, don't plan to either.

[Sabacooza]

People are going out in droves to see the new Mad Max, not because there's suddenly a HUGE fanbase for post apocalyptic car movies, but because it's a movie that does what it does, and does it well.

(Or so I'm told, I haven't seen it yet.)I have seen it and I can confirm this.:D

[TigerClaw]

This is interesting because, Paramount wants a piece of that Marvel Studios pie, By hiring a team of writers, To make a Transformers Cinematic Universe of some sort.

They want some of that Marvel level of money.

As for being to Star Trek-y, They want films to cater to the average moviegoer, Not the Star Trek fanbase.

[IndigoErth]

As for being to Star Trek-y, They want films to cater to the average moviegoer, Not the Star Trek fanbase.
Which is pretty misguided thinking imo. Fail the fanbase to instead try to appeal to people who have no interest in Star Trek and probably won't go.

That's like putting football players (American) in tennis outfits, change the scoring, and making the ball checkered in black and white, because you want to appeal to a wider sports audience.

Or make expensive car brands look cheap, because you think it will appeal to people who buy only cheap cars.

:roll:

[Candy Kappa]

I'd imagine a good story mixed with great Vidal would reel in "anyone".

Maybe Paramount just isn't fit to make a Star Trek movie, it's not in their skillset.

[TigerClaw]

The problem with Star Trek is that, Its more suited for TV then the movies, in TV they can do all sorts of things, But at the movies, They are only given 2 hours and 2 hours is not enough to tell a back story, Which is why TV works better, It takes several episodes to tell a whole back story.

With TMNT, The show has a whole lot of back stories for many of the characters, Trying to cram all that into a 2 hour movie is difficult.

[TrickOrTreater]

With TMNT, The show has a whole lot of back stories for many of the characters, Trying to cram all that into a 2 hour movie is difficult.

You know who needed backstory delved into in BayTurtles?

Not April.

Maybe they should have eschewed making the movie about her and instead focused on, I don't know, Hamato Yoshi/Oroku Saki/The Ninja Turtles.

That might have helped A LOT.

[Commenter 42]

The executives see film as a formula, and think that testing makes things better.

No, paramount wasn't disappointed with Turtles, quite the opposite. They feel like, in-spite of how terrible the film was, it made bank.

It made money in-spite of itself. It told them that the audience that went to see TMNT, were willing to watch anything TMNT, so they should do a second film, give it a little more gas (more money, characters etc), and reap the rewards.

It's changing, but the prevailing attitude in hollywood is that comicbook films are niche, and in order to make them palatable to the wider audience, it needs to be less comic-booky, more filmic.

But we all know this. We all know and say the same things repeatedly, and nothing changes.

This is why it's about time we do something about it.

#haltandcatchfire

[TigerClaw]

The executives see film as a formula, and think that testing makes things better.

No, paramount wasn't disappointed with Turtles, quite the opposite. They feel like, in-spite of how terrible the film was, it made bank.

It made money in-spite of itself. It told them that the audience that went to see TMNT, were willing to watch anything TMNT, so they should do a second film, give it a little more gas (more money, characters etc), and reap the rewards.

It's changing, but the prevailing attitude in hollywood is that comicbook films are niche, and in order to make them palatable to the wider audience, it needs to be less comic-booky, more filmic.

But we all know this. We all know and say the same things repeatedly, and nothing changes.

This is why it's about time we do something about it.

#haltandcatchfire
Which is why Warner Bros wants there DC comic book movies, to not feel like comic book movies at all.

Which is why they hire directors, and let them do whatever they want with there comic book properties.

[Shark_Blade]

So they're aiming for one full billion dollar for TMNT. That's good.

Not sure how they're gonna execute that, hope nothing too drastic. But it's good they're concentrating on the franchise. :tlove:

Offtopic, I'v seen 2 of the reboot Star Trek movies and it isn't really my thing. Spock is entertaining but that Kirk is annoying. Why the heck is that woman suddenly stripping down to her undies in front of Kirk?? xD So out of the blue, no context or anything just wtf. Thank God for Benedict Cumberbatch in the second film, I'm probably biased cause I'm a Sherlock fan. The past Star Trek films and tv shows, I haven't really seen.

[Commenter 42]

Why the heck is that woman suddenly stripping down to her undies in front of Kirk?? xD So out of the blue, no context or anything just wtf.

Well, it happens for some of us.

[Commenter 42]

Which is why Warner Bros wants there DC comic book movies, to not feel like comic book movies at all.

Which is why they hire directors, and let them do whatever they want with there comic book properties.

What the hell is your point? Suggesting DC knows how to make great comic book movies is the most absurd thing you could have gone with. Paramount didn't compare their New Treks to DC, the compared it to Marvel.

Then again, I'm sure you loved MOS, and Nolan's bunch of crap.

There's no accounting for taste I suppose.

[Xiewin]

What the hell is your point? Suggesting DC knows how to make great comic book movies is the most absurd thing you could have gone with. Paramount didn't compare their New Treks to DC, the compared it to Marvel.

Then again, I'm sure you loved MOS, and Nolan's bunch of crap.

There's no accounting for taste I suppose.

Too bad I liked MOS and both of Nolan's Batman films.

[Sarigar]

What Marvel does well and what the masses response to is "smart"' fun, action films that are pure escapist entertainment. On top of that, they mostly respect they source material. DC gets whacked by being too dark, right or wrong, because the action isn't " fun" its considered dour. I personally like both. The bottom line is that films that make these piles of money are ACTION films at their heart, EVENT films that swing for the fences, don't any pull punches, etc.The balance between doing that and having a coherent plot and characters you care about is what generates big box office.

[Commenter 42]

Too bad I liked MOS and both of Nolan's Batman films.

A) Nolan made three "batman" films.

B) That's cool you liked those films. I guarantee when you go back and re watch them, in time, you'll see why they don't work.

Reeve>Cavill

Donner>Snyder

[Leo656]

Actually, it works that way in reverse with me for Batman Begins and Man of Steel. Those two get better. Seriously. It's the little stuff.

Rises pretty much falls apart, though, I'll admit that. That movie is nowhere near as fun without a packed theater of nerds on opening night. It's kind of a huge mess.

[Commenter 42]

Actually, it works that way in reverse with me for Batman Begins and Man of Steel. Those two get better. Seriously. It's the little stuff.

Rises pretty much falls apart, though, I'll admit that. That movie is nowhere near as fun without a packed theater of nerds on opening night. It's kind of a huge mess.

You know I completely disagree with you.

Neither film adheres to the tenants of the central character, and birthright is not a propper defense.

Beyond that, both are very sloppy films, no matter how you slice it.
And now that Nolan fever has subsided, his disciples are slowly sobering up.

You can seriously drive a semi side-ways through the damn plot holes.

[ProactiveMan]

Some of the best movies ever made have plot holes. I've watched the Nolan Batman films quite a few times, and if they're a total mess, they're a really consistent and well orchestrated mess.

People rarely like or dislike movies objectively, so you'll have a hard time convincing someone that they don't really like a movie they really like.

[Foombamaroom]

Nolan tried to make a good movie, that's the thing. Bay and his producers? They're just in it for the cash cow.

[AlZarkovski]

Cameo April in "Captain America-3"? :D:D:D

https://i.imgur.com/9HCxZvL.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/CmkobwG.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/01iEEDs.jpg

(sorry, please move to another topic)

[Shark_Blade]

Lol she does look like April. :tlol:

[turtlefanforever]

Actually, it works that way in reverse with me for Batman Begins and Man of Steel. Those two get better. Seriously. It's the little stuff.

Rises pretty much falls apart, though, I'll admit that. That movie is nowhere near as fun without a packed theater of nerds on opening night. It's kind of a huge mess.

The dark night rises is hands down one of the worst films i've ever seen. Almost literally everyone left before the movie was over, but i was like i paid for this ***t i'm gonna watch the whole thing.

[beeshaw]

People seem to forget that the movie business is a BUSINESS first and formost. Of course they want to make a **** tonne of money. They will try to, and continue to, appeal to the broadest of audiences. And with a franchise such as this with lucritive merchandising and tie-ins, they will do what THEY feel will make them the most money. It's not about US. We will NEVER get the 50mil budgeted arthouse version of the Mirage comic unless it's a fan-made, fan bankrolled film. There's too much money out there for the studio to make otherwise. If anything you're better off wishing the PD movies make them their crap tonne of money so they drive them into the ground and then they can get to work eventual reboot. They know for a fact that quality doesn't equate $$.

The dark night rises is hands down one of the worst films i've ever seen. Almost literally everyone left before the movie was over, but i was like i paid for this ***t i'm gonna watch the whole thing.

TDKR is one of the few movies I have no desire to re-watch. I wouldn't say it's the worst movie ever made, but it definitly gets by on some the merits of the preceeding flicks.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Too Star Trekky...

#1) That sentiment is exactly why I don't allow Abrams to earn one damn penny from me for what he's done to Star Trek. :flaming:
#2) Because 2009 and "Into Darkness" were SO Star Trekky. :flaming:

[Bry]

Considering that TMNT '14 like Into Darkness grossed under half a billion do you think that Paramount is looking quite deeply about what went "wrong" with TMNT?

Probably. Which they should, but not for that reason.

IMO, this is the problem with a lot of Hollywood thinking, which is the same kind of thinking that made a mess of BayTurtles in the first place - totally refusing to see that not every "blockbuster" movie is or should be the same, they don't all have the same audience, or even the same audience size necessarily. They're so busy trying to chase and emulate the current big success story that all of their properties are becoming more generic, getting their edges shaved off to fit neatly into some made-up template they think will make them the most possible money. That's why a Ninja Turtles movie ended up with copied plot elements from The Amazing Spider-Man and a generic Secret Evil Businessman for a villain, cribbed from any number of recent blockbusters. It had no identity and no soul because it was a carbon copy of the current blockbuster landscape.

If instead they owned the strengths of their properties and just tried to make the best movies possible, they'd be way more likely to make a real impression and get some "surprise" hits that get people talking and aren't forgotten about by the general public by the end of the year. That's how you build a brand that lasts. Guardians of the Galaxy did that. Mad Max: Fury Road is doing that. And people are going to remember those movies with love and reverence for decades to come.

[Bob]

I think your belief in thinking that there’s anything in common between the two scenarios is off, TBH. The first Star Trek (2009) was met with glowing reviews and audiences seemed to like it. Paramount had high hopes for the sequel for those very reasons. They had the same director, the same writers and the same stars. The fact that it didn’t make much more than the first film is quite strange, and I’m sure raised a lot of questions. Into Darkness should have made quite a bit more than it did, it’s as simple as that. The overseas takings should have jumped a lot further than they did, although ST has traditionally struggled overseas.

TMNT was different. It was pretty much trashed by critics from the get-go, although audiences seemed to like it. However, TMNT also had a smaller budget. I doubt very much that Paramount will increase the budget for TMNT 2, unlike what they did for Into Darkness, which cost about 50 million more than the first film. Do you think they’ll give the new director, who is completely unproven, a bigger budget than Jonathan Liebesman, who had much more under his belt? So their expectations for TMNT 2’s final gross are probably just a little over the first film, especially the overseas gross. Not by much, though. If it makes pretty much the same I think Paramount will see that as a job well done. Unlike with Into Darkness, I very much doubt they’re going to be expecting a great leap in the final gross.

[TigerClaw]

With TMNT 2 having Bebop and Rocksteady, and possibly Krang, Paramount seems to be throwing more money at it this time.

[TrickOrTreater]

With TMNT 2 having Bebop and Rocksteady, and possibly Krang, Paramount seems to be throwing more money at it this time.

There's zero proof of that, until we see a confirmed budget.

Liebesman himself said that the reason why there weren't more Turtles stuff in the first movie was because it cost too much.

Even with a Ninja Turtles movie starring Megan Fox, Paramount still made a profit.

That proved to them that the mere promise of cg Turtles being in it was enough to get people into the theater, and it made them a profit.

The budget will be either exactly the same or a little bit more either way. And we'll get more of the same. Concentration on the cheaper to film human characters with occasional cameos from the more expensive to film cg characters.

[TigerClaw]

Like I said, They are throwing in more money so that they can have more CGI characters on screen, Hence why we are getting Bebop, Rocksteady and Krang.

And with that, Maybe a 2 hour runtime.

[beeshaw]

Like I said, They are throwing in more money so that they can have more CGI characters on screen, Hence why we are getting Bebop, Rocksteady and Krang.

And with that, Maybe a 2 hour runtime.

ehhhhh.... probably not, atleast no more than they 'need' to. I'd love to be proven wrong once the facts roll in. Granted, some savings will come from them already having the tech worked out for the Turtles, but I wouldn't put too much stock into 'they're adding more characters which means bigger budget/longer runtime' until we see something that proves that.

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Trick, but I'm coming around to thinking that the Turtles will probably have even less screen time than the last one. Kinda like the villians in Batman overshadowing the Bat himself. :(

[massakre]

smh gotta love studio execs.. all they know, all they see is $$$$

the Marvel Cinematic Universe is one of a kind.. its based off of several years of comic book storytelling that established a shared universe decades ago..not everyone can just go and pull that off..

you can't just go and combine ET with Back to the Future and Bill and Ted with Waynes World and just say.. oh yeah, we meant to tell you back in 89 that they're all part of a shared universe (dont get me wrong, that'd be kind of amazing) but still..

[Candy Kappa]

Cameo April in "Captain America-3"? :D:D:D

https://i.imgur.com/9HCxZvL.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/CmkobwG.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/01iEEDs.jpg

(sorry, please move to another topic)

Oh, if only. She'd be an great April, especially with the "April is the main character" approach PD have done in the first movie.

[IndigoErth]

Hence why we are getting Bebop, Rocksteady and Krang.

And then the money is probably also going into them, not the Turtles. Because not only are there the costs to adding them on screen, but there's all the costs of getting them created, etc beforehand.

Add in the Turtles, Splinter, and no doubt Shreddertron... If they thought last time it was too expensive to put the Turtles on screen more, then wtf do they think they're going to do this time.

If the Turtles get more screen time and the film is actually from their perspective it will be a cinematic miracle.

[Commenter 42]

it will be a cinematic miracle.

Me, watching this POS, will be a cinematic miracle.

[TrickOrTreater]

And then the money is probably also going into them, not the Turtles. Because not only are there the costs to adding them on screen, but there's all the costs of getting them created, etc beforehand.

Add in the Turtles, Splinter, and no doubt Shreddertron... If they thought last time it was too expensive to put the Turtles on screen more, then wtf do they think they're going to do this time.

If the Turtles get more screen time and the film is actually from their perspective it will be a cinematic miracle.

It won't be.

[Powder]

Like I said, They are throwing in more money so that they can have more CGI characters on screen, Hence why we are getting Bebop, Rocksteady and Krang.

And with that, Maybe a 2 hour runtime.

You're delusional.

It's pretty clear that the reason they're adding so many human characters to make up for the fact that the turtles are losing a large chunk of their focus to Bebop & Rocksteady. More CGI characters does not mean more screen time for said CGI characters.

[oldmanwinters]

It's pretty clear that the reason they're adding so many human characters to make up for the fact that the turtles are losing a large chunk of their focus to Bebop & Rocksteady. More CGI characters does not mean more screen time for said CGI characters.

Maybe this current TMNT movie series will be comparable to the old Godzilla films of the 1960s and 1970s in which we spend the first 45 minutes or so focusing on human characters and the random villain mutant/monsters until the title characters finally show up in the last half of the film?

:tlol:

[IndigoErth]

If they do that they deserve all the hate mail they get.



I bet of PD made a Christmas movie, they'd overshadow Santa with too many elves, and then in the sequel they'd add ten more elves. That's basically what this is.

[Xav]

I've said before I believe going with a cheaper director known for making the most of a small budget and using a script they were never fully on board with but ended up buying is signs of belt tightening but what will they do about tone?Wait what script are you talking about? Aren't they writing a new one for this film?

[Leo656]

42: Yes, I do understand that we each tend to approach Superman and Batman from a different angle.

I'd still argue they did a great job of marrying the books to the "real world" without violating anything important. Plot holes notwithstanding; that's gonna happen in every movie, but Rises especially is just the sh*ts with that, definitely.

Not gonna lie, when I saw that on opening night, it got the biggest ovation of any movie I'd ever gone to see. Not even close. People were NUTS over it. But the second time I saw it, with a lot less adrenaline and nerd-gasming going on, it was pretty obvious that having to rush to make the release date really screwed that movie up. I wish we could get a mulligan on that one. The first two movies really deserved a better finale.

[Commenter 42]

42: Yes, I do understand that we each tend to approach Superman and Batman from a different angle.

I'd still argue they did a great job of marrying the books to the "real world" without violating anything important. Plot holes notwithstanding; that's gonna happen in every movie, but Rises especially is just the sh*ts with that, definitely.

Not gonna lie, when I saw that on opening night, it got the biggest ovation of any movie I'd ever gone to see. Not even close. People were NUTS over it. But the second time I saw it, with a lot less adrenaline and nerd-gasming going on, it was pretty obvious that having to rush to make the release date really screwed that movie up. I wish we could get a mulligan on that one. The first two movies really deserved a better finale.


There's no arguing that Nolan built a rabbid fanbase, and he did do some things well, but on the whole, the guy is far too spastic when he tells a story.

Watching his films feels like this

"When Joe went to the store to buy groceries, he had a little car trouble. When his car engine finally turned over, John decided that he was in a hurry, so he accelerated through the intersection at a red light. He was spotted by the cops, who pulled him over. As he got out of his Van, Jim felt a little uneasy, as he knew he was in the wrong. Lucky for Jack, he'd stored a bottle of pepto in the glove compartment for such an occasion.
Later that night Alex returned home to his condo with a pizza."

This isn't the problem with MOS, just the Batman films (actually, all of Nolan's films if you pay attention). He tells you something then without warning decides to change it, without any explanation. He then ties the story together with an ending that has little to nothing to do with the original story. He's ****ing Grampa from the Simpsons.

I like realism, maybe too much, but realism requires telling a story in a realistic way. Batman having no cartilage in his knees, then wearing a leg brace to go fight crime and kick through bricks? WTF?

MOS suffers from mis-characterizations, grievously mis-cast actors, a dour mood, religiosity at every turn, and a hate on for anything remotely scientific. The line "evolution always wins" wasn't just asinine, it was actually the entire driving force behind the film. Krypton had life down to a "science" (we're told agonizing exposition), and science destroyed their world. Zod is logical and scientific, and logic and science are bad. Now, here comes Superman, in a Christ pose, to save us. He saves the kids who hated him from drowning, even though there could be consequences, and his father basically says "I'd let them drown" a direct old testament reference.

The film on the whole was a parable with a strong message "Science bad, faith good!" That wasn't the Superman of my generation, but i suppose he's dead.

Worst of all, Superman wasn't a good guy. He was a little emoshit, moody and irresponsible. He wasn't a hero, just self absorbed and arrogant.
Every actor, even the beautiful and lovely Diane Lane, were dry of charisma.

I don't recall any of that in any Superman comic, and again, Birthright doesn't count.

Reeves had buckets of Charisma, and the dude gave off this sense of magic on screen. A friend of mine who hadn't ever watched any of the Superman films, watched it for the first time recently. They didn't even comment on the FX, all they could say was "Wow, I love that guy".

You can go through Reeve's library of films, and for the most part, they suck, as does he. But as Superman, it's pure perfection.

[chrisdude]

1. I think this whole overcrowding thing is getting blown out of proportion. Why anyone expects Rocksteady and Bebop to get lots of screen time is beyond me. They're goons. Henchmen. I doubt we're going to watch them grow up. Stockman is a big question mark, though, as we don't really know the central conflict. It's not like they cast Joker, Riddler and Penguin in the same movie. These are all TMNT characters (and actors) that could easily play minor roles.


2. We've had confirmation from the director and actors from the first film that plenty of footage of the turtles was filmed, but never animated, because of the budget. Not to mention the late stage rewrites. They changed the identity of the villain. There's no telling what kind of scenes had to get scrapped. So why does everyone seem so sure that the powers that be don't want the turtles to be the central characters of the film? I'm just saying, you know their original plan was smashed and rebuilt. There's no reason the think the budget will be cut in preproduction. There's no reason to think there'll be a massive rewrite during filming. It doesn't make sense to point to related shortcomings and assume history will be repeated.


On a Star Trek note, I'll just copy/paste my comments on another site, about the Pegg quote.
If Pegg is going to "make a western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters," that's fine by me. Some of the most fun times I've ever had watching the TOS Star Trek crew is when they were hijacking the Enterprise, fighting gladiator battles, riding the bus, and bonding around the camp fire. It really is about the characters. To me, "Star Trek-y" makes me think of Deep Space Nine or Enterprise, when so much of what you're seeing is in presented in contrast with, or builds on what happened in another time in Star Trek. Everyone can appreciate the logical, calculating Spock losing to Kirk at chess, or the fate of Edith Keeler. But discovering that Bashir is an Augment, or learning about the disease that caused Klingons to lose their ridges? That's really Star Trek-y.

[graphic_content]

1. I think this whole overcrowding thing is getting blown out of proportion. Why anyone expects Rocksteady and Bebop to get lots of screen time is beyond me. They're goons. Henchmen. I doubt we're going to watch them grow up. Stockman is a big question mark, though, as we don't really know the central conflict. It's not like they cast Joker, Riddler and Penguin in the same movie. These are all TMNT characters (and actors) that could easily play minor roles.

Agreed; all these villains have featured simultaneously during the Fred Wolf series, from which this series appears to borrow from heavily, playing bit roles that ultimately contributed to the plot, the action, and never outshone the Turtles. My concern is with all human characters that keep popping up...NBA players, models...guest cameos that for reason studios feel they need. However little they detract from the Turtles is still too much for me.

[Commenter 42]

1. I think this whole overcrowding thing is getting blown out of proportion.
So why does everyone seem so sure that the powers that be don't want the turtles to be the central characters of the film?

Because the main "issue" TPTB had with the first film, was the cost of animating the turtles. It's the same issue they had with TF.

This will be Arnell centric, with lot's of Fox, because shooting them is much cheaper. There will still be plenty of invisible VFX done, the stuff no one ever notices, but PD is KNOWN to be cheap, so if they can cut costs by shooting living breating people to tell parts of the story that might cost 5 times as much to do with the turtles, they will. That's just who they are. cheap.

[IndigoErth]

So why does everyone seem so sure that the powers that be don't want the turtles to be the central characters of the film? I'm just saying, you know their original plan was smashed and rebuilt.
The trouble for me is that April is not one that was changed, but they clearly chose to set the meat of the story mainly from her perspective, so I don't think anything was changed in that regard. That pretty much made her the center of the movie.

And if they couldn't grasp how to make it from the Turtles' perspective the first time, I don't hold much hope that they'll do it this time. Maybe this director gets it. But then he's still working with a screen play by the same people who wrote the last one.


Case in point, when the Turtles asked April to meet up with them, it would have been nice if the viewer got the perspective of waiting around with them, hoping April shows up. Instead I found it a bit disheartening that we're supposed to go with her perspective and be fearful for poor little April and what the big scary Turtles are doing.

[Commenter 42]

But then he's still working with a screen play by the same people who wrote the last one.

And that's the point.

They pay for everything. A writer get's paid, actors get paid. these are hard costs. These types of producers think of it in dollars. paying for something, then tossing it away is an expense they've incurred that they can't explain away. For what ever reason, they went with the same idiots as before. It will BE the same crap as before. ESPECIALLY when the crap they made before, turned a profit.

you vote with your dollars guys. it's very very very simple.

[Wolfie65]

Studios figure that the vastly overwhelming majority of ticket-buyers have no idea who any of the characters are, have never read the book/series/comics/whatever and just want to escape their dull lives for 2 hours while fattening themselves up even further with hugely overpriced snacks and sugar water.
Generally, they are correct, which is precisely why, to them, 'only' 1/2 BILLION DALLAHS is a 'letdown'.......

[IndigoErth]

Studios figure that the vastly overwhelming majority of ticket-buyers have no idea who any of the characters are, have never read the book/series/comics/whatever
After 31 years, if they're assuming that of TMNT, then I hate to inform them but they - and only they - have been living under a rock.

I mean, if they grew up Amish or super poor and rural and had no tv, or it wasn't allowed, or in the middle of the Sahara or something and have no idea other people know if this (at least a basic familiarity), I could understand. lol

[chrisdude]

I bet you could walk down the street asking random people what planet Superman was from, and get a lot of wrong answers. Lots of people can't name the President. Whatever it is, anything at all, rest assured the majority of people don't know or care about it. Those people have to be addressed, because believe it or not, tons of people go see random movies just for something to do on the weekend, or as a date, and they choose based on what they saw in a commercial or whatever's soaked into their brain by accident.

They say the next Spider-Man won't be an origin story, but I'd bet my bottom dollar you'll hear about the spider bite and uncle Ben, somehow. Some people don't know..

[Leo656]

42: It's got nothing to do with "Birthright", "Birthright" was awful and every sane person knows it. They did borrow a little from that story, but really, only insofar as making "stop a Kryptonian invasion" the Very First Thing he does after he's exposed to the world. But it was VERY much in tone with Byrne's Superman. Byrne's version of Krypton looked different but the story was exactly the same: They let science take precedent over everything and eventually that killed off their entire civilization and way of life, an "evolution" that ultimately killed them off. Meanwhile, just like in the film, when faced with a choice to have Krypton be reborn on Earth, Kal-El rejects this, choosing his humanity over his alien heritage. That is SO important to the material, and the earlier films never went far enough into it, that Clark is only Kryptonian "by accident"; that he was born, raised, thinks, and acts as a human being. It's important, and it's from the books. A LOT of things from Byrne's run made it into the movie. I appreciate that, because whenever anyone does a comic movie, people complain "they changed this and that from the books, they should have just done the books". Well, this movie was about 95% comics-accurate, it just wasn't as fuzzy and sentimental as it probably should have been. But it gave everyone everything they always said they wanted to see in a Superman movie, and it's still controversial. So either people were lying about what they wanted or they just won't accept anything. I really don't know.

I won't argue that modern movies overplay the Christ allegory, but it's always been there. Even in the Reeve films, especially the Donner Cut of II. It's a personal choice if it bothers the viewer or not, but since it's been done to death already I really don't see the problem. I'd argue "Returns" played it even heavier. It's nothing new. Modern audience like everything spelled out plain for them; if you don't come right out and SAY he's "American Jesus", they might not get it. :lol:


Meanwhile, I'd also argue that "science vs faith" wasn't the conflict of the movie, but rather, "Predestination Vs. Free Will". I see what you're getting at, but that's not the message they were trying to send, "Science Bad/Faith Good". The movie was about how you can have anything in the world programmed into your genes, you can be "destined" to be a leader or a general or a scientist or a king, but ultimately, who you become is up to you, that it has nothing to do with predestination and everything to do with personal choice. In this case, "Kal-El isn't Superman because of his DNA or who his Daddy was, those are factors but it all comes down to what he chooses to do with his power." I think that's a really terrific and powerful message, that people can overcome their "predetermined" fate and become something greater. Even in the Reeve movies, it wasn't a choice, it was, "Jor-El sent him there to be Superman, so he does it, because what else is a guy who flies supposed to do?" I dunno.

Character-wise, it's pretty clear at this point they're taking the long way around in getting him to be the Superman everyone knows/remembers, and that he's maturing into the role as he goes through these couple movies. And I really don't think calling Cavill's take "whiny" or "emo" is accurate; especially not while people still think "Smallville" was any good at all! :lol: I mean, he's literally one of the only people in MoS who smiles at all! Check it, it's true! He's having more fun than anybody! :lol: I liked his quiet confidence, personally. The guy's good. Some of the other folks in the movie needed some work but I thought HE was great.

I'm with you on Jon Kent's misuse, however. I'm fine with Costner but his dialog was awwwwwful and totally out of character. Someone needed to take another pass at that. A LOT of the dialog in that movie was screwy. It's like they figured "People are bedazzled by spectacle, they don't care about dialog." Some of us do. :lol:

[Commenter 42]

42: .....

Alright, i have so much to say/retorte, it just wouldn't be fair to keep it in the open.

I'm going PM. Sorry about my tangent all. As you were :)

[Xiewin]

Well I personally thought Cavill was fantastic. Even with all the criticisms for MOS, no one really had a problem with his performance.

[Leo656]

I think we already did this once or twice, but alright. :lol:

[Commenter 42]

Well I personally thought Cavill was fantastic. Even with all the criticisms for MOS, no one really had a problem with his performance.

I did. Now what?

- and just to prove my point:
“Just because you’re taught that something’s right and everyone believes it’s right, it don’t make it right.”
— Mark Twain,

I think we already did this once or twice, but alright. :lol:

Sorry, I couldn't help it...stupidly long winded answer sent. :P

[Xiewin]

I did. Now what?

- and just to prove my point:
“Just because you’re taught that something’s right and everyone believes it’s right, it don’t make it right.”
— Mark Twain,

I never said anyone's opinion outside of that was invalid...