Should Laird have sold TMNT to Disney or WB instead of Nick/Viacom?

[jignat]

Do you think Laird should have sold the franchise to Disney or WB instead of Nickelodeon/Viacom?

I sometimes wonder if selling TMNT to Viacom was the best move for Laird more than the franchise itself.

I get that he felt burnout especially after resurrecting the Mirage comic almost 10 years prior and guiding the 2003 show, but sometimes I feel that Nick thinks its just a middling property than can generate some profit rather than trying to make the brand more than just an occasional cartoon/toyline.

If it went to Disney, do you think the franchise would have done better?
turtles were guests in the WB owned Injustice 2 and crossed over with Batman in both print and animation form. IMO the Batman vs TMNT dtv film was better than both Platinum dunes movies (not a high bar to cross)
I feel like WB would have been eager to obtain rights given their streaming service seems to cater to animation fans.

Thoughts?

[NinjaPug]

Did he have an offer from Disney or WB?

[IndigoErth]

WB I suppose between those two. Done better with Disney? I fear to think what they'd have become and be trapped as forever. The very thought of them falling into Disney's hands feels like a prison. That company would probably never let them go even if they decided to shelf them and never/rarely ever touch them again. Nick at least I could see letting go of the property someday.


I always liked that they are kind of their own thing and have the freedom to visit other properties. It will be sad when they are owned by someone who no longer allows it.

[RossMay]

Interesting thought. At the same time Viacom was negotiating to acquire Ninja Turtles, Disney was in talks to buy Marvel. The sales were completed Oct. 2009 for Ninja Turtles, Aug. 2009 for Marvel.

Disney never made an offer for Ninja Turtles. In retrospect it would have been smart, both from how they acquire everything, but also would've actually brought the turtles in-line with Daredevil, who's cheekily supposed to be a part of their origin.

I don't know if Warner Bros. ever made an offer. I did hear from Mirage people that Viacom made the only SERIOUS offer.

By the way, if you're wondering why Viacom: It wasn't just random that they wanted Ninja Turtles. The original airings of the 1987 cartoon were on CBS. Many of the executives who worked at CBS, who saw the old cartoon's success, now run CBS, Nickelodeon and Paramount. To make a funny connection, that's the same reason why Viacom purchased Garfield recently. CBS had the longest relationship with Garfield and Jim Davis.

As for what would have been smart on Peter Laird's side, of course holding out another decade would have been more profitable, and that will continue to be true in the future. Haim Saban sold Power Rangers in 2018 for almost 10 times the Ninja Turtles sale. But that gets into what an owner wants to do. Similarly, George Lucas could have squeezed a few more BILLIONS out of Star Wars if he was selling it today, but hey, is that what Lucas wanted?

[CyberCubed]

I think some of you need to realize you can't just sell a property to anyone. If WB or Disney didn't want TMNT, or offered too little money, PL wasn't going to sell to them.

I'm really curious why people think Disney would ever buy TMNT. The TMNT franchise is a blip on the radar compared to Star Wars or Marvel. I don't see why they would have any interest.

[neatoman]

I could have sworn there was already a thread like this. Anyway, the short answer is no, it's arguably worse.

As questionable as Viacom's approach is, Disney wouldn't be a very good fit and Warner only be slightly better. While Disney could probably make a higher quality movie than Paramount and a better cartoon than Nickelodeon, it is doubtful that they would even care enough to make them on a regular enough basis for the franchise to even be worth it. It would rot in their care. And if you think TMNT is "Kiddy Horseshit" under Nickelodeon, it's nothing compared to what the Disney channel iteration would be.

Given the subject matter, it is possible that Disney would make the TMNT part of the Marvel brand. Which is slightly better in the regard that it would be allowed some level of maturity and the reprints of the comics would be really nice. The problem is that there probably wouldn't be an ongoing TMNT comic book series, just like a five issue mini-series every few years or something. What's arguably even worse than that is that the series likely wouldn't be allowed to have it's own lore anymore. The TMNT would end up being the creations of The High Evolutionary and the Foot would be a recent Hand offshoot or something else like that, they would basically just fade into the shadow of the "important" characters.

With Warner/DC it would basically be the same. Just replace the High Evolutionary with Project Cadmus and The Hand with the League of Assassins, then give it like 500 revisions where the Utroms involvement fluxuate like crazy.

[sdp]

ViacomCBS is going to be acquired by a tech giant in the next decade or so most likely so TMNT will have new owners.

[neatoman]

ViacomCBS is going to be acquired by a tech giant in the next decade or so most likely so TMNT will have new owners.

New owners, same management. Not much will change.

[IndigoErth]

Come to think of it, though they're strictly a publisher, I wouldn't mind if IDW were somehow able to own the property and then have control over licensing it out to other companies to handle the movies, series, etc. Might keep it from being locked into one company's vision of them forever.

[Leo656]

With Warner/DC it would basically be the same. Just replace the High Evolutionary with Project Cadmus and The Hand with the League of Assassins, then give it like 500 revisions where the Utroms involvement fluxuate like crazy.

I'm not too sure about that. If anything I think DC would have been the most likely of the two to keep TMNT as their own separate thing and only cross-over occasionally for sales purposes. They published MOTU for almost a decade and it's not like they had He-Man hanging around with Superman every week. They even had Marlena get stuck on Earth so they could ostensibly have done more cross-overs if they really wanted to, but they only did the one (in-canon; the Injustice cross-over came later but wasn't canon to the main MOTU series).

I mean yeah, gut instinct would be to assume "Oh, so they'd just be part of the DCU with everything else" but going by DC's own publishing history, they've had a lot of projects that were segregated from the main line. I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they'd have the TMNT in their own corner of the Multiverse. Obviously they would do cross-overs but I wouldn't think it would be so very common.

And even if they did stick them in the mainstream DCU... WB is still the only company that wouldn't insist on TMNT forever being "a kids' thing" and nothing but that. And again, their MOTU series is a good example of precedent. The only gripe about their MOTU comics comes from people who wanted/expected them to simply copy the Filmation cartoon, and they made it a strong point to NOT do that, to the degree where some Filmation fans hate it for being "disrespectful" (whereas other fans just correctly see it as letting the property "grow up"). So again, I'd expect that if WB did own the TMNT brand, at the very least the whole "They do nothing but copy the FW cartoon" thing wouldn't be happening to such a constant degree. We'd get other things aimed at the adult fans much more often; that's not a supposition, it's a guarantee.

With Disney, I think it would be both "problems" exacerbated; they'd stick TMNT into the Marvel Universe AND constantly ape the FW cartoon/keep it a "kids' thing". And both of those things would be lousy.

Viacom was arguably the worst-case scenario (aside from the brand dying off completely) given what they've done with it, but if it had to be either Disney or WB, WB is the only option where the older audience had any hope of having their tastes catered to. So I'd have to give them the nod.

[neatoman]

But quite a lot of the "DC Universe" characters were not created for the DCU to begin with. Captain Marvel, Blue Beetle, Plastic Man and Grifter are all examples of characters DC has acquired throughout the decades and used for the mainline books. Hell, even the "Core characters" weren't always under the same roof. Batman and Superman were published by National, while Hawkman and Green Lantern were published by All-American, those two publishers did not merge until 1946 which means quite a lot of the important Golden Age DC books predate DC as we know it.

And... Master of the Universe, what little I understand about it, just wouldn't make sense as part of the DC. Feel free to correct me, but I'm pretty sure nearly all iterations of that franchise take place on some High Fantasy planet and the characters usually don't leave. And probably more importantly, isn't it either Mattel or Dreamworks who actually owns it? Not WB? So what exactly would be the point of having characters they don't own exist in a world they would harldy ever interact with on a larger scale?

With TMNT, if WB is indeed the owner, it would be quite different. TMNT takes place on earth and the subject matter fits quite neatly into typical American superhero comics, because TMNT is at it's core a typical American superhero comic, it just happens to star characters who can only loosely be called superheroes themselves. The fact that the Mirage Studios comics, the Image comics, the 2003 show and (most noteworthy for this argument) the animated adaptation of the Batman crossover did mind presenting them as existing in a world populated by typical American superheroes, does indicate there wouldn't be much pressure against putting them into a typical superhero world.

[Leo656]

You're correct, but you may have missed the point I addressed earlier where they purposely left a door open for more MOTU/DCU cross-overs by having Adam's mother Marlena get stranded on her home planet of Earth - which in this version was the DCU Earth - but they only ever did the one.

If they had WANTED to feature MOTU as being a more prominent part of the larger DCU, they easily could have, is my point. The fact that they only did it once (technically twice, but again "Injustice" wasn't canon to either side) speaks to their restraint, I feel. Just because the MOTU story takes place on a completely different planet doesn't mean they couldn't have made it an integrated part of the DCU if they'd so chosen; after all, the Green Lantern Corps is a thing. The DCU literally spans the entire universe, after all.

My point was, even though they DID technically make Eternia part of the mainstream DCU by having He-Man's mother be from DC Earth, they never really dwelled on or acknowledged that fact too much. They knew that MOTU would work better as its own separate thing. They could have easily had Superman drop by to help He-Man stop Hordak, or had a Green Lantern that was from Eternia or whatever, but they resisted any temptation to do those things. The only thing stopping them was the fact that they recognized MOTU works best on its own.

So again, I don't *know* that they'd take the same approach to TMNT, but they've established that they have a lot of "Earths" in their Multiverse and so I wouldn't be completely shocked if they gave the TMNT an Earth that wasn't so DCU-centric. They've already showcased Earths that didn't have Superman, or a Justice League, or any of those other things. So it's not completely unprecedented that they could give the TMNT their own Earth as well.

Again, though... even if the TMNT did get integrated into the DCU, I wouldn't love it but I'd be happy that everything wasn't FW Kiddie Town like it is now, or would be under Disney. So even as "the lesser of two evils" WB would still be the best option, objectively.

[frank_one]

Not Disney. Never. WB? Better.

[Prowler]

Please, no Disney. If they ever get their hands on TMNT then I won't even bother with the Turtles anymore. I hardly do anymore already because Nicks/Viacoms vision and direction for the property doesn't appeal to me. I doubt Disney would make TMNT any less childish than Nick does.

WB? Eh, I'd be open to the idea. If I could go back in time and prevent the Nick sale from ever being made and make WB buy the TMNT property instead, I'd do it. Sure, we'll never know if it would have worked out well or not, but knowing how Disney operates and handles its properties, do you really think TMNT would be in good hands with them? Also, Disney are already an evil empire monopoly. I don't care much about Star Wars and I certainly don't care about Marvel, but it's kinda sad how both belong to Disney nowadays. And The Simpsons are also under Disney's sphere of influence as well. So, please, don't let the TMNT get grabbed by Disney's claws.

[neatoman]

You're correct, but you may have missed the point I addressed earlier where they purposely left a door open for more MOTU/DCU cross-overs by having Adam's mother Marlena get stranded on her home planet of Earth - which in this version was the DCU Earth - but they only ever did the one.

If they had WANTED to feature MOTU as being a more prominent part of the larger DCU, they easily could have, is my point. The fact that they only did it once (technically twice, but again "Injustice" wasn't canon to either side) speaks to their restraint, I feel. Just because the MOTU story takes place on a completely different planet doesn't mean they couldn't have made it an integrated part of the DCU if they'd so chosen; after all, the Green Lantern Corps is a thing. The DCU literally spans the entire universe, after all.

My point was, even though they DID technically make Eternia part of the mainstream DCU by having He-Man's mother be from DC Earth, they never really dwelled on or acknowledged that fact too much. They knew that MOTU would work better as its own separate thing. They could have easily had Superman drop by to help He-Man stop Hordak, or had a Green Lantern that was from Eternia or whatever, but they resisted any temptation to do those things. The only thing stopping them was the fact that they recognized MOTU works best on its own.

So again, I don't *know* that they'd take the same approach to TMNT, but they've established that they have a lot of "Earths" in their Multiverse and so I wouldn't be completely shocked if they gave the TMNT an Earth that wasn't so DCU-centric. They've already showcased Earths that didn't have Superman, or a Justice League, or any of those other things. So it's not completely unprecedented that they could give the TMNT their own Earth as well.

Again, though... even if the TMNT did get integrated into the DCU, I wouldn't love it but I'd be happy that everything wasn't FW Kiddie Town like it is now, or would be under Disney. So even as "the lesser of two evils" WB would still be the best option, objectively.

Sure, but would they be so inclined to minimize the crossovers if they didn't merely license the characters? Captain Marvel wasn't part of the DCU until around the time character was outright purchased and the Wildstorm characters, while DC did own them, were not included until after Wildstorm was officially dissolved.

It's like the whole Ghostbusters/TMNT crossover. Sure it is canon and it has had som impact on the main story, but the references to the events are super vague. The Ghostbusters are just called "Ghost Guys" at one point and Venkman is only ever referenced as "A Psychologist", it just seems like it's designed to be easy to retcon, like the "Ghost Guys" could just be some run in with ghosts that has the same effect and the "Psychologist" can literally be anyone. It's obvious that it's kept vague in case the license to Ghostbusters is ever revoked. Even Bobby admits as much.


3. Yeah, exactly, just makes things easier on our end. If we lost the Ghostbusters license before the TMNT one, this way we could continue to reprint the TMNT story without having to consult Sony.

[Leo656]

I mean, we wouldn't know until it happened, right?

Speculative stuff aside, I'm choosing to stick only to The Facts As We Know Them. Which are:

- WB has a long history of presenting popular licensed characters with products that have a large "net" of appeal, ranging from young children to adults and everyone in between.

- DC as a publisher has always shown a similar "something for everyone" approach to presenting their characters, whether they be Superman, Batman, He-Man, or whoever. They put out books for kids AND books for adults, and even books that are "canon" with popular animated series and live-action films based on those characters.

If WB/DC had the TMNT license, a lot of people's gripes from ALL sides would be addressed, and it's the best chance at ALL the various fan groups being catered to. People who hate all the constant FW influence would get comics and animated movies that were more "PG-13/R" and have nothing to do with the cartoons. But the people who DO like more kiddie fare would almost certainly still get products aimed at them, as well. They would probably even find a way to do a comic book, or even an animated movie, that was set up as a "sequel" to the FW cartoon, for people who want and would support such a thing (you know they exist). They're doing comics based on the Keaton Batman and Reeves Superman movies; one could reasonably expect a comic book "sequel" to the 1990s films as well. There would also be a lot less complication in getting a live-action movie made (although what that movie would turn out to be and whether it would be "good" or not is entirely up in the air; I'm just saying, if WB had bought TMNT in 2009 we'd be on our fifth TMNT movie by now, probably).

Not to mention that if TMNT was a WB/DC property, the toy situation would be a lot more acceptable. They'd probably sh*tcan Playmates and whoever had the DC license at any given time would also most likely have the TMNT license - in this case McFarlane, before them Mattel - and the thought of what kind of toys we'd get under a "TMNT Multiverse" line is enough to make one drool. FW, the live-action movies, Mirage, Archie, 4Kids, and more... all on the table for action figures. When you look at what Mattel (and DC Direct) did with their DC lines over the years, and what McFarlane is doing right now, it's hard not to be jealous and wish that TMNT got that kind of treatment. As a WB/DC property, they would.

So again, sure there's a lot of What Ifs but just based on how WB has and continues to do business with regard to this sort of thing... I can't see any serious downside. Like okay, yeah, IF they put TMNT into the DC comics universe that would be annoying, but ALL the other stuff that would come from it would be well worth that minor annoyance, in my opinion.

And it would be MUCH better than the situation as it stands right now, which is downright intolerable. At present, we have a cool toyline aimed at collectors that most people can't buy, and a comic that people either love or can't stand (but has very little resemblance to what TMNT "ought" to be, regardless). Just about anything is better than Right Now.

[Roseangelo]

As for what would have been smart on Peter Laird's side, of course holding out another decade would have been more profitable.

Disagree. Peter was running the TMNT into the ground. He was lucky to get the offer he did.

[oldmanwinters]

Seems like the 2007 movie was the big gamble that Laird threw everything at... if the movie had been a smash hit, then the TMNT brand proves it is still immensely valuable. After that, maybe Laird continues to helm the ship for a while or maybe he decides to "sell high" and make a bundle from a big company like WB.

But, of course, the film turned out to be only a modest success, not enough of a smash to guarantee another costly sequel. I think the 25th Anniversary Celebration/Cross-Country Tour was Laird's "Plan B," spend a lot of cash on it to ensure that the brand got enough visibility to make sure it could still command a respectable buyout price to whichever company thought it would be a good fit, which turned out to be Nickelodeon.



By the way, if you're wondering why Viacom: It wasn't just random that they wanted Ninja Turtles. The original airings of the 1987 cartoon were on CBS. Many of the executives who worked at CBS, who saw the old cartoon's success, now run CBS, Nickelodeon and Paramount. To make a funny connection, that's the same reason why Viacom purchased Garfield recently. CBS had the longest relationship with Garfield and Jim Davis.


Nice tibit, Ross! I had never thought about the CBS-connection with the old cartoon had any bearing on the 2009 acquisition, but that's very interesting that Viacom was motivated to acquire both TMNT and Garfield when those are the two shows I most associated with the early 1990s CBS Saturday Morning block!
t4B4LyxzUPs

[Andrew NDB]

Seems like the 2007 movie was the big gamble that Laird threw everything at...

I don't think Laird invested one dollar into producing the Imagi movie. There was no risk involved whatsoever. Not for him, anyway.

To be fair, 2007 TMNT was the very best "pitch" for a fourth movie that we've ever been led to believe existed up until that point. I'm not a big fan of the movie we got at all, but every other incarnation of the fourth movie that nearly happened sounded and looked god awful in comparison.

In fact, the only potential TMNT movie beyond the 1990 one that's ever sounded like it had any chance whatsoever at being really good was the Frank Fusco script that was about to happen just before the Nick sale (Nick decided it was "too dark").

But, of course, the film turned out to be only a modest success, not enough of a smash to guarantee another costly sequel.

Not really even that. What little money it did make against the production budget was probably blown out by the marketing one. If it actually netted any money at all it would be in the 5-6 million dollar range.

If WB/DC had the TMNT license, a lot of people's gripes from ALL sides would be addressed, and it's the best chance at ALL the various fan groups being catered to.

Maybe, maybe not. For me, I'd vote for whatever gives the highest odds of TMNT ending up in the hands of guys like the Marvel Netflix peeps who worked on the first two seasons of "Daredevil."

[frank_one]

Disagree. Peter was running the TMNT into the ground. He was lucky to get the offer he did.TMNT (the 2007 movie) was actually quite successful and it was only two year before he sold the property.
I mean
Budget $34 million
Box office $95.6 million
Not so bad.

[Leo656]

I had no idea what it would mean at the time, but I kinda had bad vibes when I went to see TMNT on opening night and it didn't get a very strong reaction. That's usually the most hyped and enthusiastic audience you're going to see for any movie, and overall the atmosphere was very subdued.

It's not a bad movie, but it feels like a very long episode of an animated series that never existed, more than a big TMNT Reboot Movie. It's a Perfectly Acceptable TMNT Story all on its own, but big-budget theatrical films are supposed to be a bit more iconic and impactful than what that movie ended up being.

[oldmanwinters]

I don't think Laird invested one dollar into producing the Imagi movie. There was no risk involved whatsoever. Not for him, anyway.

To be fair, 2007 TMNT was the very best "pitch" for a fourth movie that we've ever been led to believe existed up until that point. I'm not a big fan of the movie we got at all, but every other incarnation of the fourth movie that nearly happened sounded and looked god awful in comparison.


I had more in mind his time & energy. He shifted gears from "Doing the comic like I want" to "doing a cartoon like I want" to "doing a movie like I want." He was very involved with concepts and pitches to get the thing made for almost he whole decade, and I remember he had some authority in approving the director (there is some story Kevin Munroe tells about him getting a personal note from Laird along the lines of "make a great film" which Munroe interpreted to mean he had gotten the job. And, of course, Laird was basically publishing his comics through Mirage at a personal cost and he published 6 tie-in issues (I have no idea how well those sold). I looked at all those decisions as him staking his future interest in the franchise on the success of the film, regardless of whether he spent or risked any of his own capital on the actual movie. Seems like Laird's involvement with the main TMNT comics at mirage waned around the time he was investing himself into the film.

By modest success, it was at least #1 at the box-office for a week (only like $25 million that weekend... and then it started to fall off at a high percentage), but I remember an interview with a studio executive saying that the movie would need to make about $100 million at the domestic box-office to make a sequel likely. Maybe the production budget on the film was surprisingly low (Imagi wasn't a powerhouse studio, so maybe they worked at a bargain rate).

[Andrew NDB]

TMNT (the 2007 movie) was actually quite successful and it was only two year before he sold the property.

No. Not successful.

Not so bad.

No, that's not the way it works. It's not that black and white.

TMNT (2007): 35 million production budget, 54 million domestic, and 42 overseas. Theaters would take at LEAST a third of the domestic numbers. Now that's only 36 million domestic. Overseas? Studios generally receive about a fourth of those profits (foreign distributors make the most, and again, and theaters themselves have to get paid, too, as they're not running charities)... so that's only about 10 million. So that's around 46 million -- give or take a few million -- earned against a production budget of 35 million... about 11 million in profits netted, right? Wrong. Production budget does not and never includes the marketing budget, which often times exceeds the production budget. But let's assume it's as low as 20 million (honestly it's probably much closer to equaling the production budget of 35, in reality, and even that's pretty low for a marketing budget of a film)... now we're looking at 55 million in production and marketing budget against a movie that only earned 46.

That isn't a "modest success," "decent," or even "it did OK." It did not good.

[oldmanwinters]

No. Not successful.



No, that's not the way it works. It's not that black and white.

TMNT (2007): 35 million production budget, 54 million domestic, and 42 overseas. Theaters would take at LEAST a third of the domestic numbers. Now that's only 36 million domestic. Overseas? Studios generally receive about a fourth of those profits (foreign distributors make the most, and again, and theaters themselves have to get paid, too, as they're not running charities)... so that's only about 10 million. So that's around 46 million -- give or take a few million -- earned against a production budget of 35 million... about 11 million in profits netted, right? Wrong. Production budget does not and never includes the marketing budget, which often times exceeds the production budget. But let's assume it's as low as 20 million... now we're looking at 55 million in production and marketing budget against a movie that only earned 46.

Not good.

I agree, but I am surprised at the movies it out-grossed that year:
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2007/
EDIT: How did Evan Almighty break the $100million mark?

I was optimistic when the movie opened #1 (on a very down weekend) but I was sad that it dropped off so drastically (but not surprised). I think "Meet the Robinsons" basically chased it out of theatres). Seems like the DVDs were everywhere though, so I like to think it did a little better on "home video."

[Andrew NDB]

I was optimistic when the movie opened #1 (on a very down weekend)

Yeah, right when those first weekend numbers came in Harvey Weinstein was shouting about, "It's sequel time, dudes!" and everybody on this board took it as gospel and what an idiot I was for doubting it, etc..

[oldmanwinters]

Yeah, right when those first weekend numbers came in Harvey Weinstein was shouting about, "It's sequel time, dudes!" and everybody on this board took it as gospel and what an idiot I was for doubting it, etc..

Heh, I'd actually like to read those old threads... maybe CyberCubed will dig them up and necropost?

[Leo656]

It's also why we shouldn't count our chickens on "Wonder Woman 3, directed by Patty Jenkins" just yet, either.

Opening Weekend is a big part of a movie's story, but rarely the whole entire story. As a wise man once said, "There's many a slip twixt a cup and a lip."

[Andrew NDB]

Heh, I'd actually like to read those old threads... maybe CyberCubed will dig them up and necropost?

I kind of would, too. If only to remember who was yelling at me. I know Leo656 was. Peanut and Brodie and those kind of guys, for sure.

[Leo656]

Was I? I didn't have the internet in 2007. That's why I rarely posted at all between like 2005 and 2012, first I had no internet for a few years and then I had to leave the place I was living at. I was kinda bouncing around for a while during those years and was rarely in a place that had any internet. I showed up periodically, but not often. I think 2009 was the most I was around during that stretch.

I guess it's possible but I honestly don't remember that. The only thing I remember us ever having any serious rows about was when you used to deny that Kevin Nash is a god among mortals, which is simply wrong but forgivable. And that was like 2002 already. :lol:

[Roseangelo]

TMNT (the 2007 movie) was actually quite successful and it was only two year before he sold the property.
I mean

Not so bad.

Two years is a lot of time.

In 2009 the 4Kids series was ending, as was the comic.

And Peter refused to license any merch that featured the old toon Turtles.

The TMNT flourished after Nick bought them because they refreshed the TMNT on TV, they let the floodgates open for licensing the old toon Turtles, and they outsourced the TMNT comic book to a company that continues to deliver a monthly book.

[Coola Yagami]

Two years is a lot of time.

In 2009 the 4Kids series was ending, as was the comic.

And Peter refused to license any merch that featured the old toon Turtles.

The TMNT flourished after Nick bought them because they refreshed the TMNT on TV, they let the floodgates open for licensing the old toon Turtles, and they outsourced the TMNT comic book to a company that continues to deliver a monthly book.

Honestly... I wonder if any other comic company, even the big two would have kept the Turtles going for so long. I doubt they even would have made their own comic like what IDW did and just did a tie-in comic with the cartoons and such.

[superstaff]

WB I suppose between those two. Done better with Disney? I fear to think what they'd have become and be trapped as forever. The very thought of them falling into Disney's hands feels like a prison. That company would probably never let them go even if they decided to shelf them and never/rarely ever touch them again. Nick at least I could see letting go of the property someday.

You bet. Disney shamelessly shelves things then keeps the rights so no one else can play in the sandbox. I'm surprised they even let go of Power Rangers when they did, I'd have assumed they'd just sit on the IP.

[Andrew NDB]

Was I? I didn't have the internet in 2007. That's why I rarely posted at all between like 2005 and 2012, first I had no internet for a few years and then I had to leave the place I was living at. I was kinda bouncing around for a while during those years and was rarely in a place that had any internet. I showed up periodically, but not often. I think 2009 was the most I was around during that stretch.

I guess it's possible but I honestly don't remember that. The only thing I remember us ever having any serious rows about was when you used to deny that Kevin Nash is a god among mortals, which is simply wrong but forgivable. And that was like 2002 already. :lol:

Jeeze... maybe you weren't? About TMNT 2007, at least? I just know that you were raking me over the coals about... something. Around that era. Ish.

[CyberCubed]

The excitement in 2007 is a TMNT movie hadn't been in theaters since 1993. So most of just couldn't believe after like 15 years another TMNT movie was in theaters. Not to mention the whole "4th TMNT movie" which was like a rumored relic since the 90's finally came true, even if it was a completely different form.

In 2009 I remember throwing a tantrum on the forums about the Fred Wolf voices not reprising their roles in Turtles Forever, but to be fair that was before I knew about voice actor unions and how the 4kids staff couldn't hire them. Then in 2014 I saw TMNT nostrils and my life was never the same since. I was traumatized and it's 7 years later and I have yet to fully recover.

[frank_one]

No. Not successful.



No, that's not the way it works. It's not that black and white.

TMNT (2007): 35 million production budget, 54 million domestic, and 42 overseas. Theaters would take at LEAST a third of the domestic numbers. Now that's only 36 million domestic. Overseas? Studios generally receive about a fourth of those profits (foreign distributors make the most, and again, and theaters themselves have to get paid, too, as they're not running charities)... so that's only about 10 million. So that's around 46 million -- give or take a few million -- earned against a production budget of 35 million... about 11 million in profits netted, right? Wrong. Production budget does not and never includes the marketing budget, which often times exceeds the production budget. But let's assume it's as low as 20 million (honestly it's probably much closer to equaling the production budget of 35, in reality, and even that's pretty low for a marketing budget of a film)... now we're looking at 55 million in production and marketing budget against a movie that only earned 46.

That isn't a "modest success," "decent," or even "it did OK." It did not good.Thank you for your clear explanation. Sometimes I tend to forget there's more beyond a simple budget/box office equation.

Then in 2014 I saw TMNT nostrils and my life was never the same since. I was traumatized and it's 7 years later and I have yet to fully recover.:D

[Prowler]

The excitement in 2007 is a TMNT movie hadn't been in theaters since 1993. So most of just couldn't believe after like 15 years another TMNT movie was in theaters. Not to mention the whole "4th TMNT movie" which was like a rumored relic since the 90's finally came true, even if it was a completely different form.

In 2009 I remember throwing a tantrum on the forums about the Fred Wolf voices not reprising their roles in Turtles Forever, but to be fair that was before I knew about voice actor unions and how the 4kids staff couldn't hire them. Then in 2014 I saw TMNT nostrils and my life was never the same since. I was traumatized and it's 7 years later and I have yet to fully recover.

Excitement? People barely noticed the movie besides big Turtles fans. I remember a few people mentioning it on the Internet back then and expecting to be a continuing orf the older movies or a Feed Wolf themed movie because those people weren't aware a new TMNT cartoon had been airing for some years by then.

[sdp]

If Laird hadn't sold there would be no NECA toys or any 1987 cartoon merchandise boom, games would've been just as bad, movie would still be stuck in development hell. Vol 4 might've had a few more issues but still unfinished with no real timeline. We would've gotten another cartoon that likely would've failed after a couple of seasons without someone like Nickelodeon or 4Kids heavily invested in it. Nah, I'm sure we would've gotten some cool TMNT stuff along the way, some 1987 stuff just not flooded the market with it and best of all perhaps less casuals.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/541/870/cd3.jpg

[Prowler]

Laird was so protective of the TMNT property. I respect his integrity.

But it seems like he didn't keep that in mind when the time to sell the property came. I'm sure he would have sold it to Disney even if they told him they'd turn the Turtles into tooth fairies or something as long as they paid him the right amount of money.

I have no idea if Laird has publicly commented on what he thinks of the direction Viacom took with the property since they've owned it, but it seems like to me that Laird basically just wanted to move on and considered the TMNT property a huge burden by the late 2000s. Once the 2k3 series approached its end there seemed no way out or no direction left for the franchise.

Hell, I vaguely recall Laird explaining why he sold the property to Viacom. He said something along the lines of "I've realised I had spent 25 years or my life on TMNT. That's nearly half of my life!". So yeah, I think he just wanted to get rid of it and enjoy his retirement and last years of his life.

[PizzaPower1985]

If Laird had sold to WB, what would they do with it? They already sold off their largest assets when they gave DC Comics to a phone company in 2019, leaving a very large legacy in the dust.

If Disney had bought it, it would have been treated the same way as now... a property for f*cking children...

Of the 2, WB likely would have had a better chance at turning the ship towards people like me... who want a good, dark, adult or young adult franchise!

I think WB would have been a better option, given their history... but they are filled with suits and executives who don't know how to give real fans, those over 30, what we want!

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, this whole thread is like, "I don't understand why wouldn't Peter just sell the TMNT to Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. I mean, why wouldn't he?"

Two years is a lot of time.

In 2009 the 4Kids series was ending, as was the comic.

And Peter refused to license any merch that featured the old toon Turtles.

The TMNT flourished after Nick bought them because they refreshed the TMNT on TV, they let the floodgates open for licensing the old toon Turtles, and they outsourced the TMNT comic book to a company that continues to deliver a monthly book.

While refusing to (re)open the door to license merch to do with the Fred Wolf TMNT is definitely the equivalent of leaving money on the table... I definitely don't subscribe to the notion that the only way TMNT could have "found a way" to greatness post-2009 was by any sort of reliance on the Fred Wolf TMNT or a Fred Wolf TMNT-like path. I know Peter didn't always make the best business decisions and he was always the first one to admit that, but just doing what Nick did would be pretty soulless and, beyond the IDW comic that they merely "allow" (as in, it's not a part of any sort of initiative of their own and they aren't creatively involved in it beyond saying "No" a lot to things they can't do in it) they haven't done one objectively "good" thing with the property at all beyond successfully bleeding a little bit more money out of Turtlemania and that proven "formula."

[Leo656]

It's pretty apparent to me that for Laird, TMNT is a huge albatross around his neck and that he's slightly ashamed of or embarrassed by it all. It's good for "us" that TMNT became a big huge thing, but lest we forget that he once had aspirations to be successful as a "real" writer and all of that had to go away once he forever became "That Ninja Turtles Guy". This silly comic he came up with in college wasn't supposed to be his life's work, or the sole thing he was known for, but it became so overpowering that there was nothing he could do about it. Good for Us, bad for him.

He's pretty similar to George Lucas in some ways, but one key place in which they differ is that Star Wars was always Lucas's "magnum opus" but for Laird TMNT was just a thing he did for a few laughs and to make a buck before breaking out and doing "real" work. They both became defined by their One Big Thing, to the point where nothing else they ever attempted would ever be treated fairly on its own merit... but Lucas was mostly fine with that, while Laird I don't think ever was.

Laird has even implied that he almost wishes he'd never created TMNT in the first place, and that he only can't commit to that because his life might have been very different and his daughter may not have been born. So if not for his daughter, his wording made it sound very much like he would in fact wish TMNT out of existence. Which isn't the kind of thing you say when you're immensely proud and satisfied with your life's work.

I do kind of wish he was more at peace with all of it, but... well, given what so much of TMNT has turned into, even back when he HAD some say in it, I can't really blame him for feeling the way he does. Nor can I blame him for saying "I've had enough" and walking away once the money was right.

[Andrew NDB]

This is just me, but I really think the fandom was what killed it for him. It's all right there in the Vol. 4 lettercol, in particular. He may have said that he was doing the book just for his own enjoyment and nothing else, and I'm sure that's the overriding reason... but c'mon, the guy is human. He was putting out a book every month or so that was losing money while getting all these hate letters about this or that, making fun of the decompressed nature of Vol. 4, how he should stop talking about politics in his own book, how he's making all these bad decisions for the TMNT and he needs to wake up, etc.. Nobody wants to get that. Sooner or later a guy like that is going to look in the miror and go, "Why am I doing this? For who? For what?" and I think that's kind of how that went south.

In one of the Q&As I asked him if he regrets the kind of fans he ended up with. I can't remember what he said verbatim but it was in the "no" arena.

[Leo656]

That may have been "the last straw", or one of them, sure.

Much of the blame for Vol. 4 can be shouldered by nobody but him, though. He put out a bad book and charged above-market price for the "privilege" of reading a boring slog - which wasn't helped one bit by Tales Vol. 2 coming out at the exact same time and being a much better product which was much better-received by the audience. If he had just bent a LITTLE bit on the book's content - at least having Stuff Happen more than occasionally; he didn't need to throw in Bebop and Rocksteady and Krang like people kept bitching about but for god's sake let SOMETHING of substance happen - then people wouldn't have been so pissy. Tales was more of "what a TMNT comic should be" in most people's minds and thus was much better received. I respect the man for "adhering to his vision", but like I've said before, if you're charging people $4 an issue for "your vision" and they don't like it, either be more flexible or start a Blog and give it away for free. Comic books are a commercial medium.

I wouldn't blame him for being ashamed of "the fanbase" in general, though. We don't need to name names, but look how some of the more "fanatical" ones are like. Would you claim them? If your "life's work" inspired THAT, would you be proud or embarrassed?

I do think the fans were a factor for him wanting to be done with everything but I think that was true long before Vol. 4, I think that may have just been an acute thing but the problem was festering long before then.

[PurpleMusic]

I love going through the letters column in vol. 4, I think if anything, he was just disappointed about the Republican corner of the fanbase and their inability to "get it" after all these years. I mean, I don't see how it's possible to read Mirage (or really any) TMNT to that point and not absorb a general leftist teaching from it. Growing up through the late 80s-early 90s, it baffles me that anyone from my generation would ever grow up to take the side of capitalists, imperialists, and racists. That's like the foundation of every "villain" I've ever known.

If I was Laird I'd cut 'em off too, they simply don't deserve more vol. 4. I'm not surprised that he just completely stopped writing for the entirety of the Trump era seeing what kind of horrible people right-wingers will openly be given the opportunity. I kinda suspect he's more of a "lib" which is boring, because the establishment Democrats are every bit as scummy albeit better at masking it, but if he ever does come back I hope he takes a hard antifa angle and *really* lets them know they're not welcome.

[Prowler]

Yeah it does seem like Laird rather resents TMNT. Not the fact he created them alongside Eastman back in the day, but what the property has become.

Originally it was just meant to be an independent comic book series. As for the cartoon deal, he probably did not expect for it to become the world's biggest phenomenon for a few years. And what became popular was not his vision but something completely different. I guess that's why it's also considered a "deal with the devil" sort of thing in retrospective.

With the 2k3 series Laird had some creative control on how things went, but it still wasn't quite his vision. Whole the series is the closest to Mirage a TMNT cartoon has ever gotten it's still not Mirage. It's still a 20 minute toy advert. It's not "dark and gritty". And it has things like Utrom Shredder and Fast Forward. And Michelangelo was completely unbearable.

I guess he just felt burnt out by the end of it all. He definitely enjoys the money TMNT made him, but he doesn't really take well to how the most profitable parts and known elements of TMNT weren't part of his vision for it. He never intended his characters to become pizza loving surfers who shout things like "Cowabunga" or "Booyakasha".

[CyberCubed]

I remember both PL and Murphy (in the Tales letters column) were constantly ranting how much they hated George W. Bush and how they wished Al Gore became president. They would also constantly talk about global warming and how they "feared for the future."

Now keep in mind this was in the early 2000's, so between 2002-2008 or so. Even back then that's all they talked about. I can't imagine what things would have been like if the comics were still going when Trump became president.

[Andrew NDB]

That may have been "the last straw", or one of them, sure.

I think it's more fundamental than that.

Much of the blame for Vol. 4 can be shouldered by nobody but him, though. He put out a bad book and charged above-market price for the "privilege" of reading a boring slog - which wasn't helped one bit by Tales Vol. 2 coming out at the exact same time and being a much better product which was much better-received by the audience.

That probably didn't help, yeah. Though it's important to recognize when talking about "the failure of Vol. 4" in terms of Peter's handling of the TMNT franchise... it is a non-issue. Even if Vol. 4 had been selling "really good" by early 2000s Diamond standards... it wouldn't matter. Comics don't make good money. Not now or then. It's thousands of dollars a month (if it sells well) vs. the tens/hundreds of millions involved in things like a big budget movie, or a new cartoon, or toys, or any of those things. Probably less than 0.001% of the residuals or royalties or profits from this or that trickling in every month even back in 2009 would cover whatever losses it was to print Vol. 4 every month.

Would he have had the chance to make another cartoon, or another TMNT movie reboot after TMNT 2007? Of course. They may have even been really good (I'd bet they'd be way better than the Bay stuff or Rise at least, for sure) and it can be guaranteed they wouldn't have a million mutants or a Jennika. Or a "Mutant Town." He just didn't want to do that anymore.

I wouldn't blame him for being ashamed of "the fanbase" in general, though. We don't need to name names, but look how some of the more "fanatical" ones are like. Would you claim them? If your "life's work" inspired THAT, would you be proud or embarrassed?

I don't think so much he was ashamed of them as much as... the kind of fans he thought he was writing for, they just didn't exist. Or existed less and less as time went on until his lettercol was like a reverse echo chamber of Hell.

I do think the fans were a factor for him wanting to be done with everything but I think that was true long before Vol. 4, I think that may have just been an acute thing but the problem was festering long before then.

I dunno...

With the 2k3 series Laird had some creative control on how things went, but it still wasn't quite his vision. Whole the series is the closest to Mirage a TMNT cartoon has ever gotten it's still not Mirage. It's still a 20 minute toy advert. It's not "dark and gritty". And it has things like Utrom Shredder and Fast Forward. And Michelangelo was completely unbearable.

I'm glad somebody else other than me realizes that. Like, those E-mails he shared with us on his blog appeared to be his only real dialogue with the 4Kids cartoon people. Yeah, he shut some things down but he was hardly heavy handed... it seems like they kind of just showed him stuff, let him say whatever back, sometimes they'd heed his notes (sometimes not), and at the end of the day they'd just end up doing whatever.

[Prowler]

I think it's more fundamental than that.



That probably didn't help, yeah. Though it's important to recognize when talking about "the failure of Vol. 4" in terms of Peter's handling of the TMNT franchise... it is a non-issue. Even if Vol. 4 had been selling "really good" by early 2000s Diamond standards... it wouldn't matter. Comics don't make good money. Not now or then. It's thousands of dollars a month (if it sells well) vs. the tens/hundreds of millions involved in things like a big budget movie, or a new cartoon, or toys, or any of those things. Probably less than 0.001% of the residuals or royalties or profits from this or that trickling in every month even back in 2009 would cover whatever losses it was to print Vol. 4 every month.

Would he have had the chance to make another cartoon, or another TMNT movie reboot after TMNT 2007? Of course. They may have even been really good (I'd bet they'd be way better than the Bay stuff or Rise at least, for sure) and it can be guaranteed they wouldn't have a million mutants or a Jennika. Or a "Mutant Town." He just didn't want to do that anymore.



I don't think so much he was ashamed of them as much as... the kind of fans he thought he was writing for, they just didn't exist. Or existed less and less as time went on until his lettercol was like a reverse echo chamber of Hell.



I dunno...



I'm glad somebody else other than me realizes that. Like, those E-mails he shared with us on his blog appeared to be his only real dialogue with the 4Kids cartoon people. Yeah, he shut some things down but he was hardly heavy handed... it seems like they kind of just showed him stuff, let him say whatever back, sometimes they'd heed his notes (sometimes not), and at the end of the day they'd just end up doing whatever.

Yes I read some of that stuff as well because there was a thread about it here with links to Lairds blog.

I remember it was Laird's idea to tie in The Ultimate Ninja with the Battle Nexus tournament. The writers just wanted to make him a one off character or something at first. But Laird actually made the character interesting with that idea.

Some people thought Laird was overtly harsh and rude with the writers at times but to me he was just a man trying to fight for his property and being protective of what he created.

[Roseangelo]

I remember both PL and Murphy (in the Tales letters column) were constantly ranting how much they hated George W. Bush and how they wished Al Gore became president. They would also constantly talk about global warming and how they "feared for the future."

I made a comment on these forums after the release of the Vol. 4 issue that ends with one of the Turtles holding an Al Gore coin. All I said was that I hope this isn't a sign that the book is going to get political. I think that is a fair comment to say in response to a comic book. While the TMNT books certainly do have a history of showcasing environmental issues, which these days is considered to be left-leaning, I think it's a whole different issue when a book looks like it's about to start complaining about who is president (especially in a fictional world that could make up its own fictional president).

Anyways, the next issue featured a page-long rant that made it very clear that he had leap-frogged off of the comment that I made here. Didn't think that was necessary.

While in retrospect I feel that everyone could have held themselves better in communicating back then, ultimately, Peter doesn't take criticism well and there was never going to be a happy ending between him and the vocal fans. What he wanted to do with the TMNT just wasn't what a majority of people wanted, and his decision to sell and move on was the right thing to do.

[Andrew NDB]

I remember both PL and Murphy (in the Tales letters column) were constantly ranting how much they hated George W. Bush and how they wished Al Gore became president. They would also constantly talk about global warming and how they "feared for the future."

Now keep in mind this was in the early 2000's, so between 2002-2008 or so. Even back then that's all they talked about. I can't imagine what things would have been like if the comics were still going when Trump became president.

I've thought about that. Yeesh. It'd be interesting to note what he would have said though I wouldn't have ever, like, written in to try and change his mind or anything.

Though honestly, back during the initial run of Vol. 4 all the way into 2009... I really wasn't into politics at all. I'd look at this or that, but I was generally assuming that much of the "Hollywood Elite"'s stance on Obama and all of that were correct, and that Bush was dumb and so on. None of that mattered to me because I didn't really see it in my day to day. Ideology wasn't bleeding into anything (particularly the arts) so I was more than happy letting people talking whatever politics they wanted to.

Some people thought Laird was overtly harsh and rude with the writers at times but to me he was just a man trying to fight for his property and being protective of what he created.

Of course.

[AquaParade]

Frank Fosco script is still yet to leak, right? Has anyone heard anything about it besides Kevin Eastman's vague praise?

I made a comment on these forums after the release of the Vol. 4 issue that ends with one of the Turtles holding an Al Gore coin. All I said was that I hope this isn't a sign that the book is going to get political. I think that is a fair comment to say in response to a comic book. While the TMNT books certainly do have a history of showcasing environmental issues, which these days is considered to be left-leaning, I think it's a whole different issue when a book looks like it's about to start complaining about who is president (especially in a fictional world that could make up its own fictional president).

Anyways, the next issue featured a page-long rant that made it very clear that he had leap-frogged off of the comment that I made here. Didn't think that was necessary.

While in retrospect I feel that everyone could have held themselves better in communicating back then, ultimately, Peter doesn't take criticism well and there was never going to be a happy ending between him and the vocal fans. What he wanted to do with the TMNT just wasn't what a majority of people wanted, and his decision to sell and move on was the right thing to do.

So you think Peter read this forum back in the day? Interesting, but I guess I shouldn't be shocked, if true. I'd be curious if I were Peter.

[oldmanwinters]

Anyways, the next issue featured a page-long rant that made it very clear that he had leap-frogged off of the comment that I made here. Didn't think that was necessary.

Yeah, I remember that. Seemed excessive to me.



Some people thought Laird was overtly harsh and rude with the writers at times but to me he was just a man trying to fight for his property and being protective of what he created.

I have to respect that fact. That said, communication is a fine art. There are "a million wild and wonderful ways to say no," after all.

[sdp]

Laird would've sold sooner rather than later, people were mad at the lack of 1987 influence and how if it wasn't his way he didn't do it but in hindsight the Laird years were great and we'll never get something like it again.

While the TMNT books certainly do have a history of showcasing environmental issues, which these days is considered to be left-leaning,
Only in the US and a few select countries, most of the world doesn't politicize this and realizes that harming the environment is bad.



I think it's a whole different issue when a book looks like it's about to start complaining about who is president (especially in a fictional world that could make up its own fictional president).

Fictional worlds should always have fictional presidents, with some very few exceptions.

[AquaParade]

As much as I respect Peter for what he did during the "Laird years", none of it really stuck for me.
There are some issues of volume 4 I do enjoy.
But who just said that the 07 movie was basically a cartoon episode? You're totally right and that's what I've been trying to say forever. It is actually pretty good, but it left me cold as far as a feature film goes.
4kids doesn't do much for me either. Someone else here also summed that up well - It's trying to be Mirage, but it's still feels like a toy commercial at the end of the day. It's neutered.

Y'all are on point, in my book, but that's a summarization of how I feel.

[Prowler]

When I joined these forums in early 2009, TMNT seemed to be close to dying. The 2k3 series was about to be over and we didn't know what the future of the franchise was going to be like.

Then, suddenly, the Viacom sale occurred later that year and there was a new sense of excitement around these parts. A new cartoon series and movie were about to come a few years later.

Now, in hindsight, I think I'd be OK if TMNT had died around 2010. I don't identify with Nick's/Viacom's/Platinum Dunes vision of TMNT.

The 2k3 series felt like a new approach and turning point in the franchise's direction, but Nick's vision seemed to be a step back with trying to recreate a modern equivalent to the FW series.

[CyberCubed]

The 2k3 series felt like a new approach and turning point in the franchise's direction, but Nick's vision seemed to be a step back with trying to recreate a modern equivalent to the FW series.

Neither the 2012 or Rise were like the original cartoon though. They use certain old characters, sure, but it's all different.

I feel like IDW tries too hard to revive 80's characters into modern comics though.

[Prowler]

Neither the 2012 or Rise were like the original cartoon though. They use certain old characters, sure, but it's all different.

I feel like IDW tries too hard to revive 80's characters into modern comics though.

I'm aware. But what I'm trying to say is, 2k3 tried to distance itself from the OT as much as possible. While it seems like Nick's stuff used OT as inspiration and ignored 2k3. It's like they wanted to replicate OTs success, which is fair and all since that's what makes them money, but not something I'm interested in.

[ZariusTwo]

I'm aware. But what I'm trying to say is, 2k3 tried to distance itself from the OT as much as possible. While it seems like Nick's stuff used OT as inspiration and ignored 2k3. It's like they wanted to replicate OTs success, which is fair and all since that's what makes them money, but not something I'm interested in.

If the majority weren't interested, they wouldn't keep trying to replicate FW's success. Like it or not, TMNT will never step out of Fred Wolf's shadow. It IS TMNT, it's life blood. Everything else? A bonus.

[Prowler]

If the majority weren't interested, they wouldn't keep trying to replicate FW's success. Like it or not, TMNT will never step out of Fred Wolf's shadow. It IS TMNT, it's life blood. Everything else? A bonus.

Where did I say I was speaking for the majority in that post of mine you quoted? Read it again.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

If the majority weren't interested, they wouldn't keep trying to replicate FW's success. Like it or not, TMNT will never step out of Fred Wolf's shadow. It IS TMNT, it's life blood. Everything else? A bonus.

You sound like you're just championing FW.

[Galactus]

I remember Laird saying he was open to idea of NECA doing figures based on the '87 series but wanted more Mirage stuff out there first. It's a moot point of course because Playmates made sure NECA wouldn't have been able to do more but it shows he wasn't 00% against giving the Fred Wolf version some representation.

He'd already gotten a movie commissioned, he would have kept the Mirage books going for as long as it personally interested him and he was open to licensing the comics to another company and I think it's likely we would have gotten another animated series. I kinda wish that he'd held out a little longer and we'd have gotten some of these things I think it might have left the franchise in a slightly better place creatively to show a potential buyer it need not all be all Fred Wolf and the time still I imagine that a third go around would have bored him immensely. He probably stepped away from the franchise at the right time for him.

As for the OPs question of whether he'd have been better selling to WB or Disney are we asking which would be better commercially? If that's what you mean then Disney by far would be the better stewards in that regard.

Creatively...uh I'm not sure either of them are a good fit. I imagine this is stealth asking would you prefer them in the Marvel of DC universe considering they'd likely be folded into their established comic book universes.

[Leo656]

So you think Peter read this forum back in the day? Interesting, but I guess I shouldn't be shocked, if true. I'd be curious if I were Peter.

He (or SOMEONE) from Mirage definitely was. He'd sometimes paraphrase things I'd said about Jim Lawson's artwork on here, nearly word-for-word. I never wrote to the book like so many other people here did at the time - I remember a ton of people getting super-excited that their letters saw print - but all I would've said is "It's boring and ugly, step your game up brah" so I never bothered. But he apparently got the message anyway. :lol: Whether it was he himself "hawking" or someone else reporting back to him, I don't know 100%, but there were definitely Mirage staff lurking here back then.

If the majority weren't interested, they wouldn't keep trying to replicate FW's success. Like it or not, TMNT will never step out of Fred Wolf's shadow. It IS TMNT, it's life blood. Everything else? A bonus.

Which is really bad for people who grew up but still want to love the franchise. Just not THAT part of it.

It's okay to look back on things and admit they weren't perfect, but the romanticizing of SOME things just doesn't make much sense. It's like I love MOTU and I want it to stick around but should it be completely stuck in the Filmation vein forever just because that's what became "iconic"? I love that show and will defend it to death but it's objectively the "worst" (or at least, "least-good") representation of what the brand could and ought to be. It's 100 miles away from the whole "Frank Frazetta painting come to life" that it started and was envisioned as.

In that way, MOTU and TMNT are very much the same. There's this giant fanbase that just wants to grow up and move on from That One Version, even if that's the version that brought them into it, because they're not 6 anymore and that's supposed to be okay. Because there's BETTER stories and material to explore with the concepts and characters, but they'll never be explored so long as everything is "BRUH we gotta keep it 80s style bruh!" The "iconic" status of those earlier works becomes creative handcuffs. And it should NOT be that way. For one thing, those things could have been a LOT better themselves in the first place, so it's a bit frustrating that "the worst version" of something can become the dominant thing in an entire brand that's capable of so much more. It's not only limiting, but damaging.

It's like, DC fans of a certain age all grew up watching Super-Friends. But Super-Friends (pre-"Galactic Guardians") was f*cking awful and any sane person can see that. "It's ICONIC though!" Who cares?! It's terrible! Imagine if the people responsible for DC cartoons had that attitude of, "Well, that show ran for 20 years and raised like three generations of fans, it's ICONIC! We have to keep it like that forever!" We never would have had Batman: TAS or Justice League/JLU if people had that attitude.

I don't like the early-00s trend of "Every 80s cartoon was terrible and we were just too dumb to realize it." I don't agree with that at all, just to be clear. BUT, I also disagree with the idea that One Version of a thing, no matter how iconic, should be how that thing is represented forever. That's rather creatively bankrupt thinking and it leads to a lot of creative stagnation. People who write for TMNT shouldn't be having to ask "Where do Bebop and Rocksteady fit into this?" or "How much 'Cowabunga' is appropriate?" as Big Questions towards their overall narrative; that stuff shouldn't be part of the "bedrock" of TMNT, no more than Orko for MOTU.

And that's the problem with FW dominating the conversation of everything with TMNT that's come since. Instead of asking, "What are the best stories we can tell with these characters?", the first and most often-asked question by the "creative staff" is, "How much FW stuff can we fit in, and where?"

As we get further and further removed from the era that cartoon existed in, and fewer and fewer people remain in romantic love with it, the people who control the brand are going to be forced to either veer away from FW or else the brand IS going to die. Because like it or not, one day there won't be anyone left alive who gives a sh*t about that show anymore, just like nobody gives a sh*t about Super-Friends. If your brand can't shift gears and remains slavishly devoted to what people loved about it 30+ years in the past, then it stalls out and dies.

"FW IS TMNT"? Yeah, pretty much. Is that a GOOD thing, either for the fans or the long-term survival of the brand? No, not really. It's only good thing for people who's favorite version of TMNT is FW. And that group gets smaller every year.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

I'm going to chime in here as well.

I'm going to say if Laird had to sell them to either, I'd go with Warner Bros. I feel that WB for all of their faults (which I'll get into) would likely allow the TMNT to go into uncharted territories that neither Disney and to a lesser extent Viacom allows them to. They'd at the very least acknowledge that TMNT is a comic book property rather than a "cashcow" or "nostalgia romp." The only concerns I have with them handling the property is that they'd get integrated in the DC universe which isn't inherently a bad idea in of itself but I'd prefer if they'd stay in their own universe with an occasional crossover here and there. Not to mention weird little spinoffs akin to TTG or DC Superhero Girls is definitely not the type of directions I'd like for the IP to take. If we get strange retcons like how Indigo fears, then I share that sentiment. Maybe they'll be their own thing like Leo says, hopefully. Also, seeing how the Synder cut of JL is doing, I'm starting to ponder at the possibility of him doing a TMNT film.

The most I've enjoyed from Viacom is the Batman vs TMNT comics and movie, some of the IDW comics, and the 2012 series. But even then, I have my issues with each of them especially the latter two. After the PD duology and Rise, I can't feel that much excitement for the brand. The only thing I'm fine with as of now is that there's hardly anything TMNT related. Although I'm happy The Last Ronin exists and I still need to pick that up as that's where my support should be.

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

I remember both PL and Murphy (in the Tales letters column) were constantly ranting how much they hated George W. Bush and how they wished Al Gore became president. They would also constantly talk about global warming and how they "feared for the future."

Now keep in mind this was in the early 2000's, so between 2002-2008 or so.

It was an issue already when the Archie Comics were published.