TMNT: Saturday Morning Adventures #4. Preview and discussion [Archive]

neatoman

01-10-2023, 09:21 PM

Not sure how I feel about the TMNT calling each other by their nicknames since it never happened in the cartoon.

This mini quite literally features TCRI as a major plot element and implies they might have been responsible for the mutagen rather than Krang or Shredder, there are bigger deviations from the cartoon than using the Nicknames.

These issues feel like those licensed Random House children's books from the 90's rather than being written like an actual original cartoon episode would be. That's the closest thing I can relate it to, those old 90's children books drawn based on the Fred Wolf cartoon and had unique stories...but they never felt like an actual episode because the way the Turtles/characters and stories were written just didn't feel the same.

It's sad because I really wanted to get into this but it just, "doesn't feel the same."

I checked out the first issue but not the others so far. I guess you can just never "recapture" what the original cartoon actually was. It's hard to describe, but every time they try to make a comic, homage or continuation of it, it just feels not the same.

I guess it really was lightning in a bottle.

Well, it is difficult to emulate 10-15 minutes of filler in a comic book, not to mention impossible include animation errors and terrible sound mixing. And oh gosh darn it, the monthly schedule coupled with the reasonable amount of installments meant the writer must have given into the temptation of spending more than a single hour writing each script, so not even the sloppy writing has been emulated! Oh no, I am so sad that crappy cartoon that should have by all rights been considered nothing but an embarrassing relic by now can't be replicated properly, will we ever be able to see something do that piece of **** show justice?

OK, I'm not going to pretend this comic is interesting, because it's essentially children's comic book aimed at 40-somethings. However, I'm not going to pretend it's less interesting than the actual Fred Wolf show itself. Had these issues actually been episodes of the show back then, I doubt you would have disliked them, they might even have been considered some of the better episodes on the basis that they're more coherent than most episodes. And what are the actual plots here? VR with plenty of villains teaming up, A Rock Soldier learning the meaning of Rock 'N Roll, Casey Jones with Electric Superpowers and Fantastic Journey but with Mousers... Do any of those sound like something you would have had a problem with as a kid?

Coola Yagami

01-10-2023, 10:02 PM

I think Sat Morn Adv might be featured as a FCBD issue this year.
https://www.cgmagonline.com/news/free-comic-book-day-2023/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CnMxL9oLyt-/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Looks like it's just gonna be a reprint of the first issue with an extra Rise back up story?

And what are the actual plots here? VR with plenty of villains teaming up, A Rock Soldier learning the meaning of Rock 'N Roll, Casey Jones with Electric Superpowers and Fantastic Journey but with Mousers... DO any of those sound like something you would have had a problem with as a kid?

Don't hold back Neatoman, tell us how you really feel.

Honestly though, the stone warrior rock and roll one felt the most out of left field even for the 80's show.

Sumac

01-13-2023, 11:48 PM

Well, it is difficult to emulate 10-15 minutes of filler in a comic book, not to mention impossible include animation errors and terrible sound mixing. And oh gosh darn it, the monthly schedule coupled with the reasonable amount of installments meant the writer must have given into the temptation of spending more than a single hour writing each script, so not even the sloppy writing has been emulated! Oh no, I am so sad that crappy cartoon that should have by all rights been considered nothing but an embarrassing relic by now can't be replicated properly, will we ever be able to see something do that piece of **** show justice?
You won't get that Mirage adaptation for Christmas, so might cry all you want, LOL.

neatoman

01-14-2023, 06:54 AM

You won't get that Mirage adaptation for Christmas, so might cry all you want, LOL.

So you're perfectly happy with this comic then?

Sumac

01-14-2023, 07:43 AM

So you're perfectly happy with this comic then?
Haven't read it, yet.
Just don't see necessity to **** on an old cartoon, which have ended more than 20 years ago.

Let it go, mate. Remove crust from your pants and look into the future.

neatoman

01-14-2023, 09:50 AM

Haven't read it, yet.
Just don't see necessity to **** on an old cartoon, which have ended more than 20 years ago.

Let it go, mate. Remove crust from your pants and look into the future.

Well, see, what I'm trying to say is that is that if this comic is intended to capture the spirit of that cartoon which ended more than 20 years ago (which it is clearly intended to do), then it hasn't exactly failed if it's generic and dull.

Sumac

01-14-2023, 11:36 AM

Well, see, what I'm trying to say is that is that if this comic is intended to capture the spirit of that cartoon which ended more than 20 years ago (which it is clearly intended to do), then it hasn't exactly failed if it's generic and dull.
It could have been done without ******** on an old series.

neatoman

01-14-2023, 04:37 PM

It could have been done without ******** on an old series.

... Well, I kind of can't, the whole premise of the argument is that an uninteresting comic can't be worse than the cartoon on the basis that the cartoon sucked in the first place. I guess I didn't need to be sarcastic about it but I can't say the Fred Wolf cartoon is bad without saying the Fred Wolf cartoon is bad.

Sumac

01-15-2023, 12:45 PM

... Well, I kind of can't, the whole premise of the argument is that an uninteresting comic can't be worse than the cartoon on the basis that the cartoon sucked in the first place. I guess I didn't need to be sarcastic about it but I can't say the Fred Wolf cartoon is bad without saying the Fred Wolf cartoon is bad.
And thus I can say that you never get your Mirage adaptation.

neatoman

01-15-2023, 02:17 PM

And thus I can say that you never get your Mirage adaptation.

You can... You'd be wrong because every version of TMNT is by definition an derivative of Mirage, including the Fred Wolf cartoon, which means it has already happened and will continue to happen for as long as people make new TMNT material... But if you want to say silly things, you can.

Sumac

01-15-2023, 02:39 PM

You can... You'd be wrong because every version of TMNT is by definition an derivative of Mirage, including the Fred Wolf cartoon, which means it has already happened and will continue to happen for as long as people make new TMNT material... But if you want to say silly things, you can.
Goalpost moving, eh?
Not a good look.

neatoman

01-15-2023, 03:20 PM

Goalpost moving, eh?
Not a good look.

Well, I didn't even say anything about Mirage in the first place here, I just said the Fred Wolf cartoon sucks and you responded with something about not getting a Mirage adaptation. Which didn't really have anything to do with my original statement, my subsequent mention of Mirage was in response to a re-iteration on the statement about Mirage, which didn't have anything about my second statement which was about how it wasn't possible to say the Fred Wolf cartoon is bad without stating the Fred Wolf cartoon is bad. I'm not so sure it's a good look on your part to accuse others of moving the goal post when you deliberately try to derail the conversation from the start.

If you can't actually defend the Fred Wolf cartoon without claiming that it's unnecessary because it's an old show (which doesn't shield it from criticism and never will), claim that it is irrelevant to the conversion (which it isn't, STA is clearly intended to be a pseudo-continuation of it, comparisons are very much relevant) or bring up something about Mirage (which only becomes relevant once someone brings it up), then don't even bother.

Sumac

01-15-2023, 03:40 PM

Well, I didn't even say anything about Mirage in the first place here, I just said the Fred Wolf cartoon sucks and you responded with something about not getting a Mirage adaptation. Which didn't really have anything to do with my original statement, my subsequent mention of Mirage was in response to a re-iteration on the statement about Mirage, which didn't have anything about my second statement which was about how it wasn't possible to say the Fred Wolf cartoon is bad without stating the Fred Wolf cartoon is bad. I'm not so sure it's a good look on your part to accuse others of moving the goal post when you deliberately try to derail the conversation from the start.

If you can't actually defend the Fred Wolf cartoon without claiming that it's unnecessary because it's an old show (which doesn't shield it from criticism and never will), claim that it is irrelevant to the conversion (which it isn't, STA is clearly intended to be a pseudo-continuation of it, comparisons are very much relevant) or bring up something about Mirage (which only becomes relevant once someone brings it up), then don't even bother.
I don't need to defend anything - FW cartoon remembered by pretty much everyone, while most other things TMNT are mostly forgotten.
Drink water - it removes salt.

hypered1

01-15-2023, 03:46 PM

FW cartoon remembered by pretty much everyone, while most other things TMNT are mostly forgotten.

Nope. Anyone born this side of the millennium is going to be way more familiar with the 2012 or Rise cartoons. Heck, even the official TMNT reddit is basically made up of 2k3 fanboys.

neatoman

01-15-2023, 07:00 PM

I don't need to defend anything - FW cartoon remembered by pretty much everyone, while most other things TMNT are mostly forgotten.
Drink water - it removes salt.

Nope. Anyone born this side of the millennium is going to be way more familiar with the 2012 or Rise cartoons. Heck, even the official TMNT reddit is basically made up of 2k3 fanboys.

Yes, I'm kind of tired of needing to explain this, but yes. The whole "everyone remembers it" is a ******** argument on so many levels.

As hypered1 pointed out, the people who "remember" the show tend to have been born in the 80's, very rarely is it "remembered" by anyone born before or after 80's. It really just applies to people who grew up with it when it was airing, it really doesn't have much sway with anyone else and people are generally more likely to be fond of whatever version they happened to grow up with.
Even in that group, it's still a minority who remember the show accurately. Most people I talk to about it in real life don't tend to be aware that it was on for as long as it was, they can't even recall the plots of a few episodes. One guy I met was even convinced Bebop and Rocksteady started out as animals. It's more accurate to say people remember that it was a fad or that they have a hazy idea of what the show was like, not that it's in anyway immortalised for what it really was.
And even if we do pretend that it really is remembered and enjoyed by everyone, that nobody cares about any TMNT material released before or since, so what? There are plenty of just awful movies and television shows out there that enjoy a large fanbase, they are not immune to criticism and neither is the Fred Wolf show. The flaws of the show are still there, no matter how many people "love" the show.

It's an appeal to popularity fallacy, one made worse by the popularity being a mere shadow cast from former spotlight, rather than the result of active fanbase.

Cowabung-Gal

01-15-2023, 07:39 PM

neatoman

01-15-2023, 08:21 PM

If I need a good laugh, I watch the Fred Wolf cartoon.

If I feel like torturing myself with bad voice acting, I watch the 2003 series.

I get why a lot of fans feel like the Fred Wolf cartoon is too childish and silly for their taste, but I find issues with their beloved 2k3 show, too and especially Rise.

The problem with the Fred Wolf cartoon isn't that childish and silly, the problem is just that it's badly made. Seriously, that's the main problem, it's just really low quality. The plots rarely make sense, the animation is is often way too choppy, the pacing tends to be off, the sound mixing is atrocious and it contains animation errors so bad I don't even understand how they were made in the first place. It's just a rushed production from day one until it got canned, it's not even a case of it "not holding up", it was never good in the first place.

I know it's probably easier to deflect criticism if you pretend it's about the tone, because otherwise you end up with really weird arguments like "Everything has flaws, therefore it's OK that this show randomly introduces plot elements without proper set-up and is animated at four frames per second so often" or "Hey, it was the 80's and most shows were like that, who cares if it was possible to make something better if everyone were sloppy at the time?", but at least try to admit this show just was never up to snuff in the first place, OK? It would help a lot.

And... I really hate that people claim the Fred Wolf cartoon is funny, I really do. Maybe if you're like five years old it's literally one of the first ten TV shows you've ever watched it is, but no adult ought to be amused by the so-called humor of the Fred Wolf cartoon. It's either way too predictable or it just doesn't make sense in the first place, it's also extremely toothless. I dismiss it's alleged value as a comedy.

Cowabung-Gal

01-15-2023, 08:33 PM

And... I really hate that people claim the Fred Wolf cartoon is funny, I really do. Maybe if you're like five years old it's literally one of the first ten TV shows you've ever watched it is, but no adult ought to be amused by the so-called humor of the Fred Wolf cartoon. It's either way too predictable or it just doesn't make sense in the first place, it's also extremely toothless. I dismiss it's alleged value as a comedy.

It’s funnier than Jimmy Kimmel Live and the new Velma series, and those are aimed toward “adults”. If that’s adult comedy, then no thanks.

neatoman

01-15-2023, 08:43 PM

It’s funnier than Jimmy Kimmel Live and the Velma series, and those are aimed toward “adults”. If that’s adult entertainment, then no thanks.

What about Golden Age Simpsons, Futurama or South Park? There's plenty of quality comedies for adults, you shouldn't scrape the bottom of the barrel to prop up some shoddy cartoon that really don't deserve to be propped up in the first place.

And if someone's going to claim the Fred Wolf show's humor is like that because it's for children and/or old, then I can easily point to Looney Tunes, child friendly and older than the Fred Wolf cartoon but still way funnier.

Cowabung-Gal

01-15-2023, 09:05 PM

What about Golden Age Simpsons, Futurama or South Park? There's plenty of quality comedies for adults, you shouldn't scrape the bottom of the barrel to prop up some shoddy cartoon that really don't deserve to be propped up in the first place.

And if someone's going to claim the Fred Wolf show's humor is like that because it's for children and/or old, then I can easily point to Looney Tunes, child friendly and older than the Fred Wolf cartoon but still way funnier.

South Park is funny (sometimes). But modern adult comedy shows in general suck, and it’s the same for a lot of modern kids shows.

I’m not saying the Fred Wolf show is perfect; I’m just saying that it’s funnier than most modern adult comedies. And you seem pretty hung up on the past yourself since you’re listing Golden Age Simpsons as quality comedy as well as Futurama which ended like a decade ago. There’s a reason people are rewatching old shows instead of watching the new ones.

hypered1

01-16-2023, 02:04 AM

There’s a reason people are rewatching old shows instead of watching the new ones.

That would be nostalgia, member-berries and rose-tinted glasses. Although I do agree regarding newer 'comedy' programs - that Velma series has taken a nose dive deeper than the Marianas Trench mostly because it comes across as a self-insert semi-biography for Kaling and totally dumps on the sauce material.

LeotheLateBloomer

01-16-2023, 09:16 AM

Well, I didn't even say anything about Mirage in the first place here, I just said the Fred Wolf cartoon sucks and you responded with something about not getting a Mirage adaptation. Which didn't really have anything to do with my original statement, my subsequent mention of Mirage was in response to a re-iteration on the statement about Mirage, which didn't have anything about my second statement which was about how it wasn't possible to say the Fred Wolf cartoon is bad without stating the Fred Wolf cartoon is bad. I'm not so sure it's a good look on your part to accuse others of moving the goal post when you deliberately try to derail the conversation from the start.

If you can't actually defend the Fred Wolf cartoon without claiming that it's unnecessary because it's an old show (which doesn't shield it from criticism and never will), claim that it is irrelevant to the conversion (which it isn't, STA is clearly intended to be a pseudo-continuation of it, comparisons are very much relevant) or bring up something about Mirage (which only becomes relevant once someone brings it up), then don't even bother.

You're good...very good at standing your ground.

I don't need to defend anything - FW cartoon remembered by pretty much everyone, while most other things TMNT are mostly forgotten.

What about the 90s films?

I get why a lot of fans feel like the Fred Wolf cartoon is too childish and silly for their taste, but I find issues with their beloved 2k3 show, too and especially Rise.

Nick, if anything, has more issues than the others.

IMJ

01-16-2023, 09:37 AM

Nope. Anyone born this side of the millennium is going to be way more familiar with the 2012 or Rise cartoons. Heck, even the official TMNT reddit is basically made up of 2k3 fanboys.

See I agree with you here 100%. But the real question about this observation is "where are they?" Are those fans on Reddit? Are they spending money on TMNT stuff? Have they become life long fans from the material that they recognize, or is it just that they "recognize TMNT" the same way that I "recognize Power Rangers"?

And so basically what I'm saying is that what good is it if people born this side of the millennium recognize TMNT '12 or Rise when that recognition has clearly translated into nothing? Those fans aren't supporting the thousands of dollars of NECA releases - aging 40's to 50 year old fans are doing that.

hypered1

01-16-2023, 10:06 AM

See I agree with you here 100%. But the real question about this observation is "where are they?" Are those fans on Reddit? Are they spending money on TMNT stuff? Have they become life long fans from the material that they recognize, or is it just that they "recognize TMNT" the same way that I "recognize Power Rangers"?

And so basically what I'm saying is that what good is it if people born this side of the millennium recognize TMNT '12 or Rise when that recognition has clearly translated into nothing? Those fans aren't supporting the thousands of dollars of NECA releases - aging 40's to 50 year old fans are doing that.

I see plenty of fans for 2012 and particularly Rise in a couple of the Discord servers that I'm in and there's others that are dedicated to most iterations at this point.
Regarding the NECA releases and similar that goes back to my comment regarding nostalgia - same for MMPR toys being the highest selling Power Rangers merch - yes the older fans are going to be buying that stuff but they're also the ones with the finances to do so; a full grown adult has far more spending money than a kid with their pocket change.

Sumac

01-16-2023, 11:47 AM

Nope. Anyone born this side of the millennium is going to be way more familiar with the 2012 or Rise cartoons. Heck, even the official TMNT reddit is basically made up of 2k3 fanboys.
And how many of those people will clamor for appearance of those versions of TMNT in crossovers, video games and the like? Will they shell money for essentially upgrades of classic toys from the 80s? Are they the one who are primary audience of the stuff like Cowabunga Collection or Shredders' Revenge - a first good TMNT video game in years?

That's the thing with TMNT: it has a lot of incarnations, but all of them pass and go, sans FW and the first movie somewhat. Everything else just flows away, like water in the drain during rain. I don't understand why and I am not highly appreciative of it, but it is what it is.

So, even if kids grew on modern TMNT version, I doubt they will remember as fondly as people remember FW series or gonna buy reissue or upgrade of classic toys from "their" era of the franchise.

As hypered1 pointed out, the people who "remember" the show tend to have been born in the 80's, very rarely is it "remembered" by anyone born before or after 80's. It really just applies to people who grew up with it when it was airing, it really doesn't have much sway with anyone else and people are generally more likely to be fond of whatever version they happened to grow up with.
Sorry, mate, I don't buy it. FW pandering is the whole microcosm in itself: you have everything FW existing in parallel with other TMNT products, covering the rest of the franchise, yet, somehow FW popularity almost never wanes. Somehow I doubt it is only 80s former kids supporting series. But even, if its a case, it means there are more people who give a damn about FW TMNT, than TMNT as a whole or some other incarnations of it.

Even in that group, it's still a minority who remember the show accurately. Most people I talk to about it in real life don't tend to be aware that it was on for as long as it was, they can't even recall the plots of a few episodes. One guy I met was even convinced Bebop and Rocksteady started out as animals. It's more accurate to say people remember that it was a fad or that they have a hazy idea of what the show was like, not that it's in anyway immortalised for what it really was.
Oh, the horror! People can't recall one of the almost 200 episodes of the show, which aired for 10 years and stopped 25 years ago!!
Mate, your salt is flowing. :lol:

I can't recall most individual episodes of most of the shows I watched even few years ago, yet, it doesn't mean I like them "just, because, I've watched them as a kid" or some other nonsense.
Try better next time!

And even if we do pretend that it really is remembered and enjoyed by everyone, that nobody cares about any TMNT material released before or since, so what? There are plenty of just awful movies and television shows out there that enjoy a large fanbase, they are not immune to criticism and neither is the Fred Wolf show. The flaws of the show are still there, no matter how many people "love" the show.

Your reaction goes beyond mere "criticism" and right into territory of goofy venomous angry snide as if FW series pissed into your corn flakes.

It's an appeal to popularity fallacy, one made worse by the popularity being a mere shadow cast from former spotlight, rather than the result of active fanbase.
Very dubious argument, considering that at the moment it looks that even shadow of its popularity from the 80s eclipses any other part of the fanbase as a whole.

The problem with the Fred Wolf cartoon isn't that childish and silly, the problem is just that it's badly made. Seriously, that's the main problem, it's just really low quality. The plots rarely make sense, the animation is is often way too choppy, the pacing tends to be off, the sound mixing is atrocious and it contains animation errors so bad I don't even understand how they were made in the first place. It's just a rushed production from day one until it got canned, it's not even a case of it "not holding up", it was never good in the first place.
Mere "criticism" my ass. LOL.
Its like FW series had killed your fish, poisoned your cat, and slipped **** under your pillow.

On simple question: if it was never good in the first place, why it is so fondly remembered considering not only it had an army of clones, but dozens of rival shows, yet, TMNT is one of the only remembered and revered to day? Not Cowboys of Moo Mesa, not Street Sharks, not 10th rip-off of Transformers mixed with G.I. Joe and Super Sentai, but TMNT?

Maybe, because, show was not as bad as you pointlessly trying to convince yourself and others? Yes, there were ****** animated episodes, but most of them were on par with other shows and some were just plain gorgeous (everything animated by Toei animation, basically).

Stories were pretty your standard Saturday Morning Cartoon fluff, so I am not really sure where this venomous hatred comes from?

And you are missing few components, namely amazing music and amazing voice cast. The magic was not only in its animation and zany plots, but in the amazing chemistry between actors and the way they delivered their lines. And clever back and forth quips (for a cartoon show of the 80s made to promote toys that is).

Of course, since it doesn't fit your hateful picture you don't mention it, but it is a fact.

I know it's probably easier to deflect criticism if you pretend it's about the tone, because otherwise you end up with really weird arguments like "Everything has flaws, therefore it's OK that this show randomly introduces plot elements without proper set-up and is animated at four frames per second so often" or "Hey, it was the 80's and most shows were like that, who cares if it was possible to make something better if everyone were sloppy at the time?", but at least try to admit this show just was never up to snuff in the first place, OK? It would help a lot.
Funny way to basically state that all your criticism is just made up ********.
I accept your failure...with a grace befitting a winner. :P

And... I really hate that people claim the Fred Wolf cartoon is funny, I really do. Maybe if you're like five years old it's literally one of the first ten TV shows you've ever watched it is, but no adult ought to be amused by the so-called humor of the Fred Wolf cartoon. It's either way too predictable or it just doesn't make sense in the first place, it's also extremely toothless. I dismiss it's alleged value as a comedy.
Shake crust from your pants, dude and grub some pizza. You really need some tubular vacation and gnarly video games in your life. :tgrin:
You sound like an old petty salty smarmy uncool and totally not-RAD bookworm, who can't accept simple joys of life. Lighten' up, dude. And once again, if FW show was so bad, how come it is more remembered than almost anything else from that era?

What about Golden Age Simpsons, Futurama or South Park? There's plenty of quality comedies for adults, you shouldn't scrape the bottom of the barrel to prop up some shoddy cartoon that really don't deserve to be propped up in the first place.

And if someone's going to claim the Fred Wolf show's humor is like that because it's for children and/or old, then I can easily point to Looney Tunes, child friendly and older than the Fred Wolf cartoon but still way funnier.
Are you seriously comparing FW TMNT to Simpsons and SOUTH PARK of all things?! Like shows made for completely different audiences with completely different goals in mind?
Are you a troll or just crazy?

What about the 90s films?
Remembered, maybe not so much, but remembered and appreciated, maybe even more so, after horrible Bay-abominations.

neatoman

01-16-2023, 04:55 PM

I’m not saying the Fred Wolf show is perfect; I’m just saying that it’s funnier than most modern adult comedies.

If the Fred Wolf show was funny in the first place, I might agree with you but the problem is that both a kids' show from over 30 years that isn't funny and a show for adults now that isn't funny, aren't funny. Something that isn't funny, isn't funnier than something that isn't funny.

Here's a simple equation:
0+0 = 0-0 = 0

Add bad jokes to something that isn't funny and it's still not funny. Remove bad jokes from something that isn't funny and it remains not funny.

Fred Wolf's attempts at humor aren't offensive or annoying, which I'll grant you might make it less painful to watch compared to many modern comedies, but they're still not funny

And how many of those people will clamor for appearance of those versions of TMNT in crossovers, video games and the like? Will they shell money for essentially upgrades of classic toys from the 80s? Are they the one who are primary audience of the stuff like Cowabunga Collection or Shredders' Revenge - a first good TMNT video game in years?

That's the thing with TMNT: it has a lot of incarnations, but all of them pass and go, sans FW and the first movie somewhat. Everything else just flows away, like water in the drain during rain. I don't understand why and I am not highly appreciative of it, but it is what it is.

So, even if kids grew on modern TMNT version, I doubt they will remember as fondly as people remember FW series or gonna buy reissue or upgrade of classic toys from "their" era of the franchise.

I hate to break this to you but Steam Charts hardly shows anyone playing Shredder's Revenge, even less for Cowabunga Collection. It had decent numbers at the start but it quickly dwindled. To say the game is popular is hardly accurate.

Sorry, mate, I don't buy it. FW pandering is the whole microcosm in itself: you have everything FW existing in parallel with other TMNT products, covering the rest of the franchise, yet, somehow FW popularity almost never wanes. Somehow I doubt it is only 80s former kids supporting series. But even, if its a case, it means there are more people who give a damn about FW TMNT, than TMNT as a whole or some other incarnations of it.

Is that why people keep forgetting this comic even exist? You don't really provide any evidence here that the FW is still popular. I'm at best seeing a quick burst in interest that quickly fades.

Oh, the horror! People can't recall one of the almost 200 episodes of the show, which aired for 10 years and stopped 25 years ago!!
Mate, your salt is flowing. :lol:

I can't recall most individual episodes of most of the shows I watched even few years ago, yet, it doesn't mean I like them "just, because, I've watched them as a kid" or some other nonsense.
Try better next time!
If something really does have an impact on you, then you should be able to at least recall what the basic plot was. And you don't think it's weird that even though the show has almost 200 episodes and was watched by millions, very few people can actually recall a single episode? You don't think it's weird that not even this or that moment of the show is talked about if the show really is popular? It's not even remotely weird that this alleged staple of pop culture don't seem to have left nearly as big of an impact on the people who watched it as it logically ought to have?

Your reaction goes beyond mere "criticism" and right into territory of goofy venomous angry snide as if FW series pissed into your corn flakes.
...
Mere "criticism" my ass. LOL.
Its like FW series had killed your fish, poisoned your cat, and slipped **** under your pillow.

It's not even my opinion that the show has choppy animation, obvious production errors and contradictions in the writing. Those are just facts about the show and they deserve to be pointed out. The fact that I don't find the show funny, that's arguably just an opinion but it's still fair criticism.

Very dubious argument, considering that at the moment it looks that even shadow of its popularity from the 80s eclipses any other part of the fanbase as a whole.
Again, Shredder's Revenge and this comic receiving high attention at the start and then quickly dwindling into irrelevance is not a sign of genuine sustained popularity, at best is evidence that you can effectively entertain adults in a way similar to jangling keys in front an infant. Quick and reliable but not permanent.

On simple question: if it was never good in the first place, why it is so fondly remembered considering not only it had an army of clones, but dozens of rival shows, yet, TMNT is one of the only remembered and revered to day? Not Cowboys of Moo Mesa, not Street Sharks, not 10th rip-off of Transformers mixed with G.I. Joe and Super Sentai, but TMNT?
Because you were kids and you didn't have high standards, coupled with how those other shows were probably on at time as something more popular, meaning kids just didn't have time to watch something else, or how the toys just didn't sell well enough because parents only have so much income to spend. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that Fred Wolf had to keep pumping out TMNT episodes because it was their only successful show, while Disney and DiC could more comfortably let those shows go and Ruby Spears was dying at the anyway, which might why they weren't renewed enough times to get syndication deals. That syndication deal in turn would also make the show more widely distributed, meaning a lot more kids just got exposed to it regardless of what channels they got. But it could be a lot of things really, doesn't have to be related to quality.

As for quality, if you are trying to state that the FW show was of higher quality than Street Sharks or Moo Mesa... No. I'm sorry but no, it is not of higher quality. None of these shows are good mind you, it's just that one was more popular than the others but that is not a real indicator of quality.

Maybe, because, show was not as bad as you pointlessly trying to convince yourself and others? Yes, there were ****** animated episodes, but most of them were on par with other shows and some were just plain gorgeous (everything animated by Toei animation, basically).

Stories were pretty your standard Saturday Morning Cartoon fluff, so I am not really sure where this venomous hatred comes from?
Being on par with other shows at the time is a fairly meaningless defense of this show. Those other shows didn't look good, the quality control was just shamelessly low at the time. On average, it seems like the animation of many of those shows, the FW show included, was between 4FPS to 8FPS and that just never looked good in any era. A handful of genuinely well animated episodes does not excuse the fact that the majority of the episodes aren't even decently animated. The writing was also of very low quality at the time, the same basic criticism applies there to, except it's more about failures to form a coherent plot.

And you are missing few components, namely amazing music and amazing voice cast. The magic was not only in its animation and zany plots, but in the amazing chemistry between actors and the way they delivered their lines. And clever back and forth quips (for a cartoon show of the 80s made to promote toys that is).

Of course, since it doesn't fit your hateful picture you don't mention it, but it is a fact.

I'm not exactly a music expert and I'm not going to comment on the voice actor quality. But I've already established that I don't like the humor of the show, so I'm more than comfortable saying that the quips aren't really all that clever.

The problem here though is that we are still talking a show with plot and animation, that's kind of the meat and bones of the show is. Meaning that no matter what place on top of the show, if the writing and animation are bad, then the show is bad... Period. What does it matter if the soundtrack and acting are good if the core of show just doesn't work?

Are you seriously comparing FW TMNT to Simpsons and SOUTH PARK of all things?! Like shows made for completely different audiences with completely different goals in mind?
Are you a troll or just crazy?

I also used Looney Tunes for comparison in case the Simpsons and South Park seemed out of place. But mostly the point is that Jimmy Kimmel and Velma were used as examples of comedy for adults and somehow that made the Fred Wolf cartoon preferable, so I simply pointed out that good comedy for adults exist. But it's ultimately Looney Tunes that is being used as direct comparison to FW, not Simpsons and South Park.

Coola Yagami

01-16-2023, 06:44 PM

Geez.... what bug crawled up everybody's butt all of a sudden? ****ing chill.

Sumac

01-22-2023, 01:20 PM

Here's a simple equation:
0+0 = 0-0 = 0
Sums all your arguments nicely.

I hate to break this to you but Steam Charts hardly shows anyone playing Shredder's Revenge, even less for Cowabunga Collection. It had decent numbers at the start but it quickly dwindled. To say the game is popular is hardly accurate.
I hate to break this to you, but do you know that both games were released on more platforms than PC? Do you know that platformers traditionally more popular on consoles, rather than PCs?

Is that why people keep forgetting this comic even exist? You don't really provide any evidence here that the FW is still popular. I'm at best seeing a quick burst in interest that quickly fades.
Apparently this "quick burst" has been lasting for the last two years...? I am not sure how time flows in your world, but "two years" is not a quick burst by any estimation. If anything, I see that FW TMNT only becoming more popular, especially, with other incarnations being not particularly known or outright garbage.

If something really does have an impact on you, then you should be able to at least recall what the basic plot was. And you don't think it's weird that even though the show has almost 200 episodes and was watched by millions, very few people can actually recall a single episode? You don't think it's weird that not even this or that moment of the show is talked about if the show really is popular? It's not even remotely weird that this alleged staple of pop culture don't seem to have left nearly as big of an impact on the people who watched it as it logically ought to have?
Oh no, people can't point out every single episode from the series they've watched who knows when!! Obviously, popularity of this series is a fake, those people are not real fans and bla-bla-bla other nonsense just to make it look like something popular was not, and you are smarter than everyone else, because, you don't like it.
Predictable.

I bet most people can't tell you about most episodes of Transformers or Star Trek, but apparently they didn't make a major bump in pop-culture, right?
Gee...its almost you are making up **** as you go along!

It's not even my opinion that the show has choppy animation, obvious production errors and contradictions in the writing. Those are just facts about the show and they deserve to be pointed out. The fact that I don't find the show funny, that's arguably just an opinion but it's still fair criticism.
OK, there are mistakes no-none denies it. What's next?
Also, I was talking about venomous and hilarious seething hatred of everything about this cartoon, not only animation.
I hope you are a better football player than goalpost mover.

Again, Shredder's Revenge and this comic receiving high attention at the start and then quickly dwindling into irrelevance is not a sign of genuine sustained popularity, at best is evidence that you can effectively entertain adults in a way similar to jangling keys in front an infant. Quick and reliable but not permanent.
How do you check their relevancy?
You, admittedly don't even know how popular Shredder's Revenge to begin with and given that company behind it aims to make patches, I'd say it is popular ENOUGH to get at least this attention.
But, of course, Neatoman knows better from his spiritual telepathy and whatnot, how popular game is, despite what developers had to say.

And about comic book: numbers, care to provide them? The fact they've been made at all is already a sign that FW is much more popular than your pwecious Mirage stuff, sans Last Ronin, which is an exception from the rule.

So far you are reacting at FW stuff like a dog on a leash, who just is being taunted by a delicious sausage. Savvy?

Because you were kids and you didn't have high standards, coupled with how those other shows were probably on at time as something more popular, meaning kids just didn't have time to watch something else, or how the toys just didn't sell well enough because parents only have so much income to spend. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that Fred Wolf had to keep pumping out TMNT episodes because it was their only successful show, while Disney and DiC could more comfortably let those shows go and Ruby Spears was dying at the anyway, which might why they weren't renewed enough times to get syndication deals. That syndication deal in turn would also make the show more widely distributed, meaning a lot more kids just got exposed to it regardless of what channels they got. But it could be a lot of things really, doesn't have to be related to quality.
Sorry, dude, but you are full of ****.
You are desperate to find anything to put FW down, like a vegetarian trying to find lettuce in the meat factory...and you are failing. Your arguments are complete crap and pulled out of your ass, because, you have nothing better to offer, except for disjointed combination of theories, without any prove.

Let me educate you, why you are wrong and maybe you will take something useful from it, like using good arguments to prove your points and not bizarre conspiracies:

Kids might not have high standards, but they sure can understand when the show is good and when show is crap. With abundance of shows in the 80s it was easier than ever for kids to find something for their liking. Like they were dozen different shows, including ones imported from Japan, competing for attention on the market throughout all of the 80s and later Disney joined the fray.

Point being there were no shortage of shows and some of them had more interesting concepts and better general premises than TMNT, yet kids flocked to FW Turtles. Now, whine all you want about lack of quality, but with dozens shows on the market wouldn't watch some ****** crap. They would've get to something different. But TMNT was able to hold attention for what? Almost 6 years, give or take. And apparently according to your dumb hot take, those kids didn't grow up and new kids, who joined TMNTmania later were equally as dumb. And none of the competitors throughout those 6-7 years were able to shatter TMNT power, even more bizarre TMNT rip-offs of 90s.

Amount of episodes doesn't mean ****, dude. If show was a failure no-one would've watched them, but there was demand for more. And, no schedules and other stuff, has nothing to do with due to aforementioned reasons.

Obvious conclusion of the normal person: FW was a damn fine show for its time, ahead of its competitors in certain areas, like fun characters and witty writing.

As for you: continue to seethe in your hatred.
You are lacking arguments and wit to make them work.
Try to make a decent argument, like "TMNT was popular, because, people were under influence of Krangoizoids". This sounds much more convincing than crap you've tried to feed me. LOL.

Being on par with other shows at the time is a fairly meaningless defense of this show.
Actually it does, since if all shows were bad, kids won't have reason to stick exclusively to afew of them.
You have lost your own argument by your own effort. Congratulations!!

The writing was also of very low quality at the time, the same basic criticism applies there to, except it's more about failures to form a coherent plot.
This nonsense has been disproven above.

I'm not exactly a music expert and I'm not going to comment on the voice actor quality. But I've already established that I don't like the humor of the show, so I'm more than comfortable saying that the quips aren't really all that clever.
Not liking something and considering it to be objectively bad are two different things.
Someone who brags about his "mature" tastes, shoulve have understood that.
And, I given that FW TMNT mostly remembered for voice acting and jokes, well, you are in minority. And you've been in minority for the last 30+ years. Guess, its hard, but this happens, LOL.

The problem here though is that we are still talking a show with plot and animation, that's kind of the meat and bones of the show is. Meaning that no matter what place on top of the show, if the writing and animation are bad, then the show is bad... Period. What does it matter if the soundtrack and acting are good if the core of show just doesn't work?
But you are mistaken on both accounts. Animation was passable and writing was exactly which attracted people to that show, which means you are mistaken.

A-ha!! We are finally uncovered your problem!!
I am talking to someone who doesn't understand or appreciate acting. Simple as that.

You are genuinly unable to figure out, how acting works and how a good perfomance can save disastrous story and directorship. Because, of it, you are obviously can not figure out why dialogues in FW TMNT work, since you obviously just don't see acting as a component of them. You see them as a plain text and this is the core of the problem. You can't understand neither intention nor emotion nor interaction. Which obviously leads to conclusion, that you can't understand how writing works at all!!

It is not to say you don't understand it on a mechanical level, it is just there is more to the writing than a story or dialogues. Perfomance and character nuances, all things, which FW TMNT exceled at, matter probably the most, if not more, than a good story. Because, of it you simply can't understand what is going on. Its like asking someone with no understanding of music to describe it. They'll see the notes, but not hear perfomance, hearing only meaningless noise.

Zog The Magnificent

01-22-2023, 01:42 PM

The main problem I have with the arguments against the '87 show is that all the flaws pointed out are not flaws that are specific to that show. Pointing out voice recording errors, animation errors, recycled plots, etc. is redundant because EVERY show from that era was like that. I mean, sure, there were a few exceptions, but as a general rule? This is just what cartoons were like during this time. So it seems unfair to hold those errors against TMNT specifically since none of those errors are specific to TMNT, in the same way that it would be unfair for a to call a movie from the silent era bad for not having sound, or a movie from before color filming was invented bad for not being in color.

AlZarkovski

01-22-2023, 01:55 PM

You don't really provide any evidence here that the FW is still popular. I'm at best seeing a quick burst in interest that quickly fades.

Proof? Here they are:

1. FW TMNT has already received several editions of the complete collection on DVD. People keep buying them. 2k3 has never been released in its entirety. Nickelodeon tried to release some 2k3 DVDs, but they obviously didn't make a profit, so they stopped releasing.

2. Figures from NEKA, Super7 and other companies based on FW are popular and sell very well.

3. Why did you decide that Saturday Morning Adventures wasn't popular? A paperback collection was announced and received the number 1 in the title. This hints that IDW plans to continue the series.

neatoman

01-22-2023, 04:18 PM

Proof? Here they are:

1. FW TMNT has already received several editions of the complete collection on DVD. People keep buying them. 2k3 has never been released in its entirety. Nickelodeon tried to release some 2k3 DVDs, but they obviously didn't make a profit, so they stopped releasing.

2. Figures from NEKA, Super7 and other companies based on FW are popular and sell very well.

3. Why did you decide that Saturday Morning Adventures wasn't popular? A paperback collection was announced and received the number 1 in the title. This hints that IDW plans to continue the series.

Could you provide any data that would imply any of this sold well? Anyway, a clear flaw here is that bringing up that Nickelodeon's 2003 DVDs didn't sell well is not an argument in favor of the FW cartoon's popularity and even if it was, we still need to remember here that the full series DVD collection is eleven years old at this point, meaning we are dealing with old data here. The conclusion that STA isn't popular admittedly does not come from any concrete data, but the observation that people on this forum don't seem to care enough about it's existence, nor am I seeing much of a response elsewhere. It is true that the series could be selling really well and we may indeed get more issues, however, keep in mind that the trade was likely always planned and the number 1 label could simply have been done in anticipation that the series may have sold well. It is not a guarantee that we will get more issues.

The main problem I have with the arguments against the '87 show is that all the flaws pointed out are not flaws that are specific to that show. Pointing out voice recording errors, animation errors, recycled plots, etc. is redundant because EVERY show from that era was like that. I mean, sure, there were a few exceptions, but as a general rule? This is just what cartoons were like during this time. So it seems unfair to hold those errors against TMNT specifically since none of those errors are specific to TMNT, in the same way that it would be unfair for a to call a movie from the silent era bad for not having sound, or a movie from before color filming was invented bad for not being in color.

I do not exclusively hold FW to this standard, it might seem like it because it's a TMNT forum but I can assure you that it is universal. The problem with comparing these types of shows to the silent era of film making is that color and sound wasn't possible. As in, the technology for making film in color and sound literally did not exist. Even if we point out that some movies lack color and sound after the technology was invented due to budget or artistic reasons, we can still hold them accountable for bad editing or poor lighting, because those are just straight up flaws that don't need to exist and shouldn't exist.

"We need to cut out quality control and pump out 65 episodes as quickly as possible to get that syndication deal" is not an excuse. It's not like it was it literally impossible to slow down production and oversee the quality to prevent these types of problem. Those types of shows shouldn't be excused like there were technical limitations, if you only have the budget and time to make 13 episodes per year, don't try to make over 45.

It is not an unfair standard, saying that it is just comes across as an empty attempt to deflect criticism.

neatoman

01-22-2023, 04:30 PM

I hate to break this to you, but do you know that both games were released on more platforms than PC?
...

Please provide data. Is it possible that the game is being played way more on Switch than on PC and totally blows Steam numbers out of the water? Yes, but I need to see it to believe it. Steam is one of biggest storefronts for games and we can generally assume Steam still gives you a good idea of what is being played a lot. You can't just say the game was well liked and leave it at that, it just states that someone somewhere liked it, not how many or if they still play it.

Apparently this "quick burst" has been lasting for the last two years...?
...

If anything, I see that FW TMNT only becoming more popular, especially, with other incarnations being not particularly known or outright garbage.

Two years from? What? Regardless, I'm not talking about various different projects being an indicator of sustained popularity, I'm talking about individual ability to keep interest. If we are talking about Shredder's Revenge specifically, then the data shows that there was a quick burst interest at launch but the number of players dropped drastically, not just from what the initial numbers were (which were mediocre for what can be consider mid-tier releases) but just low period. If Shredder's Revenge is still popular and wasn't just popular in the first two weeks or so, why did the numbers drop so quickly and so low?

Oh no, people can't point out every single episode from the series they've watched who knows when!!

...

I bet most people can't tell you about most episodes of Transformers or Star Trek, but apparently they didn't make a major bump in pop-culture, right?

...
That's not the argument I made, it's pretty much the opposite of the argument I made. The argument wasn't that they should be able to remember most episodes, it was that they should be able to remember a few episodes or at the very least a single one. If the series did leave an impact, then being able to remember at least some details beyond the premise shouldn't be difficult. And yes, if the claim is that Transformers and Star Trek left an impact on those who watched it then they should be able to recall what a single episode. But remember, my argument is just one episode and preferably more than one, not most episodes and definitely not all of them.

OK, there are mistakes no-none denies it.

...

I was talking about venomous and hilarious seething hatred of everything about this cartoon, not only animation.

...

Your response was to me before that post was in reference to a statement I made about the flaws, which in turn had nothing to "venomous" behavior. It's not moving the goal post if you fail to properly respond what I had to say in the first place.

How do you check their relevancy?

...

And about comic book: numbers, care to provide them? The fact they've been made at all is already a sign that FW is much more popular than your pwecious Mirage stuff, sans Last Ronin, which is an exception from the rule.

I've already cited the Steam numbers as in indicator that Shredder's Revenge isn't as popular as is being claimed and you still haven't provided anything to counter that beyond conjecture. I'd also be remissed to point out that what data we do have (albeit not as clear as it used to be) does show that Last Ronin, The Power Rangers crossover and Armageddon Game all register during the months SMA has been selling, while SMA itself does not. Not happy about the data we are getting on comic book sales these days though I must admit. And I never claimed that Mirage is "pwecious" to me.

...

Your arguments are complete crap
...
disjointed combination of theories, without any prove.

What you are responding to here is speculation for alternatives, not arguments. I wanted to demonstrate how factors beyond quality can impact popularity and accessibility.

...

Kids might not have high standards, but they sure can understand when the show is good and when show is crap. With abundance of shows in the 80s it was easier than ever for kids to find something for their liking.

...

Point being there were no shortage of shows and some of them had more interesting concepts and better general premises than TMNT, yet kids flocked to FW Turtles. Now, whine all you want about lack of quality, but with dozens shows on the market wouldn't watch some ****** crap.

...

But TMNT was able to hold attention for what? Almost 6 years, give or take. And apparently according to your dumb hot take, those kids didn't grow up and new kids, who joined TMNTmania later were equally as dumb. And none of the competitors throughout those 6-7 years were able to shatter TMNT power, even more bizarre TMNT rip-offs of 90s.

By the time the shows you cited came along, the fad was already dying down, so it's not like there was in terms of popularity to "shatter". It is also worth noting that the estimated popularity of the show, as in when it reached it's height, is closer to two or three years, not six or seven as claim. That's still enough time to only really apply to a single batch of children. If your argument is the show lasted as long as it did because of sheer popularity alone, I'd like to counter that with the fact that we are talking about a studio that had exactly one show that got popular, which gave them reason to keep it going, even if the viewership had severely dwindled.

More crucially though, let's remember here that most shows had these types of problems (which again, does not mean these problems were excusable).

...

And, no schedules and other stuff, has nothing to do with due to aforementioned reasons.

You are deliberately ignoring the possibility that accessibility and other may still have played a role here. The reason schedules and accessible networks are a legitimate factor to consider here is because not everyone can get every cable network and nobody can watch every show that airs at the same time.

Obvious conclusion of the normal person: FW was a damn fine show for its time ...

You can't just rely on the amount of people who claim to like it, you have to assess the contents of the show itself in order to argue for the quality.

Actually it does, since if all shows were bad, kids won't have reason to stick exclusively to afew of them.
...
Remember that the majority of these shows were and these children didn't have much to compare them to on account that they were children. The "best" out of a hundred bad shows is still a bad show, if you don't have anything better to go by then "least bad" becomes "good".

This nonsense has been disproven above.

No, you haven't. You've just applied an appeal popularity fallacy and coupled it with your own bias.

Not liking something and considering it to be objectively bad are two different things.
...
And, I given that FW TMNT mostly remembered for voice acting and jokes, well, you are in minority. And you've been in minority for the last 30+ years.

...

Animation was passable and writing was exactly which attracted people to that show, which means you are mistaken.

Again, this is just an appeal popularity fallacy, not an actual argument in favor of the quality. And once again, no, the animation is not passable just because the standards were low at the time. And as for the jokes, I'm sorry but they are not funny. You saying that they are funny and insisting that someone else somewhere agrees with you does not make them any funnier.

And since I admitted that I didn't feel like like commenting on the acting or music, I might as well make it clear that I did not claim to have an objective argument against them in the first place, I thought that spoke for itself.

...

You are genuinly unable to figure out, how acting works and how a good perfomance can save disastrous story and directorship. Because, of it, you are obviously can not figure out why dialogues in FW TMNT work, since you obviously just don't see acting as a component of them. You see them as a plain text and this is the core of the problem. You can't understand neither intention nor emotion nor interaction.
...

No that's not really true. The reason I didn't feel like commenting on the voice acting is that if I admitted it's just bog standard generic voice acting that is highly over rated, is because I feared that if I did then someone would start throw out arguments like this. Which is annoying because it's even more difficult to convince someone that the acting they consider to be great is actually rather standard, mostly because I can't really use many objective measures to prove it. I guess that since it happened anyway, I might as let it out that out, not that I'm actually going to attempt to argue for my opinion since people here tend to dismiss objective arguments and using subjective arguments is nearly impossible here.

It is not to say you don't understand it on a mechanical level, it is just there is more to the writing than a story or dialogues. Perfomance and character nuances, all things, which FW TMNT exceled at, matter probably the most, if not more, than a good story. Because, of it you simply can't understand what is going on.
...

I do understand what's going on in the show, I just don't have to rose tinted glasses to excuse the objective problems and I didn't feel like commenting on my more subjective ones with the show because it's way too easy for others to just dismiss them.

Zog The Magnificent

01-22-2023, 05:08 PM

I do not exclusively hold FW to this standard, it might seem like it because it's a TMNT forum but I can assure you that it is universal. The problem with comparing these types of shows to the silent era of film making is that color and sound wasn't possible. As in, the technology for making film in color and sound literally did not exist. Even if we point out that some movies lack color and sound after the technology was invented due to budget or artistic reasons, we can still hold them accountable for bad editing or poor lighting, because those are just straight up flaws that don't need to exist and shouldn't exist.

"We need to cut out quality control and pump out 65 episodes as quickly as possible to get that syndication deal" is not an excuse. It's not like it was it literally impossible to slow down production and oversee the quality to prevent these types of problem. Those types of shows shouldn't be excused like there were technical limitations, if you only have the budget and time to make 13 episodes per year, don't try to make over 45.

It is not an unfair standard, saying that it is just comes across as an empty attempt to deflect criticism.

It's not a perfect analogy, I grant you, but the point remains. Whatever they theoretically COULD have done is irrelevant. It's why the cartoons from that era that truly did have effort put into them were all the more special. Because regardless of what was technically possible, the simple fact is that Cartoons just were churned out in mass quantities for the primary purpose of selling toys. You could still end up with something that was entertaining, but it doesn't change the fact that almost no major cartoon all the way up until later in the 90s had any amount of faith in them from the higher ups, who saw them purely in terms of toy sales. They had ham sandwich budgets, deadlines that were too strict, and were outsourced to so many different animations studios, written by so many different people, that quality control just wasn't possible in the same way.

It's pointless to say what COULD have been done because it WASN'T done, not only in practice but in terms of where the industry was at the time. To use another analogy, it's why I have problems with the way people look at the past in general. It's unfair to compare it to the standards of today, because they simply weren't the standards in the past. You have to judge things within their own context. The '87 cartoon's context is the late 80s and 90s, where animation on television wasn't taken seriously by almost everyone, and cartoons as a rule were rushed, shoddily put together productions for the purpose of selling toys. It's not like today, where even the worst cartoons are still technically well put together in general. We judge a bad cartoon differently today. The best cartoon in the 80s would never stand up against even some of the mediocre cartoons today. We judge cartoons more critically today because they CAN be better much more easily. The same can't be said of most of the cartoons from the 80s and 90s, and that includes TMNT.

neatoman

01-22-2023, 05:43 PM

It's not a perfect analogy, I grant you, but the point remains. Whatever they theoretically COULD have done is irrelevant. It's why the cartoons from that era that truly did have effort put into them were all the more special. Because regardless of what was technically possible, the simple fact is that Cartoons just were churned out in mass quantities for the primary purpose of selling toys. You could still end up with something that was entertaining, but it doesn't change the fact that almost no major cartoon all the way up until later in the 90s had any amount of faith in them from the higher ups, who saw them purely in terms of toy sales. They had ham sandwich budgets, deadlines that were too strict, and were outsourced to so many different animations studios, written by so many different people, that quality control just wasn't possible in the same way.

It's pointless to say what COULD have been done because it WASN'T done, not only in practice but in terms of where the industry was at the time. To use another analogy, it's why I have problems with the way people look at the past in general. It's unfair to compare it to the standards of today, because they simply weren't the standards in the past. You have to judge things within their own context. The '87 cartoon's context is the late 80s and 90s, where animation on television wasn't taken seriously by almost everyone, and cartoons as a rule were rushed, shoddily put together productions for the purpose of selling toys. It's not like today, where even the worst cartoons are still technically well put together in general. We judge a bad cartoon differently today. The best cartoon in the 80s would never stand up against even some of the mediocre cartoons today. We judge cartoons more critically today because they CAN be better much more easily. The same can't be said of most of the cartoons from the 80s and 90s, and that includes TMNT.

The problem is that I can't honestly say rushing a show is excusable just because that's what everyone did, to me that just means everyone lowered their standard. Could they have done better given the unreasonable the episode quota, schedule and budget they were working on? Probably not. Maybe if it was only an overly tight schedule, only too many episodes to make or only a short budget, then they might have been able to make a quality show. But that's really just an admission it was made under unreasonable circumstances, it doesn't mean the show is good just because they couldn't have done better, nor should it be treated like it's a better show than it really is because of it. There might be a kernel of genuine entertainment in there and that may have been enough to entertain the target audience at the time but that's as far as I'm willing to excuse these types of shows.

And... Well, if we admit that the shows from the 80's aren't very good because the production didn't take itself seriously enough to mitigate the problems they were facing and that mediocre cartoons made today are of higher quality, simply the production team does have better quality control and don't attempt to pump out too many episodes for a weak reason... Then isn't that an admission those 80's cartoons really should be dismissed beyond being little more than a time capsule?

Zog The Magnificent

01-22-2023, 06:34 PM

The problem is that I can't honestly say rushing a show is excusable just because that's what everyone did, to me that just means everyone lowered their standard. Could they have done better given the unreasonable the episode quota, schedule and budget they were working on? Probably not. Maybe if it was only an overly tight schedule, only too many episodes to make or only a short budget, then they might have been able to make a quality show. But that's really just an admission it was made under unreasonable circumstances, it doesn't mean the show is good just because they couldn't have done better, nor should it be treated like it's a better show than it really is because of it. There might be a kernel of genuine entertainment in there and that may have been enough to entertain the target audience at the time but that's as far as I'm willing to excuse these types of shows.

And... Well, if we admit that the shows from the 80's aren't very good because the production didn't take itself seriously enough to mitigate the problems they were facing and that mediocre cartoons made today are of higher quality, simply the production team does have better quality control and don't attempt to pump out too many episodes for a weak reason... Then isn't that an admission those 80's cartoons really should be dismissed beyond being little more than a time capsule?

I think this is where you and I differ. Are cartoons from the 80s good? Objectively good? No, not really. But I've never thought that they were good, just that they were entertaining and that I liked them. I love Scooby Doo as well, but I'm not going to pretend that the original show was the pinacle of television, because it's not. It's an extremly low-budget, poorly animated, and rudimentary cartoon. But I still like watching it. I still own it on DVD. Same with TMNT '87. I like the cartoon. I have it on DVD. But I don't think it's good. But I know that it's not good going into it, and I know what I'm going to get when I watch it. The thing about 80s cartoons, like I said earlier, is that almost none of them are actually GOOD. Good, as in, well put together. They can still be funny. They can still be entertaining. And, sometimes very rarely, they can actually be clever and well written, held back only by their poor technical qualities. Beast Wars is a great show, but that doesn't mean it's pretty to look at.

Old cartoons from this era are, in my mind, one of the quintessential examples of what people are talking about when they say "take it for what it is." If you go in expecting the works of Shakespearem, you'll be disappointed. If you read any book written in the 50s, you might be offput by the depictions of certain things that might be less palatable today. But if you go into any of those things, including 80s cartoons, knowing that that's what things were like when they came out, and go in knowing what you're going to get, then you can still have a good time and still find legitimate entertainment value from it.

I don't think it's fair to say everyone lowered their standards back in the day. Rather, I think their standards simply hadn't been raised yet. If someone made a cartoon from the 80s like they do in the 80s today, it would be rightly lambasted, because the industry is better than that now. That's also part of the reason why it's so hard to replicate the feeling whenever a modern cartoon does a throwback episode. It's always too clean. The technology has gotten good enough that you just can't emulate the cartoons of the 80s and 90s in the same way anymore. It's always just a little better then what they could do then.

I'm not suggesting that TMNT should be considered any better because the standards were lower at the time, only that it shouldn't be considered any worse considering when it came out and what the landscape of cartoons was at the time. Nor do I think that 80s cartoons should be dismissed as a time capsule of that era. Ultimately, every cartoon is eventually going to be a time capsule of the time it came out. It's happened pretty much every decade in animation. Because, as I've said, I think to dismiss it or condemn it in this way would be unfair. When it comes to works in the past, the standards were different, and if you go into it knowing that, and judge it by the standards of the past, while using it as a contrast for how far we've come today, then I think you can come out of it being genuinely entertained. Make no mistake, there ARE bad cartoons from this era, bad even by the standard of the time, just as well as there are some really good ones from this era. But TMNT isn't any worse then anything else at the time. Maybe (definitely) compared to today, but not then.

AlZarkovski

01-22-2023, 09:12 PM

Could you provide any data that would imply any of this sold well? Anyway, a clear flaw here is that bringing up that Nickelodeon's 2003 DVDs didn't sell well is not an argument in favor of the FW cartoon's popularity and even if it was, we still need to remember here that the full series DVD collection is eleven years old at this point, meaning we are dealing with old data here.

The level of sales of figurines and DVDs is not freely available, but there is a very simple proof - if the publication receives a sequel, then it is successful. There were several DVD editions of the FW, which means that the first editions were sold out.

An example from DVD 2k3 was given to compare their sales.

There are now more than 10 figures in each modern series of FW figures. The series continues, which means that they are profitable.

The conclusion that STA isn't popular admittedly does not come from any concrete data, but the observation that people on this forum don't seem to care enough about it's existence, nor am I seeing much of a response elsewhere.

This means that you yourself cannot provide any evidence for your words and simply operate on what you see. The Technodrome Forum and your personal observations are not a representative sample. There are a lot of mentions of SMA and the purchase of these comics in my Twitter and Facebook feed.

It is true that the series could be selling really well and we may indeed get more issues, however, keep in mind that the trade was likely always planned and the number 1 label could simply have been done in anticipation that the series may have sold well. It is not a guarantee that we will get more issues.

If they had originally planned TPB #2, they would have released more than 4 comics. G.I. Joe also has SMA comics, but there is no number 1 in their collection.

Obviously, the decision to continue the series and put the number one in the collection appeared after the sales of the first issue.

neatoman

01-23-2023, 12:19 AM

T
This means that you yourself cannot provide any evidence for your words and simply operate on what you see. The Technodrome Forum and your personal observations are not a representative sample. There are a lot of mentions of SMA and the purchase of these comics in my Twitter and Facebook feed.

Well, I guess we can just wait for some concrete data to come in, don't we? It's quite unfortunate that comic sales data is more difficult to get than it used to be.

Coola Yagami

01-23-2023, 08:03 AM

The level of sales of figurines and DVDs is not freely available, but there is a very simple proof - if the publication receives a sequel, then it is successful. There were several DVD editions of the FW, which means that the first editions were sold out.

An example from DVD 2k3 was given to compare their sales.

There are now more than 10 figures in each modern series of FW figures. The series continues, which means that they are profitable.

This means that you yourself cannot provide any evidence for your words and simply operate on what you see. The Technodrome Forum and your personal observations are not a representative sample. There are a lot of mentions of SMA and the purchase of these comics in my Twitter and Facebook feed.

If they had originally planned TPB #2, they would have released more than 4 comics. G.I. Joe also has SMA comics, but there is no number 1 in their collection.

Obviously, the decision to continue the series and put the number one in the collection appeared after the sales of the first issue.

They're gonna continue past issue 4?

AlZarkovski

01-24-2023, 04:17 AM

Full preview (https://www.comiccrusaders.com/preview-tmnt-saturday-morning-adventures-4/).

oldmanwinters

01-24-2023, 07:55 AM

Full preview (https://www.comiccrusaders.com/preview-tmnt-saturday-morning-adventures-4/).

Now THERE'S a twist!
https://www.comiccrusaders.com/preview-tmnt-saturday-morning-adventures-4/tmnt_sma4-pr_7/

April actually gets to use a feather instead of being on the receiving end of it!
Looking at you, Don Turtelli...

:lol:

neatoman

01-24-2023, 12:36 PM

Full preview (https://www.comiccrusaders.com/preview-tmnt-saturday-morning-adventures-4/).

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/32/de/54/32de54a94db071d8a6a04831105cf159.jpg

Zog The Magnificent

01-24-2023, 02:28 PM

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/32/de/54/32de54a94db071d8a6a04831105cf159.jpg

I'm sorry, is that a Transformer that turns into a microscope? And is he canon?

Sumac

01-24-2023, 03:31 PM

I'm sorry, is that a Transformer that turns into a microscope? And is he canon?
Very much yes. (https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Perceptor_(G1))

Zog The Magnificent

01-24-2023, 06:29 PM

Very much yes. (https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Perceptor_(G1))

And his name is friggin' Perceptor? Man, Transformers sure is goofy sometimes.

ZariusTwo

01-26-2023, 06:52 AM

Neatoman's obsession with discrediting the one show that kicked his dog down the corner market is so farcical and repetitive you'd think David Wise was constantly recycling it.

Sumac

02-01-2023, 12:27 PM

The conclusion that STA isn't popular admittedly does not come from any concrete data, but the observation that people on this forum don't seem to care enough about it's existence, nor am I seeing much of a response elsewhere. It is true that the series could be selling really well and we may indeed get more issues, however, keep in mind that the trade was likely always planned and the number 1 label could simply have been done in anticipation that the series may have sold well. It is not a guarantee that we will get more issues.
How do you want to eat your crow: boiled or fried? (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=65727) :lol::tcool::tsmile:

"We need to cut out quality control and pump out 65 episodes as quickly as possible to get that syndication deal" is not an excuse. It's not like it was it literally impossible to slow down production and oversee the quality to prevent these types of problem. Those types of shows shouldn't be excused like there were technical limitations, if you only have the budget and time to make 13 episodes per year, don't try to make over 45.
It is unfair criticism, because, you are holding them up to the standard which never existed in the first place in a context of 80s cartoons.
Also, animation in the West was not treated as a media for the serious stories, which is why Anime was revolutionary at the time - a cartoon, which dare to discuss things, which Western animation doesn't touch or only grazes!!

neatoman

02-01-2023, 02:30 PM

Neatoman's obsession with discrediting the one show that kicked his dog down the corner market is so farcical and repetitive you'd think David Wise was constantly recycling it.

The sad thing is that I'm not even trying that hard. It's so easy to point out that the "good" first season makes no sense because the stem of the plot, i.e Krang's deal Shredder to build him a new body, has no solid foundation and just opens up a giant can of worms. The rest just flows so naturally, it's a wonder that so many people are able to just ignore it.

How do you want to eat your crow: boiled or fried? (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=65727) :lol::tcool::tsmile:
Well, I've already admitted to the fault in my logic, right there.

It is unfair criticism, because, you are holding them up to the standard which never existed in the first place in a context of 80s cartoons.
Also, animation in the West was not treated as a media for the serious stories, which is why Anime was revolutionary at the time - a cartoon, which dare to discuss things, which Western animation doesn't touch or only grazes!!

It's not unfair because it's a very basic standard, as in the bare minimum. Ever heard of the phrase "Don't bite off more than you can chew"? Pretty sure that was a saying even back then. If you only have the budget and time to make 13 episodes or less, don't make well over 40, it's something that should have been (and in some cases) was understood at the time, even before. I guess it's easy to forget but until 2010, no season of Scooby-Doo exceeded 20 episodes, and that's a series of shows that started before, lasted throughout and continued beyond the 80's and 90's. So it's not even like this wasn't understood at the time.

And I'm not even talking about "deep themes" or anything like that when I'm talking about quality standards, I'm literally just talking about plots not looking like Swiss cheese and the animation not having blatantly obvious errors like depict a mysterious fifth turtle in the first episode.

I'm sorry but... No. It's not about the show's failure as an adaptation or it's tone (though there is a discussion to be had there), it just isn't up to reasonable quality standards, simple as that. It doesn't matter how many little kids loved it back in the day, what it's role is in the franchise's history or if most cartoons at the time were this shoddy. They could have done better, way better and they knew they could have done better, so it just isn't worth holding up on a pedestal.

Sumac

02-01-2023, 10:58 PM

Please provide data. Is it possible that the game is being played way more on Switch than on PC and totally blows Steam numbers out of the water? Yes, but I need to see it to believe it.
Your argument doesn't make sense. Like at all.

Like, why people buy SR less on traditionally platformer-friendly platforms, compared to PC, which is not particularly favored by people who like old school games?

Steam is one of biggest storefronts for games and we can generally assume Steam still gives you a good idea of what is being played a lot. You can't just say the game was well liked and leave it at that, it just states that someone somewhere liked it, not how many or if they still play it.
Not at all. See above. Beat'em ups more popular on consoles, than on pc, just like fighting games, for example.

Two years from? What? Regardless, I'm not talking about various different projects being an indicator of sustained popularity, I'm talking about individual ability to keep interest.
Given that Shredder's Revenge and Cowabunga Collection were made in the first place and TMNT FW comic book was created at all - there is more than enough prove that interest is there and it grows.

That's not the argument I made, it's pretty much the opposite of the argument I made. The argument wasn't that they should be able to remember most episodes, it was that they should be able to remember a few episodes or at the very least a single one.
Nonsense.
Have you asked everyone who likes FW TMNT about it?

I've already cited the Steam numbers as in indicator that Shredder's Revenge isn't as popular as is being claimed and you still haven't provided anything to counter that beyond conjecture. I'd also be remissed to point out that what data we do have (albeit not as clear as it used to be) does show that Last Ronin, The Power Rangers crossover and Armageddon Game all register during the months SMA has been selling, while SMA itself does not. Not happy about the data we are getting on comic book sales these days though I must admit. And I never claimed that Mirage is "pwecious" to me.
And, yet, somehow bot Last Ronin and SMA got continuation.
Go figure. Maybe your numbers are off?
And I've already explained about Steam.

What you are responding to here is speculation for alternatives, not arguments. I wanted to demonstrate how factors beyond quality can impact popularity and accessibility.
So, you've demonstrated you are full of hot air.
Not that we haven't figured it out already.

By the time the shows you cited came along, the fad was already dying down, so it's not like there was in terms of popularity to "shatter". It is also worth noting that the estimated popularity of the show, as in when it reached it's height, is closer to two or three years, not six or seven as claim. That's still enough time to only really apply to a single batch of children. If your argument is the show lasted as long as it did because of sheer popularity alone, I'd like to counter that with the fact that we are talking about a studio that had exactly one show that got popular, which gave them reason to keep it going, even if the viewership had severely dwindled.
Bulldang.
If show was not profitable they would had immediately reduced budget and ultimately closed it, which had happened few years down the line. But beginning of the 90s so even MORE episodes being produced, not to mention movies.

You are deliberately ignoring the possibility that accessibility and other may still have played a role here. The reason schedules and accessible networks are a legitimate factor to consider here is because not everyone can get every cable network and nobody can watch every show that airs at the same time.
Lame excuses.

You can't just rely on the amount of people who claim to like it, you have to assess the contents of the show itself in order to argue for the quality.
So, basically I should take opinion of one obsessed complainer (i.e. you) against bunch of people who enjoyed that show and still appreciated it?
Not gonna happen, dude.

Remember that the majority of these shows were and these children didn't have much to compare them to on account that they were children.
We were through this argument.
It was stupid weeks ago - it is stupid now. Do better.

No, you haven't. You've just applied an appeal popularity fallacy and coupled it with your own bias.
At the very least I have actual prove on my side, as opposed to your biased hot takes, which only have what...your worthless bias? You have nothing in your corner dude. Just your seething hatred of FW TMNT and nothing else.
Chill out and let it go.

Again, this is just an appeal popularity fallacy, not an actual argument in favor of the quality. And once again, no, the animation is not passable just because the standards were low at the time. And as for the jokes, I'm sorry but they are not funny. You saying that they are funny and insisting that someone else somewhere agrees with you does not make them any funnier.

And since I admitted that I didn't feel like like commenting on the acting or music, I might as well make it clear that I did not claim to have an objective argument against them in the first place, I thought that spoke for itself.
As I said before shake crust from your pants.
You give impressions of someone who is really sad and obsessed that others are happy.

No that's not really true. The reason I didn't feel like commenting on the voice acting is that if I admitted it's just bog standard generic voice acting that is highly over rated, is because I feared that if I did then someone would start throw out arguments like this. Which is annoying because it's even more difficult to convince someone that the acting they consider to be great is actually rather standard, mostly because I can't really use many objective measures to prove it. I guess that since it happened anyway, I might as let it out that out, not that I'm actually going to attempt to argue for my opinion since people here tend to dismiss objective arguments and using subjective arguments is nearly impossible here.
Obviously you can't use "objective" arguments, because, you have no objective arguments.
You won't convince anyone, because, all you have hatred. Irrational hatred.

I do understand what's going on in the show, I just don't have to rose tinted glasses to excuse the objective problems and I didn't feel like commenting on my more subjective ones with the show because it's way too easy for others to just dismiss them.
You don't.
You are a boring crusty panted guy, who hates decent show from the past for no reason. Also, yes, if all you have is boring nonsense "I don't like" it naturally would be dismissed.

neatoman

02-02-2023, 12:40 AM

Like, why people buy SR less on traditionally platformer-friendly platforms, compared to PC, which is not particularly favored by people who like old school games?
...
Not at all. See above. Beat'em ups more popular on consoles, than on pc, just like fighting games, for example.
Do you have any actual evidence for that? And even if it is true, you would still have to provide numbers to indicate the playerbase for this particular game didn't die down like it did on PC.

Given that Shredder's Revenge and Cowabunga Collection were made in the first place and TMNT FW comic book was created at all - there is more than enough prove that interest is there and it grows.
We are still talking about less than two years here, we're not even talking about a single full year for that matter. It's very easy to spot the link between a game getting early attentention, a compilation of older games getting released and a four issue long comic book all getting released in quick order but that is still not proof of long term popularity. All it indicates is corporate reaction.

Nonsense.
Have you asked everyone who likes FW TMNT about it?
You know I haven't and you should know why this counter-argument is hardly worth responding to. The only thing worth noting is that you are still dodging the question.

And, yet, somehow bot Last Ronin and SMA got continuation.
Go figure. Maybe your numbers are off?
And I've already explained about Steam.
The very unfortunate truth about the current state of comic book sales data is that it's not quite as easy to find the exact data, it's not reliable as it was just five years ago, I already tried to explain that. But what I stated was still true, SMA did not register. And while we can now assume SMA did indeed sell well enough to justify the continuation, we still don't know the exact numbers or why it didn't register in the first place.

Bulldang.
If show was not profitable they would had immediately reduced budget and ultimately closed it, which had happened few years down the line. But beginning of the 90s so even MORE episodes being produced, not to mention movies.
But happened when those other shows were airing, when Moo Mesa was airing the FW was already producing fewer episodes per season, and when Street Sharks started it was at the beginning of the Red Sky seasons. TMNT 3 was released during that time and it was the last TMNT movie for 14 years. Can you at bother to check when all of this stuff was going on before you make assertions.

Lame excuses.
You are once again avoiding to answer the question. Why are you so resistant to the idea that marketing, availability and factors other than quality can contribute to financial success?

So, basically I should take opinion of one obsessed complainer (i.e. you) against bunch of people who enjoyed that show and still appreciated it?
Not gonna happen, dude.
Appeal to popularity... Again. Don't you ever have an opinion that goes against the most popular one? If you do, wouldn't that mean you are automatically wrong simply because you disagree? You do realise how that sounds, right?

We were through this argument.
It was stupid weeks ago - it is stupid now. Do better.
You never had the experience of rewatching an old show you remember being very fond and getting disappointed? Or seen children obsess over something you can tell is bad? Or seen something you know sucks get popular? Or even seen... Oh I don't know... An adult vehemently defending a movie like TROS because it's somehow connected to nostalgia? If any of these seem familiar to you, maybe reconsider the "stupidity" of the argument?

At the very least I have actual prove on my side, as opposed to your biased hot takes, which only have what...your worthless bias? You have nothing in your corner dude. Just your seething hatred of FW TMNT and nothing else.
Chill out and let it go.
I have attempted to base my arguments in data and additional factors that may need to be considered, in addition to facts about the contents of the show in order to determine quality. These are very basic scholarly principles, not hot takes and biases. I probably do have some biases, we all do, but I have been careful not to rely on them.

And you don't generally make use proof, you rely on a combination appeal to popularity fallacies, ad hominem and dismissals. It's very apparent in the majority of posts you make, not just here but in general.

Obviously you can't use "objective" arguments, because, you have no objective arguments.
You won't convince anyone, because, all you have hatred. Irrational hatred.

You don't.
You are a boring crusty panted guy, who hates decent show from the past for no reason. Also, yes, if all you have is boring nonsense "I don't like" it naturally would be dismissed.

Stating that the animation is bad because the frame rate is low and has glaring errors are objective arguments because they relate to undeniable facts about the show's content, as is pointing out plotholes and random developments in the story.

When it comes to the acting or humor it is harder because now it's a matter of interpretation and the reference pool. It's not that I can't argue for why Townsend Coleman's wheezy surfer dude impression tends to get in the way of his emotional range and that the acting in general tends to be generic cartoon acting, or why hearing "X and Y on a pizza" repeated countless times isn't funny and wasn't that funny in the first place, it's just that doing so is harder to explain to someone who is resistant to the idea that the show is mostly bad.

Sumac

02-05-2023, 02:05 AM

The sad thing is that I'm not even trying that hard.
You are just sour annoying troll, who needs to throw away crust from your pants.

Well, I've already admitted to the fault in my logic, right there.
Basically all your posts about FW TMNT can be summed like this.

It's not unfair because it's a very basic standard, as in the bare minimum.
You are once again missing the context this show was created in and what it was created for. But go crying and trying to convince anyone, how bad it was.

You literally in tiny minority and I am wasting my time arguing with you, because, I find it amusing.

Sumac

02-05-2023, 02:37 AM

Do you have any actual evidence for that? And even if it is true, you would still have to provide numbers to indicate the playerbase for this particular game didn't die down like it did on PC.
If you know anything about console and PC markets - it is obvious.
I can't provide numbers since to my knowledge there are no reliable trackers for PSN and XBOX Live, however, this is why you can analyze situation by using analogy.

Also, I find it hilariously amusing, that even FW TMNT game has no right to success. You are so pathetic in your hatred that literally all parts of FW TMNT, even if it is a game made by bunch of fans should fail just to satisfy you.
At this point I am starting to suspect that you are either a troll or you are crazy and need help.

This level of hatred is pathetic and pathologic.

We are still talking about less than two years here, we're not even talking about a single full year for that matter. It's very easy to spot the link between a game getting early attentention, a compilation of older games getting released and a four issue long comic book all getting released in quick order but that is still not proof of long term popularity. All it indicates is corporate reaction.
Which indicates that there is a demand.
It refutes all your arguments rather nicely don't you think?

You know I haven't and you should know why this counter-argument is hardly worth responding to. The only thing worth noting is that you are still dodging the question.
Dude, are you alright?
You literally made argument, with no prove of your own, but you demand this prove from ME? Like who is making a ****ing statement? It is YOU who should provide prove of your ****ing nonsense. Not me.
Now do so, after this, I am provide prove of my own.

The very unfortunate truth about the current state of comic book sales data is that it's not quite as easy to find the exact data, it's not reliable as it was just five years ago, I already tried to explain that. But what I stated was still true, SMA did not register. And while we can now assume SMA did indeed sell well enough to justify the continuation, we still don't know the exact numbers or why it didn't register in the first place.
Bla-bla-bla.
It got continuation - it was good and profitable.
There. Resolved.
Cry more.

But happened when those other shows were airing, when Moo Mesa was airing the FW was already producing fewer episodes per season, and when Street Sharks started it was at the beginning of the Red Sky seasons. TMNT 3 was released during that time and it was the last TMNT movie for 14 years. Can you at bother to check when all of this stuff was going on before you make assertions.
Begining of the 90s, as in 90-91.
By 1992 they were on decline and by 1994 they were pretty much irrelevant.
You've failed to provide prove and failed again.

You are once again avoiding to answer the question. Why are you so resistant to the idea that marketing, availability and factors other than quality can contribute to financial success?
Because, literally none of it was able to create a successive clone of TMNT or push them back, until their natural decline.
It is all prove that you need that TMNT was a genuinely good show (among its competitors). The faster you accept faster your mind will find peace.

Appeal to popularity... Again. Don't you ever have an opinion that goes against the most popular one? If you do, wouldn't that mean you are automatically wrong simply because you disagree? You do realise how that sounds, right?
When it comes to media - it is literally how it works.
It makes money and ratings, if its popular. It is popular because it can provide something which others shows can not. Que our discussion about quality of 80s shows and why TMNT was on top.
Que your another hissy fit, because, TMNT FW was a success.

You never had the experience of rewatching an old show you remember being very fond and getting disappointed? Or seen children obsess over something you can tell is bad? Or seen something you know sucks get popular? Or even seen... Oh I don't know... An adult vehemently defending a movie like TROS because it's somehow connected to nostalgia? If any of these seem familiar to you, maybe reconsider the "stupidity" of the argument?
There were cases like this, but most of the time what I liked when I was a kid stood test of time. Maybe, because, I watched good stuff, including TMNT FW, which I specifically rewatched from start to finish 12 years ago. You are welcome.

And it is not about nostalgia, I can freely admit that something I liked as a kid is garbage (like RoboCop 3). Its just, as an adult you can appreciate things you liked as a kid from another point of view. Like a lot of jokes and references in TMNT FW were going over my head, since I didn't understood what their were referencing. When I watched it again, I got a new appreciation of the show. And I am sure, if I rewatch it again I will discover more fun stuff and gain even more respect and appreciation towards it.

Bet you gonna lose your hairs in this case from impotent rage, will you? :lol:

I have attempted to base my arguments in data and additional factors that may need to be considered, in addition to facts about the contents of the show in order to determine quality. These are very basic scholarly principles, not hot takes and biases. I probably do have some biases, we all do, but I have been careful not to rely on them.

And you don't generally make use proof, you rely on a combination appeal to popularity fallacies, ad hominem and dismissals. It's very apparent in the majority of posts you make, not just here but in general.
Your arguments are literally mix of mediocre conjectures and biased hot takes and lack of understanding.
You are the last person who can say that my arguments are bad.

Stating that the animation is bad because the frame rate is low and has glaring errors are objective arguments because they relate to undeniable facts about the show's content, as is pointing out plotholes and random developments in the story.
Except it has nothing to do with anything.
Animation is mediocre, but only sporadically and story is what one'd expect from cartoon in 80s + good jokes and amazing voice acting.
We were through this and still refuse to figure out context and abandon your biases.

When it comes to the acting or humor it is harder because now it's a matter of interpretation and the reference pool. It's not that I can't argue for why Townsend Coleman's wheezy surfer dude impression tends to get in the way of his emotional range and that the acting in general tends to be generic cartoon acting, or why hearing "X and Y on a pizza" repeated countless times isn't funny and wasn't that funny in the first place, it's just that doing so is harder to explain to someone who is resistant to the idea that the show is mostly bad.
And you are miserably failing at it, because, so far no-one had bought your ****** arguments.

Maybe, because, you are wrong on all accounts and not because, "it is hard to explain why my biased opinion is the right one" (which is arrogant and dumb), but you can't explain this, because, your arguments are ******** and literally a lie and conjunction and you know this?

In general, it seems you have some pathological hatred of TMNT FW. Get some help or stop trolling.