How much can a character be altered and still be the same character?
 

So here's something I've been thinking about for a while now, how much can you alter a character before it is hardly recognisable?

I noticed this a lot with the Nickelodeon cartoon. It uses a lot of character's that were created for the first cartoon (Metalhead, Mutagen Man, Slash etc) but at closer examination, they're not quite the same as before are they? As an example Slash may look like the old Slash (or the Archie Slash at least) but none of his trademarks are there. The old Slash was dumb and obsessed with palm trees, new Slash is a psychotic beast with respectable intelligence.
A more extreme example is Bebop (or the guy who is very obviously going to be Bebop), we all remeber Bebop as the dumb manchild street thug but this new Bebop is a skilled, jive talking master thief with high tech gadgets and a crazy attitude. Pretty much the only similarity is that he's going to be a mutant pig.

I'm fine with both examples as I didn't really like either one of the original characters but the IDW versions of them are noticably different but still roughly the same, just tweaked enough to be more enjoyable. So I'm not so sure they needed to be as different as they ended up being.

Anyway, my point is: Is Bebop still Bebop if he's not an immature and stupid street thug or does he just become some other mutant pig?

For me, it depends on what is changed. Most of what's been done with the Nick show I am fine with. Prob the main thing that threw me off at first was April suddenly being a kid now. As for other elements, it probably helps that before then I had not seen the old stuff in a very long time and returned to the fanbase with the Nick show.

But the show is cute, the writing and humor is great, plus 3D modeling/animation is something I have a bit of a passion for, so it's got a number of saving graces to soften up the differences in this one.

Bebop... I'll have to see more of this character in future episodes. So far I'm kinda "eh" on him.

Now... visually speaking (yeah I know, hater-haters, its old news, oh well) they went a bit too far with changes to the looks of them for the movie. Not saying it's not ok to change it up a little, but I just don't personally agree with how they handled their quest for realism. If anything I hope their personalities will at least be a small saving grace for them in this case.

Slash has a different origin in every series:

- In the original cartoon he was Bebop's pet turtle that he mutated

- In Archie Slash was an alien from Dimension X on a planet full of palm trees

- In IDW Slash was a mutant spliced from collecting data off the Turtles

- In Nick Slash was Raph's pet turtle mutated


Slash already changes drastically from each series.

For me, as long as the changes have some sort of reason or logic behind them and were done by someone who actually respects TMNT/has an interest in the lore, then I'm open to all interpretations. A lot of the people working on the nick cartoon are longtime TMNT fans themselves, so I'm much more lenient on their choices since I know they respect the source material and aren't just trying to completely reboot it into their own thing. With that said, the only real gripe I have with any of the nick designs would have to be with Kirbybat or "wingnut" if you will.

Maybe it's a bit of a personal thing but bats are my favourite animals next to alpacas, so naturally I love Wingnut from the original series. I had went into the Nick cartoon mostly blind but I heard there was a bat mutant based on Wingnut, so I was really looking forward to that, and when I finally saw Kirbybat I was pretty letdown. Now, I'm not saying his design is necessarily bad or poorly designed, it's more that... It just doesn't really mesh well with the TMNT universe? Yes, there's no right or wrong way to do a mutant, and if anything Kirbybat is more "realistic" in that he's hideous and deformed... But in a series where the mutants tend to turn out like Fishface, Dogpound, Snakeweed, etc, he just seems horribly out of place. His design is better suited to something where he could have much more detail and not be subject being toned down for the kids. On top of all of that, he's heinously un-toyetic to the point where they shouldn't have even bothered making his toy a standard release figure. I'm not even a huge Karai fan like most others but the fact that he got a figure before her (if she even gets a human form figure) is disappointing on so many levels.

tl;dr: kirbybat is lame

Personally, I believe, characters can be redesigned / recreated as much as possible, but it should be justified by setting or by some necessity. Abd of course, it should be something good.

Of course, sometimes it can be done just for the hell of it, but in this case it should be either minor character, who nobody would miss or author should be prepared for certain reaction from his fans.

They can change the characters as much as they want, as long as the characters are still recognisable.

For example, they can change April as much as they want, as long as she is still recognisable as April.

Soo... not only was the defunct "aliens" movie script a bad idea, but it was also an unoriginal one. That's it, their concept development must have involved a hat and pulling a few random pieces of paper from it.


Agree that recognizably is key. You lose that and you destroy it. (Been a lot of my issue with the movie.. :\ )

I'm not really talking about origin stories. Splinter has three origin stories by now (pet rat, mutant martial artist and reincarnated warrior) but he always feels like the same character. He's always the wise master of the Turtles and their father figure, never has he been something like let's say a hardboiled police officer. He's always the wise master because that's his role and who he is and that's more important than where he came from. It won't matter if he is Hamato Yoshi's pet, a mutated Hamato Yoshi or the carrier of Hamato Yoshi's soul but he has to be a wise master ninja or else he won't be Splinter.
Do you understand what I mean by that?

Noticeable enough to make them different but not too much so that they resemble a totally different character.

Slash more or less has the same personality in every version. He's a psychotic and out of control Turtle who isn't necessarily evil but doesn't know any better.

Characters can be changed as many times as they want for all I care. As long as its a good character, it doesn't matter what changed.

Yeah, this is a bit of a toughie... in some cases, near-complete character change can be for the better, and is actually an improvement.

Generally speaking, and this isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but generally - I think as long as the "feel" of a character is the same, you can change a fair bit. Like, as long as Splinter remains a father/teacher to the Turtles, I don't care too much about his origins and backstory being tweaked, or even, dare I say it, if they changed the type of animal that he was.

Just my personal opinion, though I imagine that the idea of a non-rat Splinter would bother a lot of people, which I would totally understand. :)

On the other hand, the recent changes (aka, de-ballsing) of Lobo and Constantine did rub me the wrong way, so eh...

Nick Bebop is possibly the line for me. I guess if a character's appearance prompts me to ask "Why bother?" then he or she can be described as different.

It's my impression, based upon the way the Nick show has developed that they are trying to milk nostalgia for the sake of name recognition, but other than that do their own thing, and with Bebop, nothing about whom they want him to be suggests that he had to be Bebop. Beyond that the character is known for being stupid and incompetent, the very nature of a pig mutation doesn't lend itself well to an agile thief. Sure; they're pretty smart, and can be more athletic than people think, but graceful and subtle? No.

There's plenty of other animals that would make more sense--cat, raccoon, octopus, monkey, to name a few--and before in this series, it has always been the norm that humans who mutate are crippled when applicable. Bradford got stronger but also clumsier when becoming Dogpound, Xever couldn't even walk without help when he became Fishface, and ICK still can't walk. An agile cat-burglar who becomes a pig with no penalty just doesn't gel.

Maybe Bebop's penalty is that he gets dumber? The description of him that was briefly leaked on Nick had him pegged as a moron, so that could be what happens.

I agree that the penalties and disadvantages are what make the Nick mutations interesting. Otherwise they'd be kind of boring and it would look like a gee whiz power-up. I always hated in the OT when someone got mutated and all it looked like was they were perfectly happy with it, the only 'disadvantage' being that they couldn't walk around out in the open without some weak disguise.

-----
For my own answer on this, I'd say as long as they were recognizable as being that character, it doesn't matter how they were changed.

It Depends. Visually, a character can look different as long as they have the same characteristics and personality that makes them recognizable. However, if a character has the same appearance but an altered personality, they aren't recognizable in spirit.

Personally, for the OT,I never felt that Bebop and Rocksteady started off "dumb". Maybe not so bright, but they had a backbone, they were strong, and they didn't seem to fear Shredder and Krang. As the series went on, they were continually dumbed down for comic relief.

To answer the question....I guess it's okay as others have put it, but the Bebop for the Nick series...my feelings are a bit mixed on that one.

In general, it depends on the hierarchy of the character. Primaries (the TMNT, Splinter, Shredder) should only change a moderate amount at most since their ultimate objectives have always been the most consistent. Becoming anti-heroes, traitors, or any other radical change just breaks up the harmony that makes those key characters so iconic. That's why most of the mutants work; a huge physical change with some personality changes, but outside of that, any other changes are moderate at best. However, characters that only appear a few times at most in a series are more fair for change, and while they won't be the same, I feel like that it can be the biggest thing that can happen to a minor character as opposed to being a monotonous one-or two-shot. Still, I feel that every character still should have a small amount of change (Even Leonardo!) to prove that they can change their strategies in battle to surprise others. Do you ever feel bored in real life? Its probably due to the inability to change once in awhile that you've grown stale, and so many series get cancelled due to that reason. You always need to change the proper amount to succeed but not enough to alienate.

I don't mind drastic ones if it improves on it's predecessor.

Slash looks great now (look and personality wise), I never was a fan of the old version. Same as Metalhead, the old one is just...awful. Sorry fans.

Also probably depends in part how emotionally invested I am in a particular character(s) or not. Ones I'm not particularly attached to.. meh, whatever. lol

Ones that I am... make drastic changes (*sideways glance at movie*) and it's like a close relative suddenly walked in the door after an unexpected massive amount of plastic surgery and/or psychiatric change and am expected to recognize them and take it in stride.

Actually, it'd be interesting to see how that works, because aren't pigs supposed to be really smart animals?

I don't mind even noticeable changes to most characters (the new movie looks are starting to grow on me, at least for the turtles themselves) but there is a line. for instance, I'm okay with Nick's version of Bebop and Rocksteady (since we already know that that's who the Russian guy will be), but the movie's version of Shredder just doesn't sit right with me- they went TOO far with him.


And for the record, Bebop is a WARTHOG, not a pig. One's domestic (or occasionally feral) the other is a WILD African species that is MUCH more aggressive and dangerous. Even lions are reluctant to mess with an adult warthog, while pigs would be fair game. It's debatable which is smarter, however. While they ARE related, I think the distinction needs to be made, that they are NOT the same thing.

I'm notoriously pretty conservative with this. Visually, I think some things can be up for grabs, but I never like too much meddling as far as backstory, personality, and motivations. Some people can argue "Different take, but it's still the same character", but I'd argue that in a lot of cases that isn't quite true. Sometimes, a character is who they are because of very specific experiences and circumstances that shaped them, and messing with that can ultimately undo a lot of things.

For example, there's lots of different ways to do Batman, but one hard rule is, Bruce Wayne watched his parents get shot in front of him as a child on Park Row in Gotham City. Sometimes Bruce was 8, 10, or 12, but he was always a young child whose parents were killed in front of him. That's important, because if he were older, he would have dealt with his pain in a different way, likely in a way NOT requiring intricate cosplay and a black belt in every single martial art. Sometimes they were coming home from a movie (usually Zorro), sometimes it was a play; I'd argue the Zorro link is essential, because it provides an important psychological motivation for Bruce wanting to become, specifically, a masked crimefighter. However, some versions completely leave that part out and the story still works, so that can be considered up for grabs, even though it works *better* if it's left in. And lastly, it's never been completely established exactly who killed his parents. Sometimes it's a random mugger, sometimes it was a paid hit, and once, for some odd reason, it was the Joker, before he was the Joker (because Tim Burton doesn't read comic books). But the most important parts of the entire thing, are that Bruce was a young child, his parents were murdered in front of him, and it happened in a specific place in Gotham City. The specific details are what added up to make him Batman as we know him. You can't change it to, he was 18 and his parents were killed in a plane crash, or they lived in a different city than Gotham, because that's changing very important, very basic pieces of the overall myth. Change them, and it might as well be a different guy entirely.

To further establish my point from the opposite angle, one need only consider DC's recent changes to the character Guy Gardner from the Green Lantern comic. For decades, Guy's character has been very firmly established as far as his attitude, interests, ideals, motivations, and family history. In his own solo book, the writers went into great detail showing his family background, and how his conflicts with his abusive alcoholic father and over-achieving older brother were fundamental in shaping his worldview, as well as his approach to being a hero. Later on, they also revealed that his father had drank himself to death after Guy left home, and his brother became a cop and later a super-powered government assassin called Militia. These were all considered essential details of the character. Beyond that, there were other things as well, smaller things, like Guy's fanatical devotion to Ronald Reagan, or his love of General Glory comic books as a kid, that were considered important in establishing exactly what made him "tick" (example: The reason Guy had a bowl haircut was because General Glory's sidekick, Ernie, had that haircut in the comics Guy read as a kid). Now, in DC's recent "New 52" revamp, Guy has a completely different history, an entirely different family (his father was never abusive or an alcoholic, and Guy suddenly has a sister that he never had before, and the entire family are police officers instead of just his brother, and they all have different names), and in what I've read doesn't really even act like the same character. They share a name and a general design, but that's all. So, in this case, I'd argue that the "Guy Gardner" of the newer comics may as well be an entirely new character. They changed SO many things that were considered "building blocks" of his personality, that they wouldn't even think or look at life the same way. Suffice to say, I didn't care for it. He's not the only one they did it with, but I'm a huge fan of the character so it's one that bothers me the most. Changing Starfire from someone who's just amorous in general but mostly innocent, into a giant slut, was another "tweak" I didn't care for and find very damaging. But, that's what tends to happen when people lean on the, "It's just another interpretation" line too much.

Heck, you could write a story where Jesus Christ was a serial-killing date rapist, if you wanted to, and just argue that "He snapped under the pressure", argue "It's just a different interpretation of the story" and tell people to deal with it. But nobody would really like it very much, and it wouldn't really even be the same character, so... why do it? I feel like change for the sake of change is a writer admitting that they can't work inside someone else's framework and still come up with creative ideas. They can't work with the limitations they've been given, and rather than try, they have to open up the lines so they can project their own ideas into things, whether or not they'd work out well in the long run. Don't like the way Lois and Clark's marriage has been portrayed? Don't try and fix it, just say, "It never happened" and start over, and tell anyone that liked it that they were mistaken, and that the writers who originally made it canon obviously didn't know as much as you do now, and your new ideas are better. I just feel like it's a tiny bit condescending.

Ultimately, I think once certain things are established, they should be mostly left alone unless there's a really, really good reason to change it, not just "to be different". If you can't tell a story within the established guidelines, you'd probably be better off doing your own original idea, rather than trying to "fix" someone else's established work. Like, Tim Burton back in the 90s, making a Superman movie where he didn't fly, wore all black leather, had entirely different super-powers... well, hey, man, you're not really making a Superman movie at all, now are you? Why even pretend, at that point? Call it something else entirely, because that's what it is. A duck that looks like a cow and moos like a cow probably isn't a duck after all, regardless of what anyone insists.

Yeah, I have to admit I don't know too much about pigs, so I'm probably generalizing with any comments on pig intelligence! I wasn't really able to find much online in terms of concrete evidence that they're smart.

Also Leo, I hear ya on the Starfire thing. :|

I think it really comes down to whether it's a change for the better or not, at the end of the day. Look at a lot of what they've done in Valiant's recent reboot/resurrection - they made character changes which cut a lot of the fat and ditched the character elements which didn't work.

When DC first did Crisis back in the 80's, they ditched a lot of the hokier elements and updated the characters, simplified a lot of stuff but also incorporated all of the Earth Two and Golden Age characters into the universe.

There have been a lot of softer reboots of characters which have improved them, IMO. Blade never had a successful comic - except for when he showed up in Tomb of Dracula, and even then, it wasn't successful because of him. Blade's a perfect example of a good concept with bad execution - the movies were the only time he got a chance to shine and become a more fleshed out, well-rounded character. In the comics, he had no personality whatsoever and was very one-note. In the movies, he had Whistler, he got a sense of humor, his self-loathing was much more fleshed out.

Another good example of a successful soft reboot is what Garth Ennis did to The Punisher. He ditched all the garbage, all of the stuff that was meant to work and took the character back to what he was meant to be. Sometimes character change is a way of getting rid of things which have been added onto the popular perception of a character, and it can take them back to what the original vision of the character was in the first place.

Sorry if I've waffled on a bit with this... :P

The reason why Crisis and Zero Hour worked for DC, and the New 52 doesn't, is that, as you said, it was more a "streamlining" than a total reinvention. Certain things that weren't entirely necessary or relevant got swept under the rug - but not entirely erased, as we've seen how DC writers from 2000-2010 basically made a career out of un-doing Crisis and finding a way to work some of those ideas back into regular continuity, mostly with success (although, MUST we constantly revisit Krypto The Super-Dog every few years? Let it go, DC, let it go...).

Some characters had some contemporary tweaks to the origin, like Superman in Byrne's "Man Of Steel" book, but mostly because there were holes in the original story that actually *needed* to be fixed. Now, ten years ago, when they tried it again with "Superman: Birthright", it didn't take. Partly because it was presented as the "new canon" despite it being completely contradictory to the other Superman books in dozens of ways, but also, and I'd argue MORE so, because DC never gave the fans a solid answer to the question of, "Well, what was so wrong with Byrne's version that it needed 'fixing'?" The answer is, there was nothing wrong with it at all, it's by far the simplest and best take on the Superman origin that anyone ever put out, but newer writers wanted to tell stories that didn't "fit" the established storyline. So, rather than changing their stories to fit the canon, as I'd argue they should have done, they made DC go back and retcon out the pre-established stories. "Birthright" was just an example of, "Well, it's been a few years, so let's just wipe everything clean", and in the end, they had to scrap THAT retcon just a couple years later because it so heavily contradicted everything. So, in the long run, they need not have bothered with any of it. What they had worked fine, and their "updated version" only screwed everything up completely.

So, the distinction becomes, there's updating and streamlining and fixing actual mistakes, which is a necessary task from time to time. And again, that's where Crisis came in handy, because it gave a straight, logical reason for the changes, most of which weren't even very prominent. And most importantly, at the end of the day, they way the characters themselves were portrayed was all still very consistent with how they'd always been shown. Nobody had a *completely* different backstory (mostly... let's not open the whole Hawkman/Power Girl can of worms, nobody's EVER fixing those messes), and nobody suddenly woke up one day acting completely out of character. No, "Remember when Starfire almost married Nightwing? Let's just make her someone who has random three-way sex-fests with Arsenal and Jason Todd, just because!" or crap like that.

The New 52, conversely, has mostly been making very sweeping changes to everything, absolutely everything, that's been established over the years, to the point where it's barely even recognizable to anyone who followed it before. Why is Wonder Woman such a cold, bloodthirsty bitch all of a sudden, for example? That's never been her character. She went from someone who preached compassion over fighting, who called everyone her "sister" and told even her enemies that she loved and pitied them, and now, she's ostensibly dating Superman, and when he says he loves her, she rebuffs him. That's... not who Diana is, at all, that's not how she acts, at all. They can say, "Well, it's just a new, different version." Which was necessary, why? Because the book doesn't sell? It's never going to sell, it's f*cking Wonder Woman, no boys will ever buy it and "girls don't read comics", so turning Diana into Season One Xena isn't going to fix anything at all.

Anyways, I like that you mentioned Crisis, because it's a really good example of how, when done right, you can "change everything" without really changing anything, because the important stuff is still the same, so both new and old fans are all still reading essentially the same story with the same major details. Crisis took a cluttered, messy DCU and gave it focus, opening it up for new readers and letting older fans catch up. The New 52 did a lot for the first group, but older readers don't seem to be able to get into it very well. Too much is too different, for no real reason, and arguably nothing is "better" than it was before. And I think the main difference between the two reboots is the intent: Streamlined revision (Crisis) versus Change for the sake of change (New 52). I'd argue that the former is necessary from time to time, the latter, not so much.

Bravo, Leo!!! I applaud you heartily, and I'd kiss you (metaphorically, of course) if I could. You just summed up so many of the problems I've had with Marvel's treatment of Spidey ever since JMS left after completing the OMD arc. The beginning of BND was, arguably, one of the BIGGEST mistakes they've ever made with him. Far bigger than the Clone Saga. (Which I actually liked, as it introduced two very interesting characters- Ben and Kane.)

Changing a character just for the sake of doing so is NEVER a good idea- look at the backlash Marvel got for that one, or for Peter's public reveal in Civil War. Personally, I loved the reveal, because it added a new dynamic to the character while not really changing who he was- it made some of his relationships more complicated, utterly changed how some of the other characters saw him, and opened up new stories. But then they upped the ante to the point that they eventually had no choice but to somehow undo it- thus the OMD/BND arcs and the mess it became afterward.

The worst case of this was when Quesada (Marvel's EIC) decided to permanently close the door on the Peter/M-J relationship in OMIT, where she tells him "I can't handle being with you." WTF??!!! This is after twenty years worth of stories with them having been married, lost a child, loosing that to save the life of his Aunt, (which I seriously have problems with that reason, as she has long since become almost useless as a valid character on her own but is now used more as a chain to keep Peter in developmental limbo) and then going back and forth over whether they'd "find" each other again as a couple. And keep in mind that she's ALWAYS known his secret, even before they had ever actually met! (This is canon, as told from her POV in an issue some years after the fact.)

What irks me about that situation is that so much was just completely changed and undone, simply to cater to a small minority of fans (including Quesada, naturally) who wanted a "free" and "available" Spidey for no other reason than that they preferred his early days when he was constantly experiencing girl troubles and other social difficulties due to his double life. And yet, he still had similar problems as a settled, married hero. In other words, they wanted him single again just to set back the clock. It didn't work (and still doesn't).

Yet, changes like altering Slash's background (to get back on topic with TMNT) are fine, that's always just been a matter of how he ended up so messed up mentally. Whether it's Bebop mutating his own pet, or Raph's pet getting into the mutagen accidentally, or being an experiment from Stock-Gen, it's all the same, to a point. He's malleable because he doesn't have decades of development to undo or character to change- he's more a work in progress in all incarnations, one that gets little attention, so is more open to change. But if they tried that with Raph, or Leo? That would never work. Even Karai is well-suited to such tweaks, since she's never been fully developed, so there are many ways to take her. But the heart of the TMNT should always remain close to the basic story and personas.

Yeah, I don't want to wander too far off-topic here, but WW's mishandling over the years has always really galled me. For me, she's a perfect example of a great idea woefully executed; the ball just gets dropped with her time and time and time again. But that's a rant for another time. ;)

Good points, Duckie. Maybe we're all more open to changing a character who was never well-developed to begin with, whereas characters who are already pretty well-rounded, we really dislike any potential changes to them.

Well, it's only natural that characters that have been poorly handled in the past would benefit from a retcon. Slash is a good example in that, while I like the character, conceptually, I've never been fully satisfied with his origin in any TMNT universe. Like a lot of TMNT characters from back then, it's pretty clear that they simply came up with the visual and the basic concept of an "Evil Turtle", and figured they could just wing it as far as the backstory goes. It doesn't help one bit that his origin is completely different in each version, and to a lesser extent, so is his characterization and motivations. He's one example of a character that would do well to have a more consistently-presented history, simply for simplicity's sake.

Characters like that are wide-open for retcons, contrary to characters like Batman, where everyone already knows the basic story so well that you really don't even want to tinker with it to much (and they never do; even the most sweeping reboots like New 52 more or less leave Batman alone). There's absolutely a time and place for it, and a time and place to leave well enough alone.

Metalheads design looks almost exactly the same except he has a manhole cover on the shell.

Pigs are smart (I think they've been said to be the 4th smartest creature after humans, primates, and dolphins) so I'm wondering if this being a moron isn't the type where it has to so with smarts. I'm guessing it might be where he doesn't have much common sense and is easily tricked, which tends to gets him into a lot of trouble.

And with the DC and Marvel comics thing, that is one of the reasons why I abhor any idea of a Turtles 'multiverse' in just about any shape and form. I wish the Crisis thing was kept, now it just feels like a royal mess.

I don't think it feels that way at all, except when things are really poorly written. Just because there's an "infinite" multiverse of different versions of Superman, for example, it's not like they all appear in the book every month, or each have a dramatically different story. Believe it or not, the whole "Multiverse" idea only started because editors needed a way to explain mistakes. Basically, it started when an early Superman artist accidentally drew Lex Luthor bald, when he'd always had red hair. The new artist mixed up Luthor with his assistant, who was bald. When fans asked what had happened, the editors said, "Uh, that was... oh, yeah, all the stories before that issue were, um... a parallel universe! So now, going forward, we're staying in this universe, and if Luthor with hair ever shows up again, uh, then you know you're reading a story from 'Earth-2'!" As years went on it became a convenient writer's trick; literally any mistake could be easily explained away with the old "parallel universe" gimmick. I get it.

The "Multiverse" idea is also essential for trying out new ideas on a book without screwing up the main continuity. For example, we all know how everyone hates Venus, but what if a writer really felt he had a good story to tell with that character? Should he try and squeeze it into the main book, potentially "breaking" continuity? Should he completely abandon a potentially good idea just because it doesn't fit in the "main" universe? OR, could you simply do the story, slap an "ElseWorlds" sticker on the book, say it happened in an alternate universe, and let people judge it on its own merits, knowing it's not hurting the "real" storyline? It's a way for people to tinker with ideas that couldn't, or shouldn't, even be attempted in mainstream continuity.

It's not really hard to wrap one's head around the idea that there's an infinite number or parallel worlds out there. There's always the "Main" continuity, where 99% of stories take place, and then there's the "peripheral" or side-universes. It's always pretty easy to tell which is which. TMNT is basically custom-built for The Multiverse, really, since no two versions of them are very much alike at all. The whole "Earth-1/Earth-2" thing is pretty much the only way to make sense of why sometimes Baxter is white, sometimes he's black, sometimes Shredder is Saki, sometimes he's an Utrom, etc. etc. The Multiverse trick actually makes things a lot simpler, rather than more complicated.

Bravo, Leo! Personally, I've always liked the multiverse idea when it comes to comics. They are already tailor-made for such a concept, with alternate dimensions, pocket worlds, and places like the "Negative Zone" or what-have-you. Comics by their nature are already full of that sort of weirdness, so having multiple "universes" for a particular franchise makes sense. Plus, it makes for some fun cross-overs between them, which allows us to have things like the Turtles forever movie (for those who liked it), or the 80's turtles having a cameo in Nick!

Changes to a character can be a good thing depending on how much change you put into a character.

*Switching to outer appearances as an example. Changing a character's attitude can also have a similar impact.*

I used to -and still do- tend to draw certain characters differently by giving them a bit of a realistic look but still try to keep those characters mostly recognizable. *I would do this with a couple of anime's simply because I wanted to see them drawn differently.* Maybe I do a justice, or maybe I don't. Either way I try to have some fun in 'the moment'.

So, how much can a character be altered and still be the same character?

Tough question give or take all of the different universes within the TMNT mythos, all of the different writers/artists/producers/scriptwriters, all of the animated series, ect. that have all left different footprints on the TMNT soil. For such a diverse terrain, it's easy to get so many different answers.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said.
The more focal and main characters should have their identities mostly intact, while more fringe characters should be more open to interpretation.

There's still a bit of a difference with Spider-Man and say... Slash. Slash has never been ret-conned. They're all different versions.

Spider-Man, Batman, Captain America, the whole lot, all started eons ago... and they're supposed to be the same characters back then as they are now. The reason there are so many crises and retcons and One More Days is to somehow streamline, undo, reset and what-have-you for the sake of continuing the story. You know there will never be a final issue of Batman. It has to keep going somehow. The longer it goes, there will always be a Crisis here and a New 52 there to reset things or say 'this happened but 75 years of history only happened within 5 years comic time' and so forth for the sake of continuing Batman for the next 75 years. I mean geez, they even wiped Stephanie Brown out of existence and say Tim was Red Robin from the start to streamline how many Robins there have been.

The Turtles have never had a long on-going series that went for over 40 years and is up to issue 344 or so. The Archie comics is probably the closest they ever had. Weren't those final 2 issues meant to kinda start over and retcon junk for the sake of continuing the comics for a few more years. Hell, Sonic is over 250 issues now and they went through a lot of retcon hoops and universal resets to somehow turn their 90's Robotnik into the modern day Eggman.

So until the Turtles have one true comic series that surpasses 500 issues and starts doing crap like resetting the universe so April and Casey can be 20 again, make Angel appear in over 100 issues and then wipe her from existence, and have the Turtles become world reknown heroes that can walk around like regular people and then have some kind of One More Day reset to make them back into ninjas hiding in the shadows to have the series last for another 500 issues..... Slash and company really aren't being rectonned. They're just completely different characters in a completely different universe.

Visually, to a degree. Internally very little.

You can make tweaks here and there, you can find new colours, you can find different ways to express a character but they still have to come from and be true to the 'Core/Soul/Spirit/Heart' otherwise it isn't 'The Character' but 'Someone Else' entirely.

Pretty sure Nick Tokka/Wyrm is about where I draw the line. I personally don't consider Nick's Hun nor Neutrinos (nor even Antrax) to be the same characters as their old versions at all. I also don't consider Kavaxas to be a version of Hothead. Wyrm is at least still recognizable at his base concept (colorful flatworm creature), and what would have been his calling was taken by Creep, a character I personally consider much closer to Bloodsucker in his grim and evil portrayal (although not as sadistic and omnicidal as the original Bloodsucker). IDW is where I feel Wyrm best came into his own, but his jinn-like portrayal in Nick is fine, as, like Tokka, it at least gets the basic visual and behavioral concept right.

Not a big fan of rehashing characters unless they are faithfully produced from say a comic book medium to a cartoon medium.

Art style is fine, just don't get absurd with it.

Who they are otherwise... very thin ice to do to any major character. Adding to them in ways that work is one thing, such as giving one a new interest, hobby, agenda, or whatever, that suits them. Great. Personality? Hell no. Who the Turtles have become since early Mirage at a good, slow pace over a span of more than 34 years, developing into who we know and love today... Great. It's nice that they have evolved into the individuals that they are. Abruptly changing anyone counter to all that and in direct conflict with who they are is a jackass move; *cough* 'Rise'. Save it for the alternate universe fanfics.

At most, leave it to a period where one is going through something, such as 2003 Leo prior to spending some time with the Ancient One and getting himself pulled back together. Exploring a temporary change in temperament, emotions, etc for good reason is one thing.


Supporting characters, esp those who don't make very many appearances, are probably a far better place to get creative with changing them permanently in an iteration.

Slash has varied and become a more interesting character over time. Leatherhead too. Nick's new take on Mona Lisa was pretty cool and well done. New takes on Tokka and Rahzar was decent, albeit Tokka was pretty much just in name only since it was so far out in left field... but a least there is probably almost no one with much attachment to the character who would have an issue with it.