Your views on the co-creators
 

Do you guys have any pros and cons with Kevin or Peter? Anything you wish they wish they'd embrace, what they see the TMNT franchise as, etc. What are some things that you both like and dislike about their views on the TMNT?

I think I speak for most fans when I say Kevin is far too easy going & Pete is far too conservative. :tlol:

Kevin is not too interesting a writer, his solo work like the annuals IDW releases and some of his old stuff is pretty bad. His writing style is like an 80's action movie, its just guns blazing and characters making quips without any real reason for anything to be happening.

PL's stuff tends to be too sci-fi based, and a lot of the Volume 4 stuff is too bloated or uninteresting.

I don't think either of them were ever known for their storytelling.

They're not Stan Lee or Jack Kirby so I don't care.

In all seriousness however, I choose Pete over Kevin since PL cares more about how his creations are treated whilst Kevin doesn't really give a **** about how they're treated, so long as it sells (Next mutation).

ya If Eastman saw a shiny turd with the turtles on them it would get his seal of approval.

Let me put it this way:

When it comes to their old solo work, I don't like The Unmentionables but I find Dome Doom to be charming.

When it comes to their recent solo work, I don't like the IDW annuals and I have no comment on volume 4 (haven't read it yet).

When it comes to their seperate supervisor roles, the IDW series is my favourite TMNT incarnation hands down and the 4Kids series is my favourite TMNT cartoon.

When it comes to their collaborations, volume 1 is pretty solid as a whole with exception to some confusing aspects.

Ye, pretty much. Kinda funny how they were able to work together for years. I guess opposites do attract after all. :lol:

I don't think much of them one way or the other, anyway. I'm just thankful to them for creating the Turtles, my favorite franchise. If there's a heaven or something like that, they better go there. If creating the Turtles isn't deserving of going to heaven than what the hell is?

I think they're both awesome for creating the tmnt, and they produced some really good stories and art together in the early days.

Now? Kevin is a really nice and easygoing guy, who writes a decent story now and then. Peter... has his issues, that's all I'll say.

I was shocked when Peter told me to my face he resented TMNT for being such a big thing especially into the defining cartoon that shapes my and so many millions of views of the TMNT and why we love it so. The only thing he liked out of what made the turtles into a household name that he liked was the Technodrome and Baxter Stockman turned into a mutant fly. Why withhold all the comics that did not debut in the black and white comic and why not incorporate elements into the characters as they are in the comics I questioned for years. He just has a strict view of wanting to see his product a certain way and it got far away from his ability to do so. His wanting to remove TMNT from his lives is understandable and he has a genuine love for his creation so I respect that.

Kevin, met him as well and I like his shinier more people person personality. He is more open and glad his product makes us happy and change it to the way people want to see it which draws me more to him than Peter. Would he approve of anything? No, if it has potential of keeping his product with life which means it could excite fans AND make him a buck yes I can see that easily.

PL probably would have prefered TMNT just being his thing. Kevin treats TMNT like Batman/Spiderman, etc where multiple writers can have fun with it.

I don't actually have any views on them outside of "They created something awesome and I'm grateful for it".

I personally like to keep my distance from creators of properties I like because sometimes if they're douchey, it can lessen my enjoyment. That's just me though. *shrugs*

Understandable. He never thought it'd become as big as it did when he drew the first issue. And what became big wasn't the version he created but something completely different and toned down for kids.

Apparently Kevin Eastman is considered to be pretty nice and chill, whilst Laird is considered unfriendly and douchy by some people.

I've only briefly met Kevin, but I have written to Peter, and they both seem pretty easygoing just so long as you have respect for the TMNT in general and not get into a bickering war over which incarnation is superior.

views is just about the same as everyone else
 

Kevin is waay too lax. He'll promote, and endorse anything TMNT unfortunately. You don't want the creator too be so passive like that, but i'm sure he's just happy at how big it has become. And Peter needs things a certain way, i really respect that. He holds his stuff to the highest standard, but there isn't much leeway there so he's got his downside too. Nobodies perfect. I think this ying/yang thing they have going on is why it worked so well together for as long as it did.

They're Firestorm. Apart from each other, their product is pretty lacking. Together, they create awesome things.

TMNT Volume 1 #1-12? :tthumbsu:

Return to New York? :tthumbsu:

Shades of Gray and City at War? :tthumbsu:

Bodycount? :tthumbsd:

Volume 4? :tthumbsd:

My thoughts exactly...aside from the awesome and surprisingly accurate Firestorm analogy.

He's right....because he speaks for me.

Why thank you! :toops: I think I said it better on a previous thread, but I was too lazy to go dig it up...

Jim Lawson gets no love for saving the dialogue here. There's a reason those issues are such an enormous step up, and one third of it is him.

So, ah, actually, Jim Lawson's TMNT is best TMNT.

Jim Lawson is the last member of the Mirage Holy Trinity... but not a co-creator. I do love what he did for Volume 1, though. :tthumbsu:

I always preferred Ryan Brown since he created Rat King and Leatherhead not to mention his other media contributions. Do not forget Dan Berger still works part-time for Peter thus having the longest association with Mirage post-TMNT.

Name two more and we can have a Mirage Magnificent Seven. :tcool:

Oh, Steve Murphy. :tgrumble: I can't think of anything he's ever done for TMNT that I actually LIKE, but he does deserve blame--I mean, credit.

So one more? :tlol:

You don't like the Archie series or his early Mirage work like Sons Of The Silent Age? I think the dude's a legend. Preachy at times, but otherwise top notch.

Dooney, surely?

"Sons of the Silent Age" is a top five of all time. Murphy had certain goals with his early years on a kids' book, which is fair, but he knew what to do with the characters and their world to present poignant stories as well.

Did he also do "Dreams of Stone"? That's pretty solid too. He also co-wrote, or perhaps scripted entirely, the first issue of "Soul's Winter" as well, which is another top-fiver.

Also, I could have sworn Jim Lawson created Rat King. Is that wrong? Didn't he write Tales #4?

More on-topic: Of the two co-creators, I do slightly prefer Laird's vision, if for no other reason than he was willing to treat the series a serious, though still playful, avenue for story-telling. But the reason I really love the series owes itself to a handful of other creators, Lawson and Murphy very prominently among them.

Yes, Rat King is Lawson's creation.

Its kind of ironic PL doesn't like a lot of mutants, but at the same time includes lots of aliens, creatures and monsters and other sci-fi elements for the Turtles to face instead.

After a while, what's the difference?

I'm not a fan of the Archie series but I forgot Murphy did "Sons of the Silent Age." That was an incredible story... I take it back. :trazz:

whaa!!!???

Sorry. The Fred Wolf cartoon and the offshoot TMNTA (yes, very far removed eventually) just hold no interest or appeal for me. I grew up with the cartoon and can't go back.

And when it's a choice of buying one TMNT comic, one with a decapitated giant cow head on it and one with a bloodsoaked Shredder holding Raphael's bandanna, seriously, how do you not go with Image over Archie? :tlol:

Did you read the later half of the Archie books? They're tonally more like the 4kids turtles than the OT at that point. Once Chris Allan comes on board the book's a lot more serious/mature.

Most of the best episodes of the original cartoon are still some of the most entertaining episodes of TMNT of all time.

Which is where my undying love comes in. Though Mitchroney's style does have a certain charm.

I gotta say the Archie series is definitely among my favorite incarnations. Right up with the first movie and 2K3. For what it's worth, it was the Archie book that kept me a fan through the years there wasn't any new TMNT media. Although the book had also been cancelled by then, I re-read those issues a lot in the years before 2K3. I didn't start picking up Mirage until around 2001, nobody around here ever really carried it, so my emotional attachment to that book is really rather minimal by comparison.

TMNT Archie comics were the first TMNT comics I ever owned, so I've got a big mushy soft spot for 'em. I thought they were fun and had a lot of cool stuff - admittedly some really corny stuff too, but then again, look at Volume 4... can't win 'em all, y'know? :tlol:

Adventures is cool, but I'm not going to pick a bone with anybody for not enjoying it. Even its later issues are more enjoyable in a "This is creative and it's amazing you got away with it considering the audience" kind of way than anything else. It's the best take on the original Playmates-driven aesthetic, but ... yeah. A lot of its appeal rides on putting it in context.

#62 is pretty stellar, though. I'd have had no problem with the book ending on that issue.

It's funny as people probably wouldn't even know him or the comic he helped create without the cartoon. The cartoon MADE the Turtles even if it did change his ideas. I personally wouldn't care as long as people enjoyed something I helped create. I mean it's also rather naïve to assume one's product would stay the same and not be changed. Look how many incarnations Marvel and DC characters have gone through? Did he really think the Turtles would stay the same all these years? Doesn't matter really, we've got all sorts of incarnations of Turtles to look at. That's why I don't think any series is really a betrayal of the original, it's just another way of telling the story, no more different than the different incarnations of "A Christmas Carol".

Some people are more creative-minded than commercial-minded. It's clear now in retrospect that Kevin was the "capitalist" and Pete was the "artist".

I see both sides of it. And I will say that anyone who gets involved in a commercial endeavor should expect certain things upfront. On the other hand, me personally, if I put a lot of work into creating a character or story, and then other people "messed with" it, I'd be furious, regardless of money. It's no longer "mine", at that point, it's been stolen and vandalized. And especially if there were aspects of the story or a particular character that were deeply personal, for one reason or another... nobody else would be able to execute it "correctly", because the personal aspect of it would be gone, the "Why" would be gone. And someone could justify it by saying, "No, it's just a new *version* of your character", to which I'd reply, "No, you're absolutely wrong, it's not the same character/story AT ALL because there were specific reasons I had for doing this, that, or the other, and now, it's broken, because the people who changed it didn't understand WHY certain things were important, and arrogantly pasted *their* nonsense on top of what I had done as if it wouldn't matter. So no, it's a completely different story/character now." I'd be pissed, honestly.

But yeah, that's the kind of thing a person needs to decide before they take the check. I agree. I *don't* agree that making arbitrary changes for the sheer "Why Not?" of it is harmless. Some people don't care how their art is represented and others really, really do. I've always created art for personal reasons, so while I wouldn't be opposed to getting paid for writing something, I'd never want anyone else to screw with what I'd done. Everyone's different. But they should be respected regardless of what side they fall on; it's their work.

Adventures actually felt like it was written for adults instead of kids after the half-way point. There's very little difference between late Archie and IDW for example in terms of tone or violence.

Later half? I think you need to get to the Dreamland arc before that happens, and that's just about the end of the game.

Even then, it's a lot more embracing of corny solutions, etc. than IDW is, because it's written for a less critical audience.

There are great ideas there and it's a lot of fun if you know what you're getting into, but it needs the caveat that it's a kids' book.