David Wise - Self Plagiarist
 

From his article on the Transformers wiki:
I knew about Shredded and Splintered, or the Shredder is Splintered...or what ever this episode is titled...but man that's a lot of recycling.

Talk about going green....

Work smarter, not harder. :-)

Okay, now some things I can take as just tropes cartoons commonly do/did (i.e. so many shrink a character at least once), but a lot of that is awfully specific to a lazy degree. lol

Maybe it was partly a tactic for meeting deadlines sometimes.

In this case it's just lazy, it's not like writing a 20 page script that you don't even intend to rewrite takes that long.

Didn't all old cartoons from the 80's ripoff each other? Not to mention most eps of the old toon are parodies of popular movies at the time. Rex-1 is Robocop, we have a Terminator in that Season 6 episode, we have Rando in New York who is Rambo, we have shrinking turtles like honey I shrunk the kids, we have eps with giant bugs, etc.

A lot of fiction, especially science fiction and fantasy, consists of ripoffs. Just think of Masters of the Universe (and Blackstar), more or less Star Wars recycled.

The problem with David Wise isn't similar scenarios or parodies, it's the same exact scenarios and directly lifted scenes. It can't be dismissed as coincidence or jokes. The fact that he's the common writer of these episodes further hammers that in.

If anything this goes to show how something similar can be very different depending on the show/characters/dialog/alterations. I find that far more interesting than someone recycling his old scripts which isn't plagiarism just lazyness. I really have no issue with it except with David Wise claims he made TMNT what they are today but whatever. A story depending on how it's told also depends on whether it's a good or bad story.

Well, it apparently worked. I agree with d_osborn on this one. If I'm on a schedule and have to turn out scripts for toy commercials, I'd be tempted to do it, too.

I wonder how many of these writers were really interested in writing thought out, character driven stories?

The thing about David Wise's attitude that really bugs is that he has the gall to claim virtually everything about TMNT that people like is his idea, when he clearly didn't have enough passion for them to write original scripts. I wouldn't have much of a problem if he was honest about not really giving a crap, or at least if he just claimed to have had "fun" writing the show. But as is he's taking credit for things we know Kevin and Peter made, which I can't let slide. Not that any sensible person would ever believe him, every piece of TMNT media ever says and will continue to say "Based on characters created by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird" somewhere, but still...

And even taking Kevin and Peter out of the equation, there's no way David Wise was nearly as influential as he claims to be. We know most of the original characters in season 1 were created by Playmates, they wouldn't have had toys so early on otherwise, there's even proof that Bebop and Rocksteady were designed by Peter Laird. We also know that Playmates were in possession of documents made by Mirage, explaining the characters' personalities in a simplified way, meaning David Wise wasn't really responsible for turning the Turtles into simplified archetypes either. We know that the actors also improvised lines from the very start, meaning a lot of the dialogue and humor wasn't written by him. And finally we know that Kevin and Peter vetoed several major aspects of the season 1 scripts, meaning that there's a good chance any original ideas he had were removed before the recording/animation even started.

From were I sit it's entirely possible (if not probable) that all David Wise did was to glue together a bunch of backstories and concepts supplied by other people, kinda the writing equivalent of assembling IKEA furniture.

I can't speak to Wise's attitude. I'd give credit to Eastman and Laird and to the fans for making the biggest difference.

I was referring to recycling stories and being lazy. That worked. Did it elevate TMNT into something it wouldn't have otherwise been? Probably not, no.

Multiple things can be true at once.

The style of working utilized by Wise and others back in the 80s (and still very much seen in movies and TV shows today) was definitely... "efficient", if we're being kind. And there's ultimately nothing wrong with it. To put it in wrestling parlance, it's like guys who are going to wrestle each other every night for the next month doing 99% the same match around the loop rather than try and do a brand new one every night. If you've gotta do a hundred of these in a row, in short order, then why kill yourself? If you've got a working formula, then "rubber-stamping" it simply makes sense. Nobody in the moment is ever wondering how the marks are gonna suddenly notice and start whining about it 30 years later. It's just a job. And ANY job is ultimately about maximizing one's own rewards while minimizing the effort. In this, the man's hardly unique.

BUT. I've seen him enough on social media to attest that either he's a genuine tw*t or does a very good impression of one. Never spoken to him myself - no point - but I've seen plenty of how he engages with others, and I can say with confidence that any sort of interaction we would potentially have would be very brief and no fun for either side.

In summation, he can be both a smart worker and a nitwit. It doesn't have to be all one or the other.

*plagiarist

:trolleye: :trazz:

I know, right? :lol: But he's one'a the Suits, so I wasn't gonna say anything. :trazz:

Wise was heavily involved in getting the show on screen. His comments about creating the show are shaky considering the evidence and point of view but the reason TMNT annoyed him over the years was the lack of recognition he got for keeping the series a success which in turn made the franchise popular. Putting aside his creation claims he was responsible for the scripts that made up Season 1. He was responsible for bringing all that together in a cohesive way. Not just that...he also was responsible for writing half the series which is A LOT of episodes. If I was putting that much work into the show and getting treated like any other hired hand I'd be quite rightly pis*ed off as he has been.

David definitely exaggerated things but his commitment to TMNT cannot be overstated and unfortunately the man will never live to see any recognition he really deserves, only people like yourself calling him a hack. What a sad legacy... :cry:

Being dead doesn't retroactively make his writing better or his bizarre claims more reasonable. Yes he wrote 37% of the episodes and it's understandable why he might have felt he deserved more credit, but that does not justify fabricating a false narrative.

At the end of the day, TMNT is Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird's creation. It's their ideas that make up the core of what TMNT is, not David Wise's. And as evidenced by versions largely ignoring his ideas finding success, it's possible that his ideas just weren't behind the show's popularity.

Heh, enjoy!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUfQRFv2t2U


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQOt0BR8pP8

Yup, clear cut examples indeed.

Someone doesn't need to be dead in order to be appreciated if you already appreciate them. When Wise was alive I appreciated his writing but I knew he had a deep frustration and angriness over the way he was treated considering he put so much work into the series. He will never get to see that appreciation for his work on TMNT. You thing you don't understand yet is when someone is close to something they get very territorial and possessive of it. Is that good or bad? You complain David lied about his involvement in the series so that's bad but guess what? That's human nature. I'm not going to trash him when he was alive because I liked his work and I'm sure not going to trash the guy when he's no longer among us. :cry:

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Yes I understand why he lied, but having sympathetic reasons for lying does not change that it was wrong of him to do that.

And I'm sorry, his role was still relatively minor at the end of the day. Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird created the TMNT, Jim Lawson and Ryan Brown added a few characters, Playmates Toys supplied additional concepts, the character designers and actors came in with their own ideas as well and finally Kevin/Peter made some revisions to Wise's scripts. Hell, officially speaking, David Wise isn't even credited as the sole writer of season 1! And hell, 63% of the show was appearently not made with his involvement at all. Nor did he ever get involved with TMNT outside of the show, his involvement ended in 1995.

In the 25 years between him having written his last TMNT script and his death, TMNT did just fine without him. And during the 10 year period Peter Laird was the sole owner, David Wise's ideas were deliberately ignored and TMNT still found success.

Which David explained while he was alive...:-?

I get it. You want to deny Wise had any involvement in the series by pretending he had zero effect on the success of the show unless it's stuff you don't like about it. You talk about Wise's ideas being completely ignored and Laird was the one to drive the series which is factually incorrect. The series was run by Wolf and David for a lot of its run. Laird and Eastman with Play mates approved ideas but Wise and FW set up a lot of what would happen in the series whether you like it or not. Yep, the network or PlayMates would ask for things to be added into the series but from experience we know the writers resisted. I might also add for all the criticisms of the campy tone you hate so much most of that was added by Jack Mendelsohn with Season 3. When David took over at script editor in Season 7 he got rid of most of that to give the show back its harder edge it began with.

I mean when looking at it from an objective way it's pretty delusional how you're seeing this you have to admit. You seem to have some personal beef with the guy based on the fact people are nostalgic towards the series. I'm sure the same people will argue the IDW writers are hacks in 30 years time as well. Just because you don't like the tone of the series doesn't make it bad. The 80's series was completely unfaithful to its source material in terms of tone and story but completely faithful in spirit of its source material. It's just not for you I get it but don't trash one guy who was a large part of that series creation. You could easily argue Jack Mendelsohn and Francis Moss took the series less seriously than Wise. I mean neatoman that bridge looks pretty unstable man. :roll:

Nothing you wrote here offers any real counter-argument to what I wrote.

1. I wrote "officially" in regards to writing season one. I know he claimed Patti Howeth wasn't really the co-writer but she is still credited as such, thereby "officially". And as already explained, Wise is not a reliable source, if I'll pretend I trust this word (instead of wanting to hear what Howeth said about it) the point still stands that she shares the writing credit. Find Howeth side of the story and we might be able to scratch it off entirely.
   
2. I never claimed Wise had zero effect on the success, I claimed there's little evidence to suggest his ideas primarily drove the success. Please make an actual argument for why something was indeed his idea and why it influenced the success of the show.
   
3. Laird did ignore David Wise's ideas, he even produced a cartoon with the purpose of resetting the franchise to more closely resemble what he and Eastman made. You don't say why that's wrong, you just say it is. Maybe you're implying that I made seem like I claimed Laird drove the Fred Wolf show, which would indeed be incorrect but I did not do that.
   
4. Yes, I know Fred Wolf and David Wise were the major heads behind the show but it's another thing I never said anything about.
   
5. I also never refuted that David Wise wasn't partially responsible for what happened in the show, of course he did, he's the writer. Again, you seem to misunderstand or purposely misrepresent my claim. My point is more that David Wise, Fred Wolf and the others working on the show were not the sole force behind it.
   
6. Yes, the writers might have resisted outside influence but that's also something I didn't make any claims about. And regardless of wheter or not they did, outside influence did still come into play. Point out instances of when it happened or what they had the ability to reject.
   
7. I also didn't refer to the campy tone or Jack Mendelsohn's writing. However, I did acknowledge that David Wise wasn't the sole writer, which does mean I indirectly admit to Jack Mendelsohn having influence. And of course that would strengthen my point that Wise's influence wasn't that great. Don't make arguments for your perceived opponent thinking they're against his point.
   
8. And what Wise did after Mendelsohn is not really relevant either, it doesn't really undo Mendelsohn's influence over the show. And we're going to make a point about campiness. And I'd hardly say Wise's own writing had much of a "hard edge" in the first place but I wasn't really discussing his style anyway.
   
9. I did not claim any "personal beef" with the guy. I do have problems with his lying because it's lying. Didn't your parents tell you why lying is bad? And his writing would be bad regardless of who likes it, there are objective measures for bad writing.
   
10. I did not talk about the tone of the show, you keep pointing to something that I didn't do. Regardless no, the tone does not make the show bad. I don't think I pointed it out here but there are plenty of reasons you can argue why the show wasn't good, such as choppy animation and continuity errors, none of which has to do with mere taste.
    
11. I'm also not sure what you mean by faithful in spirit. Again, the post I wrote does not make arguments about faithfulness, merely about Wise's lack of honesty and how much credit he actually deserves. Regardless, I don't see what "spirit" was retained, I'd classify Mirage TMNT as drama and the FW cartoon as a comedy. Even by your admission the show became campier under Jack Mendelsohn.

Again: Lying is wrong and should be called out when it's evident, sympathetic reasons are not an excuse. There are also reasons something can be bad beyond personal taste and the number of people who are nostalgic for it is not a counter-argument.

These are pretty simple points, it's a bad sign when you can't argue against them and have to resort to misrepresentation and empty refutations.

Yeah, but that's the gimmick.

I'm still shocked that he bothered to use "objective" in a sentence and got lucky that it's contextually accurate. If I had to guess beforehand I'd think he had no experience with the word, given the constant strawman rebuttals and whatnot in defense of something that simply ain't that great without the ol' Nostalgia Goggles.

But again... that's the gimmick.

If that's true then strange you're doing the exact same thing you accuse me of huh? ;)

I have to respond to some of these:

Yeah sure ask her. But why do I get the impression even if her story corroborated with Wise you wouldn't believe her?

You know what a script is don't you? :-?

You make it sound that Wise had no input on the series other than to write the stuff you dislike so yeah anybody would be confused by what you're saying.

By Eastman and Laird's own admission they stopped caring about the scripts after the first three or so years because the series wasn't going the way they wanted. They left Fred and David to their own devices.

Not once in your criticisms have I ever heard you complain and moan about Jack Mendelsohn or Francis Moss who were responsible for a considerable amount of the series episodes as well. You put all your criticisms only ever on Wise and Wolf. At least know who's responsible for what before criticising someone. Or does that go against your narrative. Also where in this thread did I say David was the creator of the entire franchise? He influenced the series yes but not exclusively.

You criticise his 'style' in every single thread that mentions the frickin TV show dude! It's boring! Not sure why you bothered to offer your condolences to a guy you have zero respect for. Curious behaviour I must say. :roll:

Really because I thought his writing was pretty damn good. Ask fans of other TV shows he's written for and they'll say the same. I know David was your punch bag but you need to let go. It's over, he's gone.

That's pretty much while you fail to understand the 80's series. You cannot appreciate something outside of your own contemporary viewing, Dude, you sill have your precious IDW comic and one day people will call the IDW writers bad writers as well except unlike you I can appreciate to some extent what they're doing without taking potshots EVERY SINGLE thread. The man is gone and he won't be alive to defend himself, not that it matters for close minded individuals such as yourself.

:lol: What?

Brother, I've been the one person here who's been more than patient with you whenever we've spoken, but that's over, since now you're gonna start taking swings at me of all people. You're a loon with an ax to grind and nothing more, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think you mean anyone any specific harm but you're definitely "off."

I used to feel really bad when people would joke/imply that you were "detained" in some fashion, given your hyper-obsessive posting style and oddly specific posting schedule, because such insinuations are kind of mean, but now I'm starting to wonder.

Have fun with those windmills, Don Quixote.

Again, what is this incoherent nonsense you're trying to argue here?

1. I would not have a problem with Howeth claiming she wasn't involved. Again, it's the credibility of David Wise that is in question, not hers.
   
   
2. Being the script writer is not a sure way of knowing who is responsible for ideas in the final product. Leigh Brackett is credited as one of two writers on the Empire Strikes Back, but we know she wrote the script based on an outline from Lucas and what she wrote was heavily re-written by Kasdan, very little of what she added actually ended up in the final movie. Her script is actually pretty easy to find, go read that and compare to the movie. David Wise probably did come up with his own ideas for season one, nobody is refuting that possibility. The problem is that we know for a fact that some things came from the comic or had been conceptualized by Playmates, some of which Wise falsely claimed to be responsible for. This is why it's hard to tell what actually is his ideas or not, even when there's no evidence to point to another source.
   
   
3. If by "no input beyond stuff I don't like" you mean the show itself, then that is indeed correct. He had no direct input in TMNT beyond that show, some of his material ended up getting reworked into the early issues of the Archie series and children's books but that is not direct input. He did probably create characters and concepts used by other writers (also not direct input but it would be a clear example of his influence), but like I've already stated, it's hard to tell what was actually created by him. Again, this is a gross misrepresentation of my argument.
   
   
4. Yes, it's true that Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird did not get involved much with the show, we all know that. But again, they're not the only outside influences. We know concepts and characters pushed for by Playmates did end up in the show, clear cut examples of the showrunners not having full control.
   
   
5. I haven't criticized Jack Mendelsohn or Francis Moss because I don't know if they have lied like David Wise did. And I am not aware of them doing shady things like making minor edits to already sold scripts. Just taking a look at what scripts they wrote; I can see some questionable creative decisions but their combined writing credit is less than 25 episodes. There's not as much to criticize and none of it goes beyond writing quality. And I don't think I've ever criticized David Wise for something he didn't write, where is this coming from?
   
   
6. And no, nobody claimed David Wise was solely responsible for either show or the franchise as a whole, that's yet another argument you pull from nowhere. You're literally making the same point I am and act as we don't agree in that regard, it's strange that you don't grasp this.
   
   
7. You or other people liking David Wise's writing is not an argument, it's an appeal to popularity fallacy. You have to be able to argue for the writing itself, an example would be to (successfully) argue why it's not sloppy writing to have Shredder mutate the Turtles some time after getting the Technodrome but then seemingly wait months if not years to use said Technodrome to take over the world. You can't just say "that's just like your opinion, man" or make excuses outside of what's established in the show itself. For this particular example you'd have to point to a scene where something addressing the issue occurs, like an explicit claim that it was under construction or that Shredder somehow got the mutagen before encountering the Technodrome. The writing has to be able to stand on its own, defenses for it ought to be arguments for why it can, not excuses because you happen to like it.
   
   
8. The final point you're trying to make here is a straight up strawman. Nothing here explains how the show retained the spirit of the comic, all you do is accuse me of being unable "appreciate something outside of my own contemporary viewing" and saying that there will be critics of the IDW comic in a few decades, which is irrelevant. The quality of the IDW comic has nothing to with whether or not the Fred Wolf show works as an adaptation. And the flaws of the IDW comic are not the flaws of the Fred Wolf show, they're not interchangeable and they both have to be able to stand on their own.

Both MASK and Duck Tales had a plot about metal eating mites......

"And why do we call these 'masks'? This is a helmet... not a mask..." :trazz:

"M.A.S.K.! Do they know... 'Command' doesn't start with a K?" :lol:

A lot, considering these so-called "toy commercials" are still fondly remembered for their characters and concepts.

But hey, don't let fans like me get in the way of revisionist history from cringe culture advocates.

There's no natural link between fond memories and the writer's investment. A child does not have very high standards and can very easily remember things as better than they were when they're adults, or the memories could be straight up warped to be more positive than the actual experience, the latter even happens later in life. When it comes to writer investment, it is true that more investment will result in a less flawed product, it also true that creating something that is good enough for first impressions or someone who isn't expected to think too hard about it, isn't really that difficult. And as established, characters/concepts found in merchendise driven cartoons are often the creations of someone other than the writers.

Fair points on either side.

To me, I find that it's really mostly our young, impressionable minds that create those powerful memories. And whether or not they "hold up" depends a lot on how frequently we revisit those things, although it varies by individual. Objectively, it's very rare that I revisit an old cartoon, TV show, movie or comic book that I loved as a pre-10 year old, and find that it's still JUST as good as it was then. More often, I find that it's "alright" but I can see how my young, flexible imagination filled in a lot of holes and made things seem grander and more epic than they truly were. For example, I just this morning finally found the name of a song I remembered listening to daily as a kid, but haven't heard in about 20 years, so I decided to look it up, and it sounds nothing at all like I remembered; not necessarily Better or Worse, but completely different.

There's also the matter of how much we, as individuals, are willing to overlook or forgive when it comes to something we care about. I'm a huge He-Man fan, for example, and I do still enjoy most of the old episodes without irony, but at the same time, I'm under no illusion whatsoever that the scriptwriters actually sat down and agonized over these things, trying to tell the best possible story. That simply isn't true, they were churned out to meet a deadline and in many cases it shows. Is it forgivable given the circumstances of cranking out episodes for daily syndication? Sure, I think that it's fine to grade on a curve in some situations such as era, contemporary limitations of the medium, etc. etc., but even most of the people who wrote for these older cartoon shows openly admit that what they were doing was mostly fluff.

And as neatoman said, 99% of the audience for these shows were NOT going to be watching them with a scrutinizing eye, and the writers and producers know that just as well now as they did back then, which is evident in the quality (or, as people our age might say, the lack thereof) of modern kids' shows. I maintain that the writing for kids' entertainment nowadays is actually a lot worse, and that they really do think that everyone watching these shows and movies is a moron, and that they actually did have more respect for the audience Back In My Day, but I'm sure a lot of people would dispute that as well and insist that it's gotten better.

Point being, kids of ANY era don't like things because they are necessarily Good, they like them because they're exposed to them and thus naturally develop a fondness for them because they become an uplifting part of one's daily routine. That's perfectly normal and natural. But it does not mean, however, that the creators were doing anything more than cashing a paycheck as easily and with as little effort as possible. Because that WAS the standard, and probably still is; some things will come out better than others, some things will hold up and some won't, but it ultimately has very little to do with the output of effort on the part of the creative team.

If even the people who made The Simpsons during their golden years can admit that they were mostly half-assing it and cutting corners whenever possible, then I think it only stands to reason that the people behind a show like TMNT weren't giving 100% effort, either. And that doesn't mean it was bad, that people shouldn't have liked it or that their mind was playing tricks on them or whatever, but there IS a strong nostalgic factor, and we as kids have always done most of the "heavy lifting" in elevating these shows from Harmless Filler to Epic Sagas in our imagination.

Happens in absolutely everything. Ever try to go back and watch an old horror movie that had you in tears as a 6-year old? You usually just laugh, now. You see things with a completely different set of eyes as an adult, and that's simply the way it is.

Uh, no. Here's the thing, there's a fundamental difference between James Cameron giving Terminator 2 obvious callbacks to the original, and what David Wise in regards to his writing.

Terminator 2 lifts lines from the original (I'll be back, Come with me if you want to live, etc) and creates similar (though clearly very different) scenes in an effort to make the audience think "oh, I remember that!". Being able to recognise what is going on is part of the craft, it still intentionally deviates a lof from the earlier creation in order to keep the audience invested. Similar but clearly different, that is the point here. It's also worth pointing out that this particular example is about as extreme as it gets when it comes to the creators you picked, and I pretty much already explained that it is intentional because it's a sequel. Just to compare, here are two scenes.


And yes, the "CWMIYWTL" moment happens later but that scene itself is much more different, harldy worth pointing out why it's different. Then some of the others like Scorsese, you point to style and themes, which is not the same as re-using writing at all. A script is something you can physically copy, a style being reused is more abstract. And a theme like "crime bad" can take countless forms, you don't need to directly copy to have the same theme.


What David Wise did on the other hand was not an intentional callback, it's the same script re-used with minor tweaks. The scene below (thanks oldmanwinters for providing the videos earlier in this thread) about characters going inside the mechanical body of another, while it does have some differences in the surrounding context, is literally the same scene. The lines are basically the same and the scenarios only differ because of animator interpretation. The video below is an even worse case, it's basically the entire episode recycled. A very important distinction isn't that it's simply familiar, it's the same. Another key difference here is also the previously mentioned sequel factor. It can be fairly easy to assume that the audience for Terminator 2 were fans of Terminator 1, they're expected to recognise what's going on. Transformers and Ninja Turtles have nothing in common, you're not expected to be familiar with one before you watch the other, so they're not callbacks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUfQRFv2t2U


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQOt0BR8pP8

And examples of him doing this were quite rampant. The link to the TFWIKI article (thank you Jester), provides a nice little list. And keep in mind, as that one's on a Transformers wiki, it only lists examples relevant to the Transformers franchise. There might actually be plenty of examples that have nothing to do with Transformers. Here are the examples listed, feel free to think of it as a watch list, just to make sure it's correct:

• Attack of the Autobots (Transformers) -> Slash - The Evil Turtle from Dimension X (TMNT)
• Day of the Machines (He-Man) -> Day of the Machines (Transformers) -> Audie and Tweak (Defenders of the Earth) -> B.O.S.S. (The New Adventures of Speed Racer) -> The Return of Dr. Droid (Mighty Ducks)
• Day of the Machines (He-Man) (yes, again) ->Microbots (Transformers) -> Shredder & Splintered (TMNT)
• Day of the Machines (He-Man) (yes, really) -> Kremzeek! (Transformers) -> The Big ZIPP Attack (TMNT) -> Zap Attack (Mighty Ducks)
• Auto-Bop (Transformers) -> Corporate Raiders from Dimension X (TMNT)
• The Girl Who Loved Powerglide (Transformers) -> Poor Little Rich Turtle (TMNT)
• Trans-Europe Express (Transformers) -> Hot Rodding Teenagers from Dimension X (TMNT)
• The Rebirth, Part 3 (Transformers) -> Shredder & Splintered (TMNT)

And again, these examples are only relevant to Transformers. There might be others out there.

I'm sorry if I'm making long posts in this thread but I keep seeing bad arguments here. Straw Men, Band Wagon fallacies, What-About-isms... Please, learn how to argue.

It's Jester who called David Wise a "Self Plagerist", not me. I wouldn't personally use such a term but what it's defined as is accurate. As for arguments, you do know what a fallacy is, right? There are guidelines for making good arguments and how to avoid bad ones. When a bad argument is spotted, it should be pointed out so you can learn from it.

Since by your own admission you're not going to carefully read my long explaination for why your argument was poor, here's a shorter one:
Your argument was bad because you tried to equate stylistic choices to a literal re-use of old material. If you want more detail, I already explained the difference.

As for the other bad arguments in this thread, ZariusTwo made an erroneous connection between fan engagement and writer interest, which is bad because because it assumes there's a tie between how the author and audience feel about the product. And pferreira... There's a lot of things wrong with how pferreira argues but the basic problems here are that he tries to argue that David Wise was important, that other writers derailed the show more than him and criticises his critics, none of which has to do with wheter or not he blatantly recycled material.

Come to think of it, despite your argument being bad, it's actually better than anything ZariusTwo and pferreira tried here. Because it does tackle the subject of this thread, it just ignores an important distinction.

HAH! "You presented too much factual evidence in support of your position. I'm purposely going to completely ignore it so that I can remain willfully ignorant of the topic at hand. Anything besides be exposed to information that might possibly change my mind!" :lol:

Never, ever gets old. Snicker.

Yeah, I must admit that it's annoying that he refuses to even read my argument for how James Cameron and David Wise differ...
It's not even that hard to understand, one relied on recognition to get the point across, the other assumed it would fly over your head.

For what it's worth I think your arguments are generally fair and well-presented. I personally haven't seen anything said that wasn't true, just maybe things that people either don't want to hear or choose to take too personally.

People treat this show like it's their child and David Wise like he was their grandfather. Statements of fact are not insults to be taken personally, I don't get what the problem is. It's not like the shows weren't successful or popular or that people didn't or can't like them. But the guy recycled scripts. It's not like he was the only one, but it's a thing that happened. Oh well.

He did wrote some solid Batman TAS episodes

Hey we finally fixed the typo on this thread title! :tcool:

Ha! My pedantic ass is overjoyed. :lol:

Considering you're obsessed with proving David Wise is worthless yeah I would be inclined to feel you have a bias.

Say whaaaat? Jack Mendelsohn was responsible for being in charge of Season 2, Wise was just a writer and you're putting the blame on Wise for the extra doses of humour? Wise was integral to the writing crew but he didn't have power over Mendelsohn. Mendelsohn was the one to make the decisions because he was the one keeping everybody's scripts in check which is what a script editor does.

You're looking for excuses to say David Wise wasn't integral to anything good in TMNT. Listen to yourself man.

While Playmates would ask for characters to be represented in the cartoon this wasn't a situation like Transformers where Hasbro had final say on which characters appeared in each episode. See Ace Duck, the writers didn't care as did Fred Wolf (see the start of the Turtle Power doc)

I can sum this up by saying it doesn't fit your narrative. Just be honest.

According to YOUR opinion.

Yeah because the IDW comic never used any elements of the FW series for its own did it? That hole you're digging is crater by this point... :o

The problem is we have to rely on people who worked there at the time, not your own subjective opinion. A couple of times I've quoted people you've criticised because you didn't think I had an argument. It's obvious you have your own agenda but you can't say I'm talking out of my butt.