Eastman Interview. The Franchise should lean more on its gritter roots
 

So... what I've been saying all this time, basically. The people who care the most are the ones who always cared, and we're not ready to abandon the ship just yet, we just need to feel like we matter, to be given something we actually like legitimately and not just because we don't have anything better at the moment.

Here's hoping it does turn around. My generation's been either ignored or outright told to f*ck off for almost ten years straight. Time to flip things over. WAY past time.

Laird being retired, Eastman is going at full throttle. It's funny, almost a passing of the torch or... a taking of the torch. Still, I miss the Laird era, he was more coherent and, after all, he was in charge, not just a hired supervisor.

It's been really cool to see Kevin get re-invested in the franchise over the last decade. It's like he had to come around to the fact that TMNT was going to be his legacy, and a great one at that. He really seems to be pushing for the TMNT to return to their roots more than ever lately.

Also, fans of the grittier side of TMNT are some of the most patient fans in the world. We hardly ever get a bone thrown to us. How cool it would be to see things turn around in the same way the Batman franchise got back on track in the 90's.

TMNT can't go back on track, they are owned by Nickelodeon. They will never be an alternative/underground black and white comics again. A special almost-gritty miniseries here and there is all we can have now.

That's fine. A new iteration where viewing it isn't like experiencing a ****ing migraine would be a step up. The bar is low right at the moment.

The 87 series was what got me started with TMNT. However when I got the black and white comics I wasn't feeling them because they weren't as fun or lighthearted as the cartoon was. So I couldn't get into those mirage comics. Fortunately the Archie Comics then came out and it was exactly what i wanted from TMNT.

To say some of these older fans want something darker is kind of misleading because some of us prefer the more fun and lighthearted stuff. I'm just not into the dark and depressing stuff.

Yes but most people who go back and watch the Fred Wolf cartoon will see that it's garbage, a rushed production meant to market toys, featuring no real plot/character developmen and an attempt to disguise it with terrible jokes. It can't really be called "fun" because everything about its is just boring tripe and some of the laziest humor out there. There's basically nothing of substance there and it's hard to see why an adult would find the Mirage studios much more appealing, there are actual attempts to make you care about the story and characters (flawed as they may be).

As for the Archie series I don't get it. It's better than the Fred Wolf cartoon because there's actually stuff going, but it isn't good in any well crafted or artistic sense. Whenever it's not just Steve Murphy getting on a soap box to promote environmentalism, it tells a real schizo storyline that barely makes sense if at all. I could handle PSA crap if the story was actually good but it's not, simply having a story doesn't mean it's worthwhile because it has to work too. And I'm not sure I can call it lighthearted given the fairly disturbing turns it takes, I don't know what you're smoking to think that. And the artwork almost always sucked too.

Mirage isn't perfect but I can at least say I understand most of what's going on and usually care about it when I read the comics. Fred Wolf and Archie are nothing, because they don't care about anything being anything other than a toy commercial and/or a glorified PSA.

I have to disagree, as a grown ass man I'm still very fond of the original series and don't see any problems with it. I'm a believer of if you like something even if its old, Its still good to you years after. My thoughts on it never change. What's good is good for me. My opinions on it never change.

If your opinions never change, that never have and you think they never will, it's a sign that you're stagnant which isn't a good thing.

I have no idea what that even means. Like I said. Even if years go by. The stuff you watched as a kid still looks good to you. Because its what you remember and what you remember was good. Good back then good today. My thoughts on it never change. Im not one to go back and see its flaws because this was a totally different time and Im not comparing it to the new standards that are out there.

If any person sees things exactly the same way they did when they were 5 or 10 years old, it means that they haven't grown even two inches since they were children. They haven't gained any insight or intelligence and are still seeing the world through a child's eyes.

That doesn't mean "hate things you liked when you were kids", it means gaining the ability to see why these things aren't perfect. And furthermore - and this is a real problem you specifically wrestle with often - developing the ability to understand WHY or HOW anyone could ever think differently about anything that you yourself do.

No sane and rational person looks back on Sesame Street or Teletubbies or Power Rangers and thinks they were flawless works of art, no matter how many hours of their youth they spent watching them. Nobody who's gained any growth or development at all in 25+ years would ever say that about any of those things. A rational person can look at them and say, "Well, they were competent children's programming, and they were entertaining." That's ALL. You can't say they were perfect, or flawless, or great, because objectively, they were not.

That word, "objectivity", is about 9/10s of what separates Adults from Children. The ability to look at things with an unbiased perspective on ANY topic, and say, "While I liked this thing once, and still like it to some degree now, it definitely isn't perfect." That's what "growing up" is.

If a person proudly boasts, "I look at every single thing the exact same way I did when I was a child, several decades ago," then that is the literal description of a "manchild", something no one should ever aspire to be OR brag about. All they're saying is that they have no ability to be rational or objective or unbiased about a subject. "I liked it when I was five" is their entire argument, and they're not interested in even thinking beyond that. They may not even be capable of thinking any deeper than that to begin with. All of these are negative character traits. People are supposed to literally grow and develop as they get older, not just get taller. If a person hasn't done that... then in the harshest terms, they've basically wasted their entire life.

Put simply... they may be a "man", but they're far from "grown."

And they shouldn't brag about it like it's a good thing. "I have the same thoughts and ideas in my head as a 6-year old" isn't something you go around marketing about one's self.

That's very narrow minded of you. You should learn to look into other versions of TMNT (the good ones) even if they're not remotely like FW. Don't let nostalgia cloud your judgement.

What does he mean at the end there, "where we'll take it"? Like more "Last Ronin" stories? The general direction of TMNT at IDW? Something else?

It's not like it means anything. Eastman is as well intended as they come, but he's said a lot over the years that amounted to nothing, or was contradictory. Maybe it's Viacom that prevents any of his wants from existing, but nonetheless, it never pays to get hype from his interviews. :(

I love these conversations!

I'm the person Kevin is talking about. 100%. I was hooked into the original show in 2nd grade (in the late 80s), loved it through childhood, outgrew it, left it behind, watched the original movie while unpacking my bags in my first college dorm room, and suddenly got sucked back in (as Kevin put it) for life. The mirage TMNT books kept me entertained because at the time, the DVDs of the original toon weren't available (just a few VHS episodes) but in looking at the old cartoon as an adult, I saw it for the toy commercial it was.

Having said that, oddly enough, toy collecting is by far my favorite thing about being a turtles fan. And I think the reason why (my office is full of them) is because when people see them, it sparks conversations. "Wow, I remember these from when I was a kid." "Wow, you've got some neat stuff in here." "Tell me what these are? I think the neighbor kid had some."

As for what I want to see out of turtle entertainment? I think it's great that there is a wide variety of options out there. Someone mentioned Batman as an example. That's a great example. You've got your kid/family friendly versions of Batman - Batman 66, Brave and the Bold, etc. You've got your middle of the road Batman - the 90s series, Arkham, etc. Then you've got your more dark/hardcore stuff - the Dark Knight trilogy, the comics, etc.

Not sure how much I see Nick allowing the latter for TMNT, but I think about like, the Image Comics, for example. Is it fair to say those were the grittiest turtles stories? Not necessarily for me (the original movie is the perfect tone for me), but I'm happy that fans who want that darker turtle's universe have those comics to enjoy. And for today's kids, "Rise" is right up their alley.

In short, I like that there are options for people based on their preference/style/what have you.

I like some of the gritty interpretations, but I fall into the same camp. I really enjoy the more light hearted presentation. I still go back to the toon and enjoy it immensely with all it's flaws. I think that is part of the charm it has for me.

There is room for both and why the IP will continue to be so strong moving forward. I am not sure why the conversations in this forum have to turn into cases where users are being called man children because they like a certain interpretation.

I think it is really great that people who want that darker style may get something developed sooner than later. IDW to Ronin, you can start to see it trending a bit. The question for the gritty crowd, would you prefer it to be more of a TV style series or movie? I think the gritty style almost lends itself more to a lower budget TV style.

IDK, I grew up loving the old cartoon, and it's so ingrained in my mind it's hard to go watch em after a while cause I have it too memorized. I do still like Raph's 4th wall-breaking, Mikey's surfer dude voice, Shredder insulting his henchmen and April's... everything.

I know there are still a few eps left for me to watch, like the European vacation and some of Red Sky. I'll get to them eventually.

But man, even as a kid, after playing the arcade game and watching the live action movie, even back then, some of the 'the turtles are bad-ass' goggles wore off and I realized there was barely any actual action in the later episodes.

The 2 examples that came to mind was an ep where Shredder locked them in a room with like 500 Foot Soldier or whatever. The Turtles were pretty much making 'well, I guess this is how we're gonna die' jokes without even ****in' trying to fight them. Like dude, there's 4 of you, you got weapons, you fought these robots before. At least ****ing TRY. You're supposed to be ****ing action heroes dammit (at least in this incarnation before Leo or Andrew jump in to correct me :lol: )

The other example was the one time I decided to revisit the Mona Lisa episode, I was instantly turned off by the fact that Raph and Mona spent most of the episode running from the bad guys rather than actually fight them, at least Raph who is supposed to be the ****in Ninja Turtle.

Of course once we got Batman the Animated Series and X-Men, you really do see how the Turtles were seriously lacking in the fighting department in comparison.

IDK, I can sit back and watch the old episodes and they take me back to a time where the only thing that mattered back then was when a new episode or toy was going to come out. But I mean, I can acknowledge they weren't exctly masterpiece theater y'know?

I mean, that's all anyone's really saying, is show a little objective, unbiased reasoning. Nobody says "You can't like _____, it's automatically junk because you grew up" (even though SOME things aimed at kids are junk and they're too young to know or care, but I'd argue that's not everything that comes out).

The original "Masters of the Universe" cartoon is one of my all-time favorites. Do I think it's perfect? No, there's a lot about it that was pretty laughable in hindsight. Do I think some/most of the criticisms people sling towards it nowadays are a bit overblown? Yes, a lot of it is based in some truth but I also think people can take it too far and refuse to grade it on a curve when it pretty much has to be. Do I like it AS much as I did when I was 5? Not entirely. I can't help but snicker at some of the shortcomings. But is it everything I "need" it to be, and do I still enjoy watching it whenever I can? Yes, absolutely.

A lot of this can be applied to the original TMNT cartoon as well. And that's really all anyone is saying. You can be objective and unbiased even when revisiting something you love from childhood. You can still enjoy things without being a goddamn mark about it and pretending that they're flawless and perfect when NO, they're clearly not. That's what being an adult is. Obstinately refusing to even acknowledge that a thing has imperfections is childlike and juvenile.

"Love" is not pretending your wife doesn't have a third nipple, it's acknowledging that fact and choosing to be with her anyway. Pretending that it isn't there just means you're lying to yourself.

Agree with your sentiment of open mindedness in the community. For context, the posts you were responding to seemed like an overreaction, because someone did say you shouldn't like it because they view it as junk.

Quote:
"it's garbage, a rushed production meant to market toys, featuring no real plot/character developmen and an attempt to disguise it with terrible jokes. It can't really be called "fun" because everything about its is just boring tripe and some of the laziest humor out there. There's basically nothing of substance"

I didn't say you shouldn't like it, I said most people would think sucks if they went back and watched it.

********.

Just proves that it's good. and stands the test of time.

I can enjoy the original 1982 Pac-Man series just as much now as I did as when it first aired. However, even as old as I am, I enjoy the new series just as much. mostly because both where taken seriously by their creators and had some thought put into it to make it fun and enjoyable.

Always find it odd how people who don't like the original series have to trash it in order to make something newer seem better.

Indeed. I never understood that either. Its almost like they don't even care any more. If you were a fan of something from a long time ago. You will still be a fan of it regardless if its dated or not. People can not look at the old stuff and compare it to the new and then argue that the new stuff is better because of this or that. The old stuff was made during a specific era and I think its unfair to compare it to the newer stuff because they are entirely different things.

Except there are so many things about the show that are straight up poorly made outside of what personal taste says. You can easily find layer errors, missing frames of animation, choppy animation, coloring mistakes, duplicate characters, missing backgrounds, characters talking in the wrong voices, inappropriate sound effects, speaking with no lip movement, etc, etc. There's a fairly exhaustive explaination somewhere around here where I explain why/how the plot of season 1 is total gibberish, but I don't think this is the place to do that again and why I'm just pointing out the errors that are simply visible/audible to your naked senses with minimal thinking going into it, but keep in mind that writing/editiing/directing is really important too.

And no, pointing that stuff out isn't for the purpose of propping other stuff or make unfair comparisons to newer material. All that stuff are flaws that would make it a bad show on it's own and you'd very likely criticise any other show for having them, nor were they somehow not problems simply because it was harder to keep that stuff in order back then. If there was a ladder factory 500 years ago that made ladder that would break after 5 minutes of use, would you go "Well, they had worse ladder making tools back then, so they were good ladders by the standards of the time and we shouldn't criticise them for it"? No, it just means they made bad ladders! And **** me, I've personally pointed out why the 2012 show doesn't really work either despite how many fans that show has, so obviously I didn't criticise the Fred Wolf cartoon to make that look better. Maybe there is something more to wheter or not something works than personal opinion?

And I'm sorry, your entitled to your personal opinion but if you don't spot the flaws (the very blatant flaws), that's not a sign it's good. It just means you're either not thinking about the show critically or ignoring the flaws, either way it prevents you from refining your pallette. I like many things just fine but that doesn't mean I shouldn't think about them or pretend I'm not seeing when there's something bad about them.

I think the crux of their point of view is, "I personally don't care about those things, therefore, no one should care about those things." With a subtle undertone of, "If you do notice or care about those things you're a jerk."

I don't agree with it. But there's absolutely no way to try and have a dialogue with someone if that's their mindset, regardless of topic.

That is not true. Something you enjoyed as a kid, may not necessarily be something you enjoy when you grow up. Aging can depend on it's quality. It can be hard for some people to go back to something they loved decades ago because it may not have stood the test of time, in their eyes. A new product based on an old property can indeed surpass what came before it. Based on what I've read/heard, the new Ducktales cartoon is said to be more enjoyable than the original on an objective level (I've only watched one or two episodes so I can't speak for myself). Would you say the old cartoon is better because of nostalgia? If so, that's a pretty weak argument. Furthermore, if it's part of the same property, I don't see why comparing it is unfair. You kinda did that with Mirage for not being anything like what you were exposed to first.

When I was like three, one of my favorite things to do was sneak into the fridge and eat sticks of butter and/or big spoonfuls of mayonnaise.

Probably a good thing I expanded my horizons a little bit or I'd probably be dead by now.

I confess to once every couple of years I'll rarely go to town on about half a can of chocolate cake frosting, though. That's one that I kept from when I was a kid. But at least I don't do it like once a week like I used to. :lol:

But yeah, point is you're supposed to kind of shift gears a little bit as you move through life. Also, don't eat sticks of butter. Cake frosting's okay.

Hey if it helps I scoop a spoon full of peanut butter and mix it with my bowl of Reese's Puffs Cereal. Because I'm an adult!:lol:

.........Not for much longer, if you keep that up, pal. :lol:

Peanut butter is healthy though. I spread it on a little thick when I have a pb and jelly sandwich.

I’ll always enjoy the FW cartoon. I don’t think it’s as ridiculous as some make it out to be (expect for some animation errors) but my favorite series is 4kids. It’s just a better show.

As for this I think Nick would allow some kind of “adult” alternative to their own cartoons. Not rated R of course but I don’t think it needs to go that far to be good. Just something with a more grim tone.

Imagine a Sin-City type of TMNT movie. Would be very cool to see.

Laird wanted the same thing, even though he said the previous incarnations were ok. Yeah they can go many directions with this, with adult and R-rated level stuff I'm sure...just as long as the turtles' designs are acceptable.

Originally Posted by neatoman View Post
If your opinions never change, that never have and you think they never will, it's a sign that you're stagnant which isn't a good thing.

That is far too blatant a statement to make. I can notice the problems with the original series and STILL enjoy it for what it is. I can also enjoy the 4kids series and 2k12 series while still being objective about it.

saying that I still enjoy it the same way I did when I was 2 and can never change isn't a fair statement. you can still enjoy something while seeing the flaws in it and NOT tear it down at the same time.

Something doesn't need to be "good" for you to enjoy it. There are a number of factors that can contribute to your enjoyment, such as nostalgia, ironic enjoyment or unintentional humor. Your enjoyment alone does not mean it is well crafted or holds up, it just means there is something outside of the competency of the craft or the actual artistic merit that helps form your opinion. I like the Venom movie but I know it sucks balls because it's poorly written and edited, my enjoyment pretty much only comes from Tom Hardy's bizarre performance.

There's a big difference between something being well made and something being liked, it's actually a little sad that so many don't understand it.

If you don't like it, you won't think it's good. and it's pretty clear you are trying to go to lengths to convince people it isn't good.


that's you're opinion.

Other people, who can be objective, and know it has flaws, can still think it's good. and quite frankly, because it's stood the test of time and multiple generations...others think so as well.

but, this is the never ending debate here between mirage hard cores and those of us who came after. I guess we just arn't good enough to be turtle fans ;o).

I think the fact that this 20+ year old "debate" is the only thing anyone thinks is worth talking about just proves how sh*tty it is to be a TMNT fan nowadays.

I don't understand how you can claim to be objective and say the show stood the test of time when the show was never well written, never well animated and never well edited. If the show never held basic standards in the first place, then by definition it couldn't have stood the test of time.

Well, I mean now we're hitting gray areas. All of those things can be and are objectively true but it doesn't mean the show(s) themselves weren't entertaining Then or can't still be to some Now.

For starters, yes, ALL of those things are true, it was a very flawed show. BUT, it wasn't just par for the course among shows of its day, it was inarguably a lot better than MOST of the cartoons in the pre-Batman: TAS era. Like let's be completely honest, what other 1980s cartoons were "better" than TMNT before the Batman cartoon came along and changed the game entirely? I honestly can't think of many, and you know I'm not afraid to call the TMNT cartoon out for what it is. And I don't think it's at all fair to just wave a dismissive hand and say, like, "Cartoons just plain sucked before Batman came along and 'fixed' everything." That's MOSTLY true, but it's also not entirely fair.

I mean, playing devil's advocate, I absolutely prefer "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" over FW TMNT as far as what I'd rather watch on a given day, but is it better-done? Debatable. There aren't anywhere near as many errors as in TMNT, because Filmation ran a pretty tight ship on that side of things, but it was definitely made on the cheap and some people can't handle all the stock footage and re-used animation cycles. It doesn't bother ME, but to many it's a flaw. And out of 130 episodes produced in a two-year cycle, some of them were definitely clunkers. As bad as "Mr. Ogg" on the TMNT side of things? Probably not. :lol: But there's a case to be made that while some episodes absolutely sparkle, others were not "well-written". That show, like many 1980s cartoons, is an example of the Whole being far greater then The Sum of Its Parts.

MOTU, Voltron, Transformers, G.I. Joe... all of those shows are still "iconic" but also very, very flawed. They're full of things that are objectively "bad" or done poorly, but is it fair to call them "bad shows"? I don't think so, I really think a person needs to grade on a curve because even the very best of that crop falls way, way short of what cartoon standards would become even 5 years later in a post-Batman world. Obviously they're imperfect, because standards were SO much looser back then, but they've all obviously "stood the test of time" because millions of people still enjoy them, even those who can clearly see the strings and Scotch tape holding them together.

To be perfectly honest, even though there are several cartoons from that era which I personally like better, it's very hard for me to think of one that was truly "better" or better-made than TMNT until Batman came along. The best I can come up with is the early seasons of "The Real Ghostbusters". That was probably the best cartoon show ever made until Batman insofar as quality of the scripts/writing, lack of editing and continuity errors, and the other things you cite as being able to judge and grade by. But even then, you can only really say that about the early couple of seasons, as once Slimer became the central focus the entire thing fell in the trash. So nothing is perfect. But yeah, as far as "Were any 1980s cartoons truly any better than TMNT?", RGB is all I can think of. And even with that show, the animation was a little stiff.

Point being, I think it's just not fair to say "If something was objectively never good, it can't possibly have stood the test of time" because that kind of statement ignores the fact that standards were a whole lot lower back then. The only fair thing to do is compare those things to their contemporaries and not what came after. Part of why Batman: TAS was the complete revelation that it was, was because people simply didn't try that hard ever before. After that, there was a rising tide in which everyone who made cartoons was expected to step their game up. But even with that, it took until the end of the 90s for that to become a universal standard. There were still a ton of 1990s cartoons that were written and executed more like late-80s cartoons.

I'unno, I think you get what I'm saying. Grading on a curve is necessary when discussing things of a bygone era, and it's not fair to say that they "Couldn't have stood the test of time" simply because they were laid down on a cracked foundation. Especially since tons of people do still enjoy those things without irony.

MY problem becomes, when people either dismiss or ignore those flaws entirely as in pretending they never existed, or act like anyone who doesn't still love those things Now as much as they did Then is some kind of Big Meanie out to spoil everyone's fun. "I loved it Then so I love it Now and I don't need any reason other than 'I loved it Then', that's good enough for me" IS rather childish in and of itself, but it depends on how far you're willing to take it. If a person just wants to enjoy that thing, then that's fine. If they start saying, "I want EVERYTHING to be like this because it's what I personally like," then they're no different from the Big Meanies.

In the case of TMNT, staying locked into the FW tone and style for everything would only hasten the brand's demise. Not only has it been done and RE-done, but too many people have been waiting impatiently for the brand to "grow up" already, and outside of the 1990 movie and the first couple seasons of 4Kids, it simply was never "allowed" to, and we can see how that hurts the brand in the way that every new "kid-centric" version that comes out gets a worse reception, and is ignored more quickly, than the last. We've seen how "the new kids" that are supposedly the audience simply don't stick around anymore, and how each new version pushes away a few more adults.

"Well, *I* like it silly and goofy, so I want ALL of it silly and goofy. SO HUH." That's MY problem with some people. They don't care one bit that they're sending the brand they claim to love directly into the sh*tter by refusing to see why that approach is flawed and that their opinion isn't the only one that matters. The cartoons, the IDW comics... "*I* like this approach, so if you don't like it, go screw." Opinions are one thing, but when the approach you love so much is actively and openly pushing people AWAY from the brand... well, at the very least, it only makes sense to consider changing course before it's too late.

I want the movies and TV shows to be based around the IDW comics. It took some of the FW elements and give them maturity. Kind of like what they did with the Archie comics. IDW feels like FW but with modern sensibility.

Problem is, I see that more from the Mirage fans than anyone else. I came in during the fw era. I learned to like Next Mutation. I learned to love the movies. I learned to love 4kids. I learned to tolerate 2k12 because of IT'S MANY flaws. I learned to appreciate Mirage and Archie for what they did. And I absolutely love Batman/TMNT.

Mirage fans seem to mostly be stuck in Mirage only mode and can't appreciate much else.