Can someone tell me when this series becomes good?
 

There are promises of like, deep character development, queer coding and found family vibes all over YouTube.

I've been trying to get through the first few episodes and it's mostly Splinter being disgusting.

When does it start getting more into the backstory and family aspects? I'm happy to skip to that. I know this series has a very enthusiastic following.

It never really gets particularly "good" but it has its moments toward the end of its run.

At some point late in the series it touches on Spinter's background in his youth, but by then he'd been a crappy parent for so long it failed to make me feel any empathy for him.


From what I've seen online for a while, I really feel like a majority of the most enthusiastic following, much of which showed up rather late and are mad they missed the boat on keeping it alive, is Gen Z who suddenly noticed that the Turtles did some stuff they liked. Personally, not to be hating on them... but I've come to take that age group's opinions on much of anything with a grain of salt, so the fact that they went gaga for Rise never, for me, gave it any added credibility that "it's good," no matter how much they've insisted after arriving late. To each their own, but I gave it a fair 100% chance to win me over and it failed to do so. (And even the PD Turtles -- okay mostly Leo via 2016 -- won me over, despite how unhappy I was with all that originally, so it's not like I'm stubbornly impossible to reach eventually.)


Quite a while back I came up with an ep list for Rise of the more or less "necessary" episodes is someone simply wants the stuff needed to follow the arc and cut out the other crap. Some of the better stuff may be within those.

Season 1

Ep
1 - Mystic Mayhem
2 - Origami Tsunami (could skip, but introduces Foot and paper ninjas)
7 - Bug Busters
13 - The Evil League of Mutants
16 - Shadow of Evil
25 - Insane in the Mama Train
26 - End Game

Season 2

27 - Many Unhappy Return
30 - Repairin' the Baron (could skip, but would leave a plot hole in character relationship)
37 - Battle Nexus: New York
38a/b - Finale part 1 & 2
39a/b - Finale part 3 & 4



Some of the filler will barely touch on anything to do with the arc by, in the end, obtaining another piece of something they're collecting the parts of (to put it lightly so not to spoil), but that's like the most that will happen in any of the filler so they're completely skippable.

As a really big rise fan I admit the show is a lot of “mindless humor” it’s mostly just silly and goofy, although there are the bits of lore in the series. If you’re looking for more character development you choice check out the season finales and the movie. Also Leo is very queercoded and Donnie is good autistic rep.

Oh, well, it's definitely worth watching then.

Wha........?
Why?
*vomits*

Though, I take its just wishful thinking of some poor soul as is customary with a "modern audience".

I‘ve only watched the Netflix film which was very good. It‘s true that Donatello has autistic traits (doesn‘t like to be touched, neurotic etc) and Leo acts relatively flamboyant but none of it is too in-your-face. Raph‘s a bit weird because he seems much older than everyone else and his voice actor sounds too much like the middle-aged black guy that he is. Mikey is cool though, very unlike the 2012 and 2003 versions which are both horrible.

They are, but only in the most superficial way. It never really hits anything because Rise just refuses to be about anything or have plot that matters.

https://media.tenor.com/yFM7dkAYVZQA...burger-why.gif

I guess it was only a matter of time.

I didn't get any gayness out of Rise's Leo. He seemed a bit more flamboyant because he wasn't a serious leader, but my "gaydar" did not go off once this series.

And once again, "anything-coded" is complete and utter nonsense. It's just a thing that crowd made up so they could "claim" characters, including those who don't even have race or sexual orientation to begin with. It's based entirely on projection and obsessive mental fanfiction.

"Queercoded".

Had Donnie's character description been directly labeled as somewhat autistic from the get-go before the show even started, then fine, but it bugs me that it was NEVER mentioned until after it ended and all these Gen Zers suddenly realized Rise existed. Claiming self-diagnosed autism appears to be kinda trendy among that age group, far as I've seen, so it looked to me like it was mentioned purely to get their support back when the series had slim potential of returning.

Though I dislike directly labeling characters like that in general. Let any people relate to the particular aspects of a character that they do without "claiming" him or her as "belonging" to this one group over here.

Also... some of Rise Donnie's behavior seems quite sociopathic, rather than simply autistic, and trying to excuse and normalize that as "autism," as if negative behaviors that affect other people are totally OKAY to inflict on them if it's claimed to be a disorder, as I feel some of this show's younger fans tried to do, feels rather gross to me.

Definitivly untrue. Tons of writers from yesteryear across several mediums have stated in interviews that this was authorial intent in their works.

********.

First, unless author states it was the intent from the beginning, queerquacks have no right to claim anything.

Second, even, if author states something of the sort, it should be taken with a barge of salt. Otherwise, you risk to run and enable idiocy like "Matrix was always about trans".

Otherwise, any attempts to "claim" character is just attempts of Twitter freaks to appropriate everything to justify their sociopathy and hateful behavior and show everyone "how special they are" in leu of having anything resembling talent or personality. So their statements do not count as anything.

Being desperate to pander to that kind of crowd, huh? Shame on creators.
This crowd made of particularly ungrateful sort.

It is a [CURRENT YEAR]!!
Saying something like that is bigotry!! People have no right to appropriate suffering of others!! And if they like character who is suffering it is highly insensitive!! How dare you like character who is suffering!? Do you enjoy suffering of real people too?!

Except when you self-diagnose yourself with whatever you want and claim to be oppressed and suffering because of it, but that is totally different, yes sir!!

Writers don't give a ****. Neither do "fans". Its all about labels.
Put a label on character and you can "sell" to the SJWBBQ+ crowd.

Any criticism of the label is a bigotry, so it is sure way to make yourself infallible winner and a great progressive writer!

Except in the eyes of anyone with more than half of a brain, but most SJWs are not part of that.

I watched a podcast by a college professor who talked about this one time he discussed Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde with his students. One of them was clearly gay and proud of it too, and when he raised his hand during the lecture, the professor mentally told himself, “Here it comes.” Just as he predicted, the student asked, “Could we get a queer view on this?” Now OBVIOUSLY the author never intended it to be a story about repressed sexual tendencies, but if you try telling that to these sex-obsessed weirdos, you’ll just be branded a bigot. :lol:

Those statements of "authorial intent" always come after a bunch of non-authors decide that the character is whatever, and then the author pulls a Rowling and says "Well, of COURSE I always intended this!" because they want the brownie points.

"No." The answer is "No."

If you’re a professor at a public college, you have no choice but to say “yes”.

Student is a retard for being a gay-obsessed retard - such people literally want everything to be about them and their "lifestyle". They are not progressive people. They are dumb egoists and most likely outside of pretending to be queer, have nothing resembling personality or talents.

Professor being retard, if he agreed to view this **** through the "queer lens". Your duty as a teacher should come first, before propaganda and ****-for-brains who eat it and think it should be part of everything.

In general, attempts to shoe-horn queer **** into everything, as well, as pretending it was everywhere, even before queerquacks coined that term, are horrible for the media and just serve to rot it from the inside. Its basically destroys any kind of interesting discourse about media, outside of "queers" (as well as racisms), because any attempt to question presence of "queer themes" is labeled as bigotry and therefore should be eliminated, which is basically a religious censorship in everything, but the name.

Instead of being thought provoking and interesting, works are becoming performative. They are no longer about making people think or develop some original thoughts, but about making small brain nonces feel good about their perversions and stroking their egos, to make those autists spend bucks to CONSOOOM media. Slap rainbow flag on a work, proclaim some character being Gay post-factum, without anything in the story indicating said character is actually Gay and you have bunch of empty headed sheep rushing towards shops and spreading positive word of mouth in the Internet...for nothing and because of nothing.

Corporations basically abuse performative wokeness, as well, as basic desire of people to be represented, twisting it into commercialized quasi-religious scam operation.
"We have Gays in our work, trust us, its good, because of it - buy it or are you a bigot?"
How it is different from any cult whatsoever?
**** that noise and **** trash who actually supports it. They do more harm to their cause, than even genuine homophobes do.

It is not to say there shouldn't be Lesbian and Gay characters or themes in the media or they should be always in the background. But they should be presented in a respectable fashion and where / when its actually make sense, not shoe-horned to make some weak-willed idiots feel good.

If you're a literature student, you can easily find homosexual themes and motifs in classic literature without shoehorning them into works that don't have them. Fantastic novels, too. Like the Picture of Dorian Gray?

If you have a good imagination you can easily find Homosexual themes everywhere you look and even prove your point.
So?

You can interpret things in the wrong way, it's not only up to your imagination. Oscar Wilde's got lots of gay stuff going on in his work because he was gay himself. Lord of the Rings has plenty of homoeroticism where you have a hard time UNimagining it.

My point is, if you're obsessed with this stuff there's enough literature in which you can legitimately find it. But analyzing it into works where it doesn't exist is dumb

Tell it to Twitterphiles.

But this is where we are at, with public discourses about gay stuff in media. This type of post-modernism "everything can be anything I want", which I despise.

It robs things out of meaning and turns everything into extremely subjective impressions, driven by complexes and ego, as opposed to legitimate criticism and knowledge.

I think Barkworm was actually saying that there is enough authentic and organically-created material all throughout the history of publishing that there is no need to insert these themes as an overriding factor into material that was without them to begin with.

Which is of course the actual issue with "woke $#!(". Most normal people aren't bothered by these themes on their own merits. But nobody likes being told this is "representation" when in fact this has always been the childlike projection of life-anger from these "creators" who seem to get a kick out of "overriding" and "usurping" normalcy for their own designs - basically acting out their social murder on regular people for their life anger.

It's the same concept for basically most things that fall under the woke banner. It's societies mental-children acting out and throwing tantrums to harm "normalcy".

I've watched only a few episodes of this series, so I have no opinion on the actual series. I have however watched the movie and thought it was actually pretty great. Never saw it coming.

I actually liked the movie myself. When I was watching clips of the show on YouTube of the episodes that were more comedy I didn't like them so much though but when it does get serious it's not too bad.

I finally got round to giving this show a chance, I managed to make it through all the episodes. Thought the majority of the episodes were crap, there were a few funny moments here and there, I actually liked the finale episodes. The majority of the villains were weird, a magician hippo and some weird worm news anchorman mutant wtf :teek: I liked Baron Draxum though. I don't like that they turned Baxter Stockman into a kid. Hoon Lee was great as the Shredder though and found it amusing Tiger Claw's voice actor doing the voice for Splinter. I can no longer think of soup or look at a can of soup anymore without the phrase, "Hot soup!" popping into my head thanks to this show.

Yeah, if they were going to turn Baxter into a kid, at least do something interesting with him and have him around more. Even if he's just some juvenile wannabe evil genius that keeps getting in the way and is far less of a threat than he believes he is.

Agree on Draxum. A decent concept, imo, and one of the few redeeming ideas from that show. I tend to be rather picky about new villains in TMNT and find many ideas rather mediocre (such as most in 2003's Fast Forward season, save for maybe the Dark Turtles who had more potential than they were given), but I could see him show up again elsewhere. I'd prefer he remained a villain though.

I got more or less the same complaints.

Most episodes are crap.
Very few episodes are actually awesome.
But there's no in between.

I liked Draxum and Big Momma for antagonists the most. (I mean besides Shredder and Krang from the movie)

And Splinter's backstory is really good IMO. I had to give this show 4 chances to get through it. Just like Next Mutation.

I really miss the next mutation and wish we could still get a 2nd season. I like Rise of TMNT for what it is, it has fun moments, and the movie smacks imo.

Tried getting into into 3-4 times and it's just not good. Like others have said, it's a show about nothing. There's just gags with no real development of characters, plot, anything.

The movie, however, was shockingly good. It made me try to revisit the series again in case I was wrong all along, and it turns out I wasn't! Shame we didn't get a few solid movies rather than the scattered mess the series was.

Am I the only one that was kinda "meh" on the movie?

If it wasn't for Leo's behavior I'd have probably liked it and the series at least moderately more. But after acting like an ass through the whole series and then, instead of growing up and becoming leader-like during the gap between series and movie, he still acts like a self centered ass for the first half hour of the movie, so by the time it came around toward the end and he tries to sacrifice himself I felt absolutely indifferent to him doing so.

I dunno, I think for me the entire Rise concept and vibe is also in some way just too much of a try-hard spectacle with too little substance. Not that it's the only one doing that these days though, the PD/Bay films and MM kinda aimed for that, too.

So tired of people now saying "this show was good" and "needed a 3rd season" it did not. why wasn't nobody talking about it back then because no one cared about. It will be forgotten and known as another slop reboot version of the turtles.

This show was good & needed a 3rd season.

Many of those seem to be new Gen Z fans who didn't give a rat's ass about TMNT until they stumbled across the Netflix movie. But it's never their fault for dismissing the franchise until then, it's only the fault of Nick being mean and not keeping an underperforming show on life support until they got there.

It's a pity the show wasn't like that more often, I really liked it when it was like this, there's a rivalry between this demon Shredder and Karai as well:



The music at the 1:04 mark sounds a bit like Takeshi's Theme (Tiger Claw) from the 2012 show.