The Technodrome Forums - Turtles 1990 backlash and its effect on the sequels.

Page 1 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Technodrome Forums (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/index.php)

- TMNT Movie Discussion (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/forumdisplay.php?f=32)

- - Turtles 1990 backlash and its effect on the sequels. (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=36204)

rufus

01-19-2012 02:19 PM

Turtles 1990 backlash and its effect on the sequels.

The original and Independent Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film made in 1990 and directed by Steve Barron encountered a good size of backlash from parental groups due to its tone and action. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,317255,00.html
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ition-violence
Due to this the tone for the sequel was toned down drastically and many from the first opted not to return such as Barron and Judith Hoag. How do you think the sequels would have been like had the producers not caved into the backlash or if there hadn't been any at at all?

Metropoliskid41

01-19-2012 02:23 PM

A more Mirage inspired 2nd movie would have been nice, coulda done a City At War inspired movie or who knows, with more funding and a higher budget we could have seen some Utrom and Triceraton action. Dinosaurs were huge in the early 90s with Jurassic Park and the show Dinosaurs, I think bringing the Triceratons in woulda been a huge hit!

CyberCubed

01-19-2012 03:40 PM

That first article is so bizarre. The movie is so tame by todays standards that it makes me wonder if 90's era parents were just too sheltered.

The movie has no blood, no deaths, no stabbing at all.

Herald7

01-19-2012 03:51 PM

Quote:

"So should you take your kid to see Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? I'm not recommending that you do — this movie will not enrich your child's worldview."

And all I can say is thank God my parents didn't listen to you. :lol:

Spitfire

01-20-2012 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberCubed (Post 902843)

That first article is so bizarre. The movie is so tame by todays standards that it makes me wonder if 90's era parents were just too sheltered.

The movie has no blood, no deaths, no stabbing at all.

I've seen not a single kids movie in years that's had the amount of violence or swearing in it the first turtles movie did. It takes place mostly at night and has a very dark tone overall. They also crush someone's head with a garbage truck and had there been no sequel saying otherwise it'd be assumed Shredder was dead. If that fall didn't kill him getting his head smashed probably would.

Course the 80's had The Beastmaster rated PG and proudly sporting boobs, severed heads on sticks, and decapitations so I guess early 90's parents really had nothing to bitch about.

CyberCubed

01-20-2012 11:59 AM

Well I was comparing it to stuff like Batman 89 or even the first Spiderman and x-men movie. They are all aimed at roughly the same audience and TMNT wasn't really any more violent.

There were also no guns in the movie.

Spitfire

01-20-2012 12:01 PM

All those movies you mentioned were rated PG-13 though. Turtles was PG and for a PG movie it's quite violent. Most kids movies today aren't even PG anymore. They usually lean towards G.

Donnie

01-20-2012 02:04 PM

I can't stand conservative riff-raff garbage like that. Kids are going to discover violence sooner or later, if it's through a TMNT movie at least they will realize that it's worth fighting against evil. Geez...

Quote:

I have spent the past six years telling my son that hitting is not a good way to solve problems, that it hurts people's feelings and their bodies, and that when we are angry we should try to use words.

I chuckled.

rufus

01-20-2012 02:53 PM

What is interesting is that by 1990 PG was starting to be associated as the rating for kids films despite years earlier it never was and lots of films had PG ratings that were chock full of violence such as Raiders of the Lost ark.

Mr._Mutant_Man

01-21-2012 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herald7 (Post 902848)

And all I can say is thank God my parents didn't listen to you. :lol:

Enrich her kid's worldview? What, does she normally only take her kids to art films or something?

Yeah, I'm glad I wasn't this sheltered growing up. I watched all kinds of violent stuff, and I never had a problem with being a violent kid, because I was always told that it's all just make believe, and real violence has real consequences. Also, as much as I enjoyed the first TMNT movie, when I was a kid sitting in the theater I was afraid throughout it that Leonardo was going to eventually slice into someone with his swords. So I did have an aversion to extreme violence as a kid.

Maybe some kids just don't get it. Then again, there are a ton of clueless adults in the world, who I imagine started off as clueless kids.

Konchadunga

01-21-2012 09:56 AM

At the risk of sounding like a generic atheistic hipster prick, I'd say it's better to grow up to become a violent person than a fundamentalist.

Herald7

01-21-2012 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr._Mutant_Man (Post 903479)

I was always told that it's all just make believe, and real violence has real consequences.

Exactly, I mean that is the really important lesson here. That kids can enjoy violence in a movie, but not romanticize it in real life.

I mean I heard curse words in movies as a kid but I knew not to repeat them in real life because I'd probably be sent to my room, away from the TV for a week, lol. :lol:

Mr._Mutant_Man

01-21-2012 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konchadunga (Post 903496)

At the risk of sounding like a generic atheistic hipster prick, I'd say it's better to grow up to become a violent person than a fundamentalist.

I'd have to disagree. Fundamentalists at least provide plenty of unintentional humor. Violence in real life can be downright scary.

Redeemer

01-21-2012 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metropoliskid41 (Post 902810)

Oh damn those parents of the 90's shelter children. They robbed us of a good sequel and probably killed the tmnt franchise or so they thought

Back in 2012 bitches!!!

ryukenden

01-21-2012 04:46 PM

Even to this day, the 1990 movie is still considered by most as the superior Turtle movie. Not many really liked the more family friendly sequels which seriously went downhill. If the second movie was based off of City at War, it would have been really awesome.

I can't help but feel that the parent groups that had the following movies toned down were the same ones that had Lord Zedd from Power Rangers mellow out because he was "too evil". Since Michael Bay turned Optimus Prime into Kratos, who knows what he's going to do with Leo.

Mr._Mutant_Man

01-21-2012 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryukenden (Post 903656)

I doubt we would have seen a City at War for the 2nd movie, since the sequel was released in 1991, and there's no way New Line would have waited that long for a Turtles sequel when the franchise was red hot.

Now something more based on the Utroms could have been neat, but probably too big budget.

Jester

01-22-2012 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie (Post 903232)

I chuckled.

This got me:

Quote:

''They're doing some really bad stuff in there,'' Reid said as he watched two Foot members fight. ''That's right,'' I told him, leaning close. ''They could have tried to work out their problems in a less violent way.''

Yep, the villainous Ninjas that kidnapped your father and were told to destroy you, just talk that out. I'm sure the Foot would have gladly sat down over coffee and talked out this issue with out resorting to violence.

Galactus

01-22-2012 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metropoliskid41 (Post 902810)

"City At War" didn't exist in 1991. There's not many storylines they could do as the first movie covered the main point of "Return to New York" and the space arc with Triceratons and the Fugitoid while fun would've been an ambitious and very expensive undertaking in the '90s. (Though would work well now)

I could see an expansion of #2 with Baxter's storyline. Mouser's robbing banks and blowing up buildings with Stockman doing it for fun etc. Something like that could work quite well now too..almost Dark Knight esque.

CyberCubed

01-22-2012 08:30 AM

Well the second movie did do the TCRI storyline...just without any Utroms.

I do feel they should have put Baxter and the Mousers in a movie though, I wonder if they didn't because the Mousers would be too hard to do? Its not like now where they could be CG.

Redeemer

01-22-2012 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galactus (Post 903790)

Because I won a contest to see the movie I had to be accompanied by an adult. My grandfather didn't find anything wrong with the film and was relieved it had a story he could follow. He's also a very ardent Christian and didn't find anything he satanic about it either.

I guess he's cool like that. I remember him watching Batman Returns on VHS and saying "that Catwoman is more full on than the old 'un, isn't she?":lol:

"City At War" didn't exist in 1991. There's not many storylines they could do as the first movie covered the main point of "Return to New York" and the space arc with Triceratons and the Fugitoid while fun would've been an ambitious and very expensive undertaking in the '90s. (Though would work well now)

I could see an expansion of #2 with Baxter's storyline. Mouser's robbing banks and blowing up buildings with Stockman doing it for fun etc. Something like that could work quite well now too..almost Dark Knight esque.

Lol sounds like an awesome Grandfather and yeah if City at War didnt exist it would be hard to put it into a movie, But did City at War release about the same time??????? or something??? If not im sure Laird/Eastman had the plot in mind about that time

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:32 AM.

Page 1 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page