The Official TMNT 2 (2016) Set Photos/Videos Thread

~~Leo656~~ · 06-16-2015, 02:26 AM

II and III actually work great... as kids' movies. They're pretty crummy as "real" movies, and they're terrible as sequels to the original, but as self-contained kids' movies, or "live-action kinda/almost-versions of the cartoon" they're actually pretty good. Although III is kind of meandering and boring compared to how bombastic II was, but I'd argue it had a better basic plot. That is to say, the idea of the time-travel storyline of III was quite interesting, although the execution of the final movie as a whole was rather poor.

There's a ton wrong with both, definitely. Neither one is on my playlist until I'm doing a movie marathon run. BUT strictly as kids' movies they're well above average.

The new movie just didn't know what it was trying to do, who it was trying to please, and figured the name and the characters would be enough to satisfy. Then, when people went, "Boy, that was a dumb movie", they said, "Oh, well, y'know, it's for kids," even though it's so not, in a ton of ways that have already been stated and re-stated.

As a "real" movie? None of them would be my first choice. I'm pretty set with the first one. But at least both II and III legitimately worked as kids movies. The new one's not really appropriate for them, and it just in no way feels like a kids' movie, so the "kids were the audience" argument falls kind of flat when some people justify the flaws of it that way.

I can sit through II and III and not break anything, put it that way. They're bad, but watching them isn't frustrating.

06-16-2015, 02:26 AM	#11
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	II and III actually work great... as kids' movies. They're pretty crummy as "real" movies, and they're terrible as sequels to the original, but as self-contained kids' movies, or "live-action kinda/almost-versions of the cartoon" they're actually pretty good. Although III is kind of meandering and boring compared to how bombastic II was, but I'd argue it had a better basic plot. That is to say, the idea of the time-travel storyline of III was quite interesting, although the execution of the final movie as a whole was rather poor. There's a ton wrong with both, definitely. Neither one is on my playlist until I'm doing a movie marathon run. BUT strictly as kids' movies they're well above average. The new movie just didn't know what it was trying to do, who it was trying to please, and figured the name and the characters would be enough to satisfy. Then, when people went, "Boy, that was a dumb movie", they said, "Oh, well, y'know, it's for kids," even though it's so not, in a ton of ways that have already been stated and re-stated. As a "real" movie? None of them would be my first choice. I'm pretty set with the first one. But at least both II and III legitimately worked as kids movies. The new one's not really appropriate for them, and it just in no way feels like a kids' movie, so the "kids were the audience" argument falls kind of flat when some people justify the flaws of it that way. I can sit through II and III and not break anything, put it that way. They're bad, but watching them isn't frustrating.