Talkback: Laird's 2k3 development notes!

[Xav]

88' just rolls off the tongue easier I guess.

http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/sho...postcount=1972

[Genesis]

It premiered in like, December, so it might as well have been 1988, I guess. Plus, the point of the cartoon was to market the toys, which didn't appear until '88, so it makes sense, either way.

[Xav]

Laird's now posting emails from early on in the deployment. I guess this pretty much proves that Utrom Shredder was planed early on.
http://peterlairdstmntblog.blogspot....02-re-new.html

[CyberCubed]

So PL called Krang a, "bastardization of the old Utrom concept."

Its amazing how the guy didn't like how much Fred Wolf changed the characters from the comics, yet he goes ahead and gives the approval to turn Shredder into an Utrom right away.

It really doesn't make any sense. Its like if he doesn't have a direct hand in the changes, he seems to dislike them.

[The Big Bad]

I don't see why that'd be so inconceivable: given his output, I think it's rather clear that Laird cares more for the Utrom concept than he does for the Shredder. Plus, Krang is a much more fundamental deviation from its original concept than the Utrom Shredder was--note that the toon got adaptations of all the major Shredder stories (including keeping the "Return to New York" money shot, which almost certainly couldn't have been adapted any other way), while Krang as he existed doesn't allow for any adaptations of the original Utrom stories, and his similarity to that one is almost entirely superficial.

[oldmanwinters]

Reading through the last Laird-Lloyd email regarding the TMNT show, I couldn't help but notice this and get all misty eyed.

In a message dated 7/22/09 4:20:02 AM, Lloyd writes:

Hey Pete –

...

Finally, as I suspected, I was laid-off earlier today (my last actual day is Friday – the ComicCon screening will be my last official Turtles’ duty). You and I already talked about all this, and I don’t wanna get all mushy in an e-mail, so just know that I hope we get to work together again sometime.

...

Thanks mucho amigo,

Lloyd

PS – I love(d) bein’ a Turtle!

I am convinced that without the involvement of Lloyd Goldfine, the 4Kids show would have been an absolute disaster from start to finish. I think he really possessed good communication skills and a creative mind; probably one of the best at the 4Kids operation. It's sad to think someone of his caliber was given the pink slip as soon as the cartoon was over. I know the whole company ended up folding not long after that, but it's still some tough lumps to stomach.

And even Laird noted:

the experience of working with you over the last seven (eight?) years has been great -- I'd definitely put it in my top five TMNT-related work experiences. You know, it's possible that you and I worked together on the show longer than Kevin and I worked together on the comics.

To change the subject a little...

Originally Posted by The Big Bad

given his output, I think it's rather clear that Laird cares more for the Utrom concept than he does for the Shredder.

I can only imagine how upset Peter Laird might have been if the Fred Wolf series had ever tried to use the Fugitoid character and alter him beyond recognition.

Speaking of which... that might be a good question for the next "Ask PL" segment (hoping there is one).

[cartoonistaaron]

Reading this stuff, I get the sense that Laird was a much bigger fan of the sci-fi elements of the TMNT than Kevin Eastman, who seems to be more into the street-fight / martial arts / more earthbound stuff.

I'm re-watching the 4Kids TMNT show from the first episode on, and while I liked most of the Utrom stuff, I still think the Shredder as a character was weakened incredibly by having him be nothing more than an evil Utrom. I think it would have been a much more interesting development (and a way to fix a plot point in the Mirage comics that I never liked) if the Shredder had been much the same character as in the Mirage comics, and met the same fate as that Shredder, but was then found and pieced back together by the Utroms (similar to how they found and nursed Splinter back to life).

The whole "Bishop" character just isn't clicking for me. Is he a pissed-off evil guy? Or does he just want to capture the Turtles and dissect them?

[Genesis]

Originally Posted by cartoonistaaron

I still think the Shredder as a character was weakened incredibly by having him be nothing more than an evil human.

See how easy it is to turn on its head? Being just an evil anything makes for some lacking dynamism. I like the Shredder either way - evil for no good reason or given a legit backstory for it; Utrom or human - but your alternative idea is very interesting.

Originally Posted by cartoonistaaron

The whole "Bishop" character just isn't clicking for me. Is he a pissed-off evil guy? Or does he just want to capture the Turtles and dissect them?

He's a badass; that is all you need to know. Seriously, though, I didn't much like him, at first. Maybe he'll grow on you, too.

[Killer Moth]

Originally Posted by cartoonistaaron

The whole "Bishop" character just isn't clicking for me. Is he a pissed-off evil guy? Or does he just want to capture the Turtles and dissect them?

If you read the old emails, Laird and Goldfine did converse at length on what motivations Bishop had or should have. Unlike most of the villains, when the motivation were clear enough, "is Bishop, a true villain or an anti-hero or anti-villain?" The show could be inconsistent like that, but at least the writers did acknowledge it, as they were trying to figure which direction to go with the character.

As for the "Krang bastardization" part, I personally view Krang as a compromise, as to be, at most, a visual nod to the Utrom design, yet allowed to forge his own evil identity, as until the 2000's, Utroms weren't meant to be antagonists, anyway. However, the Big Bad is right in how protective Laird is of the Utrom concept -- which I never realized until now -- whereas, he was fine with revising the Shredder for the get-go. Is it considered a double standard with his characters vs. others, or some characters, while liking them, are allowed to be changed, and legitimately believing he or she would be better off for the change? (Some characters work better as being revamped, and some work better at their relative status quo.) Who inspired the Shredder, as who had more influence on the character? I forget the story, so feel free to remind me.

As for CyberCubed, "Laird disliking X or Y for not having more active creative control," a possible counterpoint could be implied with this interview in 2009:

http://thedailycrosshatch.com/2009/0...w-peter-laird/

TV Tropes offers this as said counterpoint with the link (in the Lighter and Fluffer heading):

"Peter Laird said in an interview that, faced with the reality of needing to water down his creation for a younger audience, he largely let the show's staff do it for him. This may have been a wise choice on his part, as had he tried to do a more comic-accurate version in the face of the rigid censorship of The Eighties, it quite possibly would have come off as a total bastardization of the comics. As it was, it came off as an extremely loose adaptation but very entertaining when taken as its own entity."

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...njaTurtles1987

Win some, lose some, right? Of course, had Laird waited until the 90's, maybe things would have changed. (Then again, look at Erik Larsen and his USA toon of Savage Dragon in 96.) Not that it mattered, as he finally had his chance in 2002, and here we are. Both are valid in their respective ways, so take what you can get.

[cartoonistaaron]

I think so as far as letting the Fred Wolf show go its own way, I don't think Laird had the power to pull rank and demand creative control. Plus - Turtlemania was in full swing in the late '80s and early '90s, and I don't think Eastman and Laird would have had time to pore over scripts, along with all the other Turtle stuff they were dealing with.

For the 2k3 show, Laird had 20 years of Turtle success to support his demand for creative control (if it was a demand - it seems like 4kids hired the writer, and he was good enough to get Laird involved). And by then, Mirage had a CEO running things, so Laird had more time to work on something like reviewing cartoon scripts.

Regarding the Shredder - I thought the Mirage comics Shredder had a ton of potential and a very compelling back story, almost like a reverse Batman. He was a villain but he wasn't a straight-up "bad guy." I know why they changed him for the kiddie-fied 80s show. But changing him into a straight-up "bad guy" for the more sophisticated 2k3 show just seemed to make him less interesting. He's a robot body with a little alien in his stomach, and he's pissed off, and he's the baddest dude in town... Okay? But what motivates him? He's evil? That works for a straight-up lunatic, but the Shredder was very calculating in the first season. Afterwards, he turned into kind of a brainless bad guy. I felt like all that potential character development was wasted.

I dunno, turning him into an Utrom seemed to have been done just so all the characters could freak out over him being an Utrom.

[Killer Moth]

Originally Posted by cartoonistaaron

I think so as far as letting the Fred Wolf show go its own way, I don't think Laird had the power to pull rank and demand creative control. Plus - Turtlemania was in full swing in the late '80s and early '90s, and I don't think Eastman and Laird would have had time to pore over scripts, along with all the other Turtle stuff they were dealing with.

For the 2k3 show, Laird had 20 years of Turtle success to support his demand for creative control (if it was a demand - it seems like 4kids hired the writer, and he was good enough to get Laird involved). And by then, Mirage had a CEO running things, so Laird had more time to work on something like reviewing cartoon scripts.

Regarding the Shredder - I thought the Mirage comics Shredder had a ton of potential and a very compelling back story, almost like a reverse Batman. He was a villain but he wasn't a straight-up "bad guy." I know why they changed him for the kiddie-fied 80s show. But changing him into a straight-up "bad guy" for the more sophisticated 2k3 show just seemed to make him less interesting. He's a robot body with a little alien in his stomach, and he's pissed off, and he's the baddest dude in town... Okay? But what motivates him? He's evil? That works for a straight-up lunatic, but the Shredder was very calculating in the first season. Afterwards, he turned into kind of a brainless bad guy. I felt like all that potential character development was wasted.

I dunno, turning him into an Utrom seemed to have been done just so all the characters could freak out over him being an Utrom.

I agree with all of that, to start with.

But wasn't the whole thing with Mona Lisa, because of the "no female Turtles" edict, and that forced Eastman and Laird's involvement (re-design her and then abandon her), even when they long since left the series? Unique circumstances aside, you're right, as both men had their attentions focused on their empire, but as per Mona Lisa, they could force themselves to step in, if need be. And the irony to the Mona Lisa incident is that the fandom or enough of it rather digs her (including myself), to this day. You never know.

You're right, as Laird gained more experience about the licensing business, and with Gary Richardson eventually appearing as Mirage CEO, he would have had more time to be more involved.

And you sum up nicely my present issues with 2003 Shredder. I long got over the Utrom revision, but "why should I care if you win?" Unlike the other villains (Karai, Bishop, Chaplin, Baxter, Hun), one can identity with them. After the Utrom reveal after the excellent Season 1 build-up, Utrom Shredder essentially became a living prop (in my opinion, so feel free to correct me or inform me otherwise). Now, he's very competent at what he does, but is that enough? 87 Shredder had his problems, but as noted in other threads, he proved to be an actual character while doing his villainy. Don't have to agree or like with what was done to him, but he was a character, alright.

Then again, one could say that about Mirage Shredder, but between his backstory, motivations (avenging his brother), his overall legacy and paucity of appearances, it balances out. Harder to do over many seasons and Ch'rell's character is more or less constant. Which is interesting, as Mirage in the 2000's was all about changing or progressing their iconic characters, both in form and personality.

[MikeandRaph87]

To further your point Moth, there is also the incident with Man Ray/Ray. Laird and Eastman stepped in again in 1991 when Man Ray was going to be the gnetic experiment stooge of a mad scientist in Rebel Without A Fin. They did not want the character depicted as evil but did not care when the less memorable Zack And The Alien Invaders made Wingnut was Screwloose's lacky hypnoizing boys as thier personal army. Leatherhead was the most diversely portrayed character and still is within the franchise best remembered for the cajun bully from the Florida swamp portrayal.

The problem with making Shredder a renagade utrom is it makes fans even if knowing better think Shredder and Krang melded into one character. Its far from intended but what it ultimatly comes across and makes me feel that we did not have an actual Shredder but variants of the character.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

To further your point Moth, there is also the incident with Man Ray/Ray. Laird and Eastman stepped in again in 1991 when Man Ray was going to be the gnetic experiment stooge of a mad scientist in Rebel Without A Fin.

I think it was more Ryan Brown's fighting to keep his creation from being bastardized than Eastman and Laird putting their foot down.

[Killer Moth]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

To further your point Moth, there is also the incident with Man Ray/Ray. Laird and Eastman stepped in again in 1991 when Man Ray was going to be the gnetic experiment stooge of a mad scientist in Rebel Without A Fin. They did not want the character depicted as evil but did not care when the less memorable Zack And The Alien Invaders made Wingnut was Screwloose's lacky hypnoizing boys as thier personal army. Leatherhead was the most diversely portrayed character and still is within the franchise best remembered for the cajun bully from the Florida swamp portrayal.

The problem with making Shredder a renagade utrom is it makes fans even if knowing better think Shredder and Krang melded into one character. Its far from intended but what it ultimatly comes across and makes me feel that we did not have an actual Shredder but variants of the character.

I recall Ryan Brown stepping in with Man Ray, but I didn't know if Eastman/Laird were involved, as well. (I remembered it, but I didn't post on it originally, because I didn't think it was germane, as I thought that didn't involve Eastman/Laird.) Although, Ray, as a character, had a nice nonchalant attitude and proved that having all the abilities of sea life at your physical command isn't so lame, either.

Ironically, 87 version is my least favorite of Leatherhead, mainly for lack of nuance, I suppose. Though, his Southern-ism was a nice touch. Win some, lose some, and Archie did a good job with him in the end.

Someone on the TMNT Entity blog, had a nice snarky comment that 2003 Shredder was made to be like Krang, and Mirage Shredder was made to be like Wyrm. But was the change worth it for the character's sake or for the sake of change itself?

It's all easy to muse such things, as hindsight is 20/20 or whatever. Laird and Eastman both made their share of calls, good or bad, going with what they knew at the time. Had to do something right, even if they did make their share of mistakes along the way. Wonder how the Turtlemania would have been like or what the media products would have been, had Eastman and Laird knew then what they know now.

Edit: Read Jester's post after my posting, so until I get direct evidence otherwise, I'd just presume it was all on Brown's part. Or, after seeing Eastman and Laird doing it with the Mona Lisa episode, he better follow suit or, in all likelihood, would have stepped in, anyway?

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Killer Moth

I'd just presume it was all on Brown's part. Or, after seeing Eastman and Laird doing it with the Mona Lisa episode, he better follow suit or, in all likelihood, would have stepped in, anyway?

What do you mean about E&L and the Mona Lisa episode?

[Jester]

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

What do you mean about E&L and the Mona Lisa episode?

It's been rumored that originally Mona Lisa was to be a female Turtle, but Eastman and laird had that changed to a lizard.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Jester

It's been rumored that originally Mona Lisa was to be a female Turtle, but Eastman and laird had that changed to a lizard.

Ah, I'd be interested to see a source on that. It really does make a lot of sense though (Renaissance painters = male turtles, Renaissance artwork = female turtles). However, if that was indeed the original plan, then you'd think they would have written her into more episodes.

[Killer Moth]

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

What do you mean about E&L and the Mona Lisa episode?

Mind you, this is internet rumor meme from memory (I think it was TV Tropes or Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt), and officially, I don't know if there is actual proof or if anyone asked Laird or Eastman, or what not. First, her design had to be changed to be less of a Turtle (which kinda explained how the character's action figure had a Turtle-like shell on her back) and then when the episode's climax set her to be a recurring character, she was eventually dropped completely.

Of course, you guys are the experts, so if I misread or just let a rumor gain traction by mistake, feel free to call me out on it. Because I would love to know, seriously.

Edit: Read the last two posts after posting this one. Whoops.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Killer Moth

Mind you, this is internet rumor meme from memory (I think it was TV Tropes or Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt), and officially, I don't know if there is actual proof or if anyone asked Laird or Eastman, or what not. First, her design had to be changed to be less of a Turtle (which kinda explained how the character's action figure had a Turtle-like shell on her back) and then when the episode's climax set her to be a recurring character, she was eventually dropped completely.

Of course, you guys are the experts, so if I misread or just let a rumor gain traction by mistake, feel free to call me out on it. Because I would love to know, seriously.

Edit: Read the last two posts after posting this one. Whoops.

Eh, I guess we'd just have to ask on the Mirage guys. Too bad Murphy's old blog has been forever wiped out of existence.

I never had a Mona Lisa action figure, so this is the first I've heard about a "turtle-like shell on her back." But I always thought the figure's mold looked a little "phoned in" or whatever. Maybe Playmates Toys just jerry-rigged that lizard tail on at the last minute?

[Xav]

According to TMNTPedia it was revealed in the letters pages in volume 4, issue 18 that she was originally supposed to be a female mutant turtle.