William Fichtner Not Playing Shredder

[THGhost]

Still sticking with the whole "Eric Sachs" thing, are they? How long until they announce that he's actually playing Baxter Stockman? Any takers?

[Coola Yagami]

yeah.... Shredder wasn't meant to be a 'surprise character' anyway.... so why waste time. It's like casting some random black scientist dude, don't name him at all... and then at the very end of the movie... it's revealed he's Baxter Stockman!!! I mean.... why even bother?

That Mandarin thing was clever, but leave it as a once in a while thing. Don't be quick to rip it off.

[Newton Gimmick]

Originally Posted by Xiewin

Nothing about this film makes sense...

QFT!

[pennydreadful]

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

Samxsteal had a good point, though. The last thing Bay wanted to do was offend people by changing Shredder's ethnicity - looks like that happened anyway, though. I'm sure the idea of Fichtner being Shredder wasn't a racist one; it was just something Bay wanted to change to make his version stand out. It was still a stupid idea, though. It's almost like making Black Panther a white guy.

I don't think Bay's aware enough of racial issues to have even considered the implications of a white Shredder.

Either way... I'm over the whole Shredder/Fichtner/is he isn't he thing at this stage. I don't understand what the point was of lying to us... it's just made me lose interest in this particular aspect of the movie altogether. Lying to us hasn't done us any favors, IMO - it's just annoyed a whole heap of people unnecessarily. I don't expect them to flat-out say what they're doing, but as I said - I don't like being lied to and treated like an ambulatory dollar sign who'll just swallow whatever I'm told and be grateful for it.

[Leo656]

I totally understand why studios want to hide things and surprise people, but I'm never in favor of flat-out lying about it. I'm never a fan of flat-out lying about anything, actually. "Twists" are tricky business in movies, because once the cat's out of the bag, if people don't like it you kill your own buzz with bad word of mouth. I've said it a million times, an expensive "tent pole" film that's meant to build a franchise is the absolute last place you want to take any risks or risk pissing anyone off, and that's all they've been trying to do since day one. It's asinine. If screwing with people made money, Vince Russo would be a billionaire and TNA might actually draw an audience of paying customers.

People, by and large, don't like surprises. Yes, there are those who do, so don't all of you who do like surprises jump in with "I do! I do!" Science says, you're the minority, and that people like what they like and prefer the familiar. It's like getting gifts; apparently, about 8 or 9 times out of 10, people who receive a surprise gift would prefer to have the cash equivalent so they could just get something they actually wanted. They appreciate the effort, but they're still disappointed, because what they got wasn't *exactly* what they wanted.

Every TMNT fan knows who the bad guy is supposed to be. Why the shenanigans? I'll tell you why: It's because whenever Hollywood gets their hands on a well-known property, the FIRST thing they ask isn't "How do we do this right?" or "How do we keep the fans happy?" it's "What can we Change?" Because for some reason, they think people won't go see a movie when they already know the details or the ending. Never mind how much money "Passion of the Christ" made; I mean, I doubt anyone at all expected Jesus to pull a swerve, hop down off the cross and karate kick everyone into oblivion. But the fact remains, "Swerves" are what Hollywood relies on to build these licensed films, and I hate that. It's so short-sighted. "Saw" wasn't a good movie because of the twist ending, it was good because it was original at the time, more cerebral than gory, AND it had a twist ending. So, when it comes time to do the 75 Saw sequels, what does Hollywood recycle over and over again? The Twist, reaching further and further each time until literally every character you ever saw in the entire franchise was working for the killer at some point.

Why they feel the need to "trick" or "surprise" us, I'll never know. You know what surprises me? When these hacks get their heads out of their asses long enough to do anything competent, like "Batman Begins" (with its own pointless, laughable, "Liam Neeson Is NOT Playing Ra's, He Just Coincidentally Has That Very Specific Facial Hair Which No One Except Ra's Has" tacked-on "Twist"). Just do a good movie and quit winking at us the whole time. You're NOT smarter than the material OR the audience.

Like others, I'm also very suspicious about the re-shoots having something to do with the Sachs/Shredder backlash. I know, "conspiracy theory". Still seems very plausible to me, all they'd need to change is a few CGI scenes and some dialog. It makes sense that they'd scramble and lie to cover themselves, like when they said the TMNT were aliens, then said they never said that. It's just like that. The TMNT WERE aliens, until people bitched about it, then they "fixed" it. I'd bet Sachs WAS Shredder, until people bitched, then they "fixed" it.

Whether he is or isn't Shredder, though, there's no reason to lie about it. That's just dickish.

[AlZarkovski]

It's intresting!