Paramount Pictures @ Comic Con. 'TMNT' to be included?

[Bry]

All right, not getting into this any more than these comments, but...

Originally Posted by floydbanks7

Movies should not be judged by movie trailers.

Why not? That's exactly what movie trailers are for - to let the audience make a judgment on whether or not they're interested and want to see something. That's the whole purpose of marketing.

Originally Posted by floydbanks7

If you think you're being original with your Michael Bay hatred, you're not. It's basically an Internet Meme at this point. The guy makes MONEY.

So what? "It makes money" isn't much of a rebuttal. Success doesn't mean quality. It's totally subjective.

People dislike Bay's work for a lot of valid reasons. Relax.

Originally Posted by floydbanks7

Lastly, you're not open minded, you are very close minded. You are making judgements on a movie that is 2 weeks away from being released like you've seen the final product. You are unwilling to go in with an open mind and see if you might like some of the updates to the characters.

That's his prerogative, though. I don't like the changes to the characters either, and I'm entitled to those opinions. I don't like the idea of giant bulletproof Ninja Turtles, just like I wouldn't like it if they turned Spider-Man into a boy wizard, Superman into a human test subject, or Batman into an actual talking bat. In my opinion, these kind of changes fly in the face of who and what the characters are and completely alter their appeal to the point that they're not even the same thing anymore.

If you disagree, then fine. You're entitled to your opinion. Just don't get in my face about mine and we'll all get along fine.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Originally Posted by Bry

Why not? That's exactly what movie trailers are for - to let the audience make a judgment on whether or not they're interested and want to see something. That's the whole purpose of marketing.

There are plenty of movies that have bad trailers, but are good movies, and plenty of movies with good trailers, but are bad movies. The final product is what should be judged.

So what? "It makes money" isn't much of a rebuttal. Success doesn't mean quality. It's totally subjective.

People dislike Bay's work for a lot of valid reasons. Relax.

I understand that, however, there is this insult people use when it comes to this movie by saying it's a Michael Bay movie, and that's the reason it will suck. He didn't direct it. They are either uniformed or just repeating things they've read or heard. Typically these people don't offer anything else in regards to why they might not be interested in this movie.

That's his prerogative, though. I don't like the changes to the characters either, and I'm entitled to those opinions. I don't like the idea of giant bulletproof Ninja Turtles, just like I wouldn't like it if they turned Spider-Man into a boy wizard, Superman into a human test subject, or Batman into an actual talking bat. In my opinion, these kind of changes fly in the face of who and what the characters are and completely alter their appeal to the point that they're not even the same thing anymore.

I don't have many posts on this board, and all of them have come in the last few days. I have been on record saying I am still up in the air on their current look, I don't like the bulletproof aspect, I don't like how big they are. I actually don't like Shredder, and if you want to really get nit picky, I HATE the fact Raphael is wearing a do-rag and not a face mask. What you won't find in my posts are me saying they're ruining TMNT because they changed some things that I don't like. I hate Harry Potter and know nothing about him so I'll leave him out of this. If they changed Superman to be a human test subject, he's no longer Superman, he's not Kal-El son of Jor-El from Krypton. If they make Batman a mutant bat, he's not human anymore. Just because they are making the Turtles test subjects, doesn't make them any less Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Maybe the writers were sick of the "accident" reason for why they are what they are, and wanted to actually give the audience a payoff, a reason, give them some purpose other than being an accident. Who knows? We will in 2 weeks.

If you disagree, then fine. You're entitled to your opinion. Just don't get in my face about mine and we'll all get along fine.

I was replying to someone else w/ my post you're picking apart. I am not trying to change anyone's opinion on whether you like their looks or whatever, what I'm hoping to accomplish, is that instead of damning the movie to hell, actually go and see it, see if you enjoy it. You never know if you'll end up liking the changes unless you see how it plays out on screen.

[Leo656]

Frankly, anyone can be forgiven for making a decision based on trailers. As stated, some good movies have bad trailers and vice-versa, but ultimately, it's the job of the trailer to sell the movie to the people who were either unaware or on the fence. It's a "hard sell", ostensibly the final thing a person needs to see in order to decide that they must go see the movie in question. Thus, a person is entirely within their rights to say, "I didn't like the trailers, I'm skipping this movie."

In this case, not only did the trailers not "sell" me, they actually went off and confirmed a lot of things I'd hoped were either exaggerated or untrue. It's a whole bunch of stuff I hate about movies, with a TMNT veneer on top of it. What am I supposed to think, that the full movie is somehow a complete 180 from what we've already seen? This is what they've chosen to present to the public as an indicator of what the movie represents. At this point, knowing that about a third of it won't be to my taste, I'm not holding my breath for the rest to "Wow" me. And I don't think anyone else who's decided to Pass can be faulted for it, either.

Yes, some really good movies have had bad trailers, but that's the marketing department's fault. And Some movies actually do turn out very different in theaters than the trailers present, but I somehow doubt that's the case here. It seems pretty plain that what you see is what we're gonna get.

[Bry]

Originally Posted by floydbanks7

There are plenty of movies that have bad trailers, but are good movies, and plenty of movies with good trailers, but are bad movies. The final product is what should be judged.

So what's the alternative? That everyone has to see every movie that looks bad to them in order to make any judgment at all?

Leo656 nailed it above, so now I don't have to respond any more.

Originally Posted by floydbanks7

I understand that, however, there is this insult people use when it comes to this movie by saying it's a Michael Bay movie, and that's the reason it will suck. He didn't direct it. They are either uniformed or just repeating things they've read or heard. Typically these people don't offer anything else in regards to why they might not be interested in this movie.

They've been actively promoting this movie using Michael Bay's name, though. The studio wants that connection there. You can't get mad at people for making a connection they've had specifically hammered into their heads through official channels.

And besides - producers actually have a lot of input into how a movie turns out, especially when the producer's prolific and powerful and the director is a relative nobody. Like it or not, Michael Bay is a huge part of this movie's DNA, and that's a valid point to make when talking about it.

Originally Posted by floydbanks7

What you won't find in my posts are me saying they're ruining TMNT because they changed some things that I don't like. I hate Harry Potter and know nothing about him so I'll leave him out of this. If they changed Superman to be a human test subject, he's no longer Superman, he's not Kal-El son of Jor-El from Krypton. If they make Batman a mutant bat, he's not human anymore. Just because they are making the Turtles test subjects, doesn't make them any less Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Maybe the writers were sick of the "accident" reason for why they are what they are, and wanted to actually give the audience a payoff, a reason, give them some purpose other than being an accident.

Yeah, but the "accident" reason is a huge part of their backstory and appeal. And I think it's a really important one - having the Turtles find meaning in their accidental existence is a lot more compelling than having them specifically "made", isn't it? They're outcasts from society who have no "place" in the world, but find their own family, friends, and purpose. Having them created with a specific purpose only stands to take away their own natural development and their agency in their own story.

It's like if Bruce Wayne's parents were specifically gunned down in order to turn Bruce into Batman. If Krypton were blown up specifically because someone wanted Kal-El to become Earth's hero. Or if Peter Parker was specifically engineered to become Spider-Man...

Oh, wait, they actually kinda did that last one, didn't they? HOLLYWOOD, WHY!?

Originally Posted by floydbanks7

I am not trying to change anyone's opinion on whether you like their looks or whatever, what I'm hoping to accomplish, is that instead of damning the movie to hell, actually go and see it, see if you enjoy it. You never know if you'll end up liking the changes unless you see how it plays out on screen.

Again, though - not everybody wants to go see it to find out. A lot of us have seen and heard enough to turn us off and don't intend to spend our time and money on something we're not likely gonna enjoy. And that's perfectly fair. The movie's marketing is supposed to sell the movie, and if it failed to do that with some people, then it failed to do that.

I know we're all fans and we're emotionally invested in the franchise to some degree, but it's the studio's job to get butts into seats, not anyone else's. If some of us choose not to buy into this movie, that's our prerogative, right?

[Sumac]

Movies should not be judged by movie trailers. You say you got other info about the plot, how do you know that's correct info?

Movies can be partially judged based on trailers. This is why they are created in the first place, to let people see what movie is about, its tone and basic ideas of cinematography.

And about other information: there were previews from reporters and interviews from the people working on this movie. I can predict that you'll say, that I shouldn't trust words of reporters, but should I ignore words of people behind this project? Their comments on the tone and story e.t.c?

Generally your words smell like a really bad attempt to protect this movie, by any means possible. Even when they are outright implausible. Which comes as no surprise, given "leery" crowd general attitude.

People are getting too tied up in the littlest things, like the types of jokes being toilet humor or sexual. Just for the hell of it last night, i watched the first '87 cartoon, and Michelangelo burps for like 5 seconds to impress his brothers, and they ask splinter if they can basically keep April hostage.

Details make the picture.
And what could be taken non-seriously in the context of the cartoon for children could have different connotations in the movie. Especially with how Turtles look in it.

And I don't remember where Mike burping in the old cartoon. I remember there was such moment in the new one (2k3) series, but OT generally didn't had toilet humor, which was a good thing. Give me link to that moment or I will think your memory kind of fails you.

The movie is trying to be it's own thing, which is not such a bad thing, unless it's bad. Just let the dang movie come out first.

Movie will be released anyway, and my opinion will not decide if it fail or succeed.
I've seen enough to have a good idea what kind of thing this movie trying to be and that is not thing I prefer.

If you think you're being original with your Michael Bay hatred, you're not.

I think you have confused yourself, though I get your implications. You think that I hate Bay because it's a trend and because I jealous of the money he makes...

You know, we have a saying, that goes like this: when somebody makes judgement of another person, he is usually base it on his own personality. So your accusations tells me more about yourself rather than insult me.

I dislike Bay because right now he makes objectively ****** movies, which succeed only based on his ability to make cool explosions and action. It is a lowest common denominator - create a 2 hours of action + ****** humor with no story or interesting characters. It's certainly a talent, but very specific one and obviously not to everyone liking. As for the Turtles, you can draw any kind of conclusions, but my eyes do not deceiving me and new movie definitely looks a lot like his Transformers. He maybe have not directly directed it (sorry for the pun), but it feels like it's his movie.

Also, his movie Rock is one of my most favorite movies ever. So, it's not like I hate Bay for the sake of hatred or trends. I am not petty like that.

Lastly, you're not open minded, you are very close minded. You are making judgements on a movie that is 2 weeks away from being released like you've seen the final product. You are unwilling to go in with an open mind and see if you might like some of the updates to the characters.

So because all available information points out this movie will be...not to my liking I must keep an open mind and see it? Maybe, if it was some other project I would have done that. But not in case of this work. I have seen enough of that. I don't like Bayformers and since TMNT'14 shapes to be its carbon copy, I don't feel like giving it a chance. It's not closemindedness. It's called "having taste". Or just "having personal preferences", if you want me to be less direct.

They are either uniformed or just repeating things they've read or heard. Typically these people don't offer anything else in regards to why they might not be interested in this movie.

Blatant and utter lie.
People who dislike movie, usually provided ****-a-ton of arguments why they dislike it and its changes. But leery crowd prefer to ignore them, just cause it fits their version of reality. If they stop to ignore them - they would had stumble upon pressing need to find answers that make sense to the very uncomfortable questions...which most likely will not be possible.

You never know if you'll end up liking the changes unless you see how it plays out on screen.

I don't see how I could like Turtles being turned into bulletproof minihulks, no matter what the context.

[IndigoErth]

Is this a movie or an eager cult movement...

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

@Sumac

Ugh this is getting repetitive and boring. I have no clue if this movie is good. I guess I can't understand how people who claim to love TMNT so much can be so sure that they will like NOTHING about this movie.

Reviews of a Vans Warped tour screening are coming out and they're all positive.

One review said "This movie was really good for a Michael Bay movie" - this is what I am talking about when I say uninformed people.

My whole reason for posting in this thread was because I felt like there was some underground troll movement to call this movie sexist, then with the toilet humor complaints, based off of 5 minutes of released footage. There has always been sexual humor and "toilet" humor in TMNT, but people just love to be offended now a days, I should have just stayed quiet, the offended will never just relax. I chose to comment here because this is specifically for TMNT fans so I was kind of shocked to see those complaints here. And I'm not calling anyone here who has made those complaints trolls, but I will say you should lighten up.

[Bry]

Originally Posted by floydbanks7

My whole reason for posting in this thread was because I felt like there was some underground troll movement to call this movie sexist, then with the toilet humor complaints, based off of 5 minutes of released footage. There has always been sexual humor and "toilet" humor in TMNT, but people just love to be offended now a days, I should have just stayed quiet, the offended will never just relax. I chose to comment here because this is specifically for TMNT fans so I was kind of shocked to see those complaints here. And I'm not calling anyone here who has made those complaints trolls, but I will say you should lighten up.

Okay, first off, your tone is pretty hostile here and only stands to rile people up more. So maybe check that before you go calling people out.

There isn't any "underground troll movement" - just fans who have a lot of valid reasons to be leery about this movie and haven't liked what they've seen so far. Paramount and the producers behind the movie don't need anyone defending their honour. Paramount's a multi-billion-dollar corporation and all the producers involved in the movie are millionaires. They're all gonna sleep comfortably no matter what some fans say on the Internet, so let's all just put that in perspective, all right?

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Originally Posted by Bry

Okay, first off, your tone is pretty hostile here and only stands to rile people up more. So maybe check that before you go calling people out.

There isn't any "underground troll movement" - just fans who have a lot of valid reasons to be leery about this movie and haven't liked what they've seen so far. Paramount and the producers behind the movie don't need anyone defending their honour. Paramount's a multi-billion-dollar corporation and all the producers involved in the movie are millionaires. They're all gonna sleep comfortably no matter what some fans say on the Internet, so let's all just put that in perspective, all right?

I specifically said I wasn't talking to anyone on this board. The Troll movement I'm talking about is coming from non TMNT specific areas of the internet, and it relates to one sexual joke in the trailer. I'm not sticking up for Paramount, if anything I'm selfishly sticking up for TMNT because I don't want to wait another 20 some years for a TMNT movie.

I'll get this out of the way. I don't like Megan Fox, I think she's a very bad actress. I was not happy when she was cast. I don't know if she'll be good in this movie. I have seen an incredible amount of hate towards her specifically calling her a slut or she's nasty and sexual therefore there will be a lot of sexuality in this movie. I've seen a post comparing Judith Hoag to Fox by posting pictures of how classy Judith is, and then posting only bikini pictures of Fox claiming she's a disgusting porn star or something. These posts have been coming from women. The slut shaming women are doing to each other is really not cool. I feel like because Michael Bay over sexualized her in Transformers, she's now labeled as some whore. She has a few kids, has been with the same man for years, and I don't even think she's had a sex scene in any of her movies. I am willing to bet there will be less sexual tension between 2014 April and men in the movie than there was with 1990 April who had a LOT of sexual tension between Casey and herself.

[TigerClaw]

Sometimes a Trailer gives too much information about the movie, To the point you know whats going to happen in the film, when it gets to that point.

For example, The recent TMNT trailer showing the Turtles getting captured and taken away, And Raph going out to rescue them.

Cause of that, That is a major plot point of the film, that we know comes when we watch it.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

Sometimes a Trailer gives too much information about the movie, To the point you know whats going to happen in the film, when it gets to that point.

For example, The recent TMNT trailer showing the Turtles getting captured and taken away, And Raph going out to rescue them.

Cause of that, That is a major plot point of the film, that we know comes when we watch it.

I agree they've shown too much plot, but I think they had a little freak out, because the first trailer had nothing in it, and people were up in arms over the look of them, the fact it looked really dark, so they started putting out more footage so people know it's fun, not dark. And it's still only like 5 min of footage, we still have an hour and 45 more minutes to watch.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by floydbanks7

I literally JUST watched Turtle Power: The Definitive History of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I heard with my own ears both Lair and Eastman say it was a commentary and parody of the current *80's state of comic book characters either being teenagers, mutants, or ninjas. They drew them and wrote them as an homage to Frank Miller and Jack Kirby, but the actual concept is a parody of 80's comic books.

Is that actually out?

I can't speak for that since of not seen in what context Kevin and Peter have said it but of that's true then it's one time that they've said that it wasn't.

Let's for a moment consider that Batman was essentially The Shadow in silly costume. No one argues he shouldn't be taken seriously in any medium.

Yes, but guess what, after a few years of the comics, they started gearing TMNT towards children. they literally would create characters to make new toys. This is another reason why this whole "integrity of the turtles' argument ridiculous.

Most comic properties that hit the mainstream have had that happen. Again no one argues that Batman and Superman can't be treated seriously because they starred in The Superfriends alongside characters like Wonder Dog and Gleek the Space Monkey.

Yeah I want an R rated TMNT movie, I'm not going to get it, I've accepted that. I enjoy the humor of TMNT, it feeds off pop culture, I can deal w/ pop culture humor.

Avengers and other Marvel movies have comedic elements, usually from Tony Stark, they are not Action Comedies. TMNT is actually listed as an Action Comedy. They are attempting to make this funny throughout, but there will be serious elements.

I think a Nolan-esque movie taking the Mirage book as it's main inspiration would be great but I think the best rout to go down would be the Marvel Studios rout. You get the best of both worlds.

I don't see an action comedy working especially with the lame humor that this movie is employing.

Back then things weren't always trying to be ultra realistic or even look good. When I look at the 90's cartoon or the 2000's cartoon, they both look equally horrible. I don't think they were trying to advance the characters in any way.

I don't think any of the cartoons can be accused of being realistic but relatively speaking the the 87 shows and the 03 shows were more realistic than the Nickleodeon one which isn't even aiming for any serious degree of realism with everything is much more stylized.

I don't know what you mean by advancing the characters. Why do you think the previous shows didn't advance them and what makes you think the current show is?

That episode had him complaining that his Bo wasn't a good enough weapon, and Splinter tells him he hasn't mastered the Bo yet, and when he does he will get an upgrade, like Mikey has w/ his chucks. By the end of the episode, Donnie get's an attachment to his Bo, which makes it more than just a wooden stick.

Putting aside a Bo wouldn't break as easily as in the episode the theme of that ep, the moral if you will that the simple weapon is more reliable than the advanced technology. True Splinter gave him a li'l extra (which I can't recall him ever using) but a blade is very simple. If at the end Splinter had given him a bazooka it's the same deal with some truly outlandish like movie Don's bo that can flip trucks and toss steel containers like they were nothing.

You're just being close minded. Again, he can have ALL this tech but he can't make his weapon advanced? He just uses a boring old stick? No, this current version of Donnie obviously has him inventing things, it only makes sense his weapon of choice is more than a stick.

I think you're missing my point. Why does he have all this tech in the first place?

I've always appreciated the idea that in most versions Don starts out with acceptable level of technical know how. It increases as they go on with the implication that it's his experiences with Baxter's tech and alien tech that shows him how to build these outlandish things. We're supposed to know swallow Don can build holographic phones and that magic bo all on his own with stuff he's found in the sewers...and yet can't fix his glasses with anything but tape.

All these movies make changes...I'm not understanding why the turtles having changes is so ridiculous? They used to be little naked turtles, now they have some clothing, advanced weapons, and they're bigger (I would prefer if they were shorter).

When you're changing something there's a realm of good taste before how far you're deviating is too much for it to still be considered true.

For example in Iron Man's comic origin in 1963 Tony is captured by a Vietnamese warlord. In the 2008 movie he's captured a warlord in Afghanistan. That's acceptable and a pretty apt modernizing of the concept.

If instead he was accidentally blasted into space and made into Iron Man by aliens from Venus that is less acceptable.

My main issue w/ them possibly being Aliens was because I saw an Eastman quote where he said it was an interesting idea to have a planet of turtles. To me that made them less unique, and also the were no longer Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, they're now Turtles from Space.

Are you're not confusing this with Peter Laird's sarcastic comments which were reported as if he really meant it?

Regardless isn't the principal still the same? Doesn't it make you closed minded for not accepting that change?

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Is that actually out?

It is on Netflix Canada...I'm in the US so I got the Hola Unblocker add on for firefox, and you can log into netflix as if you're in canada. That's how I watched it.

Most comic properties that hit the mainstream have had that happen. Again no one argues that Batman and Superman can't be treated seriously because they starred in The Superfriends alongside characters like Wonder Dog and Gleek the Space Monkey.

I am certainly not saying the Turtles cannot be done seriously. What I'm saying to the people who seem to be upset that it's not being done seriously, or insinuating that this is a "sell out" movie so to say, but this is really just more of what the Turtles have been. Fun action. I'm the type of person to prefer an R rating for every movie, because I don't get offended at anything. But based on the Nick behind the scenes show, which actually changed my fears of this sucking to my excitement for this to be fun, I don't have a problem with what they're doing.

I think a Nolan-esque movie taking the Mirage book as it's main inspiration would be great but I think the best rout to go down would be the Marvel Studios rout. You get the best of both worlds.

I agree. I rank the latest Captain America movie near the top, all time, on comic book movies. I would love nothing more than to see the turtles done like Nolan did for Bats. I'm just not going to give up on this movie before I see it.

The very first thing I saw regarding this movie, was a leaked Mikey halloween costume, and I almost puked haha. Then I saw the rest of them, Donnie to me looked great from the get go, and Leo actually looks like the Leo I had tattooed on my leg, katana's dripping with blood.

The more I see, the more entertaining it looks, and I'm actually coming around to how they look.

I don't see an action comedy working especially with the lame humor that this movie is employing.

I have laughed a few times at the trailers, but I've more or less smiled at some of the action, and reactions of the turtles, I have been entertained so far.

I don't think any of the cartoons can be accused of being realistic but relatively speaking the the 87 shows and the 03 shows were more realistic than the Nickleodeon one which isn't even aiming for any serious degree of realism with everything is much more stylized.

Well my point to this was they weren't going to take the time to animate Donnie's stick to do what it does in the movie. That show had very basic animation. They reuse things all the time, and half the time the wrong colors are on the wrong turtles. I think the Nick series is the best cartoon adaptation so far. I do not like the 2003 series which everyone usually points to as being the best. But at that time in my life I had some heavy stuff go down, and maybe I wasn't in the mood to watch it. I might have to try and watch it again.

Putting aside a Bo wouldn't break as easily as in the episode the theme of that ep, the moral if you will that the simple weapon is more reliable than the advanced technology. True Splinter gave him a li'l extra (which I can't recall him ever using) but a blade is very simple. If at the end Splinter had given him a bazooka it's the same deal with some truly outlandish like movie Don's bo that can flip trucks and toss steel containers like they were nothing.

That bo he has in this movie is not THAT advanced, it's a simple hydrolic he put together, that is not a far fetched creation.

I think you're missing my point. Why does he have all this tech in the first place?

I've always appreciated the idea that in most versions Don starts out with acceptable level of technical know how. It increases as they go on with the implication that it's his experiences with Baxter's tech and alien tech that shows him how to build these outlandish things. We're supposed to know swallow Don can build holographic phones and that magic bo all on his own with stuff he's found in the sewers...and yet can't fix his glasses with anything but tape.

It's 2014...that's why he has all this tech. Technology is WAY more advanced than even the 2007 movie was.

When you're changing something there's a realm of good taste before how far you're deviating is too much for it to still be considered true.

For example in Iron Man's comic origin in 1963 Tony is captured by a Vietnamese warlord. In the 2008 movie he's captured a warlord in Afghanistan. That's acceptable and a pretty apt modernizing of the concept.

If instead he was accidentally blasted into space and made into Iron Man by aliens from Venus that is less acceptable.

I can't really argue with anyone anymore about what they consider as a drastic change. I don't think having them being created in a lab is so drastic it makes them not TMNT's. I am not ok with ALL the changes, but I'm still going to give the movie a watch. I'm going in with an open mind, not going in saying oh this is going to be horrible, they're 6 ft tall instead of 5'3. This just reminds me when Bale was cast as batman the fanboys were out saying "FINALLY WE HAVE A 6'2 BATMAN!!!" now granted, this is maybe way different, the turtles are always small but I'm not giving up on it because of 7 inches.

I said earlier I hate hate hate hate the fact that Raph is wearing a do-rag. What if I was on here saying "THIS MOVIE IS AN ABOMINATION BAY GAVE RAPH A DO-RAG, I CAN'T GO AND SEE THIS!!" I'm just looking at some of the complaints as being a little bit nit picky and silly. The bulletproof thing? I'm NOT on board with that. Still going to see it next week though.

Are you're not confusing this with Peter Laird's sarcastic comments which were reported as if he really meant it?

Regardless isn't the principal still the same? Doesn't it make you closed minded for not accepting that change?

You're right it was Laird, but he actually said he hates when they want to add one turtle, but he actually thought it was genius to have a planet of turtles like planet of the apes, but it would be a terrible TMNT origin story. Either way, I saw that he said it was genius and I thought it was the opposite. I am completely ok w/ The Krang bringing the mutagen to earth which created them, if that's what they meant by alien. Eastman said that's what was meant by Aliens when he was asked about it at comic con.

There is a difference to not liking the change, and not accepting it. I would have to see what they did with it first.

When if comes down to it, they're still the Turtles. The changes really aren't that big, they're may be a few, but nothing that's making this the turtles only by name. Here's an example of ruining something. Deadpool in the Wolverine movie. They literally took him and just made him something he's not. They shut his mouth, made him serious. Gave him blades out of his arms, and laser eyes. They didn't even call him Deadpool. They only used Wade Wilson in name. Nothing in the TMNT movie is as drastic as what Fox did with Deadpool.

[samxsteal]

Originally Posted by floydbanks7

drastic as whatFox did with Deadpool.

UNTIL NOW

http://vimeo.com/102077621
this is freaking perfect

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

@samxsteal

Oh yeah I know, I'm hoping Fox realizes a Deadpool movie would be incredible and makes one. TMNT and Deadpool are my absolute favorites.

[samxsteal]

Originally Posted by floydbanks7

@samxsteal

Oh yeah I know, I'm hoping Fox realizes a Deadpool movie would be incredible and makes one. TMNT and Deadpool are my absolute favorites.

that test footage is amazing lol

[voltron80]

Originally Posted by Bry

Nobody proved or missed any "point". We all have our reasons for being leery of this movie, or outright disliking it, and those reasons vary from person to person. They're our opinions and they're perfectly valid. Stop trying to make us all fit into two specific little "boxes" (that you alone conveniently get to define, huh?) just because you don't like that.

Stop putting words in peoples' mouths. Stop trying to tell people what their reasoning or motivations are like you know better than they do. It's small-minded and disrespectful. Do better.

Opinions are fine and good but when they're based on nothing that's the problem for you and Mr.Boston have. Glad I waited a few days to see what kind of response you put up. Because internet nerds proved my point over the weekend when DC/Warner Bros. released the picture for Wonder Woman in Batman V.Superman. People had a good old time whining about the costume and Gal Gadot. That highlight my number one point when something change internet fans act like kids spinning on their backs in the middle of the toy aisle at Wal-Mart because your mom didn't buy you classic StarScream.

As for these "boxes" you guys did that all by yourself, I just label the boxes for the movers. It seems you don't get the notion sure you're entitled to your opinion but I have the right to challenge it and vice versa. It's not you say your piece and I say mine then you whine about me twisting your words and not respecting your opinion. Do better? Maybe you should follow your own advice. But hey I gave you something to whine about.

[The Boston Ninja Turtle]

Originally Posted by voltron80

Opinions are fine and good but when they're based on nothing that's the problem for you and Mr.Boston have. .

seriously dude, ive told you before to stop putting words in my mouth and to stop bringing me into your fights..LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE AND OUT OF THIS

[Bry]

Ehh, just put the trolls on ignore and keep on, man. It's what I should have done in the first place myself. It's not worth bickering over, and there are some folks you'll just never win with anyway.

[Warhorse]

Wow, this place became a ****ing war zone. Where did this new Floyd guy pop up from? It's amazing, someone being a member on this forum for several years, and then boom, starts to get into hostile debates with the "haters" out of the freaking blue. It's just weird.