What version did worse?

[THGhost]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

No, what makes 2K3/4Kids better is that it took itself mostly seriously, told a linear story, and wasn't in the 80s.

Hear hear! Plus it followed the comics pretty faithfully too.

[Gunpowder]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

No, what makes 2K3/4Kids better is that it took itself mostly seriously, told a linear story, and wasn't in the 80s.

Yes, yes, and yes. There were quite a few filler episodes butted up against that story, but every bit of it was enjoyable imo. And when sh*t got real, it got REAL.

Laird directing = more loyal to source material in nearly every way possible

[Yabuturtle]

Originally Posted by Bry

Look, I'm not going to pretend the 2007 movie is a major high point for the property or filmmaking in general. Its plot was definitely half-baked, and as a whole it needed another draft or two at the script stage to really come together. But it did have a plot, and it did tell a story. I'm still not convinced that BayTurtles had a plot at all. What it had was dozens of plot holes, contradictions and random idiocy racing around and crashing into each other at 100 mph, leaving a charred, ugly mess of a "movie" in its wake.

They had plots and some are better than others. I don't know why it's called BayTurtles. Michael Bay didn't even write it or direct it, just produced it. I'm not a huge fan of Michael Bay either though, but people act as if he wrote it or directed it which he didn't. Turtles having jobs, Leonardo leaving so he could become a better leader was unexplained. Why did he have to leave? Was there some major moment where Leonardo doubted himself or Splinter thought he wasn't being a good enough leader? And why South America, and how did he get there? Why did they even have jobs to begin with? There's so many things that weren't explained and I felt like I missed something. Even things where Leonardo would criticizes Raph's alter ego for being a vigilante, even though the Turtles were technically vigilantes, not being employed by the law, and their friend Casey Jones was a vigilante, yet they didn't have a problem with him. Leo was rather hypocritical in this movie and not nearly as good as his other counter parts.

[plastroncafe]

The 2007 movie had a lot going for it, from where I'm sitting.
I thought the animation was great. The voice acting was awesome.
It gave me a Leo I could finally tolerate and understand.
The roof-top fight scene is one I'd waited most of my fanboy life for.
And the breakfast scene.

THE BREAKFAST SCENE!
I would watch an entire movie of nothing but those five characters just...being.

But no matter how much I liked all of the above, it was riddled with plot-holes.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Yabuturtle

They had plots and some are better than others. I don't know why it's called BayTurtles. Michael Bay didn't even write it or direct it, just produced it. I'm not a huge fan of Michael Bay either though, but people act as if he wrote it or directed it which he didn't. Turtles having jobs, Leonardo leaving so he could become a better leader was unexplained. Why did he have to leave? Was there some major moment where Leonardo doubted himself or Splinter thought he wasn't being a good enough leader? And why South America, and how did he get there? Why did they even have jobs to begin with? There's so many things that weren't explained and I felt like I missed something.

It's called BayTurtles because Platinum Dunes is run by Michael Bay. Things happen or don't happen by his decree. Read some of the other threads, like how Bay was responsible for killing off all the actual Foot ninja and replacing them with terrorists.

[1987]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Seems like a lot of butthurt nostalgic FW fans hate 2K3 for pretty accurate comparisons between the FW TMNT and the 2K3 TMNT.

Ah, fandom... making fans look bad since Al Gore first invented the internet.

Reviewing this thread, it's kinda hard picking between the various terrible incarnations of the Turtles.

#1 Fred Wolf TMNT is a pretty lousy show to watch without nostalgic rose-colored glasses, but it created about 95% of us fans and enabled TMNT to endure as a brand. So I can't give it all my hate.

#2 Platinum Dunes' movie was atrocious, with a script that got run through a shredder (irony!) before a squirrel on LSD crapped all over it. But the four actors who played the Turtles did the best they could with what they had, and provide the only watchable parts of the movie. So I can't give it all my hate.

#3 Fast Forward / Back to the Sewers was the collapse and bitter end of what had previously been an awesome series and IMO the best animated version of the TMNT ever. But it did follow an incredible four seasons and one okay season, so again, I can't give it all my hate.

#4 The Next Mutation? All my hate. All of it, right here. Shame on you and your plastron cleavage!

it seems that a lot of 2k3 fans are butthurt at the fact that us true ot fans are not buying into the bull$hit portrayal of the ot turtles in turtles forever. no it was not a "pretty accurate" portrayal. the turtles never cried like little girls in the ot. even the intro scene is stupid, the ot turtles never all laughed and joked around while they were captured and tied up.

i can tolerate all the other crap they did in turtles forever, but the crying scene, making the ot turtles look like cowards, was really where i drew the line. what if that scene was reversed? what if it was the 2k3 turtles crying like little girls and running to the ot turtles for comfort? i bet that woulda pi$$ed off a lot of 2k3 fans.

[Bry]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

But no matter how much I liked all of the above, it was riddled with plot-holes.

Oh yeah, nobody can claim the 2007 movie didn't have plot holes. But most of them could've easily been handled by explaining/expanding on certain plot points and generally polishing up the script.

Even as-is, none of them are as internal-logic-breaking as April's dad somehow dying in a fire he started and by being shot to death by Eric Sacks (who wasn't even there), April having no evidence of the Turtles' existence in one scene then having a photo of them in the very next one, Splinter knowing who Shredder is despite having never met or even seen him before, and a supervillain plot to get rich cooked up by someone who's already a multi-billionaire that depends specifically on him being caught red-handed. And that's just a small selection of the many massive, logic-shattering plot holes in BayTurtles.

Originally Posted by 1987

it seems that a lot of 2k3 fans are butthurt at the fact that us true ot fans are not buying into the bull$hit portrayal of the ot turtles in turtles forever. no it was not a "pretty accurate" portrayal. the turtles never cried like little girls in the ot.

Okay, hold on a tic. Are you saying you're "true OT fans" as in true fans of the '87 cartoon, or that OT fans are somehow "truer" than fans of the 2003 series?

Either way... sheesh, dude. This is a TV movie from six years ago. Let it go!

(Or if you can't do that, at least try to acknowledge the very fair, well-reasoned rebuttals to your whine-fests instead of just dismissing everyone as "butthurt 2K3 fans". Otherwise folks might get the impression you don't have a sound argument here and you know it. )

[Yabuturtle]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

It's called BayTurtles because Platinum Dunes is run by Michael Bay. Things happen or don't happen by his decree. Read some of the other threads, like how Bay was responsible for killing off all the actual Foot ninja and replacing them with terrorists.

He is responsible, but I'd say most of the blame goes to the people that actually wrote it and directed it, not the person who produced it. Unlike the other movies Bay actually directed like the Transformers movies.

[Gunpowder]

Originally Posted by Bry

Even as-is, none of them are as internal-logic-breaking as April's dad somehow dying in a fire he started and by being shot to death by Eric Sacks (who wasn't even there), April having no evidence of the Turtles' existence in one scene then having a photo of them in the very next one, Splinter knowing who Shredder is despite having never met or even seen him before, and a supervillain plot to get rich cooked up by someone who's already a multi-billionaire that depends specifically on him being caught red-handed. And that's just a small selection of the many massive, logic-shattering plot holes in BayTurtles.

I'm still convinced that the cuts & re-shoots (to make Sacks & Shredder different people) were responsible for a lot of those plot holes...like, a crucial line was cut, or something. For example, if Sacks was still Shredder, then Splinter would have seen him whilst in the lab with April's dad (since Sacks was there)..so that would have explained him recognizing Shredder later on. Even though he upgraded his armor, lol...you know what, nevermind. I'm probably wrong.

[Wesley]

Originally Posted by 1987

it seems that a lot of 2k3 fans are butthurt at the fact that us true ot fans are not buying into the bull$hit portrayal of the ot turtles in turtles forever. no it was not a "pretty accurate" portrayal. the turtles never cried like little girls in the ot. even the intro scene is stupid, the ot turtles never all laughed and joked around while they were captured and tied up.

i can tolerate all the other crap they did in turtles forever, but the crying scene, making the ot turtles look like cowards, was really where i drew the line. what if that scene was reversed? what if it was the 2k3 turtles crying like little girls and running to the ot turtles for comfort? i bet that woulda pi$$ed off a lot of 2k3 fans.

I agree that the OT turtles never cried. They did run away from their enemies a lot in their own series, nevertheless. Raphael did make jokes in dangerous situations in episodes like The Return of Dregg and Divide and Conquer, but I liked that because I thought it showed that they weren't afraid no matter what situation they were in.

[plastroncafe]

OT turtles DID cry.
Michaelangelo cries in the first Nutrino episode, when saying goodbye.
And that's just one instance off the top of my head.

[CyberCubed]

The original cartoon had tons of great episodes and funny scenes. It was an adventure comedy series, not every show needs plotlines or story arcs.

[Yabuturtle]

Originally Posted by Wesley

I agree that the OT turtles never cried. They did run away from their enemies a lot in their own series, nevertheless. Raphael did make jokes in dangerous situations in episodes like The Return of Dregg and Divide and Conquer, but I liked that because I thought it showed that they weren't afraid no matter what situation they were in.

They did run away sometimes but they did try and fight the enemies off before realizing they were no match for them. Turtles Forever showed a scene where the OT Turtles looked at the Mirage Turtles and immediately cower, drop their weapons and run away. In the episode "Night of the Rogues", they at least tried to fight them off before realizing that they were not only outnumbered, but outmatched.

Making a few jokes and one liners is ok but scenes where Hun has all of them captured and none of the Turtles look the least bit worried and just laugh at their own jokes constantly. It seems out of character to me.

[Wesley]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

OT turtles DID cry.
Michaelangelo cries in the first Nutrino episode, when saying goodbye.
And that's just one instance off the top of my head.

You're right, plastroncafe. I forgot about those moments for some reason. I thought the crying wasn't as bad as in Turtles Forever, though, but it was there in the OT. Mikey also shed a tear in The Power of Three when saying goodbye to Carter.

Originally Posted by Yabuturtle

They did run away sometimes but they did try and fight the enemies off before realizing they were no match for them. Turtles Forever showed a scene where the OT Turtles looked at the Mirage Turtles and immediately cower, drop their weapons and run away. In the episode "Night of the Rogues", they at least tried to fight them off before realizing that they were not only outnumbered, but outmatched.

Making a few jokes and one liners is ok but scenes where Hun has all of them captured and none of the Turtles look the least bit worried and just laugh at their own jokes constantly. It seems out of character to me.

I agree with what you've said. I thought the first scene with Hun and the OT turtles was out of character as well. I was expecting them to try to break free. In the episode A Turtle in Time, Dregg had drained their life energy and they still tried to fight him.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

The original cartoon had tons of great episodes and funny scenes. It was an adventure comedy series, not every show needs plotlines or story arcs.

Nope, not every good show needs plotlines or story arcs.

But every GOOD show does.

Every good story survives only because they have at least one of the two following criteria:

#1. Good characters who grow and develop
#2. Plot lines and story arcs

[Yabuturtle]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Nope, not every good show needs plotlines or story arcs.

But every GOOD show does.

Every good story survives only because they have at least one of the two following criteria:

#1. Good characters who grow and develop
#2. Plot lines and story arcs

Nope that's not true.

There's Robot Chicken. xD Filled with just skits and no real "plot".

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Yabuturtle

Nope that's not true.

There's Robot Chicken. xD Filled with just skits and no real "plot".

That's something completely different. You might as well say that John Oliver or Conan O'Brien have to have plot and/or character development.

[plastroncafe]

I would posit by that definition, among others, that Robot Chicken isn't a good show.

[Bry]

The beautiful, beautiful irony is that a lot of Fred Wolf fans are taking the show and its characters so seriously when its creators never did.

For the vast majority of its run, aside from the earliest and latest couple seasons (which were incidentally also the show's shortest) it wasn't intended to have much in the way of story arcs, continuity or even internal consistency. Characters would disappear with no explanation and certain plot points and status quos would change with no rhyme or reason. Designs/art styles would look noticeably different from one episode to the next. The layout of the lair would completely morph when the script called for it, and characters' behaviours would vary from episode to episode. Everything was malleable around the episode's plot and jokes, and the show even acknowledged this from time to time.

And I don't even mean any of this as a criticism! I genuinely like the show. I've got the Turtle Van boxed set on a shelf in my studio. But you can't deny that, for the majority of its run, it was very intentionally treated as a joke. That was the point of it. At its best, it had a clever, tongue-in-cheek sense of humour about itself, and it expected that the audience was in on the joke.

Both series were just doing very different things, and each fan's preference will depend on their own personal tastes. There were a lot of truly bad episodes in the '87 cartoon, especially when the seasons became bloated and the writing/animation got cheaper and lazier, but the 2003 series had some stinkers itself. I do think the 2003 series holds up a lot better overall because it was telling an actual story and treated its characters more like actual characters than two-dimensional caricatures, but... again, that comes down to my personal tastes, and those have no bearing on anyone else's preferences.

But honestly, having rewatched a bunch of the show pretty recently: you could take the '87 Turtles from Turtles Forever and drop them into a random mid-series episode and, I promise you, they'd fit right in.

(Aside from the scene where they ran into 2003 Raph's arms crying like babies - I agree that bit was weirdly out-of-place and mean-spirited. The rest, though? Pretty damn accurate.)

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

I would posit by that definition, among others, that Robot Chicken isn't a good show.

I do find it funny that he's arguing Robot Chicken isn't a good show.

It has some funny skits, I'll admit that, but there are quite a lot that fall flat. For me at least.