Netflix could do a fairly good TMNT live-action show

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by LS Animation

I don't think they'd be worried about the TMNT movie failure. Honestly, Ben Affleck's "Daredevil" is still known as one of the worst superhero movies of all-time yet Netflix gave it a shot.

I don't know that it's considered that, and a 179 million haul on a 78 million budget means they at least made a modicum of profit. And Daredevil the movie was separated by over a decade from the Netflix TV series, a whole generation passing by to forget it. It'd need...

time to separate itself from the movies. So if there won't be a third movie from Bay's production company a release for a Netflix TMNT series should come out in 2018 Fall which means they'd pretty much have to greenlight the series now anyway.

True. Which wouldn't be happening anytime soon.

I agree that Season 1 should focus on turtles fighting the gangs of NYC with perhaps an occasional appearance of some CGI baddie but overall it's not needed. A human villain (not only Shredder) could work great for the series anyway. TMNT would be a handful to take on as a series in order to get things right and appeal to general audiences but it is possible.

TMNT Season 1, Shredder should be what Fisk was to Daredevil Season 1, and Baxter could be what Wesley was to Daredevil Season 1 (and obviously, the Foot as the Hand was, but maybe kicked up a notch). Other than that, low-level thugs or Foot goings-on with some Utrom origins/TCRI intrigue on the side. April and Casey intros of course. I could see a Leatherhead episode tucked in there, too. Season 2, the Turtles could get whisked away on the Triceraton/D'hoonib odyssey (maybe with Leatherhead in tow) and return just in time to find New York a warzone. Season 3, City at War. Etc., etc.. No need to root through the children's cartoons like a raccoon as it seems to be the thing to do these days in, I dunno, everything TMNT, though I guess I wouldn't be mortified if, say, Hun showed up as the leader of the Purple Dragons, but it's not really needed.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

The biggest issue facing any show, (Netflix, HBO, whatever), is the upfront cost of your four main protagonists all being CGI... or you need really really good costumes.

I've always wished for Weta and Peter Jackson, personally.

EDITED TO ADD: The awesome thing about TMNT is that there are so many villains, you can go in a dozen directions without needing CGI-heavy mutants.

Shredder, Karai*, Foot Clan, Baxter, Rat King, Braunze, DARPA, Pimiko, Lord Komodo, Big Tony and his mob hunting for Shadow, Foot Mystics...

Even bring in some characters like Tatsu, Hun, and Bishop from non-Mirage sources.

That's a ton of great characters with minimal CGI, except for Stockman's Mousers or Rat King's rats. Then use CGI sparingly for Utroms, Leatherhead, a couple of Grodd-like Triceraton episodes (Zog)...

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

The biggest issue facing any show, (Netflix, HBO, whatever), is the upfront cost of your four main protagonists all being CGI... or you need really really good costumes.

I don't see why they couldn't just go full practical, non-animatronic suits and just CGI the eyes and mouths. I mean, give me 2 dedicated weeks, I could do that myself with an hour long episode, and I don't have access to a tenth of the tools these production houses have.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

That's a ton of great characters with minimal CGI, except for Stockman's Mousers or Rat King's rats.

Well, the good news about either mousers or rats is they really only need to generate 1 CGI model of each.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I also forgot Cha Ocho in my list of non-CGI antagonists.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I don't see why they couldn't just go full practical, non-animatronic suits and just CGI the eyes and mouths. I mean, give me 2 dedicated weeks, I could do that myself with an hour long episode, and I don't have access to a tenth of the tools these production houses have.

What you say sounds doable; I really don't know much about the do's and dont's of practical effects. I do know that:

#1. In live action, the Turtles have never looked better than the original 1990 film.
#2. Based on what similar shows have done regarding special effects and characters, the TMNT do seem to be a pretty big hurdle. I mean, Gorilla Grodd has only featured as a primary antagonist 2 episodes of The Flash, 1 episode per season. That's the closest comparison I can think of, but the CW doesn't have as much budget as (hopefully) Netflix would have.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Well, the good news about either mousers or rats is they really only need to generate 1 CGI model of each.

Exactly. Quite simple.

[LS Animation]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I don't know that it's considered that, and a 179 million haul on a 78 million budget means they at least made a modicum of profit. And Daredevil the movie was separated by over a decade from the Netflix TV series, a whole generation passing by to forget it. It'd need...

Born in 92 here. I remember watching DD 2003 movie when I was a kid. I got friends born in 94, 95 and they all remember the failure that DD was. Judging that the Neftlix show is aimed towards adults due to the gritty tone I'd say it's aimed towards those who were kids in 2003 and older

Besides 179 million is hardly breaking even. If the budget is 78 million you need 78 million to break even, right? Well 179 million gross is the amount a studio has to split with multiple investors and the distributors (cinemas). Cinemas usually get almost a half of the earnings from the tickets. Depends on the deals but usually no less than 40% and up to 70% (rare occasions). Generally they get 50% and the rest 50% is left to the studio, investors and etc. So generally in that case the company which made Daredevil got 89.5Million USD back after the cinemas took their share. Well 89.5Million USD seems like more than 78 million budget right? But you forgot that movie budgets do not include the marketing of the film. A movie's budget is the amount of money it cost to make a movie. Not advertise it and etc. Marketing budgets are often approximately 50% of what the budget of the movie is. So if it cost 80 million to make it's approximately 30-40 million to advertise Worldwide. In this case that means overall the movie cost over 100million to make and put it out there in the World. And the returns were 90 million (approximately). So I don't see how it could possibly actually make any money. Technically in the box office it earned that money but people generally don't know where that money goes and how it is split in the movie industry. I had the opportunity to study film at University and I have a degree and I've had lectures with a BAFTA nominated producer Elhum Shakerifar and I have a good understanding of how the money side works in the industry. That movie needed much more to really make money for the studio and the investors.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by LS Animation

Besides 179 million is hardly breaking even. If the budget is 78 million you need 78 million to break even, right? Well 179 million gross is the amount a studio has to split with multiple investors and the distributors (cinemas). Cinemas usually get almost a half of the earnings from the tickets. Depends on the deals but usually no less than 40% and up to 70% (rare occasions). Generally they get 50% and the rest 50% is left to the studio, investors and etc. So generally in that case the company which made Daredevil got 89.5Million USD back after the cinemas took their share. Well 89.5Million USD seems like more than 78 million budget right? But you forgot that movie budgets do not include the marketing of the film. A movie's budget is the amount of money it cost to make a movie. Not advertise it and etc. Marketing budgets are often approximately 50% of what the budget of the movie is. So if it cost 80 million to make it's approximately 30-40 million to advertise Worldwide. In this case that means overall the movie cost over 100million to make and put it out there in the World. And the returns were 90 million (approximately). So I don't see how it could possibly actually make any money. Technically in the box office it earned that money but people generally don't know where that money goes and how it is split in the movie industry. I had the opportunity to study film at University and I have a degree and I've had lectures with a BAFTA nominated producer Elhum Shakerifar and I have a good understanding of how the money side works in the industry. That movie needed much more to really make money for the studio and the investors.

I've posted that like 5 times about Ghostbusters and about OotS.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

#1. In live action, the Turtles have never looked better than the original 1990 film.

No way, TMNT II way improved the costumes.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

No way, TMNT II way improved the costumes.

Did they? I haven't rewatched SotO since childhood.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Did they? I haven't rewatched SotO since childhood.

Totally. The Hensons just took the look of the 1990s costumes, didn't f*** with them, and basically polished them up/improved them even more.

1990:



1991:

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Totally. The Hensons just took the look of the 1990s costumes, didn't f*** with them, and basically polished them up/improved them even more.

1990:

Spoiler:

http://static.srcdn.com/wp-content/u...TMNT-Movie.jpg

1991:

Spoiler:

https://theiapolis.com/d4/hIJ/i2CBJ/...the-secret.jpg

I dunno, man... I don't see a huge difference. It's pretty close for my eyes.

[Candy Kappa]

I donno about that. The animatronics was better in SotO, but they feel a lot more cartoony then the suits in 1990.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

I donno about that. The animatronics was better in SotO, but they feel a lot more cartoony then the suits in 1990.

A lot of that is the over-lighting and, well, what they had the Turtles actually doing in the movie.

[Jephael]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

TMNT II way improved the costumes.

Whoa, hold on a second... You actually liked something about that wacky movie? Who're you and what've you done with the real Andrew?!

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Jephael

Whoa, hold on a second... You actually liked something about that wacky movie?

I don't think there's any Turtle fans alive that don't dig the Henson costumes. TMNT II was the pinnacle -- strictly visually speaking, the TMNT themselves, their appearance -- of the TMNT on the big screen so far.

But yeah, the movie was retarded.

[Jephael]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I don't think there's any Turtle fans alive that don't dig the Henson costumes. TMNT II was the pinnacle -- strictly visually speaking, the TMNT themselves, their appearance -- of the TMNT on the big screen so far.

But yeah, the movie was retarded.

LOL!!! That reminds me, are you still planning to finish that episode of Hal and Kyle that I wrote? It's probably gonna be the last time we ever get to collaborate on something.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Jephael

LOL!!! That reminds me, are you still planning to finish that episode of Hal and Kyle that I wrote?

Eventually. But it's super low priority.

[thundermaster612]

Why is it that every major TMNT series era ends up crashing and burning?

[ToTheNines]

Because TMNT is a dirty stinking turd. We're just polishing it until it gives us E. coli.

[Panda_Kahn_fan]

I could actually get behind this idea. A live-action mirage series on Netflix, an IDW anime-styled cartoon for fans of the other aspects of TMNT. Everybody wins!