Everything Great About TMNT 2014

[WebLurker]

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

All these reboots arn't being done for the fans. they are being done for anew generation that the studio for some reason HOPES will become NEW fans (That they can oddly ignore in ten years for the next generation).

Well, a fanbase does need new members, otherwise it dies off. Also, in some cases, the people involved in the making were fans of the source material. Also, there is the odd reboot that both old and new fans like. Also, many of the "reboots" today are adaptations of materials that already have a big franchise with multiple interpretations already in existence.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

The problem is that this new generation isn't loyal to anything and will move on to the next big thing as soon as they tire of what's current and popular.

That makes no sense. New fanbases are being formed all the time. Also, Marvel vs. DC? Star Trek vs. Star Wars? Those debates are still going on today. (I prefer Marvel over DC and love both Trek and Wars.)

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

Case in Point Star Trek.

Enterprise was supposed to attract a NEW generation of Star Trek fans, and it failed miserably. they wnted to seperate so much from the brand, they used some pop radio sounding song as the theme, and dropped star trek from it's title. By the time they paid attention to the fans in season 4 it was far too late and felt like pandering.

The pop song had nothing to do with the actual quality of the show (and I've never gotten what was so wrong with it in the first place). Secondly, the show has been reevaluated a lot after the fact, with a plenty of netizens going on record that the show was better than it was given credit for. Also, ENT was not a remake.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

Did Paramount learn their lesson? nope. They did it again with JJ trek. and that grand adventure started to fail in the second movie. meanwhile, the loyal friend and true star trek fans are growing more pissed by the day, and there is a chance you will never win them back into the fold.

First of all, there are a lot of true fans who like or love the Kelvin timeline series (and to be frank, the whole "false fan" thing is one of the worse lies ever invented for modern fandoms of anything).

Secondly, while I didn't like the first two reboot movies at all, I think the third one was a return to form, so, while I'll always prefer the prime universe Star Trek, I'm optimistic about the series future.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

So, who exactly wins here?

not the fan base. you divided and conquered them. you have the people who will defend blandness for whatever reason. and you have the people willing to trash you for that same blandness. then you have the casuals who will like it for two hours and move on with their lives.

Sounds like business as usual for fan bases in the age of internet and polarity in discussions. Also, I don't think Star Trek is a good example of a broken fanbase. Try Star Wars. There is a lot of angry fans and disagreement over the creative decisions made with the new materials.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

The problem is that people getting these big tentpole franchises with built in fan bases either out right hate the job they are given, don't care enough to take it seriously, or don't bother to understand it....or in some cases, use it to get their dream job later.

Not always. See: Spider-Man (Raimi trilogy), MCU (esp. the Captain America stuff), Star Trek Beyond, Peter Jackson's Middle-earth movies, post-Disney Star Wars.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

This is revisionist history. And false. The actual ratings of Enterprise were pretty far from bad, and very consistent. They just weren't getting any better, and Enterprise was very costly to make compared to the rest of their lineup.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

Season 4 was pretty bad because it felt like fan-pandering. Because it was. Every episode was, "Look how this ties to this episode of TOS, or TNG" while ceasing even trying to be its own thing. By the time we're spending two episodes with Noonien Soongh's grandpa or whatever it's just like, "Aw, c'mon, guys..."

Season 3 of Enterprise, I would maintain, as a collective whole remains the best Trek I've ever seen in any media.

ENT Season 3 wasn't bad (what I've been able to see of it), but I think TOS is the most re-watchable series in the franchise, TNG is my favorite show of them all, and that DS9 was the best written, executed, and consistent series. (DS9 also did multiple episode story arcs and war stuff better than ENT did, IMHO.)

As far as season 4 goes, I would point out that the previous seasons also did their fair share of TOS prequels, that part of the point of ENT was to show how we got to TOS, and that many of the prequels also stand up as stories on their own, even without knowing what came next. But, your mileage may vary.

[Wildcat]

Also a lot of movies that are not even based on popular fandoms do not turn out that good either but people don't complain much about those or even care after a first watch.

But have it be part of a popular fandom then all the usual complaints roll in like cash-grab, studio doesn't care etc. It's surprising some of the things people say.

Like really, you think studios care about ripping fans off? Pretty sure they want these movies to be good...ya know, so they keep making a profit. They don't always turn out good but that's for various other reasons.

It's kinda funny the way people talk. I picture some Mr. Burns type character in the dark somewhere plotting to make really bad movies with dollar signs in his eyes That's what some of you visualize right?

[IndigoErth]

Non-fandom stuff is understandable if no one cares if it's bad. Nobody has any existing emotional attachment to it so it doesn't usually matter. If the Turtles were something new and existed only in these films, no one would give a damn either.

Take beloved characters who have been around for over 30 years and don't be mindful enough to do right by it and yeah, it's also understandable that many people are going to take it personally. These guys have been a part of many people's lives for most or all of their lives... at that point doing wrong by it is almost like doing wrong by family.


Mr. Burns, I mean Bay, annoys me now, but before these films I had close to no knowledge of who he was other than having heard the name now and then. So I did not go into this with any desire to hate on him or the films because of him. But now that I'm more aware of this cash grabber... Just an irritating manchild who apparently wants to insert his same old "been done to death" nonsense, which sucks, though imo the writers deserve more criticism then they've gotten seeing as how they came up with the lion's share of dumb ideas. And the first director, who was shamefully clueless about the characters even after spending months making the thing.

[Vegita-San]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Mr. Burns, I mean Bay, annoys me now, but before these films I had close to no knowledge of who he was other than having heard the name now and then. So I did not go into this with any desire to hate on him or the films because of him. But now that I'm more aware of this cash grabber... Just an irritating manchild who apparently wants to insert his same old "been done to death" nonsense, which sucks, though imo the writers deserve more criticism then they've gotten seeing as how they came up with the lion's share of dumb ideas. And the first director, who was shamefully clueless about the characters even after spending months making the thing.

Pretty much. I had not seen the transformers movies, since i am not a transformers fan. but the stuff i heard about them was enough to make me dread these coming movies, and the pre release material and leaked info was enough to downright make me HATE it.

These directors are more or less friends of Bay (the first one i think was at least, not sure about the second). so i'd wager heavily on bay calling all the shots being the financial provider of this thing and one of the bigger name players in it. He's kind of like paul feig in a sense.. Arrogant, boastful, and not very knowledgeable or caring. But where feig tries to make potty mouthed 'girl power' films, bay tries to go for the male side of that audience.

Both are just as lack luster.

By saying movies are 'watchable' now, is a pretty poor defense for a film. Bad, or otherwise. not more than 5 years ago, watchable would have been 'terrible'. but i feel people are so tired of negativity these days, that they force themselves to say 'this movie was good' even though they secretly want to trash it. The fact that these type of people exist are why movie producers turn into 'Mr.Burns' types and don't even HAVE to try and make it good. people will defend it anyway.


that's what i believe anyway. as for the rest, going to have to be a case of 'agree to disagree in some issues.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Non-fandom stuff is understandable if no one cares if it's bad. Nobody has any existing emotional attachment to it so it doesn't usually matter. If the Turtles were something new and existed only in these films, no one would give a damn either.

Take beloved characters who have been around for over 30 years and don't be mindful enough to do right by it and yeah, it's also understandable that many people are going to take it personally. These guys have been a part of many people's lives for most or all of their lives... at that point doing wrong by it is almost like doing wrong by family.


Mr. Burns, I mean Bay, annoys me now, but before these films I had close to no knowledge of who he was other than having heard the name now and then. So I did not go into this with any desire to hate on him or the films because of him. But now that I'm more aware of this cash grabber... Just an irritating manchild who apparently wants to insert his same old "been done to death" nonsense, which sucks, though imo the writers deserve more criticism then they've gotten seeing as how they came up with the lion's share of dumb ideas. And the first director, who was shamefully clueless about the characters even after spending months making the thing.

I know fandom based movies have more of an emotional attachment but that's kinda my point. It's unfair to not hold all movies to the same standard then. Why only freak out because one particular version of a fandom turns out bad?

Im a huge Sonic the Hedgehog fan. I love almost everything about it. There's a live action movie in the works which I've always wanted. If it turns out bad or not what I expected sure I'll be disappointed but I'm not going to feel personally insulted or that filmmakers for some reason did it on purpose. That's just silly.

I absolutely hate the term cash-grab. Literally every movie is made for profit. You really think Michael Bay or Platinum Dunes cared that much to get a TMNT "cash-grab"? They'd be perfectly fine without the turtles.

[Powder]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

I absolutely hate the term cash-grab. Literally every movie is made for profit. You really think Michael Bay or Platinum Dunes cared that much to get a TMNT "cash-grab"? They'd be perfectly fine without the turtles.

The term cash-grab is used when a film doesn't feel like it was made with the best of intentions (i.e. respecting the source material, pleasing long time fans, creating something that can stand tall among other iterations, etc.), or if the people involved for the most part seem like they only took the job for the paycheck.

[Wildcat]

I know what it means. I hate it because it gives off such a cynical vibe towards whatever movie being talked about.

[Powder]

Well, what you said didn't make it seem that way. At any rate, the business is exactly that, a business. It's not so much cynical as it is realistic.

[Wildcat]

Oh that's why I put "cash-grab" in quotes. Asking if Bay/PD really wanted TMNT for easy profit.

Well not every movie has the best team behind it but the term gets thrown around a lot. I think people read too much into filmmakers/studios motives.

[IndigoErth]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Asking if Bay/PD really wanted TMNT for easy profit.

What's their ratio of original films vs remakes/reboots (or otherwise related to existing properties)?

Existing beloved properties are inherently easy money, at least for the first when no one knows better. And green lighting the second within two or three days of the first one premiering... yeah.

[Wildcat]

Sure existing popular properties are more desirable. I have no idea how they acquire properties. In this case did Nick choose PD? They greenlit the sequel because the first one did better at the time. A lot of movies get sequels pretty fast if they do well.

The last Chucky movie which was direct-to-video got another movie greenlit like a month later back in 2013. The writer/director announced there'd be another on twitter.

My issue is when people start painting the "Mr. Burns" picture out of things. Just because a studio is happy to get a popular property does not mean it's because they have ulterior motives to churn out a crappy movie.

[WebLurker]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

My issue is when people start painting the "Mr. Burns" picture out of things. Just because a studio is happy to get a popular property does not mean it's because they have ulterior motives to churn out a crappy movie.

Here, here.

[Vegita-San]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

I know what it means. I hate it because it gives off such a cynical vibe towards whatever movie being talked about.

i will never understand this sentiment.

if it looks terrible, it's bound to be terrible. if it looks good, it's bound to be good.
If it looks like it was done by someone who doesn't care, it probably is.
Why is this considered a BAD thing to be honest about how something looks these days?

sometimes a property has been around long enough, with enough good material out to instantly be able to judge what is going to be bad.

the fact that some people, for whatever reason don't want to judge a movie, because it hurts the movies feelings, or the people who apparently tried to do a good job on it have good intentions just baffles me.


Chances are the lower echelon folks working on a movie don't go out to make it look bad. i will give you that. The Prop Makers, the CGI artists. the lights and grips.

But there is every bit a chance that the higher ups have that intention. Hell, they made a bad Fantastic Four movie just to show they are still doing something with the license...

Some movies these days feel like they are done by commitee. We have 'X number of properties'. We want to Revive Property Y, so here, you take this. We want to Revive Property B, you take that....see what you can do with it.

[WebLurker]

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

if it looks terrible, it's bound to be terrible. if it looks good, it's bound to be good.
If it looks like it was done by someone who doesn't care, it probably is.
Why is this considered a BAD thing to be honest about how something looks these days?

Well, that's only part of the story. A good movie can have a bad trailer, and vice versa. A worn-out trope can be fodder for a good story under the right author. It's only fair to judge the final product by what it is itself, not by your impressions of it beforehand.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

sometimes a property has been around long enough, with enough good material out to instantly be able to judge what is going to be bad.

See the previous comment for why I don't believe that.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

the fact that some people, for whatever reason don't want to judge a movie, because it hurts the movies feelings, or the people who apparently tried to do a good job on it have good intentions just baffles me.

In this case, I honestly think that the movie doesn't deserve the whining it's been getting. (I'm not arguing that it's a masterpiece, but it's a fun blockbuster and doesn't do anything really bad to the source material beyond just having a by-the-numbers plot.)

Also, I think that the devil should be always given his due.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

Chances are the lower echelon folks working on a movie don't go out to make it look bad. i will give you that. The Prop Makers, the CGI artists. the lights and grips.

But there is every bit a chance that the higher ups have that intention. Hell, they made a bad Fantastic Four movie just to show they are still doing something with the license...

Some movies these days feel like they are done by commitee. We have 'X number of properties'. We want to Revive Property Y, so here, you take this. We want to Revive Property B, you take that....see what you can do with it.

Maybe, but with these films with big fans, sometimes I think the complaints by the fans have more to do with expectations than the actual quality. Case in point, some of complaints about Spider-Man 3 were solely about changes from the source material, not the film's actual quality.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

The big thing is that does this 'new take' on TMNT actually work? The turtles, you hardly got to know and came off as one note. Not to mention that their personalities were typecasted.

The designs were also unappealing. How anyone can defend a Donatello that looks like Jar Jar Binks wearing Steve Urkel glasses cosplaying as a Ghostbuster is beyond me. Their sizes are a huge (no pun intended) turnoff for me because we don't get to see choreographic fights in a movie called "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". Combat involves tackling, shoulder charging, and deflecting bullets which are not what the turtles are known for. It's like if you made Batman as huge as Bane or Killer Croc and displays no martial arts and instead fought like a brute.

[Vegita-San]

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

The big thing is that does this 'new take' on TMNT actually work? The turtles, you hardly got to know and came off as one note. Not to mention that their personalities were typecasted.

The designs were also unappealing. How anyone can defend a Donatello that looks like Jar Jar Binks wearing Steve Urkel glasses cosplaying as a Ghostbuster is beyond me. Their sizes are a huge (no pun intended) turnoff for me because we don't get to see choreographic fights in a movie called "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". Combat involves tackling, shoulder charging, and deflecting bullets which are not what the turtles are known for. It's like if you made Batman as huge as Bane or Killer Croc and displays no martial arts and instead fought like a brute.

yep, but all this thoughtful stuff usually gets deflected with a simple 'but the movie was ok. wasn't terrible, wasn't good.. but watchable.'


it's like the new people don't come in as dedicated fans like the old people, and simply want to waste 2 hours in enjoyment...

that's all well and fine so long as you don't just dismiss the comments of the old guard with a wave of the hand. that's what the producers of the new movie we hate did ;o)

[Vegita-San]

Originally Posted by WebLurker

Well, that's only part of the story. A good movie can have a bad trailer, and vice versa. A worn-out trope can be fodder for a good story under the right author. It's only fair to judge the final product by what it is itself, not by your impressions of it beforehand.



Maybe, but with these films with big fans, sometimes I think the complaints by the fans have more to do with expectations than the actual quality. Case in point, some of complaints about Spider-Man 3 were solely about changes from the source material, not the film's actual quality.

Calling all constructive criticism whining is why andrew keeps on posting plant pictures ;o).

Expectations and quality go hand in hand. we expect it to be good. and, using our free will, are able to judge all the pre release material and know that we don't expect it to BE good. usually people's instinct on pre release material are right on the money.

Hence, why tmnt 2 took almost a 50% drop in profits. people learned from the first horrible move not to go see the second horrible movie because they expected it to be bad. and by all accounts are right.

[WebLurker]

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

The big thing is that does this 'new take' on TMNT actually work? The turtles, you hardly got to know and came off as one note. Not to mention that their personalities were typecasted.

Business as usual, in other words? Okay, joking aside, I found the characterizations to be right on the money. I will concede that there wasn't a lot of character development in the first one and some of them got less limelight (there's more to the team than just Raph, people), but they got the basics right, IMHO.

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

The designs were also unappealing.

Fair enough. I will concede that I like the designs from the 2012 cartoon and 2007 movie far better. However, I think once the movie gets rolling, they're okay (it is live action, a turtle man probably wouldn't look as cute as a cartoon character!)

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

How anyone can defend a Donatello that looks like Jar Jar Binks wearing Steve Urkel glasses cosplaying as a Ghostbuster is beyond me.

I don't see the Jar Jar connection and actually liked the glasses and Ghostbusters pack; each of the characters had their own style of clothing choices and accessories. It made them each stand out and matched their personalities. That was the main strength of the design, IMHO. (Now, I do like that the TV show versions are just in the classic basics of the belts and wraps, but for the movie, I think the more detailed clothing worked.

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

Their sizes are a huge (no pun intended) turnoff for me because we don't get to see choreographic fights in a movie called "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". Combat involves tackling, shoulder charging, and deflecting bullets which are not what the turtles are known for. It's like if you made Batman as huge as Bane or Killer Croc and displays no martial arts and instead fought like a brute.

Fair enough if you don't like the size (and I will concede that that's a point that I'm not overly fond of), but I loved the movie's action scenes, which had some of the classic Turtle fighting in it.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

yep, but all this thoughtful stuff usually gets deflected with a simple 'but the movie was ok. wasn't terrible, wasn't good.. but watchable.'

Well, the preceding comments are more enlightening than some I've heard.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

it's like the new people don't come in as dedicated fans like the old people, and simply want to waste 2 hours in enjoyment...

Umm, people who like the movie (or were introduced to the franchise through the movie) are as legitimate fans as ones introduced through the original comics.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

that's all well and fine so long as you don't just dismiss the comments of the old guard with a wave of the hand. that's what the producers of the new movie we hate did ;o)

I seriously doubt that. In fact the moviemakers did listen to the fans, which is why we have an Oroku Saki Shredder and the Turtles aren't aliens.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

Calling all constructive criticism whining is why andrew keeps on posting plant pictures ;o).

If people don't like the movie, fair enough, esp. if they can explain why. I don't have as much patience for people who state that there's nothing good in the movie whatsoever, since that's hyperbole, at best. (When a movie gets chainsawed apart as bad, fine, but can't we also give the devil his due, and also praise the movie for what it did right?)

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

Expectations and quality go hand in hand. we expect it to be good. and, using our free will, are able to judge all the pre release material and know that we don't expect it to BE good. usually people's instinct on pre release material are right on the money.

Sure, it's fine to have an opinion on the trailers, but those are just to sell the movies and don't prove how good or bad the film is. I mean, Star Wars: A New Hope, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, The Princess Bride, and Star Trek Beyond had awful trailers, but were good movies. I know a lot of people thought that the trailers for Spider-Man 3 made the movie look good, but were not happy with the film itself (I thought it was good, but I will concede that the trailers made the movie look more dramatic than it actually was). Based on the trailers, I think Rogue One looks awesome, but who knows? That could be wrong. I won't know for sure until I see the movie.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

Hence, why tmnt 2 took almost a 50% drop in profits. people learned from the first horrible move not to go see the second horrible movie because they expected it to be bad. and by all accounts are right.

Having seen Out of the Shadows, I think it was actually an improvement over the original. The tone (drawn from the '80s cartoon) was consistent (the original seemed to flop between being really goofy to trying to be more serious and kind of missing the mark on both), lot of decent casting, and the Turtles had more screen time and a more emotional-based character arc (with the purple ooze). So, while it's probably fair to say that the first one affected the box office, I'm, not entirely sure that the sequel quite deserved it.

(As always, your mileage may vary.)

[Vegita-San]

Originally Posted by WebLurker

Umm, people who like the movie (or were introduced to the franchise through the movie) are as legitimate fans as ones introduced through the original comics.

I seriously doubt that. In fact the moviemakers did listen to the fans, which is why we have an Oroku Saki Shredder and the Turtles aren't aliens.


f people don't like the movie, fair enough, esp. if they can explain why. I don't have as much patience for people who state that there's nothing good in the movie whatsoever, since that's hyperbole, at best. (When a movie gets chainsawed apart as bad, fine, but can't we also give the devil his due, and also praise the movie for what it did right?)

Sure, it's fine to have an opinion on the trailers, but those are just to sell the movies and don't prove how good or bad the film is. I won't know for sure until I see the movie.


(As always, your mileage may vary.)

First one -

Not if most new fans i see posting online call mikey mickey and raph ralph ;o).I've found that most newer fans don't care about the older stuff, and tend to dismiss it outright. i can't speak for all older fans, but that tends to make me dismiss them out right. especially when this newer stuff made for the newer generation is more concerned with winning over new fans than pleasing old ones.


-I'm pretty sure Bay didn't care enough to listen. i'm almost 90% certain that was someone at nick who woke up and stopped bay from rammaging the turtles like he did transformers. just like someone at sony finally woke up and stopped feig from doing what he did to ghostbusters and added in more classic references to try and win fans back. by then, just like turtles 2, it was too little too late.

- that is definitely your thoughts to have...and you are free to have them. but if long time turtle fans, who have been there through either 88 or 84 and have seen everything from good to bad...... and the majority say 'these movies are NOT turtle movies...' it's hard to dismiss that. and if you do, it just shows you only care about the newer stuff.
Also fine, but don't dismiss the people who care about the older stuff like it doesn't matter.


Exactly. pre release material is there to sell the movie. if you don't like what you see, chance are you think it's going to be bad.

Getting tired of talking in circles, so in this case we are going to have to agree to dis agree.

[ToTheNines]

Wowwwww. Wow.

I tried to watch this with an open mind and a positive attitude, but had to close the window in anger when he said the "paramilitary Foot Clan is cool".

**** that guy.