New CGI movie

[Wildcat]

People talking about sticking to the source material, which is important if that’s what you’re going for but just trying something different does not mean you’re against it or don’t understand it.

Are we saying every adaptation of everything has to stick 100% to the original source material with no exception? I know there’s various levels of change but why can’t someone do human-turtles?

This might not be what Seth is doing but after many adaptations how is this one 30 years later forbidden?

People like to think change ups or reboots will do drastic harm and knock things out but that’s just not the case at all. How many times have fans said...”oh no, [this thing] will ruin the franchise”?

TMNT, Terminator, Ghostbusters, Transformers, Sonic (redesign helped the movie) and many others.

[Cowa]

So we have come from "the turtles are aliens from outterspace that came to Earth to help Casey" to maybe "the turtles were humans before becoming turtles"? It seems they never learn.

[Leo656]

Your point completely fails when the TMNT, Terminator, Ghostbusters and Transformers movies that people were worried about being terrible WERE all terrible, though. People said "That sh*t's gonna suck" and then that turned out to be the case.

On some level, your whole "Just give things a chance!" gimmick is admirable, to a point. But on the other hand... no. Not when most things DON'T actually deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[AquaParade]

You can reinvent things and still make them work. Everyone will have a different line in the sand, in regards to how far you can take it.

There isn't typically one definitive thing you can point to that makes a franchise like this special. Certain elements resonate with certain people.

It's almost like the Ship of Theseus - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Spoiler:

the ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. The concept is one of the oldest in Western philosophy, having been discussed by the likes of Heraclitus and Plato by c. 500–400 BC.

Spoiler:

It is supposed that the famous ship sailed by the hero Theseus in a great battle was kept in a harbor as a museum piece, and as the years went by some of the wooden parts began to rot and were replaced by new ones; then, after a century or so, every part had been replaced. The question then is whether the "restored" ship is still the same object as the original.

That said... changing the turtles to humans is a pretty extreme example. I always say Batman is nigh-unbreakable character - you can reinvent him in many ways and still have a great concept.
But I'm not sure it'd work if your version of Bruce Wayne is a Golden Retriever (hmmm). I'd say at that point, even if it's cool, it's going to be unrecognizable as "Batman".

Short story long: I always leave a little room for subjectivity when it comes to what the "core elements" of a franchise are. I am also tickled by seeing concepts refreshed in exciting ways. Buuuut, when you're going this deep into reinvention, I can't blame fans for having an averse reaction. It's hard to imagine the turtles as humans without forgoing so many of the elements that made TMNT special in the first place.

Personally, if they do turn the turtles into humans, I can say this would never be the direction I'd choose for the franchise and it's not something that excites me. But I can't deny that bold ideas intrigue me and I'm curious to see what they do.

[Leo656]

I actually don't think that's the concept they're going with, or at least I think people might be jumping the gun a bit to make such assumptions.

Then again, they almost made them aliens at one point, so if they DID make the Turtles into mutated humans it would in no way shock me. It is VERY clear to me that they have NO goddamn idea what to do with this property and are in full "Throw Sh*t At The Wall" mode.

But if they DID do that... no. Absolutely "no".

One thing that kills me about the very concept of "reinvention" is that most of the time even the "proper" versions of A Thing or A Property don't even get a satisfying resolution; they just fizzle out. And yet when we can't even move the story forward in any meaningful or satisfying way (or god forbid provide a proper ending) for any of the GOOD versions of a property, you have a bunch of people celebrating a completely off-brand "reinvention" or "reimagining", saying it's "good" just because it's "different".

At the end of the day, it's just because it's easier to just make up your own dumb sh*t than try and work within what's already been established. And if people say your dumb ideas are dumb, you get to say "They're not 'dumb'... they're NEW!" and all the criticism slides right off of you the second you call someone a "boomer".

I don't believe that ANY of these properties require (or would significantly benefit from) "reimagining" or "reinvention". The pieces are already on the board, and they work. Just arrange them in a way that doesn't insult your audience (or the property) and stop trying to reinvent the damn wheel.

Stan Lee once "reinvented" Batman, and it was the goddamn drizzling sh*ts. If that doesn't just about say it all on the subject, I don't know what would.

[IndigoErth]

The franchise may not have done it before, but a "human version" seems quite common in fan art and fic, which makes the whole idea incredibly unoriginal to start with. Personally, I already find it boring in most cases when fans do it (no offense to anyone here who has) and isn't what I want the actual franchise doing.

Not entirely into the reincarnation angle either, but it's at least decently done and it works without too blatantly intruding on the normal foundation of the TMNT.

Making them humans to start with just takes away some of what's special about the Turtles. And how do I even say it so it isn't too awkward... The fact that these guys are a type of being and a skin tone that no human is or has lets them be openly relatable too all fans across the board since they are not any part of those demographics us humans stupidly divide ourselves into, and I'd rather that remain intact rather than force it to have to establish human race(s) for them. Let them stay that unique "other," which is also part of their own long established isolation from humans.



Again, I'm fine with new adventures for them. I'm even fine with new enemies and new friends. I'm not fine with taking away and fundamentally changing who the Turtles are as individuals, as a group, and as a family. Changing that up and making them out-of-character is ground zero of HELL NO for me. 'Rise' already chose to step in that pile and that show bombed.


edit: If they want to suggest mutation makes them a little bit human via human DNA getting involved, then fine, I have no issue with that, so long as they start out as regular turtles. That's an old thought that has been around or suggested already in various places for a long time, and a small enough detail that those who don't like that can ignore it.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Your point completely fails when the TMNT, Terminator, Ghostbusters and Transformers movies that people were worried about being terrible WERE all terrible, though. People said "That sh*t's gonna suck" and then that turned out to be the case.

On some level, your whole "Just give things a chance!" gimmick is admirable, to a point. But on the other hand... no. Not when most things DON'T actually deserve the benefit of the doubt.

How the movies themselves turn out is a different question. My point was every time they happen fans claim they’ll damage the franchise for years to come.

That just does not happen. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any popular franchise that was doomed by a reboot, new version or even questionable sequel. They either have some success or it carries on and disregards them.

Originally Posted by Leo656

One thing that kills me about the very concept of "reinvention" is that most of the time even the "proper" versions of A Thing or A Property don't even get a satisfying resolution; they just fizzle out. And yet when we can't even move the story forward in any meaningful or satisfying way (or god forbid provide a proper ending) for any of the GOOD versions of a property, you have a bunch of people celebrating a completely off-brand "reinvention" or "reimagining", saying it's "good" just because it's "different".

At the end of the day, it's just because it's easier to just make up your own dumb sh*t than try and work within what's already been established. And if people say your dumb ideas are dumb, you get to say "They're not 'dumb'... they're NEW!" and all the criticism slides right off of you the second you call someone a "boomer".

I don't believe that ANY of these properties require (or would significantly benefit from) "reimagining" or "reinvention". The pieces are already on the board, and they work. Just arrange them in a way that doesn't insult your audience (or the property) and stop trying to reinvent the damn wheel.

Stan Lee once "reinvented" Batman, and it was the goddamn drizzling sh*ts. If that doesn't just about say it all on the subject, I don't know what would.

Would reimaginings be ok as long as proper adaptations get their fair share first? Or doing anything out of the norm is never an acceptable idea just because it’s different?

There’s been many adaptations. Fred Wolf, 90s movie(s), 4kids, 2007 if you consider it separate, Platinum Dunes and Nick ‘12. To me these are the major ones. They were high profile or lasted awhile.

I’m not sure how any could have a “proper” ending though. The 90s movies had closure even if Soto was silly and part 3 did it’s own thing.

It’s not like the source material has been ignored. It’s been the base of each version. Personal opinions on them aside. I know PD reluctantly wrote it in.

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Making them humans to start with just takes away some of what's special about the Turtles. And how do I even say it so it isn't too awkward... The fact that these guys are a type of being and a skin tone that no human is or has lets them be openly relatable too all fans across the board since they are not any part of those demographics us humans stupidly divide ourselves into, and I'd rather that remain intact rather than force it to have to establish human race(s) for them. Let them stay that unique "other," which is also part of their own long established isolation from humans.

I like how you described this. I agree it’s part of their appeal. I just think there’s room for other interpretations now that everything about them is well established.

[Leo656]

Transformers Movies = All Dogsh*t

Every Terminator movie after "Salvation" was garbage (and "Salvation" itself was well-intentioned but very flawed).

Both of the Bay TMNT movies were worthless.

Ghostbusters 2016 was complete f*cking trash, and "Afterlife" still very well might suck, we don't know. We have some baby Stay-Pufts and some footage of kids driving a car around a field; we know NOTHING of substance yet.

So if we're being honest, what we see is "When people say 'This is going to destroy the franchise'...", it turns out that they're RIGHT and that is indeed what happens.

Just like most of the time when you try and refute the points I'm trying to make, you accidentally prove them, instead. This has been One Of Those Times.
------------

With regard to the TMNT movie franchise, the Right thing to do is so simple that nobody will ever do it.

The 1990 movie was the only good one, and it did everything more or less "right" (even if some people wanted it to be more Turtle-focused). The origin, the characters, the lore, the tone, was all what it needed to be. It never had a proper sequel ("Secret of the Ooze" went so far off the reservation you can't even say with a straight face that it's a "real" sequel), there are still stories that can be told in that universe, and there's nothing anyone can or WILL ever do that would objectively be "better" than what that movie did.

So what you do, is pretend everything after that movie never happened, and just do a PROPER sequel set in that "universe". Obviously you have to update the cast and special effects, and probably fudge the timeline, but keep everything else the same and then just move the story forward from the end of the 1990 movie.

When it comes to making a TMNT movie, they got it right the first time and every attempt since then has just been different flavors of Failure.

SO. Don't "reinvent". Don't fix what isn't broken. Go back to the only thing that ever WORKED, and build on it.

That's the Right thing to do. Every other option is the Wrong thing to do.

It's not rocket science.

The Powers-That-Be immediately f*cking ruined the TMNT film franchise back in 1991, when they looked at the overwhelming success of the first movie and said, "Y'know what would be even BETTER? If we did everything COMPLETELY different, next time!"

That's what fixing sh*t until it breaks gets you. Vanilla Ice and Combat Cold Cuts. That's what happens when you favor "reinvention" over just plain doing sh*t the right way.

And there is a "Right Way". There IS a blueprint. It's called "TMNT 1990". Every bit of effort spent on "reinvention" instead of just going back to the source is a colossal waste of time and resources.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Transformers Movies = All Dogsh*t

Every Terminator movie after "Salvation" was garbage (and "Salvation" itself was well-intentioned but very flawed).

Both of the Bay TMNT movies were worthless.

Ghostbusters 2016 was complete f*cking trash, and "Afterlife" still very well might suck, we don't know. We have some baby Stay-Pufts and some footage of kids driving a car around a field; we know NOTHING of substance yet.

So if we're being honest, what we see is "When people say 'This is going to destroy the franchise'...", it turns out that they're RIGHT and that is indeed what happens.

Just like most of the time when you try and refute the points I'm trying to make, you accidentally prove them, instead. This has been One Of Those Times.

How does any of that equal the destruction of the franchise when they keep going?

As big a deal that people made over GB16 they greenlit a GB3 like 2 years later. Whenever it was.

Transformers exists beyond the movies but these were actually successful. In terms of profit and toys. Enough people liked liked them. It’s supposed to get a Beast Wars adaptation next.

Terminator keeps getting movies as surprising as it might seem. There’s an animated series in the works isn’t there?

If the PD movies did such damage to the TMNT we would not be having this conversation. Nobody would be working on anything.

[Leo656]

The fact that they keep making bad movies everyone hates doesn't mean those series are "alive". They're alive the way zombies are "alive". Do I really need to explain this?

Terminator was one of the most beloved action movie franchises of all time... when it was only two movies. Now everyone hates it and wishes they'd stop making movies. Except you, for some damn reason. You're the ONE person I've ever seen say they want more Terminator movies; the rest of humanity wishes they stopped forever four movies ago. They will make another "Terminator" one day, yes... but NOBODY wants that anymore.

The Transformers movies made money but are "respected' the same way "Sharknado" is. "Stupid Sh*t For Morons". That's what's called a "Living Death", when your only function is as a punchline about just how dumb a movie (or series) can possibly be.

These things only keep existing because they are Brand Names and Hollywood thinks they are "safe bets". But they're trash now, and everyone knows it. Even the last couple Transformers movies under-performed, because the secret's out that they're no good. You can only force-feed people the same garbage so many times before they stop swallowing it. That's why the last few X-Men movies tanked. No direction, no consistency, just "People like this brand, they'll come see it even if we half-ass the movies." Turns out, you can't pull that trick on people more than once or twice, before they get smart to it and stop coming. X-Men was HUGE; by the end, nobody even WANTED any more of them, and the Disney sale/merger was a mercy-killing.

This is the sh*t I'm talking about; this is what the difference is between what YOU call "success", and ACTUAL success.

If you think "success" for a franchise means "It's easier to make 'Transformers 12' than make up a new franchise; even if it's a piece of sh*t at least someone will go see it", then I'm glad you're not part of the decision-making process. Those franchises are DEAD, with the exception of Ghostbusters which MIGHT not suck but is definitely limping after the 2016 disaster. And if "Afterlife" sucks, then guess what? Franchise is Dead. Even if they make another movie in 10 or 20 years, the brand will be a joke forevermore if they screw up One More Time. So we'll see.

Yes, they keep making movies based on familiar brand names. But if you think those brands are actually doing WELL...

El. Oh. El.

Companies who paid a lot of money for an IP want to capitalize on that IP. Obviously they try and make more product with that brand name, otherwise they don't get paid for it. It's called "return on investment". That doesn't mean they're "successful", it means they have a contractual and financial obligation to exploit that brand name or else they lose it to someone else who might accidentally do it better than them.

If the PD TMNT movies weren't failures, then we'd be talking about BayTurtles 3, and not "Stupid TMNT Reboot #121".

Make no mistake: the PD movies were failures. The only reason we're even getting this stupid CGI thing - Or ANY thing - is because Viacom wants return-on-investment. They think the name still has value, they want to squeeze a buck if they can. That's all it is.

But if they fail AGAIN... well, this franchise is already a bad joke. But if THIS one fails, then we likely won't see ANY TMNT movies of any kind for a very, very long time.

[Wildcat]

No these franchises are not at peak popularity but they’re not zombies either.

There’s going to be point where everything settles into position and continues from there. It does not mean it’s struggling to stay around. Nothing exists in a constant form of “Whatever-Mania”.

Ghostbusters as a whole was stuck in the mud for decades for other reasons.

Transformers will always be successful on cartoons and toys alone. The Beast Wars adaptation is not from the same people. Neither was Bumblebee.

Terminator is kind of an oddball but it keeps going. I want War movies not just “T7”. I thought you did too.

TMNT will keep getting movies and cartoons as other long running properties do. That doesn’t equal dragging on.

I understand IP holders want brands to be relevant so they keep producing but the way you describe it makes it sound like every franchise is just a looping ploy.

I think every long running property has some level of staying-power or they would have been forgotten years ago. Nobody is going to keep wasting resources if literally nobody is paying attention.

So I see you’d accept a continuation of the 90s movie that ignores the others. That would definitely be cool to see. I wouldn’t even say it’s impossible.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Terminator is kind of an oddball but it keeps going. I want War movies not just “T7”. I thought you did too.

I'd want a Terminator movie that ignores everything after T2 - maybe some vague "some of it happened, but differently" elements of T3 can remain, but some of that movie is trash, too (not all or even a lot of it; but some) - and moves the story forward into the Future War storyline that was teased from the beginning but never adequately delivered on film.

Point of fact - and it's easy to overlook this because some people weren't around for it - but before Terminator was "a franchise", before T2 even existed and the entire plot of the series became a self-referential time-travel circle-jerk, the only thing that existed besides the first movie was the comics published by NOW Comics such as "The Burning Earth" and so on. For almost five years, before T2 came out, "Terminator" was depicted as a story set in the future about John Connor and his soldiers fighting a guerrilla war against the machines. The time travel subplot was like the Endgame of that, something they needed to do to ensure that humanity even had a chance to win, but it wasn't this constantly repeating thing that happened over and over. But The Story itself was The War.

It was good stuff, and it was interesting.

Then T2 came out, and it was amazing. But I hate to admit that in it's awesomeness, it kind of ruined the franchise forever, because not only will there N-E-V-E-R be a better Terminator movie, it also changed the entire thing into a story that's a constant loop of Killer Time Travel Robots. All but ONE of the six Terminator movies now has, essentially, the same exact plot with different details - "Bad stuff happens in the future, and a Hero and a Villain each come back in time to serve their own specific agenda, to either Ensure or Prevent that future." We've SEEN it, now. T1 was good, T2 was better, T3 was a flawed-but-necessary piece in moving the story forward into the Future War... but then "Salvation" fumbled, and so they panicked and went back to recycling the plot of the first two movies, because those were the only two movies that were universally accepted so they THINK that's the right thing to do. But it isn't. It's 100% the WRONG thing to do.

We've watched them try to "Fight The Future" for five f*cking movies. It's tired. If they MUST keep making Terminator movies, they don't need to do that again, and they don't need to "reboot" and do the first movie over with more CGI, which is probably what they'll do next. The only INTERESTING stories left to be told in the Terminator universe are the ones we've only seen hinted at, the actual Future War. "Salvation" was flawed, it ultimately was not the movie it should have been... but it's the ONLY Terminator movie in the last 20 years that was at least in the ballpark of what they should be doing. When it under-performed, the LAST thing they needed to do was more time-travel plot retreads and T2 fanservice. But Hollywood lacks imagination, so that's what we got ever since, and will likely continue to get.

Now, would I theoretically be accepting of another Terminator movie, or even two or three more, IF they actually executed on the Future War premise? Sure. It's why I defend "Salvation" even though I see it's problems; for all its flaws, it had the right idea, fundamentally. The war with Skynet is the ONLY stuff we EVER need to see from another Terminator movie, from now until the end of time. IF they decided to pursue that angle, I would support them in it.

BUT, all they want to do is recycle the plot of the first two movies, it seems. Last rumor I heard was a full reboot. So you can imagine how THAT's gonna go: They'll recycle T1 and the time travel plot, AGAIN. The "reinvention" angle of it will be more CGI, Sarah Conner will be non-white and Kyle Reese will be a woman named "Kylie Reese", probably. Sarah will still have a kid who grows up to fight Skynet in the future, but it'll be "Jane Connor" and not John Connor. And for these reasons it will be called a "Bold New Vision" and they'll squeeze a few more bucks out of it, but it will still just be the same basic plot we've seen in 5 out of 6 movies with "Terminator" in the title.

And in that case... yeah, since THAT is a million times more likely to happen than them actually making movies set in the future that move the story forward and aren't just recycled time-travel wank... yeah, I'd honestly, sincerely prefer that they just stop making Terminator movies entirely.
-------------

And if stuff like BayTurtles, or the TMNT being aliens or mutated humans is all we can ever expect from any future TMNT movies... then I'd honestly be fine if they never made another TMNT movie again, too.

If everything they can potentially do with a brand promises to be sh*t, then I don't need any more of it. The stains can be ignored, but they don't ever come off. No, I don't have to watch BayTurtles, but I can't deny its existence, or how it hurt the brand. I don't have to watch any Terminator movies after T2, but I can't pretend they didn't happen. "Our Scars remind us, that the Past is Real."

Let's put it like this: I don't have kids, but if I did, I would rather see them die young than suffer a lifetime of rape and abuse.

That's what it's like, when you REALLY care about these franchises - not "care" in that you want them to keep existing, but that you want them to be GOOD and remain pristine. You don't want them to simply "endure", you only want the very very BEST for them. Watching people make movies like BayTurtles or Transformers or the last few Terminators... it's like watching someone molest your f*cking kids.

And I'm not into that, and I'd honestly rather see things go away than be abused and perverted beyond all recognition. That is sincerely how I feel.

[Wildcat]

Ya I give Salvation a lot of credit for giving us a war movie. I know it went through problems but I think it definitely tried to be creative. It’s cool seeing the other machine models, Skynet and John Connor running the resistance. I think people’s criticism is mostly because it does not match up to some 80s or 90s version in their mind. I’ve said this on other boards but those bits in the first 2 movies are so brief. I remember you mentioning the comics too.

Anyway I think we all want our favorite franchises to keep turning out good stuff but unfortunately we have to go through less appealing or bad versions in between. Every so often something worthwhile comes out of it imo. No franchise is always good.

It’s no surprise I personally like seeing different ideas and also how long something can go from one starting point. How big and far can you keep going. I just find both sides fun. I know that sounds like I don’t understand quality control but I do. I just think a lot of things happen to fit. Even if whatever it is becomes more extravagant than others prefer. It’s hard to put into words.

[AquaParade]

To be fair Adam West Batman was nearly as perverted version of that character as you could make. And it didnt kill the character. Far from it. It may have kept him relevant long enough for us to eventually get our Neal Adams version, our Dark Knight Returns (another semi-reinvention), or Burton's Batman.

So reinvention doesn't always kill a franchise. Regardless of quality. It can be a mixed bag.

The Transformers movies may have driven themselves into the ground...but the movies also were the thing that put the franchise at their peak of popularity. Brand was laying pretty low before then.
Again, not great quality, but not really an example of a "reinvention killing the franchise."
The reinvention by Bay made the franchise huge. It was the lack of care and quality control that drove it back into the ground.

This could be the TMNT movie that keeps the brand alive another ten years, when we do eventually get the Mirage reinvention, instead of puttering out in five years.
Just one of many possibilities. Not saying it's the ideal path to take.

[Leo656]

The 1966 Batman TV show accurately reflected the comics of its era. Hardly a "reinvention" so much as adherence to a "Anything super-hero related in this era must be completely toothless and palatable for 4-year olds" mandate. The comics of the day were stupid, ergo the show was stupid in turn. Credit where it's due, before the TV show the comics were about to be cancelled. So it probably is thanks to that show there even still is a Batman character in any form. But the fact is, by contemporary standards they were 100% "playing it straight".

Transformers is profitable and well-known, but it will never be respected again (if it ever was; I don't know about that but if there was ever a chance it MIGHT be that chance is gone forever now, certainly). Its only true legacy is as an example of "How dumb can we actually make a movie/series and still turn massive profits?". Proof that the general public really IS that stupid, and that they really will pay for and sit through anything. Seriously, it's the answer to a Trivial Pursuit question: "What movie franchise made over $5 billion dollars while conclusively proving that movie audiences have no standards or taste?" "Michael Bay's Transformers." That's not trumpet-worthy.

Put bluntly, that franchise is a busted whore.

Now, some people don't think there's anything inherently wrong with being a busted whore, and they think that it's a perfectly valid way to make a living. I don't fully agree, and I damn well wouldn't want anyone I love or care about to go down that path. And if they did, I sure wouldn't brag about it.

Meanwhile, "Reinvention" is only a few entries removed from "Rape" in the dictionary. You say "Tomato", etc. etc. etc.

[Slash-Dash]

still over 2 years away... bummer. was hoping for a 2022 release.

I wonder if thats our first look at Leo on the top left. notice the L on his clothing.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Cue the usual suspects saying that we shouldn't pre-judge or panic at abitrary changes to the mythos...or at least it would if I felt even most of those guys hadn't moved on. This is a dead franchise.

It is much worse - it is a zombie franchise. Gutted from meaning and soul it exists as a shambling corpse puppeteered by greedy idiots, who don't really know what to do with it.

Originally Posted by AquaParade

To me, if you break down the core elements of tmnt, you have:

- family with some degree of dysfunction
- family has deep-seeded legacy that involves revenge or someone wanting vengeance on them
- outcasts
- ninja, samurai, fantasy, sci-fi element

Do they need to be born as mutants for it to work for me? I'm not sure.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of them ever being human, but that doesn't mean it can't be done in a cool way. To be frank, my first reaction is to say "hell no."

Mind you, I'm not defending that direction, it just makes you think.

At this point it is easier to create a new franchise all together, rather than mutilate existing thing to fit whatever you want to do out of it.

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Put that way it sounds dumb but being human first can definitely be interesting. For one they’d have family and friends. People who may not accept them after mutation. Hiding means relatives or the police could be looking for them. Characters besides villains. They don’t have to live in the sewers.

At this point it is a different story, not TMNT.
Words have meaning. Ideas have meaning.
And they are not interchangeable.

If you want to see something like this, why not to propose some sort of spinoff? TMNT'verse has plenty of characters that can fit the bill for your scenario.

Originally Posted by frank_one

Huge fan of Mirage here but I'm done playing the grumpy old 30+ fan who spits on everything that deviates from the source material. They can do whatever they think will work, I'm fine. Obviously I won't bother watching it, like I've never bother watching the Bay movies.

Which obviously means you are not fine with it.

Originally Posted by frank_one

Damn, Laird himself produced a series where Shredder is an alien, beat that! And you know what? That series is quite good.

And then he backpedaled on this decision and introduced human Shredder.

Originally Posted by Leo656

I'm like thisclose to just making it my headcanon that the TMNT franchise ended entirely with "Turtles Forever".

Fact is we'd all be better off.

I am getting closer and closer to this mindset, with every new iteration of the franchise.

Originally Posted by Wildcat

People talking about sticking to the source material, which is important if that’s what you’re going for but just trying something different does not mean you’re against it or don’t understand it.

Are we saying every adaptation of everything has to stick 100% to the original source material with no exception? I know there’s various levels of change but why can’t someone do human-turtles?

Because, if they want to strip TMNT of one of their main defining traits, they DO NOT understand what it is about.

Originally Posted by Wildcat

How does any of that equal the destruction of the franchise when they keep going?

As big a deal that people made over GB16 they greenlit a GB3 like 2 years later. Whenever it was.

Transformers exists beyond the movies but these were actually successful. In terms of profit and toys. Enough people liked liked them. It’s supposed to get a Beast Wars adaptation next.

Terminator keeps getting movies as surprising as it might seem. There’s an animated series in the works isn’t there?

If the PD movies did such damage to the TMNT we would not be having this conversation. Nobody would be working on anything.

All of your examples are hilariously bad, because, none of them are made due to the "fan demands", but, because, corporations are trying to milk famous properties, due to their creative impotency.

Also, I am not sure, how the **** all of this didn't damaged their respective franchises. TMNT was always a shadow of its 90s glory, past Fred Wolf days, but others like Terminator and Ghostbusters went from beloved series to "just shot them in the head and stop their suffering, please!".

Transformers movies are pretty much expected to be ****, thanks to stigma of Bay movies and Sonic having one successful movie, doesn't really mean anything.

Originally Posted by Wildcat

No these franchises are not at peak popularity but they’re not zombies either.

When corporations produces new **** movies solely to capitalize on the famous name it is very definition of the zombie franchise.

Unless you consider something like Terminator: Dark Fate to be a "good movie".

[AquaParade]

Leo, you make good point about Adam West Batman, sort of, reflecting the comics of those times.
They were both pretty damn goofy, so it's hard to argue. But it felt like the show was laughing at itself more than the comic was.

Either way, I'd have to say that even that goofy version of Batman, whether from the comics or show, was still a reinvention of Bob Kane's Batman, which was quite different from that era.

Thing about TMNT is, Mirage Volume 1 really set the table by showing how malleable the concept truly is. Issue #1 works, Soul's Winter works, City at War works.
Those three have as many differences as they do things in common.
It's one of my favorite things about TMNT.

Similarly, I enjoy musicians who switch their sound up from album to album. You know it's them, but they are going somewhere new. I believe that's what a lot of people want, but draw different lines in the sand.

Then again, some people do seem to complain if they don't get the same exact thing over and over. To me, at some point that starts to border on parody. If you want the original thing so bad, go appreciate it. On the contrary, when I love source material, I don't really need to see it replicated. I feel like I have it already. Let's take the concept and see if we can try something new with it now. Offen you get great results. That's how I think.
Let alone when taking something from one medium and translating it to another. Way too many complications there.

But I think I understand what you're saying. I agree that the examples you listed all screwed things up pretty badly. And maybe turning the tmnt into humans is a bridge too far for even me. Honestly, I do want to see the tmnt movie that is more faithful to the source material. Not the same exact story, by any means, but it's been way too far gone for my tastes.

[Technogeek29]

I'm not seeing signs of Yoshi, Saki or Shen in this story and the last movie that ditch does elements bombed. I'm looking at this like a gift wrapped present with every warning label and red flag possible decorating it.

[DragonSoul]

Looks like the teaser from Seth Rogen shows that the turtles will be taught formal education--the question is by who? The man with the flies above his head yelling "pay attention" maybe a Baxter Stockman nod. So it seems that the turtles are again intentional experiments in a lab instead of an accident. The turtles being humans is a huge leap to make from a simple teaser but it is understandable as past TMNT creators did terrible fan service in their reboots.

The writing capability of Leo is horrible--this maybe a nod that they are still animals and not humans. Leo also indicates his mutated animal features in his science notes. The one thing I find interesting is Leo writing down his brothers names with a subject like Mikey with drama or Raph with math. Does this mean that those subjects are their favorites? or the subjects they struggle in the most? I doubt Mikey struggles in drama though so it might be their favorite subject. Raph liking math is an interesting take on Raph. Leo trying to be cool is also an interesting take on Leo's character. Overall the teaser is interesting but there isn't much to make huge assumptions.