Interesting quote from Simon Pegg about Paramount

[Powder]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

Like I said, They are throwing in more money so that they can have more CGI characters on screen, Hence why we are getting Bebop, Rocksteady and Krang.

And with that, Maybe a 2 hour runtime.

You're delusional.

It's pretty clear that the reason they're adding so many human characters to make up for the fact that the turtles are losing a large chunk of their focus to Bebop & Rocksteady. More CGI characters does not mean more screen time for said CGI characters.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Powder

It's pretty clear that the reason they're adding so many human characters to make up for the fact that the turtles are losing a large chunk of their focus to Bebop & Rocksteady. More CGI characters does not mean more screen time for said CGI characters.

Maybe this current TMNT movie series will be comparable to the old Godzilla films of the 1960s and 1970s in which we spend the first 45 minutes or so focusing on human characters and the random villain mutant/monsters until the title characters finally show up in the last half of the film?

[IndigoErth]

If they do that they deserve all the hate mail they get.

Spoiler:

I bet of PD made a Christmas movie, they'd overshadow Santa with too many elves, and then in the sequel they'd add ten more elves. That's basically what this is.

[Xav]

Originally Posted by Galactus

I've said before I believe going with a cheaper director known for making the most of a small budget and using a script they were never fully on board with but ended up buying is signs of belt tightening but what will they do about tone?

Wait what script are you talking about? Aren't they writing a new one for this film?

[Leo656]

42: Yes, I do understand that we each tend to approach Superman and Batman from a different angle.

I'd still argue they did a great job of marrying the books to the "real world" without violating anything important. Plot holes notwithstanding; that's gonna happen in every movie, but Rises especially is just the sh*ts with that, definitely.

Not gonna lie, when I saw that on opening night, it got the biggest ovation of any movie I'd ever gone to see. Not even close. People were NUTS over it. But the second time I saw it, with a lot less adrenaline and nerd-gasming going on, it was pretty obvious that having to rush to make the release date really screwed that movie up. I wish we could get a mulligan on that one. The first two movies really deserved a better finale.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Leo656

42: Yes, I do understand that we each tend to approach Superman and Batman from a different angle.

I'd still argue they did a great job of marrying the books to the "real world" without violating anything important. Plot holes notwithstanding; that's gonna happen in every movie, but Rises especially is just the sh*ts with that, definitely.

Not gonna lie, when I saw that on opening night, it got the biggest ovation of any movie I'd ever gone to see. Not even close. People were NUTS over it. But the second time I saw it, with a lot less adrenaline and nerd-gasming going on, it was pretty obvious that having to rush to make the release date really screwed that movie up. I wish we could get a mulligan on that one. The first two movies really deserved a better finale.

There's no arguing that Nolan built a rabbid fanbase, and he did do some things well, but on the whole, the guy is far too spastic when he tells a story.

Watching his films feels like this

"When Joe went to the store to buy groceries, he had a little car trouble. When his car engine finally turned over, John decided that he was in a hurry, so he accelerated through the intersection at a red light. He was spotted by the cops, who pulled him over. As he got out of his Van, Jim felt a little uneasy, as he knew he was in the wrong. Lucky for Jack, he'd stored a bottle of pepto in the glove compartment for such an occasion.
Later that night Alex returned home to his condo with a pizza."

This isn't the problem with MOS, just the Batman films (actually, all of Nolan's films if you pay attention). He tells you something then without warning decides to change it, without any explanation. He then ties the story together with an ending that has little to nothing to do with the original story. He's ****ing Grampa from the Simpsons.

I like realism, maybe too much, but realism requires telling a story in a realistic way. Batman having no cartilage in his knees, then wearing a leg brace to go fight crime and kick through bricks? WTF?

MOS suffers from mis-characterizations, grievously mis-cast actors, a dour mood, religiosity at every turn, and a hate on for anything remotely scientific. The line "evolution always wins" wasn't just asinine, it was actually the entire driving force behind the film. Krypton had life down to a "science" (we're told agonizing exposition), and science destroyed their world. Zod is logical and scientific, and logic and science are bad. Now, here comes Superman, in a Christ pose, to save us. He saves the kids who hated him from drowning, even though there could be consequences, and his father basically says "I'd let them drown" a direct old testament reference.

The film on the whole was a parable with a strong message "Science bad, faith good!" That wasn't the Superman of my generation, but i suppose he's dead.

Worst of all, Superman wasn't a good guy. He was a little emoshit, moody and irresponsible. He wasn't a hero, just self absorbed and arrogant.
Every actor, even the beautiful and lovely Diane Lane, were dry of charisma.

I don't recall any of that in any Superman comic, and again, Birthright doesn't count.

Reeves had buckets of Charisma, and the dude gave off this sense of magic on screen. A friend of mine who hadn't ever watched any of the Superman films, watched it for the first time recently. They didn't even comment on the FX, all they could say was "Wow, I love that guy".

You can go through Reeve's library of films, and for the most part, they suck, as does he. But as Superman, it's pure perfection.

[chrisdude]

1. I think this whole overcrowding thing is getting blown out of proportion. Why anyone expects Rocksteady and Bebop to get lots of screen time is beyond me. They're goons. Henchmen. I doubt we're going to watch them grow up. Stockman is a big question mark, though, as we don't really know the central conflict. It's not like they cast Joker, Riddler and Penguin in the same movie. These are all TMNT characters (and actors) that could easily play minor roles.


2. We've had confirmation from the director and actors from the first film that plenty of footage of the turtles was filmed, but never animated, because of the budget. Not to mention the late stage rewrites. They changed the identity of the villain. There's no telling what kind of scenes had to get scrapped. So why does everyone seem so sure that the powers that be don't want the turtles to be the central characters of the film? I'm just saying, you know their original plan was smashed and rebuilt. There's no reason the think the budget will be cut in preproduction. There's no reason to think there'll be a massive rewrite during filming. It doesn't make sense to point to related shortcomings and assume history will be repeated.


On a Star Trek note, I'll just copy/paste my comments on another site, about the Pegg quote.

If Pegg is going to "make a western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters," that's fine by me. Some of the most fun times I've ever had watching the TOS Star Trek crew is when they were hijacking the Enterprise, fighting gladiator battles, riding the bus, and bonding around the camp fire. It really is about the characters. To me, "Star Trek-y" makes me think of Deep Space Nine or Enterprise, when so much of what you're seeing is in presented in contrast with, or builds on what happened in another time in Star Trek. Everyone can appreciate the logical, calculating Spock losing to Kirk at chess, or the fate of Edith Keeler. But discovering that Bashir is an Augment, or learning about the disease that caused Klingons to lose their ridges? That's really Star Trek-y.

[graphic_content]

Originally Posted by chrisdude

1. I think this whole overcrowding thing is getting blown out of proportion. Why anyone expects Rocksteady and Bebop to get lots of screen time is beyond me. They're goons. Henchmen. I doubt we're going to watch them grow up. Stockman is a big question mark, though, as we don't really know the central conflict. It's not like they cast Joker, Riddler and Penguin in the same movie. These are all TMNT characters (and actors) that could easily play minor roles.

Agreed; all these villains have featured simultaneously during the Fred Wolf series, from which this series appears to borrow from heavily, playing bit roles that ultimately contributed to the plot, the action, and never outshone the Turtles. My concern is with all human characters that keep popping up...NBA players, models...guest cameos that for reason studios feel they need. However little they detract from the Turtles is still too much for me.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by chrisdude

1. I think this whole overcrowding thing is getting blown out of proportion.
So why does everyone seem so sure that the powers that be don't want the turtles to be the central characters of the film?

Because the main "issue" TPTB had with the first film, was the cost of animating the turtles. It's the same issue they had with TF.

This will be Arnell centric, with lot's of Fox, because shooting them is much cheaper. There will still be plenty of invisible VFX done, the stuff no one ever notices, but PD is KNOWN to be cheap, so if they can cut costs by shooting living breating people to tell parts of the story that might cost 5 times as much to do with the turtles, they will. That's just who they are. cheap.

[IndigoErth]

Originally Posted by chrisdude

So why does everyone seem so sure that the powers that be don't want the turtles to be the central characters of the film? I'm just saying, you know their original plan was smashed and rebuilt.

The trouble for me is that April is not one that was changed, but they clearly chose to set the meat of the story mainly from her perspective, so I don't think anything was changed in that regard. That pretty much made her the center of the movie.

And if they couldn't grasp how to make it from the Turtles' perspective the first time, I don't hold much hope that they'll do it this time. Maybe this director gets it. But then he's still working with a screen play by the same people who wrote the last one.


Case in point, when the Turtles asked April to meet up with them, it would have been nice if the viewer got the perspective of waiting around with them, hoping April shows up. Instead I found it a bit disheartening that we're supposed to go with her perspective and be fearful for poor little April and what the big scary Turtles are doing.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

But then he's still working with a screen play by the same people who wrote the last one.

And that's the point.

They pay for everything. A writer get's paid, actors get paid. these are hard costs. These types of producers think of it in dollars. paying for something, then tossing it away is an expense they've incurred that they can't explain away. For what ever reason, they went with the same idiots as before. It will BE the same crap as before. ESPECIALLY when the crap they made before, turned a profit.

you vote with your dollars guys. it's very very very simple.

[Wolfie65]

Studios figure that the vastly overwhelming majority of ticket-buyers have no idea who any of the characters are, have never read the book/series/comics/whatever and just want to escape their dull lives for 2 hours while fattening themselves up even further with hugely overpriced snacks and sugar water.
Generally, they are correct, which is precisely why, to them, 'only' 1/2 BILLION DALLAHS is a 'letdown'.......

[IndigoErth]

Originally Posted by Wolfie65

Studios figure that the vastly overwhelming majority of ticket-buyers have no idea who any of the characters are, have never read the book/series/comics/whatever

After 31 years, if they're assuming that of TMNT, then I hate to inform them but they - and only they - have been living under a rock.

I mean, if they grew up Amish or super poor and rural and had no tv, or it wasn't allowed, or in the middle of the Sahara or something and have no idea other people know if this (at least a basic familiarity), I could understand. lol

[chrisdude]

I bet you could walk down the street asking random people what planet Superman was from, and get a lot of wrong answers. Lots of people can't name the President. Whatever it is, anything at all, rest assured the majority of people don't know or care about it. Those people have to be addressed, because believe it or not, tons of people go see random movies just for something to do on the weekend, or as a date, and they choose based on what they saw in a commercial or whatever's soaked into their brain by accident.

They say the next Spider-Man won't be an origin story, but I'd bet my bottom dollar you'll hear about the spider bite and uncle Ben, somehow. Some people don't know..

[Leo656]

42: It's got nothing to do with "Birthright", "Birthright" was awful and every sane person knows it. They did borrow a little from that story, but really, only insofar as making "stop a Kryptonian invasion" the Very First Thing he does after he's exposed to the world. But it was VERY much in tone with Byrne's Superman. Byrne's version of Krypton looked different but the story was exactly the same: They let science take precedent over everything and eventually that killed off their entire civilization and way of life, an "evolution" that ultimately killed them off. Meanwhile, just like in the film, when faced with a choice to have Krypton be reborn on Earth, Kal-El rejects this, choosing his humanity over his alien heritage. That is SO important to the material, and the earlier films never went far enough into it, that Clark is only Kryptonian "by accident"; that he was born, raised, thinks, and acts as a human being. It's important, and it's from the books. A LOT of things from Byrne's run made it into the movie. I appreciate that, because whenever anyone does a comic movie, people complain "they changed this and that from the books, they should have just done the books". Well, this movie was about 95% comics-accurate, it just wasn't as fuzzy and sentimental as it probably should have been. But it gave everyone everything they always said they wanted to see in a Superman movie, and it's still controversial. So either people were lying about what they wanted or they just won't accept anything. I really don't know.

I won't argue that modern movies overplay the Christ allegory, but it's always been there. Even in the Reeve films, especially the Donner Cut of II. It's a personal choice if it bothers the viewer or not, but since it's been done to death already I really don't see the problem. I'd argue "Returns" played it even heavier. It's nothing new. Modern audience like everything spelled out plain for them; if you don't come right out and SAY he's "American Jesus", they might not get it.


Meanwhile, I'd also argue that "science vs faith" wasn't the conflict of the movie, but rather, "Predestination Vs. Free Will". I see what you're getting at, but that's not the message they were trying to send, "Science Bad/Faith Good". The movie was about how you can have anything in the world programmed into your genes, you can be "destined" to be a leader or a general or a scientist or a king, but ultimately, who you become is up to you, that it has nothing to do with predestination and everything to do with personal choice. In this case, "Kal-El isn't Superman because of his DNA or who his Daddy was, those are factors but it all comes down to what he chooses to do with his power." I think that's a really terrific and powerful message, that people can overcome their "predetermined" fate and become something greater. Even in the Reeve movies, it wasn't a choice, it was, "Jor-El sent him there to be Superman, so he does it, because what else is a guy who flies supposed to do?" I dunno.

Character-wise, it's pretty clear at this point they're taking the long way around in getting him to be the Superman everyone knows/remembers, and that he's maturing into the role as he goes through these couple movies. And I really don't think calling Cavill's take "whiny" or "emo" is accurate; especially not while people still think "Smallville" was any good at all! I mean, he's literally one of the only people in MoS who smiles at all! Check it, it's true! He's having more fun than anybody! I liked his quiet confidence, personally. The guy's good. Some of the other folks in the movie needed some work but I thought HE was great.

I'm with you on Jon Kent's misuse, however. I'm fine with Costner but his dialog was awwwwwful and totally out of character. Someone needed to take another pass at that. A LOT of the dialog in that movie was screwy. It's like they figured "People are bedazzled by spectacle, they don't care about dialog." Some of us do.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Leo656

42: .....

Alright, i have so much to say/retorte, it just wouldn't be fair to keep it in the open.

I'm going PM. Sorry about my tangent all. As you were

[Xiewin]

Well I personally thought Cavill was fantastic. Even with all the criticisms for MOS, no one really had a problem with his performance.

[Leo656]

I think we already did this once or twice, but alright.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Xiewin

Well I personally thought Cavill was fantastic. Even with all the criticisms for MOS, no one really had a problem with his performance.

I did. Now what?

- and just to prove my point:
“Just because you’re taught that something’s right and everyone believes it’s right, it don’t make it right.”
— Mark Twain,

Originally Posted by Leo656

I think we already did this once or twice, but alright.

Sorry, I couldn't help it...stupidly long winded answer sent.

[Xiewin]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

I did. Now what?

- and just to prove my point:
“Just because you’re taught that something’s right and everyone believes it’s right, it don’t make it right.”
— Mark Twain,

I never said anyone's opinion outside of that was invalid...