"Why my Turtlez has lips?" - An Explainer

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Crisler's Law rears its ugly head once again.

Never fails.

And I'll never fail to point out that your so-called "law" is some of the most pretentious bullsh*t I've ever seen. Stop it.

I absolutely love TMNT. I ADORE TMNT. It might be up there just behind Superman and Batman amongst my all-time favorite works of fiction. It's been one of the most positive and important things in my entire life from childhood to now. Let's first be clear on that.

You know what else TMNT is? Silly. Nonsense. Junk food. Escapism. A farce. It was never designed to be anything more than that. It's not even like Superman, where there's the inherent Christ/Moses metaphors for anyone who chooses to take it seriously, which were consciously put in by the creators from the beginning. Very little, if anything, about TMNT screams "dark and serious melodrama". In fact, I think the more serious it gets, the less entertaining it becomes. And I kind of think the type of fans who insist on injecting their dark, morbid and "serious" interpretation into it, kind of have insecurity issues. As if they, as adults, can't just like something silly and fun because it's silly and fun. There has to be something "deeper" or "more mature" to it.

Except that's not true at all. Projecting changes nothing. I love TMNT. TMNT is f*cking fake, it's a f*cking goofy concept, and no amount of super-serious posturing on the part of grown-ups who can't accept their own immaturity can change that. Be honest: If you had never heard of TMNT before, hadn't grown up lowing it, and someone just now tried to pitch the concept to you, it would be, by far, the dumbest thing you'd ever heard of. Because as terrific as it is, it's just... f*cking... stupid. Get over it. You're a grown man who's obsessed with silly, childish things that have absolutely zero inherent value past their ability to entertain. So f*cking what. Yeesh. It doesn't make you a bad person. Neither does being so damn pretentious all the time about a comic book, but seriously, man, let sh*t be what it is. Don't even try and pretend Peter and Kevin were not drunk and/or high as balls when they wrote that sh*t. Do not.

To clarify: I also hate super-goofy TMNT. I think it loses ALL of its universal appeal when it's played entirely for laughs, like "Next Mutation", or some of the lesser episodes of the OT. I hate both extremes, super-silly and super-serious. TNM was stupid and brain-numbing, while Mirage, with a few exceptions, just bores me to tears, especially Vol. 4 (or as I sometimes call it, "Laird's Mid-Life Crisis, In Print Form"). When I "see" TMNT in my head, it's more like the first movie as far as tone, taking itself semi-seriously yet still taking time to wink at the audience a little bit. The concept of TMNT is broad enough for lots of action, plenty of drama, and a lot of humor and silliness. Because it's not Hamlet, after all, it's friggin' Ninja Turtles. Ninja. Turtles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, more on-topic, this movie's going too far in the "stupid goofy" direction and I'm not a fan. The Turtle design, if real, is crummy. I don't particularly care if the details of the faces have a practical purpose, they don't quite look right. I'm almost positive it has less to do with "realism" or "practicality" - Let's be honest, no kid, or even an adult, is going to be in the theater thinking "Hey, Turtles can't talk, they don't have lips!" - and more to do with the studio feeling like it's a waste of money to hire semi-known actors and "hide" their faces behind costumes and CGI. I'd sort of agree: the better, cheaper option would've been to hire no-names to wear the suits (since stunt people do 90% of the heavy lifting anyway), have "names" do the voices, and let the Turtles' faces be more like what we're used to.

I mean, are these actors even really that well-known to merit seeing their faces (or even a CGI, "Turtlefied" version of them)? I don't think I can tell you one thing any of them has done. Changing the faces to suit the actors seems a waste. Especially since (like everything else about the movie) it's completely split the fanbase into about a million sub-factions. Ah well... if they did anything right with this movie at this point, it's probably ruin everything.

[1984TMNT]

Originally Posted by hitmonkey

They're giant talking mutant turtles who know martial arts and fight a clan on ninja based out of Manhattan. Why does that concept need to take realism so far that we analyze the science of their ability to speak? The lips look dumb on a Ninja Turtle.

Yep - again, I strongly believe that "actual lips" don't need to be on a CGI rendered ninja turtle in order to have them speak and the audience believe it. Realllllllllllllly smacks of desperation in trying to explain away an awful looking aesthetic choice.

[plastroncafe]

Real turtles don't have teeth! Gah! What crap kind of realism is this?!

/gnashes teeth/
/rends clothing/

[BabyTurtles]

...they are just lips.

guys....this movie is just another version of TMNT. Some people might like this version, some people might not.


I remember when 2012 TMNT came out.....I did NOT wanna like it! first it was in CGI and I didn't like how they all looked different, I also wasn't used to seeing their eyes (I only saw white before) but I decided to give it a chance anyway and it's now my favorite incarnation! so far.

so give this movie a chance. YES they have lips, it's different....theres ALWAYS gonna be something different when it comes to any reboot. White Shredder is also different, but different doesn't make it bad.

OT turtles? they were goofy! how'd you think mirage fans felt?

2003 turtles? it was darker! they had white for eyes? everything was more serious. How'd you think OT fans felt??

2012 turtles?? IT'S CGI!! They all look completely different from each other!! How'd you think 2003 fans felt?



look what I'm trying to say is....this movie WON'T ruin TMNT for you. It just might not be your cup of tea. Kids might see this movie and think it's the coolest thing since ever. Just like when you were all kids and loved the first TMNT movies.

or hey! you might end up liking it! like how I ended up liking 2012, but let's not write them off yet just because of some lips. It's a different style...a different TMNT.

[1984TMNT]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Real turtles don't have teeth! Gah! What crap kind of realism is this?!

/gnashes teeth/
/rends clothing/

Yeah - there are plenty of things that don't match up with the TMNT and real turtles. Nothing, and I mean nothing. HAS to be or not be there in order for the audience to believe they are mutated turtles (ok, maybe grren skin and shells) - other than that though, it's all about design choice.

[plastroncafe]

If memory serves Smaug from "The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug" had lips as well, and dragons have no real "need" of them either. I'm pretty sure the monsters from "Where the Wild Things Are" didn't have specific lips in the children's book either, but they did in Spike Jones; movie.

It's probably a hold over of the motion-capture process. And yeah...it does lend itself to a touch more "realism".

Where that realism will land on the Uncanny Valley scale remains to be seen.

[1984TMNT]

I dunno - lips aren't real distinguishable here:

[plastroncafe]

Your mileage may vary.

[1984TMNT]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Your mileage may vary.

http://www.easyfunschool.com/images/...things_are.jpg
http://socialmedio.com/wp-content/up...things-are.jpg

Yeah, but look at that - those creatures look almost EXACTLY like the original drawings.

[funksk8er]

Yeah, those do not have human lips.


I think its the fact they are trying to play off the features from the actual actors. One of those features being their lips. I just think its unnecessary and in my opinion, makes the Turtles look too much like humans. I understand that every reincarnation of the the turtles will be different. This is just the first time I have a major problem with the look of them.

[plastroncafe]

"Where the Wild Things Are" didn't have much in the way of other versions to separate itself from, so it had the luxury of being able to cling to the source material for character design.

Where it differed greatly was in the story.

The turtles have four movies, three cartoon series, and several comic iterations it has to be different than. I think it's short sighted to expect the character designs to be derivative of what we've seen before.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by BabyTurtles

guys....this movie is just another version of TMNT. Some people might like this version, some people might not.

Mileage may vary, but as I've said elsewhere, in my opinion movies based on a well-established property should aim to be less "new and different" and more "Iconic". 100x the number of people will go see a TMNT movie over reading a comic book or watching a cartoon. That's just how people are. To me, it's a wasted opportunity when a movie knowingly and unnecessarily "tinkers" with certain things that are otherwise left alone across other media. Your average TMNT fan knows they don't have tattoos or wear ratty sweatpants or bamboo armor, they know Shredder isn't a Caucasian senior citizen, etc. The 1990 film may not have been perfect, but it was "Iconic" in the sense that it was true to "the TMNT most everyone knows". For the most part.

The "new look" for the TMNT might fly as variant action figures, but not as the way they should be presented to mainstream audiences. Too much of what they're doing with the movie is turning TMNT on its head, and it's unnecessary. The very fact that so many of the die-hards, the fans they should be doing everything they can to please, are pissed to various degrees, for so many different reasons, means that this entire project has in a sense already failed.

"It's a chance to do something different" is a mediocre argument. Nobody was asking for anything different, they/we would settle for something good, even if it was derivative. The people excited for "Something different" is like, 5% of the audience. That's NOT a market you cater to with your $150-million movie that's supposed to kickstart a franchise that's been stagnant as a film property for close to 20 years.

Safe and boring or no, I'm pretty sure they should have just settled for "Do what they did before... but better." There's too much risk of failure in the movie business to make the kind of stylistic choices they've made.

I'm a pragmatist. Sue me.

[plastroncafe]

I'd hazard to say being good would be new and different.

[funksk8er]

If the majority of the people I have shown this image to say "The Mask", "Shrek" and "Weird Voldemort" and not "Ninja Turtle", there is a problem. That majority of people I showed (15 or so co-workers) are also, for the most part, main stream audience and not a fanboy like myself.

[BabyTurtles]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Mileage may vary, but as I've said elsewhere, in my opinion movies based on a well-established property should aim to be less "new and different" and more "Iconic". 100x the number of people will go see a TMNT movie over reading a comic book or watching a cartoon. That's just how people are. To me, it's a wasted opportunity when a movie knowingly and unnecessarily "tinkers" with certain things that are otherwise left alone across other media. Your average TMNT fan knows they don't have tattoos or wear ratty sweatpants or bamboo armor, they know Shredder isn't a Caucasian senior citizen, etc. The 1990 film may not have been perfect, but it was "Iconic" in the sense that it was true to "the TMNT most everyone knows". For the most part.

The "new look" for the TMNT might fly as variant action figures, but not as the way they should be presented to mainstream audiences. Too much of what they're doing with the movie is turning TMNT on its head, and it's unnecessary. The very fact that so many of the die-hards, the fans they should be doing everything they can to please, are pissed to various degrees, for so many different reasons, means that this entire project has in a sense already failed.

"It's a chance to do something different" is a mediocre argument. Nobody was asking for anything different, they/we would settle for something good, even if it was derivative. The people excited for "Something different" is like, 5% of the audience. That's NOT a market you cater to with your $150-million movie that's supposed to kickstart a franchise that's been stagnant as a film property for close to 20 years.

Safe and boring or no, I'm pretty sure they should have just settled for "Do what they did before... but better." There's too much risk of failure in the movie business to make the kind of stylistic choices they've made.

I'm a pragmatist. Sue me.

IDK I don't see it that way.

alot of cool things came from people doing something new and different. (alot a bad things too)

we gotta see what we can do, ya know? to make things better.

I feel writers get bored by sticking with the formula, they mix it up to see if they can introduce something new that could stick and add something good for later incarnations.

somethings might not stick? like TMNT lips or white shredder, but if they never try you never know.

and it's not like they are making this film different to anger die-hard tmnt fans....they are just trying to excite us! surprise us! We know what happens in the original formula.....but we don't know what's gonna happen in this new one. I think that's cool.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

I'd hazard to say being good would be new and different.

First one was pretty good. They shouldn't copy-n-paste it for a new movie, but it wouldn't be a bad template to work from.

"Batman Begins" is a good example. It stuck to the comics, had a few fairly obvious nods to its well-known and much-beloved 1989 predecessor, modernized things a bit, and ended up with an arguably better movie, something absolutely nobody thought was even possible.

They didn't do what the people behind TMNT are seemingly doing, which is "fixing what ain't broken" to an annoying degree. You don't have to change everything just because you can.

babyturtles: You're giving them way too much credit. They just want to sell more toys and are so out of touch with what the audience wants they figure they can put literally anything out there and people will buy it. It's nothing to do with being "creative" or "exciting". These are middle-aged, cynical, out-of-touch, coked-up movie executives who only care about making a profit. No matter what anyone tells you, nobody making the Big Decisions on the movie has ever even SEEN a TMNT comic or cartoon show before, except maybe in the briefest passing. They're making the movie because someone told them it would be profitable. Mikey has a tattoo and sunglasses because a bunch of middle-aged suits think that's what kids see as "hip". Leo (allegedly) wears bamboo armor so they can sell another action figure. It's 100% that, and absolutely nothing else.

Trust me on this. I've wasted far too much of my life studying how "big" movies get made. It's depressing. Movie studio executives don't have a single "new" or "creative" thought in their empty little materialistic heads. Tim Burton wanted Superman to have see-through skin and wear black vinyl. "New and different"? Sure. "Absolute stupidest f*cking idea ever"? Absolutely, times infinity. These are people who went to work in Hollywood so they wouldn't have to actually work for a living. Anything "creative" they do is by complete accident.

Sorry to be a cynic, but some things just are what they are.

[plastroncafe]

There is a line to be walked when it comes to adaptation and..."Wait, why did you pay for the rights to this in the first place?"

A 1:1 adaptation is just...fan service, as far as I'm concerned. It's being able to see that Quidditch match on the screen, or a splash page rendered in real life.

In the end though, it's soulless and boring.
Yeah, I'm looking at you "Watchmen." Also the first two Harry Potter movies.

Film makers should do something with a story they're translating to film. Not just...ink it on the screen.

Of course, the other side of that spectrum is something like "Constantine" which...did away with nearly EVERYTHING Hellblazer, save for the names. It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't Hellblazer. I left the theater wondering why the director and producer even bothered to pay for the Constantine rights in the first place.

Now...I'm not making excuses for Platinum Dunes, who I already don't think very highly of. I'm clearly not their target audience. I'm just bored of the hyperbole.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

I'd hazard to say being good would be new and different.

Yes, this. This.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Yes, this. This.

Did...did we just agree on something turtle related, Andrew?

SOMEONE FIND ME A WEATHER REPORT FOR HELL! STAT!

[funksk8er]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

There is a line to be walked when it comes to adaptation and..."Wait, why did you pay for the rights to this in the first place?"

A 1:1 adaptation is just...fan service, as far as I'm concerned. It's being able to see that Quidditch match on the screen, or a splash page rendered in real life.

In the end though, it's soulless and boring.
Yeah, I'm looking at you "Watchmen." Also the first two Harry Potter movies.

Film makers should do something with a story they're translating to film. Not just...ink it on the screen.

Of course, the other side of that spectrum is something like "Constantine" which...did away with nearly EVERYTHING Hellblazer, save for the names. It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't Hellblazer. I left the theater wondering why the director and producer even bothered to pay for the Constantine rights in the first place.

Now...I'm not making excuses for Platinum Dunes, who I already don't think very highly of. I'm clearly not their target audience. I'm just bored of the hyperbole.

I agree. This going back to one of my main points. The end product, good or bad, lies with the director Jonathan Liebesman.

Still doesnt change the fact that I hate those human lips. The story and characters development are the most important thing. But if those fail, I wont even get to fall back on "At least the turtles looked good". Only time will tell.