10 Ways To Make Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 Not Suck

[Leo656]

Having completely hollow or shallow reasons for the Yoshi/Shredder feud is only *slightly* better than zero reasons. Especially when they already had a perfectly good reason that nobody was asking to be changed. "BUT DIFFERENT!!!" Nobody cares, it pissed a lot of people off so clearly it wasn't as cute or as clever as they thought it would be.

And come on, why would a bunch of mutated animals living in the sewer develop any "Noble Reasons" to want to "protect the city"? Why would they honestly give two sh*ts and a f*ck? They wouldn't, other than The Movie Says So. There's not only no reason for them to feud, there's not even any reason for Splinter and the Turtles to even care. The absolute smartest thing for any of them to do would have been to stay in the damn sewers and stay out of everything. But, then there's no movie, thus, the compulsion to be super-heroes (despite never being super-heroes) that is literally written into their DNA, apparently. Because It's A Movie, and without these oh-so-convenient contrivances, there's no story.

It's all just Different For Different's Sake with no concern as to whether it's actually Good. That's NEVER a good reason to do anything.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

It's the same reason Superman fights for Metropolis, because he has the powers, and wants to use them for good. He, like this version of the Turtles, did not have some tragedy happen as a child to make him vow revenge, they just do the right thing. That's why I like Superman, that's why I don't have a problem with this reasoning for this TMNT movie.

Some people just like the turtles...I mean why is that such a bad thing? Does it really matter WHY you like them?

And yes I WOULD enjoy a Battletoads movie!





They do not NEED to have a blood feud. That is just your preferred reason for them to feud. Many conflicts are made from ideological differences, religious differences, political differences etc... The attack that happened in France was not because the cartoonist had some blood feud with those extremists... There is a common thread in comic books and comic book movies and tv shows.

Good vs Evil. That's it, it's very simple.

At this point, you've chosen to simply be contrary, nothing more. You have not made any compelling arguments, at all, and further proven that you just don't understand TMNT.

The FW cartoon was often enough, just a good v evil storyline, I'll give you that.
I'm not advocating for a return to FW's storytelling style.

The turtles are not superheroes! I could have sworn we did this once before!

The turtles are nothing like Superman. The turtles are not interested in saving the world, unless they in some way benefit.

The turtles are not little altruistic messiahs running around doing good for the sake of doing good.

You guys love this movie precisely for the reasons others hate it. They've transformed it into something it's not.

I'm positive that, if they had kept the themes present in Mirage, you wouldn't have enjoyed the movie at all. I'm sure of it now.

[Cure]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

I'm positive that, if they had kept the themes present in Mirage, you wouldn't have enjoyed the movie at all. I'm sure of it now.

I definitely would not have enjoyed it.

It's a different story. I know I enjoyed them being super hero like.

[The Boston Ninja Turtle]

even superman has better morals than I'm good so I fight bad




And I hate that guy

[pennydreadful]

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

This general audience you speak of, it's about 8 people on a message board. For the most part people went and saw this and just liked it. Some people can disconnect when they see a movie, and just enjoy it, instead of picking it apart the whole time. I know when I saw the movie, everyone I could hear and see was very excited when they left the theater, and it was all positive. I know just doing a search on twitter the weekend of he release there were a lot of people who simply thought it was a fun movie. So this "general audience" I think YOU think you know of, actually doesn't care .0000000000006% about the things you dislike, or want changed. Everyone here is putting WAY too much into the discussion of this movie, and maybe even TMNT overall. In the grand scheme of things, this movie, this franchise, it means relatively nothing.

So eight people are responsible for this movie being Razzie-nominated? Damn, I wish I had that kind of influence!

Look, opinions on the movie are divided. Some love it, some hate it. But you can't say that nearly everyone loves it, because that simply isn't true. If that were the case, there would be no negative reviews of the movie. All you have to do is Google "Michael Bay Ninja Turtles sucks" and you'll get page after page of results. There are hundreds of negative user reviews on sites like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. So you can't say it's just eight people complaining.

To say that movies shouldn't be picked apart is an argument that's never made any sense to me - art and entertainment exist to be analyzed. That's why fandoms exist - because people like to discuss things. If something is good, it should be able to stand up to a bit of criticism and analysis. Not everything needs to be Citizen Kane, but that doesn't mean that entertainment should be exempt from criticism just because it's intended to be "light". I would frankly find it alarming to live in a world where people just accept anything they're given without thinking about what they're taking in.

That's like saying that pop songs can't have any kind of deeper meaning and should be exempt from analysis, purely because they're pop. It simply isn't true. Pop can be good - like Michael Jackson - or it can be fairly drecky - like Hanson or Rebecca Black. All of whom sold numerous records on their own, to be sure, but not all of whom are considered good.

tl;dr - Something can be both fluffy and good at the same time. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

[Shark_Blade]

I agree, more screen time for the turtles like showing their downtime, just having fun - like Mikey waiting for the pizza guy with Donnie.

I'd say:
- 40% Megan Fox/April
- 40% Turtles
- 20% villain, story related plots

[The Boston Ninja Turtle]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

Yeah, but wouldn't it have been sweet, to have that as the opening? The whole DD rip-off as the lead in? Leaving the pet-shop, car chase, cars swerves to avoid the old man and Chet, See Chet lose the turtles down the sewer, camera follows them down the drain into black, a canister of glowing liquid smashes open above them. title credits roll.

Damn, just take my money.
.

I completely missed this dude my bad

Don't get me wrong I'd be right there next to you id love to see this version of the origin finally in live action...I love the ideas of the happy accident..


I was saying poor Chet just lost bunches of money from losing his new pet turtles



Actually I will admit I used to hate the idea of human splinter. Don't know why, it wasn't till recently where his story was a little more fleshed out that I like the idea of yoshi becoming splinter

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by The Boston Ninja Turtle

I completely missed this dude my bad

Don't get me wrong I'd be right there next to you id love to see this version of the origin finally in live action...I love the ideas of the happy accident..


I was saying poor Chet just lost bunches of money from losing his new pet turtles

No question. But the reasons for the cost of turtles today is a whole other issue, an incredibly sad result of ignorance, and in many ways, a direct result of Turtlemania.

At least, with higher prices, parents will think a little harder about adopting a pet, then releasing it when it gets too difficult to care for.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Originally Posted by The Boston Ninja Turtle

I am on a tablet so to quote the specific line is very tough and this won't be as well written

but it's not true the turtles " have villians and who want to kill them because they'd stand for good"

Most tmnt villians want to get rid of them because they stand in their way or foiled their plans of something evil .

Um...why are the Turtles standing in their way? Because good. Bad guy bad, good guy good. Every single villain in TMNT does not have or need to have a blood feud to make it a legit feud.

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Actually, I don't think a single established TMNT villain wants to kill them because "evil." For instance...

Shredder has a long-standing blood feud with Yoshi/Splinter stemming from a love rivalry for Tang Shen as well as rivalry for the leadership of the Foot Clan.

Karai (or Pimiko, depending on which series) is Saki's daughter and wants to avenge her father's death or defeat, and so continues the blood feud between the Turtles and the Foot.

Baxter Stockman has a grudge against April O'Neil, not the Turtles, for her seeming betrayal of him and his company, leading to his financial ruin.

Agent Bishop is trying to protect his planet from alien invasion, and sees the Turtles as threats to world security.

Krang is trying to establish a new homeworld for his people or trying to conquer Dimension X...

I'd say only henchmen can be qualified as "villains because evil", and that's mainly because their motivations are to serve their superiors and not be punished. E.g. Hun, Bebop and Rocksteady, Koya, etc.

The only "villain because evil" examples that come to mind are the 2014 movie's Eric Sachs and Shredder... because that script was utterly devoid of any character development, legitimate backstory, or intelligent motivation for their villains.

Every single one of them are evil, and the turtles are in their way because....wait for it....because GOOD. They want to get rid of the Turtles....wait for it.....because BAD.

Originally Posted by Leo656

And come on, why would a bunch of mutated animals living in the sewer develop any "Noble Reasons" to want to "protect the city"? Why would they honestly give two sh*ts and a f*ck? They wouldn't, other than The Movie Says So. There's not only no reason for them to feud, there's not even any reason for Splinter and the Turtles to even care. The absolute smartest thing for any of them to do would have been to stay in the damn sewers and stay out of everything. But, then there's no movie, thus, the compulsion to be super-heroes (despite never being super-heroes) that is literally written into their DNA, apparently. Because It's A Movie, and without these oh-so-convenient contrivances, there's no story.

Why does any character in any story do anything...come on...Re-watch the movie, Splinter explains it in the beginning, the Foot and Shredder are terrorizing the city he says "Shredder will come at you with ferocity, his foot clan will outnumber you, and the people of New York will look upon you as their only hope." Splinter is the one who remembers what Sacks did to April's dad, and he knows Shredder was working with Sacks. He is the one who tells the Turtles they are destined to be heroes. So whether he's teaching them to be assassins or teaching them to be vigilante's, I think we all can agree Splinter is an abusive father and someone should call Child Protective services.

It's all just Different For Different's Sake with no concern as to whether it's actually Good. That's NEVER a good reason to do anything.

It was good to the people who made it. They wouldn't purposely make things bad...that is just dumb to think that. They opened the movie with animation, they could have told any story they wanted. Obviously they liked this story the most.

And I'm not defending their origin, I'm just saying who cares?

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

At this point, you've chosen to simply be contrary, nothing more. You have not made any compelling arguments, at all, and further proven that you just don't understand TMNT.

The FW cartoon was often enough, just a good v evil storyline, I'll give you that.
I'm not advocating for a return to FW's storytelling style.

The turtles are not superheroes! I could have sworn we did this once before!

The turtles are nothing like Superman. The turtles are not interested in saving the world, unless they in some way benefit.

The turtles are not little altruistic messiahs running around doing good for the sake of doing good.

You guys love this movie precisely for the reasons others hate it. They've transformed it into something it's not.

I'm positive that, if they had kept the themes present in Mirage, you wouldn't have enjoyed the movie at all. I'm sure of it now.

I'm not being contrary, what I'm saying is the origin does not have to be exactly re-told in order for the Turtles to fight Shredder. I'm not saying the Ninja Turtles origin is even good. It certainly isn't the most important thing for me. I personally do not even care about Splinter that much. I care for their relationship to Splinter more. I care more about the Turtles than what happened between Shredder and Splinter, because at the end of the day, the Turtles are fighting Shredder, not Splinter. And that doesn't mean I don't understand Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, it just means I enjoy different aspects of them than you. Neither of us are right or wrong.

The Mirage Turtles are not the only Turtles. You like that more than anything else, but that does not mean what you like has to be what everyone likes or is the absolute end all be all for what they CAN be. For the most part the Turtles are vigilante's fighting for the city who doesn't even know hey exist.

Explain to me what they gain by fighting villains? Since it's not for the sake of good, what is it they're fighting for then?

Originally Posted by pennydreadful

So eight people are responsible for this movie being Razzie-nominated? Damn, I wish I had that kind of influence!

Look, opinions on the movie are divided. Some love it, some hate it. But you can't say that nearly everyone loves it, because that simply isn't true. If that were the case, there would be no negative reviews of the movie. All you have to do is Google "Michael Bay Ninja Turtles sucks" and you'll get page after page of results. There are hundreds of negative user reviews on sites like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. So you can't say it's just eight people complaining.

To say that movies shouldn't be picked apart is an argument that's never made any sense to me - art and entertainment exist to be analyzed. That's why fandoms exist - because people like to discuss things. If something is good, it should be able to stand up to a bit of criticism and analysis. Not everything needs to be Citizen Kane, but that doesn't mean that entertainment should be exempt from criticism just because it's intended to be "light". I would frankly find it alarming to live in a world where people just accept anything they're given without thinking about what they're taking in.

That's like saying that pop songs can't have any kind of deeper meaning and should be exempt from analysis, purely because they're pop. It simply isn't true. Pop can be good - like Michael Jackson - or it can be fairly drecky - like Hanson or Rebecca Black. All of whom sold numerous records on their own, to be sure, but not all of whom are considered good.

tl;dr - Something can be both fluffy and good at the same time. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

I did not say movies should not be picked apart, I said I have the ability to relax and just take in a movie, instead of looking for things to discredit the plot or cry about adaptations being different than I'd like it to be.

I did not collect many comics as a kid, but I collected the Knightfall series of Batman, and it's one of my favorite comics of all time. The Dark Knight Rises didn't follow along with it at all, save for maybe a few things, but I was able to watch that movie and enjoy the story Nolan was telling with these characters I knew. Unlike a lot of people who think the movie sucks just because Bane wears a different type of mask, and for different reasons. I want new stories, not retellings. They can use established characters, but I do not want rehashed re imagined stories.

[The Boston Ninja Turtle]

Agai on a tablet atm so it's harder for me to quote,


But by your logic in this world who is to say the turtles are good?

If it's just bad vs good then who is what side?


Cause if the entire premise of evil is to get and I quote "stupid rich"Than I am your average Saturday morning cartoon super villain

[Bry]

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

This general audience you speak of, it's about 8 people on a message board. For the most part people went and saw this and just liked it.

Well, the movie has audience scores of 55% at Rotten Tomatoes (based on 124,138 ratings), 5.1/10 at Metacritic (based on 421 ratings), and 6.0/10 on IMDB (based on 106,761 ratings). So the reaction to this movie is provably mixed, at best. A D-average isn't exactly something to be be proud of.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

Um...why are the Turtles standing in their way? Because good. Bad guy bad, good guy good. Every single villain in TMNT does not have or need to have a blood feud to make it a legit feud.

...

Every single one of them are evil, and the turtles are in their way because....wait for it....because GOOD. They want to get rid of the Turtles....wait for it.....because BAD.

Of course that's a part of it, but you realize that what you're describing is the most absolute basic, paper-thin kind of conflict imaginable, right? Even children's cartoons have far more complicated and compelling conflicts and plots these days. Of course the heroes will operate out of altruism to some degree, but they need some kind of actual, understandable personal motivation in order to be compelling and interesting - and the villain does too. The last time "good guys good, bad guys bad" was enough, it looked something like this:



Good characters need motivation. That includes a strong backstory and a reason to react/respond to the plot in the way they do. Without that, they're barely characters at all. And without actual characters, you have a terrible story.

[pennydreadful]

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

Um...why are the Turtles standing in their way? Because good. Bad guy bad, good guy good. Every single villain in TMNT does not have or need to have a blood feud to make it a legit feud.

There doesn't need to be a blood feud for every villain, but relatable/understandable motivation is always a plus. Otherwise, as Bry said, you end up with very one-dimensional characters fighting a bunch of equally one-dimensional mustache-twirlers.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

Why does any character in any story do anything...

Well, if the writers are halfway competent, it's because they've been given believable motivation.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

And I'm not defending their origin, I'm just saying who cares?

A great number of people care - as evidenced by this forum. And if you don't care, why continue to debate the matter?

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

I did not say movies should not be picked apart, I said I have the ability to relax and just take in a movie, instead of looking for things to discredit the plot or cry about adaptations being different than I'd like it to be.

A lot of people find it much easier to relax and lose themselves in a story when they're not being repeatedly jarred out of the narrative by bad writing, gaping plotholes and inconsistencies. I manage to relax just fine with numerous other movies, thanks very much.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

Bad guy bad, good guy good.

This says it all dude. You're making my point for me. You do not have any understanding of what makes tmnt interesting, or different than the main stream comics. If you just want bang bang boom, pow, zap, well, good for you, but you're really missing out.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

... So whether he's teaching them to be assassins or teaching them to be vigilante's, I think we all can agree Splinter is an abusive father and someone should call Child Protective services.

And you don't care at all about Splinter, his backstory, or why he's not a great role model? You don't care, how his tutelage may have shaped, possibly warped or damaged his sheltered brood? That, doesn't matter?
All you want is boom, kaboom, kick flip, hi-ya? It doesn't matter what they fight for, just fight, right?

Why then, please tell me, are the turtles good? What about them makes them good guys?

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

It was good to the people who made it. They wouldn't purposely make things bad...that is just dumb to think that.

You are so naive. Wow. It's crazy you think that the people working on this movie gave a damn at all. They don't. They are looking to get paid man, that's all. They didn't try to make a good film, they just went to work, and did what they were told. No one is proud of this turd, please.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

And I'm not defending their origin, I'm just saying who cares?

WE CARE! If you don't why are you arguing at all?

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

I'm not being contrary, what I'm saying is the origin does not have to be exactly re-told in order for the Turtles to fight Shredder. I'm not saying the Ninja Turtles origin is even good. It certainly isn't the most important thing for me. I personally do not even care about Splinter that much. I care for their relationship to Splinter more. I care more about the Turtles than what happened between Shredder and Splinter, because at the end of the day, the Turtles are fighting Shredder, not Splinter. And that doesn't mean I don't understand Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, it just means I enjoy different aspects of them than you. Neither of us are right or wrong.

Let's try this again. The entire reason that the turtles were taught Nijitsu at all, was so that one day they could go, and get revenge against Saki, for Splinter, because of his crime against Yoshi. That is IT! What is so hard to understand? They had 1 job! That's it! Everything else is just happenstance. Things happen to them, they encounter all sorts of odd things, they grow older, they suffer, they ponder their existence. But things happen, and the turtles react. Again, they are not super heroes!

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

The Mirage Turtles are not the only Turtles. You like that more than anything else, but that does not mean what you like has to be what everyone likes or is the absolute end all be all for what they CAN be. For the most part the Turtles are vigilante's fighting for the city who doesn't even know hey exist.

Explain to me what they gain by fighting villains? Since it's not for the sake of good, what is it they're fighting for then?

Man, I just don't know...I feel like you're talking out of your ass most of the time. I get that you want to be right, or you feel you liked what you saw and identify with it somehow, and that guys like me are trying to take you down or something.

That's just not it man. It's true, there are many ideas crammed into turtle "lore" over the decades, as attested to in the turtle doc from this year. At one point some one said something to the effect that " it's funny, the turtles are so mailable, you can put them in almost any situation, and it just works!"
So there is that aspect to the franchise. Maybe it's popularity stems from it's endless variation of themes and ideas. Maybe we all love something different.

I am saying, that the core of it all stems from the initial idea, and that, before making "wacky-punching-kung-fu-grip-arctic-monkey-battery-powered-Donatello" or "bong-smoking-transformer-12 inch-fire-fighter-Leonardo" that maybe we could get the original, without adding all the other conflicting stories to the mix. Save the gimmicks for the 4rth installment, when everyone's moved on to the Sonic Movie or Pokemon. Don't tart it up from the word go.

And no, we did not get that in 1990. That was a hybrid, pretty good, but not the greatest. If you'd read any Mirage, you'd know that.

[TrickOrTreater]

It is fascinating to see a 5 year old with such a great vocabulary post on a message board.

"Good guy good, bad guy bad, they fight, me happy."

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Originally Posted by The Boston Ninja Turtle

But by your logic in this world who is to say the turtles are good?
If it's just bad vs good then who is what side?
Cause if the entire premise of evil is to get and I quote "stupid rich"Than I am your average Saturday morning cartoon super villain

Ok wow, let's just go by the 2014 movie plot. Shredder is attacking civilians, he's created a paramilitary force, which is killing, stealing and hurting CIVILIANS. Shredder and Sacks plan is to murder millions of people with a chemical, and then offer a cure after a few weeks. That is evil. The Turtles are putting their lives on the line to stop them. That is what's known as being "good". The Turtles for the most part, in every incarnation are fighting evil people. Gangs, monsters, tyrants... If they weren't good, they'd be either hiding and not doing anything, or they'd be out murdering, robbing, hurting innocent people.

Originally Posted by Bry

but you realize that what you're describing is the most absolute basic, paper-thin kind of conflict imaginable, right? Even children's cartoons have far more complicated and compelling conflicts and plots these days. Of course the heroes will operate out of altruism to some degree, but they need some kind of actual, understandable personal motivation in order to be compelling and interesting - and the villain does too.
Good characters need motivation. That includes a strong backstory and a reason to react/respond to the plot in the way they do. Without that, they're barely characters at all. And without actual characters, you have a terrible story.

I was only using good vs bad because I think Commenter 42 said no TMNT villain is fighting the Turtles only because they're good.

There is plenty of motivation in the 2014 Turtles to fight Shredder, but the people who hate it, either are blind to it, ignore it, or just plain choose to deny it.

Shredder is terrorizing NYC.
Shredder and Sacks killed April's father (psssst this makes them bad)
Splinter has knowledge of all this (he tells April, except the part about Sacks killing her dad)
Splinter tells the Turtles they are destined to be heroes to NYC and to save them from Shredder.
Shredder tries to kill Splinter.
Shredder kidnaps 3 of the Turtles.
Sacks drains their blood, and wants every last drop "even if it kills them"
Sacks and Shredder are going to murder millions of people.
Raphael and the Turtles fight Shredder to save the innocent people and "for Splinter"

To me, it's plausible motivation. Is it the motivation I would have written in a movie? No. Does that mean I must crap all over this movie because it's different than what I would have come up with? No. To claim there is no motivation for these Turtles to fight Shredder is a lie.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Originally Posted by pennydreadful

There doesn't need to be a blood feud for every villain, but relatable/understandable motivation is always a plus. Otherwise, as Bry said, you end up with very one-dimensional characters fighting a bunch of equally one-dimensional mustache-twirlers.

Well, if the writers are halfway competent, it's because they've been given believable motivation.
And if you don't care, why continue to debate the matter?

The movie created enough plausible motivation for the Turtles to fight Shredder I do not know what you people are talking about.

Just because it's not the motivation you want does not mean it's not plausible motivation.

And I'm debating this topic because I think it's kind of silly to just claim the plot, writing and whatever else about the story, makes this movie terrible only because the past of Splinter and Shredder isn't what you want. I've said this so many times already. You are all blind, you won't just let the new movie create a new path for the Turtles. As long as the basics are there it's fine. Someone has used the "Bruce Wayne's parents never got killed" in comparison to Splinter and Shredder not having a past, and it's not the same thing, Shredder is still part of Splinter's past, he is one of the main reasons the Turtles exist, he tried to kill them, multiple times. He's there, there is motivation for them to fight.

Look at like Batman '89. They tweaked Bruce's past a little bit and had the Joker kill his parents, instead of a random homeless guy. Did it RUIN the movie? In my opinion no. Was it better than the true origin? In my opinion, no, but it did not make me sit there with a frowny face and my arms crossed saying "BOO HOO JOKER KILLED THE WAYNES WAAAAAAAAH MOVIE IS INVALID, IT MUST BE JOE CHILL THAT KILLED THE WAYNES!"

A lot of people find it much easier to relax and lose themselves in a story when they're not being repeatedly jarred out of the narrative by bad writing, gaping plotholes and inconsistencies. I manage to relax just fine with numerous other movies, thanks very much.

I'm sorry but this is just a ridiculous statement. The movie is so basic there isn't even enough time to jar you out of the narrative. If you want to say the story was too basic, that's one thing, but gaping plot holes, and inconsistencies? Inconsistencies to what? Other TMNT stories? I would love to know what you think is a plot hole. If you say Splinter learning martial arts from a book is a plot hole, don't even bother replying, that's not a plot hole.

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

This says it all dude. You're making my point for me. You do not have any understanding of what makes tmnt interesting, or different than the main stream comics. If you just want bang bang boom, pow, zap, well, good for you, but you're really missing out.

No, we just have different reasons for liking them. You are settled into the Mirage comics, I've only read a handful of them. Personally I get bored reading comic books. I just have different expectations when it comes to comic book adaptations into movies. I understand things need to be less important, and unfortunately less complicated especially when it's a major blockbuster.

And you don't care at all about Splinter, his backstory, or why he's not a great role model? You don't care, how his tutelage may have shaped, possibly warped or damaged his sheltered brood? That, doesn't matter?
All you want is boom, kaboom, kick flip, hi-ya? It doesn't matter what they fight for, just fight, right?

Why then, please tell me, are the turtles good? What about them makes them good guys?

Actually, no I do not care for Splinter. He's like the dad who forces his kids to be athletes in hopes they'll be pro athletes one day, and ends up messing the kid up for life, mentally.

I see how abusive he is with the Turtles, I honestly do not like him. BUT, I understand that they love him, and that he is their world. He's all they know. And I feel for them when he is in danger, but I care more about them fighting for the people who, if they saw the Turtles most likely would want them dead or captured and studied in a lab. I find it fascinating that they know the world will vilify them, crucify them, hate them, never understand them, yet they still want to save those very same people.

You are so naive. Wow. It's crazy you think that the people working on this movie gave a damn at all. They don't. They are looking to get paid man, that's all. They didn't try to make a good film, they just went to work, and did what they were told. No one is proud of this turd, please.

If they cared so little why wouldn't they just straight up take an old story rehash it, and just not change one thing? That seems like the easiest path to take. To think these people purposefully tried to sabotage the franchise because they don't care is ludicrous.

Let's try this again. The entire reason that the turtles were taught Nijitsu at all, was so that one day they could go, and get revenge against Saki, for Splinter, because of his crime against Yoshi. That is IT! What is so hard to understand? They had 1 job! That's it! Everything else is just happenstance. Things happen to them, they encounter all sorts of odd things, they grow older, they suffer, they ponder their existence. But things happen, and the turtles react. Again, they are not super heroes!

I understand that...jeez man...I'm not disqualifying any origin story. I'm disqualifying the notion that if they created a different origin it's automatically called "sh!t" and "unmotivated". I have the origin I like, you have the origin YOU like...This franchise has had many origins, we can debate which one is the best one until the end of time, because it's all based on preference. I'm simply arguing that the origin was fine in this movie, and they can drop it for the sequel, no need to bring it back up again, or re-do it to fit some narrative from the original comic.

Man, I just don't know...I feel like you're talking out of your ass most of the time. I get that you want to be right, or you feel you liked what you saw and identify with it somehow, and that guys like me are trying to take you down or something.

Look dude, When I read Bay got the rights for TMNT they said it would be a more adult TMNT movie. That's what I want. When it's all said and done, I want a no nonsense bloody, curse filled, brutal action movie with a great story. A gritty story. I was hoping badly that is what Bay would do. I remember reading it in 2010, I was on vacation, and my first thought was they did a pretty good job on the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and they'll do this the right way. Well I was wrong, and I was disappointed. When I saw who the director was, I was disgusted. When Fox was cast I was angry. When I saw Fichtner was cast, I was even more angry (I hate him, and think he sucks at acting...or maybe it's just his face). I actually thought the Nick toon looked like sh!t too. The 1st trailer for the movie was horrible, I was so sad. But the 2nd trailer was better, and the featurette on Nick was good, and the snow scene was great. I decided to go in with an open mind because it's not the end of the world, and honestly the Nick toon is so great, it's almost ok if I never get that R rated TMNT movie. Anyway, I decided that if the movie was bad, it wasn't the end of the world, and what happened was I was entertained. Bottom line, there are more things I like about it than hate. It's not what I want, but it's better than TMNT III or Next Mutation, so I'm happy with it.

Maybe it's popularity stems from it's endless variation of themes and ideas. Maybe we all love something different.

I am saying, that the core of it all stems from the initial idea, and that, before making "wacky-punching-kung-fu-grip-arctic-monkey-battery-powered-Donatello" or "bong-smoking-transformer-12 inch-fire-fighter-Leonardo" that maybe we could get the original, without adding all the other conflicting stories to the mix. Save the gimmicks for the 4rth installment, when everyone's moved on to the Sonic Movie or Pokemon. Don't tart it up from the word go.

And no, we did not get that in 1990. That was a hybrid, pretty good, but not the greatest. If you'd read any Mirage, you'd know that.

I'm not against a good adaptation of the original comic. We're NEVER going to get it. So to hate things that aren't what we're never getting, is in my opinion the wrong way to look at things, and in THAT case YOU'RE missing out.

And just remember when you're making your little jabs at Bay's turtle designs those two guys who made that Mirage comic you love so dearly, sold the turtles out for money faster than you can even say "bong-smoking-transformer-12 inch-fire-fighter-Leonardo" Before Bay they were coming up with anything and everything to put on the Turtles so they could sell more toys. They're the ones to blame in all of this. If they would have just kept it going as the Mirage comic only, we probably would get that either Hard PG13 or R rated movie.

[Bry]

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

Look at like Batman '89. They tweaked Bruce's past a little bit and had the Joker kill his parents, instead of a random homeless guy. Did it RUIN the movie? In my opinion no. Was it better than the true origin? In my opinion, no, but it did not make me sit there with a frowny face and my arms crossed saying "BOO HOO JOKER KILLED THE WAYNES WAAAAAAAAH MOVIE IS INVALID, IT MUST BE JOE CHILL THAT KILLED THE WAYNES!"

But a criminal still killed his parents and motivated him to fight for justice. That's still the exact same motivation as the original origin, only some details were altered. They didn't have Alfred find a crime-fighting guide in the garbage and decide to train him in martial arts because he was embarrassed by Bruce's dancing in Wayne Manor.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

And just remember when you're making your little jabs at Bay's turtle designs those two guys who made that Mirage comic you love so dearly, sold the turtles out for money faster than you can even say "bong-smoking-transformer-12 inch-fire-fighter-Leonardo"

Please. Peter Laird kept the rights for 25 years, kept Mirage Studios afloat, and publishing, for most of that time, and after the "Turtlemania" period, kept a much closer lock on how the property was handled. They cashed in when their idea became a phenomenon, sure - but they kept working on the comics, telling stories by their original vision. If you're trying to say that two poor independent comic artists choosing to make some actual money from their idea is somehow "the same" as massively rich Hollywood producers cynically cashing in on a brand name with a by-the-numbers, disposable product? Man, that is nonsense.

[Commenter 42]

If you can sympathize with my frustration, why not just say so right away!
You just said you want the same thing most of us do, BUT we'll never get it, so to hell with it.

If fans had thought that, we would have had aliens, and blue door.

I think I've said this 100 times by now. You've had crazy long winded arguments with people you agree with. That's crazy!

And lastly, I'll tell you why they made the changes they made. It's all about intellectual property laws, simple as that. They changed it for the same reason playmates made hundreds of different characters with variations and themes etc.
they're securing and locking down IP so that no one can make a bootleg anything without getting sued. It's that simple.

By redesigning x, they now own exclusive rights to that x. They had rights to the turtles, but again, if their turtles look just like the old turtles, they can't truly claim ownership in the same way.

It's a little more detailed than that, but that's the jist of it.

And no, lots of people wanted to work on the film, but the ones who bought the rights did so, by their own admission, to make piles of money, on name brand recognition. There's a video I've posted twice, where you can hear it from the horses mouth.

They also, by their own admission begged Liebesman to do it. BEGGED!
Fox was the only one who begged onto the project. No one else.

All this to say, why argue with us, the supposed haters, if you're secretly agreeing with us?

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

The Turtles have many enemies who want to kill them because they stand for good. That is the age old recipe for comic books and comic book movies, and actually action movies in general. So yes there can be a villain who simply wants them dead so he or she can accomplish their evil plan.

The movie clear as day states that Shredder and the Foot have been trying to take over the city for years, that's when Splinter gives that AWFUL reason for why they're called the Foot. He says he trained them to fight for the people in the city. That is a very noble reason if you ask me. It's the same reason Superman fights for Metropolis, because he has the powers, and wants to use them for good. He, like this version of the Turtles, did not have some tragedy happen as a child to make him vow revenge, they just do the right thing. That's why I like Superman, that's why I don't have a problem with this reasoning for this TMNT movie.

Hey we agree that description on why they are called The Foot is awful.

I don't think being plain do gooders is something that really works for TMNT. Even the Fred Wolf show that had them acting super heroes 90% of the time still did the occasional episode or reference to them not strictly speaking not being crime fighters.

At most the turtles have always been quasi-crime fighters. Sure they occasionally lapse into that out of good nature or to test their skills but they don't patrol NYC or seek out crimes to foil. They really need a defined reason to get involved which is what they've always had when fighting Shredder and the Foot. The movie makers chose to discard it.

Almost other major comic book property has a reason for them to fight in general or a specific villain in particular. Even Superman you could argue has a tragic backstory with the destruction of his home world and in most cases the death of Pa Kent. The only major comic book property that I can think of that bucks this trend is The Fantastic Four and even then like TMNT they're not strictly super heroes either. They are a family of adventurers and explorers and the best stories with them have played up that angle.

To some degree I think the film makers understood that. We know from the section of script that was included in The Ultimate Visual History at least shows they put some thought into it but this was tossed out.

Where the turtles even crime fighters in the movie or where they just targeting the Foot? If they were trained to fight crime and or the Foot then why does Splinter get so angry at them actually doing that? How could the turtles regularly fight them without Splinter actually knowing?

Yes...they don't take those comics word for word, image for image, and put them on the screen they used them as inspiration, and fit them into their own version.

Well you haven't really answered my question about what other sources beyond the comics the Nolans drew from?

Also while they didn't recreate the comics panel for panel Batman Begins has a lot of scenes that come from the comics. Falling down the well and being the talk of fear after if from The Man Who Falls as is the Ducard trying to execute a criminal and Bruce stopping him. The device to summon a swarm of bats hidden in the heel of his boot to escape being trapped in building by the police is straight from Year One...I could go on.

This general audience you speak of, it's about 8 people on a message board. For the most part people went and saw this and just liked it. Some people can disconnect when they see a movie, and just enjoy it, instead of picking it apart the whole time. I know when I saw the movie, everyone I could hear and see was very excited when they left the theater, and it was all positive. I know just doing a search on twitter the weekend of he release there were a lot of people who simply thought it was a fun movie. So this "general audience" I think YOU think you know of, actually doesn't care .0000000000006% about the things you dislike, or want changed. Everyone here is putting WAY too much into the discussion of this movie, and maybe even TMNT overall. In the grand scheme of things, this movie, this franchise, it means relatively nothing.

Hmmm I thought you said a lot of people loved it and all lot of people hated it (or words to that affect) that hardly sounds like " 8 people on a message board" seems you're changing the parameters here.

Also it isn't just here or isn't just around the internet that a lot of people loathed the movie. If it was then they wouldn't have affected major changes to the movie continuously during it's development to please...or should I say appease the fans. If the audience reaction was so positive we'd be getting Leibesman back not a new director with promises of a different direction for a potential sequel.

Some people just like the turtles...I mean why is that such a bad thing? Does it really matter WHY you like them?

Not necessarily but if that's the only reason why a lot of people liked the movie then did they really like the movie or just the the fact that it existed?

The fact that even it's biggest boosters cop that it has a lot of major flaws kinda suggest that if not for this then they probably wouldn't have enjoyed the movie and the fact that a lot seem to naively hope for improvements with sequel suggests that it does matter.

Sadly I'd have to point out that this is the trap that people fell in with Bay's Transformers movies? That they'd get better and not worse?

Well you said this

Yeah, yeah you no what I meant.

At the risk of coming across like Cybercubed with the noses I can't help but think it looks weird. Anthropomorphic animals wearing clothes is almost always a whimsical idea. Mickey Mouse wears pants with no top, Donald Duck wears a top but no pants yet strangely wears a towel around his waist after a shower.

It's not like the turtles actually need it as have no visible genitalia but the fact that all four turtles wear something specific to cover that area looks odd and I've always felt that it's to hide flaws in the designs based on their proportions but it looks silly and distracting to me especially Donatello's circuitry skirt.

If they must I'd prefer they all wear pants like Michelangelo and belts to carry their weapons...an accessory they actually do need.

Were you watching a bootleg? I did not have those issues.

Sadly the real thing.

Actually Nolan got beat up badly by "fanboys" and critics because he was trying to show as little as he could of Batman actually fighting people to show how he worked in the shadows and was fast and brutal...he was criticized heavily, for "not knowing how to film a fight scene" And Batman Begins, like TMNT, like Man of Steel, JUST made enough money for the studio to green light a sequel. If you watch Batman fight in the rest of the Trilogy his battles are very clear, and there are no quick cuts.

I wouldn't say Nolan was "beat up" over how he show the fight scenes. They were criticised but there's a difference between pointed out a flaw or two and feeling a movie fundamentally flawed.

No one came out of the any of those movies stating they were the worst things ever. That's a huge difference.

Uh that IS what he's doing. He wants to kill millions of people so he can own New York City. Sacks just wants to be even more rich.

But not because he's murderous but because he wants to have Sacks trick the government into a buying a cure.

Come to think about it wasn't that what Scarecrow thought they were doing in Batman Begins until Ra's Al Ghul pointed out that it was a dumb plan and he just wanted to kill people. While this wouldn't have been a good reason by any stretch it's a bit more believable than the idea that Sacks could fool a nation that he wasn't responsible for the virus infecting NYC.

It was good to the people who made it. They wouldn't purposely make things bad...that is just dumb to think that. They opened the movie with animation, they could have told any story they wanted. Obviously they liked this story the most.

I'm not so sure of that.

It's not like everyone involved in every movie loves what they are putting out there but usually no one speaks about that until way after they've stood to gain anything from it. We know that Bay ordered some major changes to the movie Leibesman originally directed I highly doubt he was glad and thought what did was better. In fact he even hints at that in this interview LINK

I wouldn't be surprised if years from now we get many of the people involved talking about how it was botched.

[pennydreadful]

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

And I'm debating this topic because I think it's kind of silly to just claim the plot, writing and whatever else about the story, makes this movie terrible only because the past of Splinter and Shredder isn't what you want. I've said this so many times already. You are all blind, you won't just let the new movie create a new path for the Turtles. As long as the basics are there it's fine. Someone has used the "Bruce Wayne's parents never got killed" in comparison to Splinter and Shredder not having a past, and it's not the same thing, Shredder is still part of Splinter's past, he is one of the main reasons the Turtles exist, he tried to kill them, multiple times. He's there, there is motivation for them to fight.

Look at like Batman '89. They tweaked Bruce's past a little bit and had the Joker kill his parents, instead of a random homeless guy. Did it RUIN the movie? In my opinion no. Was it better than the true origin? In my opinion, no, but it did not make me sit there with a frowny face and my arms crossed saying "BOO HOO JOKER KILLED THE WAYNES WAAAAAAAAH MOVIE IS INVALID, IT MUST BE JOE CHILL THAT KILLED THE WAYNES!"

I'm sorry but this is just a ridiculous statement. The movie is so basic there isn't even enough time to jar you out of the narrative. If you want to say the story was too basic, that's one thing, but gaping plot holes, and inconsistencies? Inconsistencies to what? Other TMNT stories? I would love to know what you think is a plot hole. If you say Splinter learning martial arts from a book is a plot hole, don't even bother replying, that's not a plot hole.

I really feel like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing - because you want to be right, and you want your own opinions and preferences validated.

The fact that you're lapsing into all-caps to try to beat down dissenting opinions doesn't really make me feel motivated to engage in a thoughtful discussion.

Truthfully, I don't know if I can be bothered continuing this. You're arguing about something that, by your own admission, you don't care about... and I don't actually have to prove anything to you.

I have a headache, and I'm sure that the numerous others who are disagreeing with you will continue to point out the fallacies in your reasoning. We'll see whether I'm in the mood to continue this at a later point.