If Nickelodeon never bought TMNT

[Xav]

Originally Posted by Panda_Kahn_fan

Yes, Bebop and Rocksteady are dangerous and deadly, the only goofy version are the Fred Wolf ones.

i'm guessing you haven't seen any version of the characters outside Fred Wolf and IDW?

[Powder]

Originally Posted by Panda_Kahn_fan

Yes, Bebop and Rocksteady are dangerous and deadly, the only goofy version are the Fred Wolf ones. The IDW versions massacred a whole unit of foot soldiers, wiped out/murdered and entire triad gang called the ghosts, beat Donatello to death and cracked his shell wide open, knocked the combined forces of the TMNT and Mutantinmals around, beat up (Mirage) Savante Romero and stole his time sceptre, and went on a crazy joyride through time and space spreading Mayhem, murder, and destruction. It takes massive bombs and explosive to take them down, and Bebop and Rocksteady have possibly the highest personal kill count on-panel in all of IDW, and IDW is not revisionist or imaginary. I don't give a %$#@! what they were like in Fred Wolf, IDW Bebop and Rocksteady are the definitive versions. And they NOT goofy and silly.

Dangerous, sure. Deadly? In one iteration. "The only goofy version are the Fred Wolf ones" is such a BS statement. They're goofy in literally every single iteration that exists, & that will never change. IDW aren't revisionist? Everything you just described directly contradicts that considering they've completely changed the characters. You read B&R Destroy Everything, obviously, so how can you say they're not goofy/silly? That's their entire MO. Always. Just because they can kill doesn't mean they aren't idiot comic relief... You never cease to make me roll my eyes.

[Panda_Kahn_fan]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

About Bebop and Rocksteady? How are they not? They completely revised their characters into things they were never and never meant to be.

Revisionist would be to go back and trying to say bebop and Rocksteady in Fred Wolf were not goofy. IDW made brand new versions. Revisionism is rewriting a narrative that is already established, IDW is telling a new narrative. If you are using the word to mean they remade the characters as dangerous and destructive, then you are correct. But I see no problem with such an improvement, as such 'revisionism has happened throughout comics history. (How much are many of the ultimate characters like their Main universe counterparts? How different do characters become in a comic series continuity reboot?)

[Panda_Kahn_fan]

Originally Posted by Powder

Dangerous, sure. Deadly? In one iteration. "The only goofy version are the Fred Wolf ones" is such a BS statement. They're goofy in literally every single iteration that exists, & that will never change. IDW aren't revisionist? Everything you just described directly contradicts that considering they've completely changed the characters. You read B&R Destroy Everything, obviously, so how can you say they're not goofy/silly? That's their entire MO. Always. Just because they can kill doesn't mean they aren't idiot comic relief... You never cease to make me roll my eyes.

I guess I'm talking the difference between entertaining goofy and silly and 'this is so painful to watch/read I hate these characters' goofy and silly. I was protesting the characters as portrayed in IDW being lumped together with the Fred Wolf versions in terms of silliness. And besides, I really Don't find anything silly about slaughtering whole groups of gangsters and ninjas, and I certainly didn't find Donnie getting cracked open like an egg goofy or silly at all.

[Powder]

Originally Posted by Panda_Kahn_fan

And besides, I really Don't find anything silly about slaughtering whole groups of gangsters and ninjas, and I certainly didn't find Donnie getting cracked open like an egg goofy or silly at all.

Again:

Originally Posted by Powder

Just because they can kill doesn't mean they aren't idiot comic relief...

I don't get you. The fact they do some stuff that isn't inherently goofy doesn't make them not goofy. That's like saying a murderer isn't cruel just 'cause he let a cashier keep the change.

You know who else did unspeakable things while being goofy? Godzilla, Manson, Hitler, the list goes on.

[Panda_Kahn_fan]

Originally Posted by Powder

Again:



I don't get you. The fact they do some stuff that isn't inherently goofy doesn't make them not goofy. That's like saying a murderer isn't cruel just 'cause he let a cashier keep the change.

Again, you missed what I said about entertaining goofy, and 'this is so painful I hate these characters' goofy. Fred Wolf versions I'd never want to see in a serious TMNT work. The IDW versions could work in almost any serious version (Unless you're going for mirage-level serious... and no that's not a dig at mirage, it's a compliment)

[ssjup81]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

About Bebop and Rocksteady? How are they not? They completely revised their characters into things they were never and never meant to be.

How about implied? It was a different time. For a visual medium (well, television anyway) it’s not like they could show the bad guys actually killing people or anyone being killed or dying for that matter. Bebop and Rocksteady were gang members…they had to have beaten up or killed people at some point in their lives and with any destruction the two caused as mutants, can’t we just assume that someone was probably hurt/killed?

It’s like that Star child ep. The alien kid blew up those tanks, There were people in those tanks. That goofy Wally Airhead guy used his blockbuster and destroyed a building. There had to have been people in it.

So yeah, Bebop and Rocksteady were goofy, but I don’t know,..I just can’t view them as not being “dangerous” or “deadly”. Just because we weren’t allowed to see them act in such a away, doesn’t mean that they weren’t…although, later on, the latter wouldn’t surprise me. ><

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by ssjup81

I just can’t view them as not being “dangerous” or “deadly”. Just because we weren’t allowed to see them act in such a away, doesn’t mean that they weren’t

That doesn't make a lick of sense. I guess because you wanted them to be a certain way, that means they probably were? Even though there's not a shred of actual evidence in their source material to back that up?

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by ssjup81

How about implied? It was a different time. For a visual medium (well, television anyway) it’s not like they could show the bad guys actually killing people or anyone being killed or dying for that matter. Bebop and Rocksteady were gang members…they had to have beaten up or killed people at some point in their lives and with any destruction the two caused as mutants, can’t we just assume that someone was probably hurt/killed?

It’s like that Star child ep. The alien kid blew up those tanks, There were people in those tanks. That goofy Wally Airhead guy used his blockbuster and destroyed a building. There had to have been people in it.

So yeah, Bebop and Rocksteady were goofy, but I don’t know,..I just can’t view them as not being “dangerous” or “deadly”. Just because we weren’t allowed to see them act in such a away, doesn’t mean that they weren’t…although, later on, the latter wouldn’t surprise me. ><

Uh yeah, **** that ********. For all we know, their criminal past might just amount to shoplifting from a candy store and refusing to pay the fine, there's no real reason to assume they ever commited any serious crime just because real life gang members do. This is a universe where the mob seems fine with dropping whatever they're doing to go on a bogus treasure hunt, or steal antiques using an antique attraction device, or live in fire hydrant shaped houses, or where trying to solve world hunger was an evil plot that had to be stopped no matter the cost.

Serious crime or violent crime doesn't really seem to exist in this world, so why should we just assume those clowns commited serious crimes when it doesn't fit the characters or the world they're in?

[ssjup81]

Originally Posted by neatoman

Uh yeah, **** that ********. For all we know, their criminal past might just amount to shoplifting from a candy store and refusing to pay the fine, there's no real reason to assume they ever commited any serious crime just because real life gang members do. This is a universe where the mob seems fine with dropping whatever they're doing to go on a bogus treasure hunt, or steal antiques using an antique attraction device, or live in fire hydrant shaped houses, or where trying to solve world hunger was an evil plot that had to be stopped no matter the cost.

Serious crime or violent crime doesn't really seem to exist in this world, so why should we just assume those clowns commited serious crimes when it doesn't fit the characters or the world they're in?

First episode, they were about to beat up April. What do you call that?

[***First of Two Latin Kings***]

Originally Posted by ssjup81

First episode, they were about to beat up April. What do you call that?

Assault on a female? What do you call it?

[CyberCubed]

I think it's time this thread was locked.

[Jephael]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

That doesn't make a lick of sense. I guess because you wanted them to be a certain way, that means they probably were? Even though there's not a shred of actual evidence in their source material to back that up?

[Mod Edit by Machias: Example is WAY too inappropriate... ]

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by ssjup81

First episode, they were about to beat up April. What do you call that?

Again, joke show. It looked like they were going to beat her up, but if the turtles didn't show up and given the general tone, it's more likely they were going break out a feather and tickle her.

[DarthRaphael]

This got way off the rails.