Should Laird have sold TMNT to Disney or WB instead of Nick/Viacom?

[Leo656]

I had no idea what it would mean at the time, but I kinda had bad vibes when I went to see TMNT on opening night and it didn't get a very strong reaction. That's usually the most hyped and enthusiastic audience you're going to see for any movie, and overall the atmosphere was very subdued.

It's not a bad movie, but it feels like a very long episode of an animated series that never existed, more than a big TMNT Reboot Movie. It's a Perfectly Acceptable TMNT Story all on its own, but big-budget theatrical films are supposed to be a bit more iconic and impactful than what that movie ended up being.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I don't think Laird invested one dollar into producing the Imagi movie. There was no risk involved whatsoever. Not for him, anyway.

To be fair, 2007 TMNT was the very best "pitch" for a fourth movie that we've ever been led to believe existed up until that point. I'm not a big fan of the movie we got at all, but every other incarnation of the fourth movie that nearly happened sounded and looked god awful in comparison.

I had more in mind his time & energy. He shifted gears from "Doing the comic like I want" to "doing a cartoon like I want" to "doing a movie like I want." He was very involved with concepts and pitches to get the thing made for almost he whole decade, and I remember he had some authority in approving the director (there is some story Kevin Munroe tells about him getting a personal note from Laird along the lines of "make a great film" which Munroe interpreted to mean he had gotten the job. And, of course, Laird was basically publishing his comics through Mirage at a personal cost and he published 6 tie-in issues (I have no idea how well those sold). I looked at all those decisions as him staking his future interest in the franchise on the success of the film, regardless of whether he spent or risked any of his own capital on the actual movie. Seems like Laird's involvement with the main TMNT comics at mirage waned around the time he was investing himself into the film.

By modest success, it was at least #1 at the box-office for a week (only like $25 million that weekend... and then it started to fall off at a high percentage), but I remember an interview with a studio executive saying that the movie would need to make about $100 million at the domestic box-office to make a sequel likely. Maybe the production budget on the film was surprisingly low (Imagi wasn't a powerhouse studio, so maybe they worked at a bargain rate).

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by frank_one

TMNT (the 2007 movie) was actually quite successful and it was only two year before he sold the property.

No. Not successful.

Not so bad.

No, that's not the way it works. It's not that black and white.

TMNT (2007): 35 million production budget, 54 million domestic, and 42 overseas. Theaters would take at LEAST a third of the domestic numbers. Now that's only 36 million domestic. Overseas? Studios generally receive about a fourth of those profits (foreign distributors make the most, and again, and theaters themselves have to get paid, too, as they're not running charities)... so that's only about 10 million. So that's around 46 million -- give or take a few million -- earned against a production budget of 35 million... about 11 million in profits netted, right? Wrong. Production budget does not and never includes the marketing budget, which often times exceeds the production budget. But let's assume it's as low as 20 million (honestly it's probably much closer to equaling the production budget of 35, in reality, and even that's pretty low for a marketing budget of a film)... now we're looking at 55 million in production and marketing budget against a movie that only earned 46.

That isn't a "modest success," "decent," or even "it did OK." It did not good.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

No. Not successful.



No, that's not the way it works. It's not that black and white.

TMNT (2007): 35 million production budget, 54 million domestic, and 42 overseas. Theaters would take at LEAST a third of the domestic numbers. Now that's only 36 million domestic. Overseas? Studios generally receive about a fourth of those profits (foreign distributors make the most, and again, and theaters themselves have to get paid, too, as they're not running charities)... so that's only about 10 million. So that's around 46 million -- give or take a few million -- earned against a production budget of 35 million... about 11 million in profits netted, right? Wrong. Production budget does not and never includes the marketing budget, which often times exceeds the production budget. But let's assume it's as low as 20 million... now we're looking at 55 million in production and marketing budget against a movie that only earned 46.

Not good.

I agree, but I am surprised at the movies it out-grossed that year:
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2007/
EDIT: How did Evan Almighty break the $100million mark?

I was optimistic when the movie opened #1 (on a very down weekend) but I was sad that it dropped off so drastically (but not surprised). I think "Meet the Robinsons" basically chased it out of theatres). Seems like the DVDs were everywhere though, so I like to think it did a little better on "home video."

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

I was optimistic when the movie opened #1 (on a very down weekend)

Yeah, right when those first weekend numbers came in Harvey Weinstein was shouting about, "It's sequel time, dudes!" and everybody on this board took it as gospel and what an idiot I was for doubting it, etc..

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Yeah, right when those first weekend numbers came in Harvey Weinstein was shouting about, "It's sequel time, dudes!" and everybody on this board took it as gospel and what an idiot I was for doubting it, etc..

Heh, I'd actually like to read those old threads... maybe CyberCubed will dig them up and necropost?

[Leo656]

It's also why we shouldn't count our chickens on "Wonder Woman 3, directed by Patty Jenkins" just yet, either.

Opening Weekend is a big part of a movie's story, but rarely the whole entire story. As a wise man once said, "There's many a slip twixt a cup and a lip."

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

Heh, I'd actually like to read those old threads... maybe CyberCubed will dig them up and necropost?

I kind of would, too. If only to remember who was yelling at me. I know Leo656 was. Peanut and Brodie and those kind of guys, for sure.

[Leo656]

Was I? I didn't have the internet in 2007. That's why I rarely posted at all between like 2005 and 2012, first I had no internet for a few years and then I had to leave the place I was living at. I was kinda bouncing around for a while during those years and was rarely in a place that had any internet. I showed up periodically, but not often. I think 2009 was the most I was around during that stretch.

I guess it's possible but I honestly don't remember that. The only thing I remember us ever having any serious rows about was when you used to deny that Kevin Nash is a god among mortals, which is simply wrong but forgivable. And that was like 2002 already.

[Roseangelo]

Originally Posted by frank_one

TMNT (the 2007 movie) was actually quite successful and it was only two year before he sold the property.
I mean

Not so bad.

Two years is a lot of time.

In 2009 the 4Kids series was ending, as was the comic.

And Peter refused to license any merch that featured the old toon Turtles.

The TMNT flourished after Nick bought them because they refreshed the TMNT on TV, they let the floodgates open for licensing the old toon Turtles, and they outsourced the TMNT comic book to a company that continues to deliver a monthly book.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Roseangelo

Two years is a lot of time.

In 2009 the 4Kids series was ending, as was the comic.

And Peter refused to license any merch that featured the old toon Turtles.

The TMNT flourished after Nick bought them because they refreshed the TMNT on TV, they let the floodgates open for licensing the old toon Turtles, and they outsourced the TMNT comic book to a company that continues to deliver a monthly book.

Honestly... I wonder if any other comic company, even the big two would have kept the Turtles going for so long. I doubt they even would have made their own comic like what IDW did and just did a tie-in comic with the cartoons and such.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

WB I suppose between those two. Done better with Disney? I fear to think what they'd have become and be trapped as forever. The very thought of them falling into Disney's hands feels like a prison. That company would probably never let them go even if they decided to shelf them and never/rarely ever touch them again. Nick at least I could see letting go of the property someday.

You bet. Disney shamelessly shelves things then keeps the rights so no one else can play in the sandbox. I'm surprised they even let go of Power Rangers when they did, I'd have assumed they'd just sit on the IP.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Was I? I didn't have the internet in 2007. That's why I rarely posted at all between like 2005 and 2012, first I had no internet for a few years and then I had to leave the place I was living at. I was kinda bouncing around for a while during those years and was rarely in a place that had any internet. I showed up periodically, but not often. I think 2009 was the most I was around during that stretch.

I guess it's possible but I honestly don't remember that. The only thing I remember us ever having any serious rows about was when you used to deny that Kevin Nash is a god among mortals, which is simply wrong but forgivable. And that was like 2002 already.

Jeeze... maybe you weren't? About TMNT 2007, at least? I just know that you were raking me over the coals about... something. Around that era. Ish.

[CyberCubed]

The excitement in 2007 is a TMNT movie hadn't been in theaters since 1993. So most of just couldn't believe after like 15 years another TMNT movie was in theaters. Not to mention the whole "4th TMNT movie" which was like a rumored relic since the 90's finally came true, even if it was a completely different form.

In 2009 I remember throwing a tantrum on the forums about the Fred Wolf voices not reprising their roles in Turtles Forever, but to be fair that was before I knew about voice actor unions and how the 4kids staff couldn't hire them. Then in 2014 I saw TMNT nostrils and my life was never the same since. I was traumatized and it's 7 years later and I have yet to fully recover.

[frank_one]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

No. Not successful.



No, that's not the way it works. It's not that black and white.

TMNT (2007): 35 million production budget, 54 million domestic, and 42 overseas. Theaters would take at LEAST a third of the domestic numbers. Now that's only 36 million domestic. Overseas? Studios generally receive about a fourth of those profits (foreign distributors make the most, and again, and theaters themselves have to get paid, too, as they're not running charities)... so that's only about 10 million. So that's around 46 million -- give or take a few million -- earned against a production budget of 35 million... about 11 million in profits netted, right? Wrong. Production budget does not and never includes the marketing budget, which often times exceeds the production budget. But let's assume it's as low as 20 million (honestly it's probably much closer to equaling the production budget of 35, in reality, and even that's pretty low for a marketing budget of a film)... now we're looking at 55 million in production and marketing budget against a movie that only earned 46.

That isn't a "modest success," "decent," or even "it did OK." It did not good.

Thank you for your clear explanation. Sometimes I tend to forget there's more beyond a simple budget/box office equation.

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Then in 2014 I saw TMNT nostrils and my life was never the same since. I was traumatized and it's 7 years later and I have yet to fully recover.

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

The excitement in 2007 is a TMNT movie hadn't been in theaters since 1993. So most of just couldn't believe after like 15 years another TMNT movie was in theaters. Not to mention the whole "4th TMNT movie" which was like a rumored relic since the 90's finally came true, even if it was a completely different form.

In 2009 I remember throwing a tantrum on the forums about the Fred Wolf voices not reprising their roles in Turtles Forever, but to be fair that was before I knew about voice actor unions and how the 4kids staff couldn't hire them. Then in 2014 I saw TMNT nostrils and my life was never the same since. I was traumatized and it's 7 years later and I have yet to fully recover.

Excitement? People barely noticed the movie besides big Turtles fans. I remember a few people mentioning it on the Internet back then and expecting to be a continuing orf the older movies or a Feed Wolf themed movie because those people weren't aware a new TMNT cartoon had been airing for some years by then.

[sdp]

If Laird hadn't sold there would be no NECA toys or any 1987 cartoon merchandise boom, games would've been just as bad, movie would still be stuck in development hell. Vol 4 might've had a few more issues but still unfinished with no real timeline. We would've gotten another cartoon that likely would've failed after a couple of seasons without someone like Nickelodeon or 4Kids heavily invested in it. Nah, I'm sure we would've gotten some cool TMNT stuff along the way, some 1987 stuff just not flooded the market with it and best of all perhaps less casuals.

[Prowler]

Laird was so protective of the TMNT property. I respect his integrity.

But it seems like he didn't keep that in mind when the time to sell the property came. I'm sure he would have sold it to Disney even if they told him they'd turn the Turtles into tooth fairies or something as long as they paid him the right amount of money.

I have no idea if Laird has publicly commented on what he thinks of the direction Viacom took with the property since they've owned it, but it seems like to me that Laird basically just wanted to move on and considered the TMNT property a huge burden by the late 2000s. Once the 2k3 series approached its end there seemed no way out or no direction left for the franchise.

Hell, I vaguely recall Laird explaining why he sold the property to Viacom. He said something along the lines of "I've realised I had spent 25 years or my life on TMNT. That's nearly half of my life!". So yeah, I think he just wanted to get rid of it and enjoy his retirement and last years of his life.

[PizzaPower1985]

If Laird had sold to WB, what would they do with it? They already sold off their largest assets when they gave DC Comics to a phone company in 2019, leaving a very large legacy in the dust.

If Disney had bought it, it would have been treated the same way as now... a property for f*cking children...

Of the 2, WB likely would have had a better chance at turning the ship towards people like me... who want a good, dark, adult or young adult franchise!

I think WB would have been a better option, given their history... but they are filled with suits and executives who don't know how to give real fans, those over 30, what we want!

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, this whole thread is like, "I don't understand why wouldn't Peter just sell the TMNT to Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. I mean, why wouldn't he?"

Originally Posted by Roseangelo

Two years is a lot of time.

In 2009 the 4Kids series was ending, as was the comic.

And Peter refused to license any merch that featured the old toon Turtles.

The TMNT flourished after Nick bought them because they refreshed the TMNT on TV, they let the floodgates open for licensing the old toon Turtles, and they outsourced the TMNT comic book to a company that continues to deliver a monthly book.

While refusing to (re)open the door to license merch to do with the Fred Wolf TMNT is definitely the equivalent of leaving money on the table... I definitely don't subscribe to the notion that the only way TMNT could have "found a way" to greatness post-2009 was by any sort of reliance on the Fred Wolf TMNT or a Fred Wolf TMNT-like path. I know Peter didn't always make the best business decisions and he was always the first one to admit that, but just doing what Nick did would be pretty soulless and, beyond the IDW comic that they merely "allow" (as in, it's not a part of any sort of initiative of their own and they aren't creatively involved in it beyond saying "No" a lot to things they can't do in it) they haven't done one objectively "good" thing with the property at all beyond successfully bleeding a little bit more money out of Turtlemania and that proven "formula."