Why do theatrical/live-action Splinters always start out as rats?

*neatoman* · 02-18-2022, 04:57 AM

So here is some concept art of the upcoming animated TMNT movie.

Spoiler:

As you can see, it clearly depicts a pre-mutated Splinter having started out as a rat. Because of the previously leaked concept art... Looked... I was worried Splinter was going to start out as a human being for this movie, so at least one of these pieces of concept art eased my worries, albeit in a minor way.

But this did get me thinking, all the movie Splinters have started out as rats, haven't they? Not counting direct sequels (as they just naturally follow continuity), this means four out of four movie Splinters started out as rats, 100%.

Why do you think that is?

*FredWolfLeonardo* · 02-18-2022, 10:48 AM

If we count 2007 tmnt as a sequel to the live action trilogy which I do, then that only makes three out of three Splinters start out as rats. Unless I'm missing something, and Splinter's origin is stated in Batman vs tmnt film.

The reason in the 1990 film is because they were trying to base it off Mirage, while with 2014, my best guess is that they wanted to make Splinter as April's pet, and a lab rat.

As for this film, I'm thinking that it has something to with the nature of the ooze. Based on the cannister in the picture having Hazardous Waste and Radioactive Material labels, the ooze seems to be manufactured in a company that employs people, and has rules and regulations in place to keep the ooze from affecting them.

This leads me to think that the Ooze is from the Utroms in TCRI (or a science experiment like the second Henson film), since the above versions treat the Oooze as a growth agent, and not as something that Utroms/scientists intentionally expose people to. This is unlike the uses of Mutagen by the villains in the 1987, 2012 and Rise cartoons, where they would have less reason to label the Mutagen as a hazard.

*neatoman* · 02-18-2022, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdp

They try to base it on the original comic and not the cartoon.

Yes, that is what they're doing, not necessarily why they do it. Let me start the sentence for you: "They chose the comic book origin because..."

And after "because" you write the reason you think they had for making that decision. Remember, the 1990 movie still made April a reporter for some reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

As for this film, I'm thinking that it has something to with the nature of the ooze. Based on the cannister in the picture having Hazardous Waste and Radioactive Material labels, the ooze seems to be manufactured in a company that employs people, and has rules and regulations in place to keep the ooze from affecting them.

This leads me to think that the Ooze is from the Utroms in TCRI (or a science experiment like the second Henson film), since the above versions treat the Oooze as a growth agent, and not as something that Utroms/scientists intentionally expose people to. This is unlike the uses of Mutagen by the villains in the 1987, 2012 and Rise cartoons, where they would have less reason to label the Mutagen as a hazard.

I don't really see why that means he needs to start out as a rat here.

*FredWolfLeonardo* · 02-18-2022, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neatoman

I don't really see why that means he needs to start out as a rat here.

Because in versions where the ooze is a growth agent, it doesn't make any sense for Splinter to originate as a human. Its speculation on my part and I could be wrong, but the ooze here seems to be a growth agent rather than the "you become whatever you last touched" mutagen.

MattOnWheels · 03-23-2022, 04:04 PM

Because that's always been his origin, for the most part/

Now if you're saying "Well, why don't they skip the origin?" then yeah, you can argue it's been done too much...but if they're going to do it, they should do it right and this version is the most widely accepted, as far as im aware.

*Andrew NDB* · 03-23-2022, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neatoman

Why do you think that is?

Probably because the touch this, touch that and become that mutagen that started with Fred Wolf is silly and crap. Which makes it weird that Rogen wouldn't be going with the Fred Wolf take on the mutagen because the Rogen stuff looks silly and crap.

Yeah, you see things like the giant whale in that concept art. The giant whale wasn't mixed with another animal or anything.

*neatoman* · 03-23-2022, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Yeah, you see things like the giant whale in that concept art. The giant whale wasn't mixed with another animal or anything.

Uh... Actually it seems to be mixed together with other animals. Not in the sense that "If a snake brushed past a bull, it would grow legs and horns!" but more in a Chimera sense.

*IndigoErth* · 03-23-2022, 05:53 PM

Didn't pay much attention to the, uh, whale (why is there a whale?) in the background before... but does it have limbs made of kelp? If contact influenced mutation is somehow dumb, kelp limbs makes no more sense than the car in 2012.

Can't decide if the squid is part of it or just a companion...that doubles as "hair"?

As far as the rat origin goes... I just assume it's 30% because that is the original and 70% because using an animal is easier and using a human Yoshi-turned-Splinter requires more legwork and thought to make the loss of humanity and a whole prior life matter. A rat is easier because a caged rat's backstory is limited and simple. There are the events that led to the rat ending up in NYC and mourning for his owner, but you don't have to deal with all the human stuff of a former human life and making the audience care about that and connect to him.

For a movie... I guess it's understandable to go the simpler rat option given the time restraint. Though I personally prefer Yoshi being Splinter and would love to see a set of decent films someday that have the time to deal with that go that angle.

*Coola Yagami* · 03-23-2022, 05:57 PM

Coulda been worse. Coulda been like in the Bayfilms where it mutate people based on whatever animal DNA they had in their body.... somehow? Cause we evolved from all sorts of different animals?

*IndigoErth* · 03-23-2022, 06:12 PM

That part just kills me... but like in a laughing kind of way, because it sounds like it's written by someone who has absolutely ZERO knowledge about evolution. Like a creationist was given the task of tackling evolution for a screenplay.

Baxter could have simply stated that they were going to use DNA from those animals and that would have been given a pass -- because at least you could try to tamper with DNA like that, even if real life would not produce those results -- but instead they had to come up with something weird that the mind dismisses immediately and breaks immersion.

*neatoman* · 03-23-2022, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Coulda been worse. Coulda been like in the Bayfilms where it mutate people based on whatever animal DNA they had in their body.... somehow? Cause we evolved from all sorts of different animals?

That is indeed the most idiotic explanation ever, anyone with the slightest bit of understanding of evolution would know humans evolved alongside pigs and rhinos, not from them and certainly not both. They could have gone with the original explanation, had them injected with animal DNA, made them start out as zoo animals or even just made them aliens sent out by Krang. Instead they went with the dumbest idea possible.

The only way that makes any sense is if Bebop and Rocksteady's granny liked to get freaky when visiting the zoo.

*Coola Yagami* · 03-23-2022, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neatoman

The only way that makes any sense is if Bebop and Rocksteady's granny liked to get freaky when visiting the zoo.

Now now, let's not kinkshame. Sheamus' gradnma was into the freaky ****.

*Leo656* · 03-23-2022, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

but does it have limbs made of kelp?

The people who did the designs have brains made of kelp, that's for sure.

MattOnWheels · 03-24-2022, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

The people who did the designs have brains made of kelp, that's for sure.

I dunno. The designs are fine with the exception of Donnie's glasses. That's a little silly.

*Andrew NDB* · 03-24-2022, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattOnWheels

I dunno. The designs are fine with the exception of Donnie's glasses. That's a little silly.

Donnie's glasses are flat-out insulting to the fans. WHAT ARE THE ODDS! The "nerdy" one is the one with the myopia gene, wow, that's some lottery.

*FredWolfLeonardo* · 03-24-2022, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

The people who did the designs have brains made of kelp, that's for sure.

What bothers me most is how lanky these turtles are, like they starving. Even in other lighthearted incarnations like FW, the turtles are well built and look ready to fight.

These guys look like they would get killed from slipping on a banana peel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Donnie's glasses are flat-out insulting to the fans. WHAT ARE THE ODDS! The "nerdy" one is the one with the myopia gene, wow, that's some lottery.

Agreed. Just because he's smart, doesn't mean he has to look like a dork.

*CyberCubed* · 03-24-2022, 03:38 PM

Donatello having glasses is so awful and feels like a dated 1980's stereotype. I can't believe in the 2020's they still think the "smart one" has to look like a nerd or wear glasses. This is like a 40+ year old stereotype and I can't even imagine why any modern writer/director would think this is a good thing.

Most smart characters in fiction these days don't even wear glasses. Like how is this still a thing in the modern world of 2020+? Did I time travel back to 1981?

MattOnWheels · 03-24-2022, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Donnie's glasses are flat-out insulting to the fans. WHAT ARE THE ODDS! The "nerdy" one is the one with the myopia gene, wow, that's some lottery.

Calm down. It's a silly decision, not a hate crime.

MattOnWheels · 03-24-2022, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Donatello having glasses is so awful and feels like a dated 1980's stereotype. I can't believe in the 2020's they still think the "smart one" has to look like a nerd or wear glasses. This is like a 40+ year old stereotype and I can't even imagine why any modern writer/director would think this is a good thing.

Most smart characters in fiction these days don't even wear glasses. Like how is this still a thing in the modern world of 2020+? Did I time travel back to 1981?

It's not the concept of smart people wearing glasses that's necessarily bad. They just look weird on Donnie. He doesn't need em over his mask.

*IndigoErth* · 03-24-2022, 04:14 PM

I find it less insulting as a fan and more insulting as someone who wears them that Hollywood doesn't feel that the "cool" people can ever have them. Not that Donnie isn't cool, but since they keep digging deeper on the "nerd" stereotype with it...

If film makers feel they must give a Turtle glasses, I'd rather someone be original and have one of the other three briefly whip out a pair of reading glasses at the lair. (Though that makes more sense for Turtles who are allowed to be older and not stuck in having to focus on the "teenage" part of the title.)

03-23-2022, 05:53 PM	#8
IndigoErth Team Blue Boy Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: U.S., East Coast Posts: 15,242	Didn't pay much attention to the, uh, whale (why is there a whale?) in the background before... but does it have limbs made of kelp? If contact influenced mutation is somehow dumb, kelp limbs makes no more sense than the car in 2012. Can't decide if the squid is part of it or just a companion...that doubles as "hair"? As far as the rat origin goes... I just assume it's 30% because that is the original and 70% because using an animal is easier and using a human Yoshi-turned-Splinter requires more legwork and thought to make the loss of humanity and a whole prior life matter. A rat is easier because a caged rat's backstory is limited and simple. There are the events that led to the rat ending up in NYC and mourning for his owner, but you don't have to deal with all the human stuff of a former human life and making the audience care about that and connect to him. For a movie... I guess it's understandable to go the simpler rat option given the time restraint. Though I personally prefer Yoshi being Splinter and would love to see a set of decent films someday that have the time to deal with that go that angle. Last edited by IndigoErth; 03-23-2022 at 06:00 PM.

03-23-2022, 05:57 PM	#9
Coola Yagami Overlord Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 14,012	Coulda been worse. Coulda been like in the Bayfilms where it mutate people based on whatever animal DNA they had in their body.... somehow? Cause we evolved from all sorts of different animals? __________________ "I was down with TMNT once, but then they changed what TMNT was. Now what I was down with is no longer TMNT and what TMNT now is seems weird and scary. And it'll happen to YOU." Check out my blog for Comic Reviews and other things. https://markepicblogofrandomness.blogspot.com/ I also started The AEW Crew, the All Elite Wrestling Fan Club! https://www.facebook.com/groups/637508120044168/

03-23-2022, 04:04 PM	#5
MattOnWheels Thug Join Date: Aug 2019 Posts: 61	Because that's always been his origin, for the most part/ Now if you're saying "Well, why don't they skip the origin?" then yeah, you can argue it's been done too much...but if they're going to do it, they should do it right and this version is the most widely accepted, as far as im aware.

03-23-2022, 06:12 PM	#10
IndigoErth Team Blue Boy Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: U.S., East Coast Posts: 15,242	That part just kills me... but like in a laughing kind of way, because it sounds like it's written by someone who has absolutely ZERO knowledge about evolution. Like a creationist was given the task of tackling evolution for a screenplay. Baxter could have simply stated that they were going to use DNA from those animals and that would have been given a pass -- because at least you could try to tamper with DNA like that, even if real life would not produce those results -- but instead they had to come up with something weird that the mind dismisses immediately and breaks immersion.

03-24-2022, 03:38 PM	#17
CyberCubed Overlord Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 41,056	Donatello having glasses is so awful and feels like a dated 1980's stereotype. I can't believe in the 2020's they still think the "smart one" has to look like a nerd or wear glasses. This is like a 40+ year old stereotype and I can't even imagine why any modern writer/director would think this is a good thing. Most smart characters in fiction these days don't even wear glasses. Like how is this still a thing in the modern world of 2020+? Did I time travel back to 1981?

03-24-2022, 04:14 PM	#20
IndigoErth Team Blue Boy Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: U.S., East Coast Posts: 15,242	I find it less insulting as a fan and more insulting as someone who wears them that Hollywood doesn't feel that the "cool" people can ever have them. Not that Donnie isn't cool, but since they keep digging deeper on the "nerd" stereotype with it... If film makers feel they must give a Turtle glasses, I'd rather someone be original and have one of the other three briefly whip out a pair of reading glasses at the lair. (Though that makes more sense for Turtles who are allowed to be older and not stuck in having to focus on the "teenage" part of the title.)