New CGI movie

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Time for Viacom to look at the success of No Way Home and the trend of nostalgia - multiverse.

If you're a large studio, making a movie adaption of a comic, how do you not look at the success of No Way Home and ask yourself what you can do to get some of that cheddar?

It's suprising that it's taken all this time for someone to suggest this. Usually whenever there's a hit comic book superhero movie very quickly there are people on here saying they should give TMNT the same treatment particularly given that it's something the franchise had done successfully in animation.

Still while fondly remembered I don't think the 90s movies had quite the cultural impact of the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy. While the Amazing Spider-Man series could be compared to the Platinum Dunes TMNT movies in the fact that there were maligned the former at least had a cult following and most people could probably agree that Garfield was a good actor in them and deserved another chance. There's a few people here and there online that argue "c'mon guys the Bay turtles weren't that bad" but I doubt there's enough that want them back that they'd be a draw.

There's also the hurdle that you'd have to set up a new live action version of TMNT first. One that is unique and distinct from the others before doing a multiverse crossover. No way could you open a new series of movies with a crossover.

Originally Posted by frank_one

Turtles Forever was great but we don't need a new one. The only way I can accept a movie with the 1990 Turtles is in a sequel of the old movies. No multiverse tricks, please.

I hear this a lot online but as I've already said the 1990 movie doesn't have quite the cultural impact that a revival would be a guaranteed hit. Also TMNT films will always be targeted at young people, ideally teenagers and people in their early twenties rather than little kids they targeted with the last movie and they will not be interested in a period piece set in the late 80s/early 90s.

Originally Posted by Jephael

You know why a lot of these super hero movies tank at the box office? ...

Wait...WHAT?!? It's the most globally dominant genre on the planet and has been for over a decade. Most comic book super hero movies are license to print money. The few that do fail are real **** ups.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Galactus

It's suprising that it's taken all this time for someone to suggest this. Usually whenever there's a hit comic book superhero movie very quickly there are people on here saying they should give TMNT the same treatment particularly given that it's something the franchise had done successfully in animation.

True. It's quite simple though - If you follow how Hollywood works, trends are a big deal, which is why you have people pondering whether another studio with a comic book property will consider hopping on whatever the latest bandwagon is.

That doesn't necessarily mean you need to copy it 1 for 1. There are a few messages that movie studios will receive from the success of No Way Home, and among those are

1. Multiverse crossover = popular
2. Bringing back old versions of characters = popular

They don't necessarily have to utilize those conclusions in the same way No Way Home did. They could end up copying one or the other.

Personally, I don't think they should give TMNT the No Way Home treatment, because I don't have much interest in seeing various versions of TMNT interact, and Turtles Forever does next to nothing for me. That said, I do think it would be both cool and profitable for Viacom to bring back the Henson 1990 TMNT. Not a "guaranteed hit", because few things are. It would generate a ton of excitement, if done right.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Still while fondly remembered I don't think the 90s movies had quite the cultural impact of the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy. I hear this a lot online but as I've already said the 1990 movie doesn't have quite the cultural impact that a revival would be a guaranteed hit.

Comparing anything to the cultural impact of Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy is an uphill battle, but I do think it's easy for even us here to underestimate how big the TMNT were when the 1990 film came out. There is a huge market of older TMNT fans, it's just not being catered to. We can't forget that TMNT 1990 was a record-breaker when it came out. The kids who watched that didn't disappear, they grew up and most of them watch MCU movies.

[Andrew NDB]

99.9% of everyone, upon seeing the 2012 and 2003 and "Rise" universes interacting: "Huh. Who are they?"

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

99.9% of everyone, upon seeing the 2012 and 2003 and "Rise" universes interacting: "Huh. Who are they?"

Henson or Fred Wolf versions of TMNT are the only ones that could generate enough fanfare to bring back, imo. Not to see them interact, but just in general. Those are the most successful and iconic versions of the characters.

Although, I do think there is a generation that probably holds 2012 pretty dear. It was somewhat successful.

[Wildcat]

I think the 2003 Turtles would be recognizable. They lasted quite awhile and ended with Turtles Forever.

Nick 2012 would be too since it’s more recent and had a solid run.

[Leo656]

Nobody remembers the 2003 TMNT since Nick decided to bury it for not being theirs. Most likely because it was miles better than their own schlock and they didn't want to compete with themselves.

I mean, people our age care about it. But as they've spent a decade now making crystal clear, "people our age" are 100% NOT the people Nick wants paying attention to this sh*tty franchise anymore. So you can forget that idea completely. Nick only wants people under age 10 to watch TMNT, and none of them know about the 2003 show.

[Wildcat]

How have they buried it? No DVDs or reruns?

Theres other shows that don’t have DVDs or reruns. Beast Wars/Machines comes to mind. There’s DVDs but I’ve never seen reruns since it ended.

[Leo656]

The simplest reply to your question is another question; specifically, "How have they NOT buried it?"

But yes, refusing to acknowledge its existence while also ensuring that it remains nigh-impossible for anyone to consistently watch via LEGAL means are a couple of really prominent examples of how much Nick hates that show and its fans.

It's very clear that we "aren't supposed to care about it" given the way Nick treats that show like the bastard stepchild of the franchise rather than "the show that saved the entire brand from permanent oblivion" which is what it actually was. I mean, things are sh*tty for the brand now, but they were even sh*ttier before the 4Kids show saved the entire franchise all on its own.

And as "thanks", Nick throws a tarp over it and demands we all forget. Because it's inconvenient to their narrative and also provides a stark contrast against their own mediocre CGI cartoon and its nonsense writing.

I guess it makes sense from Nick's perspective; I know the Nick show has its fans, but at the very least the first two (or three) Seasons of 4Kids wipes its proverbial ass with the Nick show, even without its "celebrity" voice actor gimmicks and shiny CGI paintjob. Nick wants their own products at the forefront, therefore they "can't" promote a much better product that was made by someone else, even though they own it now.

Still, it's petty and spiteful and does nothing but annoy fans like me who are already completely out of love with this brand and out of reasons to keep caring.

[Wildcat]

I don’t know how that’s necessarily refusing to acknowledge it exists when other shows have similar situations.

They’ve actually aired reruns of the 2003 series on Nicktoons or TeeNick some years ago. They had a marathon that included Fast Forward, BttS and I think Turtles Forever.

TMNT 3 and the 2007 movie was recently on Cartoon Network which I thought was funny. Just you’d think Nick would air them.

[TigerClaw]

I wish they acknowledge the 1987 series, The problem is that its from another studio, Don't you hate when TMNT is spread across different studios? Lionsgate owns the 1987 series, WB owns the 1990 and 2007 movies.

[IndigoErth]

Not really, I feel like their wide net is part of their staying power.

Nostalgia cash grabbing be damned, had Nick/Viacom owned the FW series would they have really even bothered to put the complete series on disc anymore than they can't be bothered to do it with 2003? (Which, if I understand correctly, they do own?) They'd have probably just put it on their app instead, and now subscription streaming, and saved themselves the cost of producing and selling a hard copy...

Lionsgate's only real way to profit from even having it is, I assume, giving us the disc set many wanted in their collection? Meanwhile Nick has other options and can't be bothered.

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Not really, I feel like their wide net is part of their staying power.

Nostalgia cash grabbing be damned, had Nick/Viacom owned the FW series would they have really even bothered to put the complete series on disc anymore than they can't be bothered to do it with 2003? (Which, if I understand correctly, they do own?) They'd have probably just put it on their app instead, and now subscription streaming, and saved themselves the cost of producing and selling a hard copy...

Lionsgate's only real way to profit from even having it is, I assume, giving us the disc set many wanted in their collection? Meanwhile Nick has other options and can't be bothered.

What's annoying is Nick doesn't even bother putting those episodes on blu-ray when they were all done in HD.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

What's annoying is Nick doesn't even bother putting those episodes on blu-ray when they were all done in HD.

It's very weird. It forces your hand to pirate. Why on earth would you pay money for craptacular DVD 480p versions of a thing that you could pirate and get in full 1080p?

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

I wish they acknowledge the 1987 series, The problem is that its from another studio, Don't you hate when TMNT is spread across different studios? Lionsgate owns the 1987 series, WB owns the 1990 and 2007 movies.

Uh, they probably would? Anyway, it's probably for the best that Viacom doesn't own the Fred Wolf show.

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by neatoman

Uh, they probably would? Anyway, it's probably for the best that Viacom doesn't own the Fred Wolf show.

While each studio owns the rights to a version of TMNT, I doubt they could make another version of there TMNT since Viacom owns the IP, Just not those movies and original series.

For example, Warner Bros cannot do another TMNT based on the 90s movies even though they own the rights to those movies, just not the IP itself.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

The one thing I appreciate about this movie is that it's going to be fully CG animated. The last CG animated tmnt film in 2007 looks absolutely gorgeous even all these years later so I wonder if this film is going to match or surpass that.

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

While each studio owns the rights to a version of TMNT, I doubt they could make another version of there TMNT since Viacom owns the IP, Just not those movies and original series.

For example, Warner Bros cannot do another TMNT based on the 90s movies even though they own the rights to those movies, just not the IP itself.

I know, that's kind of the reason it's ultimately a good thing. It essentially means the Fred Wolf show isn't part of the "official" TMNT franchise.

If nothing else, it means the Fred Wolf cartoon won't ever air on Nickelodeon, stream on Paramount+ or get discs printed by Viacom. They will never directly profit from it. Which in turn, hopefully, means they will eventually be fine with dropping it's imagery and ideas from the marketing so that the franchise can finally move on from it.

The absolute best case scenario would be if it turns out there is some kind of clause that prevents anyone from directly reviving the show or coming too close too it. You know, kinda like how Mattel can license He-Man all they want but unless Dreamworks gets the license, there can't be a direct continuation of the Filmation cartoon. I'm hoping there is something similar and I'm really hoping it's more draconian. Basically, what I hope is in place here, is that there is something that makes it impossible for anyone to make Fred Wolf Season 11, or even make a cartoon that resembles it too much. I doubt that's actually a thing, otherwise it would be difficult to explain why Turtles Forever and Trans-Dimensional Turtles exist, but it sure would be sweet schadenfreude if it did.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by neatoman

If nothing else, it means the Fred Wolf cartoon won't ever air on Nickelodeon, stream on Paramount+ or get discs printed by Viacom. They will never directly profit from it. Which in turn, hopefully, means they will eventually be fine with dropping it's imagery and ideas from the marketing so that the franchise can finally move on from it.

Won't happen: FW is too popular for that.

[Leo656]

Was, maybe.

Like anything to do with TMNT, FW is only "popular" with 40-year olds. Nick's audience is 10 and under. To that audience, FW is just another "old, terrible" cartoon their parents watched back in "the Dark Ages". "Cartoons weren't even CGI back then, DAD. Why didn't you all just watch paint dry instead?" and so on.

If Nick thinks they're going to razzle-dazzle that mythical, rarer-than-unicorns "New Audience" by putting the FW cartoon in front of them, they're more out of touch than we thought.

It's probably still the most popular iteration among "real, authentic and actual" TMNT fans. But it's not like that counts for much since, as stated and very often demonstrated, Nick hates those people.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Was, maybe.

Like anything to do with TMNT, FW is only "popular" with 40-year olds. Nick's audience is 10 and under. To that audience, FW is just another "old, terrible" cartoon their parents watched back in "the Dark Ages". "Cartoons weren't even CGI back then, DAD. Why didn't you all just watch paint dry instead?" and so on.

If Nick thinks they're going to razzle-dazzle that mythical, rarer-than-unicorns "New Audience" by putting the FW cartoon in front of them, they're more out of touch than we thought.

It's probably still the most popular iteration among "real, authentic and actual" TMNT fans. But it's not like that counts for much since, as stated and very often demonstrated, Nick hates those people.

I actually agree with all of this. I couldn't have put that better into words. And by "popular," let's be clear... this means "a faded vague memory of once playing with toys and a cartoon that sits better in memory than in actual rewatching." By said 40+ year olds. Yeah, you can get these people to occasionally light up and go, "Oh yeah! TMNT! I love TMNT! I think I had a Mutagen Rat King figure once, too!" but this amounts to very little beyond maybe the niche collecting side of things, like if NECA puts out some super exclusive and rare Rocksteady action figure wearing pink panties type crowd. This does not move the meter.

And again, I point to "Out of the Shadows" movie. You can say "oh, well, people were burned by 2014 so they weren't going to come to the 2016 movie regardless"... but wait. The entire internet including the Angry Gamer Guy has been telling us all they had to do was just give us Krang and Beebop and Technodrome and they'd have a goldmine for years. They finally DID that, and built the entire marketing campaign around specifically those things (I'm happy to post that hilariously terrible TV spot again if need be)... and guess what? Nobody showed. It didn't work. The experiment failed, and hard.

It turned out that about 20 years of "Well if they just did this then" was absolutely wrong. And I'm not going to lie. I kind of love that. But, you know... in a side kind of way. Like if I was a big zeppelin advocate, but then watched one crash down from the sky. Still sad, right? But if it was like an off-brand zeppelin that seemed sure to fail, always, long-term. Now, not so bad? More like, "wtf are you guys doing? Why use that brand of zeppelin, when I told you not to or a better one was plainly available to use?"