The "punk" frogs

[Mad Dog McMutt]

Does anybody else think it's kinda weird how all 4 of the "punk" frogs aren't at all punk? They are mentioned by the turtles as punk frogs numerous times throughout the show. Did the writers of the cartoon really think that wearing Hawaiian shirts was rebellious? I have been into punk rock for 25 years now and I have always failed to see anything punk about the punk frogs. They are cool characters, but not punk rock in any way shape or form.

[Leo656]

It is pretty baffling, but such is what happens when you've got a bunch of 40-somethings writing a show that needs to appear at least superficially in line with "hip" things kids like or are into.

Oddly enough, I have huge and serious doubts as to just how many kids in the 5-to-10 demographic were aware of "punk" or what it even was, to begin with. I mean, I was IN the demo, and while I knew "punk" was a thing if you asked me at that age to try and define it, I most certainly could not have done so. So I'm not sure what the point of the entire "Punk Frogs" experiment even was, or why they were called that. If you're trying to seem "hip and cool" for the young kids... are you really gonna accomplish that by sticking a label that most of them have no clue what it means onto some new characters? Granted, most of your audience is too ignorant to know better, so you can get away with it, but still... Why?

It's kinda like when the WWF brought in the Headbangers tag team. Now, "headbanger" is a rather generic term, it tends to be more apt as a descriptor towards a certain type of metal influence but you do have some leeway, but as a whole the entire package as-presented on TV was way off. They wore kilts/skirts and work boots with leggings/stockings which is sort of reminiscent of a specific subsection of "punk rock", but ALSO wore Marilyn Manson and Nine Inch Nails shirts while coming to the ring with a generic "thrash metal" theme song loop. So other than, "These Guys Are Misfit Rocker Guys", the whole entire thing was just thrown together with no rhyme or reason. In 1997, outside of detention or a jail cell you typically wouldn't see Rancid fans and Manson fans in the same place, ever, so the entire "Headbangers" gimmick seemed entirely like something an old, out of touch person threw together based on random stuff they'd heard about in passing.

The "Punk Frogs", same thing. There's nothing whatsoever about them that screams "punk"; point of fact, they're rather polite and well-mannered for "rude boys" and they don't dress the part either so... yeah, the entire goddamn thing makes no sense at all.

That said, I find the whole "What Is Punk?" argument/"debate" to be one of the most ridiculous things to come out of the subculture, as said subculture was founded entirely on rejection of labels and other pretentiousness and then went on to in turn set its own labels and rules of exclusivity, thus ruining the entire point of the punk rock "movement" to begin with. Saying "So-and-So Is NOT Punk" is arguably one of the most not-Punk things anyone can do, just by definition of how it all began.

BUT... that said... the Punk Frogs are NOT Punk. Not even a little bit.

So yeah, I don't get it either.

[neatoman]

They were quickly slapped together with minimal thought, that should answer just about any questions regarding characters created by Playmates or the FW writers. If you want something more in-depth answer I don't really think there is one here. I think Playmates created one of them and someone at FW decided he should have a team, with Punk Frogs just being a name that was chosen because it was the first thing anyone came up with, not because it made sense. The alternative is that someone at FW decided to do the Evil Doppelganger cliché and named them Punk Frogs because that was the first thing they came up with, the shirts just being some stereotypical sunny weather wear.

I'm sorry but it probably isn't more interesting than that.

[Leo656]

I mean, even if they had some spiked leather vests or a denim vest with some chains... that'd be enough to at least put the gimmick over. That'd at least superficially be more "punk" than a team of frogs who dressed like Captain Lou Albano.

[Mad Dog McMutt]

I would imagine that "being quickly slapped together with minimal thought" would probably be the answer to a lot of questions on this board regarding the 87 turtles. I still find it hilarious that some of the writers were that out of touch to make such a mistake, but like Leo656 said none of us in that target demographic really knew what punk was at the time.

[Mad Dog McMutt]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I mean, even if they had some spiked leather vests or a denim vest with some chains... that'd be enough to at least put the gimmick over. That'd at least superficially be more "punk" than a team of frogs who dressed like Captain Lou Albano.

I agree. It would have been cooler to see the frogs in actual punk fashion. I remember the turtles were briefly dressed as punks in an episode. I think it was one of the European vacation episodes.

[Leo656]

I mean, I knew who Billy Idol was, but that was about it.

Back then, at that young age, my way of dividing popular music and musical styles was as simple as: "Rock" was anything that wasn't rap, and generally involved people playing actual instruments, "Rap" was rather self-explanatory, and thus it was either Rock or Rap, or else it was "That Old-Timey Bullsh*t" which was anything from before I was born.

But I didn't get around to sub-dividing "rock" music into all the different categories until I was much, much older. I still prefer not to, as so many bands shift genres after they've been around a while, and many (like The Offspring and Green Day, for example) are often soundly rejected by members of the only category they'd ever come close to being part of. Like in a vacuum, you'd almost have to say both of those bands are definitely "punk", but if you ask any "serious" punk rocker they'd either scoff at such a notion or outright make it a fight for even bringing it up. But then if you HAVE to slap a label on them, where would they fit otherwise? You see how this whole thing about genres and labels completely falls apart under any scrutiny whatsoever, and so I've always really avoided it as a rule.

Like most people cite Nirvana as "Grunge", but a lot of punk rock people claim Nirvana, at least early Nirvana. Most people would simply call Guns N Roses a regular "rock n roll band", but at least some of the time Axl was on-record as calling them a punk band as far as he was concerned, and they definitely had the punk rock attitude and aesthetics, sometimes. And everyone was completely fine with both Offspring and Green Day being "punk" until they started selling records, and apparently once you start selling records you're "not punk" anymore, which seems dumb, but again, I have nothing to do with these "rules". I mean, within the same calendar year of 1994, those bands and their albums went from being "Totally Punk" to "SO Not Punk, Don't Even Start With That" the second they got on the charts. So I kinda think it's all bullsh*t.

[Mad Dog McMutt]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I mean, I knew who Billy Idol was, but that was about it.

Back then, at that young age, my way of dividing popular music and musical styles was as simple as: "Rock" was anything that wasn't rap, and generally involved people playing actual instruments, "Rap" was rather self-explanatory, and thus it was either Rock or Rap, or else it was "That Old-Timey Bullsh*t" which was anything from before I was born.

But I didn't get around to sub-dividing "rock" music into all the different categories until I was much, much older. I still prefer not to, as so many bands shift genres after they've been around a while, and many (like The Offspring and Green Day, for example) are often soundly rejected by members of the only category they'd ever come close to being part of. Like in a vacuum, you'd almost have to say both of those bands are definitely "punk", but if you ask any "serious" punk rocker they'd either scoff at such a notion or outright make it a fight for even bringing it up. But then if you HAVE to slap a label on them, where would they fit otherwise? You see how this whole thing about genres and labels completely falls apart under any scrutiny whatsoever, and so I've always really avoided it as a rule.

Like most people cite Nirvana as "Grunge", but a lot of punk rock people claim Nirvana, at least early Nirvana. Most people would simply call Guns N Roses a regular "rock n roll band", but at least some of the time Axl was on-record as calling them a punk band as far as he was concerned, and they definitely had the punk rock attitude and aesthetics, sometimes. And everyone was completely fine with both Offspring and Green Day being "punk" until they started selling records, and apparently once you start selling records you're "not punk" anymore, which seems dumb, but again, I have nothing to do with these "rules". I mean, within the same calendar year of 1994, those bands and their albums went from being "Totally Punk" to "SO Not Punk, Don't Even Start With That" the second they got on the charts. So I kinda think it's all bullsh*t.

I have no problems with bands selling records. However, I do have a problem with bands changing their sound for the worse in order to sell records. I think all of Green Day's albums before American Idiot were good. I think that the Offspring has always been consistently decent. Most of the 70's punks hated the 80's punk rock, and most of the 80's punks hated the 90's punk rock. Punk had been around for at least 15 years before the punk frogs were created. How did the writers associate it with Hawaiian shirts?

[IndigoErth]

Honesty, not to assume an 1980s era show would put too much thought into it to begin with, but it could be an intentional conflict of what Shredder wanted them to be for his own use, expecting some tough new mutants to send after the Turtles, Vs. what they really were and became another of his failed plans.

[Leo656]

Mad Dog: That's kinda what I mean though, at some point the entire "punk rock attitude", which once upon a time was about unrestricted inclusion, morphed into simply "Hating everyone who came after you because they 'don't get it', ESPECIALLY if they're successful." And that to me seems kind of counter-productive to how the entire thing started.

I never begrudge any musician the right to change what they sound like, though, because making the same records for decades is almost certainly very, very boring for the people involved. David Lee Roth once took a shot at AC/DC that got him some nasty feedback, but wasn't altogether incorrect. To paraphrase: "AC/DC made the same exact record 50 times. Now, it's a GOOD record, I LIKE that record, but at the end of the day it's decades of The Same Old Sh*t any way you look at it." And y'know, I can't find the lie.

I always have a ton of respect for bands or musicians who aren't afraid to try new things, because a lot of times you do get some very cool new music once you allow yourself to experiment. Sometimes you have to break out so you don't get yelled at for "ruining" your main band's image, but even that is nothing new and sometimes it works out for the best anyways. But think about it; as awesome as The Misfits were, if Glenn Danzig hadn't gotten bored of punk rock we wouldn't have any of the stuff he did with "Danzig". If Tom DeLonge didn't outspokenly come out and say, "Once I started pushing 40, I didn't want to write songs about being an angry teenager anymore, I didn't want to just write songs about getting drunk and humping dogs just because that's all the audience for that band cares about," he wouldn't have left Blink-182 to start Angels and Airwaves. And I like both bands a lot, but on a purely musical artistry level, AVA goes far beyond anything Blink ever even attempted to do. So I'm glad he was able to do that, but unfortunately, he would not have ever been "allowed" to flex those muscles if he'd stayed within the confines of Blink.

So as a fan of music, I'm just like, "Whatever man, do whatever you want and if it's good I'll be into it." I can't get hung up on genres. I'm just a fan, I don't in any way want to limit the creativity of the artists I admire. I just want them to create and hopefully I'll be blown away. Usually I am, and in ways I don't expect. That's fun!

I very much admire Dexter Holland from Offspring, though. Not only is he a swell fella if you ever get to hang out with him for a minute, but he's like the most non-pretentious "rock star" ever, especially to come out of the punk genre. He's very well aware of their reputation among both "hardcores" and "casuals" and he thinks the whole thing is funny. Again, to paraphrase: "We're like the most hated rock band to ever sell 50 million records. It's never been 'cool' to like us, nobody ever admits they like us, but for four decades we just do our own thing and we do alright with it. Nobody hates us more than 'real punk rock' kids do. We're like the ultimate 'sellouts' because we sell records and stuff, but we're not popular enough to be 'mainstream' because nobody actually admits out loud that they buy our records, even though we sell a ton of them so we must be doing SOMETHING right. So it's whatever, we don't get hung up on that. We just do our own thing."

That's a great attitude. "We've never been in style so we can never go out of style. Therefore, we don't give a sh*t. We just do whatever we want whenever we want." That's pretty "punk" to me!

[Mad Dog McMutt]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Mad Dog: That's kinda what I mean though, at some point the entire "punk rock attitude", which once upon a time was about unrestricted inclusion, morphed into simply "Hating everyone who came after you because they 'don't get it', ESPECIALLY if they're successful." And that to me seems kind of counter-productive to how the entire thing started.

I never begrudge any musician the right to change what they sound like, though, because making the same records for decades is almost certainly very, very boring for the people involved. David Lee Roth once took a shot at AC/DC that got him some nasty feedback, but wasn't altogether incorrect. To paraphrase: "AC/DC made the same exact record 50 times. Now, it's a GOOD record, I LIKE that record, but at the end of the day it's decades of The Same Old Sh*t any way you look at it." And y'know, I can't find the lie.

I always have a ton of respect for bands or musicians who aren't afraid to try new things, because a lot of times you do get some very cool new music once you allow yourself to experiment. Sometimes you have to break out so you don't get yelled at for "ruining" your main band's image, but even that is nothing new and sometimes it works out for the best anyways. But think about it; as awesome as The Misfits were, if Glenn Danzig hadn't gotten bored of punk rock we wouldn't have any of the stuff he did with "Danzig". If Tom DeLonge didn't outspokenly come out and say, "Once I started pushing 40, I didn't want to write songs about being an angry teenager anymore, I didn't want to just write songs about getting drunk and humping dogs just because that's all the audience for that band cares about," he wouldn't have left Blink-182 to start Angels and Airwaves. And I like both bands a lot, but on a purely musical artistry level, AVA goes far beyond anything Blink ever even attempted to do. So I'm glad he was able to do that, but unfortunately, he would not have ever been "allowed" to flex those muscles if he'd stayed within the confines of Blink.

So as a fan of music, I'm just like, "Whatever man, do whatever you want and if it's good I'll be into it." I can't get hung up on genres. I'm just a fan, I don't in any way want to limit the creativity of the artists I admire. I just want them to create and hopefully I'll be blown away. Usually I am, and in ways I don't expect. That's fun!

I very much admire Dexter Holland from Offspring, though. Not only is he a swell fella if you ever get to hang out with him for a minute, but he's like the most non-pretentious "rock star" ever, especially to come out of the punk genre. He's very well aware of their reputation among both "hardcores" and "casuals" and he thinks the whole thing is funny. Again, to paraphrase: "We're like the most hated rock band to ever sell 50 million records. It's never been 'cool' to like us, nobody ever admits they like us, but for four decades we just do our own thing and we do alright with it. Nobody hates us more than 'real punk rock' kids do. We're like the ultimate 'sellouts' because we sell records and stuff, but we're not popular enough to be 'mainstream' because nobody actually admits out loud that they buy our records, even though we sell a ton of them so we must be doing SOMETHING right. So it's whatever, we don't get hung up on that. We just do our own thing."

That's a great attitude. "We've never been in style so we can never go out of style. Therefore, we don't give a sh*t. We just do whatever we want whenever we want." That's pretty "punk" to me!

When I said change for the worse I meant bands like Afi who through away everything they were about and through away their sound to please mainstream emo kids. I just can't respect that, but to each their own. Green day's newest music is just horrible.

[Powder]

I never interpreted it to be referencing music/culture but rather that these guys were young worthless delinquents, the original meaning of the word.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Mad Dog McMutt

I would imagine that "being quickly slapped together with minimal thought" would probably be the answer to a lot of questions on this board regarding the 87 turtles.

Yeah, no sh**.

[Zog The Magnificent]

Originally Posted by Powder

I never interpreted it to be referencing music/culture but rather that these guys were young worthless delinquents, the original meaning of the word.

Yep, that was my thought too. This discussion on music is actually really interesting, but as far as the characters I always thought they were supposed to be punks in the sense of "youthful delinquents," so I'm not sure the debate on their aesthetics actually applies in this case.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Powder

I never interpreted it to be referencing music/culture but rather that these guys were young worthless delinquents, the original meaning of the word.

Pretty sure that was it. The problem was the Frogs were way too kind. And they never did anything truly bad except for things the shredder tricked them into doing.

I always find it funny Shredder thinks he can train new people in a few days or weeks to fight against the turtles who have trained with Splinter for years.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Powder

I never interpreted it to be referencing music/culture but rather that these guys were young worthless delinquents, the original meaning of the word.

Exactly....
I thought this would be obvious to everyone to be honest.

[Leo656]

I mean, perhaps in theory. Their actual attitudes and behavior undermine that theory however. They're far too polite to be "punks" by any definition.

Wishful thinking on Shredder's part, I guess. Except the name stuck so... I'unno.

[Zog The Magnificent]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I mean, perhaps in theory. Their actual attitudes and behavior undermine that theory however. They're far too polite to be "punks" by any definition.

Wishful thinking on Shredder's part, I guess. Except the name stuck so... I'unno.

That's exactly it. Shredder named them, Shredder created them with the full intent of being an anti-turtles team, Shredder named them all after real life conquerors, so of course he'd give them a name like "Punk Frogs." Their behavior doesn't undermine the theory, it just shows another one of Shredder's failed plans.

Of course, the name stuck because of marketing. Can't exactly have two different names, that would require continuity and it would confuse everyone because they'd have to remember two names. How could they sell toys if everyone was so confused?

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I mean, perhaps in theory. Their actual attitudes and behavior undermine that theory however. They're far too polite to be "punks" by any definition.

Wishful thinking on Shredder's part, I guess. Except the name stuck so... I'unno.

It's because it was a cartoon aimed at ten year olds, man. "Punk frogs" was "edgy" for kids but they were protagonists so you know - it's like "Wolverine is so tough and oooohhhhh dark but he's a good guy but not really" yet Wolverine rarely used his claws for any real slashing during that era as well.

[Anarchistguy]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

I always find it funny Shredder thinks he can train new people in a few days or weeks to fight against the turtles who have trained with Splinter for years.

Even Bebop, as dumb as he was, pointed it out to Shredder.