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

[jignat]

Do you think Laird should have sold the franchise to Disney or WB instead of Nickelodeon/Viacom?

I sometimes wonder if selling TMNT to Viacom was the best move for Laird more than the franchise itself.

I get that he felt burnout especially after resurrecting the Mirage comic almost 10 years prior and guiding the 2003 show, but sometimes I feel that Nick thinks its just a middling property than can generate some profit rather than trying to make the brand more than just an occasional cartoon/toyline.

If it went to Disney, do you think the franchise would have done better?
turtles were guests in the WB owned Injustice 2 and crossed over with Batman in both print and animation form. IMO the Batman vs TMNT dtv film was better than both Platinum dunes movies (not a high bar to cross)
I feel like WB would have been eager to obtain rights given their streaming service seems to cater to animation fans.

Thoughts?

[NinjaPug]

Did he have an offer from Disney or WB?

[RossMay]

Interesting thought. At the same time Viacom was negotiating to acquire Ninja Turtles, Disney was in talks to buy Marvel. The sales were completed Oct. 2009 for Ninja Turtles, Aug. 2009 for Marvel.

Disney never made an offer for Ninja Turtles. In retrospect it would have been smart, both from how they acquire everything, but also would've actually brought the turtles in-line with Daredevil, who's cheekily supposed to be a part of their origin.

I don't know if Warner Bros. ever made an offer. I did hear from Mirage people that Viacom made the only SERIOUS offer.

By the way, if you're wondering why Viacom: It wasn't just random that they wanted Ninja Turtles. The original airings of the 1987 cartoon were on CBS. Many of the executives who worked at CBS, who saw the old cartoon's success, now run CBS, Nickelodeon and Paramount. To make a funny connection, that's the same reason why Viacom purchased Garfield recently. CBS had the longest relationship with Garfield and Jim Davis.

As for what would have been smart on Peter Laird's side, of course holding out another decade would have been more profitable, and that will continue to be true in the future. Haim Saban sold Power Rangers in 2018 for almost 10 times the Ninja Turtles sale. But that gets into what an owner wants to do. Similarly, George Lucas could have squeezed a few more BILLIONS out of Star Wars if he was selling it today, but hey, is that what Lucas wanted?

[CyberCubed]

I think some of you need to realize you can't just sell a property to anyone. If WB or Disney didn't want TMNT, or offered too little money, PL wasn't going to sell to them.

I'm really curious why people think Disney would ever buy TMNT. The TMNT franchise is a blip on the radar compared to Star Wars or Marvel. I don't see why they would have any interest.

[neatoman]

I could have sworn there was already a thread like this. Anyway, the short answer is no, it's arguably worse.

As questionable as Viacom's approach is, Disney wouldn't be a very good fit and Warner only be slightly better. While Disney could probably make a higher quality movie than Paramount and a better cartoon than Nickelodeon, it is doubtful that they would even care enough to make them on a regular enough basis for the franchise to even be worth it. It would rot in their care. And if you think TMNT is "Kiddy Horseshit" under Nickelodeon, it's nothing compared to what the Disney channel iteration would be.

Given the subject matter, it is possible that Disney would make the TMNT part of the Marvel brand. Which is slightly better in the regard that it would be allowed some level of maturity and the reprints of the comics would be really nice. The problem is that there probably wouldn't be an ongoing TMNT comic book series, just like a five issue mini-series every few years or something. What's arguably even worse than that is that the series likely wouldn't be allowed to have it's own lore anymore. The TMNT would end up being the creations of The High Evolutionary and the Foot would be a recent Hand offshoot or something else like that, they would basically just fade into the shadow of the "important" characters.

With Warner/DC it would basically be the same. Just replace the High Evolutionary with Project Cadmus and The Hand with the League of Assassins, then give it like 500 revisions where the Utroms involvement fluxuate like crazy.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by neatoman

With Warner/DC it would basically be the same. Just replace the High Evolutionary with Project Cadmus and The Hand with the League of Assassins, then give it like 500 revisions where the Utroms involvement fluxuate like crazy.

I'm not too sure about that. If anything I think DC would have been the most likely of the two to keep TMNT as their own separate thing and only cross-over occasionally for sales purposes. They published MOTU for almost a decade and it's not like they had He-Man hanging around with Superman every week. They even had Marlena get stuck on Earth so they could ostensibly have done more cross-overs if they really wanted to, but they only did the one (in-canon; the Injustice cross-over came later but wasn't canon to the main MOTU series).

I mean yeah, gut instinct would be to assume "Oh, so they'd just be part of the DCU with everything else" but going by DC's own publishing history, they've had a lot of projects that were segregated from the main line. I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they'd have the TMNT in their own corner of the Multiverse. Obviously they would do cross-overs but I wouldn't think it would be so very common.

And even if they did stick them in the mainstream DCU... WB is still the only company that wouldn't insist on TMNT forever being "a kids' thing" and nothing but that. And again, their MOTU series is a good example of precedent. The only gripe about their MOTU comics comes from people who wanted/expected them to simply copy the Filmation cartoon, and they made it a strong point to NOT do that, to the degree where some Filmation fans hate it for being "disrespectful" (whereas other fans just correctly see it as letting the property "grow up"). So again, I'd expect that if WB did own the TMNT brand, at the very least the whole "They do nothing but copy the FW cartoon" thing wouldn't be happening to such a constant degree. We'd get other things aimed at the adult fans much more often; that's not a supposition, it's a guarantee.

With Disney, I think it would be both "problems" exacerbated; they'd stick TMNT into the Marvel Universe AND constantly ape the FW cartoon/keep it a "kids' thing". And both of those things would be lousy.

Viacom was arguably the worst-case scenario (aside from the brand dying off completely) given what they've done with it, but if it had to be either Disney or WB, WB is the only option where the older audience had any hope of having their tastes catered to. So I'd have to give them the nod.

[Roseangelo]

Originally Posted by RossMay

As for what would have been smart on Peter Laird's side, of course holding out another decade would have been more profitable.

Disagree. Peter was running the TMNT into the ground. He was lucky to get the offer he did.

[oldmanwinters]

Seems like the 2007 movie was the big gamble that Laird threw everything at... if the movie had been a smash hit, then the TMNT brand proves it is still immensely valuable. After that, maybe Laird continues to helm the ship for a while or maybe he decides to "sell high" and make a bundle from a big company like WB.

But, of course, the film turned out to be only a modest success, not enough of a smash to guarantee another costly sequel. I think the 25th Anniversary Celebration/Cross-Country Tour was Laird's "Plan B," spend a lot of cash on it to ensure that the brand got enough visibility to make sure it could still command a respectable buyout price to whichever company thought it would be a good fit, which turned out to be Nickelodeon.

Originally Posted by RossMay

By the way, if you're wondering why Viacom: It wasn't just random that they wanted Ninja Turtles. The original airings of the 1987 cartoon were on CBS. Many of the executives who worked at CBS, who saw the old cartoon's success, now run CBS, Nickelodeon and Paramount. To make a funny connection, that's the same reason why Viacom purchased Garfield recently. CBS had the longest relationship with Garfield and Jim Davis.

Nice tibit, Ross! I had never thought about the CBS-connection with the old cartoon had any bearing on the 2009 acquisition, but that's very interesting that Viacom was motivated to acquire both TMNT and Garfield when those are the two shows I most associated with the early 1990s CBS Saturday Morning block!

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

Seems like the 2007 movie was the big gamble that Laird threw everything at...

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.

In fact, the only potential TMNT movie beyond the 1990 one that's ever sounded like it had any chance whatsoever at being really good was the Frank Fusco script that was about to happen just before the Nick sale (Nick decided it was "too dark").

But, of course, the film turned out to be only a modest success, not enough of a smash to guarantee another costly sequel.

Not really even that. What little money it did make against the production budget was probably blown out by the marketing one. If it actually netted any money at all it would be in the 5-6 million dollar range.

Originally Posted by Leo656

If WB/DC had the TMNT license, a lot of people's gripes from ALL sides would be addressed, and it's the best chance at ALL the various fan groups being catered to.

Maybe, maybe not. For me, I'd vote for whatever gives the highest odds of TMNT ending up in the hands of guys like the Marvel Netflix peeps who worked on the first two seasons of "Daredevil."

[frank_one]

Originally Posted by Roseangelo

Disagree. Peter was running the TMNT into the ground. He was lucky to get the offer he did.

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

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Budget $34 million
Box office $95.6 million

Not so bad.

[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.

[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.

[AquaParade]

Frank Fosco script is still yet to leak, right? Has anyone heard anything about it besides Kevin Eastman's vague praise?

Originally Posted by Roseangelo

I made a comment on these forums after the release of the Vol. 4 issue that ends with one of the Turtles holding an Al Gore coin. All I said was that I hope this isn't a sign that the book is going to get political. I think that is a fair comment to say in response to a comic book. While the TMNT books certainly do have a history of showcasing environmental issues, which these days is considered to be left-leaning, I think it's a whole different issue when a book looks like it's about to start complaining about who is president (especially in a fictional world that could make up its own fictional president).

Anyways, the next issue featured a page-long rant that made it very clear that he had leap-frogged off of the comment that I made here. Didn't think that was necessary.

While in retrospect I feel that everyone could have held themselves better in communicating back then, ultimately, Peter doesn't take criticism well and there was never going to be a happy ending between him and the vocal fans. What he wanted to do with the TMNT just wasn't what a majority of people wanted, and his decision to sell and move on was the right thing to do.

So you think Peter read this forum back in the day? Interesting, but I guess I shouldn't be shocked, if true. I'd be curious if I were Peter.

[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.


I always liked that they are kind of their own thing and have the freedom to visit other properties. It will be sad when they are owned by someone who no longer allows it.

[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.

[sdp]

ViacomCBS is going to be acquired by a tech giant in the next decade or so most likely so TMNT will have new owners.

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by sdp

ViacomCBS is going to be acquired by a tech giant in the next decade or so most likely so TMNT will have new owners.

New owners, same management. Not much will change.

[IndigoErth]

Come to think of it, though they're strictly a publisher, I wouldn't mind if IDW were somehow able to own the property and then have control over licensing it out to other companies to handle the movies, series, etc. Might keep it from being locked into one company's vision of them forever.