Am I the only one who does not like 80's Leo?

[Jelly Bean]

Ok, maybe not like is too strong, but he is easily my least favorite in the turtle multiverse. I'm sorry but he really lack a lot of the qualities that makes other Leo's great in the turtles. With maybe the exception of season 1 he is just this whiney, insecure, teacher's pet with an annoying voice. When he's isn't going "we've got to do something!" he is kind of bland. Sorry for stepping on toes here but does any one else feel the same?

[Powder]

Hell no. He's just as good there as in any other version. Leo has insecurities about his position as leader/skills in virtually every iteration, being irritated by his circumstances (or as you put it, being "whiny") is another cross-universe character trait, & he stands by Master Splinter's word in every one too. I don't see where you're coming from. Hell, one could argue that Leonardo in the OT is the most accurate/least bastardized version, given the show turned Raph into a jokester, Donnie into a geek, & Mikey into a surfer. Leo was the same as he was in Mirage, albeit toned down & made more kid-friendly.

[Jelly Bean]

yeah but those other versions had a sense of strength and hell, even some authority to them that I feel 80's Leo lacks.

[Powder]

He's the leader, that's made quite clear in the series. He directs his brothers, comes up with strategies, tells them off when they're lounging instead of training, he's plenty authoritative. But just the same, you have to realize, he's his peers equal. They are, at the end of the day, a bunch of 13-14 year olds in the 90's. There's gonna be a few times where they test him or disobey, because that's the nature of teenagers. I have to wonder how much of the OT you've really seen because your points make no sense.

[Wesley]

Originally Posted by Jelly Bean

Ok, maybe not like is too strong, but he is easily my least favorite in the turtle multiverse. I'm sorry but he really lack a lot of the qualities that makes other Leo's great in the turtles. With maybe the exception of season 1 he is just this whiney, insecure, teacher's pet with an annoying voice. When he's isn't going "we've got to do something!" he is kind of bland. Sorry for stepping on toes here but does any one else feel the same?

I kinda agree. I still like OT Leo, but he is a bit boring and annoying most of the time. I noticed this when I watched the Cowabunga Classics dvd recently. His catchphrases are irrating as well. However, there were a few good episodes centred around him like "Take Me to Your Leader" and "Snakes Alive" that gave him some character development and made him more relatable.

[Creativemind]

Leo is actually my least favorite because of how overly serious he is. That being said my least favorite version of him is 2k7 movie Leo.

[Powder]

Originally Posted by Creativemind

my least favorite version of him is 2k7 movie Leo.

Might have to go with this myself. Even the sore for sight eyes that is PD's Leonardo has a decent (though lacking) personality, whereas TMNT made him a cocky bastard who can't back up his bark with his bite.

[Leo656]

I'unno, he kinda gets on my nerves too, sometimes. Like, he's always my favorite character, but so far, he's my least favorite version OF that character. You're right, all his essential traits and qualities are there, but they played him so broadly that I have no doubt it's why he's "everyone's" least favorite in general. Nobody likes a stick-in-the-mud.

Like everyone else, he was great in the initial run, then got worse as the show went on. I wasn't shocked that even Clarke sometimes talks like he was bummed that he got "stuck" playing Leo. Like, lamenting that most of his lines were, "Come ON, guys! We gotta be serious!" etc. etc., while everyone else got to have more "fun" with their roles.

I find Mikey in any version far more insufferable than Leo, but OT Leo definitely could've been written better. He was like a parody of "Leader-Types" more than a fully-formed character. Some of my favorite episodes were the ones where he got more focus, because we got to see a little more depth than we usually got.

Not really anyone's "fault", I guess, just how the show was written, playing to what was popular. Kids loved their "Cowabunga" and whatnot, whattyagonnado?

Originally Posted by Powder

Might have to go with this myself. Even the sore for sight eyes that is PD's Leonardo has a decent (though lacking) personality, whereas TMNT made him a cocky bastard who can't back up his bark with his bite.

Fanservice, nothing more. They knew they had to make Raph win that fight because Raph is the "bad boy" that makes the fangirls drool. No matter the incarnation, if they fight a dozen times, Raph wins Once, if the person writing the story is being objective about it and not playing favorites. I actually liked how cocky Leo was in that movie. I know most people would hate it, but MOST guys as good as Leo would have to be would have a chip on their shoulder. It rang true to me. Not him getting taken down by a lucky sucker-shot, that part was bogus, but his personality still seemed true.

[Bry]

He was fine. Powder's got a point in that he was definitely in-character, but I feel like he got a bit "softer" and "whinier" (at least vocally) as the show went on... though everything about the show got a lot softer and gentler after the first couple seasons, so I'm not gonna hold Leo to a different standard than any other character.

Cam Clarke's "season one voice" was aces, though. Cool and authoritative.

I enjoy the OT and the characters plenty, but they do suffer in comparison to the other, more serialized versions. They're great for what they are, but their personalities are pretty basic and they don't really have much in the way of character growths or arcs. And Leo in particular has benefited a lot from some deeper character work elsewhere. But overall I feel like he goes unappreciated way more often than he should.

[CyberCubed]

Watch Leo's episodes, "Take me to your Leader," "Snakes Alive," "Unidentified flying Leonardo," or "Leonardo is missing."

Leo really shined when he was by himself working through his insecurities or trying to prove himself. Also I love Cam Clarke's voice so I am bias.

[neatoman]

The Fred Wolf Leo was... Not as quirky as the other FW turtles...

A lot of people thinks he's devoid of any personality because does not have as many quirks the others, Don speaks in technobabble, Mikey is a surfer dude and Raph is a smartass. I think Leo's quirk was meant to be that he was the most serious about his training but the writers seemed to not be able to write such a character in a way that (at the time) seemed to appeal to kids, to them appealing to kids was all "Cowabunga!" and "Time for sourkraut and marshmallow pizza, dudes!", having a cool headed and ambitious character just didn't seem to fit into their idea of a kids' show.

So as a result Leo often came across as either the basic personality on which they added quirks for the other three, or as a whiny buzzkill out to ruin the other's fun, which is shame. Granted, I bet that if was written as the straight man to other turtles antics a lot more people would have liked him in that series.

On the positive side, all the versions of TMNT that are not straight up comedy do find ways to make Leo a much more compelling character, even the ones for kids! In the Mirage, IDW, 4Kids and Nickelodeon versions he's ambitious, calm, honorable, courageous, passionate and always strives towards doing good. Maybe these aren't the qualities that guarantees him to be the most popular or "fun" turtle, but it does make him the most respectable and admirable one.

[IndigoErth]

Nah, love that guy, in almost all his versions. (The already mentioned 2007 movie being the exception, making him look like a bit of a jerk... I kind of count that film out because of it.) I could agree that the first series often didn't really do enough with him beyond his role as leader, but I still adore him.

He may not be the most interesting character to some but he's still got a lot of depth, at least for those that can see it.

[Leo656]

Why CAN'T he be "kind of" a jerk sometimes, though? It's realistic. He'd be much more quiet about it than, say, Raphael, but in general, people who are at that level actually are rather cocky. Not outright braggarts, but again, they tend to carry a decent-sized chip.

Maybe it doesn't ring true to people because it's not traditionally how the character is written and he's usually humble to a fault, almost insecure, but I actually found that more "cocky" personality much more true to life. People that good usually know it. I'm in the locker room with a LOT of "Leos". Lots of them are great guys, but they're also extremely self-confident because they have every right to be, and sometimes that can come off as "jerk-ish".

You CAN be both cocky and humble, basically. I don't know, I just think it gives Leo's character a little more depth. It never bothered me.

[Gunpowder]

I haven't watched enough of the original show to make a judgment on that.

[pennydreadful]

I never had any problems with 80's Leo. And I also enjoyed 2k7 Leo being kind of arrogant; I felt it was refreshing to see him having a bit of a flaw that he needed to work on.

As Leo656 said, it seemed to ring true to me - if you're like, 18, 19 (not sure how old they were meant to be in 2k7 - can anyone set me straight on that?) and your skill level is really high, you're probably going to have that feeling of "yes, I am better than you".

I know 2k7 wasn't everyone's cup of tea and I can totally see the reasons why - I'm definitely biased because it was chock-full of Leo and Raph drama and hey, I enjoy that kind of thing.

[Bry]

Originally Posted by pennydreadful

As Leo656 said, it seemed to ring true to me - if you're like, 18, 19 (not sure how old they were meant to be in 2k7 - can anyone set me straight on that?) and your skill level is really high, you're probably going to have that feeling of "yes, I am better than you".

Exactly. It wasn't executed perfectly by any stretch, but that part rang really true to me as well - mostly because I remember being that age and being way too smug about my limited knowledge and experience. It's realistic! Especially given his role in the team and the responsibility that was thrust on him.

And I may be projecting a bit onto the material, but I always felt that they were going for Leo and Raph being very similar in that fight scene. Leo was authoritative and Raph was the rebel, but they both overestimated themselves and got in over their heads because of it. Leo's sin was believing his own hype, and Raph's was in believing he could do it alone. That fight was their egos clashing, and because of it they both lost: Leo got humbled by Raph, and Raph basically got his brother captured and was helpless to stop it. Only working as a team got them out of it.

The concept was strong, but the writing let it and the characters down quite a bit. It managed to be too on-the-nose while also not feeling as earned as it should have. But I can at least respect what (I believe) they were trying to do.

[Powder]

I know I kinda started this whole 2k7 discussion with saying he was my least favorite for that character trait, but to be clear, I don't dislike him for it. It's true to form, sure, but not particularly enjoyable to me. Like Bry said, it wasn't executed all too well.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Bry

Exactly. It wasn't executed perfectly by any stretch, but that part rang really true to me as well - mostly because I remember being that age and being way too smug about my limited knowledge and experience. It's realistic! Especially given his role in the team and the responsibility that was thrust on him.

And I may be projecting a bit onto the material, but I always felt that they were going for Leo and Raph being very similar in that fight scene. Leo was authoritative and Raph was the rebel, but they both overestimated themselves and got in over their heads because of it. Leo's sin was believing his own hype, and Raph's was in believing he could do it alone. That fight was their egos clashing, and because of it they both lost: Leo got humbled by Raph, and Raph basically got his brother captured and was helpless to stop it. Only working as a team got them out of it.

The concept was strong, but the writing let it and the characters down quite a bit. It managed to be too on-the-nose while also not feeling as earned as it should have. But I can at least respect what (I believe) they were trying to do.

I don't think it's projecting into the material at all. I think it was totally meant to be that way, and it didn't entirely work because the movie in general wasn't written or presented all that well. I think people like us see it because we tend to see more of the layers in a piece of work than most people do. But it's definitely in there.

A lot of things in that movie, deserved a better movie. It's okay, it's just... kind of flat. Really feels like a few episodes of a cartoon show stapled together into a movie, more than a movie.

[Mona_Lisa]

Originally Posted by Wesley

I kinda agree. I still like OT Leo, but he is a bit boring and annoying most of the time. I noticed this when I watched the Cowabunga Classics dvd recently. His catchphrases are irrating as well. However, there were a few good episodes centred around him like "Take Me to Your Leader" and "Snakes Alive" that gave him some character development and made him more relatable.

This, I grew up with the 80's turtles, and have seen just about every episode. I really Disliked the 80's Leo He is (in my opinion) the worst Leo of them all. The guy was annoying and lame. But just like the poster above said, he had a few good episodes. I loved "Snakes Alive" and really liked the episode with Tempestra also.


I don't really mind it when Leo is a jerk or overconfident though...

Originally Posted by Leo656

Fanservice, nothing more. They knew they had to make Raph win that fight because Raph is the "bad boy" that makes the fangirls drool. No matter the incarnation, if they fight a dozen times, Raph wins Once, if the person writing the story is being objective about it and not playing favorites. I actually liked how cocky Leo was in that movie. I know most people would hate it, but MOST guys as good as Leo would have to be would have a chip on their shoulder. It rang true to me. Not him getting taken down by a lucky sucker-shot, that part was bogus, but his personality still seemed true.

I'm not one of those fan girls that write "Turtle Porn" But during this movie I was so happy in that fight scene. In the theater There where people all around me who where like "No stop fighting" And I was all like shaking *BEST FRCKN MOVIE EVER*!!! HIT HIM AGAIN DON"T STOP!!!!
Now that is not my favorite movie by far... But I love that part of the movie. Have scene it more times than any hard core Leo fan wants to know, lol!

[IndigoErth]

Really, this went in this direction out of a stated personal opinion/distaste for something that was essentially just a side note...?

Spoiler:

As far as 2007 is concerned, it is not solely the Leo/Raph thing. Bickering at home and cocky competitive posturing between siblings is one thing. And goodness knows I generally love their dynamic through much of the franchise. In good part I pass off Leo's attitude toward Raph in their fight scene as being intentional to get under his skin because they were both angry with each other and it's a volatile relationship anyhow. It happens. Even if it was a low moment for them both. The arrogance toward "Nightwatcher" however, before he even knew it was his brother, as if the Turtles' turf is threatened by the existence of someone else in the city playing crime fighter... *sigh*

That said, this is supposed to be about 1987 Leo, who didn't really get enough of his due in his time as it was, let alone lose it to a 2007 debate.