Asia fashion life-size tmnt

[Commenter 42]

Not sure exactly what these are for, but a friend passed these pics my way:

[Commenter 42]

If anything, this puts to rest the notion that they were around 6ft in height - these things are easily closer to 7ft tall.

I've never heard of this company...but I'm sure theres a fan or two who will be giddy over these.

[Powder]

Impressive work, I hope we'll see the final product.

[Commenter 42]

That's a huge amount of work, for sure, especially when they could have printed the original models from ILM. Lots of skill here - lots of effort -
shame it's all being wasted on PDMT designs - but what can you do...

Maybe these are for the sequel, for publicity? So if the Turtles are 7ft tall...B&R will be...big. Very, very, big.

[letscook89]

Oh my god they're so damn beautiful ! But isn't Donnie a bit too bulky ?

[Commenter 42]

It doesn't look like PD Donnie, you're right.

Maybe they beefed him up for Prt 2? You know Bay's motto - if it ain't broke -

[letscook89]

Yeah it isn't PD Donnie at all. They totally changed his design. Damn it § Except for the glasses and the stuff, he was great loking in the first film.

I'm sure these statues are for promotion.

[Commenter 42]

Agree to disagree. He looked like a fool, but then again, they all looked like crap, so meh...potato, potato.

It's really odd that they would produce the sculptures from scratch. Party Manufacturing? Maybe Candy Kappa can put those Google skills of hers to work - I'm coming up with bupkis.

[Foombamaroom]

Jesus Christ, no wonder April fainted. If these things started following me around, let alone hit on me, I'd probably want to leave as quickly as possible, too.

[Etsyturtle2]

This is a no joking legit statement -- I wonder if the sculpted their dicks.

[Technogeek29]

If they had a more monstrous face they would resemble this

[letscook89]

They aren't so ugly guys, don't be so meany. They are mutant TURTLES, not giant teddy bears. I think the real problem with them is their height, they are too big. If this is the height of mutated turtles, I can't imagine how big a rhino and a warhog will be...

However, I'm very curious to see their final aspects, especially Donnie. I wonder why Bay change his design ?

[Candy Kappa]

They are well sculpted, that's for sure. But the designs lend themselves more to some Horror B-Movie swamp monsters then Ninja Turtles.

The only turtle aspect, is that they have a plastron-like plates that is shaped as muscle definition and some pseudo turtle-ish scutes that covers their back to mimick the carapace part of a chelonian's shell.

The size isn't the only issue, it's the overly human looking face and that the shell is just attacked onto their torso with no design or anatomical explanation, as the shell is in two halves and the turtles have a ribcage under it. Hint: a turtle's shell is the fusion of its spine and ribs, covered in scutes. Turtles can't actually take off their shells like some merry melodies cartoon.

[letscook89]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

They are well sculpted, that's for sure. But the designs lend themselves more to some Horror B-Movie swamp monsters then Ninja Turtles.

The only turtle aspect, is that they have a plastron-like plates that is shaped as muscle definition and some pseudo turtle-ish scutes that covers their back to mimick the carapace part of a chelonian's shell.

The size isn't the only issue, it's the overly human looking face and that the shell is just attacked onto their torso with no design or anatomical explanation, as the shell is in two halves and the turtles have a ribcage under it. Hint: a turtle's shell is the fusion of its spine and ribs, covered in scutes. Turtles can't actually take off their shells like some merry melodies cartoon.

Yeah I see what you mean. Their faces are too human, but in my opinion it's better to have a human face looking turtle than a too realistic turtle face. We'd better had something like my first pic than the second.

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by letscook89

Yeah I see what you mean. Their faces are too human, but in my opinion it's better to have a human face looking turtle than a too realistic turtle face. We'd better had something like my first pic than the second.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iqaCcwj58a...nished%2B2.jpg
http://comicsalliance.com/files/2010/04/tmnthead.jpg

I don't think anyone really wanted one extreme over another. A overly human face looks all kinds of wrong, and a realistic turtle head can't animate easily emotions.

There was nothing wrong with using existing designs and amp it up for live-action. The Out of the Shadows game gave far more relatable "realistic" designs then the PD movie.

[Commenter 42]

And we're having the same debate again.

When you make things look tooooo human - it's terrible, nightmare inducing nasty stuff.


http://gothamist.com/2015/10/30/lucy...lumpy_head.php

Originally Posted by letscook89

We'd better had something like my first pic than the second.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iqaCcwj58a...nished%2B2.jpg
http://comicsalliance.com/files/2010/04/tmnthead.jpg

Those examples are terrible comparisons. Also, no, I don't "want" either of those. NOT at all. not in the least. No, I don't. You might, and that's fine - that's you,
but I am not better with the first over the second. That's worse if you ask me. But that's the point. It's cool for you to prefer one over the other, but using the "we" insinuating we all agree with you, is frustrating.
Look up a turtle face. Google red eared slider. Look at them here.


Yes man, I'd love something that looked like the above pic. Short, animalistic and aggressive. Something that looks plausible, something that tricks the brain, and sells the idea. For a live action film, yes, I would prefer that.
Shreck is a cartoon character, based on whimsey and fantasy, with no real world equivalent - TMNT, are based on a real animal, not an imaginary one.

Without wanting to offend the artist, that school art project does not look like a turtle, and that other, monkey faced head, looks like a green chimp.

Please, can we all just agree that they don't look anything like the actual animals in question? Sure, they look a little like humanized versions of 2k3, or like softened versions of winters soul, but that's not the same argument.

They're designed by people who don't understand anatomy. People who took a two year course, and schmoozed their way into a job. People who don't use reference, and don't plan their designs out in advance.

[IndigoErth]

Not sure what to think. That is an incredibly impressive amount of work though. I'd love to see them after being painted to look just like the 'real' thing, get their masks and whatnot, assuming that will probably happen. (If so, please somehow obtain more pics, okay? )

They had some statues at certain premiers last year, maybe these are sculpts for new ones next year?

The Donnie one in pics from the L.A. premier looked pretty cool, had me wishing they had done all of them though. This Donnie is definitely looking more beefed up... looks like he's been getting a few more piazzas into his diet. lol Also looks kind of older that way.

(Paint him up well and I might be willing to offer a corner of the living room for Leo as storage space should they ever need to find places to keep them. lol )

Edit: If that last pic is Mikey, I hate so say it but he's cuter in unpainted clay than film...

[letscook89]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

And we're having the same debate again.

When you make things look tooooo human - it's terrible, nightmare inducing nasty stuff.

http://gothamist.com/attachments/art...UTSTODAY15.jpg
http://gothamist.com/2015/10/30/lucy...lumpy_head.php




Those examples are terrible comparisons. Also, no, I don't "want" either of those. NOT at all. not in the least. No, I don't. You might, and that's fine - that's you,
but I am not better with the first over the second. That's worse if you ask me. But that's the point. It's cool for you to prefer one over the other, but using the "we" insinuating we all agree with you, is frustrating.
Look up a turtle face. Google red eared slider. Look at them here.
http://www.virginiaherpetologicalsoc.../red-eared.JPG

Yes man, I'd love something that looked like the above pic. Short, animalistic and aggressive. Something that looks plausible, something that tricks the brain, and sells the idea. For a live action film, yes, I would prefer that.
Shreck is a cartoon character, based on whimsey and fantasy, with no real world equivalent - TMNT, are based on a real animal, not an imaginary one.

Without wanting to offend the artist, that school art project does not look like a turtle, and that other, monkey faced head, looks like a green chimp.

Please, can we all just agree that they don't look anything like the actual animals in question? Sure, they look a little like humanized versions of 2k3, or like softened versions of winters soul, but that's not the same argument.

They're designed by people who don't understand anatomy. People who took a two year course, and schmoozed their way into a job. People who don't use reference, and don't plan their designs out in advance.

But man we're talking about TMNT here, which has never been plausible since it's creation. Maybe the tmnt are based on a real animal, but they never looked like this animal. Why ? Because they are cartoonish characters. From the original comic book to the animated series and the 1990's movies, the turtles always looked like cartoon characters. Maybe the Bay turtles look like shrek or cave trolls or hulks, but their faces are more plausible than everything we got before. I know that the 2014 film is stupid as **** and unrealistic at all, but I do prefer their creepy faces than an ultra detailed 100% accurate looking turtle as you describe it.

[Freeman]

I agree with letscook89 that as far as the turtles are cartoon characters, a version like the one of the first picture he posted would look far better.

Back on topic, I think we can all assume these are TMNT 2 promo statues.
Raph has the toothpick, they're using a movie styled reference and Leo has a renueved armorless chest, but they all look defenitely like Bay style turtles and the production of these is too expensive for anyone to do it just because yes.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by letscook89

But man we're talking about TMNT here, which has never been plausible since it's creation. Maybe the tmnt are based on a real animal, but they never looked like this animal. Why ? Because they are cartoonish characters. From the original comic book to the animated series and the 1990's movies, the turtles always looked like cartoon characters. Maybe the Bay turtles look like shrek or cave trolls or hulks, but their faces are more plausible than everything we got before. I know that the 2014 film is stupid as **** and unrealistic at all, but I do prefer their creepy faces than an ultra detailed 100% accurate looking turtle as you describe it.

That's a rational way to look at it, for sure. I still don't agree, but it's more to do with the bad decisions on display, and how unnecessary they are. Like a bad hair cut, some things can be avoided. Also like a bad haircut, you don't point at the scissors used and marvel at their ingenuity.

To you, (and I'm sure 95% of the world) TMNT are a silly idea, and in no way plausible. I think, it depends on your idea of plausible. Mutations happen. Turtles are real animals. We've all been teenagers. Ninja have a historical basis. The mixture is improbable, but then again, nothing about The story itself is any more improbable than say, Jurrasic Park, or Robocop, or any of the numerous popular CBM's of late. No, they didn't get the Dino's right in JP, but they were incredibly plausible. They used reference , they talked to experts, they tried.

There's zero evidence of any effort at all in the PD designs. It looks like they thought about it for three minutes and photobashed It together in another three. Lazy.

Yeah, tmnt never really looked like turtles, but one could argue cartoons in general don't really look like people either. Everything iin FW or 2003 is an approximation.


My point still, is that the tech is possible, to do anything, and really sell it on screen. These designs did not have to suck. If we're going to ignore cheloinian anatomy, and just go cartoon, we could have had really impressive looking Henson turtles with all the nuances the Mocap offers. It's more than possible.

The designs here, simply sh!t the bed.