• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

2007 animated TMNT movie

To clarify what I was saying before, I'm a firm believer in adhering to "authorial intent" in determining whether or not something is directly connected to something else, especially when there is clear indication of what said intent is.

If there's no clear "authorial intent", then I welcome speculation and interpretation, but if there's a clear indication of what an author's intent is, I believe that said intent should be observed and deferred to.

Speaking as an author, we don't want you to be mindless, passive absorbers. We want you to think and use your imagination when you read or view our works. If you come up with an interpretation that differs from ours in an interesting way, that can be very satisfying, or at least interesting, even if we disagree with it. And if a new interpretation satisfies you, that's the most important thing. The creators of fiction are here to provide a service to you. The last thing we want is for you to "defer" to us. What we create is fodder for your own imagination, not a shackle upon it. We find great joy in exercising our own imaginations, and we hope to inspire the same in you.

Besides, we often change our own intent about something, if we come up with a better idea. That's a basic part of the process. A creator's intent is flexible by nature; what we initially intend and what we end up doing instead can be enormously different. Not to mention that different authors working within the same property can -- and almost certainly will -- have different intentions or interpretations, so when it comes to one work within a larger franchise, there can be more than one intent at play to begin with. That's especially true of something with as many branching yet cross-pollinating continuities as TMNT.

My willingness to treat the '07 film as a continuation of the previous films has nothing to do with some need to see myself as a subordinate to the filmmakers' authority. It's something I choose to do because it makes sense to me, because I like the idea. Exploring how different branches of a franchise may or may not interconnect allows me to apply my own creativity to it, to make choices for myself.
 
Continuity is a loose continuum, not absolute Holy Writ.

Anime/manga and the Godzilla movies have played around with continuity in all kinds of creative ways.

I remember when Superman Returns came out, and was presented as being loosely in continuity with Superman: The Movie and Superman II but not with III and IV. Some fans absolutely could not wrap their heads around this concept, reacting like "You can't do that!!" :eek: Um, yes they can. :rolleyes:

Kor
 
I'm disappointed to see that artwork for the never made sequel up thread, I would have loved to have gotten another one of these.
 
I remember when Superman Returns came out, and was presented as being loosely in continuity with Superman: The Movie and Superman II but not with III and IV. Some fans absolutely could not wrap their heads around this concept, reacting like "You can't do that!!" :eek: Um, yes they can. :rolleyes:

Not to mention claiming to be 5 years after Superman II even though it came out more like 25 years later. Which is the same kind of sliding timescale Marvel Comics uses. Of course it's not exactly consistent, but the creators expect the audience to have enough imagination, and enough understanding of how fiction works, to be able to go along with pretending that it's consistent for the sake of the story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kor
Not to mention claiming to be 5 years after Superman II even though it came out more like 25 years later. Which is the same kind of sliding timescale Marvel Comics uses. Of course it's not exactly consistent, but the creators expect the audience to have enough imagination, and enough understanding of how fiction works, to be able to go along with pretending that it's consistent for the sake of the story.
The sliding timescale is an interesting concept, allowing for a good deal of flexibility.

Even within the same movie (Superman I), Clark basically grew up in a 1950s Norman Rockwell Middle-America setting that hadn't existed in a long time (if it ever really did in the first place), then suddenly found himself in a contemporary big city of 1978.

Kor
 
Even within the same movie (Superman I), Clark basically grew up in a 1950s Norman Rockwell Middle-America setting that hadn't existed in a long time (if it ever really did in the first place), then suddenly found himself in a contemporary big city of 1978.

Well, according to Jor-El's voiceover in the Fortress "training montage" sequence, Clark was on his magical mystery tour through the galaxies for at least 12 years -- possibly more like 16, if you add up all the references to years passing in the montage and interpret them as sequential rather than overlapping. He went into the Fortress as Jeff East and came out as Christopher Reeve. So Clark would've left the farm no later than 1966. And he did come from a rural area, possibly more old-fashioned than other parts of the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kor
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top