Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Grading & Discussion

[Tosk]

Because somehow they've finally found the magical formula...how to make movies that are utterly terrible*, that make hundreds of millions of dollars. And they're probably afraid (rightly so?) that to have any of those films actually strive to be great would be to alienate the people that spend all that money.

Either that or they actually think they are making great movies. Which would be really sad.

*Okay, sometimes they are just "Eh, could have been a lot worse. It's just forgettable" rather than truly terrible.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

^ Not everything.

The studio behind the latest revival of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has apologised for a publicity poster which combined a picture of the heroes in a half shell hurtling from a burning building with the legend "September 11". Read more...

Spoiler: the poster.

'When I woke up and saw that, I said, "Are you kidding me?" That was a silly, dumb mistake,' he said.'Trust me - I yelled at them. Normally everything goes through me, and no one showed me that poster.' - Michael Bay

BFD.

People are still being too sensitive.

 

[Cyke101]

As much as I didn't like the movie, I thought some of their criticism missed the mark.

A film can be serious, real-worldly and still be goofy. Just ask Joss Wedon.

But in order to succeed at that, it needs a coherent and believable story. If the plot itself is ludicrous and nonsensical, then the pretense of naturalism and seriousness is incongruous and superficial. I think that's what the article's saying -- that if they were going to put so much effort and care into making the visuals of the Turtles look realistically detailed, why couldn't they put a similar kind of effort into the plot?

Because somehow they've finally found the magical formula...how to make movies that are utterly terrible*, that make hundreds of millions of dollars. And they're probably afraid (rightly so?) that to have any of those films actually strive to be great would be to alienate the people that spend all that money.

Either that or they actually think they are making great movies. Which would be really sad.

*Okay, sometimes they are just "Eh, could have been a lot worse. It's just forgettable" rather than truly terrible.

That's what kills me about the film's defense -- many of the fans argue from the point that being a good movie and being a TMNT movie are somehow mutually exclusive. The film's defense often goes, "Well, what did you expect? They're Ninja Turtles." Yes, everyone expects that, no one expects Citizen Kane, but they expect to be entertained too, and if they're not entertained, then clearly they didn't get the memo that expectations were supposed to be lowered.

There are brainless action flicks out there. There are kids' movies out there. They can still be good, and many of them are. Making a Turtle movie doesn't mean a free pass should be given to any sort of redeeming value. The argument essentially says that what's good for kids can't be good for adults -- but Pixar has an almost perfect library that disputes that argument; Marvel more or less also falls into that category.

 

[Christopher]

There are brainless action flicks out there. There are kids' movies out there. They can still be good, and many of them are. Making a Turtle movie doesn't mean a free pass should be given to any sort of redeeming value. The argument essentially says that what's good for kids can't be good for adults -- but Pixar has an almost perfect library that disputes that argument; Marvel more or less also falls into that category.

I'm always rather horrified to come across the attitude that if something is for children, that gives it a license to be bad. What if we thought that way about food or medicine or clothing or safety gear or education? Don't we owe it to our children to put our best effort and care into everything we make for them?

Besides, there's no shortage of material "for adults" that's absolutely dreadful, like most of "reality" TV or schlocky exploitation films or what-have-you.

 

[DWF]

There are brainless action flicks out there. There are kids' movies out there. They can still be good, and many of them are. Making a Turtle movie doesn't mean a free pass should be given to any sort of redeeming value. The argument essentially says that what's good for kids can't be good for adults -- but Pixar has an almost perfect library that disputes that argument; Marvel more or less also falls into that category.

I'm always rather horrified to come across the attitude that if something is for children, that gives it a license to be bad. What if we thought that way about food or medicine or clothing or safety gear or education? Don't we owe it to our children to put our best effort and care into everything we make for them?

Besides, there's no shortage of material "for adults" that's absolutely dreadful, like most of "reality" TV or schlocky exploitation films or what-have-you.

This is what organizations like the Comics Code Authority and the MPAA were created for ultimately it's up to the parents to decide what good for their children ti, they come of age.

 

[Cyke101]

There are brainless action flicks out there. There are kids' movies out there. They can still be good, and many of them are. Making a Turtle movie doesn't mean a free pass should be given to any sort of redeeming value. The argument essentially says that what's good for kids can't be good for adults -- but Pixar has an almost perfect library that disputes that argument; Marvel more or less also falls into that category.

I'm always rather horrified to come across the attitude that if something is for children, that gives it a license to be bad. What if we thought that way about food or medicine or clothing or safety gear or education? Don't we owe it to our children to put our best effort and care into everything we make for them?

Besides, there's no shortage of material "for adults" that's absolutely dreadful, like most of "reality" TV or schlocky exploitation films or what-have-you.

This is what organizations like the Comics Code Authority and the MPAA were created for ultimately it's up to the parents to decide what good for their children ti, they come of age.

Not really. The CCA and MPAA monitor(ed) sex, violence, and adult situations, not the artistic or entertainment merits of the project. They're watchdogs, not critics (indeed, plenty of critics vehemently disagree with the policies and practices of the CCA and MPAA).

 

[DWF]

I'm always rather horrified to come across the attitude that if something is for children, that gives it a license to be bad. What if we thought that way about food or medicine or clothing or safety gear or education? Don't we owe it to our children to put our best effort and care into everything we make for them?

Besides, there's no shortage of material "for adults" that's absolutely dreadful, like most of "reality" TV or schlocky exploitation films or what-have-you.

This is what organizations like the Comics Code Authority and the MPAA were created for ultimately it's up to the parents to decide what good for their children ti, they come of age.

Not really. The CCA and MPAA monitor(ed) sex, violence, and adult situations, not the artistic or entertainment merits of the project. They're watchdogs, not critics (indeed, plenty of critics vehemently disagree with the policies and practices of the CCA and MPAA).

And you're missing the point, it's still up to a child's parent or guardian to decide what they watch and read until they come of age. The MPAA and CCA aren't watchdogs, they're meant to set the standard by which those kind of decisions are made. But the CCA is a joke anymore and the MPAA has no control over the television broadcast of movies and who can watch them.

 

[Trekker4747]

There are brainless action flicks out there. There are kids' movies out there. They can still be good, and many of them are. Making a Turtle movie doesn't mean a free pass should be given to any sort of redeeming value. The argument essentially says that what's good for kids can't be good for adults -- but Pixar has an almost perfect library that disputes that argument; Marvel more or less also falls into that category.

I'm always rather horrified to come across the attitude that if something is for children, that gives it a license to be bad. What if we thought that way about food or medicine or clothing or safety gear or education? Don't we owe it to our children to put our best effort and care into everything we make for them?

Besides, there's no shortage of material "for adults" that's absolutely dreadful, like most of "reality" TV or schlocky exploitation films or what-have-you.

Not to mention the countless movies "made for children" that are enjoyed by adults as well. (SEE: Pixar) Or heck the number of "adult" movies enjoyed by children (SEE: Ghostbusters, Robocop, Back to the Future, all "adult movies" that became popular with children, families and had cartoon adaptations.)

Being "for children" doesn't give a movie an excuse to be dumb, and I'd argue this movie wasn't for children given some of the content in it. Also considering many current 20/30-something adults were Turtles fsns back in the 80s and 90s so it's foolish to not try and appeal to their nostalgia.

 

[Cyke101]

This is what organizations like the Comics Code Authority and the MPAA were created for ultimately it's up to the parents to decide what good for their children ti, they come of age.

Not really. The CCA and MPAA monitor(ed) sex, violence, and adult situations, not the artistic or entertainment merits of the project. They're watchdogs, not critics (indeed, plenty of critics vehemently disagree with the policies and practices of the CCA and MPAA).

And you're missing the point, it's still up to a child's parent or guardian to decide what they watch and read until they come of age. The MPAA and CCA aren't watchdogs, they're meant to set the standard by which those kind of decisions are made. But the CCA is a joke anymore and the MPAA has no control over the television broadcast of movies and who can watch them.

Wait, but the standards by which those decisions are made are different than quality, however. You're conflating judgment of maturity with judgment of quality. No one in this thread said there's too much sex or violence or crude humor in TMNT (as far as I know), but rather the concern is whether or not the movie is simply a good product. And with that said, the MPAA is far more concerned with the former, and couldn't care less about the latter. Christopher wasn't talking about depictions that the MPAA or other groups/parents might object to or question, he was talking about the quality of movies. He was talking about the parents' choice for their children to watch/not watch this movie based on how good it is, not because of objectionable material -- and the MPAA is far more concerned about objectionable material. So you misunderstand the MPAA's mission.

TMNT could be Rated G or Rated R on a whim (and the MPAA is arbitrary in that regard), but that has absolutely no bearing on just how good or bad of a movie it is. That's a totally different set of decisions that are up to the parents that don't doesn't relate to the kind of content, but the quality of content. Christopher is arguing that a family movie should be judged based on whether or not it's good, which is a completely different set of criteria than the MPAA's rating mechanism since they judge based on morality, not quality.

With that said, they are indeed watchdogs. They order studios to trim and edit their movies to go from NC-17 to Rated R (whether or not studios adhere is something else entirely). They dictate how many times the F-word can be said to allow for a PG-13 movie. They sometimes give ratings that are too high and restrictive to otherwise harmless fare. They're the ones that decide whether a boob is more traumatizing than a decapitation. Roger Ebert (among others) wrote tons of essays blasting Jack Valenti on how much pressure the MPAA would put on studios, directors, and producers to ditch their artistic vision and go for more family-friendly fare. And now the MPAA monitors torrents and streams, ready to sue at a moment's notice. They're watchdogs, plain and simple; they dictate the ratings, their board decides what passes their standards of decency, and they'll pursue legal action if they feel like it.

 

[Christopher]

Actually, I wasn't talking about parents' choices concerning their children's viewing at all. On the contrary, I was talking about adults' choices for their own viewing, and the tendency to assume that if something is made for children, it must be too bad or stupid to be worthwhile for adults. It's that attitude of "If it's for kids, then it doesn't need any effort or quality put into it" that rather horrifies me.

 

[Cyke101]

Actually, I wasn't talking about parents' choices concerning their children's viewing at all. On the contrary, I was talking about adults' choices for their own viewing, and the tendency to assume that if something is made for children, it must be too bad or stupid to be worthwhile for adults. It's that attitude of "If it's for kids, then it doesn't need any effort or quality put into it" that rather horrifies me.

Yeah, I admit, I got a bit overzealous there (sorry about misrepresenting you), but my point to DWF is that MPAA isn't an arbiter of taste, and so not a decider of what's good/bad, smart/stupid. So to bring them up relative to choice doesn't match up with what they actually do. Yeah, MPAA and CCA try to dictate parenting, but that dictation is based on moral standards, not quality of movie (which is the original point re: the false logic that "kids = dumb entertainment").

 

[DWF]

Except that it's up to teh viewer to decide whither a given movie is "good" or "bad" and for that a person has to view it for themselves. And atter Wolverine #125 it was fairly well known that the CCA no longer exists as it once did.

 

[Trekker4747]

Watching the first, original, movie on DVD right now and, again, it really is amazing how good this movie is considering its budgetary restraints and technological restraints of the time.

The Jim Henson Creature Shop suits and animatronics just look great. I mean, yeah there some "lip syncing" issues here and there, there's times when their shells are obviously bendy rubber rather than a harder bone-like material, heck there's even a scene where we see the hilt of one of Leonardo's katanas catch on some molding in April's hall and it bends and eventually flops free from the pressure.

But, really this movie looks fantastic and actually not too bad of a story. Great use of Casey and all four turtles (though Leo and Raph obviously have the stronger characters and "arc" in the movie) and use of April (though that "kid in me" still thinks they should have gone with much more of a knock-out for April. Hoag looks good and does a good job, but the cartoon sets April's looks, personality, and chemistry so high. But she does a good job in the role.) I don't think the characters of April's boss and his son were really needed.

Really, the new movie would have been great if maybe it had tried to be a lot closer to this. Especially in the look of the turtles. I mean they're pretty much flawless other than the minor quibbles I mentioned above. Hardier costumes and maybe CGI for the mouth movements and maybe some of the action scenes could have been done. But the fight scenes in this movie are good. I love how in the subway station scene Raph uses his sais without "actually using them."

 

[Myko]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjR4uHW1J_s

In this French trailer you can clearly hear William Fichtner as the Shredder. The production of this movie was so messed up.

 

[Mr Light]

As a ten year old, I thought that TMNT 1 was too dark and depressing and slow, while TMNT 2 was just pure awesomeness.

When I think back of TMNT 1, all I can remember is April's house burning down and the Turtles being depressed and living in exile at April's farm...

 

[Tosk]

As a ten year old, I thought that TMNT 1 was too dark and depressing and slow, while TMNT 2 was just pure awesomeness.

It was the same for me. I watched the '80s cartoon (of course) so when I saw the first film, I was actually a little disappointed. TMNT2 was closer to what I had expected. It was only as I grew up that I realized how great the first film is and how terrible the second one is.

Same deal with Superman 1 and 2.

 

[Mudd]

Saw it today.

I think it's a mistake to have released this kind of Oscar-bait this long before October.

 

[Agent Richard07]

Here's some concept art for Rocksteady and Bebop...

You can see more pictures of both them, Krang and two versions of Shredder here.

 

[Trekker4747]

It seems very,very early for this. Is this "official" concept art from any level of production currently going on or is the fan-generated concept art?

If it's official, why the fuck do Bebop and Rocksteady look better, and more like, their cartoon counterparts than the turtles did?!

And given the turtles are 6-feet, plus, tall how tall are Bebop and Rockstead going to be? 8 feet? 10 feet?

 

[Agent Richard07]

^ The concepts were made by Tsvetomir Georgiev who works for the Aaron Sims Company which was responsible for the character designs for the first movie. I think these were made when they were supposed to be in the film.