I personally just felt it was an insult to the Shredder to change him into an alien. The whole idea behind Shredder was that he was a murderous, cold blooded human killer in a slicer suit. His whole hatred of Splinter and his master was a very human thing. Plus, he did come back as a clone and even at one point with Raphael dressing up as Shredder and acting like him for a while.

And to me, seeing him as basically a Men in Black alien style suit was upsetting. Plus the fact he has a human daughter brings up several questions about some probably disturbing results. Anywho, I think Shredder has a very commanding prescence and that it'd be a shame not to see him again.

Most people don't know this movie picked up the original 3 and the Shredder is the turtles HEAD nemesis. He's just as big as Joker is to Batman or Agent Smith to Neo. But I do think they should bring in some more villains. I personally would like to see some of the OTHER mutants like Slash, Wingnut, or Baxter Stockmen.

And by Baxter I mean the FLY Baxter, the one I grew up with on the cartoon. I realize Baxter is really a evil black scientist but I loved the idea of him being turned into a mutant whining fly freak. Plus even though he's not an Utrom, it'd be a real nice treat to see an updated Krang on the big screen.

I'd rather not have fly Baxter back. After being exposed to the original Stockman, I'd much prefer him.

As for the Shredder, there's still so many other things that can be done. A Battle Nexus movie would be amazing beyond belief. But unfortunately that's way too outside for the mainstream. I still want to see someone like Usagi pop up in the film, fat chance though. I mean they could even expand the time scepter's abililites to being able to transport them to other universes or something.

The changing of Shredder from human to alien was no more insulting than making Hamato Yoshi and Splinter one and the same. Or taking away Baxter's menace, as they did in the 87 series. Don't get me wrong, I grew up with and loved the 87 series same as you. I just feel that the movies, barring the 3rd, the 03 series, and the original comics are a cut above. And I really hope they stick with the fact that the continuity is carried over from the original films.

One thing though, April lost years off her age and also gained a degree in Latin American anthropology? That's the one plot hole I can't get over.

To be honest with you, Mr. Marshmallow, I actually have to agree with AeroStarMonk.

YES, I also have watch the 1987 version of TMNT, including the movies, but I wasn't hooked up on the series itself.

But after watching the 2003 version, I actually enjoyed this one for many reasons: it follows more closely to the comic book, the show actually killed off some characters (even if they were off-screen), and some episodes were actually controversial (especially "Insane in the Membrane", which is now available on DVD and "Nightmare Recycled", which was never completed, due to the subject of conjoin twins).

As for the Shredder, I was shocked that he became an alien, but other than that, I didn't have any problem with it. However, the original Shredder does indeed show up. However, he only appears in the lost season, which can be viewed on youtube.

Baxter's true nature just won't fly with kids though, pardon the pun. The Shredder was even toned down for the films considering I've been told he was down right ruthless in the comics. It all depends on which mainstream they intend on basing it off of.

Baxter's fly form has certainly become his iconic image though. Every turtles game that involves him has him in the fly form. I was never a fan of them making Splinter and Yoshi the same in the first place, but considering Shredder was always depicted as the hated rival of Yoshi or Splinter in any version.

It's kind of disappointing to see him become just an alien. The Shredder always impressed me because he WAS a human. A normal human being who is able to instill such fear and control creatures just as equally dangerous and powerful as the ones he tried to kill, now that is quite impressive.

Being true to the comics though isn't always what its cracked up to be. Because if you follow that same system, April isn't even a real human. I heard the comics said she was just some drawing that crystals brought to life. Nothing ever translates 100% from comic to movie perfectly, and to be honest, I don't want it to either.

There are some things that just work better as comics and some things that should stay there. Change also can be good if handled properly, consider Tim Burton's versions of the Penguin and the Joker, both had large differences from their comic book forms but were absolutely amazing on film.

I know the 87 series was kiddie friendly, I don't doubt that, but it brought in so many characters that the 2003 series I doubt would ever consider using. Plus the fact Shredder is an Utrom kills the whole comic book authenticity right there. I guess to me the alien revelation took away the "reality" in Shredder, aside from April, he's always been the biggest human factor.

Now in regards to April I don't think she lost years I think any animated version of her would look young, no matter how much they tinkered around with it. My guess is that her reporting job failed. She was always getting yelled or getting in trouble as a reporter in all of the movies, and judging by her appearance and general attitude in the 3rd movie, I think she might already been thinking of a new job or possibly just getting out of her old one.

Plus, I think she learned anthropology (or took a basic course) just to help her get a heads up on finding Leo. I also think her current job works for her because she's able to have Casey Jones at her side. It's important for them as a couple, and considering Jones has never had a REAL life to live off of.

Now mock them all you want, but I think that if there are ANY TMNT characters that deserve screen time it's Bebop and Rocksteady. I loved Tokka and Rahzar but I feel Rocksteady and Bebop deserve their place on the big screen, they are classic characters and nothing in this world can ever erase my memory of their use in the cartoon show.

The show may have been kiddish and they may have been as smart as sock puppets, but I feel there as big a part of the turtles universe as anyone else.

I really wouldn't say that fly Baxter is iconic because he's in all the video games. I really think people in the mainstream could digest the mad scientist with knowledge of robotics a lot more easily than the fly premise.

I must say I'm just as impressed with this Shredder. He still instills fear to me. The thought that somehow, even in a race of peaceful aliens, an evil so hatful could be bred is frightening. Not only that he takes the mantle of something that inspires fear in humans as well. I gagged at first at the whole alien thing, but it really started to grow on me after awhile. The Shredder always had an air of the supernatural about him, this being that seemed unstoppable, and then to find out that stripped of his armor he's even more vulnerable than your average being is chilling. Over a period of a thousand years what was little more than a lump of walking grey matter had evolved into what probably was the most powerful being on the planet, and what's more, few people even knew. That whole dual nature thing was appealing to me. It's only his reputation that was indestructible, the being itself was quite vulnerable, something that has been inherent in the character in all interpretations. So I think the authenticity is still there.

As for characters that changed in other comic movies. I liked Burton's Batmans, but Jack Nicholson's Joker is just dull compared to the comics and of course Mark Hamill. I mean so dull. I couldn't feel the menace or the insanity. He could've been a guy wearing makeup who liked to rob banks, but the Joker he wasn't. As for the Penguin, he was a lot of fun, but I always got the vibe that he was weird just for the sake of being weird. And he probably was being that Tim Burton admitted he'd rather die than ever read a comic book. But that's all I'm going to say on that matter.

I really don't see a need for Bebop and Rocksteady. I mean why not just bring everyone back from the 87 series while we're at it. It seems like they're taking dash of the old Laird/Eastman series, a heaping helping of the films, a pinch of 87 series, a sprinkling of the 03, and maybe a spoonful of the Archie run to make this series. I don't want to see it get too bogged down trying to interpret one iteration of the characters. Though like I said, I'd still like to see them follow their continuity and leave Shredder out, at least until a third movie.

Hamill's Joker to me brought the evil laugh in, he never came anywhere near the amount of murderous insanity Nicholson gave him. Aside from Batman Beyond's movie version of Joker and that to me took way too long to bring in. Bebop and Rocksteady are not a sign of everything 80s coming back.

They are in fact SUPPOSED to have been here already. They were the original mutants chosen to be where Tokka and Rahzar were, but because their creator didn't want them to mess with his designs they invented Tokka and Rahzar. They got cheated out of it and I feel they deserve it, 80s series or no 80s series.

Besides, the whole indestructible thing really loses points for me simply because we know all along that it was pretty indestructible, it was a machine. A walking, talking toy costume that was operated ala Men in Black style. A human to be is always more vulnerable then an alien, even a small alien like the Utroms.

The whole indestructible theory though really doesn't sound like anything unique to villains though, I never was aware this kind of title surrounded Shredder but considering villains always have a way of coming back from the dead (one way or another), it doesn't sound like much to me personally.

It wasn't really the man, it was the rep behind the man. No matter what he could be destroyed but the Shredder would always live on. Not even Utrom Saki was the original Shredder. Sort of a who's Keyser Soze thing.

Bebop and Rocksteady weren't in the original comic they actually were created for the show. It's just that the concepts they were based on were way toned down. I mean I wouldn't mind them showing up, but they really have no reason to. They aren't major villains themselves and without Shredder to anchor them to they just don't fit.

I never really got that murderous insanity from Nicholson. I mean he just seemed like your average killer. His version of Torrance in the Shining was closer to the Joker for me than the actual Joker in Burton's film. His defanging of such a great villain was inexcusable especially without the censors that hampered Hamill's Joker. But the Joker is not just about his murderous insanity. It's about his sick twisted sense of humor which was only displayed a couple of times in the film, but numerous times in the animated series. The setup and punchlines were set up beautifully in the series. Especially in Joker's Favor.

BTW, thanks Mr. M. It's great to have someone here I can just geek out with.

No prob, but Joker to me is more then just a sense of humor, he was crazy in that movie and he was what I was hoping he would be: the life of the movie. Joker may not have stepped time out of the film to do long, over extended psychological or physical torture scenes but he still proved his madness.

Consider how carelessly Joker slaughtered Gotham's organized crime members, or how he managed to poison thousands into grinning corpses, and by far his most sickening act, the gas balloons filled to kill nearly every citizen of Gotham. To me, this Joker had more life and more "moodyness" that I always expected.

Hamill's Joker was more like the comics but I did find him at times to seem a bit too "proper" and not nearly as black hearted until the series came closer to the finish line. But back to turtles, Bebop and Rocksteady don't necessarily need Shredder to be apart of the films, they can be included with anyone.

With a new bad guy, or a new head mutant villain or whatever. The reason I'd like to see them is because they represent what Shredder really wanted from the ooze, "freak vs. freak". Tokka and Rahzar however were infants and didn't really get the way Shredder wanted it. No mutant has since showed up.

I just would like to see some mutant villain show up no matter who he works with, and comic or not, I thinking using a semi-famous one wouldn't be that out of line considering it's an easier way to get people involved. There's also Leatherhead, Slash, Dirtbag, Groundchuck, Scumbug, or even Antrax.

Whether they were in the cartoon series or not, Turtles has alot of mutants at their disposal to use.

I love Leatherhead, I hope he's the one to show up. Maybe they could come up with some new characters too. Winters and the Generals were great additions and something I could actually see being in one of the previous iterations. I mean it just fit so well with the usual TMNT stuff. If Kevin Munroe can come up with more stuff like this, more power to him.

I really feel that Burton didn't understand the Joker. Otherwise he'd be some no name guy and he wouldn't have been a substitue for Joe Chill. Part of the beauty of the Joker is that he has no set origin story other than the vat of chemicals. Even the comics never gave him a true identity. Being homicidal is not just killing people en masse. That's not what Joker is about to me. It's that mix of the homicidal with the humor and the fact that he would sacrifice both to mess with Batman. And I just didn't get that impression at all from Nicholson's Joker. In fact there's only been two onscreen Jokers who've fit and that's Hamill's and Richardson's.

The Joker in all 3 forms (movies, original series, and new one) were represneted differently. Nicholson did bring out the coldest aspects of the Joker, even with all the censoring, Joker never targeted so many people and used death so frequently as he did in the movies.

The toons mostly used him doing crimes to either get Batman's attention or make a scene. Interesting to note is that Jack Napier was pretty tame as a hit man and it was only after he became the Joker he truly lost it. Burton's Joker is the same Joker but with a livelier spark, he was more jumpy then the others.

I would have liked the Turtles to make more use of the 13 monsters, it was a shame they only got to battle Bigfoot and the Jersey devil and not the other 11.

The capture sequence was a lot of fun I must admit. Even if it did give the rest of the monsters the shaft. You just gave two of the monsters name, which actually makes a good theory to where these monsters have been hiding out for the past 3000 years.

For 3000 years these guys have been the key factors in shaping the legends of the things that go bump in the night. Now a good follow-up fan-fic writer would actually write about the decrease in sightings of Bigfoot and the Jersey Devil and others.

That's interesting. I hadn't really thought of it that way.
I was wondering though... were most of the monsters captured in one night? That Kind of threw me off. I thought the montage sequence took over the space of a few nights but then the next scene Splinter turns on the TV and it has reports on just the last night. It's not a big deal it just kind of bothered me.

I'm for Shredder coming back. Just because he's awesome and that would make sense to me.

Sadly I can't admit credit for those names, I went to some movie sites looking for still images on TMNT and one in particular showed individual images of the 13 monsters and two images gave those particular monsters the names of Bigfoot and Jersey devil. They read as Bigfoot monster and Jersey devil monster.

My made up names were Primator for the big blue ape beast, and Tomato for the devil one (because he attacked a kitchen and is small and red). The other 11 monsters didn't have any specific names, they were branded with bland generic names like centaur monster, vampire monster, and spider monster etc.

I did however think up names for the others, though there just my ideas on names for them. When I was younger I would think up names for monsters I saw on TV or movies that weren't given names and try to name them myself. I still do that today with shows like Ben 10 and Teen Titans.

My other monster names included:

Spydex - the spider monster
Zuul - the centaur monster
Flaps - the giant bat monster
Tuskus - the last monster (the one that chased Casey, April, and Karai)
Nozz - the big nostril looking monster

EDIT

If it wasn't over one night then it's possible they went on monster hunting all through the night but I personally think it did happen over many nights. My guess is the report where the Turtles battled Bigfoot arrived late and the news took their time airing it. No doubt to assess the weirdness of the news story, I mean were talking giant turtles, apes, and ninjas here.

Nice Ghostbusters reference. High Five!

I'm not against seeing the Shredder in a later movie, just not right away. Though I'm kinda betting on the wrong horse there. If there is going to be a sequel in the theatres it will most assuredly have the Shredder. Well, I at least hope he's sort of this hulking thing. Somewhere between his normal form and his form after being mutated. Not for the whole movie though, that would be sorta stupid.

I just noticed that I sound sorta like a double-talker now. What I meant by staying dead was in the way most comic villains stay dead, and come back when least expected if need be. You know I'm not really helping myself here. I'll just hold my tongue and stop trying to explain myself.

Heh thanks 8-) as far as Shredder goes, I kind of feel the same way you do but about the new "Dark Knight" sequel movie there making for Batman. I am upset they are using the Joker again, I really don't think they need to be bringing him back into the movies.

Yes he could have been more like the comics but no matter how skeptical anyone is of Nicholson's version of the Joker, I hardly think it desires a revamp. The ONLY Batman villains I felt that were botched up and could use a second time on screen would be Two-face and DEFINITELY Bane.

But despite how good "Begins" was, I still would be happier seeing someone new in the Batman movies then the Joker. Killer Croc, The Mad Hatter, Firefly, Black Mask, plenty to pick from. The only thing is I'm sure Joker is being brought back for the same reason Shredder is being brought back: popularity.

Shredder is a very popular villain and I feel better about him coming back then Joker mainly because seeing an animated version is not nearly as upsetting as a whole new LIVE version. My guess is that Shredder will be back to normal and not be Super Shredder, though he will probably be very deformed.

Considering he was scarred by Splinter, nearly crushed to death by a garbage compactor, horribly mutated, and then smashed by a mountain's worth of solid wood, I have a feeling Shredder is never going to want to take off his helmet and see his face again after all that.

I actually understand them bringing back the Joker. They're establishing a whole new universe with the Batman movies and since they seem to be trying to get a whole bunch of DC movies set in the same universe started, including a JLA film, they want to bring in the top villain as well. Plus they have a chance to correct the mistake that Burton made, you don't kill off someone like the Joker.

I personally can't wait until the next film, or at least until the decide to go back into production on a decent version of the cartoons. TMNT that is. Fast Forward isn't bad, but there should never be any reason whatsoever that you should pray for the days of Season 10 of the 87 series. Not that they were bad, they just paled in comparison to the previous seasons. Fast Forward doesn't even have that going for it. It's that pile of trash with the eclair on top. And I'll be damned if I have to continue to be the Costanza in this situation.

That I actually disagree with, in all honesty they really had to. When your doing a comic book movie you have to keep things fresh and above all, NEVER bring back the same bad guy. Comic books have the largest assortment of villains in all forms of media and it's boring to see the same hat trick twice.

Joker needed to die, having him arrested or locked up leaves a plot hole possibility that he may come back and we know that would never happen. That's why Penguin, Two-face, Bane, and Joker were killed off so they could rank in newer villains each film. Same with Spider-man, and X-men, and etc.

The trouble is that Shredder is so strong a villain that it's very hard to keep a movie going without him, he really is the strongest villain (influence wise) the turtles series has. I am getting into Fast Forward a little, they actually have some interesting villains and I especially want to know more about Cody.

His whole existence and tie in with April and Casey is a fascinating one and I hope they develop him a bit more and his relationship with Starlee.

Actually I don't find him getting away any different than Crane escaping on horseback or Al-Ghul's body not being shown. If the body's not shown, that always means he's still alive.

Same thing with Luthor in Superman. You just don't kill these guys off. Because if something new can be done with them, why do away with them? It's almost an insult to the character really. I mean all these years he's been able to escape in the comic book and the tv shows, not naming anyone just villains in general, and then he dies so easily in the movie.

Even Magneto's still alive, and the Marvel Universe has more top flight villains than DC. Once you get past Joker, Catwoman and Penguin the mainstream starts scratching their heads, but there are many Marvel villains people know about, and yet all three movies featured Magneto. Nothing to say from the Hellfire Club, Apocalypse, Emma Frost, Sentinels and Master Mold, Mr Sinster. Not saying these are anymore mainstream than a lot of the DC villains, but they are considered still your A-Listers. It's awhile before you get to what many would call jokey or gimmicky villains in the eyes of the mainstream. But that's just my opinion. Don't get me wrong I love DC and Marvel equally. It's just that Marvel's villains always seemed like something that would be easier to swallow in instant translation unlike many DC guys.

I'm not saying dont kill them off ever, just kill them off when suspension of disbelief can no longer maintain these guys being out about or at least not heavily injured.

The reason Shredder is such a strong villain is because until recently they weren't really game to hand over the stage to someone else. I mean the entire run of the comics they ran into some of the weirdest things possible. And they're talking turtles!! So if it weirds them out, you know it's something.

Like I said a Battle Nexus movie would be glorious. A Fugitoid movie would be quite fun. Even a lost city movie would be interesting. There are many stories they can explore that don't have to fall back on the Shredder. So the only way I'd like the Shredder to come back is if they have a great story that makes me not think, what if they would've did this other thing instead, for the 90 minutes I watch.

Luthor is an exception, he honestly has nothing up his sleeve that would allow him to go toe to toe with Superman aside from a robot suit or a kryptonite rock. He's more brains then brawn where as Joker CAN actually fight Batman and is supported by his bags of tricks and killer clown weapons.

I felt Crane vanishing was rather stupid and considering the ungodly explosion that engulfed Gul's body, I highly doubt he survived that, immortality isn't the same thing as invincibility. The reason Magneto lived is because he's not your average villain, he's NOT really evil but in a sense a confused mutant.

He wants the same thing as Xavier but just goes about it the wrong way, and besides, Batman's films have always been darker in nature so killing off villains would fit right in. Plus like I said it's bad to leave them out and about or alive because then it leaves open plot holes, some that may never be filled.

Supposed Scarecrow never comes back in the films, its gonna look awful stupid if they just leave it at that. That's why I felt weird having the Riddler live because you know the movies ended with him still being locked up. Now Shredder see, they actually did the right thing killing him off twice.

The first time he fell, you could easily believe he died considering the truck, but they found a way to dig him back up and live for number 2. There's always a way to bring someone back from the dead, but there's not always going to be time to go back and fill in the plothole someone left behind.

I'm not saying all villains need to die, I'm just saying if your super hero of choice has a very colorful cast of villains to choose from like Batman or Spider man, get as many as you can on screen while you have the chance. Some super hero films though only have like one strong key villain.

Dr. Doom from Fantastic 4 and Kingpin from Daredevil come to mind. And in regards to the whole other X-men villains, I think the reason they didn't use all those other guys is because some of them were a bit too out of this world. Apocalypse, Mojo, and the Sentinels are kind of "stretching it".

Like I said, just because the Turtles or Batman either went into outer space or traveled back in time in comic books, doesn't mean people are going to swallow the same story on film.

I think Turtles weirdest adventures actually would do well on screen. The current movie is quite fantastic in nature, and despite being the lowest-grossing of the four, it still drew the people in.

There still was no body, and in movies and comics alike that usually means the guy is still alive. We haven't seen the last of Al-Ghul, and if we have seen the last of Ducard, the League of Shadows lives on and thus so does Al-Ghul.

You can't kill the Joker, because Batman doesn't kill. It's one of his rules, and I doubt they're going to set it up again where Batman refuses to save somebody. And I think this is still a good idea. If this is the franchise that becomes the Bond of the comic book world, it's probably best to leave the villains alive for the most part.

As for Apocalypse and the like, no more stretching it than Angel flying 3000 miles in the matter of minutes in X3. I think it's sort of an insult to audience if you think they can't buy certain concepts onscreen. The same audience who've bought giant apes, radiated lizards, rising dead, time travel and space aliens able to be beaten by a virus from a Mac. You gotta have faith in your audiences or you trap yourself in box.

I hope they realize this for Turtles and actually will give them some really cool adventures. Or at least a really twisted version of City at War.

The body thing really doesn't pan out for most comic book movies. People are vaporized, things get blown up melted etc, Gul's body was fried and just because they didn't take the time to show a body doesn't mean one didn't come out. Gul is gone because they can't have made him immortal.

Batman Begins is the most realistic form of Batman ever and the reason they didn't delve too deeply into the possibility of his immortality is because it honestly would look and sound stupid considering the movie is so realistic. Even in movies there are rules for how weird things can get.

Speed and flight and all that is nothing compared to something as insanely dramatically altering as time travel, aliens, bringing back from the dead etc. The thing is though you CAN kill the Joker, he's been killed twice in media. The live movie killed him and so did Batman Beyond.

Like I said, comics are one thing, movies are another. Audiences do buy weird things but not everyone wants to see the same weird things mixed in. The first 2 turtle movies only had ONE logic defying concept: the mutants, the 3rd movie brought in time travel and surprise, surprise, it sucked.

My point is that I can buy ANY weird ass concept I see in a movie, BUT, i can't buy ANY weird ass concept in every movie I see. The critics mostly ripped on the absurdity of the story so I doubt that if a sequel is made, they will push the reality factor any farther then they did considering that was one of it's biggest reported criticisms.

I can buy Superman flying into another dimension and seeing him battle Darkseid and Parademons but in a movie, that's another story. Same with X-men, only ONE factor of reality has been tampered: the mutants. That's why we didn't see Apocalypse or Sinister, or Sauron or the Sentinels.

The X-men movies are set up in a way that it has become plausible for people to believe this world is populated by mutants, the mutants are the only reality defying element in X-men. Giant robots and aliens would not work in the X-men movies, not after the tone of the films have been set firmly in reality.

The Phoniex herself was originally an alien, changed to a mutant, Juggernaut's mystical background was ignored and called simply a mutant, why? Because as stupid as it sounds, even movies about talking turtles and people who shoot lasers out of their eyes have rules and boundaries.

For some reason that just sounds so apologist. No offense. It seems like like an excuse to not try. Why even translate a comic book if you don't want to take some of the more extraordinary aspects and intergrate them into the movie. I'm not talking carbon copy, I'm just saying sort of what you're saying with the whole villains things, why ignore so many good stories because people don't want to see weird stuff? If people don't want to see weird things, well the latest comedy or whatever is playing in the next theatre.

As for the realistic version of Batman, the cancels out so many villains right there. Mr. Freeze, Mad Hatter, Clayface II-IV. Just to name a few. I'm really hoping that they change their minds and actually go in a more fantastic noirish direction. I don't want just an action movie with a man in a bat costume, I want a comic book adaptation about Batman. I love that movie, but they stripped him of his genius, detective skills, tech skills, and chemistry skills. So now he's just a martial artist. So far the best adaptation of the comic so far has been B:TAS, which struck a nice balance between what would be too unbelievable and what actually works. I still consider Burton's to be a valiant but utterly broken Elseworlds title.

Man, now I'm starting to understand how those Transformers fans feel.

Al-ghul's title could live on, and the Joker had to be killed twice in the Timmverse and his legacy still lives on in the gangs of Batman Beyond. So I'm really hoping they don't kill him off, cause I still really think there''s no reason to.

I really do hope they don't just fall back on the Shredder in the sequel to turtles. As for the absurdity of the story, I think that has less to do with the premise and more to do with the convenience of events. Or at least the sembalance of convenience. I mean some people are so quick to point out plotholes they actually don't think within context of the movie to see that it actually does make sense according to that world's logic.

People are willing to take absurdity and fantasy in movies, but ONLY if it's presented right off the bat. When you make a movie about any series what you do in that movie will forever establish the mindset you want for that series. Star Wars started right off the mark with magic, aliens, death stars and what not.

Turtles started on a very realistic note, like I said, they were the only "out of this world" element in the film. It'd be like if you had aliens appear in the new "Mummy" movies series. Yes we were willing to take the walking dead and egyptian monsters here, but if you throw in aliens that's gonna seem very off.

Turtles have been established on realistic values in their films, and the one time they went into total sci-fi territory (number 3) it tanked. Movies always have you suspend disbelief, that's the charm of a movie. But that level of suspended disbelief can become worn if too much science fiction is incorporated.

Notice how most of Batman's villains (especially the ones used in movies) are realistic. Batman has few meta human freaks in his villains gallery, and even fewer have shown up on film. That's why we never saw anyone like Clayface or Killer Croc because they can only suspend so much disbelief.

Ra's Al Ghul is not realistic, but because they didn't elaborate his immortality issues in "Begins", it's easier to swallow. Look at Batman's villains, they suffer from REAL LIFE circumstances that could be bought in reality. Insanity, psychological issues, physical deformities, all very plausible stuff.

Joker is not only a dangerous choice to remake since (like it or not) so many people loved Nicholson's Joker, but also because Joker is NOT a very plausible character considering his origins. Joker can easily make or break this series if they handle his plausibility and his performance incorrectly.

TMNT probably could have been more plausible if they simply had not pushed in so much sci-fi. Gargoyle generals, immortals, mystical demons, magic and dimensional portals are alot to overload on a franchise that stayed very below the "sci-fi" radar outside of the whole concept of walking talking mutations.

That is why the movie's creator doubts the producers will go for the Tricertons. Science fiction mixes with science fiction like with any other chemical or substance: over time. Had they gradually taken more time to make this TMNT plot more in depth it would have been easier to handle.

But because so many mystical elements were shoveled into one storyline for 4 mutant turtles who have never done anything totally absurd, other then fight other mutants and the Shredder. Movies has limits and so do people's abilities to suspend disbelief. Different movie, different amount of disbelief to suspend.

Gee, that's a real shame. Though I really do think you overestimate the love for Nicholson's Joker. He really wasn't that good. He was Jack Napier, but he was no Joker. Besides there is speculation that there won't even be an origin for the Joker in The Dark Knight. His origins are disreputable anyway, because he's always the one telling the story. No one knows how it really happened, and he sure won't be telling the truth anytime soon.

I think the reason the third Turtles movie tanked had to do with the horrible story not the premise. It could've been very easy to swallow, they just wrote a bad movie. I'm going to get very tired of the film series if they just fight mutants and Shredder every time out. Mainly because although he's a great villain, he was never meant to be so strong in the long run, and over-reliance on him is just going to wear thin real quick. Plus, there's only so many times a canister of mutagen can just fall off the back of a truck.

As for Batman, it's not just their apperance but the nature of their powers. It's going to be really hard to portray mind control for the Mad Hatter, or the complex tragedy of Mr. Freeze plus him walking around in a suit keeping him below freezing while he's also carrying a freezing gun. Poison Ivy's extreme immune system and manipulation of plants. And if no one buys these top listers, they're definitely never going to buy Firefly, The Ventriloquist, Ragdoll, King Tut, Clock King, or possibly even the Riddler. They're going to have to lighten up on the reality for the sake of the longevity of the series. Plus to increase enjoyability in my opinion. I actually think the most enjoyable live action Batman was Forever, because even though it botched many things, it was the only one that wasn't too over the top for its own good, or convinced of its own seriousness. I really hope Dark Knight is a return to the Bat's pulpy roots.

I'm actually quite tired of this push for realism in films all the time. Especially nowadays when there are so many things that can be done.

As for rules and boundaries, I see what you're saying. But actually I think it differs from movie to movie. The Mummy films would be weird if aliens came out of the blue, but if a werewolf, vampire or stitched monstrosity brought to life by electricity were to pop up I could totally buy it. Dealing with what's already been introduced in the TMNT series there's enough background to swallow a Battle Nexus film or a movie where Usagi shows up, a number of mystical things. It doesn't even have to be real heavy.

One complaint I do have about Turtles, I can't believe for a second that the city in the movie is New York. None of the famous landmarks appear at all. No Empire State, no Statue of Liberty, no Central Park. It could've been any city in the world with a high rise skyline.

I think the thing with New York is that people know the Turtles live there and don't have to constantly worry about reminding us where they live. I wouldn't mind seeing other characters used in Turtles like Usagi or the Stone soldiers like Tragg from Dimension X.

Like I said though, it's a matter of gradual descent into the excessive weirdness that makes it more plausible. I don't mind them not using Shredder as the only focus, but I still think he makes a big splash on film, you practically saw as much of Shredder in the 2nd movie as you did the Turtles.

The thing is though, critics and viewers loved Jack's Joker, it was one of the main praises of the film and alot of Joker's lines became trademark material. Another reason I say so many people loved him was that Heath Ledger admitted that he loved Nicholson's Joker and said he wouldn't dare try to imitate.

He didn't want to steal an act that was done so well, Joker's origins are not that important in the long run, who he was before or even what his real name was is fair game for Burton or any director, the key thing though like any version of Joker is the dip in the chemical acid bath.

Though comic books are the source of the idea, they are by no means chains forcing people to follow an identical formula, even if fans like the comic formula over the movie one. That doesn't mean who we saw in the first Batman film wasn't The Joker. Same with Green Goblin or Dr. Doom or anyone.

Mad Hatter isn't hard at all, technology is easy to incorporate just like Scarecrow's fear gas (which pissed me off because Begins made it a hallucianting drug and his gimmick is FEAR, not just Hallucinating gas). Poison ivy can come in easy, just remove the monster part of her plants abilities.

And state she has a natural immunity due to a birth defect. Movies can do ANYTHING, there are always ways around things. Mr. Freeze is too far out to do and Firefly and Riddler are too "comic book" dressed to be bought. Scarface though can easily come in because he's a great head case.

Scarface is not a demonic puppet, he's purely psychological and insanity is no stranger to Batman movies. Sure it might look weird but all the movie has to do is let the audience know the dummy isn't possessed by demons or magic, and people will accept it. Joker is proof enough that insanity takes many colors.

I think actually someone like the Rat King would be cool to see on screen, or even Baxter Stockmen's mousers, fly man or not. Again, it all depends on how much absurdity you throw at once. Remember, a little goes a long way.

The origin of the Joker is still far and away from being Joe Chill no matter what. I thought that was so contrived even as a kid. His lines may be trademark, but Nicholson just isn't the Joker to me, Hamill is. Hamill just seems to do everything right when it comes to the Joker. Ditchy was correct in his saying that B:TAS Joker was all forms of the Joker up to that point and more. You don't know whether you were getting the psycho, the clown, the buffoon, or the pathetic creep. And in some eps you got all of those. Like Joker's Favor, where Joker watches one man like a bug in a jar simply so he can assist in a cake delivery that would result in the assassination of Commissioner Gordon. At the end of the episode he's groveling to Batman for his life after he samples a taste of the other end of insanity. And I just don't see Nicholson's Joker doing any of that. Plus he was no fun. He was way too cool for my tastes.

And Scarecrow did use fear, he would use a stimulus along with the toxin. The stimulus was the mask which could be anything once hallucination was induced. Removing the face of the interrogator and letting your mind go and imagine the worst.

Doctor Doom was handled poorly in the Fantastic Four movie. The only thing that looked up was the fact that he was Latverian and that he was returning there by the end of the film.

Back to Turtles, no more need for gradual dipping, the entire audience is already in the pool, the mystical is already there. They can ditch the rest of the sci-fi if they so please, but the mystical is set up, so I say have fun with it. If they can't bring in an Utrom there is definitely no way they can bring in Krang. However I'm going to wager something right now that if Krang is in the movie he will probably be an Utrom. But I highly doubt that they'll go sci-fi. I just hope they embrace the supernatural.

Your basing Doom just on his ties to the comic book world and if you do that, I gurantee you you'll be disappointed with alot of things of that nature. I went in not knowing much about Doom and was satisfied with what I saw, I don't compare and contrast so much because it's a futile battle.

Endless comparisons and picking apart what was like the comics and what wasn't just defeats the point of being entertained, which is why I'm watching a movie in the first place. Scarecrow however didn't use fear in the "Scarecrow" sense, his drug simply made things scary, it wasn't a phobia flash screen.

Scarecrow plays on people's fears and this drug he used simply made anything look scary, it's a nice concept but it's kind of a step back with Scarecrow himself. The reason I mentioned this is simply because i was severely pissed off that the movie barely acknowledged the fact Crane was a costumed villain.

He was listed as just Crane in the credits and that bothered me because it ignored the fact Scarecrow was a costumed villain, a real bad guy with a unique gimmick and not some thug with a fancy weapon and creepy hood. But back to Turtles, whether Krang is made into a Utrom or not, I still want to see him.

I think the idea of a whining talking alien brain is an amusing concept and something I think would look great in CGI, especially that bad ass robot body of his. I know NOW that Krang is not an Utrom but if they decided to change that for the movie, it really wouldn't bother me that much considering the similarities are extremely noticeable.

Not just going by comics, I was introduced to Doom through the Secret Wars episodes of Spider-Man. I just can't buy Doom as a flaky businessman. I can even buy him being on the space station. It's just that he lacked the menace and mystique of the actual Doom. The only thing they got right other than the Latverian connection is his envy of a man of greater intellect who lacked the skills to use it. Or at least lacked the skills to use it according to Doom.

Unfortunately, Crane fell victim to something you were calling for earlier, gradual introduction of the weird. He wasn't Scarecrow yet. He still wasn't Scarecrow by the end of the film. When he returns, if he returns, he will be full on Scarecrow in spirit. If you stick with realism he's never gonna wear the costume. And he won't manipulate people's fears the way you think. I still think the drug is a decent substitute for the fear toxin.

If the pull out Krang, I hope they pump up the menace and turn down the whining. I want a villain that's actually dangerous this time around. Not just someone who postures a lot.

The implication given to me at the end of the movie is that, if there is a sequel, we will definantely see the return of the Shredder. However....

Spoiler Below

From the viewpoint of the casual observer of that movie, I can understand the complaimnt that it was a bit much to expect the audience to take in. However, as an actual fan of the comic and both cartoon series (other than Fast Forward, which I haven't gotten the chance to see), I hardly had a hard time swallowing it. The cartoon, in itself from what I can remember, had quite a bit of absurdity in it with some of the situations that occured, especially as they got into the later seasons. Heck, even the fairly serious comic version has had it's share of absurdity, the most obvious being the second time Oriko Saki is brought back with the Worms of Madness (his soul now being put into a shark), and April's now revealed origin.

So while the absurdity may seem some what much for the casual audience, I don't think it would genuinely bother that many fans. My only complaint with the story about the four generals and Winters was simply that I don't think they expanded upon the individual personalities of the five of them (with the exception, really, of Winters and the one general who took true control over the other four). Other than that, I can easily believe the story used for the generals and the portal as being possible in the TMNT world, though this is again coming from someone incredibly familiar with the source material.

I also have to chime in on the argument about basing expectations of how a character will be in a movie based on their comic book/cartoon counterpart. In general, I believe the fans of such have every right to expect this, even if the character in question has more supernatural abilities than realistic, as that character is canon within that universe within that form. However, fans should also (unfortunately, in some cases) expect these characteristics to possibly undergo severe changes, perhaps even the personalities of the characters to undergo severe changes, so they can appeal to a wider audience instead of just the hardcore fans. While this kind of action can be seen as somewhat...vile in the eyes of fans, it's inevitable in some cases, unfortunately. I don't much like it when they do such, but it's understandable that they'd want to have a wider form of appeal to a wider audience.

While I didn't dislike Nicholson's version of the Joker, I have to agree with AerostarMonk: Hamill's portrayal of the character is, by far and wide, the best done so far. For the vision Burton wanted to portray, Nicholson as the Joker was perfect; however, in the eyes of a more canonical fan, Nicholson's was, unfortunately, severely lacking in how he's supposed to be. He was far too cool and composed to accurately be the Joker. He simply didn't fit the ideal vision I had of the Joker, whereas Hamill did. Now, I honestly don't think there'd be a problem distributing a Hamill-esque version of the Joker in movie form; hell, you if wanted a somewhat more realistic Joker in the cruelty he can perform while staying true to his comic book personality, you could just look at the portrayal of the Joker in "The Killing Joke" and "Death in the Family" story arcs.

While I agree that Two-Face and Bane were definately botched (though I felt Tommy Lee Jones did a good job for the way they wanted the character portrayed), I don't feel they were the ONLY two who were botched. Personally, I felt the portrayal of Poison Ivy was just horrible, and I still question Mr. Freeze, though this is based more on their selection of actor for the role than the actual personality and motivation of the character.

I was somewhat disconcerted by the idea that Shredder was an Utrom in the new series as well, though it's implied (like AM has said, I believe), that he himself wasn't even the first Shredder, but an imposter who took the title. While I was still somewhat upset with the mishandling of Oriko Saki and Shredder in the new series, it really didn't bother me all that much. Also, his human "daughter", Karai, was not his biological daughter but his adopted daughter in the '03 series if I remember correctly.

While I grew up with the cartoon as well, and loved the fly version of Baxter, I have to admit I genuinely like the evil scientist Baxter better, if just for the fact that he's a genuinely convincing, and interesting, threat. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing Krang, per se, but I'm uncertain how I'd feel if he was portrayed in the exact same light he was in his original form in the cartoon, that being more whiny then menacing. Again, I adore the old cartoon, but I'm uncertain I could necessarily stand the "whiny, irritating villain" in the movies, which attempt to be closer to the original concept made by Eastman and Laird. If he did appear in that form, I could possibly swallow him as being demoted to a sidekick form, but not as the true villain.

Your own words though come back to the whole point of the issue: appeal to a wider audience. People are not up and up on these comics and not everyone is going to honestly take in the same amount of disbelief of fantasy and it is those same people who are probably majority NOT big Turtles fans that make the box office up.

I don't have a problem accepting this material because I do love these kind of movies, however, in the fact this connects to the first Turtle films which were set in a very REAL type design, I do have conflictions there. Fans do have a right to complain and expect similarities but anyone who knows anything about comic book fans is they abuse it.

They abuse the privledge by letting every little minor detail about their comic character let them supposedly ruin the movie completely. Fans can be viciously cruel and become so anal-nit picky about details ranging from small to large that it makes me wonder why they even go to see any movies of any kind anymore.

Comparisons are bound to happen by I think it's wrong to be bound BY them. I think people today are way too harsh of connecting to the comics 100% and I think alot of people have too high set expectations. Some are justified, others are not. I don't see any problem with changing Bullseye's outfit in "Daredevil".

I actually like this image better and I loved Colin Ferrell's performance of him. I do dislike how Dr. Octopus was made into a sympathy villain when he never really was, but, I can see how it can work for the tone of the movie. I'll be honest, I've loved every Joker incarnation I've seen, every single one.

Nicholson i will always hold as high regards because he excelled in things differently then Hamill's. It's just like how I feel about the whole "The Batman" transfer. Yes, I loved Clayface from the old Batman: AS, but the new Clayface did some things better then the old one based on how he was designed.

The most important rule I have ever followed in movies with comics or whatever is to take the movie as a whole new expierence, not to expect to see this or that from the comics. Dwelling and dreading on what they did "wrong" or "right" becomes an endless battle of complaining and they end up completely ignoring the movie as a whole.

You can't please everybody and I think alot of comic book fans (no one in particular) need to accept that and maybe should start enjoying the movie instead of constantly focusing on what's wrong with it.

I don't think Nicholson even topped Romero. I actually think he's the worst incarnation of the Joker that has graced the screen. He was a good villain for the context of the film, but he just didn't really hack it my eyes. He was far surpassed by Keaton and Gough who fulfilled their roles beautifully and have become the true icons of the series. Besides I believe the best villain of the Burton set was Walken's Max Shreck. Except for Selina Kyle, every other villain suffered from Burton Knows Best syndrome. Something followers of Superman know all about. Jon Peters wasn't alone in his dismantling of that franchise in the late 90s.

I still hold Ron Perlman's Matt Hagen to being the superior Clayface. The writing, the atmosphere, the music just worked a lot better. Everything went right with him. I mean, just so right. Not saying that everything wasn't right for the new Clayface, it's just that B:TAS stands taller in my opinion.

It's not so much being anal sometimes as it seems that they change some things for seemingly no reason. Not having Wolverine in yellow spandex is one thing, but completely defanging Dark Phoenix into nothing more than Magneto's pawn is another. Sometimes changes can be fantastic and actually add depth and nuance to something that would just seemed uneven if rushed if translated directly, see X2 for example. But other times it's just, why did they do that?

It's all about the spirit. If you betray the spirit of the source to win over the wider audience the movie will always fail. No matter what. And right now if comic book movies try to hard to maintain realism they're going to betray the spirit, because realism isn't what comics are about. Well, at least not superhero comics.

Besides it's already a consensus even among the audiences that trying to reach out to them has ruined plenty of films with amazing potential.

Realism is always apart of comics and comic movies, that;s the whole reason they bother explaining the genetics of it by telling us about the mollecular scramblers and radioactive spiders and everything. It's like I said, everything needs a ground point but that's another issue all together.

Romero's Joker was probably my least favorite out of the 4, and being an adverse Burton fan, I have never been disappointed with his work or his decision on where to lead the characters given to him, be it Batman or Joker or anyone. And I think if people generally accept his Penguin image (which it seems quite a few do), then what's the problem?

The Dark Phoneix story wasn't totally made into a Magento sidekick story, because as we plainly saw, Magento was NEVER in control. Magneto was simply under the assumption he was using her. The second X-men movie to me is one of the few films I have seen that i would dare I say, perfect. A word I save for very, VERY few movies.

I also feel that of all the comic book movies I have seen, not many have betrayed the spirit of the comic and I certainly would say X-men and Batman are the last films I would ever say betrayed anything. Except for Batman and Robin.

You've obviously never heard anything about the Superman debacle. Even Nicolas Cage was mad at him. He has no respect for comics, in fact he even said that he set out to make the comics follow his lead instead of the other way around. He's a good filmmaker sure, but I'd rather see another Ratner film produced by Rothman than let Burton anywhere near another comic property. Because Burton doesn't always no best. Sure he made his Penguin a lot more appealing to a lot of people. But if the character isn't appealing without making him a disgusting monster, why even use him? There were plenty of villians that fit without so huge of a makeover. No disrespect to Danny DeVito's marvelous performance. Sure some villains actually need a huge change, like Freeze, or Mad Hatter among others before they got to their current incarnations. Others were pretty much fine how they were. Look at Selina Kyle. She was able to keep her basic story of the woman who fights back with the Burton twist. Why not others?

There's a huge difference between realism and just plain explanation. I mean of course Peter Parker is going to be bitten by a radioactive spider as opposed to getting bashed over the head with a coconut and gaining spider powers. What I'm talking about is when they strip away a lot of what makes a character cool and appealing just to make that character more realistic. Those moments you regard as realism only serve as as a gateway to escapism.

That balance between the right amount of comic fantasy and movie realism is a hard one, but good examples are the first Turtles, the first two X-Men, Mystery Men, and the Superman films. Those are all of varying quality I know, but they struck the balance well.

Will the next Turtles movie achieve this balance? Only time will tell.

I never had a problem with Singer's films and I still don't. Superman Returns was not a bad film in my opinion, not the greatest return to the franchise of the Man of steel but there is infinitely worse movies out there then Superman Returns. Burton's designs are not saying that the characters are not appealing prior to a make over.

But it's a different person's view on the subject. The whole Willy Wonka movies are a fine example. The original was actually WAY off from the book and Rold Dhal hated it, but Burton's remake was actually closer to the material. Every director will put his or her own spin on a movie be it a novel or comic book and I'd rather watch the movie and enjoy it then worry about "what's wrong" with it.

The Ninja turtles movies I feel still has the chance to become a solid franchise again. Now I must admit as much as I enjoyed TMNT, it wasn't a solid "restarter" like Casion Royale was for Bond or Batman Begins was for Batman. I think if they come back for a sequel, they should do more known villains, regardless if Shredder is back or not.

I want to see some of the other bad guys in the Turtles verse, especially Krang. I think if they use a variety of mutant villains like they did in TMNT but spaced it a bit more and allowed more characters to become in depth, we could really see some quality villains make a quality movie transition.

I just have a hard time swallowing the comic book world of a guy who hates comics. Not just hates, he had and still has no respect for them. I'm just not a real fan of where Burton took the characters. I ate it up when I was younger, but as I got older they just weren't the same anymore.

The reason TMNT really wasn't a solid restarter is because it wasn't a full-on reboot. In fact it wasn't a reboot. There are other key factors that I believe stopped it from making the money it should've made. The clarification of its continuity, its release date, and the burn out on CGI films.

On the last part I agree. Though I'm not as hungry to see Krang as you are.

Even if he said that himself, in my honest opinion I'd have to say it doesn't show in his work. Funny thing is though is that Heath Ledger said the same thing.

He hates comic books himself, yet he's playing one of the BIGGEST comic baddies of all time.

Finding out more it really showed to me. Especially in the Superman debacle. Superman without the suit? I'm sorry that's just a really strong guy.

The jury's still out on whether Heath Ledger will be a good Joker. I have faith in Nolan's decision, but the guys in the running were just great.

I have one word for this thread:

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2.../cowabunga.gif

I'm not a big fan of the series, but I much perfer the 80's version over '03.

I think we ALL do or if not all, majority. The new show to me is kind of crap. The only thing I liked what they did with the show was Shredder's new look and the semi-interesting future show "Fast Forward".

Which I only really watch for the Cody/Starlee issue but that's a whole nother story all together. Btw, sweet picture there Nyo 8-) looks like it's from the Turtles in Time video game, an AWESOME game.

Since this topic was brought up I might as well mention this, supposedly TMNT did very well far as the box office goes. It's international success earned it some pretty big brownie points for WB and the director says there's 70% of a sequel happening.

No word on what it's going to be about other then the suggested ideas the director mentioned. But word of mouth is (both fan wise and official wise) say that the Shredder is going to return.

To be honest, I don't like the 80's version of the TMNT at all.

In my view, it's quite cheesy, Shredder is not a serious threat, the storylines doesn't make any sense, and the turtles themselves are more comedic than what they were originally portrayed in the comics.

Sorry to those who likes the 80's version, but that's how I feel about it.