Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

[Mr. Marshmallow]

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.

[AerostarMonk]

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.

[Mr. Marshmallow]

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.

[AerostarMonk]

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.

[Mr. Marshmallow]

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.

[AerostarMonk]

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.

[Mr. Marshmallow]

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.

[AerostarMonk]

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.

[Nathander]

Originally Posted by AerostarMonk

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.

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

The Shredder in the next movie will not be Oriko Saki, but Karai who will assume the position. Just my guess, anyway.

Originally Posted by Mr. Marshmallow

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Marshmallow

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Marshmallow

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Marshmallow

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.

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.

[Mr. Marshmallow]

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.