First Look at Nickelodeon Ninja Turtles

[Speed Tracer]

Well, it's gotta be at least better than Transformers 4:

The director of Battleship, Peter Berg, is actually a phenomenal director. He gave us Friday Night Lights (movie and show), The Rundown (the first movie that convinced me Dwayne Johnson was a credible action star), and a few more. I'm giving Battleship the benefit of the doubt. I'm also hugely disappointed by how John Carter fared in theaters (I really do blame Disney for terrible marketing), and will see it for Taylor Kitsch alone.

 

[Drtooth]

I'm giving Battleship the benefit of the doubt. I'm also hugely disappointed by how John Carter fared in theaters (I really do blame Disney for terrible marketing), and will see it for Taylor Kitsch alone.

John Carter failed because only old school geeks know who John Carter is. If you didn't see any previews of the film, it almost sounds like some dull movie about the life of some British guy set in the 1800's. And those who did see the previews either felt that it was just another one of those movies in a crowded market place of sci-fi/comic book/period action films. Being released so close to Wrath of the Titans and Hunger Games was probably no help, since they all look alike. Either that, or we have purist geeks that refuse to see any movie based on a comic book/novel that was turned into a comic book because no matter how well the movie comes out, they have a beef with it.

Well, it's gotta be at least better than Transformers 4:

Hasbro really thinks it can make movies of all its properties because they were so ding dang lucky with the Transformers series. Did G.I. Joe do well? Well enough to have a sequel, sure, but I still see Marshalls trying to clear those toys out, restock them, and clear them out again. I blame the August release date since, well, you know... NO ONE watches movies in August, except for those going to dollar theaters to catch up on films they missed.

 

[Speed Tracer]

John Carter failed because only old school geeks know who John Carter is. If you didn't see any previews of the film, it almost sounds like some dull movie about the life of some British guy set in the 1800's. And those who did see the previews either felt that it was just another one of those movies in a crowded market place of sci-fi/comic book/period action films. Being released so close to Wrath of the Titans and Hunger Games was probably no help, since they all look alike. Either that, or we have purist geeks that refuse to see any movie based on a comic book/novel that was turned into a comic book because no matter how well the movie comes out, they have a beef with it.

Hence why Disney completely dropped the ball: they didn't know how to market it properly. Whether audiences were familiar with the world is irrelevant. It helps, but it's irrelevant. They didn't set up the world to audiences; you'd have thought they were ashamed of it. They also gave it a terrible release date. I won't argue that, yes, there were surely some people who were turned off by the concept. That's fine. But there's no reason fans of Avatar, Star Wars, et cetera shouldn't have gone. A lot of folks I know had no idea it was even released. Disney simply didn't have faith in what turned out to be a really fine film. Not a masterpiece by any means, but certainly the best offering that weekend, and one of the best of the young year.

This letter has much more on the issue, and states it a lot better than I ever could:

http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2012/...to-walt-disney-studios-chairman-richard-ross/

I do want to admit that I am very biased on this issue, but I'm extremely passionate about the property. I read the books at a young age and revisit them often. But I also know, as a fan, that there is a way for this franchise to be loved by others. For starters, the company selling it has to BELIEVE PEOPLE WANT TO FRICKIN' SEE IT.

Sorry to go off-topic.

 

[Drtooth]

Hence why Disney completely dropped the ball: they didn't know how to market it properly. Whether audiences were familiar with the world is irrelevant. It helps, but it's irrelevant. They didn't set up the world to audiences; you'd have thought they were ashamed of it. They also gave it a terrible release date. I won't argue that, yes, there were surely some people who were turned off by the concept. That's fine. But there's no reason fans of Avatar, Star Wars, et cetera shouldn't have gone. A lot of folks I know had no idea it was even released. Disney simply didn't have faith in what turned out to be a really fine film. Not a masterpiece by any means, but certainly the best offering that weekend, and one of the best of the young year.

I wonder if dropping "of Mars" from the title was such a good idea. Somehow the marketing just made it look like "oh... another action movie..." (which shouldn't be an excuse, but the Lorax came off in previews as "UGH! One of those kids movies" and did well). Heck, didn't even look like a sci-fi movie from the previews. Looked exactly like Wrath of the Titans and Hunger Games, there fore the movie going public just turned a blind eye to it. Considering those movies all meshed together, the casual movie going public probably ignored it.

It really seems also a casualty of the Summer Blockbuster season starting in March now, and that's a highly competitive month. If it wasn't for those 2 other movies and that insipid Project X, I'm sure it would have had more of a draw from that crowd.

But that open letter points something out. It isn't half the flop most movies that flop are. It's just a matter of a huge budget that doesn't get made back. Look at The Muppets. $88 mil domestic shouldn't be that impressive, but because the movie was only $45 mil budget, it made a decent enough amount of money, and it's considered successful, even though JC's gross dwarfs it. Now The Muppets is supposedly the highest selling DVD of the week of its release. Box Office is becoming less and less relavant, as DVD rentals and sales usually turn a bomb of a movie into a smash hit. All JC has to do is wait for the DVD, and they'll at least make back the budget.

It's a shame it didn't get a better release date, but Summer is chock full. We've got 2 Marvel comics movies coming out, and while Disney's only releasing one of them, Disney's stake in the characters are important. There's NO way they'd let JC chip away at the box office of The Avengers and Spider-Man 2.0 (not to mention Brave).

Still, this movie supposedly had big buzz in the comics crowd, but everywhere else was focused on The Hunger Games.

 

[Speed Tracer]

I wonder if dropping "of Mars" from the title was such a good idea. Somehow the marketing just made it look like "oh... another action movie..." (which shouldn't be an excuse, but the Lorax came off in previews as "UGH! One of those kids movies" and did well). Heck, didn't even look like a sci-fi movie from the previews. Looked exactly like Wrath of the Titans and Hunger Games, there fore the movie going public just turned a blind eye to it. Considering those movies all meshed together, the casual movie going public probably ignored it.

The thing is, Andrew Stanton says it was a decision made by him and the producers - and while it made some sense in the end (as he truly becomes John Carter OF Mars)... well, the Empire didn't strike back until the end, ya know? I think removing "of Mars" ultimately hurt the movie, and I wonder if it really was Stanton & Co. or Disney.

It's all unfortunate. I got a movie that made me happy and that's ultimately what matters. I think people who see it on DVD/Blu-Ray will really embrace it, and that's great. It'll have its day.

 

[Drtooth]

It's all unfortunate. I got a movie that made me happy and that's ultimately what matters. I think people who see it on DVD/Blu-Ray will really embrace it, and that's great. It'll have its day.

Plus, it seems that it came out at an unfortunate time, too early for Spring Break, too close to films similar. I'd probably see it, but I saw Arriety a while ago (had to pay a fortune for it I usually only spend for 3-D films and all because I DIDN'T know a cheaper theater would get it in not even a week after I saw it) and I don't quite have the money to see it now. And the next movie I plan to see is that Stop motion pirates thing because I'm such a big fan of stop motion. Not everyone can see every movie and some of us have to chose. That's what kinda hampered the box office the time the Muppets were out.

Still, I see all these other movies that do meh at the box office or worse get sequels. If they made a second movie in continuation of any storyline there is (if such exists), I'm sure more people would be on board, seeing the movie on DVD and kicking themselves for not seeing it in theaters. Heck, look at how The Dark Knight completely trounced Batman Begins.

But going back to TMNT... as much as I could complain about the Alien TMNT origin (as I said, aliens and other dimensional beings caused the turtles to mutate in every origin except the second movie due to budgetary reasons), but I fear that the film will be too much like the 80's cartoon but managing to get everything wrong in substance. Like someone who can do a vocal impersonation that sounds like someone, but neglects to get the speaking patterns down right. A pallid imitation.

The 1980's cartoon was so insanely iconic that all other versions, including the original comic book, are completely stuck in the shadow of one cartoon series. A long running one, sure, but it's just one interpretation of the characters. And that version was heavily generified by the public for better or worse. That's not quite a good or bad thing, but it does add a little harm to the legacy. The Turtles will always be saddled with "Cowabunga," leading to the misconception that ALL the turtles had Michelangelo's 80's cartoon personality. Even licensees screwed that one up. Mikey was the only one to frequently shout "Cowabunga," while the Turtles would routinely shout "Turtle Power" or the more Leo specific "Turtles Fight with honor." NONE of the other Turtles besides Mikey ever said "Dude" (unless it was a sarcastic mimic). And above all else, Mikey ONLY had a surfer dude personality because they were hugely popular at the time and every single cartoon had a surfer dude as a result. Had TMNT been a cartoon in the 70's, Mikey would have been obsessed with Disco, the mid 90's, Mikey would have been heavily Hip Hop infused.

I hope if anything this movie has heavy influence from the other movies, making Mikey sort of like what Raph was in the 80's cartoon, making Raph the DWolverine/Donald Duck bad@%% with a very short temper, and the other two are basically just as they are. And I hope it's not too origin focused. The reason why the first film was good was because they found the perfect balance of origin and character introduction, leaving most of the exposition as flashbacks. That's also what went right with the first, Tim Burton, Batman movie, which focused on him fighting his iconic villain without having to see him slowly turn into Batman. That's why Green Lantern was such a problem. The entire movie, we saw Hal turning into the Lantern, and then dealing with getting the powers and playing with them like a fool, then having to fight someone 10 minutes before the movie ends.

 

[Speed Tracer]

The title is now just Ninja Turtles.

http://www.slashfilm.com/rumor-tnmt-film-simply-titled-ninja-turtles/?utm_source=Movie Magic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed: slashfilm (/Film)

And to that I say... good. Look - the two things with these characters that are the most important are that 1) they are ninjas and 2) they are turtles. The title Ninja Turtles is fine. Heck, it's probably what the people of New York call them anyway.

It also solves the "problem" of what to call it. I still can't believe the last one was just TMNT. I thought it was really cool, but... still.

So yes. I welcome this.

 

[Drtooth]

If the name change is just for the sake of opening up the Turtles being aliens, this is almost troubling.

It's not a matter of age. They still called the comics Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles when the turtles were well into their 30's just before the sale to Nickelodeon, and the comics being rebooted.

 

[Speed Tracer]

If the name change is just for the sake of opening up the Turtles being aliens, this is almost troubling.

It's not.

http://www.slashfilm.com/michael-ba...=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+slashfilm+(/Film)

Paramount marketing changed the name. They made the title simple. The characters you all remember are exactly the same, and yes they still act like teenagers.​

 

[beaker]

Wait, that's NOT Michael Bay's Transformers 4? Wow...

John Carter failed because only old school geeks know who John Carter is. If you didn't see any previews of the film, it almost sounds like some dull movie about the life of some British guy set in the 1800's. And those who did see the previews either felt that it was just another one of those movies in a crowded market place of sci-fi/comic book/period action films. Being released so close to Wrath of the Titans and Hunger Games was probably no help, since they all look alike. Either that, or we have purist geeks that refuse to see any movie based on a comic book/novel that was turned into a comic book because no matter how well the movie comes out, they have a beef with it.

I've known all about Burroughs and the Carter series(ok, I guess I am an old school geek of sorts) but ugghh...I know it's gotten good reviews by some, but nothing about JCM(Im sorry, "John Carter"...apparently the adwizards thought John Carter of Mars wouldn't sell well) from the trailer seemed appealing at all. It looked like Star Wars Attack of the Clones meets your typical sword and sandal mess(just didnt wanna see clash of the titants, prince of persia, etc)

Disney can sell me on hyped cgi/live action hybrid films. I loved the heck out of Tron Legacy and thought it was nothing short of visionary. But JCM? Ugh. You know they didn't have confidence in it with the lack of action figures.