guidoworsley

I don't understand the idea that it's too early to judge. Maybe it would be too early to judge if these guys were new to film-making, but they're not. They have a well practiced track record of utterly awful movies behind them. This includes Bay, Liebesman and Platinum Dunes as a company.

These guys have been working over a decade and have no understanding of what makes a good, structured movie. It isn't "too early" to know that at all. It doesn't matter if the turtles are aliens or not, or mutants or not, or teenagers or not. Hell they could stick to every single detail of the origins and events of the original comic run if they like, it still won't work because they are utterly awful film-makers. To have any sort of anticipation of this movie must mean you spent the last decade or so sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la I'm not watching" every-time you've come across anything this company as put out. Which in all honesty, when I look at the state of Transformers, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc....I sometimes wish I had done, it might have saved me the dull plodding headaches I get now every-time they buy a property I once enjoyed.

I don't understand how people are still having any kind of hope for this movie.

I love the Ninja Turtles as much as the next guy, but as I've said before and will say again: If an awfult director, who has made only awful films, with his awful production company that also only make awful films, hire another director who has only made awful films, then the end product is bound to be......awful.

As far as I'm concerned this film isn't even in production, news like this should not be a surprise to ANYONE at this point in time. The casting is going to be awful, the writing will be awful, the directing will be awful, the editing will be awful, the movie as a whole is going to be awful. That much was confirmed the second it was handed to Platinum Dunes, as the entire filmography is like this.

If you want a genuine Turtles fix then read the great new IDW comic releases, or watch the Turtles Forever movie, or even try out that new CGI Nickelodeon series that has actually turned out to be pretty damn hilarious, but for the love of everything Turtles, and the future of our childhood franchises, can we just let this movie die completely on it's arse, the faster they lose the license the better off we'll all be.

The thing about all of this is that it is all negated by point one.

It's not directed by Bay, but it is produced by Platinum Dunes, who have NEVER made a decent quality enjoyable movie, re-boot or otherwise. It's directed by the guy that made the two turds in Battle: Los Angeles and Wrath of the Titans, and produced by Michael friggin' Bay. This within itself is enough not to even give the film a passing thought. This film WILL NOT be good. It has nothing to do with whether I feel it will ruin continuity, or not have good FX or fight scenes, or whether it's "too early to tell". It purely comes down to this, Bay has made nothing but crap movies, Platinum Dunes has made nothing but crap movies and Liebsman has made nothing but crap movies.

Thus, this will be a crap movie. It is this kind of "benefit of the doubt" thinking that made Transformers the massive hits they were, and allowed this company to continue to take dumps all over loved franchises such as Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elms Street, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Transformers and now Ninja Turtles. Learn from past mistakes, curb enthusiasm now, and for-go the temptation to give these shit mongers more money to continue to buy beloved franchises and waste them.

Michael Bay and Platinum Dunes is involved. 

This is the law of the universe. There is literally NO reasons for anyone to be getting any hopes up at all.

Why are his eyes painted? Anybody know this?

I mean I know Green Arrow wears an eye-mask, but that at least pretends to hide his identity.

Looking forward to it, it looks pretty good. Just wondering why bother with a green smear on his face.

I think the problem with Nolan movies, are that he tends to utilize a concept over a literal translation. So he'll really lean on themes in his movies, even if doing so means sacrificing coherence, contradicting characters or just breaking the rules of physics entirely.

For example, Bruce says he will not become an executioner. Then proceeds to blow up the entire League of Shadows including the guy they asked him to kill, then at the end of the Begins he jams a trains brakes to save the city but leaves Ra's to die. Now regardless of how much this goes against the comic-book Batman we know and love (practically killing a man), the next movie contradicts this. The next movie The Joker constantly taunts him about his "one rule" and this ends with Batman flipping the guy over his head (to save citizens) but then catching him on the fall with his grappling gun. The only reason Bats does this is because the film wants to serve a theme about how Joker wants Batman to kill him in order to beat him, but Batman already did this earlier in leaving Ra's to die, so catching Joker proves nothing other than he just wants to prove Joker wrong. And the second he does this he rugby tackles Harvey Dent to his death, and at the end of Riseshe just blasts missiles and gunfire at Talia's truck until she crashes and dies (along with her driver). This contradicts the non-killing Batman from earlier, who in himself contradicts the Batman who left Ra's to die. Not only this, but it is shown in Rises Bane is only put down by being shot to death. So the ending message of Batman's war against crime in the last film "crime can only be beaten by an insane amount of gunfire leading to death".

Rises then does the whole thing with giving Bruce Wayne a bum leg, which has no ligaments in, that becomes magically fixed with a brace. We know it's magically fixed because later, when that brace is off (and Bruce goes through some mental spinal fixing) Bruce is leaping gracefully up that pit wall with a leg that has no brace and apparently NO ligaments either. It serves a lovely theme, calling back to him falling into the well and "why do we fall Bruce", however the execution contradicts what we were shown earlier, which is a guy barely capable of walking unless he's wearing an electronic brace. This bum leg has served no purpose other than to get us to empathise with a retired Wayne, and then just gets tossed aside as a concept.

Blake as a character exists ONLY so there's a character who can inherit the Batcave and the mantle of the Bat. This completes the themes from Begins about "becoming a symbol that's everlasting", by having someone take up the mantle. This is theme is fine, but why create a character who's only job for the majority of the movie is to basically do the role in the film that Commissioner Gordon should've done. The movie goes out of its way to sideline Gordon in a hospital bed for a large part of its running time because it has nothing for him to do as they've invented this new character that's doing his job for him. This character has the WORST reason for know that Batman is Bruce ever (he saw his sad face once when he was a kid and knew he was Batman), the thought put into his role in the film is minimal at best basically (he's acted well though). At the end he inherits the cave (because someone has to) but has no fighting skills or experience with Batman tech at all. Now at the same time they introduce Catwoman who starts off as an angry, penniless character who's stealing from Bruce. She then eventually redeems herself. In the process of this she shows fantastic fighting prowess, learns who Bruce is through the natural course of the movie AND gains Batman's trust and experience with his technology (Batpod). Now my question is, instead of sidelining a major character in Gordon and replacing him with this new character, why not use a Jason Todd Robin type of character instead of Catwoman? He can have the angry orphan qualities of Blake, with the same character arc of Catwoman in this film (steals from Bruce (as Jason does from Bats in the comics), learns his identity in a way that makes sense, shows fighting prowess, earns Bruce's trust, eventually fights beside Batman with Batman's gadgets) and then at the end have THIS character inherit the Batcave. This completes all of the themes that BOTH of these characters go through, has a character that earns the Batman (or Robin) mantle at the end of the movie with the skills to do it justice, and as a bonus it shortens the running time, and leaves Gordon free as a character to do all the police work in the movie as he should be doing instead of being sidelined in a bed. It does HAVE to be Jason Todd, it just makes sense for it to be as a fan of the comics, but either way there was no need for two new characters and the sidelining of Gordon for an arc that could've been done with one.

I enjoy the series, but I have many issues with them. They're, in my eyes, nowhere close to the definitive Batman story. If I had to experience ONE version of Batman for the rest of my days, it may either be Batman: TAS or the Arkham Asylum/City games (which are basically an adult extension of the animated series). I look at those games as everything a live action Batman COULD be, if someone respected the source material enough to stay true to Batman, treat it as a gritty detective noir tale, but not exorcise all of the fantastical elements in order to do so.

And also as a fan-boy I hate the idea that Bruce just gets over his parents death and moves on. I get that people see comics as an on-going thing, but take that out of it for a second and really think about it. If you could choose one character from the world of comics who would continue their fight against justice for the rest of their days, who would it be? I couldn't imagine that Batman would ever stop in his quest for justice, even if all comics ever were to be cancelled. I could see Superman settling down with Lois, I couldn't see Batman ever stopping, ever.