FANDOM


  • Does anybody else think that Timothy might be the 2012 version of the 1987 character Zach?

      Loading editor
    • I suppose he definitly acts a lot like him in many ways, but I'm not sure if he was intended to be Zach...

        Loading editor
    • Maybe, but Zach was a bit more smarter and less childish to compare to the Pulveriser and knew when something was too dangerous, unlike the Pulveriser and when he decided to mutate himself!

        Loading editor
    • Which is why it's safe to assume that Pulverizer was not created as a Zach, but an entrily different character.

        Loading editor
    • Jonatello wrote: Which is why it's safe to assume that Pulverizer was not created as a Zach, but an entrily different character.

      However 2012 Version of Zach wouldn't be so bad!

        Loading editor
    • MarioLuigiGCFan wrote:

      Jonatello wrote: Which is why it's safe to assume that Pulverizer was not created as a Zach, but an entrily different character.

      However 2012 Version of Zach wouldn't be so bad!

      Yeah, hopefully he wouldn't be so annoying this time! XD

        Loading editor
    • MarioLuigiGCFan wrote:
      Maybe, but Zach was a bit more smarter and less childish to compare to the Pulveriser and knew when something was too dangerous, unlike the Pulveriser and when he decided to mutate himself!

      Yeah, this is one point in favor of the Fred Wolf Series and the 4Kids Series, it doesn't rely on Pandering Bullhonkey and Corporate Greed.

        Loading editor
    • Well, the Fred Wolf series may not have had much to pander to, but it was very much the poster child of toyetic corporate greed, with everything written first and foremost to help Playmates sell toys, to the detriment of the show's quality or its respectability to anyone older than 12. And the 4Kids series later on started to succumb to the same pressures to do this, which is how Fast Forward came into being (and why The Lost Episodes were delayed for some years—Playmates executives complained they didn't think it would sell enough toys).

      As for this particular thread's question, I have no opinion.

        Loading editor
    • Gilgameshkun wrote:
      Well, the Fred Wolf series may not have had much to pander to, but it was very much the poster child of toyetic corporate greed, with everything written first and foremost to help Playmates sell toys, to the detriment of the show's quality or its respectability to anyone older than 12. And the 4Kids series later on started to succumb to the same pressures to do this, which is how Fast Forward came into being (and why The Lost Episodes were delayed for some years—Playmates executives complained they didn't think it would sell enough toys).

      As for this particular thread's question, I have no opinion.

      I am quite aware of the Red Sky Seasons, and the Fast Forward/Back to the Sewers Seasons. What I was trying to say is that most of the time, they put story first before product placement. Viacom, on the otherhand, doesn't follow that rule.

        Loading editor
    • Fred Wolf series? Noooooo, product placement came first. It may not have been quite as obvious very early on, but it became blatant very quickly.

        Loading editor
    • Yea the Fred Wolf series was all about product placement. The toys were in fact made before episodes aired, so when a new mutant and or character in general showed up in the show boom the toy was ready. There was an article i read that said all that, if i can find it I'll link it. But yea the Fred Wolf series was all about product placement, in fact didnt they have tokka and rahzar show up out of nowhere in the show After they appeared in the movie?

        Loading editor
    • The fact that Nick is now unabashedly emulating this toyetic model is an abomination. Remember when the first season was a lot more subtle and well-disguised in its product placement? It's not necessarily a bad thing to be to some degree merchandise-driven, but there are much better ways to do it. The difference is what priorities the production values. If product placement is the paramount priority without a reasonable deference to quality of production itself, then you'll get a nakedly toyetic abortion of a show like what 1987 was and like what 2K12 has turned into.

      As for pandering, 1987 TV series fans are the worst demographic of TMNT fans I could imagine trying to please. They were raised on junk TV, and if that's what they still prefer, then they won't know a good show from a crappy show—they'll just be happier the more it resembles the series they grew up watching. The 1987 TV series was never that good even when it was new and in production, so to prefer it above all other styles of TMNT is to have fundamentally bad taste.

        Loading editor
    • Gilgameshkun wrote:
      The fact that Nick is now unabashedly emulating this toyetic model is an abomination. Remember when the first season was a lot more subtle and well-disguised in its product placement? It's not necessarily a bad thing to be to some degree merchandise-driven, but there are much better ways to do it. The difference is what priorities the production values. If product placement is the paramount priority without a reasonable deference to quality of production itself, then you'll get a nakedly toyetic abortion of a show like what 1987 was and like what 2K12 has turned into.

      As for pandering, 1987 TV series fans are the worst demographic of TMNT fans I could imagine trying to please. They were raised on junk TV, and if that's what they still prefer, then they won't know a good show from a crappy show—they'll just be happier the more it resembles the series they grew up watching. The 1987 TV series was never that good even when it was new and in production, so to prefer it above all other styles of TMNT is to have fundamentally bad taste.

      First of all, the Nick Turtles will NEVER rise up to the 4Kids Turtles; Second, did you even watch RowdyC's TMNT Retrospective? He said the 5-episode MiniSeries Season was made first before they made the toys.

        Loading editor
    • Perhaps if he's unmutated. I hope he's unmutated eventually anyway.

        Loading editor
    • Jadepalacetrainee wrote:
      Perhaps if he's unmutated. I hope he's unmutated eventually anyway.

      Phelous thought Zach is bad? Well, he should really rethink about "the Pulverizer". In short: Screw every moment with him!

        Loading editor
    • Gilgameshkun wrote: 1987 TV series fans are the worst demographic of TMNT fans....they were raised on junk TV, and if that's what they still prefer, then they won't know a good show from a crappy show....to prefer it above all other styles of TMNT is to have fundamentally bad taste.

      You offend me, sir. You've basically just said "anything I don't like is garbage; therefore, people who like something I don't must enjoy garbage."

      Have the human decency to respect other people's opinions without denigrating their tastes. There's room enough in this world for fans of the old stuff as well as fans of the new stuff.

      You say the original cartoon is garbage, and yet it was what propelled the Turtles to stardom in the first place. Millions of kids worldwide enjoyed the series. If it weren't for the 1987 cartoon, there would never have been a 2003 series or a 2014 series in the first place. Every aspect of TMNT that you now enjoy is resting on the laurels of what's come before.

      Also, isn't it funny how, despite the old show being total garbage, the current cartoon show and toy line keep borrowing from it? Over and over again? Mutagen Man, Slash, Bebop, Rocksteady, Rahzar, Mondo Gecko, Napoleon Bonafrog... all characters introduced in the "garbage" cartoon.

      Just sayin'.

        Loading editor
    • Zobovor wrote:

      Gilgameshkun wrote: 1987 TV series fans are the worst demographic of TMNT fans....they were raised on junk TV, and if that's what they still prefer, then they won't know a good show from a crappy show....to prefer it above all other styles of TMNT is to have fundamentally bad taste.

      You offend me, sir. You've basically just said "anything I don't like is garbage; therefore, people who like something I don't must enjoy garbage."

      Have the human decency to respect other people's opinions without denigrating their tastes. There's room enough in this world for fans of the old stuff as well as fans of the new stuff.

      You say the original cartoon is garbage, and yet it was what propelled the Turtles to stardom in the first place. Millions of kids worldwide enjoyed the series. If it weren't for the 1987 cartoon, there would never have been a 2003 series or a 2014 series in the first place. Every aspect of TMNT that you now enjoy is resting on the laurels of what's come before.

      Also, isn't it funny how, despite the old show being total garbage, the current cartoon show and toy line keep borrowing from it? Over and over again? Mutagen Man, Slash, Bebop, Rocksteady, Rahzar, Mondo Gecko, Napoleon Bonafrog... all characters introduced in the "garbage" cartoon.

      Just sayin'.

      Dude it's a good show buts it's way overrated between the fanbase and Rahzar is not an 1987 Character but a 1990 Movie Character like Tokka and Tatsu!

        Loading editor
    • Zobovor:

      The 1987 series came on the heels of Mirage TMNT and Palladium TMNT which came first, in 1984 and 1986 respectively. They were what made me a fan. To me, TMNT is a deep dark ninja drama for adults with sporadic comedy elements. The 1987 series kiddified TMNT in the most horrifying ways—TMNT really should never have been for little kids in the first place, and indeed a lot of Mirage fans didn't like the 1987 series.

      Ruin reputations

      And Slash was introduced in a different universe, Archie TMNT, where he was actually a serial killer. Archie TMNT took the first couple of episodes of the 1987 series (which were relatively well-made by Toei Animation) and branched off an entirely different imagined universe with very different character personifications and a more adult tone. Rahzar was actually introduced in the second TMNT film, which wasn't that good even when it was new. I don't care for most of those characters you just listed, though I did come to respect the Archie versions of Bebop and Rocksteady.

      I like the versions of TMNT for adults—Mirage TMNT, Palladium TMNT, Archie TMNT, IDW TMNT and MNT Gaiden. The 2003 series was mostly based on Mirage TMNT but with a much more G-rated plot, and Peter Laird specifically didn't want it to be any kind of continuation of the 1987 series. I initially respected the 2012 series for its depth and continuity, but it got really, really bad during season 3, and completely terrible by season 4.

      So yes, I do think the 1987 series was garbage. The first two or so episodes weren't terrible, but weren't fantastic either, though they formed a decent foundation for Archie TMNT to start from (and later heavily retcon). But the rest of the 1987 series...no, thank you. I don't like transparently toyetic formulas, one-dimensional plots or characters, or shallow love interests. None of that.

      Now these are some ways you do good TMNT:

      TMNT is perhaps always going to have two very different kinds of fan bases that have very different tastes for very different genres, and aren't always going to see eye-to-eye. I for one don't mind if it gets more lighthearted at times (and indeed sometimes it can be nice that way), as long as it remains something an adult reader/viewer can respect and take seriously as an adult, and not just enjoy out of some kind of nostalgia for something they watched when they were 7 years old.

        Loading editor
    • zach is the kid who kept "crying alien" and it was the bat guy (I think Kirby mutated into him this series) and I think the other was supposed to be a mosquito (don't know how to spell it), right? Also had we even met Timothy before he was mutated?

        Loading editor
    • MarioLuigiGCFan wrote:

      Zobovor wrote:

      Gilgameshkun wrote: 1987 TV series fans are the worst demographic of TMNT fans....they were raised on junk TV, and if that's what they still prefer, then they won't know a good show from a crappy show....to prefer it above all other styles of TMNT is to have fundamentally bad taste.

      You offend me, sir. You've basically just said "anything I don't like is garbage; therefore, people who like something I don't must enjoy garbage."

      Have the human decency to respect other people's opinions without denigrating their tastes. There's room enough in this world for fans of the old stuff as well as fans of the new stuff.

      You say the original cartoon is garbage, and yet it was what propelled the Turtles to stardom in the first place. Millions of kids worldwide enjoyed the series. If it weren't for the 1987 cartoon, there would never have been a 2003 series or a 2014 series in the first place. Every aspect of TMNT that you now enjoy is resting on the laurels of what's come before.

      Also, isn't it funny how, despite the old show being total garbage, the current cartoon show and toy line keep borrowing from it? Over and over again? Mutagen Man, Slash, Bebop, Rocksteady, Rahzar, Mondo Gecko, Napoleon Bonafrog... all characters introduced in the "garbage" cartoon.

      Just sayin'.

      Dude it's a good show buts it's way overrated between the fanbase and Rahzar is not an 1987 Character but a 1990 Movie Character like Tokka and Tatsu!


      And yet, Rahzar in the Nick Show is a mutated DogPound instead of a Mutated Wolf like in the original Film the character came from in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.