I am not a huge fan of this movie

[Chris Wallace]

I loved the Turtles back in the day but this film failed to recapture my imagination. The animation rocked, the action was great, but everything else was just so-so to me.

 

[ninjaspyder13]

I'm sorry you felt that way. I thought this movie rocked at least as much as the first one.

 

[Neptune]

It was good but there are a few things that could've been done better. I'd like to see more Mikey and Donny. And also more action, the fight scenes were fantastic but they were short and there should've been more.

 

[The Kid]

I've got your back on this one, chris.

It's a decent romp, but ultimately underwhelming. It plays it too safe, as if it's just a check list film of things some studio guy was told people wanted in a tmnt film rather than a genuinely good adaptation of the tmnt comics like the 2k3 series. People won't admit this now for the most part, but perhaps time will reveal the truth to 'em.

Raph pissed at leo? check
Mikey being silly? Check
Donatello being smart? Check
Leo being strict? Check
Some quiet scenes to add drama? Check

But ultimately I felt as if the film went no where special when the credits came. This was due to a weak set-up in the beginning in which we are given no solid grounds to base any of the events on (is this after tmnt, tmnt 2. tmnt 3? we don't know) It's all just stuff we're told is happening without much reason why. Why do the turtles suddenly become useless if leo takes a little vacation? Donny could definitely take his role if he's abscent and they need someone to make key decisions... it just doesn't hold up to this kind of scrutiny...

the weak villains don't help things either. This is why we love the shredder. That guy's no joke, has a link to the turtles through splinter's past, and is one of the best ninjas on the planet earth... these villains in the film would be his punk henchmen if he was in it.

 

[Catman]

The movie was AWESOME! The only problem with the flick was that the villains were lame and Mike, Don, Casey, and April didn't get enough screentime and development.

 

[UltimateJustin]

I agree with the general concensus, but let me also add that the human characters were so badly designed it may as well had been animated like the '87 series.

 

[Punisher RULES]

It was all kinds of awesome. It was a great movie for those who just wanted to drop a ball and have some fun and I salute everyone that enjoyed it. Anyone who didnt enjoy it is probably too uptight about their science fiction and fantasy.

 

[The Kid]

NO we just know TMNT's been done better. This is akin to an amalgamation of tmnt 2 and 3. Three featured a villain that just came out of no where. Same here. 3 had Casey and april in it, in supporting roles that didn't mean much to the main plot. Parts of 2 are just ******ed. Parts of this flick are just ******ed "your mom, dude... har har." The most notable thing about this film is the raph and leo fight, which was already done in the 2k3 series, to some extent the first film *though they didn't have much time for it* and the next mutation. The thing about this fight though is that it didn't make much sense. Raph has no reason to be angry with leo since it wasn't like leo stole his sais or anything. He just followed splinter's orders... But anyway I'll roll with it since most 80s flicks had nonsense stories and I can only assume this is a throwback.

I'm an unofficial expert on tmnt now, I guess, since I've seen every thing tmnt, have spent hours playing with the toys, and have read some comics. This movie in my opinion, isn't what it's hyped to be online. Pixar's cgi flicks run circles around it, as do many better made films. Hopefully the studio sees through all the sycophantic praise and decides to deliver a better movie if there's a sequel.

 

[Fanged-Hunter]

Pixar's cgi flicks run circles around it, as do many better made films. Hopefully the studio sees through all the sycophantic praise and decides to deliver a better movie if there's a sequel.

Sorry, but Pixar doesn't run circles around it, if you ask me. This is definitely on par with Pixar in quality of animation, which is all Pixar can be compared with. The human designs were too "Incredibles" for my taste, but I won't shoot it down based on the choice of artistic style. The turtles looked phenomenal, almost realistically cartoony, which did seem more out of place against the exaggerated physiques of the human characters.

As for the villain, it depends on what you want. Do you want to go see the original movie 4 times over? Bringing Shredder back again...and again...and again...and...well, it gets old. And the comics didn't mean for Shredder to be a recurring villain originally as they killed him off almost as soon as he appeared. He was such a hit, they did bring him back through ninja mysticism and such. But having the same villain instead of developing a rogue gallery...I dunno. Sure, Shredder will always be number 1 with a bullet, but he's not the only villain they should ever face.

 

[The Kid]

Sorry, everyone's saying it'd get redundant to see Shredder again, but I doubt it.

Shredder's only been done well in the first film. The second film made him more of a joke, made everything more of a joke actually. So we've only seen Shredder done well in live action, once, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B51-voojs5A&mode=related&search= 17 whole years ago when most on this board weren't born. If they were lucky enough to see the 2k3 series, they got to see shredder become an alien.

Beyond that, we've actually recieved absolutely 0.0 villains from the comics on film besides him, so YES I'd love to see him again instead of random made up villain #5 next time.

As for the animation. It's not something that really impressed me beyond a few parts where it almost looked totally real. That happy feet movie, I think, completely murders this film as far as animation quality goes. Pixars latest films look better than this to me as well. Actually, Monsters Inc. alone stomps all over this film in retrospect. I'm trying to think of others. I haven't seen cars but it probably looks better too. Graphics mean only so much though. The designs for this movie weren't very good for 3d, maybe fore 2d, but in 3d they looked awkward. The masks in particular looked like card board burger king hats.

 

[Fanged-Hunter]

Shredder's only been done well in the first film. The second film made him more of a joke, made everything more of a joke actually. 17 whole years ago when most on this board weren't born. If they were lucky enough to see the 2k3 series, they got to see shredder become an alien.

As for the animation. It's not something that really impressed me beyond a few parts where it almost looked totally real. That happy feet movie, I think, completely murders this film as far as animation quality goes. Pixars latest films look better than this to me as well. Actually, Monsters Inc. alone stomps all over this film in retrospect. I'm trying to think of others. I haven't seen cars but it probably looks better too. Graphics mean only so much though. The designs for this movie weren't very good for 3d, maybe fore 2d, but in 3d they looked awkward. The masks in particular looked like card board burger king hats.

Shredder became a shark in the comic!

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Shredder again in the sequel using the ancient Ninja mysticism worms to resurrect him. I just don't necessarily feel he was a major requirement for this one. Granted, a modification of City at War storyline with the Foot and Karai as the villains might have been more interesting and given a stronger pull for Leo's return.

TMNT: http://www.popmatters.com/images/film_art/t/tmnt-1.jpg
TMNT: http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/752/752071/tmnt-20061221001829947.jpg

Incredibles:http://www.angelmax.com/_sys/images/the-incredibles-pixar-family.jpg

Finding Nemo: http://www.weschan.com/images/nemo.jpg

Cars: http://blog.vehiclevoice.com/Pixar The King Blog.jpg

Toy Story: http://www.digitalmediafx.com/News2001/Images/Pixar02.jpg

I still think TMNT is just fine in the animation. No way you can convince me that these others have stomped it into the ground. Though Frozone was funnier than Mikey.

Happy Feet: http://movies.warnerbros.com/pub/movie/happyfeet/HappyFeet_LoRes/images/SC19-4.jpg

Yeah, I can start to agree that Happy Feet is more realistic in appearance, but do you really want to debate a movie about a penguin vs. a movie about 4 mutated turtles who are ninja in terms of which is likely to appear more realistic, even in art? Take a picture of a penguin. Make a CGI version. Take a picture of a ninja tur....well, okay. I think the turtles came off way more realistic looking than the humans, still. Again, that's a decision on the art direction. I'll deal with it, just like I dealt with the overexagerated body language in the original Turtles movie due to a lack of facial expressions in some parts.

 

[I_Hate_U_All]

Now here's where I have to call you out on being a bit disingenuous.

The original turtles suits are for some reason, to this day, the best of the bunch. From then, the quality dipped until we were forced to deal with the junk in the next mutation series. After seeing the excellent work in the first tmnt movie made again, 17 whole years ago, Why out of the blue hell should we have to settle for less in the year 2007, because of a few glitches with the original puppet suits which to this day are still the best despite this now being the future when we're supposed to have flying cars and stuff?

I read fanboys saying stuff like "well the original film got bad reviews too." as well and I shake my head... Yes It did. So did TMNT 3. Which movie's better? I would hope us TMNT fans would demand better than something like tmnt 3 in this day and age. But I'm well aware of the way the net works by now. Everything's blown out of proportion.

I still maintain my thinking that the cgi while very good doesn't surpass the best I've seen recently in other film. I'd say it's on par with those non-pixar ones, but some of the cheaper looking ones like over the hedge or whatever.

I totally agree the human designs are weak. They look like anorexic mutated people, which kind of defeats the whole idea of the turtles being the mutants. I hated that they were'nt using live actors instead. It makes this little more than a highly detailed episode of a cartoon than the novelty of live action adding something special. A better approach would have been to do live action with cgi turtles. Have Ernie come in and do motion capture so it doesn't look like a fake weightless cartoon. That'd have been something.

oops: signed on with my alter ego. It's me wesyeed.

 

[ninjaspyder13]

oops: signed on with my alter ego. It's me wesyeed.

LOL. So THAT's why it seems like so many people hated TMNT at the Hype! You guys are actually the same person, but with different names.t:

I totally don't see where you're thinking the turtles look anorexic -- Did you see the film in theaters or just some cheapass pirated copy? (Either that, or you seriously need to get your eyes checked). The turtles were really ripped in this film. Beefy and appropriately lithe as martial artists, but not as clumsy and bulky as they looked and moved in the live-action films (no offense to the guys under the suits -- impressive stunts considering the weight, but they still look like they were somewhat bogged down to me).

EDIT: And Fanged-Hunter, not that I want to bash your opinion on the animation, but about half your links aren't working. Plus they're only stills from the movies -- not animated clips. Why don't you dig up some HQ official vids for each movie to make your point?

For me, it's not that the animation or design in this movie was "like Pixar." The overall feel that I got was that this was like a TMNT movie. The animation was more reserved, but in the end, I think that actually ended up being good for this movie. A lot of the animation in Pixar movies can distract me from the characters because it gets to be a matter of showcasing what the artists can do. In TMNT, the animation, the design supported the realism of the turtles. Whereas you look at a lot of Dreamworks, even Pixar animation, theirs tends to be more in the Disney traditional melodramatic approach to animating (which some animators disagree is the best approach towards CG animation -- there was this one really interesting article I read on this... maybe I can dig it up. Or maybe.... there aren't enough animators here to care.).

 

[JClive2007]

Now here's where I have to call you out on being a bit disingenuous.

The original turtles suits are for some reason, to this day, the best of the bunch. From then, the quality dipped until we were forced to deal with the junk in the next mutation series. After seeing the excellent work in the first tmnt movie made again, 17 whole years ago, Why out of the blue hell should we have to settle for less in the year 2007, because of a few glitches with the original puppet suits which to this day are still the best despite this now being the future when we're supposed to have flying cars and stuff?

I read fanboys saying stuff like "well the original film got bad reviews too." as well and I shake my head... Yes It did. So did TMNT 3. Which movie's better? I would hope us TMNT fans would demand better than something like tmnt 3 in this day and age. But I'm well aware of the way the net works by now. Everything's blown out of proportion.

I still maintain my thinking that the cgi while very good doesn't surpass the best I've seen recently in other film. I'd say it's on par with those non-pixar ones, but some of the cheaper looking ones like over the hedge or whatever.

I totally agree the human designs are weak. They look like anorexic mutated people, which kind of defeats the whole idea of the turtles being the mutants. I hated that they were'nt using live actors instead. It makes this little more than a highly detailed episode of a cartoon than the novelty of live action adding something special. A better approach would have been to do live action with cgi turtles. Have Ernie come in and do motion capture so it doesn't look like a fake weightless cartoon. That'd have been something.

oops: signed on with my alter ego. It's me wesyeed.

I love the live action movies but people those are in the past, I like the route Munroe and Mirage took with this Turtle movie because there were some things guys in turtle suits couldn't do and by the action scenes in the movie those suits would suffer alot of damage. As for the CG granted some of the people look odd but even a movie like the Increbiles(sp) the human in that movie didn't look all that real even in Monster House the humans didn't look all that even the haters can't deny the turtles in points of the moments when they passed as live action. The problem I had was it was short maybe made it a two hour flick where the story didn't seemed rushed. As for the bad guys and story, I like the Stone warrior angle it was ok wouldn't mind something on the lines of City at War. Now for the live action issue, if they plan an TMNT live action to go along with the CG movie in the future they should go back to part one and improve on those suits out of the three movies the turtles in part one look amazing.

 

[ninjaspyder13]

I think, aside from the WAY OUT THERE plot (which was about as outlandish and had as little to do with the TMNT as the time-travel plot did in TMNT III), another thing that could have been improved was how the film transitioned from one scene to the next. One pretty major one is after Leo abandons April at the campfire and then Mikey coming home from his Cowabunga Carl job. Or maybe the too short, rather pointless scene where:

April explains the story of the 3000 year old legend. Then we leave her and the turtles to see.... the camera look around Max Winter's room and then we see his eyes. Big whoop. It lasts like 20-30 seconds, tells us nothing we don't already know. Instead of hearing more about the villains what happens? We turn around and go back to April and the turtles. What was the point?

Regardless of this "video-game-esque" movie editing, TMNT was still effective in many other areas that it ended up being highly enjoyable despite its shortcomings. (And keep in mind, people, that the movie had a ridiculously low budget and a first-time movie director who made TMNT because he was a big turtles fan, and still is.)

 

[The Kid]

LOL. So THAT's why it seems like so many people hated TMNT at the Hype! You guys are actually the same person, but with different names.t:

I totally don't see where you're thinking the turtles look anorexic -- Did you see the film in theaters or just some cheapass pirated copy? (Either that, or you seriously need to get your eyes checked). The turtles were really ripped in this film. Beefy and appropriately lithe as martial artists, but not as clumsy and bulky as they looked and moved in the live-action films (no offense to the guys under the suits -- impressive stunts considering the weight, but they still look like they were somewhat bogged down to me).

EDIT: And Fanged-Hunter, not that I want to bash your opinion on the animation, but about half your links aren't working. Plus they're only stills from the movies -- not animated clips. Why don't you dig up some HQ official vids for each movie to make your point?

For me, it's not that the animation or design in this movie was "like Pixar." The overall feel that I got was that this was like a TMNT movie. The animation was more reserved, but in the end, I think that actually ended up being good for this movie. A lot of the animation in Pixar movies can distract me from the characters because it gets to be a matter of showcasing what the artists can do. In TMNT, the animation, the design supported the realism of the turtles. Whereas you look at a lot of Dreamworks, even Pixar animation, theirs tends to be more in the Disney traditional melodramatic approach to animating (which some animators disagree is the best approach towards CG animation -- there was this one really interesting article I read on this... maybe I can dig it up. Or maybe.... there aren't enough animators here to care.).

You didn't read my post thoroughly enough.

And in truth, the atmosphere in here is "let's overrate the movie!" not "let's bash it." I've only begun criticising this as Wesyeed. The other accounts I have have been in community, trolling for fun.

ugh. I'm getting too into this as it is. This movie's very paper thin, easy to rip to pieces. Not really worth it.

 

[The Kid]

I love the live action movies but people those are in the past, I like the route Munroe and Mirage took with this Turtle movie because there were some things guys in turtle suits couldn't do and by the action scenes in the movie those suits would suffer alot of damage. As for the CG granted some of the people look odd but even a movie like the Increbiles(sp) the human in that movie didn't look all that real even in Monster House the humans didn't look all that even the haters can't deny the turtles in points of the moments when they passed as live action. The problem I had was it was short maybe made it a two hour flick where the story didn't seemed rushed. As for the bad guys and story, I like the Stone warrior angle it was ok wouldn't mind something on the lines of City at War. Now for the live action issue, if they plan an TMNT live action to go along with the CG movie in the future they should go back to part one and improve on those suits out of the three movies the turtles in part one look amazing.

sigh. I'll only ask you this. What would you think of it if they made a Who framed Rogger Rabbit completely in cgi?

 

[Fanged-Hunter]

Curse you, links! You have failed me for the last time! *stab stab stabbity*

I'd look for high quality video clips, but 15 minutes on break at work, and with these computers, just won't work. Maybe later.

But even a still clip starts to get an idea on quality in terms of detail.

Now, Weyseed, stop for a moment and ask yourself something. Do you honestly, and do NOT let yourself slip past, be brutal with yourself...do you HONESTLY think we'd have gotten actors, sets, or anything else that ranked higher than a horrid 70's B movie if we went with live action using motion captured CG turtles ranking up there with Gollum?

No.

Here's why: This one had a low budget. And we'd have spent all of it on awesome CGI turtles, but had to sacrifice quality in other areas.

If they announced they had a budget close to the original Spider-Man, I'd be with you 100% on doing live action with CGI turtles. I've be ravenous about it. But with a 35 million budget, I am going to enjoy what I got and I'm going to be happy with it.

If you really thought it was such a bad/weak movie, I have just one suggestion for you: Don't buy the DVD. I'm a strong believer in only buying DVDs of movies you really liked. You can see something in theaters and say "It was fun and an okay film, but I didn't really like it" and that's good. But don't buy DVDs of movies you didn't really enjoy.

 

[ninjaspyder13]

sigh. I'll only ask you this. What would you think of it if they made a Who framed Rogger Rabbit completely in cgi?

Haha... you have unfortunately stumbled across a big Richard Williams fan. t: I loved Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which also had a paper-thin plot like TMNT, but still holds up to this day for its visuals and the world which it created.

But the point you bring up doesn't apply to TMNT. They went with CG with this new movie because 1. No one was willing to produce another live-action TMNT; 2. CG in a way suits the genre of TMNT very well. You can make characters do things in CG that simply can't be done with actors in heavy rubber suits, as well as get a much wider range of emotions. I loved the overall look achieved in the movie -- it's like a hybrid between realism and an actual comic book. I think it only looks plastic on pirated versions. In the theater... the experience is so different even from the HQ clips online. And yes, I'm taking into account the entire world of TMNT -- not only the live-action movies, but also the original comics (as did the director).

Now there is a fundamental reason why another Roger Rabbit feature should never be attempted in CGI: Roger Rabbit is a 2D, hand-drawn "toon" in his universe, which is clearly established in the first film. You can't have the whole movie CG because then it actually goes against the practically designated rules established in the first movie: there are real people, and there are animated people. If everyone and everything becomes CG, then everything this animated, but now there are neither real people nor traditional toons; everything becomes a late-20th, early 21st century mix of real people and hand-drawn toons. (Maybe a result of intermarriage, but I digress.)

But with TMNT, CG as a MEDIUM does not go against "canon," rather it supports it. What matters is that you create a world that bridges the real one to the urban mythology of the TMNT. I really think they succeeded in that. I hope that, if there is a bigger budget for the next film, they will expand on what has they began with TMNT 2007.

Now was this a GREAT film, technically? No, no, and a big NO. There were tons of things that were done wrong as people have pointed out a million times, but that doesn't mean TMNT can't be enjoyed or commended for the things it got right: the details. Rarely do movies manage to hold together because of details, but this one does, and that's why a lot of people are surprised at how much they enjoy it.

Not to say that details aren't enough for most people. (Most people agree that in terms of quality, the new movie is only B or C-level). As far as liking the film, I think it depends on what you value more: the characters, the plot, the humor, the action, the bad guys, the medium (which in your opinion, is extremely important), or a complete replication of your childhood experience.

And by the way -- if you think the consensus at the Hype is overrating the movie, take a look at the traffic in this section. There isn't much, meaning that not enough people have seen the movie, or that not enough people care one way or the other to voice their opinion.

 

[The Kid]

bong

*scratches head* You'd think TMNT was Shakespearian after readin something like that...

*bites into carrot*

Eeeeehhh, here's what I think, doc.

TMNT's comics, and the looney/disney tunes roger rabbit was based on aren't THAT different. CGI's not the best medium to transfer cartoons to... well... to 3D cartoons because nothing much has changed except that it's now 3d. The great thing about Roger Rabbit was that it was a clashing of two completely opposite realms, and that's what's to this day, it's most note worthy quality. It was so elaborately crafted and the mix between live action and the cartoons was just a joy to watch and wonder HOW it was accomplished. With CGI, we'd just say "oh it's CGI" and the magic would be gone...

CGI's as much of an alternative as Live Action, nothing more. It's all for the sake of novelty. And Roger rabbits novelty would function in the same way as the original live action tmnt, taking the unreal and placing it in a real world setting to hopefully fool the audience into believing what they're seeing. When it's all a cartoon, it's not going to fool anyone for a second.

 

[The Kid]

Curse you, links! You have failed me for the last time! *stab stab stabbity*

I'd look for high quality video clips, but 15 minutes on break at work, and with these computers, just won't work. Maybe later.

But even a still clip starts to get an idea on quality in terms of detail.

Now, Weyseed, stop for a moment and ask yourself something. Do you honestly, and do NOT let yourself slip past, be brutal with yourself...do you HONESTLY think we'd have gotten actors, sets, or anything else that ranked higher than a horrid 70's B movie if we went with live action using motion captured CG turtles ranking up there with Gollum?

No.

Here's why: This one had a low budget. And we'd have spent all of it on awesome CGI turtles, but had to sacrifice quality in other areas.

If they announced they had a budget close to the original Spider-Man, I'd be with you 100% on doing live action with CGI turtles. I've be ravenous about it. But with a 35 million budget, I am going to enjoy what I got and I'm going to be happy with it.

If you really thought it was such a bad/weak movie, I have just one suggestion for you: Don't buy the DVD. I'm a strong believer in only buying DVDs of movies you really liked. You can see something in theaters and say "It was fun and an okay film, but I didn't really like it" and that's good. But don't buy DVDs of movies you didn't really enjoy.

That's a no brainer. I don't have Catwoman on DVD so... uh... yeah. Don't go wacky on me for comparing it to catwoman though. It's not THAT bad.

About the live actoin/cgi mix. I'm sure it'd have been fine. We got two crappy garfield movies with a cgi garf, two crappy Scooby Doo movies with a cgi Doo. What would be so bad about a live action TMNT with cgi turtles instead of a Garfield 3 or Scooby booby 3? Makes more sense to me to do TMNT than a sequel to those turds in LIVE ACTION.

 

[Fanged-Hunter]

That's a no brainer. I don't have Catwoman on DVD so... uh... yeah. Don't go wacky on me for comparing it to catwoman though. It's not THAT bad.

About the live actoin/cgi mix. I'm sure it'd have been fine. We got two crappy garfield movies with a cgi garf, two crappy Scooby Doo movies with a cgi Doo. What would be so bad about a live action TMNT with cgi turtles instead of a Garfield 3 or Scooby booby 3? Makes more sense to me to do TMNT than a sequel to those turds in LIVE ACTION.

Oh geez, ouch, Catwoman >_< I never even saw it. Too much of a butchery of the what I expected of a "Catwoman" film and too much of a rip off of The Crow (A cat brings the soul back to set things right? They even played the music from The Crow trailer in the Catwoman trailer).

So two crappy Garfield movies and two crappy Scooby Doo movies suggests we should go for a poor Turtles live action with CGI instead of a good CGI film?

Of course, it goes back to your opinion that the CGI film wasn't very good to begin with, so there's the difference of opnion on the matter.

If technology had been where it is today (i.e., Gollum) when the brothers were at their peak of popularity.

 

[e-three]

I think, aside from the WAY OUT THERE plot (which was about as outlandish and had as little to do with the TMNT as the time-travel plot did in TMNT III), another thing that could have been improved was how the film transitioned from one scene to the next. One pretty major one is after Leo abandons April at the campfire and then Mikey coming home from his Cowabunga Carl job. Or maybe the too short, rather pointless scene where:

April explains the story of the 3000 year old legend. Then we leave her and the turtles to see.... the camera look around Max Winter's room and then we see his eyes. Big whoop. It lasts like 20-30 seconds, tells us nothing we don't already know. Instead of hearing more about the villains what happens? We turn around and go back to April and the turtles. What was the point?

I know it sounds dumb, but the point of that scene was to reveal that Winters is definitely the immortal warrior in the legend. April tells the story and as we look through the room, we see the immortal warrior in different stages of history...Roman, Egyptian, etc. These are represented by the different statues and whatnot in Winters' room (which all bear his likeness). So when it pans over to Winter sitting in the room, it's telling us that he was the guy in the legend, and that he lived through those different periods up until today. I know it seems pointless since it's pretty obvious from the early moments of the movie that Winters is the immortal warrior, but I guess since this movie is meant for kids as well they decided to overtly establish that connection to make sure everyone gets it.

I agree with the transitioning thing though. The major problem I had with the movie (other than not enough Donatello!) was that the story didn't feel fleshed out enough.

 

[cinquan]

The only ones that should be in CGI is the turtles and Splinter and may-be the foot. I agree with not having Michaelanglo and Donatello not having enough parts in the movie. I wish they did more with the villians in this movie, including the foot. April and Casey should have done more. I still think that the first live action movie was and still the best. This movie came close. But, It didn't last long as the others did. Like if I was a movie director, and the creators of TMNT came to me to do a new movie. I would based it more on the first comics. Cause if you think about it, It wasn't the games, It wasn't the cartoon, It was the comics that got all of our attention. The comics was what put TMNT on the map inthe first place. And I would go through all the different comics to come up with a better storyline which will make into a better movie.

 

[TheVileOne]

I think some people are gushing over this movie and making it seem better than it actually is just because they are turtle fans.