I'm going to be that guy - TMNT Flaws/Critiques/Spoilers

[Marvin]

...
Those are just a few more execution issues.

Not to mention, Raph's speech at the end rang hollow considering the creative geniuses responsible for this steaming pile of **** failed to show any of the nonsense Raph was apparently apologizing for leading up to that scene. It was embarrassing to watch.

I know there are a few people running around trashing every other film in defense of this crap and it's gotten ridiculous. There really is no explaining any of what I just addressed (including the portion I quoted), because there is no explanation for them in the movie.

I apologize to Marvin and FrostBite, and anyone else who thought this movie was good. That is simply not true. It's not a matter of taste or personal opinion. This does not deserve a sequel.

Not having watched the film I can't really comment on the minutia, however I can and do consistently say there is a reason why cinema sins has a long library of films it has dissected both well and poorly received by critics, from nolan to bay and all that's in between. Doing the same here thing then going on to assert that this makes it some factual steaming pile of **** is mostly petty and opportunistic imo. Who knew being able to point out plot holes or inconsistencies is the actual measure of film quality, in that case I'm not sure why any of these films this summer landed over 80(unless it's about other things).
And yes it actually is a matter of taste and opinion, a film deserves a sequel if it's audience justifies as such to the investors that pay for it, not if some guy(s) on the internet who doesn't even have to watch it doesn't want it to happen. There are a bunch of folks that hate that silly 'Teen Titans Go' for replacing the 'better' young justice but the simple truth is one justifies it's existence by way of audience and the other doesn't. I hope SHH makes a thread for the sponge bob movie so we can do all of this again over there, especially after a sequel is announced. You folks go through plot holes in such a way that it makes one think the current Nicktoon is unwatchable for these same people. One can just as easily go through all the many plot holes in the prior films and all of them got sequels. It's like asking why shredder toys with the turtles on the roof when he could easily kill them in a fraction of the time? Why he only brought a stick...Why he didn't kill splinter..
This is the crux of the issue, the buck stopping here. I mean I get that some of you folks don't like the movie but I have to question the actual root of this level of contempt.

As for one of your nit picks, the ones I can assess on logic alone anyways. When someone has a long ranged weapon, their advantage is distance. Moving in tends to result in disarming or worse. It's kinda different when you have a sword or knife and they are weaponless if you catch my drift. What's more, maybe it was simply a bad call on the part of the character, that kinda happens in real life(especially when one is a coward). You'd think this was based on some tom clancy book and not in the same vain as ninja turtles 2 or the films with the foot that would take turns with their hand to hand attack formations.

Raph apologizing for who he is works on several different levels. Sure it could all be more evident in the film but even if none of it was evident in film(and I've actually seen plenty of it in the trailers alone), it would still work on the bases that the characters have a history or pre-story alluded to that is consistent with what we are seeing in film. Everything Mufasa and Scar have prior to Mufasa's death can be alluded to in the same way for this very reason. What's more, the film has the special opportunity for much of it's audience being in on premise of the characters. I'm not saying that entirely justifies telling and less showing but it's not like this movie was some original introduction ala inception. Taking advantage of the simplicity of characters/arch types, and consistency of the myth throughout media to do alot of your leg work is a liberty in execution. I have to assume it worked on some of the audience. It's not like they had Donny making this exact speech and people were scratching their heads in confusion.

As for the poster that keeps asking as to why a mechanized suit can crack a shell but bullets can't. That's like asking why ironman is bullet proof yet he can punch holes in war machine. Better example would be why robo cop is bullet proof yet he can be cut in two by the evil robot in in the sequel. This goes beyond a matter of if they are using hollow points or full metals, though if they are using hollows.... As for why he can smash into a car and keep on moving. He said it was cracked and needed field dressing, he never said one more hit and it's going to fall off. It's like if he said his arm was cut and needed....I digress. If Captain America said his shield was cracked, and I saw him still use it I would have to assume the obvious: he's coping.

Oldboy learned how to fight from watching television for 10 years? I have to assume no one questioned the logic there cause the story wasn't based on real life...But in this live action cartoon it's all about the omg omg from a book? I just don't buy it.

I just realized the name of this thread.
Carry on.

 

[Nebraska]

Not having watched the film...

Wait, what?

 

[Marvin]

Wait, what?

what's not to get?

 

[Nebraska]

what's not to get?

Seems very odd for someone to defend a movie they haven't even seen, no?

That essentially makes your opinion on the subject worthless. I apologize for calling you out in my original post. I figured someone who had spent as much time defending the film as you have, had at least, you know, actually seen it.

 

[Marvin]

Seems very odd for someone to defend a movie they haven't even seen, no?

That essentially makes your opinion on the subject worthless. I apologize for calling you out in my original post. I figured someone who had spent as much time defending the film as you have, had at least, you know, actually seen it.

I've never spoken as to whether I enjoyed the movie or not. I certainly haven't spoken as to whether I think it's good or bad(hardly do that with anything). If you read my posts, and I assume you do given you mentioned me, you'd note that I tend do what I just did in my post above. Speak to consistency and preconception, logic and such. Whether I like the movie or not, these points will still be worth making and that simple truth is where I find the most value(see learning from a book for example or acceptable villain motivation). That people decide to 'defend' or 'attack' such things based on whether they like or hate a film is where I see less value tbh. Unfortunately with so much discourse being fueled on preference these days and you can see how the discourse will go months out.

In short, I don't need to see a movie to know that if something can be silly in 1990, it can be silly in 2014. If you want my opinion on megan fox's performance you'll have to wait till I get around to seeing the film. If you want to know what I think of how guns work...

 

[Nebraska]

I'm confident once you see the movie you won't find much disagreement in what I highlighted originally. Unfortunately, seeing the turtles on screen isn't compelling enough to overcome the obvious issues this film has.

In no way is it better than TMNT (1990). It does offer a better turtle film than the almost unwatchable sequel that Secret of the Ooze was. Maybe TMNT 2014's sequel will be what the original live-action film was to Secret of the Ooze.

 

[Marvin]

I'm half curious to see if this films sequel(s) will be better or worse received than the originals sequels.

What I do know is that just like back in 1990, kids are coming out of the theater with captured imaginations and having had good times(I've seen a few). I would imagine it was a similar situation 24 years ago. I also imagine many a film pundit or adult wasn't too impressed with what said film had to offer as it well documented. That people now explain some massive void in their difference in film quality yet all of that holds true, I find not so compelling.

 

[TH29]

The movie stunk even with a few fun scenes it was totally a let down. Of course little kids enjoy it and i have no problem with that, they dont notice anything like lapses in storytelling, plot holes, nonsensical character motivations to move the plot along, all they notice is the giant green turtles jumping around fighting (poorly I might add) and thats it. The rest of us, who actually SAW the movie, saw a highly flawed, lazily written, cash in on a property we actually cared about and has been done better in many other mediums multiple times. Ridiculous for someone to defend a film they havent even seen.

 

[Human Torch]

Just for giggles,I'll play devil's advocate and address some of these objections.t:

How about why did Shredder and the Foot leave Raph (presumed dead) and Splinter (dying) in the sewers and only take the three turtles? They needed blood. Raph and Splinter's blood was still valuable whether they are alive or dead. But to prevent the movie from ending right then and there the villains left 40% of available mutagen lying in the sewers. Poor writing.

Do we know if Shredder thinks they need to be alive?Maybe if they die the regenerative properties die with them.Maybe it wasn't worth it to them to drag Raph's 6 ft 500 lbs corpse with them on the off chance it would be useful.(They had 3 live & kicking subjects already)Maybe Shredder wanted Splinter to be left to suffer & die alone from his injuries (due to some unexplained rivalry yet TBD)and didn't care if Sacks could use him or not.

Granted it's all bull-logic conjecture.A simple line or two could've gone a long way towards explaining it.But again-devil's advocate.

Also, when Sacks is in the lab trying to kill (I assume) April and Vernon he just stays by the desk and shoots in their general direction even though they are hiding. Why not just walk over and shoot them, because you know they are unarmed.

This is the only one I'll outright dispute.Even if we assume Sacks is fairly certain they are unarmed,they are in a lab surrounded by all kinds of chemical containers (presumably,some of their toxin could've been made there).It really wouldn't be in his interest to take chances on walking over to kill them,if they could hurl some acid/poison/sharp instrument at him.You'll notice he doesn't approach until he sees April sitting "helplessly" by seeing her reflection in the window.He was waiting for the safe shot.

Then earlier in the film, April "stays up all night" making that stupid presentation for her boss, but NEVER, NOT ONE SINGLE TIME does she show good 'ole Whoopi the picture of the four, six-foot, ninja turtles that she took on her phone. But, after getting ****-canned, she drives over to the villain's mansion and the ONE AND ONLY thing she shows him is the freaking picture.

Yeah,it was just dumb,dumb,dumb.Nothing can really explain it being anything but stupid.

Not to mention, Raph's speech at the end rang hollow considering the creative geniuses responsible for this steaming pile of **** failed to show any of the nonsense Raph was apparently apologizing for leading up to that scene. It was embarrassing to watch.

Well,It didn't really feel that unearned to me,but they did trade on the fact that you would have known the character's personalities already from past incarnations.

 

[Marvin]

The movie stunk even with a few fun scenes it was totally a let down. Of course little kids enjoy it and i have no problem with that, they dont notice anything like lapses in storytelling, plot holes, nonsensical character motivations to move the plot along, all they notice is the giant green turtles jumping around fighting (poorly I might add) and thats it. The rest of us, who actually SAW the movie, saw a highly flawed, lazily written, cash in on a property we actually cared about and has been done better in many other mediums multiple times. Ridiculous for someone to defend a film they havent even seen.

Is the bolded all your opinion or are you actually speaking for everyone? I mean when you say it was 'totally a let down' do you mean to speak to some truth or how you personally feel? I can never tell and when I pursue this line of this discussion it always ends up in a back track of "I don't need to add imo at the end, cause it's obvious and I speak for myself". I only ask because you go on to speak for 'everyone' towards the end there.

And secondly, I'm not defending a movie I haven't seen, I'm addressing flawed arguments in and of themselves. If someone said it's stupid that superman can hide behind glasses and thus Snyder is a cash grabbing idiot, I'd be right there saying these same things, period. You may or may not have liked the movie which is a fine, but now you are asserting as to the intelligence level of the people that did(not just kids mind you). This is like suggesting the only people that liked that nonsensical Neighbors this summer are people that don't mind "plot holes, nonsensical character motivations to move the plot along..". People like all sorts of things, and it helps when they know what it is they want. In the case of that film, a silly but fun comedy. In the case of this film...
I don't care that it has supposedly been done better in other mediums, it has been done 'poorly'(by your definitions) in mediums as well, the more popular incarnations mind you and the source of many of our age groups first encounter with the brand. Unless of course you mean to suggest that none of us here liked the original trilogy of films as kids or that mega popular 90's cartoon show?

My other main problem is how stringent some of you folks seem to be about logic and plot holes then in the same breadth you hoist up this new well done nick show. I find that particular bit entirely silly tbh. I mean the show has some great time dedicated to arcs and character and even purism(always a plus) and I can see why fans champion it. But this other game, of logic and plot hole...I'd challenge these same people watch something like Gargoyles even to see something several steps above in this regard..just watch how the police behave on both shows for starters.

That being said I tend to find a bit of irony in comments such as:
"Of course little kids enjoy it and i have no problem with that, they don't notice anything like lapses in storytelling, plot holes, nonsensical character motivations to move the plot along, all they notice is the giant green turtles jumping around fighting (poorly I might add) and that's it...." when it comes to addressing anything I've personally seen from TMNT over the years. People just like to draw their lines in the sand.

 

[BatLobster]

It's not a matter of taste or personal opinion. This does not deserve a sequel.

It'll prolly get at least 2, maybe 3 haha.

This is such an absurd statement though. In other words, it's OBJECTIVELY true that they don't deserve a chance to attempt to make a better movie next time? Especially when we know there were massive rewrites and reshoots movie to the point where it's a miracle they came out with something halfway decent? Even if I hated the movie, I would never try to say "it's a fact and not an opinion that it doesn't deserve a sequel". I was not a fan of the first Cap movie, wasn't interested in a sequel. But if I'd had taken it to that hilarious extreme, I would've had a huge egg on my face with Winter Soldier. Do I think TMNT 2 is going to change anyone's mind or blow people away? Nah, though there is a solid foundation there to continue the story in some fun directions. And kids are now attached to these versions of the Turtles so it would be stupid to change course now. And stupid from a business standpoint too. People need to seriously just get a grip. It's ridiculous.

Marvin is fighting such a lost cause with his lengthy attempts to question this level of hatred, but spiteful and arrogant statements like that make me kind of understand why he does.

 

[CEREBRAL....]

oh my god, the unnecessary b*tching that is going on in this thread. Some of you honestly don't deserve to ever watch these movies, because if it's not EXACTLY like it is in a comic book or how you remembered, it's a "Greek-Tragedy"

Jesus!

nit picking at it's finest.

 

[Nebraska]

This is such an absurd statement though. In other words, it's OBJECTIVELY true that they don't deserve a chance to attempt to make a better movie next time?

You read that wrong. I said it's not simply a matter of taste or personal opinion that this movie was bad. It just was. It can be broken down objectively at every level.

Also, I didn't even address the origin in my critique so you can dismiss any notion of me being upset about how this relates to the comics.

It was a poorly written, poorly executed film.

 

[CEREBRAL....]

You read that wrong. I said it's not simply a matter of taste or personal opinion that this movie was bad. It just was.
It can be broken down objectively at every level.
Also, I didn't even address the origin in my critique so you can dismiss any notion of me being upset about how this relates to the comics.

It was a poorly written, poorly executed film.

this statement is incorrect, because there are people who do not have a problem with the film. so it is a matter of taste and personal opinion. Always was.

 

[Nebraska]

this statement is incorrect, because there are people who do not have a problem with the film. so it is a matter of taste and personal opinion. Always was.

Some people don't have a problem with smoking or overeating. That doesn't all of a sudden mean they aren't bad.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying this movie. Nothing at all. Clearly a lot of people did. That doesn't mean it wasn't a bad movie when you look at it objectively.

 

[BatLobster]

That's fine. I misinterpreted your comment then.

For me though, I always anticipated this being a "fun but bad" movie. I mean, when I told my girlfriend that it was getting horrible reviews she said, "But...it's a Turtles movie. Isn't it supposed to be bad?"

I just think the level of criticism and hatred is a bit overblown.

 

[Nebraska]

Well, I mean, this is the Flaws & Critiques thread. It was kind of designated for criticism and "hatred." Don't let it ruin the movie for you if you liked it.

One thing I will object to, though, is that I do think it is possible to make a good Turtle movie. This one just isn't it.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, that's true. I'll probably just bow out of this thread. But the hatred and debating is still in the other threads too, so it's all same difference to me.

All I'll say is, I highly doubt we'll ever get a movie "better" than the 1990 one. And at the very same time, having watched it recently I don't know if that movie passes the "this is an objectively good movie" test. So...I kept my expectations low and I think it paid off. Just my opinion.

 

[CEREBRAL....]

Some people don't have a problem with smoking or overeating. That doesn't all of a sudden mean they aren't bad.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying this movie. Nothing at all. Clearly a lot of people did. That doesn't mean it wasn't a bad movie when you look at it objectively.

1st off, smoking and overeating is unversally knows as bad, this movie is not universally looked at as bad. that where you are still mistaken.

2nd

it was not a bad movie; this movie not using the original origin does not make it bad, splinter learning how to fight from a book isn't bad, Shredder/ and Sacks plan to inject N.Y. with a plague and make everyone have to come to them for the cure given them ultimate power is not bad and pretty coherent to me.

Ralph having a cracked shell and still being able to shield his self from bullets, doesn't stop make from not liking the movie and does not mess up the overall story that's being told either.

what you got right here is complains in this thread that are all opinions, good or bad...so what you are doing is given an opinion but you are trying to claim it's ultimately looked at as bad across the board. You are wrong

 

[CEREBRAL....]

Well, I mean, this is the Flaws & Critiques thread. It was kind of designated for criticism and "hatred." Don't let it ruin the movie for you if you liked it.

One thing I will object to, though, is that I do think it is possible to make a good Turtle movie. This one just isn't it.

you are right, and I'm wrong for entering this thread, saying otherwise.

 

[Marvin]

Yeah, that's true. I'll probably just bow out of this thread. But the hatred and debating is still in the other threads too, so it's all same difference to me.

All I'll say is, I highly doubt we'll ever get a movie "better" than the 1990 one. And at the very same time, having watched it recently I don't know if that movie passes the "this is an objectively good movie" test. So...I kept my expectations low and I think it paid off. Just my opinion.

There is a game being played and everyone loses for playing.

I just think the behavior of fans is mostly upsetting. All they ways to dress up simply not liking something or even hating it. I for one can't wait till the power ranger reboot. If only Orci has the balls to instead turn Zordon into a genius lab coat that get's caught in some negative energy field as a new origin. Only to see us get into debates about just how much less factual and story sense it makes when compared to the 'classic' that came before reviews be damned. "But now Zordon has no all important history with Rita.."
I honestly can't wait.
About the 'logic' in waiting to call the zords...
About how it could have been as 'good' as pacific rim but instead opted to be....what it was before.
Or the stereotypes(well if Bay's name isn't on it, they should be in the clear)....All of that dressing up when what is actually being said is that they liked it the other way and as they remember.

To address your earlier point.
I take part in this 'fight' because as little as I may think of any one piece of art, I empathize with all the people that have to endure with groups and cliques and whatever else spewing 'supposed' factual hate over something entirely subjective and that may connect with them as many things (like Armageddon and ID4) did with me.
Back in the day it was film clubbers raising noses at simpletons in the cafeteria but the internet, as it's done with alot of things has changed and expanded platforms. I find it all tragic. That if some people don't like a directors style(say lens flares) that they can spread that group think all over the internet with a snazzy youtube video and influence more hate where before they may not have been anything.
That a forum section can be for the most part populated by something other than the few fans a film has. To make them feel small for celebrating the subjective piece of art they like or connect with. It's why I for one tend to avoid the sections pertaining to films I don't care for rather then hoping in there and saying Thor sucked and argue that it doesn't deserve another and so forth regardless of what it's obvious fans think.
That's pretty much why. Because I'd probably right here doing this very same thing in 1990 when all these same levels of people were doing this same thing back then. Right down to what would have no doubt been deemed a silly origin flop for Splinter and critics were having their field days.

 

[TH29]

Marvin the bolded was my opinion, do I need to say IN MY OPINION to make you feel better? what you dont seem to grasp is that most people saying the film is bad are saying its bad on a fundamental film making level. Not even bringing all the poor choices/changes in the actual story which has little to no depth and very little heart. Its bad on a writing, storytelling, acting and at times FX level. Keep championing and defending a movie you havent even seen with all your might though if it helps you sleep well. I love Ninja Turtles and this was a poor attempt at creating a good Ninja Turtle film.

 

[Marvin]

Marvin the bolded was my opinion, do I need to say IN MY OPINION to make you feel better? what you dont seem to grasp is that most people saying the film is bad are saying its bad on a fundamental film making level. Not even bringing all the poor choices/changes in the actual story which has little to no depth and very little heart. Its bad on a writing, storytelling, acting and at times FX level. Keep championing and defending a movie you havent even seen with all your might though if it helps you sleep well. I love Ninja Turtles and this was a poor attempt at creating a good Ninja Turtle film.

First of all, it's hardly 'all my might' but I suppose that's your opinion. Secondly, here you go again with proving of your point with things that aren't true but you are presenting them as such, ergo the opinion trip up. You make your point about what you claim to be the majority, then you go provide entirely subjective evidence: "...Not even bringing all the poor choices/changes in the actual story which has little to no depth and very little heart. Its bad on a writing, storytelling, acting and at times FX level". The problem is all this proof isn't worth it's own weight cause it's not actually true. That's great that it's supposedly in your opinion but the point you made before hinges on it being more than that, it's being presented as some sort of objective observation so it's unclear. That kinda thing usually flies around forums but I'm just taking a moment to confront it for what it is. "I liked the movie, I didn't like the movie, I thought it was dumb..." these are obvious and proper IMO worthy statements, what you are doing is steps removed from that:

"I didn't like Snow Piercer" Vs "The majority of people that hate Snow Piercer hate it on a fundamental..(ok so that's wrong, but let's get into the evidence now)..
Not even bringing all the poor choices/changes in the actual story which has little to no depth and very little heart. Its bad on a writing, storytelling, acting and at times FX level"

I'm not dismissing elaborations, I'm saying there is a difference between presenting actual observations as evidence and presenting opinion and a simple declaration as to what those are goes a long way as to framing just what it your argument is and how it will be rebutted. The former opinion is sheltered under the proper implication of imo, the latter one is something else. Both could seemingly be debunked with the old "Well that's just your opinion" but the latter was actually presented as some sort of observation..
And no, you don't need to add imo to make me 'feel better' no. Using subjective opinion properly would help us to not go around in circles though. If you don't understand how a post like this can exist on a fundamental level without having seen a particular film then I suppose that's that. I'm not even defending the film(I haven't seen) in this post.

 

[Grommers]

There are somethings I liked, and somethings I didn't.

Megan fox..I hated, if she's april o'neill then I might as well have played shredder.

I didn't care so much about all the story changes as much as others, as this is the first one in the series, so as far as I care/know, this is all about introduction, they can always make changes later on.

Now, my issue with that is, I was hoping with transformers it was going to eventually flesh out there characters. It never did, and now I refuse to see them.

Will TMNT make the same mistake? Most likely, till then, it isn't as bad as I feel everyone's lambasting it. It's the same problem every Spider-man reboot, Iron-man reboot etc, thats going to happen, is they are limited to what changes they can make to the origin, and it' the second movie that should really drive the story more.

Now, do I think they kind of shafted themselves? Totally, much like I felt x-men 1, did back in the day and subsequent ones did as well, by not mention character relations etc.


The overall villainous plan was terrible, Shredder I feel they wanted to make him be more like a "force of nature" than a bad guy, but failed miserably, and instead made him just seem like the silver samurai armor.

The originals had there flaws, and there definitely needed to be some re-tweaking, well that all failed miserably, they re-tweaked the wrong stuff. They could have totally made "Shredder" the baddie in the second one, it would allow much better pacing.

We shall see, the good thing with the turtles is megan fox can go shopping between shifts and not get stuck at the "stupid pyramids"

 

[SlamAdams]

I actually didn't mind Megan Fox for the bulk of the movie. Once the action ramped up, she got a little lost in the shuffle though. I liked Will Arnett a lot.

Mikey's voice was great. Donnie and Raph's voices were good. Leo's was not, and I was actually kind of thinking it would be surprisingly good, but it wasn't. Splinter's voice was fine.

Making the Foot paramilitary didn't bother me as a concept, but it wasn't executed well either. It didn't add anything.

The scale of the turtles bugged the crap out of me. Besides being so much bigger than regular humans , I thought there tended to be too much size disparity amongst them. Raph dwarfed Mikey to a crazy degree. I actually liked most of the accessories they added, but they over did Don for sure.

The mountain chase was awesome. Many of the fights were cool. The ending could have been WAY better.

Shredder just looked bad.