Agree 100% Cryogenic. The movie also looks kinda crappy, so it'll hurt the B.O. as well.
That's what I was hinting at, in slightly more verbose terms.
t:
It looks like they've just made a conventional action-adventure movie ... with Turtles.
But that's not enough of a sell. You need to push the boat out and do something different. Something that people couldn't have anticipated; something intriguing, alluring and almost ... sexy. Something to pique people's interest and get their attention. We live in a fickle world, especially today's net-based / MP3-driven / 100-channel-cable-saturated society, where information and distractions compete for every neurone of our being. A routine film about characters that also now feel "routine" -- because of all their previous exposure -- just won't cut it. Like Splinter said in the first movie: "Our domain is the shadow. Stray from it reluctantly, for when you do, you must strike hard and fade away, without a trace." The first movie struck hard, alright, but the Turtles didn't stray reluctantly or fade away; in many people's eyes, they thoroughly outstayed their welcome. The average moviegoer thinks they've seen and heard it all, and this new movie isn't doing anything to change that.
I was 50/50 on that very first trailer: I could take it or leave it. While the CG and noir-like, Germanic style was interesting, it wasn't enough to enthrall me; the presence of Matrix-like framing / action / music only served to turn me off. There wasn't enough UNIQUNESS there. I'm sure it was the same for many people. I'm not talking hardcore TMNT fanatics, since they're bound to love anything with a hint of quality about it; I'm talking about the average person who MIGHT be interested ... if only they're shown something INTERESTING ENOUGH. But the first trailer didn't cut the mustard. However, it wasn't a complete failure; the theatrical could still have turned things around. But what was the theatrical trailer? Just your average Hollywood action trailer, replete with dumb voiceover, silly quips, stupid text-bites, a fantastical plot, bland percussive-driven music etc. Yawn. The film set its fate at that moment. Nothing released since has really deviated from that image. But all it takes is a few good ideas. Or even ONE good idea. Take the original movie's trailer. Although the film was destined to be huge regardless, they actually went for a subversive balletic feel (e.g. pop version of Strauss' "Blue Danube"). The clever structure sold it. And how about the trailer for "The Matrix"? "Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Matrix is ... you have to see it for yourself." BRILLIANT! That was an open invitation to check the film out. Even something like the trailer for "Ice Age", with the squirrel character going to absurd lengths for an acorn, was witty and funny. Everything concerning this latest TMNT film is the opposite of that -- bland and predictable.
We saw what happened when filmmakers go the "safe" route (i.e. "Superman Returns"). I was 50/50 on the first trailer, as with TMNT, and I felt dejected watching the second trailer, as with TMNT. The filmmakers did nothing of true value and earnt nothing of true value. He who dares, wins (well, sometimes), but he who sits in the corner ... just sits in the corner. I mean, the filmmakers were so lacking in balls that they even castrated themselves by drawing on past glories (i.e. recycled lines, just like TMNT). To pick up the metaphor of my earlier paragraph, people just weren't "turned on". History is now in the process of repeating itself.
P.S. Don't believe all that marketing speak from Thom Gray. He speaks like a true producer -- i.e with a forked tongue. Remember: After overseeing the original film, this is the same guy that was responsible for destroying the franchise with II and III. What reputation does he have left? Note: According to people like Judith Hoag and Robbie Rist -- i.e. April and Mikey -- Steve Barron was locked in a constant struggle with him over quality. Let's suppose that isn't true, but why would they lie? And look at the evidence: Gray's first idea was to film the original in Hong Kong on a shoestring budget. His resume is also dominated by the Turtles films; he's a one-trick pony with little taste or talent. In other words, **** Gray. Making the film in live action wouldn't be as expensive as he's said; he's just constructed a strawman argument to justify the cheaper (i.e. CG) approach. Then again, it probably would cost MORE, even adjusted for inflation, than in 1989. Why? Because that entire brand of artistry has been kicked into the ground as cinema has been raped to death with cheap photography, bland production design and digital environments and characters. But just look what The Jim Henson Company did on "Farscape" -- they made a TV show look like a feature film!!!
