|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 27, 2010 20:30:06 GMT -5
Well, in my opinion, scary CAN be defined as the negative you're referring to, pitbulllady. Also, did you catch who wrote the latest book about Randall? If it was someone NOT from Pixar, then I may not be fully convinced that they ARE deliberately trying to offend us since they heard of us.  Oh, and by the way, the kind of words that we both agree are really negative HAVE been used to describe him as far back as whenever the interviews for the special edition of the film were made, most likely 2002. I quote: John Goodman: "He just slimy and creepy and crawley and-" (cuts to Billy Crystal saying the following) "-nasty, bad guy." I can even try to find the video on YouTube, if anyone's up for it. I seriously doubt Pixar is indeed trying to offend us. They have other things better to do than offend Randall fans left and right. "Make Randall fans miserable and offend them" is NOT their goal.  I have to ask: WHY are you taking up for Pixar and WHY do you think that "they have better things to do than to offend Randall fans left and right?" Can you show me any evidence that they are not only aware of us, but actually want to make us happy? Or for that matter, that we even matter at all to them and that they aren't brushing us off? I'd sure like to see it, since maybe I'm missing something, but I can assure you that there is plenty of evidence that if they aren't intentionally trying "make us miserable", they at least are sending us a loud and clear "WE COULD CARE LESS ABOUT YOU". And SgtYayap, I believe that the book in question was called "The Pixar Touch", but given that internet is screwing up again after a few hours of working properly after ANOTHER AT&T tech person came out today, I can't look it up to verify who wrote it or published it. pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Jul 27, 2010 20:50:43 GMT -5
I honestly don't think that offending Randall fans is on their agenda because when this sequel comes out, we're going to have a few outcomes. If Randall returns in the film and done in a positive light then you're going to have fans like us happy but those fans who like him for being the villian and even haters pretty pissed off. If you have him coming back and playing the villian part again then you're going to have us pissed off but the other half of the majority pretty happy. If he doesn't appear at all, it's a half and half scenario. Also, whether we want to admit it or not, we are a small majority and those who aren't fans of this character and those who are due to him being viewed as the villian, there are more of. Most companies will go with the larger majority because that is what sells, that is what makes money. Also, the bottom line, Disney practically owns Pixar and has every right to do what they like and/or depict Pixar characters as they choose. In reality, Disney doesn't need Pixar's sayso to advertise and use Randall's image as they see fit. Due to the fact that Randall is portrayed as a villian in the film, then to them it makes logical sense to continue depicting him as such within other forms of media or product licensing.
Overall, it's the expression, you can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Jul 27, 2010 21:05:45 GMT -5
And SgtYayap, I believe that the book in question was called "The Pixar Touch", but given that internet is screwing up again after a few hours of working properly after ANOTHER AT&T tech person came out today, I can't look it up to verify who wrote it or published it. pitbulllady The Pixar Touch? That was released back in May 2008, according to Amazon, before Up had significant press. On top of that, I skimmed through the M.I. section (my father got it for father's day) and NOWHERE does it mention Randall, or even his original role in the film, which is covered for Sulley. |
|
Veg
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
Posts: 1,550
|
Post by Veg on Jul 27, 2010 21:14:18 GMT -5
I seriously doubt Pixar is indeed trying to offend us. They have other things better to do than offend Randall fans left and right. "Make Randall fans miserable and offend them" is NOT their goal. I have to ask: WHY are you taking up for Pixar and WHY do you think that "they have better things to do than to offend Randall fans left and right?" Can you show me any evidence that they are not only aware of us, but actually want to make us happy? Or for that matter, that we even matter at all to them and that they aren't brushing us off? I'd sure like to see it, since maybe I'm missing something, but I can assure you that there is plenty of evidence that if they aren't intentionally trying "make us miserable", they at least are sending us a loud and clear "WE COULD CARE LESS ABOUT YOU". And SgtYayap, I believe that the book in question was called "The Pixar Touch", but given that internet is screwing up again after a few hours of working properly after ANOTHER AT&T tech person came out today, I can't look it up to verify who wrote it or published it. pitbulllady Well why do you have to make it into such a big deal? |
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Jul 28, 2010 4:00:41 GMT -5
Randall is particulary important for PBL as she's stated Randall almost represents a position she has been in her life once. She's said this elsewhere.
Plus it really can't be denied that Pixar DOES seem to physically stretch him out a lot more than other characters.
In any case, Mistica could have a point about the majority versus the (more vocal?) minority and money. Plus it IS theirs. They can technically do what they want with them. They could load a lazer cannon to Boo's chest if they wanted to and say she is a robot from 2105.
Technically the 'not owing anything' thing I think goes both ways though. They don't have to do what anyone else wants. They are their characters and it is their creativity process and heck they could make Boo into a robot if they even wanted. By the same token however after I've paid the money, seen what they produced etc etc. do I really owe them anything? Um, no. If what they produced well 'sucked' in my opinion, I am and everyone else is allowed to say it. That's pretty much the cost of making almost anything public. I already paid to see their work in some way. Don't owe them anything else. Critique (when it's constructive of course) is invaluable IMO anyway. Yup you're right M, you can't please everyone and perfection is unlikely in any case. Doesn't mean that should stop you from trying of course.
And while they are a company whose primary aim to make money of course, I'd hope that wouldn't mean they'd sell short on a potentially good story. That's one of their aims of course. Granted I've long ago come to the conclusion that if I ever get published I'd rather produce a book I wasn't ashamed of then say something like Twilight which was an instant hit and made me a millionaire. But they're a company in the end.
I think the problem comes when there are no replys or explanations when fans of Randall 'redemption' write in. Plus where is the response to constructive critique? Have they ever done that? I mean I'm guessing most fans are polite about it and everything.
I'm kind of thinking with all these sequels... is Pixar running out of ideas? Don't get me wrong, the TS sequels are far from terrible (TS3 is rather like M.I. some want and lack of satisfaction in relation to what they did to a character... and I didn't care for the odd joke here and there, but I care for the characters and the setting was pretty interesting and that's pretty important).
Fandom can sometimes affect things though. I've seen it in bigger ones anyway. In Avatar: TLA they have a WHOLE EXTRA EPISODE just to poke fun at all the craziness of shipping in the last season. It was unnecessary TBH though. There were also EXTRA JOKES doing the same thing in the s3 finale episodes. It did get a bit tiring after a while though there were some funny things.
Harry Potter? Well the Harry X Hermione slap down seemed rather heavy handed to me but whatever (I don't ship them no).
Apparently though in terms of the former Bryke knew exactly how crazy it was getting. Crazy zutara fans had sent them... death threats. Uptight kataangers who clearly were having no clue it was obvious they were going to win sent a petition to make 'sure' their ship won!
All of this was a bit much to resist it seems. They even made fun of both 'sides' (very tounge in cheek) at a comic-con I believe. (Kataangers obsession with 'babies' etc. It was all very tounge in cheek and not to be taken seriously though).
So fandom really CAN affect things. Just not in the way people might want.
I'm kind of worried if Pixar saw when things got really heated up and thought less of it. Sometimes an argument made in anger can do damage to that sides argument after all. And in the end we should never assume people approach the movie the same way, that certain things are immediately obvious (they're usually not), and that somehow we're better for spotting them.
Of course there's also the issue with the fact the interpretation I and others have, CLEARL;Y does not mesh with the creators at all. Granted as mentioned I believe in 'the death of the author' once material is out there and that interviews etc can sometimes just be an interesting addition or insight.
Of course with a sequel on the way, unfortunatly a solidification of these ideas and trying to make them actually canon rather than (at best perhaps in some cases), extended canon might be and probably is in the works.
If their sequel is poor in my opinion then I can say it. If Boo is the same age I can complain about it. If I think characterisation is poor or inconsistent, I can say it. If I think they have a huge stinking plot hole or that they have completely and utterly made it so the monster world can't even technically work, well I can say so too.
I'm not sure the creators owe us anything when we're only a portion of the fans, and well TBH we don't owe them anything either after spending money on them. If something sucks, we can say so, though hopefully without losing our tempers.
In the end once I pay the ticket price I do want them to sell it to me, to lose me in it, to entertain me, to make me happy. If they do they get the benefit of me spreading its word (and thus hopefully getting more ticket sales), of advising other people going to see it who are on the fence, of buying the DVD later on and maybe even merchandise. Thus further advertising. If I don't like the movie, I don't do these things and advise people NOT to see it perhaps.
(Odd thing i've found when travelling, quiet a few people did not care for Up, for at least the ones I met. The two volunteers I was with? One advised the other NOT to see it and apparently the general idea in her group of friends as she eloquently put is that 'It's crap.'. General consensus seems to be the BEST Pixar movie is Finding Nemo even after all this time. It's been everyones favourite from whom I've asked.)
In reality the Monsters Inc fandom is the smallest fandom I've ever been in, it's rather strange at first when you've delved into fandoms like A:TLA, the Ninja Turtles or Harry Potter, and it's not like this movie is.... obscure or anything! We are really a very small portion though of the total fans of the movie. Most don't get INTO these discussions at all or think about these things. Most are casual fans after all. In order to make a profit, they'll probably be thinking of them and what THEY'LL be expecting. I'm hoping they show the first movie like they showed the other TS movies in cinemas before the sequel comes out. It will be more than ten year gap so they almost better do this. But once again I hope it doesn't get in the good way of a potentially excellent story if they decide to tell it.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 28, 2010 11:24:49 GMT -5
Thank you, MG, well-stated as usual.
Yes, Randall does belong to Pixar and technically they can do with him as they please, BUT, as you pointed out, the lack of feedback or acknowledgement from them to US, despite the fact that by now they MUST know that Randall has a lot of very loyal fans, is disheartening. And while we might represent just a fraction of Pixar's fans overall, anytime that a movie studio starts to believe that ANY of their fans don't count or matter, it's downhill from there. Fans-ALL of 'em-put Pixar where they are today, and if any of these fans start to become disenchanted, so to speak, with Pixar, and turn away from them and their movies, this won't bode too wel for the studio in the future, will it? Also, as you have pointed out, Randall's ill treatment has been stretched far beyond that given to any other Pixar "villains", which begs the question, "why HIM?" Why is Randall the one who is repeatedly dragged through the mud, when what HE did wasn't nearly as bad as what some of the others did? Randall also represents a lot to me, something you pointed out, and among those things is the fact that he is scaly and reptilian, and every time that Randall's "evilness" is shoved down our throats, it reinforces that notion that all scaly creatures must be evil and must be killed, preferably in as painful a manner as possible. Randall is a prime example of a negative stereotype used to influence how people feel about certain things, in this case, reptiles, and I don't think I need to explain why that is problematic for me.
I thought it odd that most of the people you encountered in your US travels disliked Up, actually, or considered Finding Nemo to be Pixar's best. I never saw Up, for the exact reason I just stated above-reliance on negative stereotyping to influence people's thinking, in this case, of certain kinds of dogs and of scientists who study animals. It shows a disturbing trend in Peter Docter's creative process, that he has to vilify some group or another to make a movie. On the other hand, while I can't say that Finding Nemo was my all-time favorite Pixar movie, due to the fact that I really couldn't relate much to the whole parent-child theme, I can't find fault with it at all. There was no villain, no bad guy who "gets it" in the end, and in fact it bucked that negative stereotype trend with the sharks, whom Pixar could have very easily turned into awful, mean, psychotic villians if they'd wanted to, since that's how most people view sharks, anyway. There was nothing in that movie that left me feeling, "wait a minute, THAT wasn't right...they shouldn't have done THAT" and made me feel like I'd been shorted in some way.
And back to the topic of Pixar's treatment of Randall: suppose they do know we exist, and they also must know that Randall has those who dislike him, too. Now, the thing is, which group feels more strongly about his possible role in the sequel? How many of the 13-year-olds who swear that they hate Randall will refuse to go see the sequel if he's in it and he's redeemed in some way?
pitbulllady
|
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Jul 28, 2010 12:24:37 GMT -5
Randall's treatment is probably not a case of you know, hating us, though I could see a case for bemusement when it comes to people who don't fit the creators interpretation if they acknowledge it.
Though I don't see any reason to get overly MAD or petty over that sort of thing which it would be if that was their reason for doing this. I mean I don't find it entertaining at all (the Randall physical stuff they're doing), and lowers the sequels potential in my eyes, but that would be REALLY taking it too far if they were doing that. It's possibly concidental though. Syndrome is pretty popular with many many fans, and he doesn't get the same treatment. But then we're SUPPOSED to feel sorry for him as well I guess.
Granted if they DID do it for that purpose alone in what would seem to be a pretty mean way rather than a genuinely funny one a part of me would be tempted to say to them "Geez, put your big boy pants on would you.". I'm guessing and really HOPING that it wouldn't be say a delibrate slap at any fan. But if it did turn out to be that it would be rediculously immature of them really. People sometimes disagree. Sometimes people think what produced wasn't perfect (but what is perfect?). It happens.
A genuinely FUNNY poke for me would be say, a poke and removal of the idea Randall is always, ALWAYS having the ladies after him and is always, ALWAYS suave and cool.
I mean I'm guessing he's had experience and all but sometimes it's taken too far.
And having him crash and burn at flirting or completely and utterly tongue tied/dorky/ dig a deep hole with misplaced words for himself around a girl in reality would be hilarious. I don't know, I'd find THAT pretty funny in reality anyway. That would be pretty amusing. I mean it could be seen as a poke to what SOMETIMES happens to Randall in fandom (and would probably be a clearer poke then what we have even if it is so) but even so, it's pretty funny and harmless and all that. In my opinion anyway.
Having Randall crunched into a cube or squashed by a steam roller to a ticker tape parade with my favorite character at the wheel at best makes me go "...eh?!" Doesn't exactly tickle my funny bone much. Once again, if you don't like or do like something people can't exactly MAKE you change your mind. Or say that if you don't like something to simply be quiet about it. I mean yes, sometimes criticisms ARE silly, I doubt there's anyone here who hasn't at least once not got some sort of silly criticism. But not ALL criticism by default is.
In terms of whether it's something to throw at his fans, well I certainly hope they aren't doing that, and if so, there's funnier and more harmless ways of doing it in the end.
(I kind of now want crack!art of Boo with a lazer cannon to her chest now though for some reason as well as a comic of Randall completely failing at flirting. Or something. Damn my rediculous fandom cravings.)
|
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Jul 29, 2010 9:35:13 GMT -5
*sighs* I'll just keep doing what I've been doing from the beginning and keep out of this mess than, I believe in artistic freedom and expression and won't impend on another's artistic freedom and expression. Besides, the way I see it, the creators at Pixar are no Peter Laird....trust me, that son of a b*tch deserves to burn in Hell for the way he is....the fact that he helped create TMNT yet he shuns one of my favorite characters, acting like she doesn't exist, is just completely f*cking stupid! Even I've lost respect for the TMNT franchise when I found out the truth about him, found out how f*cking sexist he is (he won't admit it but anyone with a brain knows he is). Now it's a person like that you would really have to worry about, trust me!
|
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Jul 29, 2010 11:00:53 GMT -5
Ah TMNT was my first ever fandom (you can still see my absolutely horrific fanfic on my account ) Besides, I did say I agreed with you Mistica, it IS theirs: the M.I. characters are theirs as much as they might interest us, well they can do what they like with it, it's just simply by the same token just because someone might think something isn't 100% perfect (or even... just really bad) doesn't mean they're not allowed to say they disagree at all. And if the true source reason for the physical stretching of Randall WAS due to the fact he has fans which don't agree with creator interpretations it would be pretty childish of them and not really all that funny and more pathetic than anything else. (Though it's possibly a coincidence and to do with the tone of the movie which had Randall hit with a shovel for a cheap laugh... M.I. more or less taught me in an extreme way you sometimes have to be careful with humour or else you can create problems with the very world you created as well as when it comes to messages). There ARE ways to joke around with fandom which can be funny though. I mean have Randall strike out with a woman and I'll probably be both cringing and laughing at the same time. Then again that sort of idea kind of makes him more 'human' so to speak, and if their original purpose was for him NOT to be like that (and it seems like it if we take interviews, even early ones into account), then I kind of doubt we'll get that sort of humour from them surrounding Randall ay time soon. Which is a shame. Back to TMNT: Are you referring to Mona or Venus? I didn't care for venus myself very much, though I do enjoy the fact that some people have run with the idea of her and made her BETTER. She was too overpowered in canon. But hey, there's nothing a retcon can't fix (which TMNT has done multiple times). Just don't give her magic or something and don't make the insistence that she is not a sister necessary and seem so heavy handed. There was this one piece of fanart I saw which had both Venus AND Slash where they were made in Bishop's lab. Well, in a way. Slash was technically a serial killer who was on death row who Bishop decided to use to experiment on. Venus was a 'test-tube baby' made to seduce the trutles. Very dark, very Mirage like in fact. I think that version could definitly work. I don't agree with the status that every female mutant character could be bad, I mean hell yeah, there are some definate mary sues out there in the FANDOM, but it's not THAT difficult to create a well rounded mutant character who happens to be a girl. Not to mention I don't get the idea of never having a human mutant pairing ever either. I mean they're sentient beings like humans regardless of where they came from. True once again, the fandom is filled to the brim with Mary Sues and bad stories but ONCE AGAIN, it can't be that difficult to make something in canon which would actually be good. Just don't jump the romance gun and see a mutual friendship or something develop into something more. Granted the '03 toon gave plenty of fodder for Donatello. And Leonardo... he pretty much gets paired with Karai in fandom ALL the TIME. It's kind of a fact that they're kind of silly rules that they have to stick to NO MATTER WHAT. Or it's 'RUINED 4EVA'. I mean, yeah there is potential for things to go HIDEOUSLY wrong if you deviate from the rules they set for themselves, but the same can be said even when you stick to them (Hello last two seasons of the '03 cartoon... good grief you were both absolutely terrible.) Now nickelodeon has them though. Remains to be said what happens to them under them, the original creators have no say anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 29, 2010 12:25:34 GMT -5
It's interesting about what you said, MG, about the creative forces at either Disney or Pixar not wanting Randall to seem "too human", especially when you consider the material involving him, specifically, that was left OUT of the movie. The rough-animated clips on the DVD and some of the interviews I've read with some of the Pixar animators give insight to them originally having planned to make Randall into much less of an "evil" character and more into one that most people would at least empathize with. Two scenes in particular, the one in which he's driving his nagging girlfriend around on the golf cart, staying tight-lipped while she is b****ing at him non-stop about how he "never takes her anywhere anymore" and how she's "bored", etc, and the one in which he explains to Sulley the finer points of making coffee, stand out. Those two scenes establish Randall as dealing with stress both on the job AND at home, and show one of the things he is passionate about, since it probably helps him cope. The question is this: other than the interest of time, WHY was Randall's depiction changed from that of a more-or-less ordinary guy who under a lot of pressure, to that of someone that the average person is going to hate? Even that little scene where he takes the sweat rag from Mike to wipe perspiration from his face, just an impulsive move, showed that he was under a great deal of physical and mental stress and was not dealing with it too well, something many of us, adults especially, can relate to, so why did that change, and who made the decision to change it?
pitbulllady
|
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Jul 29, 2010 13:33:43 GMT -5
It really all depends on their intended purpose for Randall was the movie was actually finished and out there in its final draft. Taking everything into account most interpretations here in relation to him don't seem to be the creator's intent or interpretation.
I guess Randall in the end was really INTENDED in the actual final cut and print movie everyone saw in theatres, to simply be a 2D villain. Moustach twirler if you will.
Which might have worked. I mean it's BORING as all hell but it might have made sense to me.
But... they kind of shot themselves in the foot with how their world functions etc etc. And other things. For me anyway. And hey I'd be fine with my interpretation not meshing with the creators were it not for the sequel and everything, I mean it means more fun for me in the end. I prefer my take on how things went down. It just seems more interesting and makes more sense to me that's all.
I mean we've pretty much already discussed this but, it's pretty much the same with the CDA, probably supposed to be seen as simply the good guys. Now I don't seem them as pure evil, but not entirely good either, they're probably as dark grey as protaganists can come in some cases, their original purpose- protecting the monster world basically.
Yes once again I'm probably not 'supposed' to see it that way, and the creator didn't intend for that to come across. They didn't intend for well, the CDA to come off as a little creepy (over enthusiastic in relation to George maybe and an extreme annoyance/difficulty factor for the protaganists when after Boo, but not in the END when they reveal themselves and not seen as well, even a little bit disturbing.)
Honestly, I'm only caring about creator interpretation because, well the sequel is coming that's all. It's just kind of aggravating the idea they'd do a revenge sequel or something like that. They could do so much more with what they've got. It also in general story telling terms, would just feel like such a waste. They have a whole world connected to ours in the story in a very direct way. There are WAY too many things to do with that already.
Heck, I'd wager there's enough material to do an 'epic' trilogy if they wanted to.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Jul 29, 2010 21:11:12 GMT -5
Back to TMNT: Are you referring to Mona or Venus? I'm referring to Venus, while you like many other fans didn't seem to keen on her, I liked her cause she was a girl and it was nice to not see just all testestrone all the time. I don't mind the idea of a love relationship between her and one of the guys, in fact, I'm a huge fan of VenusxRaph pairings cause the whole good girl with the bad boy thing. I loved her character and believe it or not, she helped me become a part of the TMNT universe again, this new cartoon, I'm sorry but it's way too farfetched for me so I stopped watching it. What I don't like was that Laird hated her character so much that she was never mentioned on the site again after they were done with Next Mutation but that's not the straw that broke the camel's back. There was a girl on DA who did a beautiful picture of her and sent it to the tmnt site for their fanart section. Well, they sent it back, telling her that they could not accept her work and when she went back to the site, they added a brand new rule that stated "No characters not owned by Mirage studios will be accepted for fanart submissions." They added this AFTER she sent in her picture and the fact that they decided to make this little "rule" after she submitted a picture is downright vile and wrong to me! Along with that, you can't talk to Laird about her, it's like you're going down a fiery path if you do. He also contradicts himself so much when it does come to discussing her, he says that there is no reason for a female turtle let alone her character cause the guys "aren't interested in girls" yet Michelangelo is always hitting up on girls left and right?! What the f*ck? The only other excuse he can bring up is that straight from the get go, he and Eastman had made up a number one rule when they created the guys which was "NO GIRL TURTLES!" The even bigger surprise is that NO ONE knows exactly who her creator is? No body. Fans, including myself have suspected that it was Eastman and if it is him, he's not confessing. After Eastman sold his rights to the franchise over to Laird, it was clear that Venus was doomed to die and that's just the fact, you can't reason with him...it's just fact. You've told me that Laird sold his rights, huh, big surprise but if that means she'll come back, probably not...I know for a fact that she's dead to all her fans, including myself, and that's never going to change. |
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Jul 30, 2010 2:44:04 GMT -5
Eh, my problems mainly referred to her being too overpowered in the movie I saw her in as well as the guys all wanting her. Mary Sue boundaries being seriously touched and all that.
Granted I could see it making sense for them all being TEMPTED and all on some level (propogation of the species etc. and she's the only girl), but how it was sold and she was introduced was pretty bad. It's kind of a shame, a female turtle could work out but I just didn't like how they presented her. In terms of her PERSONALITY she was okay though almost cute really. So I wouldn't mind seeing a Venus again, just without the magic and perhaps not making her the 'fifth turtle of the bowl' because that's pretty contrived, but instead make someone else delibrately create her in a lab or something. Still I liked the fact that instead of making her a ninja she had learned a CHINESE martial art because it would have otherwise been too coincidental with the whole ninja thing.
I've seen fans use Venus and make her work so I don't HATE her as much as some other fans may do.
Though I never really saw the M:NG series at all because it didn't look tempting or realistic, so I'm kind of finding it funny you said that about the new toon. XD. I'll grant you though that the last two seasons (and heck the LOST season before that which had too much magic) weren't that great at all. Plus the whole plot with shredder did make me go 'huh?' at points. Overall though I felt this show had far more positives than negatives.
And yes the idea of them saying Michelangelo did not like girls... that really depends on which version you probably look at. Possibly in the original Mirage version they might even be right. But MOST of the versions seem to have him after girls. And Donatello in the newer toon? He was something of a ladies man.
But yep, nick has the rights to the turtles now. Venus MIGHT come back in some capacity, but it seems doubtful.
(.... kind of ships Donatello and Venus from what I've seen in fandom, just a little bit.)
But changing the rules because of that and everything? Harsh. I mean just because a lot of fans aren't keen on it doesn't mean that fans which like her should be excluded. And it sounds as if the guy is oversensitive about it. I mean geez, so you think it was a mistake to create her, fine whatever, but... some people seem to like this 'mistake' as it were.
Different tastes and all that.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Jul 30, 2010 10:00:33 GMT -5
That movie you're referring to is actually a straight to VHS deal that was the first couple of episodes cut together into one thing. As for the series in itself, they did start her off like that but as the episodes went on, the only guy who continued to actively chase her was only Mikey. Donatello lost interest due to her not being into science and at times the two butted heads a little in relation to beliefs. Leonardo maybe showed few little signs of attraction to her but very, very little and just started treating her more like a team member since he also stated the possibility that she was a sister. Raph actually would spare with her, the two argueing and fighting the most but there were times that he really went out of his way for her but being the stubborn one he is, would come up with excuses for doing so. I think that they came up with her being the fifth turtle and somehow floating herself all the way to China....which I honestly don't think the basic pet turtle would be able to swim that far depending on what type they are...as her backstory cause they wanted it to make sense to the agegroup that they were shooting for at the time. Although the mad scientist idea could work too cause I remember that the Next Mutation series did have a character like that...I think his name was Dr. Quease or something along that line. The company who did that series was Saban, the same company that does Power Rangers, so maybe they wanted her to have magic like powers in order to attract anime fans possibily cause Saban is a Japanese company and magic and stuff is almost a given in anime...although you would think that they would know that Shinobi meant ninja...that was supposedly what she was known as in the series.
I grew up watching the old school cartoons and the live action films. I never read the comic books cause I didn't know that the guys started in them first actually. I started to watch this new one, it seemed good, I liked the drawing style and all but when they started sending the guys into space and into this and that, I was all like "What happened to my turtles?" I know that they did have a little bit about aliens in the old cartoon but geez, it didn't turn into a whole freaking saga! When they did the Fast Forward series, I started watching again, it caught my attention but it didn't take long to lose it either although I did wonder how it would be like if Venus was in that series, I think I drew her in that style or attempted to once along with another character and actually did her as a thief during that series cause around that time, I was really into Rouge the bat who happens to be a jewel thief.
|
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Jul 31, 2010 16:30:57 GMT -5
Eh to each their own I guess. We all have different tastes. Funny thing about TMNT is it pretty much has so many retcons its too easy to pick a favourite and there's something for everyone in at least ONE version. Well, almost anyway. I grew up on the re-runs of the old toon and got into the new toon it being my first fandom, Leonardo and Donatello there became firm favourites there.  Though the series does sound much better from what you've told me, even if I didn't care for the part I saw. |
|
