CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Michael Bay is out to destroy every one of my childhood favorites!

Sci Fi Channel wrote:Guess who just lost Megan Fox but gained a band of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? Deadline reports that Platinum Dunes has teamed with Paramount and Nickelodeon to relaunch Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Dunes, of course, is Michael Bay's production company, which has produced exclusively horror remakes up until now.

Platinum Dunes has worked most frequently with New Line on their properties Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street. New Line also produced the original Turtles movies, but Paramount and Nick bought the rights to the franchise in October. Paramount makes Bay's Transformers movies and has also had luck with Hasbro's G.I. Joe.

Bay presumably won't direct, as he has only served as producer at Platinum Dunes. Still, the move to a major studio with a children's network might suggest a tentpole-sized big-budget remake.

Most popular in the '80s, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were created by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird in comic books. Four turtles were mutated in the sewers and trained in the martial arts by their master, Splinter, a mutated rat. He named them after his favorite painters: Leonardo, Donatello, Michelangelo and Rafael. See, it was educational, too! They also popularized the catch phrases "cowabunga" and "turtle power!" The turtles battled Shredder and the foot clan in animated TV series and inspired collectible action figures you could play with at home.

This will be the third time the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles have starred in their own movies. New Line Cinema produced a trilogy of films between 1990 and 1993. The first one was pretty awesome, with actors in animatronic turtle costumes interacting with a dark New York City a la Batman. I even kind of dig Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze, Vanilla Ice cameo and all. It's still cool turtle suits fighting, and they got Ernie Reyes Jr. to join in the kicking.

By the time the turtles went back in time for Part III, the live-action films weren't cool anymore. Imagi animation studio tried a CGI-animated movie released in 2007. The turtles looked great, but it didn't even make its money back, let alone revive the Turtles franchise. It was only three years ago, and I don't even remember what it was about. I think one of them went to South America and then came back to fight Shredder. John Woo was even attached to one Ninja Turtles project before Imagi, but that never got made.

What do you think? Could Michael Bay save the Turtles? Could it be any worse than Turtles in Time?

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]

NO. NO. NO NO NO NO.

I guess it's true then. No 80's franchise is safe until Michael Bay is dead and buried. *sigh* And I was so hoping there was another way. Well, guess I need to go buy a gun.

Nate (post: 1398106) wrote:NO. NO. NO NO NO NO.

I guess it's true then. No 80's franchise is safe until Michael Bay is dead and buried. *sigh* And I was so hoping there was another way. Well, guess I need to go buy a gun.

Michael Bay's Star Wars.

blkmage (post: 1398112) wrote:Michael Bay's Star Wars.

/bricks blkmage

I never liked TMNT anyway.

...But whyyy? XD TMNT doesn't need to be recharged again. XD I found the movie from a few years ago to be an enjoyable nostalgia trip, but come on. XD There's honestly no need (aside from the almighty dollar sign e_e) to revive any of these old series. Michael Bay had nothing of worth to add to the story of Transformers, and he won't have anything of worth to add to the TMNT story.


Also, ten bucks says he ruins everything by casting Megan Fox as April.

I can't wait for Michael Bay to add a bunch of sexual humor and racist stereotypes and incorrect drug humor to this movie. Maybe the Mousers can hump April's leg while Baxter Stockman is all "Yo dawg I just ate a plate of those brownies but now I'm hungry again!"

blkmage (post: 1398112) wrote:Michael Bay's Star Wars.

And yet it would still be better then the prequel trilogy...

But this...this is terrifying...I probably should try and be optimistic because of the law of averages or something but...its Michael Bay...when he makes a movie that is good and somewhat respectful to its source material then and only then will I be optimistic when it comes to a Michael Bay movie.

So what else is new. Bay has been destroying childhoods for a few years now. I mean i just won't go see this turtles movie if he is actually behind the Director's chair...or anywhere near it for that matter. I mean I have four great turtles movies (ok 3 wasn't so great but still...) and a cartoon series back in the 80's and comics. I'm fine with what I got.

Nate (post: 1398106) wrote:NO. NO. NO NO NO NO.

I guess it's true then. No 80's franchise is safe until Michael Bay is dead and buried. *sigh* And I was so hoping there was another way. Well, guess I need to go buy a gun.

Did somebody call? Certainly Ante could be of some help, unless you want to take care of this yourself.

Imagine what else he'll try to get his hands on. Something says Terminator. Anyways, if he EVER touches Star Trek, Ante doesn't care if Nate wants to kill Bay first. Ante will find him and tear him limb from limb.

I fear Michael Bay will not be satisfied until he rapes all of our childhood shows.

What's next? Michael Bay's Pokemon? (No wait that would be hilarious).

Or what about Michael Bay's Rugrats? Or Michael Bay's Power Rangers?

Or Michael Bay's Duck Tales.

There's only one way to stop him. Assault his wallet: Refuse to watch his movies!

Ooh, ooh, Ante has it!
Michael Bay vs. Uwe Boll deathmatch!

rocklobster (post: 1398319) wrote:There's only one way to stop him. Assault his wallet: Refuse to watch his movies!

That's crazy talk. Everyone knows the way to stop Michael Bay from ruining our childhoods (well, not mine - I'm a child of the '90s and was always in church on Saturdays anyway) is to post derisive comments about him on movie blogs. Surely then, Mr. Bay will realize the error of his ways.

...A Bay vs. Boll deathmatch is fine too. Boll's a trained boxer, though... Oh well!

Then we shoot Boll.

ugh! Why is everyone blaiming Michael Bay for this???? Producer =/= creative control of the project. Why don't we wait and see who is writing and directing before we jump the gun and declare this a disaster?

This exact same thing happened when the Elm Street remake trailers were coming out ><. The trailers say "from producer Michael Bay" and suddenly everyone in the youtube comments assumes the movie is going to be as bad as Transformers. HE'S NOT DIRECTING!!!! I don't remember anyone blaiming Micahel Bay for The Friday or Chainsaw remakes. But maybe its understandable, since the general public doesn't seem to know exactly what a producer does.

And its not like Bay is producing it all by himself either. Its his production company "Platinum Dunes" and according to this article at IGN: http://movies.ign.com/articles/109/1093471p1.html Bay is only one of 5 people involved as producers.

"A film producer or movie producer is someone who creates the scenes and conditions for making movies. The producer initiates, co-ordinates, supervises and controls matters such as fund-raising, hiring key personnel and arranging for distributors. The producer is involved throughout all phases of the film-making process from development to completion of a project."

Just clearing that up. Just because the producer isn't directly making the movie, doesn't mean that they aren't responsible for the content. Ever heard someone talk about a movie and say something like "Well, the guy who made it hated it, but he didn't have a choice, the studio made him change a lot of things." That's because producers have direct input on a film, and if they don't like something, they call for it to be changed. So if Michael Bay is "just" a producer, it means he still calls the shots, who he wants to hire, shot and script changes, and so-forth.

So your post doesn't make a lot of sense because the producer actually has more control over how bad a movie is than any other person. Yeah, the director plays a big part too, the second most control over the movie after the producer, but by and large it's producers who change a lot. Why do you think they have "Director's Cuts" of movies? It's the movie a director WANTED to make but couldn't because of the producer. That itself should be a pretty big sign of how much control a producer has.

So your defense of Michael Bay has completely failed. He's still a horrible person who makes terrible movies and he needs to...okay, it would be way too un-Christian and mean to say he should die, but let's say he should suffer a horrible accident that would permanently and irrevocably cause him to be unable to have any input on a movie. That works.

I think this is a crappy idea regardless of Bay's involvement. Remakes, reimaginings-- I'm sick of both.

So your post doesn't make a lot of sense because the producer actually has more control over how bad a movie is than any other person.

So then why is Michael Bay held solely responsible for how bad Transformers and Transformers 2 were, in the eyes of the public, when those movies were also produced by Kenny Bates, Ian Bryce, Allegra Clegg, Matthew Cohan, Tom DeSanto, Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Brian Goldner, Michelle McGonagle, Don Murphy, and Steven Spielberg?

Just saying. If producers are really the most responsible for the quality of the movie, then Bay can't be solely blaimed for his previous movies either. And once again, he's *not the only one producing* on this remake either. Why are we assuming that he's going to have sole creative control above and beyond the other 4 people working on the project?

And how was that at all a defense of Bay? I didn't say anything about my opinions on the quality of the movies he directed or anything like that. I simply stated that I don't think its fair or logical to write off a movie that we know almost less than nothing about yet just because Michael Bay is *one* of the producers involved. Its about as logical as arguing that a movie with Stephen Spielburg as producer is automaticly going to be good (like oh...Transformers 1 and 2)

*sigh*

Let's say you have the greatest chef in the world. You tell him to make a great dinner. You give him rotted lettuce, rancid meat, sour milk, and moldy bread. How good of a dinner do you think he'll be able to make?

Let's say you have the finest world-class ingredients. Top of the line, grade-A stuff. You give them to a guy who failed culinary school. How good of a dinner do you think he'll be able to make?

A producer can only work with the material he's given. Michael Bay is still responsible for the garbage that was the two Transformers movies; the producers might have been good but you know the saying "You can't polish a turd?"

Similarly, if you have someone who's competent and awesome, they can have their work ruined by producers. A good example is Russel Mulcahy. He did Highlander. That's a great movie! He's obviously a good director. However, he also did Highlander II, which is AWFUL. Why? Because of the producers. His being a good director means nothing, because the producers mucked it up.

I hope this better illustrates what I meant.

And once again, he's *not the only one producing* on this remake either.

If you have four world-class chefs and one guy who throws rancid meat into the pot, guess what? It doesn't matter how good the other four guys are, the one dude ruins it.

...

so can I assume that you also hate the remakes of Texas Chainsaw, Friday the 13th, Amityville Horror, Elm Street, and the Hitcher?

I think I see what your saying, but I just don't agree. I don't think movie quality can be compared to something so objective as the quality of food ingredients or such. Movie opinions are too subjective. And personally its always seemed to me like the influence of both producers AND directors is exagerated in most cases. I'd usually focus on writers. I don't even know who directed 80% of the movies I like, and don't care ^^ (producers even less so). And I don't really understand the mindset of "X person is so horrible that they could never possibly be involved with anything good EVER." I've always tried to be open to the possibility of any movie/show/video game/whatever being good, and judge it for myself, with my own experience. Regardless of the quality of Bay's past projects, I *CAN'T* say something like "this is going to be bad" without seeing it for myself. Just can't. So in the end we will just have to agree to disagree.

Rocketshipper wrote:so can I assume that you also hate the remakes of Texas Chainsaw, Friday the 13th, Amityville Horror, Elm Street, and the Hitcher?

I don't watch horror/slasher movies so I don't know if I hate them or not. However from what I hear, the Friday the 13th remake was average at best (even the RT community, which is much more forgiving of movies than critics are, has a 46% average for it) and the Elm Street remake was absolutely awful. But again, I haven't seen them personally, and they're not my kind of movies anyway.

I don't think movie quality can be compared to something so objective as the quality of food ingredients or such.

Ha ha. Food being objective. That's a good one.

Yes, they can be compared. Horrible camera work, shoddy acting, poorly written lines, bad special effects...these are as objective as rotten fruit or moldy bread.

And personally its always seemed to me like the influence of both producers AND directors is exagerated in most cases. I'd usually focus on writers.

Wrong. Horribly wrong. Couldn't be any more wrong.

For one, the producer has control over the project. That means he can tell good writers to write bad scenes because that's what he wants. Again, since the producer calls the shots, he can say "Y'know, I want the girl in this movie to have less clothing" or "These jokes will go over the audience's heads, write a few fart jokes." Good writing can be ruined by a producer, so it's more than likely not the writers' fault.

Second, let's say you have an excellent script. Know what? Let's go with Citizen Kane because it's pretty much the best movie ever made. You can agree it's written well, right? So the writing is not a problem.

Let's say the director makes the camera out of focus. Let's say he films the actors' feet half the time. Let's say he directs people to read the lines with less emotion, or with words emphasized awkwardly. Is the writing to blame? No, the writing is excellent. It's the director's fault for telling the people to act poorly, for filming poorly. The movie would be hideously awful not because of the writing, but because of the directing.

Why do you think people blame voice directors when a really good voice actor (let's say, Vic M. or JYB) does a really horrible job voicing something? It's not their fault, they've proved they're good. It's the voice director being really awful and directing them poorly. Writing, acting, these things are important, but the director and producer control them. This is why writing and actors aren't really the reason movies are bad, it's the fault of the producers and directors. You could have an all-star cast with brilliant writing and if the director and producer suck, you'll get a crap movie.

Regardless of the quality of Bay's past projects, I *CAN'T* say something like "this is going to be bad" without seeing it for myself. Just can't.

You remind me of the xkcd comic where it shows someone touching a machine, and they get shocked. It then splits to two scenarios. The normal person says "Whoa, guess I shouldn't touch that again!" The scientist goes "I wonder if that happens every time I touch it?"

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I'm capable of pattern recognition though, and Michael Bay always produces garbage. I'm not going to touch the machine a tenth time if it's shocked me the last nine. If you want to, hey, your business I suppose. Some people like the pain I guess.

Ha ha. Food being objective.

I was talking about your comparison of ingredient quality. Yes I'd say that wether or not milk is spoiled is an objective observation ^^.

Wrong. Horribly wrong. Couldn't be any more wrong.

um...I was stating an opinion, based on my own experiences, not some concrete law of the universe. So your long rebuttal is unnessicary. There are very few directors out there who I think are so good that I would see their movie *just* because they directed it. The only possible ones I can think of for me are Woody Allen and Satoshi Kon. and the same way, there aren't any directors who I would refuse to watch a movie by them, just because they directed it or were involved. I'll go see a movie because I like the story, or the trailers made it look good. Who directed never factors into my decisions 99.99% of the time.

And in instances when I have viewed much or all of a director's work, I've never found that they're totally ALL good or ALL bad. I don't like every Hitchcock movie ever made, nor do I like every Quenten Tarantino film or Stanley Kubrick film. Thats the reason I rarely pay attention to directors.

You remind me of the xkcd comic where it shows someone touching a machine, and they get shocked. It then splits to two scenarios. The normal person says "Whoa, guess I shouldn't touch that again!" The scientist goes "I wonder if that happens every time I touch it?"

I don't think that example is analogus. What would be analogus is if I watched a horrible movie, and then said "I bet it gets better if I watch it over and over again".

Eating something you don't like over and over until you at least can tolerate its taste.

Nate (post: 1398860) wrote:Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, you're going to get curb stomped by Seto Kiba.

Fixed.

. I never should have even posted on this topic in the first place, and I'm sorry I did. Right or wrong, I don't imagine that this argument has been beneficial for either of us, and for something that should be relatively insignifigant to my real non-internet life, this topic has taken up way more of my thoughts in the past day than I think should be healthy. I even tried to see if I could delete my last post, soon after I'd written it, because I knew I shouldn't cary on. I won't post anything else here, or even read any more replies lest I be tempted to post again. And I'm not blaiming you; this is my own problem. I should know by now to try and avoid inciting arguments when I can, they usually end up driving me crazy IRL., and bring out a side in me that I don't like. see ya.

Why is it I'm the sensible one this time? I'm the only one who isn't suggesting violent means to stop Michael Bay.

Nate (post: 1398147) wrote:I can't wait for Michael Bay to add a bunch of sexual humor and racist stereotypes and incorrect drug humor to this movie. Maybe the Mousers can hump April's leg while Baxter Stockman is all "Yo dawg I just ate a plate of those brownies but now I'm hungry again!"

Michaelangelo will be a black stereotype. He will enjoy a lack of schooling, low pants, and marijuana.

Raphael will be .. uhh... also a black stereotype. Just an angier one.

Donatello will be Indian. Because he's smart.

Leonardo will be a brilliant and forthright - white - leader. Who loves the Military and the United States of 'Merica, gosh darn it.


Edit: In this time of uncertainty about the future of turtles and the ninja-mutations they undergo, I feel my present avatar gives me great credentials to speak on the subject.

Vote for Etoh.

rocklobster wrote:I'm the only one who isn't suggesting violent means to stop Michael Bay.

And it is your lack of commitment that he is still alive to continue destroying our childhood memories.

YOU'RE AN ENABLER.