Yes, I saw it, and I must say that it rocked!
Anyone else see it, or am I the only one?
o/
I saw and enjoyed it. I was worried at first that is would be too over the top cheesy, but it was okay and I understood the need to have it fully animated rather than live action. Imagi did a great job on the film, the art and animation were first class.
Bit of crazy nostalgia was had beforehand as pre-movie lunch was provided by Pizza Hut. I didn't realise until we got our order that we were having pizza before the film, perhaps it was my subconscious that directed me there. Or maybe that it is a favourite anyways :P
It didn't matter really as they have dropped the pizza quirk from the Turtles a couple years ago. I can't speak for the new cartoon, but I am a regular reader of the Tales of the TMNT comic books which are pizza-less as was the movie.
I haven't seen it, but I'm glad they made it animated rather than live action. Those live action movies were horrible.
Speak for yourself, the first three were awesome.
I am skeptical about this new one, but I'll probably see it soon.
Quote from: Steel Drummer on Sun 25/03/2007 23:59:47
I haven't seen it, but I'm glad they made it animated rather than live action. Those live action movies were horrible.
Aww, I enjoyed them alot when I was little, and seeing them now is still awesome. Those suits were kick ass for back then.
I loved the 3D in the movie. It really was great. The characters were very fluid.
Quote from: Disco on Sun 25/03/2007 22:46:16
o/
I saw and enjoyed it. I was worried at first that is would be too over the top cheesy, but it was okay and I understood the need to have it fully animated rather than live action. Imagi did a great job on the film, the art and animation were first class.
Bit of crazy nostalgia was had beforehand as pre-movie lunch was provided by Pizza Hut. I didn't realise until we got our order that we were having pizza before the film, perhaps it was my subconscious that directed me there. Or maybe that it is a favourite anyways :P
It didn't matter really as they have dropped the pizza quirk from the Turtles a couple years ago. I can't speak for the new cartoon, but I am a regular reader of the Tales of the TMNT comic books which are pizza-less as was the movie.
Lucky you. :)
I had Dippin' Dots so no pizza for me, but I would have had some if I could. :D
I'm an Eastman and Laird purist. I refuse to watch this movie. I'm not such a purist when it comes to Transformers, and I am eagerly awaiting that. I wonder what's next! Voltron, Thundercats, G.I. Joe, Jem, Ducktales, MASK, or maybe Star Blazers? I hear there's a Speed Racer movie coming out soon, and a new Ghostbusters game. Are they going to ruin all my favorite 80's shows?
The fact remains that the 80's were the best era for cartoons in history. Saturday mornings nowadays are lineups designed for retards. You might as well just name everything "The Hurf Durf Show" and get it over with.
Quote from: esper on Mon 26/03/2007 03:46:25The fact remains that the 80's were the best era for cartoons in history.
Uh, weren't the 90s the decade of the best Simpsons episodes? And when South Park started? And Futurama? And Family Guy? Or the decade Cartoon Network began? Or when Nickelodeon launched their Nicktoons, like Ren and Stimpy and Rugrats? Or when Steven Spielberg joined with Warner Brothers to create Tiny Toons, Animaniacs and Freakazoid?
Just to note as well: in the 80s, cartoons based on Garfield won the most Emmys for best animated program throughout the decade. And there was that time in 1987 when a cartoon based on Cathy won. Oh an another time in 1983 when Ziggy won. Nuff said.
Leave it to Grandpa Macphee to harp about something pointless!
Cartoons for children. Compare any of the cartoons of the 80's to Spongedumbass Squarefuckwit, or Loonatiks, or My Gym Partner is a Monkey. Sure, the 90's introduced Animaniacs, Freakazoid, and Tiny Toons, but this was the turning point between cartoons for kids and cartoons for adults. The cartoons for kids in the 80's were great. The cartoons for young adults in the 90's were great. The cartoons for adults in the 2000's are great. The cartoons for kids since the 80's have progressively decreased in value, and the cartoons for kids today only go to prove that in another decade or children will have a collective IQ of 6.
Honestly, I can see where you're coming from, Esper, but I think that you're falling into the trap that a lot of people do when they experience a sense of nostalgia due to something like a cartoon that they remember watching enthusiastically during their childhood. I'd be willing to say that every generation after advancing into adulthood probably hates the shows geared to the younger generation in the exact same way - My parents would never go anywhere near the living room when my brother and I would watch Inspector Gadget or Captain N, Droids, Transformers, Ninja Turtles - that whole Saturday morning lineup, because my parents believed that they were ridiculous.
We (in general terms) grew up exposed to the age of heavily diversified and serialized cartoons, cartoon spinoffs and an almost unforgiving lack of plot coherence. I recently watched, with some friends from my previous job, the He-Man first season DVD, and although I enjoyed it, I knew when I watched it that it sucked. The plots essentially made no sense, the characters were shallower than a pothole on a newly paved road, and the whole thing was obviously little more than a thinly veiled series of advertisements for action figures, which children (Like myself) would beg their parents for endlessly. I can't begin to imagine how many Masters of the Universe, GI Joe or Ninja Turtle figures I had - even the same character with one or two vague alterations to the body - a new color scheme, a chestplate that rotates to show battle damage, and so on and so forth.
We see these new adaptations of our childhood favorites and hate them because they aren't always one-hundred percent faithful to the cartoons they'rebased on, but then again, the Saturday morning TMNT cartoon wasn't based off of the Eastman/Laird graphic novels, either - the first movie was. Essentially what it all boils down to is: What is popular with children today?
You said something that makes a lot of sense:
Quote from: esperThe cartoons for kids in the 80's were great. The cartoons for young adults in the 90's were great. The cartoons for adults in the 2000's are great.
That's because they're our generation: The people making the cartoons for adults now are the kids that were watching Garfield and Friends and Ren & Stimpy in their childhoods just like us, who have grown up just like us. So it stands to reason that that would be exactly the way it works.
Quote from: [lgm] on Mon 26/03/2007 04:46:48
Leave it to Grandpa Macphee to harp about something pointless!
How about you kiss my giant shut-yer-goddamn-mouth!
Quote from: esper on Mon 26/03/2007 05:13:22
Cartoons for children. Compare any of the cartoons of the 80's to Spongedumbass Squarefuckwit, or Loonatiks, or My Gym Partner is a Monkey. Sure, the 90's introduced Animaniacs, Freakazoid, and Tiny Toons, but this was the turning point between cartoons for kids and cartoons for adults. The cartoons for kids in the 80's were great. The cartoons for young adults in the 90's were great. The cartoons for adults in the 2000's are great. The cartoons for kids since the 80's have progressively decreased in value, and the cartoons for kids today only go to prove that in another decade or children will have a collective IQ of 6.
I don't think you can imply that cartoon are dumber today. According to Wikipedia, "Because of FCC-mandated regulations that began in the mid-90s, broadcast stations were forced to program a minimum of three hours of children's educational/informational ("E/I") programming." (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_morning_cartoon#Early_Saturday_morning_cartoons))
Thus, in the 80s they had Ninja Turtles. Meanwhile in the 90s, they had Arthur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_%28TV_series%29).
So, maybe you'll want to re-state what you said about kids today having a collective IQ of 6. Unless of course this is some Bizarro World where educational programming makes you dumber. Also, you might want to try doing a little research before randomly punching out words on your keyboard.
Keep in mind, guys, I'm not saying Ninja Turtles is shit. I used to watch it, collect the cards and toys and so forth. I was a child of the 80s as much as anyone was. But honestly, I'd rather watch an episode of the Batman animated series (90s) than Ninja Turtles (80s).
Oh and just so everyone knows, the 80s gave birth to what I consider the dumbest premise for a cartoon: Turbo Teen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Teen).
Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 26/03/2007 07:15:47
How about you kiss my giant shut-yer-goddamn-mouth!
Leave it to Grandpa Macphee to... Oh I can't think of anything witty.
Either way, I agree. Anything from the era you grew up in is marginally better to you than what is available today.
Even medical care... Who needs AIDS medication when I can just contract a cold and DIE!? That is, assuming I HAVE AIDS. Which in fact, I don't.
I love Arthur.
Anyway, just because there are a ton of educational programs doesn't mean kids watch them. They would rather watch stupid programs, because they are collectively stupid. Why are you arguing this? Do you have kids? Are they smart? Good. Thank you for doing a good job raising them, unlike 99% of parents. I've spent years working with kids. When I was a kid, I wanted to grow up to be a programmer, or a writer. Most of the kids I've worked with in my 8 years of experience want to be a Power Ranger or a Super Saiyin.
Maybe you might try not believing research before you start typing random words on your keyboard. Just because the United States releases figures about the quality of its education in order to make itself look good does not mean that it does, in fact, look good. By the way, like I said, I love Arthur, but the only kids I have ever known that watched Arthur without turning it to Nickelodeon's or Cartoon Network's stupidfests are people with parents who actually give a damn. Where do you stand financially? Have you ever lived in government assisted housing? I've worked with kids who live in the ghetto who only even exist because their parents want a tax write off... And there are much more of them then there are of parents who care. When you don't care, you turn on whatever is on the tv so your kid will shut up.
At least the shows of the 80's tried to have plots, and character development, and messages. Today, it's just a series of toilet humor, violence, and over-the-top weirdness so kids will pay attention and not bother their parents.
Quote from: esper on Mon 26/03/2007 07:37:17
I love Arthur.
Anyway, just because there are a ton of educational programs doesn't mean kids watch them. They would rather watch stupid programs, because they are collectively stupid. Why are you arguing this? Do you have kids? Are they smart? Good. Thank you for doing a good job raising them, unlike 99% of parents. I've spent years working with kids. When I was a kid, I wanted to grow up to be a programmer, or a writer. Most of the kids I've worked with in my 8 years of experience want to be a Power Ranger or a Super Saiyin.
Maybe you might try not believing research before you start typing random words on your keyboard. Just because the United States releases figures about the quality of its education in order to make itself look good does not mean that it does, in fact, look good. By the way, like I said, I love Arthur, but the only kids I have ever known that watched Arthur without turning it to Nickelodeon's or Cartoon Network's stupidfests are people with parents who actually give a damn. Where do you stand financially? Have you ever lived in government assisted housing? I've worked with kids who live in the ghetto who only even exist because their parents want a tax write off... And there are much more of them then there are of parents who care. When you don't care, you turn on whatever is on the tv so your kid will shut up.
Wow, great. You asked me a lot of questions. But nothing you've said prove that 80s cartoons were better, which was your original hypothesis. If anything, I'd say the standards of cartoon have become more complex.
People criticise stuff like, say, Pokemon (I did) but when you actually consider how complex Pokemon really is, what with all those Pokemon and their individual strengths and weaknesses, it's far more advanced than Ninja Turtles.
QuoteAt least the shows of the 80's tried to have plots, and character development, and messages. Today, it's just a series of toilet humor, violence, and over-the-top weirdness so kids will pay attention and not bother their parents.
It's funny how you criticise Power Rangers because Power Rangers is essentially Ninja Turtles. A rag-tag team who are physically similar (except for colour coding) but have their own archetyped personalities while they battle forces of evil. Essentially, Ninja Turtles and Power Rangers are exactly the same in terms of plot, character development and messages. So I don't see how you can praise one and condemn the other.
Oh and... Turbo Teen. Nuff said.
QuoteUh, weren't the 90s the decade of the best Simpsons episodes? And when South Park started? And Futurama? And Family Guy? Or the decade Cartoon Network began? Or when Nickelodeon launched their Nicktoons, like Ren and Stimpy and Rugrats? Or when Steven Spielberg joined with Warner Brothers to create Tiny Toons, Animaniacs and Freakazoid?
You mention south park and family guy as though they are actually
helping your argument that cartoons are at least as good now as they were in the 80's.
If vulgar, low-brow, in-your-face comedy is your thing then I basically agree.
Anyway, to at least try and maintain some topic relevance, I didn't realize they had eliminated pizza from the TMNT manifesto. Was there an underlying reason for this (to toughen the characters up) or was it just arbitrary? If you read the really old TMNT comics from before they really took off (and even now, really) the turtles were a lot more brutal than they are depicted in the cartoons, especially the 80s cartoon. At one point I think Leonardo even had his arm chopped off by Shredder and needed a robotic replacement!
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 26/03/2007 09:19:25
At one point I think Leonardo even had his arm chopped off by Shredder and needed a robotic replacement!
Yeah, but that was before George Lucas quit writing for the Turtles and started working on his own cinematic projects. "Star something-or-other"...
This movie was more serious, and the only pizza I saw were in the scenes where they either had it lying around, or Michealangelo was burping it up. :)
Esper, I thought the same as you for a bit. I figured I wouldn't go see it, but then I figured that it could possibly be good. It was too, so I think you should see it, even if it isn't 80's or 90's or whatever. ;)
The only thing that matters is that the teenage mutant ninja turtles are pure awesomeness to the top, even though the whole consept nears perversion. I just watched all the original season through, and I can't really say how much more I enjoyed them than the usual Simpsons etc on telly nowadays. Especially the dialog is genious, they really put an effort to it.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 26/03/2007 09:19:25
I didn't realize they had eliminated pizza from the TMNT manifesto. Was there an underlying reason for this (to toughen the characters up) or was it just arbitrary?
I would suspect it has something to do with the child obesity. There's a lot of "rules" emerging about children's entertainment and junk food. Like how Cookie Monster kicked the habit.
Quote from: big brother on Mon 26/03/2007 16:06:12
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 26/03/2007 09:19:25
I didn't realize they had eliminated pizza from the TMNT manifesto. Was there an underlying reason for this (to toughen the characters up) or was it just arbitrary?
I would suspect it has something to do with the child obesity. There's a lot of "rules" emerging about children's entertainment and junk food. Like how Cookie Monster kicked the habit.
Bastards.... now it's Veggie Monster. I grew up with the Sesame Street gang, and I hate cookies. :)
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 26/03/2007 09:19:25
You mention south park and family guy as though they are actually helping your argument that cartoons are at least as good now as they were in the 80's.
If vulgar, low-brow, in-your-face comedy is your thing then I basically agree.
South Park tackles topical issues like The War on Terror, racism, religious hypocrisy and gay rights and shows alternative points of view to how society usually views these things and somehow THAT'S low-brow? Get real!
As for Family Guy, I agree, it's low brow. It's also funny. It's definitely funnier than anything from the 80s, so much so that it mocks the 80s consistently. Jesus, they devoted a whole episode to how stupid The A-Team was. Even I found that funny regardless of being a big Mr T fan.
in conclusion you know nothing about anything and you smell
Was that supposed to validate your points? Just because South Park 'tackles' issues (to be correct they just do it to piss people off and not for any actual social relevance) doesn't make it any more entertaining than the GI Joe spin-off 'War on Drugs' was.
As far as Family Guy being funny, yeah, if you are interested in low-brow humor then it is funny.
Quotein conclusion you know nothing about anything and you smell
Personally, the only thing this does is make me feel you are not worth discussing anything with, MacPhee. I really wish you would tone down your antagonistic nature and behave like a human being on these forums rather than slinging personal attacks at people at every opportunity -- whether you mean them or not. I don't think you're a child so I see no reason for you to behave like one.
Last bit first...
Quote from: ProgZmax on Tue 27/03/2007 08:39:54Personally, the only thing this does is make me feel you are not worth discussing anything with, MacPhee. I really wish you would tone down your antagonistic nature and behave like a human being on these forums rather than slinging personal attacks at people at every opportunity -- whether you mean them or not. I don't think you're a child so I see no reason for you to behave like one.
Take it easy, smelly. Wasn't a personal attack. I thought it was pretty obvious I didn't really think you smell. No need to start getting all high and mighty on Mount Smelly. ::)
Now the other bits...
QuoteWas that supposed to validate your points?
Yes. Yes, they were. Thank you for verifying.
QuoteJust because South Park 'tackles' issues (to be correct they just do it to piss people off and not for any actual social relevance)
But, it does have social relevance, despite the author's intent. It lampoons social issues and provides alternative/ironic points of view on them. Surely that has social relevance. Can you prove to me it DOESN'T have social relevance?
Quotedoesn't make it any more entertaining than the GI Joe spin-off 'War on Drugs' was.
But that wasn't your point. You called South Park low-brow comedy, when it's very much the opposite. I demonstrated how and you haven't said anything to refute that.
And forget the spin-off. I doubt anyone will say a single episode of GI JOE had as much social value as South park did, other than being pro-government propaganda. Did you know GI Joe was originally based on a comic written for the US army's magazine? Yeah, I think South Park is way more socially relevant than an army recruiting tool in this instance.
QuoteAs far as Family Guy being funny, yeah, if you are interested in low-brow humor then it is funny.
Great, I'm glad you agree. Still waiting on a cartoon from the 80s that you think is as funny, if not more funny.
Once again, ProgZmax, chill out. Just because someone calls you smelly or says you know nothing about anything, doesn't mean they necessarily think so.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 27/03/2007 10:59:20
QuoteAs far as Family Guy being funny, yeah, if you are interested in low-brow humor then it is funny.
Great, I'm glad you agree. Still waiting on a cartoon from the 80s that you think is as funny, if not more funny.
Which argument is that Daniel? That deppends on the person. I gave Family Guy a chance. I saw 5 complete episodes (Critics were excelent, and many people devoted them...) and I just not only didn't lauged, but also thought it was annoying and disgusting.
That I can easily understand. That's a personal opinion. However, what I have issue with is "The 80s are the best decade for cartoons". If that's true, name a cartoon from the 80s that's funnier than Family Guy. If Family Guy is that terrible, then this should be easy, shouldn't it?
First... I am not discussing the main statement. I basically agree that the 90ies are better than the 80ies for cartoons made for adults (mmm... to be honest, there were cartoons for adults in the 80ies? ??? I am sure that a person who has high TV culture like you will enlight me about this issue, but I can' t really recall one...) :)
My complain was about the example you have chosen. for me Duckman is 20 times funnier, same for Ren and Stimpy, and Spongebob has some gags that really made me laugh. (Sum to that that SpongeBob is basically suitable for all ages, and you' ll have a cartoon I' d recommend to my future little son).
As you see I am mentioning cartoons made int he 90ies. If you used them as an example I shouldn' t have posted.
But using for that a show that I hate (which doen' t mean I have any bad feeling to those who like it, of course ;)) made me post about it. I agree with you, but just by a coincidence I don' t agree with the argument you used.
So, I don' t basically know why I am posting... I was bored. ;D
And, to answer your quesion, for ME, any cartoon in the 80ies was funnier than Family Guy, so, I am going to chose one and say "*the real* Ghostbusters" (which might seem crap to someone else, I agree)
Okay, so we're basically agreeing on everything except for the example I chose.
A matter of personal taste, I guess, because I enjoy watching Family Guy. Go figure.
Yes, we agree only by coincidence, but your example is not too good... And Prog is smart and he will use it. ;)
So, being as I am a person in the same ship you are captaining, I say... Elaborate! There are a lot of examples of why cartoon series made in the 90ies are (overally) funnier than the mad in the 80ies. :D
I would try to help you, but it should be like trying to help acting Robert DeNiro... you can do zillion times better.
So, good luck! :D
Well, I also mentioned Simpsons, South Park, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and Warner Brothers... Is that enough to keep this ship sailing steady?
It's fair enough that some people don't like South Park, but I think anyone who's being honest would have to admit that it does deal with socially relevant issues in a pretty incisive manner, without becoming didactic or holier-than-thou. In fact, being so insistently vulgar is what allows it to square the circle of handling serious topics and still remaining (if you like that kind of thing) funny. That makes it more ambitious than, oh, ANY cartoon from the 1980s.
In fact, I'd say that any argument that kids' cartoons from the 80s were better than the current ones is based on nostalgia, generational prejudice and personal taste, and has nothing to do with actual quality. Though the comparison gets a little absurd, Spongebob Squarepants is probably a better show than the TMHT cartoons ever were.
QuoteOnce again, ProgZmax, chill out. Just because someone calls you smelly or says you know nothing about anything, doesn't mean they necessarily think so.
This is where you're wrong, DG. Saying that I'm smelly didn't make any difference to me one way or the other, but dismissing someone's opinion with 'you know nothing about anything' is a different situation. I've seen you do this before and I find it a rather rude way of trying to solidify your position as absolute in a discussion. Whether
you are being serious or not doesn't really matter when
someone else thinks you are. It's something to bear in mind.
Quotebut I think anyone who's being honest would have to admit that it does deal with socially relevant issues in a pretty incisive manner, without becoming didactic or holier-than-thou
I will be honest when I say for the most part that south park is largely shock value and vulgarity for the sake of it. If that entertains you, go for it! It does not entertain me, nor do I find their opinions or what you would consider social commentary to be incisive, thought-provoking or otherwise interesting -- though I will admit the scientology episode made me laugh.
I will gladly list cartoons that I think are far and away superior to, say, south park or family guy:
1. Johnny Quest (ye olde version)
2. Gummi Bears
3. Dragon's Lair (still some hilarious stuff here)
4. Thundercats
I'm not talking about one specific criteria here but rather overall enjoyment factor, and these definitely rate much higher on the enjoyment factor than anything the last decade has turned out (as far as the cartoons I've seen, anyway). You are invited to offer cartoons from the mid-90s to now that you feel are superior, and, if I have not seen them yet, I will definitely watch a few episodes and see what I think.
As far as saying spongebob is a 'better show' than TMNT, I'd like to see your reasons.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 27/03/2007 13:07:18
Well, I also mentioned Simpsons, South Park, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and Warner Brothers... Is that enough to keep this ship sailing steady?
Good for me... ^_^
Quote from: ProgZmax on Tue 27/03/2007 13:48:10
QuoteOnce again, ProgZmax, chill out. Just because someone calls you smelly or says you know nothing about anything, doesn't mean they necessarily think so.
This is where you're wrong, DG. Saying that I'm smelly didn't make any difference to me one way or the other, but dismissing someone's opinion with 'you know nothing about anything' is a different situation. I've seen you do this before and I find it a rather rude way of trying to solidify your position as absolute in a discussion. Whether you are being serious or not doesn't really matter when someone else thinks you are. It's something to bear in mind.
Gee, I would have thought having my conclusion being "you know nothing about anything and you smell" sounded so ridiculous (especially a) the "you smell" part, and b) that I concluded you know nothing about anything from a discussion about cartoons, because cartoon obviously are the basis for everything) that people could instantly recognise I'm kidding around unless they'd actually have some kind of extra chromosome that stops them from recognising the bleeding obvious. It's something to bear in mind.
I mean seriously, if you feel that I personally attacked with "you know nothing about anything and you smell" that it actually caused you the kind of emotional damage that stops you functioning as a human being, then I will personally send you a packet of hankies so you can cry a river. Go on, explain to me how "you know nothing about anything and you smell" constitutes a personal attack, even when said with all seriousness.
I had no intention of resorting to personal attacks, nor do I have any future intentions of doing so. If I called you an over-sensitive bitch, that would be a personal attack. But I didn't call you an over-sensitive bitch. If I called you a humourless retard, okay, that would most definitely be a personal attack. But I didn't call you a humourless retard. If I called you a giant douchebag who wouldn't know good cartoons if they pissed in your mouth, yeah, that'd be a personal attack. But I'm not going to call you a giant douchebag who wouldn't know good cartoons if they pissed in your mouth. I didn't call you any of those personal attacks and nor will I. All I did was make a joke that was "you know nothing about anything and you smell", which hardly constitutes a personal attack.
You must specify if when you said "you smell", you meant "you smell BAD" or "you smell GOOD". Otherwise I won' t be able to take part into this discussion.
Quote"you know nothing about anything and you smell", which hardly constitutes a personal attack.
In your opinion.
Drawn-out posts throwing in additional possible insults (is this an attempt to be cute?) and offering to send me hankies so I can 'cry a river' just continues to emphasize my point that you are antagonistic, rude, and unnecessarily confrontational in your posts. I've seen you behave precisely in this manner many times before with other people and whether the other moderators agree with me or not I find it completely unacceptable.
You do not know me well enough to make any assumptions that your comments will be taken as jokes, particularly when you have this tendency to just go at people who don't share your opinion.
I refuse to continue taking this topic off-track and so I will leave this here.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Tue 27/03/2007 15:22:23
Quote"you know nothing about anything and you smell", which hardly constitutes a personal attack.
In your opinion.
Yes, in my opinion. If you're going to say it's a personal attack, then tell me what part of it actually "attacked" who you are as a person. Do you even know what a "personal attack" is? If you just going to accuse someone of making a "personal attack', you should back that up with some reasoning. And you haven't yet.
Just because you've got your panties in a bunch over a side joke (which I might add was pretty damn obvious I was kidding around) doesn't mean it's a personal attack.
QuoteYou do not know me well enough to make any assumptions that your comments will be taken as jokes, particularly when you have this tendency to just go at people who don't share your opinion.
I'm fine with people who don't share my opinion. But I get confrontational and hate-filled about are people who make allegations that have no real basis. Like you are doing right now. You falsely accuse me of making a "personal attack" against you and you can't even tell me what it was about what I said that personally attacked you.
All right.
DG, stop being provocative. Even when you intend to joke.
You have perfectly valid arguments, and there's no need to ruin them by sporadically pissing off people just for kicks.
I don't understand what you are getting angry about progZ.. I would say in DGs defence that it were extremely obvious that he was kidding with such a ridiculous argument.
go figure. THe whole argument is useless. I prefer cartoons from 80's for some reason.
Quote[Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and Warner Brothers
Excuse me, but I'd rather puke that watch warner brothers or anything on cartoon network.
And something funnier from the 80's? try the cartoon mentioned in the TOPIC, which has excellent suggestive dialog and humour written into it.
Oh and there were care bears, and my little pony, but that's awful and only my sister would watch it.
Woo, Turtles!!! I've gotta see this!! ...when its aired on Sky Movies. I used to love the cartoons and I even enjoyed the films a lot. It's interesting you've mentioned they've lost their pizza habit. Thats a bummer. To me that's like Hey Arnold not having his black friend anymore, or rather - all of his friends suddenly becomming black or something to please political correctness. Okay, that's a bad example. It's more like John McClane not smoking, hence the number of moments about him being pissed off about not having an available smoke, and finding clues because of it, etc. Turtles was very much about their pizza obsession, so thats a damn shame.
Never the less, at least this time they can't censor the title and call it "Hero Turtles". Puh. That was a silly 80's crime and a half. I agree with Esper that kids cartoons were generally better in earlier days, but yeah it may just be that I think that because that was during our youth. But there are times when I sit down and watch some cartoonage and I don't just enjoy the older stuff for its nostalga. They just seemed to be more epic in earlier days, really engrossing storylines. Storylines that were more like adventure games rather than FPS's :p That's not to say there aren't gems still popping up. Sure there are! But it was almost like the majority of cartoons back then were amazing, whereas now maybe a third of them are amazing. So I'd definitely say there's been a decline, no matter what age you are. But - there are too many psychological factors to consider for me to really know the truth.
It was acceptable iiin the 80'sssss!
(pizza, that is)
Slightly off topic: Somebody remembers "Serlock Hound"? A manga (but which did not look as the nowadays "only-suitable-for-wankers" manga) starred by animals and inspired in the characters created by Doyle? They were great, if someone could provide a link, I would be very happy.
Okay, I took a hike for a little while, because the fight between Progzy and MacPhee was a little intimidating... But I'm back.
DG, listen: your argument seems based entirely around the fact that you LIKE Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Warner Brothers, etc. better than what was around in the 80's. Personally, to quote Hamlet "My gorge rises at (them)." But that's also a matter of opinion. I'll back up my argument, but you'll have to understand that my backup argument is also based entirely off of personal opinion, because you can't base a "which is better" argument about cartoons on fact.
First off, I like South Park. I enjoy how it makes fun of everything (in one episode alone it made fun of Christians AND atheists), and how it makes really good sense about the things it lampoons instead of just mocking them because it feels like it. I like some Family Guy, although for the most part I can't stand Peter or his fat bastard son. I only enjoy episodes starring Stewie and Brian. I enjoy Robot Chicken, Metalocalypse, Harvey Birdman, Tom Goes to the Mayor (even though I used to hate that one), and Aqua Teen Hunger Force is the funniest show I've ever seen in my life. I would murder my children if I caught them watching these shows, but I like them.
However, on the children's cartoons side of things, which is what all this was about (as someone else said, I can't even think about any cartoons for adults in the 80's)... Children's cartoon at the time didn't use only nonstop ridiculous humor that the kids don't even understand (I've seen many a joke on a kids show that my niece and nephew were watching that was totally geared toward the parents watching the show with the kids, but the kids laughed because pants fell down or a strange sound was made or the character suddenly went into an epileptic fit). Shows today pretty much run on the notion that every kid in the world has ADHD and won't be able to enjoy a show for more than eight seconds unless something utterly ridiculous or extremely violent is thrown in. Looney Toons, that classic show from long before either era of which we speak, would get turned down by producers in a heartbeat today because the over-the-top humor is not over-the-top enough, and it doesn't take place on the designated every-eight-second cycle.
Cartoons in the eighties at least tried to give the kids the benefit of the doubt. They contained stories that the kids could watch and enjoy, instead of a series of nonsensical events because that's all they thought they could understand. They contained ongoing stories, which today's children, raised to be morons, wouldn't be able to remember from one Saturday to the next. A lot of them only relied on slight sight gags, like Slimer running into Peter Venkman and sliming him, or verbal gags, like the little end-of-the-show punchline after which all the characters would stand around laughing during a fade to black.
Even the art of the cartoons is different. Back in the day, they spent more time drawing the shows, paid more attention to detail, and made the art more realistic (with the exception of the very older cartoons and the cartoons geared toward the extremely young). Today, every cartoon is a brightly colored blobby. At least Genndy Tartakovsy, who didn't pioneer this art style but brought it to new extremes, had the presence of mind to make Samurai Jack and Clone Wars, the only cartoons I can think of that exist today with actual followable, interesting storylines. (by the way, my opinion is centered solely around American-made cartoons. As ridiculous as the shows may be, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon are deep and multilevel stories. They're nothing more than marketing vehicles, but that's a different argument).
That's my reasoning as to why cartoons of the 80's were better. But of course, that's opinion. I know you're a funny guy, DG, and therefore funny shows appeal to you. The argument you seem to keep using is "find me one show from the 80's funnier than Family Guy." Well, we can't, because the issues that are funny in Family Guy couldn't have been tackled with the same amount of humor back then... more subjects were taboo, and the censors were out in full force. So, in the end, you like today's shows better because you like humor. I like the 80's better because I prefer a well-written story, and because I think todays shows are purposely dumbed-down for a dumbed-down generation. Opinions all. There's no reason to get so up in arms about my opinion on cartoons. If I went up to a Christian and said "You know, your religion is a bunch of nonsense and hoohaa designed by the Roman Empire roughly 300 years after the death of Christ in order to better control people," then yes, I would expect an argument. I've just offended every religious person in a thousand-mile radius with that opinion. But my opinion on cartoons shouldn't make you flip your lid and call Progzy names.
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 27/03/2007 19:45:30
Slightly off topic: Somebody remembers "Serlock Hound"? A manga (but which did not look as the nowadays "only-suitable-for-wankers" manga) starred by animals and inspired in the characters created by Doyle? They were great, if someone could provide a link, I would be very happy.
Oh man! I used to love that show! My dad bought me a couple episodes of it on video and I loved it as a youngster. Seems like all the anime shows today are just crap remakes of each other, but that show was good. I also remember an anime version of Tom Sawyer that was decent. If you want links, here you go:
Wikipedia Page
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Hound)
Random anime site with info on it
(http://www.themanime.org/viewreview.php?id=418)
YouTuber who has posted a few episodes of it on the site
(http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=otomero456)
Hope you're happy.
It seems strange to compare TMNT with Spongebob because one was made for older children and the other was made for younger children. Most modern American cartoons seem to focus on a younger age group then the cartoons of the 80s. There are still some american cartoons that are made for older children, like avatar and invader zim but they became the minority.
It seems like the american animation industry has divided into two catagories, early childhood and adults and that leaves the older children with mostly japanese shows like naruto or dragonballz. This might be partly because it is easier to decide what content is appropriate when there is only two simple catagories with no gray area inbetween, and also because shows like naruto are more difficult and expensive to make.
Anyways I think it would be more fair to compare TMNT with something like avatar, because spongebob is not even for the same market.
Quote from: Postmodern_Boy on Tue 27/03/2007 22:50:25
Anyways I think it would be more fair to compare TMNT with something like avatar, because spongebob is not even for the same market.
Spongebob can actually be viewed in two different ways: 1. The younger children can watch it because it's a cartoon, and because the characters act their age. 2. Older children, adults watch it for the hidden subtleties in the show and the humour. The show is just made that way. It's funny to older people, cool to younger. Younger kids don't even find the show funny most of the time.
I love Spongebob. My little bro doesn't quite get the stuff I laugh at, or maybe I have a twisted sense of humor, but still its a good show. The movie was pretty terrible tho...
Yes, SpongeBob is pretty good, though after a while it gets tiring.
QuoteFirst off, I like South Park. I enjoy how it makes fun of everything (in one episode alone it made fun of Christians AND atheists)
This is something I've been thinking about a bit. This thread has sunk enough to not be sure if it can have a comeback, but I was thinking about it, so I might as well contribute even if there's not going to be much discussion. So here it goes, but DG if you can't contain the maddoxisms don't bother replying me. I say this because I will be building off partly on your opinion of South Park.
I don't think 80's cartoons were better than 90's stuff, and such generalizations baffle me. I don't think TNMT and pokemon are archetypically dissimilar or that one of the two tackles moral ground the other does not. I found modern viewing of 80's stuff like Transformers and TNMT was a very awful experience and don't hold any nostalgia-based fondness for such stuff anymore. I still love robots and ninjas and shit, but hey, let's not get overboard and strain mentally to defend glorified but thinly veiled marketing campaigns for toys just because they were part of our collective youth.
It is also quite interesting to me that this is by far the most 'lol! internet!' argument I've read on this forum, and it has resulted to such heated retort not based in the end on clashing life philosophy or morality, but in fact on tv entertainment preference. This is a wordy equivallent of 'I prefer TNMT' '-I prefer South Park' '-lol u dumb!'.
It is as esper says, DG: it's a matter of opinion, not fact (and I've seen how fact-happy you've been as of late, links everywhere) on what cartoons a person prefers, and that even extends on opinions on which cartoons are more educational or useful for children. There's not really much in terms of studies you can summon up to change that. The entertainment industry, though governed by ill-defined societal... formulae, is hardly the science you enjoy treating it as.
I also don't see the point to go 'HERE ARE THE FACTS, JACK' and then following that up with 'if you don't agree you don't know anything about anything and you smell'. Your 'The REAL news/Maddox' approach might be something you've invested a lot in, but can't you see how if you first feign rationality and seriousness with your wikipedia links, then when you abruptly switch to yet another 'in-yr-face-lol' internet persona, the switch is jarring, annoying, ineffective and finally rude? You might think it's the best internet invention ever, but it's not for most. The AGS forums are hardly brawlhall. Why did progz deserve to be treated as the butt of *any* of your jokes? Humour is only sacred when two people enter in a discussion with a presupposed and civil agreement that 'everything goes' (like in i-mockery) while the AGS forums are hardly governed in such a way. You seem to operate on that people know and expect 'oh that's just whacky DG, bringing us the TRUTH and also telling us we smell, what a lovable internet-funny-guy!' while I don't think people do.
Just check how many times you've insulted people with your humour (and your 'humour' because there's been cases of fuck yous thrown around, as well as those recent explicitly passive-agressive 'I could call you that but I didn't, did I, progz?' awful bits) in this forum to the point where they leave threads you go all REALnewsMaddox in. You know me and you know I can dish and take it on that level, but NOT in AGS. It's not that I'll 'cry you a river' if you call me smelly here, but it's just that it's not called for. Your mecca-forum where both factual discourse and low-brow shit-flinging can occur in harmony is NOT here.
Anyway, enough about that.
So, you guys say that South Park tackles the issues in an incisive manner. I say it does present a lot of stuff you wouldn't find in a TNMT episode. To that extent you are correct. But South Park fails as social commentary because it makes fun of
everything, including itself. I find that it's a very reactionary cartoon that doesn't have pick any discernible side. It will talk about stuff that is controversal, but the discourse will end up on the level of 'lol! people that hate fags! *barf* fags are awful themselves! *crap* kenny dies *pee*. Maybe a single episode will have more of an 'opinion' but in the long run, if one sees a lot of South Park episodes, the net moral and political positioning nears absolute center nothingness, except perhaps a limp libertarianism that actually occurs in the flux of a political belief system (I don't have everything, but I want my freedom!).
South Park is very fast to make fun of modern life idiocy, but - and I think this is a trait of american sociopolitical satire - to cover all bases, it hastens to have
no opinion that it doesn't ridicule preemptively itself so as to feel defended. It's almost as if the creators of South Park feel they're doing something naughty, and have guilt over their satire that they are so eager to lampoon themselves as well to save dissenters the effort. And when they're attacked, it becomes a large issue over their RIGHT to satire (which is of course, easy to defend), not the validity of their contra-opinion itself, as they don't really have an contra-opinion besides obvious stuff like 'freedom is good' and 'making fun of stupidity is a holy mission'.
DG you mention
ironic points of view as if they're worth ejaculating over or something. In fact, irony and cynicism are in my opinion modern diseases of spirit and politics, and the mark that we've passed very closely to total moral and philosophical bankruptcy. When all we can say when someone attempts to expound on a theory - as faulty as it could be- is 'well,
aren't you a smart one'. Totally not conductive, a dead-end farcical solution befitting to a court full of jesters but not a king in sight.
Which isn't to say that south park has no value to watch, it can be funny occasionally and I do think it's quite a bit more enjoyable for adults than TNMT could ever be, I'm just looking at the signs it points to.
Thanks SteelDrummer! Back to topic.
Excellent points Helm on the south park/etc discussion. You put far more effort into explaining your reasoning than I wanted to, but my opinion is pretty much the same. Facts really can't enter into a discussion about 'which cartoon is better' because it's a completely subjective argument. I know people who absolutely adore Inspector Gadget, and while I watched it as a kid, I thought it was an utter cheesefest. The only thing I would say that doesn't seem subjective is that there is a dearth of cartoons like the ones in the 80's, with the sort of carefree and non-vulgar (even implied) humor that seems to pervade almost every type of media now. It's a somewhat puritanical view I know, but I don't watch cartoons for fart jokes and pseudo-relevant commentary, I watch them for fun...or used to, anyway. And I agree that going back to most of the old cartoons I liked they're rather silly now, but that's because they were clearly targeted for kids and I don't happen to be one anymore. Why can't we let children be children anymore? Must cartoons be mass-marketed with racy, adult humor and situations for the adults just to draw in more viewers (and money)?
I introduced this issue as a question before, but nobody replied, so, I am starting to think that it might be necessary to enfathisice (sp?) this.
Ain' t we comparing pears with apples? There were cartoons for "adults" in the eighties? I can only think in manga (Lupin the 3rd for instance) or some other little examples, like Roger Rabbit, if we consider that cartoon.
Sure there was a lot of comic for teens/adults, but I can' t think in cartoons... Even "adult" nespaper stripes as Garfield or The smurfs turned into something more suitable for kids when they jumped to tv. I am not really sure that, even having some adult jokes, and showing April with tiny clothes is enough to consider it jumped to "preferently to be seen bvy adult audience" if we compared what came after, with Ren and Stimpy and Duckman, etc...
I am just asking the cartoons gurus, because I am not really an expert...
Quote from: Nacho on Wed 28/03/2007 11:17:32Ain' t we comparing pears with apples?
Good point, Nacho. I believe Esper's original comment was comparing children's programming of the 80's with that of today. I don't think it's really fair to match up after-school cartoons like Transformers and TMNT to prime-time ones like Simpsons or South Park. They're aimed at completely different audiences. Heck, I don't even know what they show on TV these days during the after-school time block, so I really have no way of making a comparison.
BTW Nacho, it's 'emphasize'. :)
Quote from: ProgZmax on Wed 28/03/2007 09:50:41The only thing I would say that doesn't seem subjective is that there is a dearth of cartoons like the ones in the 80's, with the sort of carefree and non-vulgar (even implied) humor that seems to pervade almost every type of media now.
That's why I always enjoy catching laughs with some classic Tom & Jerry. Just good, clean fun in my opinion.
Although, if Wikipedia is to be believed (I'll spare you the link), even some of their shorts contain (by today's standards) controversial elements which are edited out when shown on TV today. I find it discouraging that, in today's politically correct environment, a show like Tom & Jerry would never get produced because it obviously promotes animal cruelty and torture. And sure enough, just look at some of the modern incarnations of Tom & Jerry: watered-down, feel-good pap that's just a shadow of it's original self.
QuoteWhy can't we let children be children anymore? Must cartoons be mass-marketed with racy, adult humor and situations for the adults just to draw in more viewers (and money)?
One of the things that strikes me about watching old Bugs Bunny cartoons that I used to watch as a kid is how much adult innuendo and humour is actually contained in those. I don't really have a problem with stuff like this because, as a kid, that material was over my head and I simply enjoyed the cartoon at face value. Now as an adult, I'm still able to enjoy it at another level. I think it's really the mark of a sophisticated cartoon that different age groups can watch it and appreciate it for different things.
I wonder if Spongebob (just to pick an example) doesn't fit into this category? I've watched it from time-to-time and for the most part have enjoyed it, but the humour seemed a little edgy to me, although clearly the show is marketed at kids. Having only watched it through the eyes of an adult, it's hard to tell what kids take away from it. Drawing on my own experience as a child, I have to think that they're enjoying it at a different level than I am. I think it's a mistake to view children as "little adults" that are experiencing the world in the same fundamental way as we are.
What's my point here? Going back to my example of Tom & Jerry, I think it's an interesting (and sad) comment on society that cartoons we had no problems showing our kids 40, 50 years ago are now seen as something we need to "protect" them from. By all means, let children be children. But does that mean we have to raise them in some sterile bubble and keep them hidden away from the real world?
I feel like nowadays, people have really screwy ideas about cartoons. They allow shows like South Park and Family Guy to go uncensored (for the most part), but they condemn most shows that were made in the 40s-60s, like Loony Tunes, Tom and Jerry, etc. for containing violence and animal cruelty. I mean, seriously; they're anthropomorphic animals! I even read an article saying that they were going to censor any Tom and Jerry episodes that contained smoking (and probably numerous other old shows that contained that sort of thing).
And don' t forget about removing Piglet from Winny the Poh because it's offensive to Muslims! :D
I don't know, but I don't think teaching our kids about difference in sexualities and racism and all that and then not teaching them smoking and drinking is that bad after all. I mean, Tom used to smoke quite a lot. Seriously, in 40's, they wouldn't mention gays on cartoons or tv because they though they were bad, now they won't show cigarettes or booze because they know it's bad. I think in that way they're right.
So showing people dealing in prostitution, gambling, and using swear words in every sentence in a cartoon is better than showing characters drinking alcohol or smoking? Cartoons still make racist jabs. Cartoons feature more violence than any of those old shows. And even if they're marketed to adults, kids will still watch them because they're cartoons.
Children also play video games because they are games. There's no reason to remove things from cartoons because children might see them.
Also, I was always under the impression that Looney Tunes and cartoons like that weren't made for children anyway. Also, holy crap, how many cartoons back then are based off of world war 2 and that was going on at the time, people were exploding, parents were dying in a war, siblings were being shipped off and there's Daffy Duck being shot by Germans.
I must admit. I was a bit skeptical when I first heard about this film but it's had some good reviews and the trailer is pretty awesome, I might just have to go and see this one.
The TMNT cartoon from the early nineties was cheaply made, badly written, animated-in-Ireland-by-half-arsed-art-college-failures (trust me on this), mis-directed...cack.
As was most of Murakami-Wolf's output from the period.
The TMNT comic never interested me and, frankly, seemed to have had no more going for it then than the rest of the anthropomorphic claptrap churned out during those dark days.
Yet, to a fan, all of this is moot.
Nostalgia is critic proof, and reminding a grown person of something that made them happy in their youth is the quickest and easiest way to lighten their wallets.
Okay... so since we're back on topic again, I might as well say that I just got home from seeing the movie with a friend. It was a lot better than any other media production of the Turtles, and definitely one of the best CG movies I've seen. Thumbs up to Imagi Studios (or whatever the name of the animation studio was that made the film). This movie is edgier, grittier, and darker than any TMNT stuff before (not like this is very gritty at all), and the style actually works. The only thing I didn't like about it was that the cartoonish characters set against the backdrop of super-realistic imagery didn't really match up well. If only they'd make TMNT games as good as the NES ones. Ahh.. those were the days...
Quote from: Steel Drummer on Sun 01/04/2007 05:23:00
This movie is edgier, grittier, and darker than any TMNT stuff before (not like this is very gritty at all)
I take it you never read the original graphic novel.
QuoteIf only they'd make TMNT games as good as the NES ones. Ahh.. those were the days...
Dude! Do you still have blisters on your fingers after all these years from the little slidey move you had to do on the controller between the B and A buttons in order to do your little turtle jump slash? I do. That and jumping between walls on Ninja Gaiden, I believe, are the primary reason my handwriting sucks today.
It may sound stupid... because it is... but I think every friend I had between the ages of 8 and 12 I made while playing TMNT: The Arcade Game.
you know, you're thumb covers the both buttons if you hold it in a horizontal position, that way the whole movement is easy to produce. Dude, you were just playing it wrong, TNMT 2 for NES was by far the best turtles game ever.
The SNES Turtles games were pretty cool too, but the NES ones were the best.
Which one do you think I'm talking about?
(http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9044/tmntmc2.jpg)
I mean TMNT 2: The Arcade Game for NES. The original TMNT game on NES wasn't that great, but this was one of the best games ever. It was way ahead of anything else they ever did on the original Nintendo console. I did find, however, that holding my thumb horizontally just made things a bit more difficult. And the worst part of the game was that you could only continue mid-level if you had a second player with you.
Konami's SNES TMNT games, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles IV: Turtles in Time (http://www.mobygames.com/game/snes/teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-iv-turtles-in-time/screenshots/gameShotId,118537/) and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Tournament Fighters (http://www.mobygames.com/game/snes/teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-tournament-fighters/screenshots/gameShotId,85319/), were the best TMNT games of the 16-bit era.
Not surprisingly, as Konami was probably the best third-party developer working on the SNES.
Of course, as good as the SNES TMNT games were, Konami's AAA SNES output (Cybernator, Legend of The Mystical Ninja, Castlevania IV, Contra III, etc) was even better.
But I digress...
Quote from: esper on Sun 01/04/2007 19:30:15
Which one do you think I'm talking about?
(http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9044/tmntmc2.jpg)
I mean TMNT 2: The Arcade Game for NES. The original TMNT game on NES wasn't that great, but this was one of the best games ever. It was way ahead of anything else they ever did on the original Nintendo console. I did find, however, that holding my thumb horizontally just made things a bit more difficult. And the worst part of the game was that you could only continue mid-level if you had a second player with you.
Yes, I knew you were talking about that one. Me and my friends used to play that for hours. Another game for the NES I remember fondly was BattleToads. Anyone else played that?
I thought the first game was better. It seemed longer, more varied, and with more exploration. The second game, as I recall, was just wave after wave of Foot soldiers.
And the first game had wave after wave of foot soldiers, and a bunch of other annoying enemies. If I recall, the first wasn't even two player.
I loved the first one, even if it was very hard. It was fun to me then, and it still is fun to me. I loved the second one as well, even if it was EXTREMELY hard too.
mmm, Battletoads! I loved that game (remember the exaggerated fists and boots? :))
It was really hard! I don't recall getting past the 3rd level (the one with the hover cars! OMG! IMPOSSIBLE!!!)
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sun 01/04/2007 20:17:34
Konami's SNES TMNT games, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles IV: Turtles in Time (http://www.mobygames.com/game/snes/teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-iv-turtles-in-time/screenshots/gameShotId,118537/) and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Tournament Fighters (http://www.mobygames.com/game/snes/teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-tournament-fighters/screenshots/gameShotId,85319/), were the best TMNT games of the 16-bit era.
Not surprisingly, as Konami was probably the best third-party developer working on the SNES.
Of course, as good as the SNES TMNT games were, Konami's AAA SNES output (Cybernator, Legend of The Mystical Ninja, Castlevania IV, Contra III, etc) was even better.
But I digress...
Hmm, idk about Cybernator, but Contra III was very awesome for its time. Castlevania IV was really great too.
Battletoads was good. I think I got up to the last level. Whenever my friend and I played it on multiplayer, he could never get past level 3. :D
The second TMNT game was a lot more fun, especially on rainy days, with nothing else to do.