If a new ThunderCats movie were to be made...

If a new ThunderCats movie were to be made, what look would you prefer it to have?
1. A live-action movie in which actors wear make-up and costumes (like the Dolph Lundgren "MOTU" movie)
2. A completely CGI movie (like what Pixar makes)
3. A mix of live-action and CGI characters (like Avatar)

Interestingly, the TMNT franchise has produced movies in all those formats. The 1990 movie and its sequels featured actors in costumes. The 2007 movie was completely CGI. The most recent 2014 movie was a mix of live-action and CGI. :)

I voted for a mix. I think something like that would be great. I really wish someone would consider it. A movie like this could just be what the TC franchise need to get a boost.

"Wilycub, post: 103630, member: 25043" said:

If a new ThunderCats movie were to be made, what look would you prefer it to have?
1. A live-action movie in which actors wear make-up and costumes (like the Dolph Lundgren "MOTU" movie)
2. A completely CGI movie (like what Pixar makes)
3. A mix of live-action and CGI characters (like Avatar)

Interestingly, the TMNT franchise has produced movies in all those formats. The 1990 movie and its sequels featured actors in costumes. The 2007 movie was completely CGI. The most recent 2014 movie was a mix of live-action and CGI. :)

You forget TMNT also had a fully animated movie. Turtles Forever.
Personally I don't think going live action with CGI characters would be any good. The 2014 TMNT and Transformers movies are prime (pun intended) examples of why those movies don't work. Not in the visual sense but in the writing sense. In both cases the main characters (Transformers and TMNT) became the secondary characters to the human characters. Having said that though both were done by Michael Bay....perhaps with a better director and writing team things would be different?
Having said that though, actors in make up and masks etc give a better realism that CGI just cannot capture and have a certain magic to them much like the early Star Wars films.
While it is not a necessarily a great movie I think John Carter of Mars was a far better use of live action with CGI characters.
A fully animated or CGI film in my opinion would be the best way to create the Thundercats characters and world of Third Earth.

"TCatsfan, post: 103631, member: 25649" said:

I voted for a mix. I think something like that would be great. I really wish someone would consider it. A movie like this could just be what the TC franchise need to get a boost.

I agree 100%. It is high time that we get a ThunderCats movie. But it has to be done right. Based on the original series. Something along the lines of Marvel's "Avengers" movies, a good balance of action and humor and a decent story as well. And please, NO MICHEL BAY INVOLVEMENT! ;)

"Mark M, post: 103633, member: 5058" said:

You forget TMNT also had a fully animated movie. Turtles Forever.
Personally I don't think going live action with CGI characters would be any good. The 2014 TMNT and Transformers movies are prime (pun intended) examples of why those movies don't work. Not in the visual sense but in the writing sense. In both cases the main characters (Transformers and TMNT) became the secondary characters to the human characters. Having said that though both were done by Michael Bay....perhaps with a better director and writing team things would be different?

You make a very valid point. A full CGI ThunderCats movie could work out quite well, seeing as there aren't many human characters in the TCats universe (apart from the Warrior Maidens). Transformers and TMNT both took place on present day earth, inhabited by humans so they had to do it part live-action otherwise it would have meant creating lots and lots of CGI humans, which seems counterproductive.

"Mark M, post: 103633, member: 5058" said:

Having said that though, actors in make up and masks etc give a better realism that CGI just cannot capture and have a certain magic to them much like the early Star Wars films.

That is exactly why I am leaning towards a mix of CGI and live-action. Technology hasn't currently reached a level where CGI becomes indistinguishable from real life. There are certain nuances in expressions and movements that CGI still can't capture accurately. The animatronic shark in the original "Jaws" still looks more real and believable compared to the CGI sharks in "Deep Blue Sea".

"Mark M, post: 103633, member: 5058" said:

While it is not a necessarily a great movie I think John Carter of Mars was a far better use of live action with CGI characters.

A very good example! I actually quite liked that movie. That and "Avatar" have pushed the boundaries of how realistic CGI can get thanks to motion capture.

"Wilycub, post: 103635, member: 25043" said:

You make a very valid point. A full CGI ThunderCats movie could work out quite well, seeing as there aren't many human characters in the TCats universe (apart from the Warrior Maidens). Transformers and TMNT both took place on present day earth, inhabited by humans so they had to do it part live-action otherwise it would have meant creating lots and lots of CGI humans, which seems counterproductive.

That is exactly why I am leaning towards a mix of CGI and live-action. Technology hasn't currently reached a level where CGI becomes indistinguishable from real life. There are certain nuances in expressions and movements that CGI still can't capture accurately. The animatronic shark in the original "Jaws" still looks more real and believable compared to the CGI sharks in "Deep Blue Sea".

A very good example! I actually quite liked that movie. That and "Avatar" have pushed the boundaries of how realistic CGI can get thanks to motion capture.

Yes but my issue with Transformers and TMNT was how the stories focused more on the human characters Sam and April than on the heroes of the movies.
But again this is like the Masters of the Universe movie where they included the earthling characters. They really did nothing or added anything to the story. I remember reading though that they set a lot of it on earth as they just didn't have the budget to create more sets of Eternia.
A movie with the warrior maidens in the jungle would be pretty cool.
Yes I completely agree about Jaws. Another good example would be Jabba the Hutt in Return of the Jedi compared to his appearance in the special edition of A New Hope.
I still haven't seen Avatar as such, a few seconds here and there when it's on TV but I haven't watched the full movie. I have never read any of the John Carter books but I have seen a lot of the old illustrations Frank Frazetta painted and visually I thought the film was a rather good representation of them.

But another issue has to come up with a movie. There are a lot of design elements for the hero characters from the 80's and the 2011 cartoon that I really don't think would translate to well on screen especially for a live action.
The only nice thing I can say about the Michael Bay TMNT movie was he gave the Turtles more individual looks. Sadly though the individual looks just were not very good.

"Mark M, post: 103636, member: 5058" said:

Yes but my issue with Transformers and TMNT was how the stories focused more on the human characters Sam and April than on the heroes of the movies.
But again this is like the Masters of the Universe movie where they included the earthling characters. They really did nothing or added anything to the story. I remember reading though that they set a lot of it on earth as they just didn't have the budget to create more sets of Eternia.

Yes, that always bugs me when most "fantasy" movies are set in present day New York, merely because they don't have the dough to create a fantasy world. Back in the 80s, during the time of the MOTU movie, I can understand that move by producers because it was made by a not-so-rich studio. But today, when everything can be done on the computer, movies like "The Smurfs" being set in present day New York are just plain dumb. What's wrong with setting it in the Smurf village, like all the cartoons did? :00

"Mark M, post: 103636, member: 5058" said:

Yes I completely agree about Jaws. Another good example would be Jabba the Hutt in Return of the Jedi compared to his appearance in the special edition of A New Hope.

How could I forget that! The CGI Jabba looked terrible, and the way Han walks over his tail? :confused

"Mark M, post: 103636, member: 5058" said:

I still haven't seen Avatar as such, a few seconds here and there when it's on TV but I haven't watched the full movie.

Well if you've seen "Disney's Pocahontas", or "Dances with Wolves" or "Atlantis: The Lost Empire", then you HAVE seen "Avatar"! :biggrin

I chose live action. The 2001 Tim Burton remake of Planet of the Apes had convincing humanoid animal characters made entirely with practical effects interacting with human characters, so it can be done.

"Mumm-Ra_The Ever-Living, post: 103641, member: 305" said:

I chose live action. The 2001 Tim Burton remake of Planet of the Apes had convincing humanoid animal characters made entirely with practical effects interacting with human characters, so it can be done.

I don't think the hero character designs would translate well on screen in live action but the mutants would be fine. The only way the heroes would work if they became more animal looking.

"Wilycub, post: 103639, member: 25043" said:

Yes, that always bugs me when most "fantasy" movies are set in present day New York, merely because they don't have the dough to create a fantasy world. Back in the 80s, during the time of the MOTU movie, I can understand that move by producers because it was made by a not-so-rich studio. But today, when everything can be done on the computer, movies like "The Smurfs" being set in present day New York are just plain dumb. What's wrong with setting it in the Smurf village, like all the cartoons did? :00


How could I forget that! The CGI Jabba looked terrible, and the way Han walks over his tail? :confused


Well if you've seen "Disney's Pocahontas", or "Dances with Wolves" or "Atlantis: The Lost Empire", then you HAVE seen "Avatar"! :biggrin

Yeah I completely agree. what was the deal with the Smurfs being set in present day New York? I liked the cartoon but those new movies don't interest me at all.
The Jabba scene was really odd. Not as odd as replacing Anakin's original ghost with Hayden Christiansen though LOL. But looking at the prequel trilogy visually compared to the original trilogy the amount of CGI and blue/green screen really did not help those films. They lacked that real world feel that the originals had. To be fair though regardless if they had made real sets for everything the writing and acting in those films were so bad I doubt it would have made any difference. It will be interesting to see how these new Star Wars films are in comparison to the prequels.
I seen Pocahontas and Atlantis for the first time a few months back and really enjoyed them.

I went with complete CGI. I would actually really like to see a fully animated movie but doubt that is a realistic option.

"Mumm-Ra_The Ever-Living, post: 103641, member: 305" said:

I chose live action. The 2001 Tim Burton remake of Planet of the Apes had convincing humanoid animal characters made entirely with practical effects interacting with human characters, so it can be done.

Rick Baker really brought the apes to life with his fantastic make-up in that movie. They looked so much better than the CGI apes in the recent movies of the franchise. Most of the characters from the ThunderCats can probably be recreated with practical effects, though some of the more bizarre ones would probably need a little bit of good animatronics as well. However, most actors aren't big fans of making movies this way as they have to sit for up to 4 hours for the make-ups and prosthetics to be applied! :)

"Mark M, post: 103644, member: 5058" said:

To be fair though regardless if they had made real sets for everything the writing and acting in those films were so bad I doubt it would have made any difference. It will be interesting to see how these new Star Wars films are in comparison to the prequels.

Right on the Mark! ;) Just goes to prove that no amount of CGI can salvage a bad script and poor acting. Some of the dialogues in the new trilogy is just abysmal! Christensen I found to be particularly wooden in his acting, especially in the second movie.

I'm afraid I don't have too many high hopes for the upcoming Star Wars movies. With Disney announcing that they are going to make one Star Wars movie every year, it just seems like they are more focused on milking the franchise via merchandise sales (remember "Cars"?) than actually giving the fans quality movies. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

"adssse, post: 103645, member: 25051" said:

I went with complete CGI. I would actually really like to see a fully animated movie but doubt that is a realistic option.

Actually I think that it is probably the most realistic option of the three. If WB ever decide to make a ThunderCats movie, I have a feeling that they will go with complete CGI as it is the cheapest option. :)

I voted for a CG-animated ThunderCats film. It's high time we had a movie of that caliber.

"Wilycub, post: 103649, member: 25043" said:

Rick Baker really brought the apes to life with his fantastic make-up in that movie. They looked so much better than the CGI apes in the recent movies of the franchise. Most of the characters from the ThunderCats can probably be recreated with practical effects, though some of the more bizarre ones would probably need a little bit of good animatronics as well. However, most actors aren't big fans of making movies this way as they have to sit for up to 4 hours for the make-ups and prosthetics to be applied! :)


Right on the Mark! ;) Just goes to prove that no amount of CGI can salvage a bad script and poor acting. Some of the dialogues in the new trilogy is just abysmal! Christensen I found to be particularly wooden in his acting, especially in the second movie.

I'm afraid I don't have too many high hopes for the upcoming Star Wars movies. With Disney announcing that they are going to make one Star Wars movie every year, it just seems like they are more focused on milking the franchise via merchandise sales (remember "Cars"?) than actually giving the fans quality movies. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


Actually I think that it is probably the most realistic option of the three. If WB ever decide to make a ThunderCats movie, I have a feeling that they will go with complete CGI as it is the cheapest option. :)

How could anyone forget 'Mannequin' Skywalker LOL. The character of Anakin that is described in the original trilogy is like the polar opposite of the prequel trilogy character and what we got to see on screen. The Anakin character in the Clone Wars movie and GCI series was far better.
I am not filled with excitement for it either. I wasn't over interested in his Star Trek films...but then again I am not a Star Trek fan.
Some Disney movies are great but others are indeed terrible like Cars and Wings etc.
Even Robotech did a animated/CGI movie back in 2007. Granted it wasn't a success but that was done to the script and the lack of merchandise to accompany it. But there is no doubt it was awesome hearing the classic music again when it started. Overall though it wasn't a bad movie, it just could have been better.
If Thundercats could do a similar movie (except with a good script) and keep a good balance of being faithful to the original series mythos with designs and music etc I think it could be a great success.

Good question! I´d like a mix of cgi and live action, but still I´m not sure if the TC´s will look ok, I mean, mutants wont be a problem, but not sure about the TC´s, like, will they have fur on all their bodies? And what about their faces? Will it be paint or also fur? And most important, will it be visually convincing?

"Mark M, post: 103636, member: 5058" said:

Yes but my issue with Transformers and TMNT was how the stories focused more on the human characters Sam and April than on the heroes of the movies.

My young nephew yesterday insisted that I watch the new TMNT movie with him. So I had no choice but to sit through it again and I realized how absolutely right you are with that point. The film's main focus is April. How she wants to be a serious and successful journalist, How Vernon is after her, How her father was a genius scientist who created the Turtles and Splinter, How she helped the Turtles escape from the lab fire. In fact it is she who delivers the final blow (in this case kick) to Shredder. The movie should have been called "The Adventures of April O'Neal featuring TMNT". :biggrin

There were so many things about that movie that I would have changed, but I think I should start a new thread to discuss that! :)

"Wilycub, post: 103757, member: 25043" said:

My young nephew yesterday insisted that I watch the new TMNT movie with him. So I had no choice but to sit through it again and I realized how absolutely right you are with that point. The film's main focus is April. How she wants to be a serious and successful journalist, How Vernon is after her, How her father was a genius scientist who created the Turtles and Splinter, How she helped the Turtles escape from the lab fire. In fact it is she who delivers the final blow (in this case kick) to Shredder. The movie should have been called "The Adventures of April O'Neal featuring TMNT". :biggrin

There were so many things about that movie that I would have changed, but I think I should start a new thread to discuss that! :)

Possible thread title. The Mistakes of Michael Bay. ;) I would be more than happy to contribute comments to it LOL. You see what I mean though. In both cases the humans are the main focus. At least in the MOTU movie the earth human characters were not the main focus of the story.
The 2014 Turtles movie has nothing on the 1990 movie. The Turtles were interesting and likeable characters. And the stoy was quite good and very faithful to the original comics.
Have you seen the TMNT 2 trailer yet? Bebop and Rocksteady and Casey are in it.

"Mark M, post: 103760, member: 5058" said:

Possible threat title. The Mistakes of Michael Bay. ;) I would be more than happy to contribute comments to it LOL. You see what I mean though. In both cases the humans are the main focus. At least in the MOTU movie the earth human characters were not the main focus of the story.

You are absolutely spot on with that observation. As you said, they did the same thing with "Transformers". It actually should have been called "All About Sam"! LOL! The live action "Smurfs" went the same route. The film was mostly about Neil Patrick Harris, his job, his problems with his boss, his pregnant wife. 60% of the focus was on him, 30% on Gargamel and only 10% on the Smurfs.

"Mark M, post: 103760, member: 5058" said:

the 2014 Turtles movie has nothing on the 1990 movie. The Turtles were interesting and likeable characters. And the stoy was quite good and very faithful to the original comics.
Have you seen the TMNT 2 trailer yet? Bebop and Rocksteady and Casey are in it.

Oh yeah! The 1990 TMNT movie was awesome! Very faithful to the comic. I even enjoyed the sequel, despite it being of a more lighter tone. How can you not like "Ninja Rap"???? ;) I keep forgetting how everybody was crazy about Vanilla Ice back then. :)

I only saw the trailer for the second TMNT movie today. It seems most of my fears have been realized by Michael Bay. That guy must be a mind reader! LOL! It seems the makers have crammed everything that they could think of. The portal opening in the sky and alien ships coming in looks a lot like "The Avengers". I also noticed a lot of April in the trailer so I guess I can assume that she's going to get a lot of limelight again. :frown

But why in God's name are the Turtles wearing so much garbage??? There's rags and belts and things all over their body. And are those pants/shorts that they are wearing???? Who came up with that bright idea?? :00

"Wilycub, post: 103762, member: 25043" said:

You are absolutely spot on with that observation. As you said, they did the same thing with "Transformers". It actually should have been called "All About Sam"! LOL! The live action "Smurfs" went the same route. The film was mostly about Neil Patrick Harris, his job, his problems with his boss, his pregnant wife. 60% of the focus was on him, 30% on Gargamel and only 10% on the Smurfs.


Oh yeah! The 1990 TMNT movie was awesome! Very faithful to the comic. I even enjoyed the sequel, despite it being of a more lighter tone. How can you not like "Ninja Rap"???? ;) I keep forgetting how everybody was crazy about Vanilla Ice back then. :)

I only saw the trailer for the second TMNT movie today. It seems most of my fears have been realized by Michael Bay. That guy must be a mind reader! LOL! It seems the makers have crammed everything that they could think of. The portal opening in the sky and alien ships coming in looks a lot like "The Avengers". I also noticed a lot of April in the trailer so I guess I can assume that she's going to get a lot of limelight again. :frown

But why in God's name are the Turtles wearing so much garbage??? There's rags and belts and things all over their body. And are those pants/shorts that they are wearing???? Who came up with that bright idea?? :00

Yes very much like the Avengers, only difference is the Avengers was a some what good movie with good characters. I like the concept of giving each turtle a unique look to tell them apart but I really don't care for the designs and what's the point of making them look unique and different to each other when you spend no time building any character to truly set them apart from one another??????