Yeah, your "Bay said ALIEN RACE!" news is way outdated. Both the director and co-creator Eastman have since said that the film will be true to canon.
I love this place. :)
Well allow me to correct myself Shieky. I am not saying that you are worshiping the ground Bay walks on. I am saying that at this point, you believe that Bay will stay true to the original series, as you feel this is confirmed by Eastman, yes? Perhaps, my words came across as if I believe that you think Bay is greater than the actual opinion you have for the man. If so, than I am sorry. My choice of words is simply a referral to the fact that you seem to me to believe that Bay’s adaptation of the film will stay true to the original. I generated this opinion due to your remarks about Eastman’s comments, a man who is set to make a vast amount from Bay's adaptation by the way, claiming to the diehard followers of his original story that Bays film will remain accurate (not to the 10th degree, but accurate none the less) with the series as a whole, or "in canon" as you would say. It is not a contortion of you words, but merely an observation of what you have stated thus far.
You say that people were unnecessarily getting bent out of shape and “people pitching a fit... either have selective memory or they don’t know really know anything about the property.” I presented my knowledge on the subject as a way to offer the idea that I am a person who “really” knows something about this topic, in my eyes at least if in no one elses. I differ from you in that I do feel it is something that I should be allowed to voice my disapproval, regardless of others stand points on the topic. This is not a conversation in which I am trying twist what was said in a way you didn’t mean it. I am just taking the information given and processing it at face value. Would you agree that you believe that Michael Bay will stay true (not identical mind you) to the original series created by Eastman and Laird, based off of the settling commentary made by one Kevin Eastman? I personally do not, but that is my opinion on the topic
You seem to be hung up on the whole qualitative thing pertaining to the overall movie while all I'm arguing is that the actual origin portion of the story (you know, the mutating) isn't being bastardized because there's always been an alien component. That's it. Everything else is stuff you're coloring in on your own. I am NOT a fan of Michael Bay or director Jonathan Liebesman in any capacity.
Also, brevity. It's a thing. Check it out. ;)
Why do all of that Garvin boy's posts resemble prostitutes left to float in the river?
If you said that Jason (Friday the 13th) in his newest movie was actually a robot, would it be bastardizing the story behind the movie? I think it would because it would completely negate the original film and his mothers part in his history. I also think it would take away from the psychotic nature of Jason's character; since as a robot, he is doing what he is programmed to do. Apply this logic to the "mutated" in the movie at hand. Qualifying them as having an "alien component" is accurate in what has mutated them, but their abilities as "ninja's" comes from their training via Splinter. Give them an "alien" demeanor in the context of the film and now you turn them from being well disciplined ninjas into having natural "out of this world" abilities due to the "super powers" they obtained from the Ooze. Think the difference between Batman and Green Lantern. One spent a lifetime to develop their skills. The other was handed their abilities through events out of their control. The simple nature of changing the context of their "origins" also changes the idea behind their entire back story. But maybe I am far too critical for my own good.