Reviews WesternAnimation / Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2012

I gotta say that I disagree with you on 2012 being the most mature one.

Yeah seriously, its not the best of the three nor is it the most mature.

Yeah I read your reviews. You're both confusing serious with mature. Tell me, did they ever deal with Splinter's fear of abandonment in the 2k3 series?

The most mature is probably the 2003 one, it was the most dark. This one is between the 1987 one and 2003 one in maturity, which is good, because it can have light and soft moments while being totally capable of being serious when it needs to be. And this might not be the best of the three, but I think everyone agrees that it has the best Leonardo.

Oh I see. When you say "mature" you mean in the since of what is rated PG 13 or R. Sex, violence, dark themes. They say "What the shell?" on 2k3. Fake cussing. Yeah, thats maturity.

Thats adolescence. Real maturity goes beyond that.

Here's what I am talking about. They're talking about games but it handily applies here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzU8wM_S2Ks

In terms of having the best characterization, most interesting character arcs, and such themes then yes. And Gibber taking potshots at the series shows you've already lost because you're resulting to insulting instead of coming up with actual reasons why you're opinion is correct.

I like the 2012 adaption, but it isn't that serious or mature.

qtjinla I know but I posted a video that explains it better than I do.

The actual review is around 40 words long, it looks more like you put the others ones in it to make it longer since you aren't explain anything or at least giving examples. Take me for example, I haven't watched 2012, so I have no basis to challenge, you're saying it's more mature but you have never said why. It's more mature, take my word for it.

The whole thing is the review marcellx. Sometimes reviews use comparison.

2012 is more mature because it acknowledges more of the realities of life (as many realities as can be acknowledge in a show about a family of sewer dwelling ninja mutants) yet doesn't take itself more seriously than it should the way 2k3 does.

I also included the other two shows to mark the series evolution as a whole. 1987 was written for kids and only for kids. Our parents wouldn't have sat through that unless they had to and we will only sit through it today out of nostalgia. 2k3 was written for teens, the technobabble is more plausible, theres that fake "what the shell" cussing, and the bad guys are more violent but other than that its not meaningfully more mature. 2012 is clearly written for a new generation of kid fans AND their parents who likely grew up as fans of the 1987 series. The humor and character development work for both groups.

Again, why? you're stating a point, but that's just it, stating, you're not giving any arguments or explanations. Look at what you said this time.

But why? I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm saying you're not really giving us much to go by. That's why I criticized your use of the other two series, that you didn't use all that space to elaborate your argument about 2012.

You're criticizing some random guy who decided to post something here about the show. Why do you even care? Reviewers don't approach reviews as arguments. A reviewer describes their experience. I described mine. Granted I could go into more detail but again I'm just some guy. If I was going to do my research and collect examples and spend the proper time on composition and revisions. I wouldn't post my review here. I'd start my own blog.

But if you want an example, fine. There's an episode I, Monster where they deal with some of the emotional impact Splinter's life has had on him. He lost his original family (and its established in an earlier episode that its partly his fault for perpetuating a feud between him and Splinter) ended up in a sewer, a rat person. He has a new family but he's still a rat person stuck in the sewer, those turtles are all he has. We see Splinter's reaction in this episode when the turtle's say "soon we won't need him to train us". Leonardo has successfully struck him in combat for the first time.

We get to see that Splinter is afraid of being abandoned, being alone. Who would he have if the turtles left? In this version, as in the 2K3 version, they can't show their face in public. He'd be alone in the shadows, a monster. At least thats how he feels and thats what matters when he's attacked in his mind. You can see and hear the fear and doubt in Splinter as he says "Leave me alone. You and I are nothing alike." to the Rat King. There's a part of him that fears he is a monster and that he will lose the last family he has.

Aside from the mind control, this is a very common experience for adults to go through (usually much less so for children). As a kid, you share space usually with siblings and class mates packed together. Many kids would love more alone time than they have. As an adult, there's no guarantee you'll have a spouse and children. You may end up alone with little or no family and you know fear that time will eventually take what family you have from you. We all go through that and the chances of that fear becoming reality only get worse as you get older. Even if you have kids, they grow up and often they leave you behind.

On the Turtle's side, you have an important rite of passage going on, the Turtles are catching up in ability to their master. The time is coming when they will challenge and surpass the "old man". And in this episode it seems that they will have to do just that if they want to live. They also have to see him as vulnerable and fallible for the first time which can be a bit scary for kids of any age.

But they win by saying "Father we need you." It helps Splinter work through his fear a little bit and break the control.

Thats what I'm talking about. This show deals with issues of real emotional weight, distinct from the trite moralizing you might get in a kid's show (especially in the era of the original 1987 show). This is story telling for an adult audience but because its ninja turtles its something your kids can watch with you.

Restatement: This affirmation gives Splinter the strength to put aside his fear for the moment and fight off the mind control.

It's because you're a random guy on the intent that you should elaborate, otherwise it's just a take my word for it, what's the point of a review if no one can take anything out of it. Which gadfly I don't understand as you just proved you were more than capable of doing so, why should tv tropes be regarded with some sort of unworthiness.

You get this way when people misspell things on YouTube don't you . . .

I misspelled a lot of words there because I'm on my phone so i don't get where you get that from, the whole making a cheap shot at the arguer instead of actually saying anything about the argument was a nice touch.

Speaking as someone who agrees with your assessment of the three shows, gibb, marcell's right; your review is extremely bare bones to the point of being basically useless to anyone who hasn't already watched them and has their own evidence to support your position. marcell is trying to tell you how to improve your review, not arguing that you're wrong.

I wasn't accusing you of being a bad speller, I hadn't even noticed your spelling errors (and I'm not a Grammar Nazi). I was accusing you of being anal-retentive, getting worked up whenever anything doesn't meet your standards.

Wryte, when I first wrote the review, I was tired, I was barely able to come up with the analogy. It was a while since I'd watched the episodes. I wanted to share what I had come up with before I forgot. This isn't what I do for a living. This is whats running in the back of my head while I try to figure out Sharepoint solutions for my users.

What are the odds of getting a review on here within the weekend of season 2's premiere? I appreciate the parallels made to the respective series with the easiest discernible stages of human growth, but it's only one of many routes any reviewer could have taken for comparison. I get the feeling you might be adding more to this down the line because this is complete & utter "bare bones" as others mentioned. Face the facts, people have their own expectations and tastes to any given material. There are comic book fans, there are fans of the original cartoon, fans of the films, fans of compelling narratives, etc. (I would not group you into that final category just yet)

If you compare on which was the closest to the comics, 2k3 would win that race. If you compare which emphasizes the premise as an intentionally absurd & enjoyable parody, the 80s-90s show would earn the highest accolades. If you compare which should appeal most to kids and adults(ie their parents), by all means 2012-13 series would be rated E if Y7 didn't actually make sense.

It's also really easy to simply sh*t on any one of these iterations; too goofy, too dark, too nostalgic. So, I would encourage you to stick to judging any one of these shows on its own merits, preferably the one this review is linked to. If you're gonna do a comparison, try to be more all encompassing next time. So many years of action, adventure, comedy, heart-wrenching stories, major (occasionally reoccuring) themes/subtleties, and genuine character arcs & development are being overlooked for the 2k3 show and even the original animated series because of a few things you found irksome.

FYI: As much as I enjoy the "balance" Nickelodeon's one and only season of TMNT brought to viewers, it's not the most mature as that would imply there would be very serious repurcussions for NYC with all those monsters, aliens, ninjas, and thugs roaming the streets regardless of how low key these events are kept (fatal mistakes happen). It's the kind of maturity the 2k3 series presented instinctively with its stylized approach on menacing villains and the crime-infested environment even in season 1 with or without its "fake cussing". More importantly, the 2012 turtles joke often in the face of danger sometimes to the point where I couldn't care less if one of them got badly injured. Then again the threats for the most part aren't as dire, either becuase the antagonists are pretty laughable or the protagonists are quintessential bearers of the greatest luck. Those are the parts kept conveniently locked in as an inconsequential cartoon. The "OG" cartoon accepted its hokiness given once again the premise.

You consider a basic aspect of a review a high and or personal standard becoming of an anal person. Notice how I'm not the only one who disagrees with that so I suggest something other than Ad Hominem replies.

Its not ad hominem if the discussion of the man is central to the debate.

We don't see much of the consequences to the real world because so far we've mostly been focused on the part of the world the Turtles live in, with the aliens, mutants, sewers and rival ninja clans.

Given the perspective, its not really been enough time for us to see what impact its having. The full scale alien invasion just happened. Its likely the Turtles were hardly noticed. So while there's probably a lot of talk about the aliens in general culture and no doubt some government task force or military initiative is working on better anti-alien defenses, we haven't seen because those people probably still don't know about the turtles yet (how are you going to find them? They're ninja).

But with the few real people we do have contact with, its changed their lives. Its had an obvious impact on April, and Karai immediately saw the need to set aside their feud with the turtles when she saw this larger threat. Then there's the Pulverizer who became a fanboy. But otherwise they haven't had much impact on the real world because they've been careful about avoiding that. The few sightings that might have been reported are probably mostly written off as urban legend (there was one news report with blurry footage, and the local newscaster basically gave it the Bigfoot treatment.)

Then comes the Season Two opener They spill mutagen cannisters all over New York. April's dad is turned into a mutant bat and right now she's pissed at them about that. And thats not the only example. The turtles have already faced the idea that their actions have serious consequences (such as with what happened to Pulverizer). They're teenagers. They make mistakes and live with the consequences.

As for the joking, thats a coping technique. Spiderman is famous for using witty banter to mask his insecurities and relieve stress. Thats pretty much whats going on here. And sometimes the jokes stop when one of them cracks wise and another gives them a "nows not the time" glare. The turtles being immature doesn't make the show immature. The show would be immature if the turtles were acting like this and getting away with it, never facing consequences for their recklessness.

Real life is funny. People are awkward and say silly ridiculous stuff, they make stupid mistakes, and it seldom gets anymore awkward or silly than adolescence. If you're not to the point of acknowledging that, then you have some work ahead of you. Its more realistic than a show where everyone is completely serious and ultra-competent.

You just indirectly called anal and let it at that, you didn't include an argument.

To clarify when I said "Its not ad hominem if the discussion of the man is central to the debate."

What I mean is, you're right based on the standards you set for all reviews including ones posted by random non professional strangers on the internet, my review was sparse and bare bones. I was mainly posting it as discussion piece for people who already know about the series but may not have thought about it in this way. Depending on your subjective point of view, the standard is valid. So our debate is purely subjective in nature and my assertion that your standards are too high for these circumstances is a valid argument, not an ad hominem logical fallacy.

There is no addressing the content of the argument. I conceded that point from the beginning. The problem is you and I are having two different arguments. You're defending a position I accepted. My only concern at this point was that I felt it silly that you would bother.

Then it's strange that you seem to only have issue with just me "bothering" with it, then again the whole why are you even bothering to begin with is a strange argument in and of itself, it's the purpose of the comment section and way to broad and basic to be a nitpick.

Also, you have an extremely specific demografic and purpose for the review (which still is a notion that has some problems itself but moving on), never state anywhere that those were your intentions and then call me anal for not magically knowing all this?

Even for someone who has watched the show just saying is more mature still doesn't say anything. It's the whole basis of the "Today's Topic" and After Hours from Cracked. Someone will present the topic say for example that The NeverEnding Story is Buddhism, Pulp Fiction has two parallel timelines, or to continue with the TMNT how Splinter (at least the 80's one) was no different than a cult leader or the turtles are similar to the cast of Sex and the City. Even if they're huge fans of the work, people won't just get what they're trying to say let alone agree with them unless they explain/elaborate their point.

@gibberingtroper I saw these counterarguments coming. If you're referring to 2003 series, "a show where everyone is completely serious and ultra-competent", what? (overly simplistic) Obviously, the humor was neither enough nor to your tastes. Since I'm no comedian, I won't convince you otherwise.

They're "ninjas" born and raised in a non-American lifestyle, a Confusious way of living in many respects. This is why the IDW comics depicting Splinter & the turtles as ressurected descendants of Hamato & his 4 sons make sense. The actual show, even in their "kid" years, justify why the level of skill they demonstrate makes sense. If they came off as "completely" "overcompetent", it's because they believe in their many years of training. Couple in the fact that they're "teenage mutant"s, it's understandable that they think they can rival any obstacle thrown at them. Thankfully, the show gives the viewer several instances when the turtles decide to retreat, such as the demolition of their original base and their defeat at the hands of the Purple Dragons, the Foot and Stockman.

If anything the 2012 tutrles most resemble the 2003 turtles when they were shown as elementary schoolers. The issue I have with their "coping" mechanism on TMNT (2012) is that it can get to 'Ultimate Spiderman' level more often than 'Spectacular Spiderman' wit.

In terms of real world impact, 2003 was able to cover more, so 2012 still has plenty of time for growth if all you can give me is one example. I can whip up 1 or 2 more, but once again 2003 TMNT is superior in this "kind" of maturity; being able to simultaneously cover more because of how the show's episodes were structured. I'm more likely to get an episode wholly built on teaching a life lesson than I am to get one subtly infusing that lesson with a greater task at hand, while still being tied to the overarching plot or themes in comparing Nickelodeon's TMNT with the 2k3 series, respectively. How can anyone forget that 2012's iteration is still a kid's show and the turtles presented here, in human years, would be teetering between adolescence and "teen" aka a middle schooler.

Unfortunately, that's not included into why I think you're overrating this show because I've seen this "middleschooler" aspect executed better in that other Nick show people can't seem to get enough.

P.S: You're more than welcome to address what I stated above my "FYI"

• Feudal Confucius** might be more accurate

• there's definitly other variations of maturity, but it's usually going to boil down to either the two are equal or the 2k3 series is still drastically superior, "hardboiled" interpretation or not.

• scratch that part about "one example", they're ever so slight in the show that they become so easy to overlook
• The other one to include would be Leatherhead from I heard, whereas ever other mutant hasn't been given much to sympathize with. Oh and that Rat King BS.

I understand that the part about how they're new to the scene, but it's very insignificant when you consider what was covered (not really breaking the mold to say the least: Secret Saturdays, Ben 10, Transformers Prime) 2003 presented similar real world impacts, but the scale of the stories were much bigger and more unique to the show's mythology.

I can accept the 2012 version as being more amateurish, but I would prefer being taken to a world where a lot has already been established and we get to learn more as the show progresses.

Marcellx. My point originally (which is right there in the text of the original post) was not that it was more mature because its more mature, but that its more mature because it doesn't take the concept too seriously.

That's a flawed statement. Just because it doesn't take itself as seriously its more mature? How does that work?

Qtjinla just proved my point.

That's what I do. XD.

No all qt did was prove he/she either has a reading comprehension problem or is being deliberately pedantic.

What I said: "My point originally was not that it was more mature because its more mature, but that its more mature because it doesn't take the concept too seriously."

What you twisted that into: "Just because it doesn't take itself as seriously its more mature?"

I didn't say "as seriously" I said "too seriously." And if you don't get the difference you're 12 and you still have some growing up to do.

Its a show about turtles and ninjas and brain aliens from other dimensions. Thats not the part to take seriously, thats the part you have fun with. This kind of stuff in the context of the original comic book was meant to parody how comic book writers were taking inherently silly lighthearted concepts and writing them all grimdark (which was a big thing at the time). You're not supposed to take a turtle serious when he growls about the rage in his heart that calls him into the night. You're supposed to laugh.

But we've since had decades of the characters being developed and we know who these people are and what they want. And now its about a family facing challenges together. Thats the part you take serious. That's the part you take seriously. Thats how the 2012 show gets it right. Keep the stakes up by connecting you to the characters while letting you still have laughs at the silliness of the setting. And make no mistake, its meant to be laughed at. Fans of 2k3 claim that show is faithful to Mirage comics but thats because the joke from the Mirage comics went over their heads.

Well, if you're using the point that "it doesn't take the concept too seriously" as an argument that the 2012 series is more mature than the 2003 series, wouldn't the implication be that the 2003 series does take it too seriously, and thus that the 2012 series doesn't take it as seriously as the 2003 series?

Just because someone doesn't read something exactly as you intended it to be read, that doesn't mean they're objectively wrong in reading it the way they did.

And given that my point since the beginning is the issues with being so, as others later put it, bare bones.

Gibbering unless your a college graduate from a good school, you're overstepping your boundaries in saying I have a reading problem so watch yourself. Use something other than sideways comments to support your points.

None of the shows are direct interpretations of the original Mirage comic books. If you wanted one that beckoned the "parody" of its concept, that's what the 80s-90s show was intended for. You might have noticed that show even parodied the cartoons of its time as much as its source material mocked contemporary graphic novels.

If you wanted one that locked on to the dark/mature stories, while still being "light-hearted" in retrospect and played itself as an homage to previous adaptations and other titles, that's what the 2k3 series aired for.

If you wanted one to retouch on all of that so as to be an accumulated introduction to a new generation, while finally reaching a compromise with censors and finding another route to the same old tale, that's what the 2012~ show is here to do.

As always, it all comes down to preference because the franchise has made 3 engaging cartoons to latch on to and any of which to claim as "the best".

Almost only in hindsight is Nickelodeon's TMNT truly "mature" because it's inherently goofy. Especially on occasion when something is supposed to be taken seriously, yet at most, all you can do is either understand the situation rather than feel its impact or be indifferent to it becuase you recalled a comedic bit preceded this and will most likely proceed it. Yeah, there are subtle instances, but that circles back to the initial argument.

Pulverizer is one case & Splinter's another; what more could I ask for from a kid's show? Like I emphasized before, too soon to say that about it's maturity comparatively because, in addition, this show is still riding on potential.

@qtjinla. I'm going to borrow from Marcellx's toolbox for a moment and call that an argument from authority. The only time it should matter who I am as I make an argument would be when I'm speaking of my personal experiences. I graduated from community college and have since then only continued through self education and certifications, if you wanted to know. But an argument must necessarily and always stand on it's own strength. There are lots of people who graduated from good schools that wouldn't be accepted as authorities. George W Bush graduated from both Yale (B.A.) and Harvard (M.B.A) and Ted Kennedy graduated from Harvard (and you don't have to take that on my authority, you can verify those facts yourself and from there hopefully follow my logic) and yet I'll bet you wouldn't automatically accept both of these men as authorities on reading comprehension.

@MFM It is a valid inference from what I said that I believe 2012 doesn't take itself as seriously as 2k3, yes. But the argument hinges on the word "too" in this case, not the word "as". For example, if we were arguing the abortion issue, and I stated that I believe a fetus becomes a protected human life late in the second trimester, you could state "Aha, so you admit life doesn't begin at birth, it begins before birth." You could infer this belief but if you then said went around saying I believe that life begins before birth and tried to argue a pro-life position from that, you'd be leaving out some important specifics of that statement (not that it matters, but this is not what I believe, its just an example.)

@Marcellx: We're good. I agreed the review was bare bones from the beginning. I went back and added stuff. I even used the logical fallacies you like to mention. You should be proud.

@Most Ezli: I think its fair to say that the 2012 incarnation owes something to all of its precessors. Fortunately, its also adding little bits like the divergent character designs.

how perceptive of you...

Gibberingtroper, I think your overview of the three series is pretty much spot on.

So far I like the 2012 version the best out of all the TMNT cartoons. There's something to be said for recognizing and embracing the silliness in a premise, while still dealing with serious issues maturely.

I recently watched Turtles Forever! and I think that's an excellent example of the problem the 2003 Turtles had. It acts like everything is very serious and mature, and repeatedly makes fun of the '87 Turtles parody. Yet, the 2003 Turtles has silliness to spare (like "Ninja Time!" and "What the Shell" to say nothing of basic premise silliness)...they just refuse to acknowledge almost anything they do is silly. And really, when you have to act like everything you do is Serious Business, then you aren't actually being all that mature.

As a minor note, I also like the opening theme for the 2012 Turtles more than the 2003 Turtles. I like how it goes back to the '87 style of saying a little bit about the main characters.

Well put Magischmoose. Said it better than I did.

I'll admit Turtles Forever greatly influenced my opinion of the 2k3 series. I enjoyed the movie but it struck me as a bit ridiculous that the movie seemed to think that one set of ninja turtles is more silly than another set.

And the 87 turtles were never quite as ridiculous as they're portrayed in that movie. Leo was serious minded at least. And I can't remember an episode where the streets are overrun with mutant fruit. And April is not Lois Lane. She's not getting kidnapped every single episode.

At least they got Splinter right.

The movie didn't, it was satirical from a lot of standpoints even for the 2003 turtles as was mentioned & alluded to earlier.

I'm sorry but if you're only evidence that the 2003 isn't the most mature is because of a few phrases than clearly you're turning a blind eye to the much sillier nature of the 2012 one.

2012 is silly in a deliberate knowing way. Its aware that there is no escaping the inherent silliness of the premise and so it embraces it where appropriate.

Certainly 2k3 is less silly but the problem is, it tries to take the premise completely seriously and thats just not life, especially when you're a ninja turtle.

But how is embracing silliness more mature? Leaving in goofy elements without forcing silliness would be the more mature route. Playing up the fact that their young by having them act younger then their suggested age at times does not leave cues of maturity.

There are people who in life are genuinely stoic. I myself in general am a stoic and serious person, but I can lighten up, have fun, and enjoy myself when the situation genuinely evoke feelings of positivity from me without it being forced.

That's a "problem" fans of the 80s show seem to face and the "problem" they keep bringing up, regardless of how the show holds up on its own merits.

At least you admitted "Turtles Forever greatly influenced [your] opinion of the 2k3 series". (NECESSORY BACKSTORY) Please include that within your 'review' if you have no intent to rectify previous generalizations. Be as biased as you want to be, just remember to concisely define the perspective.

Also,"that's just not life"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqW5upASa-8 ??? =) ...Neither are inherent stereotypes (save for maybe Splinter) and recycled narratives from various, easy-to-discern fictional films & television. If you wish to play up a single season of sheer entertainment as being something more than both an introduction to a new generation and one big nostalgic trip, it helps to be more specific than 1 or 2 nuances and that being awkward is realistic.

There is no bias. The creators and writers listed for Turtles Forever are from the 2k3 show. Turtles Forever reflects their attitudes about their series compared to the 87 series.

I get what gibberingtroper means - kids are into goofy, borderline stupid things, while adolescents are much more dark and serious and almost completely reject that. Adults are generally serious but know how to take a joke, can be goofy (especially if they have children of their own, you gotta get the kids laughing at a young age) and are generally more accepting of that sort of stuff.

But what works for people doesn't necessarily work for cartoons. Being able to take a joke is an adult thing, but if it's goofy then you'll probably be called childish. A personal story about dark, mystical fighting beings like 2003 (minus sex, drugs and straight out murder)is going to be seen as dark and brooding and distinctively adolescent, while on television it's going to be rated Mature as a mature audience who realizes the differences between real life and the dark, brooding world would be needed as to not send the wrong message to children.

Your metaphor makes sense, but in terms of ratings maturity it doesn't hold up. "Mature" is dark and broody with a much more serious tone, "Kids" is the inherent goofiness of the 1987 series and "Kids - 7 and Up" is a lighter series with morally charged stories (as you keep mentioning, Splinter and his abandonment issues). One is meant for children, one is meant for those serious adolescent youths, and one is meant for adults who grew up with both - but they are secondary to the older children who are not yet teenagers, with the slapstick and interesting internal struggles to get them thinking about those sorts of things, and to get them invested in the show. It does not make the show more "mature", but it does tackle mature issues and instils them in children from a young age. Your Mileage WILL VARY depending on what you call "mature" in this context.

The bias is in putting more effort into the recent series by formally substantiating a claim with an example because of how much you think you know or how much you favor one over the other, especially for a comparison.

The bias is in judging an entire show based on a film ("greatly influenced my opinion"), which you yourself knows is not a very accurate representation of the 87 turtles and the 2k3 turtles, as I had to tell you. (the rejection of the original cartoon is a minor theme among many and you're encouraged to talk about it in the 'Discussion' panel)

The bias is in this single-minded interpretation you used to proclaim the current show as being the best of the three, which only works for a select group of people. There's little to no critique on the actual stories, characters and dialogue (generally expected from a comparison piece, unless you're implying they're all equal in that regard and thought this is that defining factor)~ still, be explicit!

Finally, the bias is in not acknowledging the other standards for maturity because this one matters to you the most in shaping this simple argument.

"It's the whole basis of the 'Today's Topic' and After Hours from Cracked. Someone will present the topic say for example that The Never Ending Story is Buddhism, Pulp Fiction has two parallel timelines, or to continue with the TMNT..." ~ marcellx

Mr Mallard, you have a good point. And yes, I'm making a point of rejecting the ratings based definition of maturity that involves sex, violence and so forth. That standard is about how old you should be before watching something which isn't the same thing has how truly adult that thing is.

You cherry picked a "subtle character moment" and made that the basis for this show's maturity.

Honestly, I see where this review is coming from and I get its point. And in all fairness, it is right. But I am reluctant to call the 2012 the most mature one. I mean, don't get me wrong it is much more mature than it looks like, and yeah, mature doesn't necessarly equals dark. But really, thing is... I just can't call truly "mature" a show relying so much on Toilet Humor and some time Flanderization. Sometimes it IS really mature, others it's really even more immature than the 80s show even was. It's a weird mix. And sometimes the jokes work, others they don't. I still find myself bothered by things like Casey's reaction to the Earth being destroyed.

Overall, it IS a good show, but I am reluctant to call it the best out of all the show we had so far. Though I definitely don't consider it a failure, and I aknowledge it has its own identity.

'1987 Turtles was the kid'.

Then where does that leave the 1984 Turtles from the Mirage comics? If the 1987 Turtles is the fun and goofy but embarrassing kid, then what does that make the 1984 Turtles? The unborn fetus who is trying to get out of it's womb and find it's voice... and is somehow more adult and gritty than the born kid to come?

Look, I get what you're trying to go for here, but everyone has different ideas of just what counts as 'mature.' On top of that, you've left three other major incarnations of the Turtles out of the equation, (1984 Mirage, 1989 Archie, and 2011 IDW,) and I can understand if you haven't read them, but you could at least acknowledge that they exist, though I guess that would kind of upset your whole analogy here.

Gotta say, I like the review now. Gets its point, idea and reasoning acrossand does it clearly.

I've watched the first five episodes of the 2012 one and rewatched the 2003 one about three to four times as a kid and as a teenager. I wouldn't say that the 2003 one takes itself too seriously. The inclusion of outlandish sci-fi/fantasy elements doesn't necessarily mean that the content is silly and the show shouldn't take itself too seriously. It all depends on how you do it. You can take the campy elements of Power Rangers and turn it into a show for adults with sex and murder. That doesn't necessarily make it more mature, but I'm just saying that having outlandish elements is not inherently silly. It depends. While it is true that the original comics were created to parody the grimdark stories in comics at the time, the original creator Peter Laird also worked on the 2003 version so it's safe to say this isn't a case where the showrunners were overlooking the elements of the original comic that were clearly parody.

I thought that the stories told in the 2003 version stood on their own; the outlandish elements were wonderfully imaginative and did not break immersion but rather added to the sense of adventure and possibility. Nothing about it seemed too edgy for the sake of being edgy. It didn't pretend to be more mature than it was by doing things like, say, trying to pull emotions out of the viewer that weren't properly built up to, or having gratuitous deaths or violence just to shock the viewer. It didn't focus too much on unnecessary angst (although you could argue Leo was pretty angsty for a while) and when there was angst, it was because the circumstances were bleak enough to justify it (see Donatello's alternate reality). Those episodes that you might consider teenage angst/edgy like the one where Leo fights the Rat King were great as horror stories.

You can say that the 2012 series is more mature in the sense that they place a greater emphasis on rounded characterization, character's emotions, and character arcs, all while having light hearted fight banter. The latter makes for a playful tone, whereas the 2003 series, while still having some wisecracks from time to time, was able to maintain higher tension and suspense because of its more serious tone. You can play out the same fight scene with different fight banter and enemies with more palpable urges to kill, and they'd feel completely different even if the events are the same. For me, while I don't doubt that the 2012 series has a lot to offer in terms of character, I find it hard to get into because the tone is too light to maintain engagement and tension. Perhaps I'm too used to the 2003 version, and maybe this will change as the 2012 version moves past the basic character development episodes. I also highly prefer the character designs and mechanical designs in the 2003 version.