Yeah, I’m not in general a fan of big corporations but I also don’t get the idea that someone who performs a character you like can do no wrong. The comments like “I have offered multiple remedies to their two stated issues which had never been mentioned to me prior to that phone call,” and that’s he’s “devastated to have failed” Henson really sound to me like something major went on involving drugs or sex that Disney didn’t feel they could ignore.
Disney is saying that Whitmore engaged in “unacceptable business conduct over a period of many years.”
Took 'em a long time to notice, huh?
Well, that’s vague enough that it could mean almost anything.
Why do you say that? They probably noticed ages ago but Whitmire had a fair grip on their balls because Disney didn’t want to rock the boat and change Kermit’s voice. Just because they’ve only now decided to take the pain of wrenching their balls free of his grip doesn’t mean they haven’t been aware for quite some time.
Or they wrote hm up and gave warnings and maybe he complied for a while and went back to his old ways and they finally got tired of cycling through that shit.
Or, they hired some new guy who didn’t get the job he really wanted (Dr. Who).
Here is Whitmire’s response to Disney’s charges.
It sounds to me like he never believed they would actually fire him so he didn’t make much of (or any) effort to change until it was too late. There isn’t a lot of meat in his response, but I think that “we could have worked it out” to me means “I didn’t take it seriously but if you give me one more chance, now I will make the changes you want.”
He’s been there for quite some time…maybe they found someone they liked better as Kermit’s voice and are being vague about ‘business practices’ and ‘contract negotiations’…with a sweet gig like being Kermit’s voice, Mr. Whitmire would be foolish to do something to rock the boat. But if Disney wanted him out for whatever, out he will be.
Sounds like what I expected to hear - that he thought he WAS the role and everybody had to come through him. Diva behavior.
The problem with corporate personhood is that people seem bound and determined to refuse to understand it.
ZipperJJ’s link in the post right above yours is pretty specific.
More very insightful comments from Brian Henson. Pretty much puts the whole thing to rest:
Firing someone over the phone is pretty classless.
But that’s none of my business…
I see what you did there
Well, now that it’s all been laid out, what a disappointing situation. All comes down to a puppeteer’s ego.
This week on YouTube will be a new Kermit video, performed for the first time by his new performer Matt Vogel. He’s a very good imitator as he has been playing multiple pre-established characters already. But his Kermit will be under serious scrutiny by a lot of nerds.
I’m reminded of the scene in Cradle Will Rock, when Bill Murray plays a ventriloquist and his dummy turns to him and says, “Now who’s the dummy?” And re corporate personhood with no souls, well, Marx did note that capital was vampire-like, the dead sucking life from the living, and this is a nice way to tie it all together.
No, the analogy we really need for corporate personhood is something about it eating its own face.
There’s an article in the Washington Post where the Henson family complains about Kermit becoming “bitter” and “depressed”…
…which seems a bit odd to me, especially in the context of the recent short-lived show, since I would assume Whitmire was working with the material the writers gave him. It wasn’t Whitmire’s choice (I assume) to have Kermit and Miss Piggy separate, for example.
I don’t have a dog in the fight or a side, I just found that specific criticism to be strange.