[drops to knees, shaking fists at sky]
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
I hate Disney too, but I really don’t much care if Disney buys them. Jim Henson’s kids haven’t exactly kept the torch burning. The Muppets have been heading towards smarmy and not funny for a while now. I saw the last Muppet Christmas special, ugh. I refuse to watch anything else new Muppets - I’ll stick to tapes of The Muppet Show, thank you very much.
At least I figure we’ll get a good run of neat Muppets toys out of this
looks at her stack of Muppet Show DVDs with great relief, happy she can at least relive her early childhood and get ALL the jokes this time
I would be much less leery of this if Jim were still around, because I have to think that if he’d sold the Muppets to Disney he’d have managed to have a good deal of influence concerning what happened to them. But now? I don’t know…
The Muppets died with Jim Henson, God rest his soul. His kids have tried hard, but they don’t have the same spark or humor. They’re just puppets now.
I was going to post this very thing.
I’m not a fan of Disney. I find most of their work boring. Handing the muppet puppets over to them is no big deal if Jim isn’t there to put words into their mouths.
I’m baffled. Why in the world would you even know that there are direct to video sequels of these movies? Do you watch things that are direct to video on purpose?
I love “The Emperor’s New Groove.” Loved it with a childish glee rarely seen in these parts. But if a direct to video sequel came out I:
- Would never likely hear about it, and
- Wouldn’t watch it.
How can Disney ruin the Muppets for you (the general you) if you don’t let them?
Julie
Okay, I have a question: can anyone give me an example of a time where an established franchise of characters, acquired by the producer of another established franchise of characters, were obviously twisted and reshaped to fit in perfectly, or even better, with the acquirer’s characters? I mean, if Disney was going to buy the Muppets and do something THAT blatant to them, why not save the money and create new ones?
I find people who can engage in an activity with the express purpose of having fun to be most curious, and not in a good way. It just has to happen spontaneously, doesn’t it?
All you Disney haters need to lighten up.
For starters having an active, well funded, energectic entertainment monolith is probably the best thing that could hapen for the Muppets. There was obviously very little energy going into the brand before the deal. For god sakes all the best Henson puppeteers have moved on to other projects (“Between the Lions” and "Avenue Q"to name two of the best from the past five years). Now, sitting in the Disney stable, all of your favorite Muppets will begin to have a new life, and be seen by many new generations of children who probably never would have been exposed to them.
And why is Disney so evil? huh? Okay, not every single show they’ve produced has been earth-shattering. But you know what? Not every Muppet show was stellar either. And when it comes right down to it, Disney’s still managed to make some pretty amazing stuff over the years (even after Walt died). You think it’s easy to write a succesful, intelligent, and insanely popular form of popular entertainment that can appeal to people of all ages? Why don’t you sit down and try and get back to me tomorrow when you have it all figured out. I’ll pay you twice the latest Comcast offer for Disney for your secret.
Oh and by the way, let’s not forget that your “evil empire” provides solid jobs for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people all over the world (no I am not one of them, in case you’re curious). Do you think that’s a bad thing?
Look, I know the Muppets aren’t what they used to be. Haven’t been for a long time. That’s sad. But you know what? Without this deal they would have faded to a distant memory shared by a couple of hundred diehards in fifty years time. Is that really a just ending for Kermit?
Well, I can’t argue with that. Mostly because you didn’t say anything.
So what have we learned from this thread? From the naysayers, only rjung has been able to come up with a valid point, which is that Disney has a bad track record of taking its established properties and making insipid direct-to-video “features” out of them. I still don’t see how that “damages” the originals in any way, but to each his own. Every other relevant point brought up in this thread, however, makes it clear that this is a clear and logical move for the Henson family to make, and is in fact one that Jim Henson himself initiated before his death.
It’s not even cool to dislike Disney anymore! That was like decades ago. Even Disney has gotten tired of making fun of Disney’s treacly image. The ironic thing is that the MuppetVision 3D movie, which has already been running at a Disney park for over 10 years, itself makes fun of Disney’s treacly, money-grubbing reputation. It has lots of jokes about Mickey Mouse and buying lots of Disney souveniers, and then ends by blowing up characters from it’s a small world. And, because the people behind it knew exactly how to write Muppets humor, it does it in a funny way instead of just being dismissive and having to trash everything. I’m just thankful that if the characters are going anywhere, they’re not going to the knee-jerk types in this thread who wouldn’t know how to make the characters funny without being insipid and mean-spirited. Leave that to Shrek.
Sure, from Disney you still get an awful lot of the “Believe in the magic of a child’s dreams” garbage, but when they do take a chance and try to make something good, it can be really, really good.
I normally wouldn’t get so worked up about such a stupid topic, but I’m just so ready for the 90’s to be over already. I’m tired of this attitude that everything has to be “edgy” and “subversive” to be any good; more often than not it’s more tired and vapid than the most cloying of Disney features. At least sometimes they make an attempt to be earnest and say something, instead of just saying “this sucks.” It’s like for the past decade our entire culture has been driven by a bunch of sullen teens.
Y’all can rag on Disney all you want; if you manage to come up with some original idea that hasn’t been beaten to death over the past 20 years, let me know. It’s not my loss if y’all are missing out on some of the good stuff the company has been putting out over the last couple of decades; you can sit in your rooms and stew over how The Man is keeping you down. I’ll be over here enjoying “Kim Possible.”
Slight hijack…
I’m a huge fan of Walt Disney, the person, and his accomplishments. I think Disneyland is an incredible place and visit quite often. Walt wasn’t about sucking all of the money out of peoples pockets. He actually wanted people to visit the parks and leave with some money in thir pockets. His dream was a place where parents could take their kids and they could all enjoy the day. He held imagination in high regard and wanted others to as well.
The problem is Michael Eisner. All he cares about is making as much of a profit as he can. He raised the parks admission fees to astronomical levels. He turned Main Street into a mall. He could care less about the Disney magic, a formula that had always been quite successful (Give the public something of value and they will keep coming back). Eisner needs to go and it seems he will not be around much longer.
I just hate when people blindy proclaim “I hate Disney” without realizing that, more than likely, what they hate is the abomination Eisner turned a terrific company into. The only consolation is that Disneyland has a new president, Matt Ouismet, and he is already making some great changes and getting very active in the operation of the park. And Roy Disney is stirring up the pot a bit and being very vocal about his disappointment in Eisner. This is a great thing.
This makes no sense to me. All you have to do is be on any website to look up what’s going to be included on the next upcoming Special Edition DVD release (this year it’s Aladdin) and alongside the good stuff is a huge list of the crap direct-to-video stuff, usually with people decrying their existence. It’s all over the place.
For the record, popular opinion is that the Stitch sequel is actually pretty good, that Lion King 1 1/2 is considered not too horrendous and actually funny (if you like Timon and Pumbaa’s style of humour), and that the Aladdin sequel that had Robin Williams in it again is entertaining.
It’s true that the sequels should not dilute the experience of the originals, but they do insult the spirit of Walt Disney who specifically stated outright that sequels should never be made of his animated features. (The Eisner-influenced era got around that by not releasing them in theatres, hence direct-to-video)
Four words for Disney:
Song of the South.
It’s one of the two films actually made by Disney (the other being Beauty and the Beast) that I liked.
The biggest skeleton in their closet. They’ve released it in every other country in the world except the US & Canada (AFAIK). I’m not buying the “some people (read: blacks) might find it offensive” crap. Last time I checked, black people could be found in a LOT of other countries.
Re-master it and release it. The world is not going to end if you do.
Remember how society was going to collapse when “The Simpsons” got big? or “Ren & Stimpy”? or “Beavis and Butthead”?
As far as the need to be “edgy”, everything DOESN’T need to be edgy, but it doesn’t have to be sacchrine sweet like the majority of “classic” Disney toons.
Personally, I liked “Song of the South” and wish it would be released on DVD. I don’t think it will ever happen though. People have been shouting “racism” since the original release and 30 years later, we are more politically correct than ever. Walt was pretty hurt about the charges of racism concerning this movie and never really understood what the problem was.
I also liked “Beauty and the Beast” and “Alladin”. Beyond that, Disney has put out a lot of crap lately. It all points back to Eisner.
More like FIFTY-EIGHT YEARS!!!
It was originally released in 1946!!
In this thread I mentioned my little fender-bender and how I was going to tackle the repairs myself.
Well, my eyes were bigger than my toolbox. It seems that, not only was the radiator damaged in the wreck, but the A/C condenser was damaged as well.
Unfortunately, this is far beyond what I am able to do.
Also, the bumper did not come off as advertised in the repair manual (damn you Haynes!).
The new bumper will arrive on Monday, but I’m not going to be able to do anything with it.
I’m trying to find someone who will do the work. I’ll have all the parts, they’ll have to supply the labor and tools and such. I’m sure how easy it will be to find someone to do it.
I’ve never had good luck with cars. This car has been about the best one I’ve had, but my luck has apparently run out.
Still, I take it all in stride. Some would be pulling their hair and screaming, but it was my fault and I have to live with it. It’s better for the blood pressure that way. 
I KNOW I hit “new thread” on that last bit.
Nothing to see here, please carry on…
They actually experimented with computerized Muppets (though not full CGI, I think) towards the end of Jim’s life. A character called Waldo on The Jim Henson Hour was done this way, and this is also how they did some animations on the Muppet CD-Rom game Muppets Inside. I think they scanned the Muppet with its mouth in different positions, then the Muppeteer’s hand would operate the mouth just like a normal puppet or Muppet, but without the puppet on his hand. This isn’t CGI, of course, but it does show time marches on or something. Or I’m just rambling. I don’t know which.
The same way a bad sequel to a novel sours your experience of the first.
I want to like Disney. I enjoyed some of their recent stuff, like The Emperor’s New Groove, Mulan, and Lilo & Stitch. I want to take my family to Disneyland and have a great time. But I can’t ignore the fact that – in the last few years – Michael Eisner has really nosedived the company’s brand, cutting every corner possible to jump on the next trendy money-making hope.
Disney itself isn’t the problem, the management is.
Eh, that’s just a knockoff of Spy Kids. Kim’s great to look at, though. 
Disney’s held a special place in my heart since earliest childhood (just hearing a classic Disney song reminds me of more carefree days), so my opinions gibe more with Solomon’s and Club 33’s. (I know where you got that name, too, Club! )
Someone…I can’t remember who…put forth the most interesting theory on Disney’s dip. Back in 1989, when Disney had its renaissance (not its first renaissance, nor, I hope, its last) the company was run by Eisner, Frank Wells, and Jeffrey Katzenberg. The theory is that Wells was the heart, Katzenberg the brain, and Eisner the business sense. But Wells died and Katzenberg left, so now the company’s in the hands of someone whose only concern is the bottom line.
Walt was a businessman, too, but he also knew the value of good entertainment. His motto was “Plus the show.” And he celebrated imagination. That’s one of the reasons I love the theme parks, because they represent one of the things I value most…untrammeled imagination. (Riding Mansion or Pirates is like the “Airplane” or “Naked Gun” movies…every time, you notice some new background detail.)
We’ll just have to wait and see what the board meeting brings up. I do hope that we can excise Eisner and bring new blood to the company again.
(One good thing…the 2-D animation artists that were let go have been forming their own studio. Here’s hoping that they can come up with some good stuff.)