Is it time for Kermit to retire?

[mikebennidict]

well i still stand by what i say. there's nothing wrong with creating new muppets. but i think 1 shows a gut rejection when they say retire the older characters unless you weren't fond of them in the 1st place. if you don't like a certain character, fine. but why say 1 group should go? i'm not even saying we can't have shows movies with just newer muppets and none of the classic characters but why disregaurd them? unlass the audience doesn't find them interesting?

 

[Drtooth]

Well, before we turn this into another "Old Muppets rule, new muppets suck" thread, I'll just have to say, Newer Looney Tunes stuff isn't as good as the old stuff, and newer Disney (excluding Pixar... they're their own studio) stuff isn't as good. But I'll just have to say, the newer Muppet stuff is closer to the older Muppet stuff than Disney's older and newer stuff. But that's besides the point. Retiring Kermit would be like Disney retiring Mickey... but then again, I was never too excited about Mickey. I mean, other than being an animal abuser (Steamboat Willie), I never saw anything interresting about him. But then again, he's more of a corporate mascot than a cartoon nowadays.

But, I want to respond to some other things:

>>Now, in another thread the discussion is about how newer characters can be more popular than the old ones. Simpsons vs. Life in He11 by Matt Groening: You have to keep in mind that he created Simpsons as something new, but not to replace his comic strip characters. He created a whole new franchise. The same way Beavis and Butthead did not succumb to King of the Hill, they were dropped in hopes of the new production their creator wanted to take. King of the Hill, btw, is better because it plays off so many different angles, with Beavis and Butthead all you had were two kids doing the same thing over and over again...and laughing about it. There was no personality.<<

Exactly... but then again, I think Beavis and Butthead had at least more infamy than King of the Hill.... oddly enough, their fan base was that of which what Beavis and Butthead was created to satirize... MTV slackers.


>>Muppets Wizard of Oz was in the top ten when it was shown on TV that night, and it wasn't even in it's full version (remember, 20 minutes are being added back into the movie for the DVD release). On a weekend which is the opening of Star Wars Episode III you have to admit that's a pretty big deal to be in the top ten!!<<

Not to mention it was opposite the DAYTIME EMMYS!

>>It's what I said earlier: It's in the writing and direction nowadays where the vision is lost. It's not in the performance. It's not the fault of the new voices. It's in that the company who lost sight of what they once were, and trying to put a new twist on things to make it more modern (which isn't the problem) as they see the characters should be (which is the problem). <<

Agree 100%.... look at MCC, MTI and MFS... I feel that Eric Jacobson did a better job with Piggy and Fozzie than Frank has done as of late (not to mention that he mainly did "voice over" records for the characters in those movies). Personally, I like Eric's take on Frank's characters. he was able to give Grover the popularity he once had. What's the name of that Song was brilliant.

I can fault writers and other actors for how uneven a movie like Oz was, but never the Muppets. That's why I always put down MCC, since the Muppets aren't in it that much. Great actors, yes... but I watch a Muppet movie for the Muppets.

>> I mean, we see what happened with the Loonatics replacing the Looney Tunes characters, didn't we? It'll flop! The only reviews I've seen for it are complaints.<<

I never actually thought they were replacing them, so much as making new characters based on older ones. Like Tiny Toons. Not only were they not the Looney Tunes, but the real Looney Tunes were in it. But I still think "Loonatics" is a crappy idea, and it was motivated by a bunch of 50 year old board room members trying to see what the "hipster kids think is neato" these days... you know, like how they have rapping in cereal commercials now.


But, still... even if the newer projects do not measure up to the older, I still think Jim wanted the show to go on, like Kermit suggested at the end of the Tribute.

 

[MuppetfraggleEX]

No. I think Kermit should always be part of the show. He is the very first Muppet. He is special, and a symbol of the Muppets themselves. I agree that it would be like Disney retireing Mickey Mouse. He is the Muppets, and to many of us Sesame Street too. There are always room for new Muppets, whether they touch us in the same way or not though. Kermit should be here to stay. We love you Kermit!

 

[Kimp the Shrimp]

wow i wrote this like in may