1. Welcome to the Muppet Central Forum!
    You are viewing our forum as a guest. Join our free community to post topics and start private conversations. Please contact us if you need help with registration or your account login.

  2. "Muppet Guys Talking" Debuts On-line
    Watch the inspiring documentary "Muppet Guys Talking", read fan reactions and let us know your thoughts on the Muppet release of the year.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. Sesame Street Season 48
    Sesame Street's 48th season officially began Saturday November 18 on HBO. After you see the new episodes, post here and let us know your thoughts.

    Dismiss Notice

Is the Jim Henson Company involved at all in the new movie?

Discussion in 'Muppet Headlines' started by Chris Graham, Oct 21, 2011.

  1. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    The only people who'd take that seriously were people who wouldn't want to see the movie anyway. I find it really humorous a lot of Star Trek purists that didn't want to see the new film found all these things to complain about before the movie came out, and when some actually saw it, they tried very hard NOT to enjoy it. Even though, as I said, everyone in the dang world otherwise, even movie critics thought it was great. Star Trek movies are infamous for having off quality... so naturally, instead of focusing on making a good Star Trek movie, they focused on making a good movie Star Trek. Even if it was more palatable to the general movie going public without dumbing it down to an extreme (like they do with almost every kid's movie based off something). And it made money and got good reviews.

    Now, had I heard about directorial problems, I'd be a lot more skeptical.
    Duke Remington likes this.
  2. Chris Graham

    Chris Graham Member

    Yes, it is the Jim Henson Studios. By involvement I mean by the creative end and creature shop building the puppets. As someone who works in the entertainment industry I can tell you its quite common for companies to use other companies facilities to film there movies. In the trailer we see Jason Segal singing threw a any town USA location. Thats called Kings Row at Warner Brothers, and some maybe familiar with it as it was used for the Gilmore Girls as Stars Hallow. I was actually at Warner Brothers Studio when they shot some of The Muppets last fall, wasn't able to get on the set due to super heavy security, which was a first but thats Disney. Thats doesn't mean Warner Brothers was involved with the film, Disney rented the space and shot the scenes there as they did with the JHS.

    As far as Frank Oz's comments, here is the thing as it was said before Disney bought The Muppets. They own the right to do with it what they want to. Personally I'd rather them not do cheep jokes like Fart Shoes (Which i grantee you is why it got a PG Rating) but it isn't any more or less crude then many modern kids films like Shrek. Studios write movies joke to joke now not what it means for the character. Its product.

    Personally I'm glad Disney is doing something with the property, and i do believe it is going to be a very big success. The movie didn't cost to much so if it dose even 70 million domestic it will break even. So this isn't a gamble like Tron Legacy or Tangled which both underperformed due to there high cost. Disney has made this there holiday movie so I'm betting after its all said and done it will be the most successful (Box office) Muppet Movie. Hopefully this introduces kids to the Muppets and the fall in love with them. Thats what we all want, we want them to live on beyond Jim.
  3. CensoredAlso

    CensoredAlso Well-Known Member

    My only concern is I don't want to imply to kids that they would only identify with the "new" projects. Assume they couldn't appreciate the Muppets any other way. That's the last message I want to send them.

    I'm not saying you said that, just wanted to add that to the discussion. :)
  4. Duke Remington

    Duke Remington Well-Known Member

    On that same token, some of the film was shot on the Universal Studios lot as well.

    I think you're taking that joke out of context. In the context of this movie, it's not a "cheap trick" at all--they're making fun of cheap tricks, letting out their inner-disgust over how most studios feel the need to put that kind of humor into most family films these days when it's absolutely unnecessary.

    After all, there IS a difference between doing a cheap trick and satirizing the need to do one. And in this case, they've taken the satirical route, obviously.

    "Tron: Legacy" and especially "Tangled" did not underperform. They were actually successful.
  5. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    Other than the fact the movies and most of the TV show are on DVD (Target has kinda a small display for all of them), there isn't any real way to get that kind of exposure... but then again, I always see parents either buying them or talking about how they watch their kids with the old stuff... so it's easily more accessible than some of the other things they make kids films out of.

    But then again, while I admit the Smurf Movie wasn't terrible but still pretty clunky and sloppy (I hope the sequel takes them back to the darn Smurf village and they STAYS in the Smurf Village), kids really seem to dig it for some reason. The Smurf movie merchandise actually moved, nay, sold out.

    But that's the great thing about exposure... how many movies have you seen based off of books that made you want to read the books? I always wanted to read Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy, but seeing the movie on the big screen was my first big exposure... then I saw the TV show, then I read the book, then I stumbled upon YT videos of the radio show. I guarantee that kids who will see this movie and love it WILL want to see the other movies and TV shows they haven't seen yet. Besides, the DVD's of all the movies are there, though begging for a rerelease... how many little girls who buy Disney Princess stuff actually saw any of those movies in theaters?

    Tron Legacy did alright, considering the movie it's a sequel to was cult. It wasn't all that successful when it came out anyway. Tangled had some identity problems with the demographics, but even if it didn't do well, it would have made everything back up on DVD anyway. Like I said, how many little girls actually saw half the Princesses on the big screen?
  6. CensoredAlso

    CensoredAlso Well-Known Member

    They've done satirical jokes like that in the past without going to the lowest common denominator like that though.
  7. Duke Remington

    Duke Remington Well-Known Member

    You're taking the fart shoes joke out of context too?! Oy vey! :rolleyes:
  8. Chris Graham

    Chris Graham Member

    By Underperformed i mean that the money they invested in the theatrical run they did not recoup. Tangled for example, which i loved it was the best Disney Animation Studios movie since The Lion King, cost north of 260 million to make and probably around 100 million for what are called Prints and Advertising. It made 590 million worldwide, but you have to take into consideration 50% of that goes to the theater owners for Rental fees. That is pretty much standard with any movie. So Disney took in 280 million in ticket sales for Tangled. Now DVD, Toys, Merchandise it could have made a mint I'm not sure but box office it underperformed. Tron: Legacy actually took in less world wide then The Kings Speech. That being said Tangled is the direction i hope Disney Animation takes, but keeps budgets down.

    The best thing going for The Muppet's is it didn't cost much to make. Now they probably are spending close to 100 million after you do Prints and Advertising, but even with that they will still do very well.

    I like Dr. Teeths comparison to JJ Abrams Star Trek. Both of these films are reintroducing these characters to a new generation. They are also a new generations take on these characters. There are going to be things that we all don't think are in the true nature but overall its important that these characters keep alive.

    Part of what killed The Walt Disney Company after the death of Walt was the company spent 20 years or so saying "What would Walt do" not "Where can we take the company now." For a modern kids comedy there are going to be lines like Fart Shoes and i'm fine with that. We see Shreks naked in the first film, but i still would watch it with my kids. The key is we hope that like with Star Trek kids watch The Muppets and go "Mommy get me the Kermit Movie" when they see the Muppet Shows on DVD at the store. Then they can find out the greatness that was Jim Hensons legacy.

    Think about it this way, since Jims death the muppets have done 3 movies, 3 TV Movies and 1 TV show. Thats it in 21 years. I think part of the problem with The Muppets Tonight is they tried to keep to much on the idea of trying to think of what Jim would do and ignored that the Muppets needed to evolve for the times they are in. This is a modern kids movie, and most modern kids movies are like what i assume The Muppets will be. But i still plan on seeing this 2 or 3 times in theaters. Especially at the El Capitan in Hollywood.
    Duke Remington likes this.
  9. ZeppoAndFriends

    ZeppoAndFriends Well-Known Member

    C'est Ci Bon!

    :o Sorry...
    Duke Remington likes this.
  10. Duke Remington

    Duke Remington Well-Known Member

    Ci Bon. Ci Bon. :D
  11. CensoredAlso

    CensoredAlso Well-Known Member

    I'm saying they weren't necessary to make the point they were trying to make.
  12. beaker

    beaker Well-Known Member

    Yeah I couldnt agree more. Sadly it still feels like, compared to Disney/Cartoon Network shows/Looney Tunes, the Muppets are still underground. I mean shoot, this right here is pretty much one of the only main hubs of Muppet fandom online.
    I think deep down everyone has a 'favorite muppet'(usually "kermit, fonzie, gonzo or those two old guys") but actual hardcore fans...I don't know. Most people seem to think the Muppets stopped existing when JH passes away, hence the playing with that theme I guess within the film and advertising. So hopefully this does bring them back to the public eye. It was a big gamble to go away from animals, princesses and the typical Disneyana tropes to make the Muppets comeback their tentpole release.

    Tron was a huge gamble...a cult early 80's film, being revitalized in a major way...was Disney even satisfied with the BO? I thought it was visionary, at least the visual and sound design. I also thought Tangled beat the pants off the Shrek films, and think Princess and the Frog is one of the finest 2d films of the last 15 years. Not a lot of kids even know or can recognize Kermit, so I'm hoping more than just college aged hipsters and a few parents with nostalgia go to see this.
  13. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    Princess and the Frog had to compete with that loud Chipmunks sequel. I think Disney dropped the ball by putting that ghastly mo-cap Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey before Thanksgiving and giving P&F the late December slot. Had it gotten that Thanksgiving push, I'm sure it would have done much better than it did. Tangled suffered from identity crisis having to appeal to boys (also a problem for P&F) and even renamed itself for that very reason. I'd say, due to the strange time slot of P&F, that's why it wasn't as big as it needed to be. That said, there's NO excuse for Winnie the Pooh's performance. But Disney movies make their money on DVD sales. The two princesses from those movies have been permanently added to the Disney Princess roster, assuring girls' costumes and fashion dolls for years to come. Wasn't half the reason P&F was made was so they can have an African American Princess? Little girls LOVE the Disney princesses, but as I said earlier, they all got that exposure on home video.

    I've never been a huge fan of Star Trek. I liked watching the occasional Star Trek TNG episode because the Reading Rainbow guy was on it. And I find myself liking Star Trek actors outside of Star Trek roles where they get to be wacky... Patrick Stewart in American Dad, William Shatner in basically anything, Michael Dorn as I. M. Weasel... and of course, Will Wheaton's hilarious stints as Sheldon's nemesis on Big Bang Theory. In fact, it was only out of boredom and cheap weekday matinees that I went to see Star Trek, and I didn't think I'd love it as much as I did. While one can argue about its quality as a Star Trek movie, it's a smart, well done action film. It's what people like in modern day Sci-Fi. Same deal with Scott Pilgrim. I never read the comics, I was a strong "PLEASE stop trying to be Japanese, American Comic authors" phase when it came out... saw the movie, and now I wanna get all the comics. Exposure is a GOOD thing, because if someone likes it, they'll retroactively go and watch all the other stuff that came before it and discover a life long love of a franchise.
  14. Mupp

    Mupp Well-Known Member

    I agree Drtooth. (As usual :) )

    Its been stated in recent interviews that Walter's design is meant to be reminiscent of Kermit. In that, both he and Kermit have VERY expressive faces due to the fact that they have very simple yet flexible heads and can make a lot of different expressions. Walter is supposed to be like Kermit when he first started out.

    Dsnowth, its painfully obviously that you are pre-conditioned to NOT like this movie, (I know it, you know it, everyone knows it)

    Your Oscar the Grouch attitude says it all. (Heck you were even sure that the film would get cancelled. As I recall, you were not being negative, you were being "realistic".)

    So Dsnowth, please don't see the film, you already know that you are not going to like it, so why waste your time? The least you can do though, is buy a ticket to help support the film.

    At least Lisa Henson supports the film.
  15. CensoredAlso

    CensoredAlso Well-Known Member

    And others are pre-conditions to like this movie even before seeing it. Not much difference. Therefore both points of view should be allowed. ;)
  16. Frogpuppeteer

    Frogpuppeteer Well-Known Member

    we have had this argument before let us not start it again in another thread...both side are entitled to share how they feel

    now the "YOU" in this post is directed at no one in particular just a general "you"

    we have 2 weeks till the film comes out, im asking everyone as a small Muppet fan to hold ALL judgement no matter what side your on to go see the movie BEFORE "you" make any rash choices on how "you" feel about it.

    BEFORE "you" respond GO SEE IT...dont like it come tell us. love it come tell us

    who knows both sides could suddenly switch sides..the people that like it so far could hate it and the people that hate it right now could love

    BUT GO SEE IT BEFORE "YOU" PASS FINAL JUDGEMENT JUST GIVE IT A CHANCE....nothing i find more annoying than people who judge movies without seeing them

    ill give people the ten bucks to go see it if its going to feel like a waste of money to them
  17. CensoredAlso

    CensoredAlso Well-Known Member

    That would be nice. Instead of only the skeptical people being told they're wrong. ;)

    I mean at this point I'm almost afraid to end up liking the movie because this attitude of conformity doesn't sit well with me, hehe.

    Just kidding of course...slightly, lol.
  18. Frogpuppeteer

    Frogpuppeteer Well-Known Member

    again it goes both ways, we on the Like it" side have been told we are wrong too
    both sides have been called wrong, not true fans, dumb and childish by the other....lets just drop this one before we go in circles again

    2 Weeks then we can attack each other again
  19. CensoredAlso

    CensoredAlso Well-Known Member

    I don't agree that it's been entirely going both ways. But I will agree to drop it. :)
  20. Mupp

    Mupp Well-Known Member

    Sorry to bring this thread back up, but to answer the question;

    Yes, as it turns out, The Jim Henson Company was indeed somewhat involved with the film;
    According to the film's credits (I also found it on Muppet Wiki) the costumes were provided by Jim Henson's Creature Shop.

    And of course, the fact that the movie was partly filmed at The Jim Henson Company lot. Filming there obviously required their cooperation.
    Duke Remington likes this.

Share This Page