to the Muppet Central Forum!
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.
Discussion in 'Muppet Headlines' started by beaker, Nov 29, 2011.
Only 4 days until the DVD!
I KNOW!!!! WERE GETTING THERE!!! SO EXCITED!!!
ME TOO!!!!! Soon we can watch it anytime we want!
I know!! Im thimin
I know!!! I think I might buy two copies cause that's how much I'm prob gonna watch it. XP
You know I was just thinking, I just watched the first movie and thought it would've been cool if Steve Martin made a cameo in The Muppets since he's worked with them before as well.
When it comes to vocal impressions, there's the period of relaxation where an actor (be it a puppeteer or voice actor) becomes so natural with the voice, it actually sounds quite different. For the most part he didn't sound that off to me, but there were sequences that sounded like ADR film dub.
But that puppet (while not the worst one... I never liked him with that rounded head and overbite like the one they used in VMX) is a bit off, especially the grey eyebrows. The rumor is that the fabric Fozzie's fur used to be made out of no longer exists, and sadly if that is true, there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Most of the puppets looked alright. Still have a problem with Gonzo's stiffer nose (sounds very dirty), but I have to admit, the Piggy Puppet's the best its been in years. I've never been a fan of that flat hair fat face Piggy they've had the past decade.
Whilst I don't want to go into specifics, I can categorically say that with Fozzies fabric, where theres a will, theres a way. That fabric is available or at least can be achieved from materials that are available - I know that for that for a fact. Also, if you look at the Moopet version of Fozzie, he's significantly closer to the real Fozzie than the one we were sold. I suspect that Fozzies transformation was done intentionally and explained away with the fur rumour to avoid potential fan outcry. It's possible (and probable) that this decision was done so that the new one resembles a plush toy more than the old one, for merchandise reasons, but thats pure speculation on my part.
Again though, this movie is brilliant and is easily forgivable for this minor indiscretions
All I gotta say is 3 DAYS!!!! ALMOST AT THE HOME STRETCH!!!
in one of the early drafts, there WAS no real Tex Richman. It was really Kermit in a human costume, and the entire stunt was to get the gang back together. While it did speak to Kermit's character, I don't think I would've liked that ending that much.[/quote]
Firstly, I can not at all imagine Kermit putting his old gang through such pain just to get them back together. That seems like a rather selfish move and he - is by no means - selfish. Even seeing him in such a lavish house as the Greystone Mansion seemed pretty unusual and out of character. He's an purely humble, and sometimes self-conscious, amphibian. Plus, his go-to method of getting the gang back together has never failed him. Driving.
Secondly, although I think it would be pretty gratifying to see Waldorf and Statler give them the last dollar they needed, I can't believe that would ever happen either. I've never known them to have a soft side like that. However, if I'm wrong and someone can find an example of them being compassionate and helpful, please, share!
I'll agree that the ending left a few explanations, but it was interesting to see a family film that didn't end with the goal being fulfilled.
Actually in the end they did get their name and theater back. So the goal was somewhat fulfilled in the end.
Separate names with a comma.