Steve Whitmire has left the Muppets, Matt Vogel to continue as Kermit

[xSunnyEclipse]

I'm not saying I don't admire his work - I'm just not a die-hard Steve fan, and my curiosity around the Hensons' comments is not really linked to how I feel about losing his talent one way or another.

It's more the fact that they said anything, rather than whether it's based on truth or not.

We've all been questioning that for a while.

I think it was just the press pounding them for answering and they were tired of them asking, so they finally spoke out about it.

Also, Steve didn't speak out about it until after we heard the news he was quote on quote "leaving". And Cheryl's comment was more of her getting anger out and venting. Even if I'm not with the Hensons, at this point I really don't believe they'd say nasty things about someone like that.

Even Mike Quinn, who's a current performer said anyone he talked to had nothing but praise for Steve and his work. And since he's a close friend of Steve's, I trust him.

 

[ErinAardvark]

It's like the age old question: How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? The world may never know.

 

[Censored]

All of the questions being asked here were actually already addressed by Disney and the Hensons. I think it's just about not liking the answers.

 

[ErinAardvark]

All of the questions being asked here were actually already addressed by Disney and the Hensons. I think it's just about not liking the answers.

I still have one more question. If there were issues with Steve since 2005, why wait eleven years to fire him? That just doesn't add up to me. If someone can give me a credible source to back up an answer to this question, I'll drop it. This is what I meant when I referenced the Tootsie Pop commercial quote.

 

[D'Snowth]

Accordingly, it was because they were hoping to see if Steve's supposed "poor behavior and business conduct" would improve with time, but evidently was not and only getting worse. I guess, in a sense, it's like why don't women get out of abusive relationships sooner, because a lot of them think maybe if they stick with it long enough, their abusive husbands/boyfriends/partners/whatever will improve their behavior and it will all eventually go away.

And according to the Hensons, it's been longer than since 2005: they apparently had problems with him as far back as the 90s.

 

[xSunnyEclipse]

Accordingly, it was because they were hoping to see if Steve's supposed "poor behavior and business conduct" would improve with time, but evidently was not and only getting worse. I guess, in a sense, it's like why don't women get out of abusive relationships sooner, because a lot of them think maybe if they stick with it long enough, their abusive husbands/boyfriends/partners/whatever will improve their behavior and it will all eventually go away.

And according to the Hensons, it's been longer than since 2005: they apparently had problems with him as far back as the 90s.

And I'm assuming now because after the Hensons finally sold The Muppets off to Disney, they wouldn't have to deal with his bad business conduct.

Maybe his behavior did improve, but problems started happening during the 2015 show. I don't blame him for trying to stand up for character integrity. I admire him for trying seriously, but I now I know that he shouldn't have done that and it cost him his job.

 

[ErinAardvark]

And I'm assuming now because after the Hensons finally sold The Muppets off to Disney, they wouldn't have to deal with his bad business conduct.

I still don't think it adds up. If they were having issues with him, why would both the Hensons and Disney put up with it, hoping it would improve, for 27 years?

Maybe his behavior did improve, but problems started happening during the 2015 show. I don't blame him for trying to stand up for character integrity. I admire him for trying seriously, but I now I know that he shouldn't have done that and it cost him his job.

Could be.

 

[Pig'sSaysAdios]

I still don't think it adds up. If they were having issues with him, why would both the Hensons and Disney put up with it, hoping it would improve, for 27 years?

Well, first off: He was Kermit, who's not an easy character to cast, nor can any performer get the hang of him right away. So, it would've probably not been good for the character if they fired Steve so soon. And like I said earlier in the thread: it's possible that they wanted to fire him, but because he was such an important part of the group, and because they had just lost Jim and Richard, and Frank was phasing himself out, it would've been a bad idea. And then, when the Disney acquisition rolled around in 2004, i'm sure they would've wanted to keep as many of the old performers as possible to help with the transition. And this is all assuming that his supposed business misconduct and his difficulty to work with all started a long time ago and not just more recently, which it may not have.

 

[LittleJerry92]

You know, looking at it now, I can actually see where points come up on Kermit having personality changes with Steve performing him.

Actually reminds me of when Bill Corbett took over as Crow T Robot in the last 3 seasons of the original MST series - went from a wise cracking robot to just being kinda..... There. And kinda grouchy.

Same can be said for Kevin Murphy taking over Tom Servo for the remainder of the series after Josh Weinstein left in season 2 (though this was a good change).

 

[xSunnyEclipse]

True, but I just don't like to blame Steve on the personality change. It's not he's telling them he wants Kermit to be quote on quote "depressed".

Honestly to me, it's more like he was trying to make Kermit tired and stressed. I mean give the Frog a break, he's been dealing with these guys for 40+ years (even more than that), so as a leader character I can understand the stress Kermit has. Give him a break 2k17.

But anyway, it's just writers who don't understand Kermit's character or maybe Steve had a certain line but didn't know how to deliver it in a way that would come out right.

Also it's kind of important to change up a character. We were talking about in Fundamentals of Acting (for example), that when you're performing as a character from a piece of work, it's not your right to copy said character and be exactly like them. I never cared if Steve's performance wasn't like Jim's nor do I care if Matt's isn't either. So that's what I liked about it. Also there was some good character development and I want them to progress the character then starting backwards ya know.