Your Thoughts: Kermit and Miss Piggy on America's Got Talent

[Kynan Barker]

Yes the puppetry seemed beginner. No the voice wasn't perfect.

To me, it says a lot that even someone who liked Artie's Kermit is willing to admit the above.

When was the last time the Muppets looked so amateurish on national TV? Personally, I think Kermit is too important to get way with casting an imperfect beginner!

 

[CensoredAlso]

To me, it says a lot that even someone who liked Artie's Kermit is willing to admit the above.

I've said that about Steve's early performances and I've said it about Jim's. That doesn't mean I think they're bad, quite the contrary. It's not black and white like that.

When was the last time the Muppets looked so amateurish on national TV? Personally, I think Kermit is too important to get way with casting an imperfect beginner!

I said this earlier in another thread but the Muppets were pretty "rough" in their early days on TV too. Yet they were extremely popular very quickly. The excellence of their performance shown through despite technical difficulties. Plus audiences back then were more used to "rough" performances on TV, and just knew to respect the good parts of what they saw.

The Muppets aren't about looking perfect, they never have been. They came from the Hippie era of looking nature and not having to be "high quality perfect." The puppetry on The Muppet Show now occasionally looks "rough" by today's standards. But people still like it, because it doesn't matter. What matters is the overall performance.

 

[Kynan Barker]

I said this earlier in another thread but the Muppets were pretty "rough" in their early days on TV too.

To which I replied, they've come a long way since then. Those classic performances have their place, but are you seriously arguing that modern-day Muppet performers shouldn't be world-class (or even proficient) puppeteers?

The Muppet characters have a ragtag, motley, low-rent quality to them. But that's not an argument for sloppy puppeteering.

That's like saying 30 Rock is about a dysfunctional TV show, so it should be filmed by an amateur camera crew.

 

[CensoredAlso]

To which I replied, they've come a long way since then. Those classic performances have their place, but are you seriously arguing that modern-day Muppet performers shouldn't be world-class (or even proficient) puppeteers?

Obviously I'm not arguing that, heh. I'm saying there's more to being a good performer than just being perfect all the time. Should they go back and redo Rocky and Bullwinkle so the animation looks better? No, because it didn't need to be the best drawings to be the best show overall.

That's like saying 30 Rock is about a dysfunctional TV show, so it should be filmed by an amateur camera crew.

I'm saying this sudden demand for clean, pristine, high quality sort of reminds me of what they've done to Sesame Street. Taken it out of the urban city and into the bright happy playground because it looks nice.

 

[theprawncracker]

Obviously I'm not arguing that, heh. I'm saying there's more to being a good performer than just being perfect all the time. Should they go back and redo Rocky and Bullwinkle so the animation looks better? No, because it didn't need to be the best drawings to be the best show overall.

No, but having everything top-notch sure as heck helps. Take, for instance, The Dark Knight. Wildly acclaimed, adored across varying groups, and why? Because it was a good film. But why was it good? It was good because everything came together to make it a good film. The acting was good, the sets were good, the effects were good, the action was good, the romance was good, the humor was good, the hero was good, the villain was good (that is... good at being bad), the lighting was good, the cinematography was good, the writing was good, and, I'm not sure, but I bet the food on set was good too.

So, yes, pointing out the good parts of something is a great thing to do. But it just reminds me of when you're peer reviewing a classmate's English paper. You make sure to highlight the good parts of the paper, but if you don't also acknowledge that the bads need to be fixed, then what's the point of even doing a peer review?

 

[CensoredAlso]

No, but having everything top-notch sure as heck helps. Take, for instance, The Dark Knight. Wildly acclaimed, adored across varying groups, and why? Because it was a good film.

Well that's a matter of opinion. Though I agree, the Joker was very good.

And there have been a number of movies with excellent production quality that completely bombed, because overall the story wasn't good. It's not all about having the best of everything production wise.

And I'm not saying "yes, let's make everything bad!" I don't know where that came from. I'm saying there's a lot of talk about "high quality" and perfection, which just reminds me of Stepford rather than Muppets. Would you call Hippies clean and pristine and without blemishes imperfections? No, because they're not supposed to be. And neither are the Muppets.

So, yes, pointing out the good parts of something is a great thing to do. But it just reminds me of when you're peer reviewing a classmate's English paper. You make sure to highlight the good parts of the paper, but if you don't also acknowledge that the bads need to be fixed, then what's the point of even doing a peer review?

Well 1960s/70s audiences weren't doing peer reviews. They were enjoying what was an excellent product, without having to rely on modern "high quality" that we're all so convinced we need nowadays to tell a story.

 

[theprawncracker]

Well 1960s/70s audiences weren't doing peer reviews. They were enjoying what was an excellent product, without having to rely on modern "high quality" that we're all so convinced we need nowadays to tell a story.

Agreed there. BUT, even if it wasn't "high quality," if things were so bad that they became distracting, it is no longer an excellent product.

 

[frogboy4]

Well that's a matter of opinion. Though I agree, the Joker was very good.

And there have been a number of movies with excellent production quality that completely bombed, because overall the story wasn't good. It's not all about having the best of everything production wise.

And I'm not saying "yes, let's make everything bad!" I don't know where that came from. I'm saying there's a lot of talk about "high quality" and perfection, which just reminds me of Stepford rather than Muppets. Would you call Hippies clean and pristine and without blemishes imperfections? No, because they're not supposed to be. And neither are the Muppets.

Well 1960s/70s audiences weren't doing peer reviews. They were enjoying what was an excellent product, without having to rely on modern "high quality" that we're all so convinced we need nowadays to tell a story.

Just seems like playing devil's advocate for the heck of it. I don't get what you're arguing here.

I think what Ryan was trying to say is - projects usually work best when seasoned professionals fill the key production roles. That would include Steve performing the main Muppet character. Yes, there are exceptions for new, innovative indie projects, but that's not what Disney is going for with the Muppets. If they want the best polished Muppet projects they need Steve’s Kermit at the helm. A recast at this point is just not appropriate to most fans.

 

[theprawncracker]

I think what Ryan was trying to say is - projects usually work best when seasoned professionals fill the key production roles. That would include Steve performing the main Muppet character. Yes, there are exceptions for new, innovative indie projects, but that's not what Disney is going for with the Muppets. If they want the best polished Muppet projects they need Steve’s Kermit at the helm. A recast at this point is just not appropriate to most fans.

Thanks Jamie. You've articulated my point much better than I did. (And with a lot less confusing metaphors. )

 

[CensoredAlso]

I think what Ryan was trying to say is - projects usually work best when seasoned professionals fill the key production roles.

Well then how do we explain how the Muppets became so successful? They didn't start out as seasoned professionals. That's all I'm saying.

but that's not what Disney is going for with the Muppets....they want the best polished Muppet projects

Disney should be concerned with producing good stories and good presentations of the characters, not how polished it all looks. Disney has been criticized for that for years. For being too concerned with seeming perfect (and mercilessly throwing out anything and anyone that doesn't quite measure up to its standards).