ABC officially cancels "The Muppets"

[LouisTheOtter]

My apologies for being late to this discussion. I had a lot of personal and professional commitments that kept me off the forum, and I think I also needed a couple of days to digest the cancellation news, as well as the concept that The Muppets could resurface on a streaming service.

There are a lot of things I could say about this right now (and will probably say in future comments to this thread) but the short version is that I'm disappointed but not surprised. It was a troubled season for ABC all around, and with the ax falling on so many series (including two favourites of Mrs. Otter and myself, Nashville and Agent Carter), it may have been unrealistic to see ABC hanging on to a series that lost six million viewers between its pilot and its season finale.

Beyond that, I'm simultaneously sad to see it go and grateful that it made it on the air in the first place, because from where I sit The Muppets was a funny, entertaining show that has already given me some of my favourite moments of the franchise's 61-year history. And it fit that description ALL SEASON LONG, not just "post-retool."

Most of us on this forum (and elsewhere on social media) are heartbroken and annoyed now but I predict that this series, for better or for worse, will be seen as a major turning point for the Muppets. Unlike Muppets Tonight, which was a necessary (and also entertaining) series but IMHO too often went the "zany" and "wacky" route and/or relied too heavily on the guest stars, this show actually trusted the characters to carry comedic storylines over the course of a 22-minute episode, a daunting challenge for writers, producers and performers alike. With only a few exceptions, it came off as genuine, organic, and progressive and makes me excited about the future of our fuzzy friends.

When you stop and think about it, this is arguably the toughest test a lot of the Muppet performers have faced, and they passed with flying colours. Think of how fleshed-out David Rudman's Scooter and Janice, Bill Baretta's Rowlf, and especially Matt Vogel's Uncle Deadly (who now has his OWN TWITTER ACCOUNT!!!) have become. These characters, and many others, took significant leaps forward this year and were given screen time not normally seen in the post-Jim years.

And while I still have my issues with how the writers handled the Kermit-Piggy-Denise dynamic (Denise's role as an ABC marketing executive should have been fertile ground for tons of fourth-wall-breaking jokes and was sadly wasted), I truly enjoyed how Steve Whitmire and Eric Jacobsen handled the tricky balance between half-hour-network-comedy humour and genuine forward movement for the frog and the pig as they enter the next 40 years of their are-they-or-aren't-they phase. This was one of several key Muppet relationships that I consider to have progressed over the run of this series, including Kermit-and-Fozzie ("Bear Left Then Bear Write" is still my third-favourite episode) and even Fozzie, Statler and Waldorf. I think the franchise and its fans will be better off as a result.

Realistically, this show was rushed to production and subsequently got caught up in the quagmire of showbiz politics at the network level, but I will look back on it fondly and I think it truly shows that the Muppets can thrive creatively in this day and age. As I've told many others, I don't simply enjoy this series because I loved the Muppets as a kid; I enjoy it because the Muppets are still capable of making me laugh, cheer and even shed a tear as I enter my mid-'40s in 2016. And, optimist that I am, I am sure we'll have that kind of Muppet experience for years (decades) to come.

 

[Drtooth]

There are a lot of things I could say about this right now (and will probably say in future comments to this thread) but the short version is that I'm disappointed but not surprised. It was a troubled season for ABC all around, and with the ax falling on so many series (including two favourites of Mrs. Otter and myself, Nashville and Agent Carter), it may have been unrealistic to see ABC hanging on to a series that lost six million viewers between its pilot and its season finale.

I really think that waiting till the end of the season and then reacting to the stock falling due to television viewership was a sign that they weren't even sure they were going to end any of these shows. Not saying a lot of them wouldn't be cancelled, but I'm guessing that if the stockholders only saw the fact their last 4 movies were massive hits instead, ABC would have been a bit more generous. If The Muppets was that big a ratings bust, why didn't they just bring the hammer down the second the episodes ended? Seems like a much more clarified route. Some shows are canned even before their season finished. That said, Nashville was one of those shows that hit hard in the first season, but failed to maintain a lasting audience (how's that for a frustrating comparison), and frankly Agent Carter had a weak story in its second season. Not unenjoyable, but hardly as much of a bang the first season gave. And something tells me that giving SHIELD the not at all coveted 10 PM Tuesday slot means that someone's trying to sabotage the show so it doesn't get a pickup this time next year. Synergy saved that show, didn't for The Muppets or either Marvel show outside of SHIELD. And it took well into the second season for SHIELD to come into its own, outside of the

Realistically, this show was rushed to production and subsequently got caught up in the quagmire of showbiz politics at the network level

A good point that I think keeps getting lost. Things happened too fast. Had this at least had months of testing and development, we probably would have had a better balance between Muppet humor and the behind the scenes, more adult relationships. Also give to the fact there's a difference between us Muppet fans who followed every project, and the more causal "What's the name of the two old guys in the balcony? Them, the Swedish Chef, Cookie Monster, and Lamb Chop are my favorite Muppets." types the show's core audience would otherwise be. Some of us fans wanted a shake up after seeing the Kermit Piggy relationship being played out for 30+ years. Some just wanted the show to be a greatest hits collection. While that probably would have attracted more of those casuals, they would inevitably get bored and the show would share the same fate anyway. I mean why see a clone of The Muppet Show when you could watch the original. So the writers had to strike a balance between a show that could exist on television in this market and the Muppet characters.

And that's where the problem lies. You only get one chance to make a first impression. The writers didn't get the balance straight away because that's how writing a TV show works. Things change, they evolve, they get better. But the audience tuning in expected Mahna Mahnas and monsters eating smaller Muppets and that didn't fit in (at least then) with the new subject matter. And it easily could have, but that's another case all together. My issue is, they really should have balanced relationship humor with Muppet humor. The weakest episodes are ones with the A and B plots being about different romantic relationships instead of having a "the show is screwed up" type plots that made Pigs in a Blackout the show's turning point.

Though I reiterate. There are so few shows I can say have a better first season than subsequent ones. For the most part, the first is always the weakest season, or at least the second weakest if a show slips that far in quality. I mean, look at Season 1 Sesame Street. I don't think a single fan would have wanted the show to have only 4 Muppets, repeated in the same episode up to 3 times cartoons about letters/numbers, classroom lectures, or those terrible human comedy duos.

 

[Colbynfriends]

* random thought here *
Something to also keep in mind. Wasn't TMS, since it was made the way it was with the idea of it being syndicated and picked up by other networks in the states, and because it didn't really have backing from any of the big three in any capacity, doesn't that make a bit of difference now? They had trouble selling their pilots to ABC a long time ago. Maybe that's another reason why TMS was allowed to prosper in the states because it was less money out of the TV studio's pockets at the time. (I may be wrong on this so if anyone can correct me that'd be great).

Also, as DrTooth said and to add onto it, why clone TMS. Even if that's what it'd done we'd have a divide in the fandom anyway because they may have missed the mark as it were. Not been totally faithful to the original feel of the show. Or they would have found new ways to "modernize"it that some fans wouldn't like too much either, similar to what happened with JHH and MT.

As said before fans are picky. That's not unique to just this fandom though and we're all guilty of it (myself included). TMS will probably live eternal as the high point of the Muppet's career to which all future shows will be compared to and expected to match or surpass in quality and genius. But we all know how TMS's first season was. It's almost unrecognizable to later shows from season 2 onwards. Some of them have episodes that honestly looking back you scratch your head "how did they get THAT guest" and "I've never even heard of *such and such* name". Also, each season to me has it's own feeling anyway, it's own brand. They just feel different. Dunno if others feel the same.

As for Sesame Street. As some were saying before it's hard to compare the two situations. The only thing I can add onto it is the fact that in the end, Sesame Workshop is a non-profit with the end goal to teach kids basic reading writing math science and life skills. It's been doing so for almost 50 years. It's an institution. Pretty sweet deal for HBO and SW actually, considering the old Street episodes and newer ones still run on PBS affiliates, just HBO gets the first run.

Back to TM'2015. We may get more content although I am not sure now how reliable the sources we've seen are. But knowing the Muppets they have something lined up.

 

[LouisTheOtter]

I really think that waiting till the end of the season and then reacting to the stock falling due to television viewership was a sign that they weren't even sure they were going to end any of these shows...If The Muppets was that big a ratings bust, why didn't they just bring the hammer down the second the episodes ended? Seems like a much more clarified route. Some shows are canned even before their season finished.

The sense I got (and I say this with absolutely zero experience in running a TV network, before or after the digital-content revolution) is that the Muppets were basically on probation even though the pilot was green-lit for a series. Despite the initial burst of publicity, as well as a follow-up wave for the re-launch in early February, ABC seemed to be telling Muppet Studios that the show would only receive consistent promotion if it was a monster hit and they had no time for the Muppets if Kermit and Co. didn't bring in the numbers. Once the ratings started tailing off from the debut episode, I swear I could actually make out the clouds of dust from ABC bigwigs scurrying away from the show.

I mean, think about it - they went to the trouble of bringing in a new show-runner and made such noise about the retool, and STILL cancelled it. (Four days shy of the 26th anniversary of Jim's death, by the way. I go back and forth as to whether somebody at ABC should have noticed this.) Meanwhile, ABC fell all over itself to promote The Real O'Neals, which got renewed even though it lost three million viewers from its opening night (wedged within the primo ABC Wednesday comedy block) to the current Tuesday time-slot. I suspect ABC had made up its mind to give The Real O'Neals a second season no matter what kind of ratings it got. I'm with Drtooth on the concept that we as viewers deserved a more up-front response from the network instead of being kept in the dark for over two months.

Some of us fans wanted a shake up after seeing the Kermit Piggy relationship being played out for 30+ years. Some just wanted the show to be a greatest hits collection. While that probably would have attracted more of those casuals, they would inevitably get bored and the show would share the same fate anyway. I mean why see a clone of The Muppet Show when you could watch the original. So the writers had to strike a balance between a show that could exist on television in this market and the Muppet characters.

Yeah, I agree with all of that. I, personally, liked what the writers did with Kermit and Piggy (as individual characters and as a couple) this season. But I know that probably ticked off a section of Muppet fans, along with a few sequences in the early going that occasionally presented a meaner version of the Muppets than we might have been used to. Piggy didn't karate-chop anyone this season but she did call Fozzie a "worthless piece of fur" in the opening episode (making it even more awkward when Fozzie hurled the same insult at Big Mean Carl to try to impress Becky's parents).

All in all, I'm very happy that the writers and producers actually attempted some forward movement and character development with the Muppets rather than simply shrug and give us the same jokes and set-ups from 30 or 40 years ago.

This may seem like a strange observation but, after watching "Swine Song" (ie. "The Big Retool Episode") again last week as Mrs. Otter and I staged our own post-cancellation marathon of The Muppets (we've still got the last five episodes on our PVR), I'm relieved that "Pig Girls Don't Cry" was the series' opening episode rather than "Swine Song." The latter seemed like a half-hour's worth of Kristin Newman and the producers begging us to believe they'd fixed everything; the former, for all its flaws, was at least trying something new and fresh.

 

[Drtooth]

I mean, think about it - they went to the trouble of bringing in a new show-runner and made such noise about the retool, and STILL cancelled it. (Four days shy of the 26th anniversary of Jim's death, by the way. I go back and forth as to whether somebody at ABC should have noticed this.) Meanwhile, ABC fell all over itself to promote The Real O'Neals, which got renewed even though it lost three million viewers from its opening night (wedged within the primo ABC Wednesday comedy block) to the current Tuesday time-slot. I suspect ABC had made up its mind to give The Real O'Neals a second season no matter what kind of ratings it got. I'm with Drtooth on the concept that we as viewers deserved a more up-front response from the network instead of being kept in the dark for over two months.

I really don't want to hate on O'Neals. They clearly made up their mind to renew it the second it came out, like you said. But the thing is, it fits in more with their line of sitcoms than The Muppets did. Probably cheaper to produce as well which twisted their arms. I'd say that the reason The Muppets got snubbed by the end of the season when it came to publicity was that they figured there was no point left if the ratings were that bad. It's like when a movie comes out opposite a blockbuster, and has an embarrassingly low box office take, but they still sink some more money spinning the commercials as "The Number One [genre, usually comedy] Film in the World" when as a film it's a distant second. Maybe they'll advertise it for a week after that, but they're not going to promote it when it's barely in theaters and lost a crapload of money from it.

Now I'm not going to say we were more likely to get a second season, but it wasn't in the definitely going to get cancelled pile or they would have announced it the second the episode count ran out. Probably even before that and just jammed the last episodes in the summer in marathon form to get rid of them. I'm not saying they had every intention to give it a second season until the stock reports came out bad, but it sure seems like that's the case. If there's one thing that bares repeating is that Disney went on a freaking rampage to bring the stock price back up. Their games division was slashed. They didn't even give a s%$# that Disney Infinity is an awardwinning, money making game concept. They freaking cut it. They completely annihilated something that got that much love and buzz because lesser games were eating into their profits. They cut off a limb for crying out loud. And no sooner than a day or two before the mass cancellations. They are that desperate to keep those stock holders happy. Had there have been better circumstances, I'm not saying we'd be looking at Muppets season 2, but I'm sure we wouldn't have had news that abrupt after months of waiting.

 

[Muppet Master]

Yeah, I agree with all of that. I, personally, liked what the writers did with Kermit and Piggy (as individual characters and as a couple) this season. But I know that probably ticked off a section of Muppet fans, along with a few sequences in the early going that occasionally presented a meaner version of the Muppets than we might have been used to. Piggy didn't karate-chop anyone this season but she did call Fozzie a "worthless piece of fur" in the opening episode (making it even more awkward when Fozzie hurled the same insult at Big Mean Carl to try to impress Becky's parents).

All in all, I'm very happy that the writers and producers actually attempted some forward movement and character development with the Muppets rather than simply shrug and give us the same jokes and set-ups from 30 or 40 years ago.

This may seem like a strange observation but, after watching "Swine Song" (ie. "The Big Retool Episode") again last week as Mrs. Otter and I staged our own post-cancellation marathon of The Muppets (we've still got the last five episodes on our PVR), I'm relieved that "Pig Girls Don't Cry" was the series' opening episode rather than "Swine Song." The latter seemed like a half-hour's worth of Kristin Newman and the producers begging us to believe they'd fixed everything; the former, for all its flaws, was at least trying something new and fresh.

Thank you so much, this was the point I was trying to push, the reboot episodes were desperately trying to kiss up to the people who left, and it sucked, it did. They added pointless lame human characters, made stupid sketches to try to make it somewhat like TMS, and forced out Fozzie. The first 10 episodes were something else,it was just bad, only the finale was good, the rest was just ugh, especially freaking Got Silk where Piggy whines about havinh no friends. This is why the show tanked, the reboot, ratings were salvagable before it, when it returned it was already done, keep in mind ABC promoted the muppets all the way up until Swine Song, they didn't forget to advertise as some here were saying they were done with the show, the moment they stopped advertising I knew it was over. The first half was perfection, so many characters, possibilites, Bobo and the freaking newsman selling cookies, where would we ever see that. The reboot made it the Kermit and Piggy show, oh boy I can't wait for the inevitable back together scene. It was cliche as well, and so rushed how they booted Denise out. Honestly, I wish they had just stopped at "Single All The Way", just pointless to reboot the show when the public was already not watching it.

 

[RealWonderman]

Thank you so much, this was the point I was trying to push, the reboot episodes were desperately trying to kiss up to the people who left, and it sucked, it did. They added pointless lame human characters, made stupid sketches to try to make it somewhat like TMS, and forced out Fozzie. The first 10 episodes were something else,it was just bad, only the finale was good, the rest was just ugh, especially freaking Got Silk where Piggy whines about havinh no friends. This is why the show tanked, the reboot, ratings were salvagable before it, when it returned it was already done, keep in mind ABC promoted the muppets all the way up until Swine Song, they didn't forget to advertise as some here were saying they were done with the show, the moment they stopped advertising I knew it was over. The first half was perfection, so many characters, possibilites, Bobo and the freaking newsman selling cookies, where would we ever see that. The reboot made it the Kermit and Piggy show, oh boy I can't wait for the inevitable back together scene. It was cliche as well, and so rushed how they booted Denise out. Honestly, I wish they had just stopped at "Single All The Way", just pointless to reboot the show when the public was already not watching it.

I disagree.
Yes, I liked the show before the reboot, and I liked it a lot after. Both were great. I LOVED the show in it's entirety, and still watch it in little marathons...often. It flows well, but IMO it got better after the reboot. From Single All the Way, on it was great TV and great characterization...and more laugh out loud funny than before.
I think the intro of the human characters was important to give the Muppets an antagonist that WASN'T Miss Piggy (whose characterization previously suffered for it.)
I think the reason the show didn't come back strong was because of the loooooong absence, and the complete lack of advertising. Nobody knew what the reboot would be, and the examples you mentioned would only have been an issue if people came back to watch the show after the break. They didn't. So, they didn't know about the human characters, etc. and this can't be to blame.
I do hope that when the shows lands a second season, etc, on hulu (or Netflix) that they back off the branding guy, and use the Network President more as the foil, becuase he was irritating, and she was funny. But they can really limit the use of both/either, IMO.

 

[Drtooth]

I still love that the network pretty much advertised the "reboot" to all the news outlets. Maybe if they didn't telegraph that they changed like one or two things that were naturally changing with the show progressing. I was right about that. It made the show sound more desperate and therefore more snark baity than it should have been. The "break" between the show wasn't necessarily that long. What was it, like 2 weeks after the Wednesday shows came back? Shows usually take that long of a break after Christmas. The show desperately needed some time off because at the end of the day, everything wrong with the show was that everything moved too fast in production. Maybe if the show had more room to breathe since the inception, balance would have been had and a better first episode would have been made.

That said, I really hate how they even mentioned they needed a reboot considering the reboot was "throw a couple characters in there." The show was getting more to a Muppet like consistency since the fourth episode. Did it reach its potential then? No. Was it starting to? Yes. Just the fact they essentially said "we know you hate the show but we really want you to like it. What the heck do you fickle schmucks want?" by letting news outlets know about this change essentially said "Hey audience that left us. Are you coming back yet? Cuz if you aren't, we're willing to torpedo the show to make you happy." THAT'S on the fault of Disney and ABC.

 

[jobi71]

With hind sight being 20/20 here are some of the more notable problems?/issues? with the show in my opinion. The show went into production very fast. I was aware of this at the time, but I think ABC should have held off and have it come in as a midseason replacement. I think with more time and planning the relationships (Kermit/Piggy/Denise and Fozzie/Becky and Gonzo sans Camila) could have been fleshed out (or felted out) more so they weren't just plot points. They would be more character based. For the first half Miss Piggy was far too much the antagonist. That is one thing the "reboot" addressed well. Now, did we need Pace or Diane? Well... Jerry Juhl has said that the characters of Fleet Scribbler and J.P. Grosse were tough to write for. They were better as off stage/screen menaces. The Muppet Show did well without a set antagonist because it was either fate itself or maybe John Cleese with his list of demands that provided the conflict. Again, maybe more time would have allowed them to figure it out. Denise could be that character, but mean Muppets (see Fleet, J.P.) don't stick around for long.

Also a big red flag for me was in the initial press releases where it was stated there would be no (and I may be paraphrasing) dancing chickens or singing fuit.

Why not? I would love to have seen an episode where Carl, receiving a package from UPS Bunny then eats the bunny and the package. And then we see a little musical rehearsal for Up Late. And then Kermit and Piggy's breakup. Funny. Musical. Touching.

But I do firmly believe the Muppets will be back. Sooner than we may think.

 

[Drtooth]

Also a big red flag for me was in the initial press releases where it was stated there would be no (and I may be paraphrasing) dancing chickens or singing fuit.

While I don't think it needed those, it couldn't have hurt to slowly integrate those into the show as time went on. My main issue with the show because it never reached its full potential, there wasn't enough time for more characters to get a developed plot. As in there were too many characters already without penguins and chickens adding to the mix. I'm glad we got stories involving Scooter and the Electric Mayhem. That's certainly something we wouldn't have seen coming. Seems most of the show focused on Kermit, Piggy, Fozzie, or occasionally Gonzo. The problem with this show and why the cancellation really sucks is that there are endless possibilities that never saw the light of day. And if I can blame that on it being a first season of a sitcom and wanting to save something for later, I'll say that's the problem. I could totally have seen more of Newsman and Bobo having a rivalry, more plots about Rowlf's bar, and yes, slow integration of wilder, wackier Muppet elements as the show would have carried on.

And had the audience specifically there with Nielsen boxes had given the show a chance or ABC bothered to count in the online viewing (which I'm starting to think was its main audience), we would have had that.