Do you like Disney owning the Muppets?

[trekkie1701E]

It's like the Pixar dealy. Pixar was kinda angry with Disney, and that led to them finally bending their partnership. Is A Bug's Life Disney? No. Toy Story 1 & 2? Finding Nemo? The Incredibles? The upcoming Cars? No, no and no. They are Pixar. Not Disney, but "Pixar."

It's like Tokyo DL and Tokyo DisneySea. Wonder why it's more "Disney" and 1000 times more awe-inspiring than anything the company has recently built here in the states? Disney didn't pay for either park in Japan! Oriental Land Company did. They give WDI colossal amounts of money to work with; WDI builds what looks like elaborate island paradises. OLC is also responsible for paying whatever the H#ll they want on rehabs, additions, etc.

You know why Disney's name is on the parks? Every month, OLC pays a percentage fee to Eisner; percentages made from concessions and sales.

All this while Eisner's gigantic and undeserved bonuses affect ride and attraction upkeep at Disneyland, WDW and DCA.

Aren't we so f$#&ng lucky?

 

[McFraggle]

You don't want people to like you, do you?

Apparently not. As others have said in a perfect world it would be "Jim Henson's Muppets." If that is not possible it should just be the "Muppets." The only way Disney should be in the name is if it is "Walt Disney Pictures Presents...." or something similar to that.

 

[wembleyfraggle]

Disney is ok infront of the Muppets as long as its "Disney presents Jim Henson's Muppets" After all they ARE Jim's Muppets not Disneys, even if they own the rights to them.

 

[ravagefrackle]

Though if they wanted to fulfill their "father's dream" as they call it, they would have taken a drive to Burbank instead of a plane to Munich four years ago.

actually , they wouldnt have bothered opening the fakada LA office, the muppets have always had a more NEW YORK style,Jim new it, and thats were they Belong, not in La, or Hollywood, the land of no imagination

 

[trekkie1701E]

Disney Presents Jim Henson's Muppets is ok, I'll admit.

 

[MJTaylor]

WORST POSTING EVER!

THE MUPPETS ARE NOW AND FOR EVER WILL BE JIM HENSONS, DISNEY ONLY WISHES THAT THEY COULD BE HALF AS BRILLIANT AS JIM WAS.

You mean to say that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are nowhere near as good as The Muppets?
To tell the truth, as a fan of both Disney and Muppets it's pretty hard to be objective. On one hand, having Kermit, Miss Piggy and Co. under the same umbrella as Mickey and Donald sounds like a dream come true. On the other, a lot of the anti-Disney posters do have a point.

 

[BoyRaisin2]

actually , they wouldnt have bothered opening the fakada LA office, the muppets have always had a more NEW YORK style,Jim new it, and thats were they Belong, not in La, or Hollywood, the land of no imagination

Actually, Jim was moving his headquarters to LA in preparation for the Disney merger. So it really wasn't a Henson family decision. And seeing how the Muppets have been in NY, LA, and LONDON, I don't see that as a big deal. I'm just peeved how that, the last we heard, the NY office is up for sale.

As for "Disney's Muppets," I love Disney, I love the Muppets, and I have always wanted them to merge. Doesn't mean I want the the brand "Disney's Muppets" splattered on all the merchandise. Even if I was OK with that, it's no comparison to "Jim Henson's Muppets." Jim Henson--the person and the company--created the characters.

Like I've said before, on the merchandise, just call them "The Muppets" with the Disney logo somewhere in the corner. The "Jim Henson" logo might be owned the Henson Legacy, not Company, but I can understand why Disney would not want to avoid "confusion" about who actually owns the characters. Just like it would make sense for the Henson Co. logo to get rid of the Kermit head.

 

[McFraggle]

As for "Disney's Muppets," I love Disney, I love the Muppets, and I have always wanted them to merge. Doesn't mean I want the the brand "Disney's Muppets" splattered on all the merchandise. Even if I was OK with that, it's no comparison to "Jim Henson's Muppets." Jim Henson--the person and the company--created the characters.

Like I've said before, on the merchandise, just call them "The Muppets" with the Disney logo somewhere in the corner. The "Jim Henson" logo might be owned the Henson Legacy, not Company, but I can understand why Disney would not want to avoid "confusion" about who actually owns the characters. Just like it would make sense for the Henson Co. logo to get rid of the Kermit head.

I feel the same way on all of your points.

 

[ravagefrackle]

Actually, Jim was moving his headquarters to LA in preparation for the Disney merger. So it really wasn't a Henson family decision. And seeing how the Muppets have been in NY, LA, and LONDON, I don't see that as a big deal. I'm just peeved how that, the last we heard, the NY office is up for sale.QUOTE]

actually he was only setting up a office there, the main business was still going to be done in new york, seeing as it is right in themiddle of things, it was like a hub, and it would have been easier to travel from one place to the other, and keep his finger on things, it was brian who moved the corporate offices and then decide that the new york workshop wasnt important anymore.

 

[trekkie1701E]

Walt Disney and Jim Henson are the two most creative geniuses in family entertainment. Let's just leave it at that.
And I love Mickey and Donald. They are two of my absolute favorite characters, and still remain hilarious to this day. However, I don't think anybody could really argue that both Mickey and Donald have -- thanks to Eisner & Co -- turned from practically iconic stature in Disney to nothing more than, well, "corporate shills."

I don't want Kermit & Co to suffer the same fate.