Edgier Muppets?

[Salmoto]

Don't I know it! I still get pegged at school when i break out into Bearker speak or mock swedish, or even Marvin Suggs or Animal.

Yet somehow it's fine to occasionally do Pepe in my area, ok.....

 

[EmmyMik]

You know I have no problem with this "edgy" stuff mentioned in the article. Scooter cage dancing? Well, I'll admit I have no idea what that is, seeing that I've never been to a rave, nor do I know much about 'em. Sure raves are associated with drugs and "bad" things and youth and so on. If we look to the "classic" Muppets and TMS, the Lola Falana (ok, that has to be the coolest name ever. I wish my parents named me "Lola Falana") there's a skit that has a disco-y feel, and might take place in a disco. Now I'm sure back in the '70s discos weren't places were the hip young persons of the day went to relax, have a rip-roarin' good time, dance, and play musical chairs. There couldn't have been any drug use there, could there?

As for the Animal and egg-nog bit, I have four words, "Eggy noggy. Eggy noggy." (ok, it's 2 words repeated, but who cares?). Sure, it's not "classic" Muppets, but it was pretty darn funny.

As for the Muppet/human relationship thing it's been done. "Do you believe in inter-species dating?" Sure it wasn't Kermit, but what about him and Linda Ronstadt? Hmmmmmm?

I think "edgy" can be a good thing. "Edgy" keeps the Muppets somewhat fresh (but not totally out of character). "Edgy" can be a bad thing. I don't want the Muppets to go so low as to resort to the easy jokes like bathroom humor. However, I'm just tired of the Golly-Gosh Gee Whiz Mr. Nice Guy Kermit that we've had for awhile.

 

[DrGoshposh]

Originally posted by frogboy4
That was always Jim's dilemma - he was always pegged as a children's performer.

True, but had he wanted the Muppets to be for adults only, he could have had the screenplay for the Muppet Movie littered with salty language and references to adult habits. But he didn't because the knew that children would be watching, and I think he felt some responsibility to the kids.

Jim once said that their work was neither for adults or for children. He said they simply did good work, and whoever came to it was the audience. This tells me that they wanted the work to accessible to everyone, and not shut anyone out. (Gorch being the obvious exception, but that was late night TV, and for an adult audience.)

We may all be a little confused because we can now, as adults, can see things the Muppets did that were over our heads when we were kids. No, the Muppets aren't soft and cuddly all the time. They are very real, and have "human" feelings and quabbles. I don't think any of us is saying the Muppets should soften who they are, but they certainly shouldn't go too far the other way. Anyone can have puppets comit questionable acts, but as Mike said, the Muppets have always taken the higher road and been more intelligent with their comedy. That's what they are, and they should remain true to that.

Scott

 

[frogboy4]

Salty language? I am confused. There is no such behavior as you have described. Who said anything about including that or making the Muppet Show characters and adults only property?

I feel that there is a rush to judgement from a few people and some ideas are being taken much further than intended. Cursing Muppets? Who'd want that? We should just wait and see what the special is like. Those on the board who have viewed it seem to have no complaints. I'm excited.

 

[DrGoshposh]

No, you misunderstand what I was trying to say. The Muppets are not for adults. They have always been intended for families (safe for kids, but entertaining for both kids and adults). The point I was trying to make is that Jim had every opportunity to push children away, but he didn't (that's what I meant by salty language; they never used it, but had they wanted to, they could have). He wanted the Muppets to be safe for families.

Again, I have no doubts that the special will be great, but the thread was started to discuss whether or not we think these "edgy" sight gags are indicative of a direction the Muppets are going. Several of us do, and we are voicing our concerns.

I realize that in order to survive in entertainment today The Muppets may need to do a more lowbrow humor (Honestly, is there any need in a family TV special to funnel chug anything?). Maybe these are gags that will take up a few seconds of screen time, but if they go down that path with future projects, they will be moving away from what makes people love them.

Scott

 

[Luke]

The problem is that all of the kids that Jim also aimed the Muppets at have now moved into being adults themselves (mostly 20 something's) and so Henson need to aim at that group too as it's their nostalgia audience and most of those people are probably into edgy stuff (things like Simpsons etc).

Kids of nowday aren't really into the Muppets - they just aren't pokemon. I don't think keeping them nicey nice and friendly is really going to benefit Henson at all - i still see the brand and style as appopriate for a family to sit down and watch just not so much targetted at kids. They are moving into 'edgy' to be funny, not rude.

I think it's great that a whole load of programming that we saw as kids is being remade or repeated for us as nostalgic adults without needing that kiddy audience. It's cool that He-Man, Transformers and things like that are still out there and it's not neccasarily children just watching anymore. If it wasn't for the Muppet audience evolving into an age where they have money in their pockets and still with an interest in the brand then we certainly wouldn't have any action figures or Muppetfests !

 

[Squigiman]

Worries, part 2

Hey,
Since I left here, some very interesting and insightful discussion has taken place, and that's really great. I guess that really is the whole reason of this board, and makes me glad to be a part of this community. Anyways, I do agree with certain points already made, such as what GoshPosh was saying. I really do miss the days of Jim's Muppets, as I seem to be trying to get more of them than ever, or caring about what they do, currently. Well, I do care, but only to make sure that they stay alive and kicking, long after he's gone, even with things like the crazy German mismanagement, and Frank's minimal-to-no involvement. I still believe in this property, this group of wacky oddball characters that have been making millions of people happy, for many decades.
Anyways, in reading the article, it seemed like they were just being tainted by this world, and that they would lose that intelligence that usually accompanies their humor. Saying that they realize these characters have heart, so that it's unneccessary to deal with that was sorta scary-sounding. I know, and hope, that I'm just taking it out of context, but I really hope that they'll still be those very "human" characters, while being immensely funny. That's just what they've always been, nothing new to that.
This is why I think it's unneccessary to throw them into these "edgy" situations. While I'm a great fan of the Simpsons, I think that, just like the two toy lines, what works great for one could be disastrous for the other. Things could work on the Simpsons wonderfully, that could absolutely fall flat for the Muppets, and vice versa. Let's not try to just infuse these classic characters with too much lowbrow humor. I'm not saying I expect the Muppets of '78, or something, but they should be the Muppets, not someone else, disguised as the Muppets.
Honestly, I hope they're all small sight gags, done making some sense, as far as Scooter, say. I like the suggestion that maybe he was forced into it. It's still great to just know he's going to be involved at all, as well as Rowlf and Janice, but if they're going to be making a return to form, as characters, that form should b true to what those characters have been established as. The Animal thing could work, as it only is egg-nog, and he's Animal, so he can get away with a lot.
However, I wonder about some of the things that were cut, such as Pepe's bit, and the EM and Snoop, "trading stoner koans"??? What the ****??? I know they're all 60's, hippie, psychadelic-type, groovy rock band, but I would certainly not use the word "stoner" to describe them. That's not what they're about, and it never was, no matter what the "implications" were. They were just about "golden teeth and golden tones", and being "all laidback and mellow and profitable". They were a band, but still, a Muppet band, as part of a "family-oriented" entity, whatever that may mean.
I know there was Gorch, and though I've never seen any, have read about its content, and sure, that stuff's fine, too, for the right audience, at the right time. I'm sure it was great stuff. However, I think it was an entirely different entity than the core Muppet family, just as that was entirely different from the gang over at Sesame Street.
Anyways, I'm sorta glad that bit was cut, though it sacrifices a rare glimpse at the good old band, whether it was only about Snoop's porno-ties, or not. On the other hand, though, I would be interested to see just what it entails, and how far the powers that be would allow the Muppets to go, just for the sake of being more "edgy". Perhaps they could make a DVD release, with commentary by the director, writer/s, Brian, and a Muppet or two for good measure.
Anyways, I guess it really all comes down to seeing it for ourselves, which, thankfully, will be soon enough. I look forward to it, just as it's new Muppet stuff on TV to watch, and a way of getting them exposure which could aid in even more new stuff, as well as aiding a certain awesome toy line. Well, that's about all for now. Thanks for listening. Take care.


-Squigiman

 

[fragglerockr]

Edgier Muppets..

Guys and Gals,

I think the edgier type style is a good thing. The Muppets are always getting themselves into strange and akward situations: jewel heists, showdowns with villians in the desert, contact with aliens. Judging by other people's posts, people would rather see them reacting to real life rather than 'playing portrayed roles' in a script.

Scooter is exactly the right age (in his 20's to early 30's) and dipostion to be a raver, and as previously noted it would not be Kermit's first time flirting with a human. No major shocks there!

Plus I just want Ken to make us a raver Frogboy, er, Scooter figure....hehehehehe!!!

Later,

Lee

(Fragglerockr)

 

[Luke]

Re: Worries, part 2

Originally posted by Squigiman
However, I wonder about some of the things that were cut, such as Pepe's bit, and the EM and Snoop, "trading stoner koans"??? What the ****??? I know they're all 60's, hippie, psychadelic-type, groovy rock band, but I would certainly not use the word "stoner" to describe them. That's not what they're about, and it never was, no matter what the "implications" were. They were just about "golden teeth and golden tones", and being "all laidback and mellow and profitable". They were a band, but still, a Muppet band, as part of a "family-oriented" entity, whatever that may mean.

Ever heard about people writing for characters based on their own experiences and ideas ? C'mon, the whole 60's and 70's drug culture was PART of the whole hippie scene, of course you are supposed to get the idea from the EM that they are all chilled out and mellow and lots of people would associate that with drug use. In fact even some of the words from 'Can you picture that?' seem to describe visions from someone who's on a high. The Muppets were a product of the 70's and thats all part of what the entertainment industry was like during the 60's and 70's when Jim was part of it. I'm not saying i know for sure, but i would think if you believed nobody at Henson took mild drugs during the 70's at the Muppets inception you'd have a very high chance of being wrong. I think about 70% of kids TV during the 60's and 70's must have been drug induced in some way - tons of the writers were doing stuff and coming up with wierd ideas.

I just think we have to move on - you said yourself you enjoyed MFS and there weren't any real tender family orientated moments there - it was pretty much the start of what they are trying to do now. Muppets being tender and loving just creates slow and boring parts of movies, the ballads and love songs aren't going to exactly please a crowd now and Piggy as a character in any form nowdays just makes me barf, she's only there because they need a strong female character, and if Kermit got all icky again things would get worse. Bottom line is that this is a property that desperately needs to make money and be popular, kid interest is at an all time low and family orientated programming isn't exactly a boom area. I'm all up for them being edgy but still attractive to the family audience as well - i don't think Henson would ever envisage a time when they couldn't be shown at one suitable for everyone and i'm sure Scooter cage-dancing will be funny, and not exactly a shockfest. They need to be the Muppets of the current time period - not hark back to 25 years ago. That just doesn't work anymore and they fell flat on their faces with Muppets Tonight when they last tried it.

I actually think Jim would have loved all this, he was all up for exploring edgy and adult areas. Who knows ? If it would have been appropriate for the time when TMS aired he might have done it himself then !

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by frogboy4
I like how your Scooter avatar looks like it's looking at my Scooter avatar. I don't know about you, but I always get a strange laugh out of that. Okay, so I'm just plain weird!

We are both very weird..