Eisner confirms Disney could buy Henson and Muppets soon

[Fozzie Bear]

I'll probably go see a movie about a donkey, though I can't for the life of me figure why?!

What did you all think of Tigger and Piglet's movies?

 

[radionate]

I refuse to see them.

Along with Jungle Book 2, Return to Neverland, Cinderella 2, The Return of Jafar, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[danielromens]

Chilly, this is all I got...

"We are committed to continuing the legacy of creativity, humor and humanity that marked everything Jim Henson touched," Valentine said in a statement. "At the same time we feel there is enormous potential for growth, not merely from Kermit and the Muppets, but from the expansion of the Henson brand into all areas of family entertainment."

Not necessarilly cop shows and such, but let's face it, the Henson company can't exist in the long run with puppets alone. This is something I myself denied for a long time. But as computer imaging becomes easier to produce and increasingly more effective to fit in real settings, (the HULK, Holy S***) our animated troop of puppets won't seem so animated.

but don't get me wrong, physically being there is something Kermit will always have on Woody or Mike Wyzowski.

I think turning the company into more than just a puppet troop only makes sence, and is in the best interest. More revenue means that they will be able to keep Kermit alive. I think it also adds to the power of the company so that people will bring them more material to work with. Right now creatures and fantasy are what people expect them to be.

Also, Jim didn't like being pigeonholed either. Look at all the other stuff he had in his head, the Cube, Timepiece, the list goes on. I think this would be nothing but wise and it would turn them into a wider family empire, and not a one trick pony.

 

[Manda:-D]

Re: New Article

This has been bugging me all day. It's from the Julia Weiderger (sp?) article.

Originally posted by Bean Bunny

Eisner worked on the first Muppets special in the 1960s and knew Jim Henson well, he said yesterday.

Is that true? I don't EVER remember hearing about that.

...Anyway, on to the topic at hand. I've honestly lost pretty much all faith in Disney. Disney itself. I've become totally disillusioned by what I've seen in the past few years, from their busines practices, to their "creative", (I can't honestly call anything I've seen them do lately truly creative), enterprises. All they've done lately is grab as many brand names as they could possibly find and suck them dry and use them solely for merchandising. (I'm so sorry, Winnie the Pooh, for what they've done to you.) I keep seeinng nightmareish visions of animated Muppet movies going directly to video where they retell fairy tales over and over.... (Honestly, Kermit doean't render particularly well in animation to me. The puppets always havem, and always will, seem more alive to me.)
I just don't like it. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

David Barrington-Holt over the Creature Shop assured us at MuppetFest that puppetry will never be replaced by computer technology.

Regardless how good it gets, it's true. Computer will never be able to take over the true art of puppetry. There's just a quality to it all that computer animation (CGI) takes away. Like Yoda in Episode 2, they gave him too MUCH emotion, and it takes away from what makes him look real.

E.T. anyone? ick.

 

[radionate]

Re: Re: New Article

Originally posted by Manda:-D
This has been bugging me all day. It's from the Julia Weiderger (sp?) article.

Is that true? I don't EVER remember hearing about that.

Odds are, in some capacity, it is.

Eisner has been around Hollywood for years and years and years. He was at Paramount and ABC too I believe.

 

[Luke]

Originally posted by danielromens
but let's face it, the Henson company can't exist in the long run with puppets alone.

Yeah but if the people who are going to be behind the Muppets don't want the Henson Company to exist as anything but 'Muppets' then it's exactly the strategy they are going to take.

We have yet another article where it states Disney are only interested in 'The Muppets' and ideally don't want to buy the Henson Company - this is the word on the industry grapevine too. It all adds up, i've said a few times that 70 million is too cheap for the entire company and we have Eisner saying 100-200 million is pretty much out of the question. This is probably why Disney stepped away from earlier negotiations for JHC and EMTV have been having problems offloading the whole company, they want to sell it all but can't so Disney have come back to a desperate strapped for cash EMTV and are holding in their with a cheap offer for just The Muppets.

In some ways i think it makes a lot of sense - is EMTV going to cave in and offer the whole company for 70 million ? Heck no ! is Disney going to cave in and pay more money ? I doubt it or they would have done in the first place. Can EMTV make money by holding onto the Henson Company without owning the Muppets ? I think so and this is whats been going on in some scale for a while. If you look at what EMTV originally said about wanting to be stronger in Childrens TV within Europe, and then look at what Henson have been doing in the UK - developing 'JHTE' into a strong and succesful childrens TV production house with 'Hoobs', 'Construction Site' etc it looks like the start of something more longterm. Henson are making more stuff in Europe right now and are beginning to make more and more money out of Non-Muppet stuff and having lots of success with it, maybe even more than they are doing with the 'Muppets'. If EMTV sell off just The Muppets and they get 70 Million then they still regain a healthy production company worth a fair bit with strong UK shows in the library plus non-classic Muppet stuff like Fraggle, Bear and the non-Muppet movies to work with. The UK office is also a management office base for both EMTV and Henson UK so there's no real need to have a costly prescense in the USA at all. It's quite clever, i think they might have been thinking about a JHC without the Muppets for quite a while.

The problem is more what are Disney going to do with The Muppets though and what will they be like without the Jim Henson Company. If Disney put the kind of money and promotion they've done with 'Pooh' then i don't see it as being that terrible but if they just prostitute the brand and make as much money as they can out of the old shows and the merchandise without keeping the Muppets 'out there' and working as a brand in itself then we might just end up with cheap Disney kiddy-fodder.

 

[Super Scooter]

Originally posted by Fozzie Bear
What did you all think of Tigger and Piglet's movies?

Originally posted by radionate
I refuse to see them.

Along with Jungle Book 2, Return to Neverland, Cinderella 2, The Return of Jafar, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Actually, Nate, unlike the above list, The Tigger Movie (haven't seen Piglet's yet, but I'm gonna!) didn't do anything to ruin the other movies and productions. It may have even made the Winnie the Pooh series better. I don't mean to change your judgment of the Disney cheapquals, as I too am a hater of them, but this is far beyond any cheapquel. It's a nice story, typical Winne the Pooh, and doesn't ruin, change, or dumb-down (is it possible?) the first or any other production in the Winnie the Pooh series.

Now, if this had been about Return to Neverland, I'd have been backing you all the way. They totally ruined one of my favorite Disney movies when they made that!

 

[Chilly Down]

Oh, I'm totally with you on the CGI stuff, Dan. I have no problems with Henson doing many movies with new, computer-generated characters using the Performance Control System demonstrated at MuppetFest. That will get people's attention; it'll keep the puppeteers employed; and they might even one day top the (admittedly brilliant) Pixar movies because they have one thing Pixar doesn't: the live performance and improvisation aspect.

But when it comes to animation and sitcoms, there are others who already do that stuff better. If all funds in Valentine's company are diverted towards making a traditionally animated epic and putting the "Henson" name on it, I wouldn't particularly be interested. And I agree with whoever said that Kermit doesn't look as good in animation as he does in real life.

BTW, I'm also in favor of them using the PCS for traditional Muppet movies. Not to replace the puppets entirely, but to achieve effects and humorous expressions that wouldn't be possible otherwise. The demonstration at MF was hilarious.

 

[Chilly Down]

Oh, I forgot to mention:

I'm still not convinced that Disney is just buying the Muppets, not the Henson Company. These article writers have been wrong so many times before. Since no one writing the articles has ever seen a Muppet production recently, they probably think all there is to buy is the back catalog. In spite of all the suitors Henson has had over the years, the press is fixated with the "Kermit and Mickey" thing. Now it seems they have a fixation where they say "Disney's going to buy Henson? Oooh, they can sell a lot of videos and DVDs!" It never even occurs to them that the Muppets might actually put out some new product. Even the multitude of articles we've seen on this don't impress me; half of these article writers are probably copying from each other as another "source."

I'm not saying that Disney WON'T just buy the Muppets. I'm just saying that all these articles don't do anything to convince me.