Eleven Years Later: Disney buys Muppets and Bear

[Phillip]

Eleven years ago today February 17, 2004, Disney bought the rights to the Classic Muppet Show characters and Bear in the Big Blue House.

Look back on one of the biggest days ever in Muppet history and let us know how you think Disney is doing and what they can do better in the months and years to come. This is a great opportunity for us to look back on where the Muppets have been and where they are going.

Disney buys Jim Henson's Muppets and Bear
http://www.muppetcentral.com/news/2004/021704.shtml

Fans respond: Henson sells Muppets to Disney
http://forum.muppetcentral.com/showthread.php?t=12638

Henson employees receive e-mail about Disney deal
http://www.muppetcentral.com/news/2004/021804.shtml

A New Era: Disney's Muppets
http://www.muppetcentral.com/articles/editorials/disneys_muppets.shtml

Coming to Terms with Life after Jim
http://www.muppetcentral.com/articles/editorials/disneys_muppets2.shtml

Trapped in the Magic Kingdom
http://www.muppetcentral.com/articles/editorials/disneys_muppets3.shtml

 

[minor muppetz]

I read the last few of these articles again today, and it was great to read them again (one of them I think I previously only read once, but remembered quite a bit).

There's a number of interesting things about these articles, making things hilarious in hindsight.The articles showed concern over what would happen to Fraggle Rock and other Muppet properties retained by Henson, yet since then there has been more focus on Fraggle Rock, that series beat TMS to having every episode on DVD, there has been new appearances by the Fraggles, and The Jim Henson Company has put out a lot more of it's pre-2004 content than Disney has with the Muppets (of course, at the time there was no YouTube, and nobody thought companies would put a lot of clips online, or that shows would officially be streamed online or downloaded digitally).

One of those articles asked what would happen if Jerry Nelson retired... And then his semi-retirement was announced later that year.

There was concern about whether the same performers would be the characters, but for the most part that hasn't been an issue. Aside from the brief period where Disney had alternate performers for the characters, and the other brief period when Artie E. was performing Kermit. There was concern of whether the same Muppet and Sesame Street performers would be able to balance between the franchises. At the time, the only performers really involved with both were Steve Whitmire (who after a few years spent less time on Sesame Street), Eric Jacobson, and to a certain extent Jerry Nelson. But then a few years later Matt Vogel and David Rudman, neither of whom had any of their own characters in the Muppets family of characters (and while Rudman had performed a lot in the 1980s and early 1990s, by 2004 he had pretty much been limited to Sesame Street), have taken over many characters, while remaining major performers on Sesame Street.

There was one article where it said if Kermit appeared in new material in season 35 of Sesame Street to be thankful because he probably wouldn't appear on the show again. While he didn't appear in new material that year, he would go on to make a cameo in season 40. I'm not sure whether that part of the article was concerned about whether any of Kermit's classic Sesame Street appearances would return, but a lot of Sesame Workshop-owned Kermit material has surfaced since (even if Kermit's only presence in new episodes have been via Do De Rubber Duck, Ev'rybody Be Yo'Self, and Elmo's World: Frogs).

There was concern over whether Disney would cancel Palisades and Sababa's licenses for Muppet toys, but Disney didn't, Disney just let the licenses run out. There was one article around 2005 where it was said that Disney wasn't too proud of most of the Muppet merchandise that was being made but didn't cancel any contracts and just decided to let those continue until the contracts were over (this is in contrast to something Jim Hill once wrote about the planned 1990 sale, where he claimed that The Jim Henson Company had to cancel all merchandising deals before that deal with Disney could be finalized). It was mentioned that there'd definately be a lot of new Muppet merchandise.... And while there has been a lot, I'm not exactly sure if it's been bigger than the 2002-2004 period of Muppet merchandise (I'm sure it hasn't been bigger than the amount of merchandise made between 1976 and 2004). And since then, it seems like there's been a lot more collectors-market Muppet merchandise, much of which has been hard to find in actual stores.

 

[dwayne1115]

Well I would not say that the last 11 years have been bad for the Muppets. We did get two new movies, and they have been doing other stuff as well.
I think one thing that is interesting is I read the E-mail Brian and Lisa Henson sent out to all of JHC. I think they where kind of miss lead as to what all Disney was going to do with the Muppets. I think that they thought that Disney was going to flood the store shelf's with new merchandise, and sadly they really have not done that. So I don't know I think it was an OK 11 years, but I would love to see some kind of improvement in the merch dept.

 

[Drtooth]

11 years since Disney has owned the Muppets. Or as I like to call it, less time that it took for JHC to not complete and release Power of the Dark Crystal. Let's never forget that. Disney managed to get out two movies. Only movie Henson was able to get out was Alexander and the Very Bad Day, and only because they were producers when it was at Fox. Unless you count those lousy CGI DTV Shrek wannabees.

Sure, it's disappointing we only had one TV special and 2 movies with other specials and TV projects in the same development purgatory they'd be at Henson, but think of this.

A DTV Muppet project helmed by the Weinstein bros that would have made MWO look like a timeless, coherent, not seizure inducing masterpiece. All with them playing second to F-list celebrities.

Admit it. That's a chilling reality. No matter how much Geewunner crap you can fling at TM and MMW.

But yeah. I wish Disney would give the Muppets the same amount of love as a standard Pixar movie. And sure, the merchandising level is thinner than we'd want. But it's not like they're completely devoid of a merchandising presence. Not in the same way Fraggle Rock can only get by on high end garbage no one can afford and that interests no one. I'm disappointed we didn't have a swath of bean bag versions of characters like Monsters U had. I mean, they had the most obscure characters in the background of the movie as merchandising there. You mean to tell us we couldn't see a Scooter? But, frankly, Disney Store's Big Hero Six merchandise was all the same Ban-Dai toyline you could find anywhere, 3 large plushes (both versions of Baymax and a Fred), and a figure set. Being a huge fan of that movie, I was disappointed to say the least. And the Wreck-it Ralph merchandise imploded with too much focus on the Sugar Rush racers. All the other stuff sold solidly, they hung around, the line was cleared the heck out. I'm going on a tangent here, but...

there are things that Disney cares less about. That's any TV animation of any kind. And that now includes Phineas and Ferb, which gets a shocking cold shoulder after years of love. Sure, there's supposedly another Darkwing Duck series of comics coming out soon, but it's little beyond that. There's a lot of 20 year olds that grew up with TDA characters, and you'd think that would be a lock for making some nostalgia bucks. But noooooo. Capcom and WayForward put more care into Ducktales with one game than they did.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I wish Disney would give the Muppets the same amount of love as a standard Pixar movie.

I think Disney is probably (and understandably) confused about branding at this point. The Muppet Show and the original movies weren't kiddie properties of the Pixar ilk.

 

[dwayne1115]

I'm sure it must be a challenge to figure out how to brand the Muppets so that the old school fans, and the newer fans will both enjoy what they put out.

One thing that Disney's Muppets had going for them was there internet presences. There videos where very well made and very well received by both fans and critics, but sadly that has become a thing of the past.

 

[Muppet Master]

So we have gotten two movies, two TV movies, many web videos, TMS season sets, and Blu-Ray releases of all the movies, not bad, but there is so much more that was planned, and never happened, at least we have some things.

 

[dwayne1115]

So we have gotten two movies, two TV movies, many web videos, TMS season sets, and Blu-Ray releases of all the movies, not bad, but there is so much more that was planned, and never happened, at least we have some things.

Well like I said it has been OK, but could be better. We really should have the last two seasons of the Muppet Show on DVD by now!

 

[D'Snowth]

I think they where kind of miss lead as to what all Disney was going to do with the Muppets. I think that they thought that Disney was going to flood the store shelf's with new merchandise, and sadly they really have not done that.

That's the way it usually is when a smaller entertainment franchise is sold to or bought out by a bigger media conglomorate. A similar thing happened when Bagdasarian Productions sold the Alvin and The Chipmunks franchise to Universal Studios back in the 90s, as they promised Bagdasarian Productions to make the Chipmunks bigger in the 90s and 2000s than they were in the 80s and 90s, including new cartoons, specials, movies, albums, merchandise, and a theme park, among other things. All Universal put out were two monster-themed movies on VHS in 1999 and 2000, and that's it. Luckily, Bagdasarian Productions sued Universal for breach of contract and got the franchise back, which is why they've been putting out those CGI/live action movies and other things lately, as well as a new animated series that's premiering next month (in all but North America).

It's true that Disney has shelved a lot of projects that they've promised, ranging from new shows to holiday specials, and other things. I think the 2011 movie was enough to convince them that there's a market for the Muppets, but I'm still not so sure that they think they're hot enough to warrant much more.

I will say I'm satisfied that Disney has finally done more with the Muppets than they have between 2004 and 2008, but as I've said before, I still don't appreciate how they've been pretty much erasing Jim's name from everything. I was really upset with the movies how they put in the credits "Based on characters and property owned by Disney." I found that to be really disrespectful; they could have at least shown some consideration and have instead, "Based on characters developed by Jim Henson."

 

[dwayne1115]

That's the way it usually is when a smaller entertainment franchise is sold to or bought out by a bigger media conglomorate. A similar thing happened when Bagdasarian Productions sold the Alvin and The Chipmunks franchise to Universal Studios back in the 90s, as they promised Bagdasarian Productions to make the Chipmunks bigger in the 90s and 2000s than they were in the 80s and 90s, including new cartoons, specials, movies, albums, merchandise, and a theme park, among other things. All Universal put out were two monster-themed movies on VHS in 1999 and 2000, and that's it. Luckily, Bagdasarian Productions sued Universal for breach of contract and got the franchise back, which is why they've been putting out those CGI/live action movies and other things lately, as well as a new animated series that's premiering next month (in all but North America).

It's true that Disney has shelved a lot of projects that they've promised, ranging from new shows to holiday specials, and other things. I think the 2011 movie was enough to convince them that there's a market for the Muppets, but I'm still not so sure that they think they're hot enough to warrant much more.

I will say I'm satisfied that Disney has finally done more with the Muppets than they have between 2004 and 2008, but as I've said before, I still don't appreciate how they've been pretty much erasing Jim's name from everything. I was really upset with the movies how they put in the credits "Based on characters and property owned by Disney." I found that to be really disrespectful; they could have at least shown some consideration and have instead, "Based on characters developed by Jim Henson."

I agree with you on the part of erasing Jim, but I think I read somewhere where Disney has to pay every time they use Jim Henson's name. Which I personally think is sad.