Henson sells Muppets to Disney

[BoyRaisin2]

And Mark, Jim Henson was a rich (or richer) S.O.B. too, and he was selling to Disney for way more money than what his kids are getting. Does that make him a greedy man as well? No. Not everyone who has money or makes a business deal you don't like is a horrible person.

Also, the Henson family did sell to EM.TV for $680 million. Why I certainly did not agree with that decision, Henson IS a corporate entity and not a group of hippies talking about the Rainbow Connection all day. They are going to need to make some tough business decisions in order to stay afloat and maximize the profitability of the company and ensure that the "Muppet" brand stays alive and not just depending on appearances on "Hollywood Squares." I am sure that Brian and Co. are decent people who care about their father and their father's company (which they are keeping), but they are also serious businesspeople who need to do what they think is best for the company.

And Kermit hasn't been on Sesame Street in maybe 3 years, which is just as well 'cause I want the "Muppets" franchise to be jumpstarted again. There are better things the Muppets can do right now than Muppet/Sesame/Fraggle "crossovers" that haven't happened in many years anyway.

And by the way, if some person is too stupid to not know the difference between Pluto and Goofy, that's THAT person's fault, not Michael Eisner's or Disney's.

And the signature says...

 

[dmx10101]

Wow, we got some heated debating going on here.

 

[Mark Filton]

Raisin, if you call Jim Henson a SOB then you are no fan of goodness

We can disagree all day, but insulting Jim is too much. And I am GLAD he was RICH because he DESEREVED IT. I like rich people who are good.

The quote from JOAN GANZ COONEY is a true quote. You can specualte all you want, but I will side with a friend of Jim's.

It would have been DIFFERENT is Jim had been there while the sale was going on, because obviously the Muppet quality goes down after he passed on.

You say they are "keeping" the Henson company. HA! The company no longer has Kermit. It is now just a crummy production company. When Dark Crystal hit 20 years they didn't re-release it, and they have no plans for a sequel. Maybe they will start again with that "second-hand" Star Trek called Farscape.

Yeah, maybe the new logo for the Henson company will be Jim's signature next to some STUPID ALIEN HEAD that Jim never did and that some goof in Los Angeles dreamed up one day after watching Deep Space Nine episodes

"Tough business decisions?" They had 14 years to make some decisions, and this is what they have finally done: FAILED.

After you screw up a million times, you lose what you have. One screwup after another from the Henson kids.

Maybe some of you enjoy garbage like Lion King 1.5. Well, I like Finding Nemo better. Heck, give them to NBC for 5 years and find out what happens. Give them to SONY...anybody big...but sell them out for dirty Disney? Disney wants to put them on the shelf-dead and stuffed. They are just a notch in the belt for Disney.

DISNEY WILL NEVER promote the Muppets as hard as possible. WHY? Because why would they want Kermit to be bigger than Mickey? That means Muppets will ALWAYS be small potatoes for Disney. They are building the MOUSE legend, not the FROG.

"Tough business decisions?" How about some tough SOUL decisions?

14 years ago we had Jim and he was dealing with Disney. EVERYBODY STOP saying it is the same thing now, and that this is what Jim wanted because it is NOT TRUE.

Jim had BIG power. If Disney started to mess around, the VOICE of Kermit could cause big trouble in the press. Who cares what Steve Whitmire would say today? Disney would just hire another guy. Situation is totally different now. AM I WRONG?

Jim has passed on, and Disney is a stupid mess run by creeps. Disney FAMILY members hate the Disney company----WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU WANT?

I could say "I hope you are reading this, Brian," but who am I kidding? If the Henson kids read any of this, they would do things different..if they CARED, that is

 

[BoyRaisin2]

OK, Jim was not an SOB, but you know the term.

Secondly, I know the Joan Ganz Cooney quote. It's been in an article here on MC for years. I'm sure Jim had his reservations, and the 1989/90 deal did have its drawbacks I'm sure. It does not mean he was backing out on the deal and it was headed for a standstill.

As for the Henson family's business decisions, I didn't say they were all good. Sony, ABC, EM.TV, yes they were all disasters. And I would have preferred the Hensons selling JHC to Disney as opposed selling the franchise that identifies the company, the Muppets. What the now-Muppetless Henson Co. does now, I don't know. And unless they release Fraggle Rock DVDs, who knows if I'll care really.

All I'm saying is that just because the family sold the Muppets to Disney, it doesn't mean they're greedy, snobby people. I don't know how they got to their final decision, but hopefully that will be found out. (Doubt it.)

And yeah, within the Disney company, Mickey would have a bigger profile than Kermit. You know, being MICKEY MOUSE. It doesn't mean that the Muppets aren't going to be used and they won't get any good promotion with whatever project or projects Disney wants to use the characters for. They are not spending $60-100 million on these properties just to let them sit there.

We do not know how it's going to go, nor would we have known how the 1990 merger would have went, but you know...eh, keep believing, keep pretending and all that mess. I don't know.

 

[Luke]

Jim had BIG power. If Disney started to mess around, the VOICE of Kermit could cause big trouble in the press.

Actually Jim was being messed around by the Disney execs just as much as anyone is nowadays during those negotiations. He was AFAIK still intending to go through with the sale. He was more interested in the characters being able to live on through Disney's massive staying power than any little internal problems within the company.

As for Mickey always being the figurehead, very true. Mickey is just a character though, The Muppets are a franchise - and Henson are pretty much going to be running it anyway for 3 years. I don't actually expect things to be massively different for now. Things will be better in many ways, if there is bad to come that will be after this initial 3 year period because you can imagine while they are hot at first they will get used a lot less after this has worn off. They don't seem to be promoting Mickey over Pooh, i think they'd rather have three strong characters out there as recognisable Disney spokesmouse/bear/frogs than just the one.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

I believe the `89 Disney deal actually fell apart mostly over money. After Jim died Disney drastically lowered it's offer for the company (which was originally about $300 million if memory serves) on the theory that the original deal had included not just the Muppets but also acquiring Jim Henson's creative services. With Jim gone Disney was getting much less than they originally wanted. Complicating this was the fact that the Henson family was reportedly hit with a large tax bill because they inherited the company. Disney also began merchandising the Muppets before they had a final agreement settled. Henson sued Disney over it and Disney settled the lawsuit just before it went to trial (apparently they didn't like the idea of headlines about Mickey Mouse ripping off Kermit the Frog).

 

[BoyRaisin2]

After Jim died Disney drastically lowered it's offer for the company (which was originally about $300 million if memory serves).

Financial terms were not disclosed, but the press always says $150 million.

 

[Luke]

It was $150 million, reduced to about $100 million i think. It's correct that this did not include Jim's creative services.

 

[BoyRaisin2]

Because Your 100 % Right, IT'S HENSON'S MUPPETS NOT DISNEYS !!! And I don't Want To See Disney Puting there name all over The Muppets ! Because That Would Be Just Plan SICK !

Agreed. If they actually bought the Henson Co., they would technically still be branded "Jim Henson's Muppets," for the Muppet characters would still be under the Jim Henson unit of Disney. But since they're buying the characters, they would have every right to brand them as "Disney's Muppets." Which would not be RIGHT at all.

Hopefully Disney and Henson have discussed, or are discussing, that prospect.

 

[Mark Filton]

Hey no offense to anybody I am just upset

With the passage of time, Disney wants you to think of THEM and their MOUSE. It's the DISNEY company for crying out loud.

Do they remind you all day of the guy who died of AIDS who wrote all those great songs for Disney? No. They feel "he got paid, that's the end of it."

If it was another company, then they would want the Muppets to be the best of the best.

With Disney it will always be "Yeah, we'll make a buck out of the Muppets, but......"

In all ways, Kermit will always be second fiddle. Like a loser on the sidelines.