Mark Filton said:
Disney exhalts the MOUSE on top, and FROG on the bottom.
They're DISNEY. Mickey Mouse is THEIR character for God's sake. He's the icon. We know! Does not mean the Muppets won't get their exposure, which is the POINT of this deal. It's not a popularity contest between Mickey Mouse and Kermit the Frog, both characters Disney will own 100%. So there is no need for the Muppets to look down-trodden and sing "Saying Goodbye" in front of the Chaplin lot, 'cause they're not dying.
And besides, they don't even OWN the Muppets yet, and they only announced the frickin' deal 13 days ago.
And the horrible things Disney has done with the Muppets, MCC and MTI were hits (unlike MFS) and the videos were doing good as well.
As for the Henson family's business decisions, well, the highly lucrative ABC deal fell flat and the Sony movie deal was a disaster. Yet the video line went very well. And the idea for the EM.TV deal was so that this fast-growing German kids' company could finance future Henson projects, at a time when Henson was at a crossroads. But since EM.TV put a gun to its fat, corrupt head, things never came to pass.
And you say any other company besides Disney would trwat the Muppets like royalty. Well, has Time Warner mass-marketed the Hanna-Barbera characters? No, there's Scooby-Doo and Flintstones cereal commercials and crude (but sometimes entertaining) stuff for Adult Swim and that's IT. I mean they don't even call it Hanna-Barbera anymore, it's called Cartoon Network Studios. On the other hand, there is Boomerang, which airs classic H-B and other programming 24 hours a day.
And you mentioned the guy with AIDS earlier. I ASSUME you're talking about Howard Ashman and how Disney "never" recognizes him. Um, is Henson constantly talking about Joe Raposo and Jeff Moss and Don Sahlin every day? No, and I don't expect them too. If it's the right format, like a TV special or a book or another thing exploring their history, I'd like to see an acknowledgement.
I think Disney gets beat up on, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly, is because they make
more stuff than Henson. They have more clout and more ways to distribute and produce their product, and more chances to make mistakes and face criticism. While Henson, while I'm sure they care, need the money and financial backing to MAKE their product and entertain the world. And both the Muppets and Disney animation reached their creative peak years ago, yet they're still iconic and respected and have the potential to do more creative things. And I have no idea what drove Henson to make the final decision to actually SELL the Muppet characters to another company, which is surprising, but you know the gist of this arrangement is to put the Muppets back into the public eye with new projects and make a profit. The Henson family realized that this wouldn't happen if the Muppets were sold to some small rights-holder like Classic Media.
I've had my criticisms of course, but if you're going to hate the Henson family and their past (and present) decisions on the Muppets and call them a bunch of snotty rich kids (though they're adults) and you're going to hate Disney for decisions that haven't even been made, what's going to satisfy you? I would have rather seen the Muppets be in Henson hands, or see Henson sold off as a whole to Disney, but now the Muppets have the chance to not be just participators in game shows and run the risk of nostalgia.