• Welcome to the Muppet Central Forum!
    You are viewing our forum as a guest. Join our free community to post topics and start private conversations. Please contact us if you need help.
  • Christmas Music
    Our 24th annual Christmas Music Merrython is underway on Muppet Central Radio. Listen to the best Muppet Christmas music of all-time through December 25.
  • Macy's Thanksgiving Parade
    Let us know your thoughts on the Sesame Street appearance at the annual Macy's Parade.
  • Jim Henson Idea Man
    Remember the life. Honor the legacy. Inspire your soul. The new Jim Henson documentary "Idea Man" is now streaming exclusively on Disney+.
  • Back to the Rock Season 2
    Fraggle Rock Back to the Rock Season 2 has premiered on AppleTV+. Watch the anticipated new season and let us know your thoughts.
  • Bear arrives on Disney+
    The beloved series has been off the air for the past 15 years. Now all four seasons are finally available for a whole new generation.
  • Sam and Friends Book
    Read our review of the long-awaited book, "Sam and Friends - The Story of Jim Henson's First Television Show" by Muppet Historian Craig Shemin.

Hypothetical: The Muppets Are For Sale

LittleJerry92

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
15,713
Reaction score
7,717
Also, *puts on John Goodman voice* AM I THE ONLY ONE AROUND HERE WHO DIDN'T MIND THE CHIPMUNK MOVIES?!

Okay, well, the first two. Chipwrecked was ehhhh.

(Also, the Big Leblewski for the win).
 
Last edited:

Teheheman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,430
Reaction score
203
I'm not so sure about that either.

Going back to the Chipmunks franchise, those live action/CGI movies have been produced by Twentieth Century Fox, and have given Bagdasarian Productions very, very little creative input, hence why the characters sound and act very differently from the rest of the franchise's titles (like the recent Nick show). Granted, there wouldn't be any secondary company involved, so Twentieth Century Fox could call all the shots they want - including probably bringing in celebrities to dub the characters' voices so the movie will sell better with more recognizable names.
I dunno about that because the Muppets are so recognizable anyways that dubbing their voices with "more recognizable names seems pointless. They're already recognizable. You can't put another voice as Kermit because more people know who that person is. Besides, the Muppets movies and TV shows have always been able to get recognizable names anyways. You don't need to dub Ray Romano as Rowlf because he's Ray Romano.

Daniel
 

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
38,849
Reaction score
12,814
I dunno about that because the Muppets are so recognizable anyways that dubbing their voices with "more recognizable names seems pointless. They're already recognizable. You can't put another voice as Kermit because more people know who that person is. Besides, the Muppets movies and TV shows have always been able to get recognizable names anyways. You don't need to dub Ray Romano as Rowlf because he's Ray Romano.

Daniel
Yeah, the characters are recognizable, but the people performing them aren't, which is what my point was. This is why Twentieth Century Fox brought in bigger-named celebrities to voice the Chipmunks in those movies because, so they'd market better.
 

mr3urious

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
3,905
Reaction score
1,408
Yeah, the characters are recognizable, but the people performing them aren't, which is what my point was. This is why Twentieth Century Fox brought in bigger-named celebrities to voice the Chipmunks in those movies because, so they'd market better.
And it's an utterly pointless anyway as their voices become unrecognizable when pitched up. Just a waste of money all around.

Then again, Fox didn't learn their lesson 6 years earlier getting John Turturro to voice the title character in the beautiful-looking but utterly forgettable Henry Selick film Monkeybone, whose voice is also pitched up.
 
Last edited:

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
38,849
Reaction score
12,814
Totally makes sense from your standpoint, but not theirs, because again, they need a draw, and recognizable names like Justin Long are going to bring people to the theaters over an unknown name like Ross Bagdasarian. This is also why they brought in Jason Lee to play Dave: his career was really booming at that point, what with MY NAME IS EARL and stuff . . . even though not only was he horribly miscast, you can tell he isn't even enjoying making those movies anyway.
 

Pig'sSaysAdios

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,418
Reaction score
4,644
I definitely think Warner Bros would be the best option, but i'm also kind of mixed on it. I mean, if Warner bought them at least we'd know there would probably be more merchandise; just look at their Funko figures for extremely obscure Hanna Barbera characters like Ricochet Rabbit. And they're probably not as likely to change the Muppets out with CGI or give them celebrity voices. However, in terms of actual productions it's a much more mixed bag. Most DC movies have been poorly received, and when was the last time they cared to promote a Looney Tunes or Scooby Doo show?
 

LittleJerry92

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
15,713
Reaction score
7,717
Yeah, Warner movies nowadays haven't been all that great with a few good ones here and there.

I dunno, I just hope they don't force the Muppets into some like cheesey predictable drama series god forbid they DO buy them....
 
Top