OOF. Okay, I'm gonna apologize for the following even before I post it. I just re-read it and it is long and kinda grumpy. This isn't aimed at anybody (apart from creatively hobbled, money blinded suits who can't see past corporate media formulas), so PLEASE don't take any of it personally. It's just me venting. I do think it's valid, so I don't want to just delete it. Read and tell me your thoughts. K?
I guess I just have an issue with the idea of a "re-introduction". To me it implies that something has been forgotten. Believe me, the Muppets
haven't been forgotten. And one must, logically, have known about something BEFORE they could forget it. That doesn't apply to kids. If they don't know the Muppets, why do we assume they won't experience the same joy and laughter that WE did when WE first viewed their antics? Kids aren't dumb... kids know funny. Kids also know quality.
I am still of the opinion that a "re-introduction" that includes anything other than creating quality material for people to see and enjoy is a questionable use of time. Do you REALLY need to WARN people that it's coming? Are we that fragile? Is they THAT shockingly different that we need to acclimate the viewing public?
The Muppet's material is so crazily universal... do they really need to take time to fumble through introductions? Aren't they simply self-evident? And if you don't know what a particular character is about, if the material is written well, you WILL know as soon as they open their mouth!
Like THIS guy for example.
If the concern is that kids won't immediately latch on to these characters and return for more if they know more is coming, I think that a problem is being assigned where there is none.
Remember when Warner Studios did that toilet-bowl of a movie "Batman & Robin"? It tanked. No pun intended. After it failed miserably at the box office, all the "suits" at Warner Films threw their hands up in the air and declared that "The public just doesn't care about Batman movies any more!" (That's almost a direct quote... honestly) But their assumption couldn't have been further from the truth if they picked it up and pitched it out the window themselves.
What the public didn't care about was
BAD Batman movies.
The failure of "Batman & Robin" COULDN'T have been because it was a poor film, could it? I mean they greenlit it, didn't they? If they actually ADMIT that it did poorly because it was BAD, that would reflect poorly on their judgement as powerful movie industry suits! Can't have that. Must be that the public just doesn't care about Batman movies. Yeah...that's it. Not their fault at all. Their pensions remain secure.
So, "Batman Begins" did VERY well at the boxoffice and even better in DVD release and overseas. Because it (and this is sheer conjecture if you ask one of those self-same myopic suits to qualify it) was a
GOOD Batman movie. Imperical proof they were just covering their egotistical butts and trying to protect their overpriced salaries.
What's the point of this little allegory? Muppets Wizard Of Oz was a stinker. In effect, it bombed. And suddenly all the suits start closing up their notebooks and leaving the creative table. Why? Because its obvious that "the Muppets just aren't popular enough to carry the entertainment ball anymore".
Sound familiar?
Well, I'm not buying it.
The Muppets are as viable and vital a property TODAY as they were 18 years ago before Jim Henson left us. They're just not being handled well. And it's not like they flew off to the remains of the planet Krypton for seven years and passed from the collective conciousness of the world. (That's for all you folks who didn't like Superman Returns).
Surely, they aren't going to simply spring forth, unsupported, onto the media scene in full flower.
But they COULD. If they were given the fair shake they deserve. And tey wouldn't have to waste time on "re-introduction".
Okay, I gotta stop now. Please re-read the caveat at the top before cutting me off at the knees!
-Gordon