Is Henson being sold?

[frogboy4]

Henson is owned by a company that is in financial trouble and Henson Co hasn't had many successful projects for a while. It has been public knowledge for a while now. Disney would likely milk a lot of money out of the Muppets and get them over their latest hurdle, but I (and many others) believe that it will be at the overall expense of the Muppets by turning the enterprise into cheap children's entertainment. With the new Fox series, I think Henson is trying to stay away from that and keep the characters on the more adult end of the spectrum.

 

[sidcrowe]

I'd rather have greasepit McDonald's own them than Disney.

Maybe they'd stay outta their way and we'd get more toys...

...and fatter

 

[frogboy4]

I think the MCC DVD's cropped release sums up Disney's judgement on the Muppets.

 

[Foreignman]

I think every member form this forum, and all genuine Muppet fans, should pitch in 4 million dollars each to buy the Muppets. Then it would then be owned by us, the fans. If we wanted the Muppet Movies on widescreen, too, we could just make it so! Whose with me?!?!?

 

[frogboy4]

Own the Muppets? I call Pepe!

 

[Luke]

Jamie

Jamie :- Have you switched opinions on this ? I thought you were pro Disney/Henson around about the time this forum started ? Jeez - release a DVD in full screen and the full wrath of the frogboy is released !!!! ;-)

All :- I am very much pro-Disney - i think it's a little wrong to use how the company has produced a single DVD as to how they would treat the Muppets if they owned them. The decisions on DVD's are made for reasons (even if they are wrong) and by very different people. In thinking whether you are pro or anti Disney owning the Henson company i think you have to be mature about it and rather than just go with what you want, look at it from a different (maybe business level) and think about whether what Disney can give to the Henson company would be the best thing for them. People have been saying how the muppets need more exposure, better deals, better promotion, a large 'brand' behind them, lots of finance, access to studio and TV sets and facilites, stores and merchandising deals on a high street scale. All these things Henson don't have as much as they'd like off right now but if Disney owned them, they would have it by the bucketload.

You need to weigh up whether losing a small part of their independance and business control (while retaining the brand, puppeteers and tradition) is worth giving up when you are getting so much back in return. The few things Henson would give up, they aren't actually doing very well at on their own and they seem to need help (like getting indpendant producers in to do the Fox show) so i actually think that to the everyday muppet fan, a Disney owned Henson would be visibly better (ie :- more shows & merchandise) but i do understand that the Henson company and more hardcore fans might feel otherwise. The thing is, if it isn't Disney (and its extremely unlikely now to be Henson themselves) then it's just gonna be some other U.S or European mega corp and they might not be as friendly as EMTV have been when the latest project doesn't make enough money.

 

[frogboy4]

I have always been wary of Disney. This problem with the DVD highlights a larger-scale problem with the company. If they had done any research on the Muppet series at all (and I believe it is crucial to do so) they would have discovered that the other releases contain widescreen versions.

They are obviously going with the kiddie market here instead of the typical Muppet fan. I see this sloppy and cheap treatment of the Muppets as a symptom of a larger problem if they buy Henson. I understand and do see the pros of a Disney buy-out, but this latest thoughtless decision has brought me back to the other side of the argument. I just wish they had more respect for the Muppets. They still do not understand the Muppet market or don’t care.

How could they? They don’t even care enough about their beloved classic films. They keep releasing sequels to animated films while critics slice them apart and audiences roll their eyes or stay home. The Disney label has really been cheapened in the last decade. The only reason they release these disposable sequels is because they make quick cash from parents of very young kids. Smart in the short-term, but at what expense?

I feel the four-fingered bloated white glove is too constricting for Kermit’s flipper.

 

[sidcrowe]

To Frogboy

Great analysis.

"Sloppy" and "cheap" is the truth.

I mean, they have THE films there, and when they're deciding how to package it, WHY omit
a widescreen option? What would it have taken? A few hours' of rendering time on a supercomputer
to do it?

There is no widescreen option, because "widescreen" is typically intended for work that is important, and the Disney
people simply DO NOT feel that Jim's work is important.

Merely including a small line of text on the box that says "widescreen option," would--to them--seem laughable.

Who needs a "widescreen" option on a **** Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen video? It'd be ridiculous!

Sadly, by its omission, Disney is clearly demonstrating what little real respect they have for Henson.

To have the Henson legacy cut, edited, chopped up and presented as forgettable kid vid fodder would be worse than
the whole company failing. At least we fans would always respect it.

And that's all that matters.

 

[sidcrowe]

Everybody---my iMac

Yeah, my text is a mess.

Sorry, my iMac won't display the entire submission field as it did for Delphi.

Darn. It looks a little messed up, but then so am I

-CAW!

Disney

 

[frogboy4]

That's kind of what I am thinking. Disney certainly doesn't stand for quality anymore (with the exception of Pixar, of course).