Is Henson being sold?

[frogboy4]

Luke

I just wonder if anyone has gotten a reply from these Disney execs? They really don't care about anything but the bottom line. As a firm believer in capitalism, I certainly understand this to some extent, but hacked off the existing fans of a franchise is a poor idea. And I just don't get why they always fight an uphill battle trying to market things so strictly when it really just homogenizes the projects and makes them unappealing. This is one time I am grateful for critics and I hope the new cropped DVDs receive an embarrassing and scathing review. I really feel they need to take notice. This cropped decision (even beyond the Muppet releases) have really upset me. I really hope they get bit in the butt with this decision.

 

[sidcrowe]

Froggy and Luke

The cropped DVD is like the tip of an iceberg: not too much of a deal by itself, but nonetheless it gives some of us pause for worry.

I think all of us here feel, via one way or another, that the Muppets are special. The problem is that there is a great deal of profitable material out there such as Barney, the (who BUYS this stuff) Olsen Twins, etc, which is not at all special, and which merely fits the bill for "entertainment" and moves on into the scrap pile of worthless pop culture.

Does the same care that Jim Henson offered while performing Kermit in the desert as he questioned his whole life go into a clumsy, cloying performance of Barney? No.

How about the people handling the Olsen twins? Do they go the extra mile to bring us something brilliant? No.

It is unsettling, to say the least, that the stewardship of the Henson legacy–the Muppets–would be handled by people who don't care; by people who merely want to churn out enough product of a similar low quality just so that they can compete at the same rate.

People who make movies such as "Snow Dogs."

People who see ONE darn fine movie, The Bad News Bears, and then go ahead to remake it a ton of times with NO SHAME, over and over again.

The Mighty Ducks, 1, 2, and 3...and a terrible cartoon series

Angels in the Outfield

The Big Green

People who produce bloody awful sequels to great films that were never meant to have a sequel, made by people who had NOTHING to do with the original film.

Those are the folks who may very well have the Muppets. People who make garbage and put Walt Disney's name on it, and that's their OWN GUY!

And the garbage KEEPS COMING!

Owning the Muppets gives Disney a heretofore unmentioned advantage: the elimination of competition.

The WWF's Vince McMahon recently bought the WCW. For what? To develop the WCW's storylines and characters? To continue the tradition of WCW events? No.

He bought it to bury it and make himself a monopoly.

The Muppets NEED to find a home with a company that is full of FIRE to make them as BIG as they can be, and they simply WILL NOT find that with Disney.

In nature, amphibians devour rodents. Unfortunately for us true believers, in the business world the converse may prove to be true.

Bummer

 

[frogboy4]

Sid

I still see some up-sides to a buyout, but I do agree with your statements. It is inevitable that they will get the Muppets. I just hope that when/if they do, they will allow Henson more independance than they have shown so far. I can see a "Jim Henson Division" being a good selling point for stockholders, but I hope it will be more than a shell company.

 

[Bean Bunny]

Disney

Bean here again,

I have been reading of what you guys have been saying about Disney. True, over the past few years Disney has done some, how should I say this, okay stuff. Example: Snow Dogs, sequels, & lower Disney Imageering to spinner rides. With that said, Disney has also did some wonderful things such as Fantasia 2000, Tarzan, Tokyo Disneysea, and Walt Disney Treasues DVDs.

The Walt Disney Company is not the only ones who is making sequels, doing pan & scan, and other things. Example: AOL Time-Warner, who has overdone their exposure of Scooby Doo with airing like every hour on Cartoon Network and Kids WB as well as the upcoming feature film. Speaking of the live-action Scooby Doo, the film was supposely request by the marketing departmetn of Warner since they found that they would make a bucket lot of money on promotions and tie-ins. Don't count out the numerous direct to video sequels and the new "What New, Scooby DOO!" series debuting in the fall. Don't get me started on the remake of Willie Wonke and The Cholcate Factory and the live-action Jetson movie. Time Warner was quoted in reset artilce saying that they will francise all of their major properites including Scooby Doo, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Cats & Dogs, Flintstones, Powerpuff Girls, The Matrix, Conan, and others such as Aquaman. Yes, AOL-Time Warner are planning to develop a live-action Aquaman movie. Finally Time-Warner is current almost done with Baby Looney Tunes. Yes, Baby Looney Tunes, an animated planned for the 2003-2004 season on either Cartoon Network or Kids WB. Guess what, Granny is the nanny of the baby Looney Tunes.

 

[Muppets1985]

Well said!!! Thats what i was trying to get across for the past year!, Baby Looney Toons (Sick!) see Disney doesn't NEED all the blame, WB is just as bad as Disney (But in my opption WORSE!!!), Now a days just about EVERY company are makeing 2's and 3's NOT just Disney, and with the direct to video thing WB and Universal do it too ex: for WB all that Scooby Doo stuff on video & dvd and ex: for Universal with all of there Lad before Time's theres like what? 13 of them movies and theres 3 or 4 American Tales.

 

[frogboy4]

Bean Bunny

I see your point, but there a big difference between Disney's classic films and Scooby Doo. Though I enjoy classic Scooby, it was never a high quality project and wasn't a WB project to begin with. Making a cheap sequel to Beauty, Mermaid and Cinderella is a much bigger deal. WB has been scraping the bottom these days, but they are definitely taking their cue from the Mouse.

Baby Tunes! Eeeek! And I thought Tiny Toons ended up being in poor taste. And they're ripping off the idea from the Muppet Babies (which I never really enjoyed). WB has been on my bad side about Luney Toons since they releaed Space Jam. I found the film to be ridiculous and they didn't even have the respect to contact Chuck Jones for his input.

Other companies may follow suit in rehashing and disrespecting their classicsm but Disney is certainly king.

 

[Luke]

Jamie

I don't really agree - i think the whole rehashing of ideas is spread evenly right the way across the media including TV, Radio, Print & Film.

Just look at TV - they have got into the trend of making yearly events of these reality show - Big Brother 1,2,3 , Survivor 1,2,3 etc etc. Movies - basically anything successful from whatever company gets a sequel (or the more trendier prequel - even Henson has fallen into that gravy boat). It's the same with every other media and it's all for two reasons - the media industry is down financially right now, and the more important reason - there is a real lack of original ideas. I think that although Disney is a big player in this department, companies like 20th Century Fox and Warners probably lead the way.

I agree with Sid that the Muppets need an owner with fire in their belly and a wad of extra cash to boot BUT there simply isn't anyone out there who won't treat the company exactly like WB or Disney would. If a company spends multi-millions on Henson and it looks like their latest project is a turkey or they haven't put enough into promoting the brand then who can blame them for interfering ? Not me !!!!!! As i've said before, i see Disney as the 'next best thing' - we can only hope that they get an idea that part of what they are buying is the tradition and the creativity and do give Henson a degree of independance but the company is sick and does need help. I think Disney would care, otherwise why bother buying the company - it's not like it poses a serious threat like WCW and WWF.

 

[frogboy4]

I feel that your point is moot when comparing a sequel to Big Brother to a sequel on a Disney classic like Peter Pan or Cinderella. That makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

 

[Luke]

Well i was hoping you'd read between the lines on that one Jamie - i am saying that there is a lack of original ideas right the way across the board in media - everywhere, be it films, television etc etc.

I don't think Disney or any of the other companies are doing all this to be nasty or dumb - they don't have any new ideas and writing talent has gone down considerably over the years - obviously they all have production quotas to fill so they just drag out something that WAS successful and try to resurect that success. What else can they do ?

Also, if we are going to start comparing the treatment of things - they are treating Muppet Treasure Island far better than they are Peter Pan 2 or any of the other sequels so at least we can be thankful to that, and obviously the original MTI doesn't even begin to compare to the original Peter Pan.

 

[frogboy4]

Well what you were stating was going way off topic from anything I was saying. I feel that this is an entirely different discussion that I haven't commented on.

I do see your points, but I don't think that Muppet Treasure Island has or ever will get the fanfare and good treatment that the Peter Pan sequel received. The theatrical release of Muppet Treasure Island was barely promoted in this city when Peter Pan 2 ads saturated the airwaves, busses, billboards and film trailers. I see San Francisco as a good gage on this sort of thing because, like Manhattan, we are bombarded by advertisements (not that I'm complaining, I actually like that).

When the Little Mermaid 2 was released, there were posters up on every bus shelter in the city months ahead of time. I haven't even seen a flyer or report on MTI. Not that in the scheme of things there needs to be much promotion for it, but I was pointing out that maybe such advertising and promotion is different abroad because I don't know what you were talking about when you said the Disney Company has treated MTI better than films like Peter Pan 2.