Heh, the last time I logged in was nearly 3 years ago, You last visited: 03-26-2007 at 04:11 AM and my last post was 4 years ago.
I have been lurking these boards for years, but rarely do I feel the need to contribute to the discussion on hand. In this sense, I find it peculiar that I recognize the personalities which populate this community because I am but a specter peering in. Being as that may, I decided I ought to contribute my thoughts on the decisions hitherto and pertaining to the production of the new Muppet movie.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am an aspiring scriptwriter and as such I have had the pleasure of taking a variety of classes at a couple of different institutions in the past. This has allowed me to build a dialogue with the folks who are currently active in the industry and has helped me learn a lot about how it all works thus I feel, along with my own experience with the creative process, I can add a unique and interesting voice to this ongoing discussion of “who is right for the Muppets.”
Anyone in Hollywood will tell you that it all comes down to the pitch. While reputation and accolades certainly help, getting a gig boils down to wowing the men and women who hold the purse-strings. The pitch is considered the gold standard because it is the core philosophies which guide a project that will ultimately shape whether it turns out to be good or bad. Schumacher’s Batman films are a good example of this because Schumacher’s retinue of work before Batman was macabre and socially probing. Quite a few would be quick to point the finger at Warner Brothers as the reason why Schumacher’s Batman turned out to be an irreverent romp, but the truth is that Schumacher was making a Batman that harkened back to the whimsical 60-70s silver-age comics and it simply did not work. In this respect, we must always keep in mind that it is the pitch these creative forces bring to the table that is most important.
The second thing to keep in mind is that the bigger the name the bigger the ego and more importantly, the more distinct his or her style is. An interesting phenomenon that occurs with established franchises is that creative folks who aren’t particularly well known make better established franchise movies than the big A-listers do. An example of this is Martin Campbell’s “Casino Royale” vs. Marc Forster’s “Quantum of Solace.” Marc Forster made many critically acclaimed movies before he touched “Quantum of Solace”. Campbell’s career, on the other hand, has accumulated in a string of B-Movie action films. Why is it that the lesser film-maker makes better established franchise films than the critically lauded one? Established film franchises have rules and formulas that must be adhered to if one’s going to make a film that audiences like. Established film-makers find it very hard to stay within those lines, while still having their distinct voice heard so for this reason, having a smaller name attached to the new Muppet movie is not a bad thing.
My last point relates to the reason that I love the Muppets. I love the Muppets because of the performers and characters themselves. There is a certain energy and realism I think that we all connect to when we watch the Muppets, which we do not find in other films. In “A Muppet Movie”, we empathize with Kermit in the dessert because of our rare connection to each of the characters. I can only hope the creative team (writer/director) realizes that they are not the stars, but the performers are. The creative team is here to provide a context for the Muppet performers to do what they do so well, which is to entertain and move us.
Welcome to the Muppet Central Forum!
Jim Henson Idea Man
Back to the Rock Season 2
Bear arrives on Disney+
Sam and Friends Book
