Muppets Most Wanted: What went wrong?

[D'Snowth]

And why bother paying to see the film in theaters when you can wait a year and see it on Netflix?

Because going to the movies is a communal experience that people enjoy, and secondly, you don't have to register a membership and be forced to use it when you don't feel like it.

 

[dwayne1115]

Well I was going to say that the likeableness of the human characteres was one of the movies down falls. However everyone is saying such nice things about the movie it makes me want to rethink that. In fact I'm suprised that not one comment in this thread has anything negitive about the Movie itself. Which I think is great considering how much negativity has been shared over the last few Muppet projects from2000 to 2014.

 

[jvcarroll]

Well I was going to say that the likeableness of the human characteres was one of the movies down falls. However everyone is saying such nice things about the movie it makes me want to rethink that. In fact I'm suprised that not one comment in this thread has anything negitive about the Movie itself. Which I think is great considering how much negativity has been shared over the last few Muppet projects from2000 to 2014.

Tina Fey and Ty Burrell have extremely likable personas in and outside the film. The wildcard is probably Ricky Gervais and he was wonderful in the film. He was also outstanding during the film's promotion.The joy he felt for the Muppets and the pride he had in the project was clearly evident. His enthusiasm and energy never waned. So I don't see why the human characters would be unpopular unless some folk held a personal prejudice against Gervais. Charles Grodin was also known to be an edgy personality and that didn't hurt Caper. People can be mean, but I don't think that was the case here.

Bad timing, moviegoer complacency, a deficiency of young fans and just plain bad luck seem to be the reasons why this film, the best theatrical Muppet movie since they took Manhattan 30 years prior, didn't fare well at the box office.

 

[Eyeball]

A 2 and a half year wait for a sequel is nothing. That's a standard. I don't see how rushing out a movie to get out a year after the first one would have done any good either. Something tells me that if Mr. Peabody and Sherman and MMW switched dates, MMW would have been the barely modest money maker and P&S would have flopped. It was bad timing, but March he past year for that dumb Wizard of Oz movie and The Croods, but it didn't translate this year either. But here's the thing...none of the movies in March were that successful domestically. Need for Speed made back its budget overseas and it frankly did worse than MMW and disappeared the second it hit its second week.

But more over, Muppet films do business on home video. And with the home video market dwindling no thanks to streaming, less people are buying DVD's, especially if they shove all the special features on Blu-Ray and still charge 20 bucks for a bare bones disk. Way to scare everyone down to Redbox.

But I do agree they screwed the heck up with the international. Planes 2 was a freaking flop in the US, but because it was released in more markets. it made back barely double its cheap budget, and if MMW was released in more areas, it probably would have made that as well. And guess what Disney still shoves in everyone's faces like they think the public at large actually likes it? Planes! And their unsellable, deep discount clearance merchandise.

Granted a rushed sequel may not of done too many favours quality wise but at least the project would of been fresh in peoples minds thus making more people want to see it.nyour right about planes though and how disney seemed to shove endless adverts and promos about this whilst what can only be described as ignoring the MMW marketing campaign, somthing tells me their hearts weren't fully behind MMW.

 

[Drtooth]

Tina Fey and Ty Burrell have extremely likable personas in and outside the film. The wildcard is probably Ricky Gervais and he was wonderful in the film. He was also outstanding during the film's promotion.The joy he felt for the Muppets and the pride he had in the project was clearly evident. His enthusiasm and energy never waned. So I don't see why the human characters would be unpopular unless some folk held a personal prejudice against Gervais. Charles Grodin was also known to be an edgy personality and that didn't hurt Caper. People can be mean, but I don't think that was the case here.

Ty Burrell pretty much matched the Muppets for me, and his play with Sam the Eagle was one of the many bright spots in the movie, perfectly complimenting the Constantine and Ricky pairing. Tina was also quite good as well, as was Ricky. I have no problem at all with these humans. There have certainly been worse. Ashanti, Jim Hawkins... Rob Schneider. A Muppet film with Rob Schneider happened. His presence was small, sure... but ugh. Then again, even if the quality of the performances from the human cast members were actually bad, how would anyone know from not seeing the film?

I'd say there's a good chance that hipsters that were tired of Ricky and prudish religious types that find him filth were the only ones scared away by his presence. And it's a darn shame, since this was like his dream job. Both Ricky and Danny Trejo got their second chances after their cameos were cut last time in this film, and boy were they used.

Above all, with the exception of word of mouth, how can quality of a film discourage movie-goership if they don't see the movie itself. And I don't mean "gee, this looks stupid," how can you say if a movie is bad or disappointing without seeing it? And it's not like quality of a movie ever stopped a film from becoming a hit. Transformers films make billions (mostly due to the international market) and sell lots of toys (as is its want) and get horrible reviews. Meanwhile, it's not like Birdman's going to open in any national theater chain any time soon. And if it does, they'll put it in the crappiest room a theater has.

Because going to the movies is a communal experience that people enjoy, and secondly, you don't have to register a membership and be forced to use it when you don't feel like it.

Yeah, but 8 bucks a month of unlimited movie and TV show watching vs 10 bucks per person to sit in front of commercials for a single 90 minute movie... there's a reason the box office was down this year.

 

[CensoredAlso]

No secret that I was not a fan of MMW. But just because I didn't think it was a good movie, doesn't mean that's why it didn't do well.

The Muppets (2011) had an easy hook - we're getting the band back together! That's epic right there. And you had this hero figure in Jason Segel, who defied the initial indifference of Disney and championed the Muppets' return. That's inspiring right there.

Muppets Most Wanted's hook - a Russian Kermit imposter - it sounds like a 10th season plot line to an 80's sitcom. It could work with the right marketing, if they'd played to nostalgia like The Muppets (2011) did. I just think marketing had no idea how to make that seem as epic as "we're getting the band back together!" I agree with that TP article, the ads should have focused more on the wedding and Piggy potentially marrying the wrong frog.

Plus Segel, the hero figure is gone. In his place are two completely random writers that just feel like hired guns; the public didn't know or care about them. The public knew and cared about Jim Henson. And they knew and cared about Jason Segel. To make up for this, I guess they tried to put Ricky Gervais in the foreground, but he wasn't a creator with an inspiring story.

It would have been nice if the Muppet performers themselves were more known to the general public, and therefore more of a draw. But, let's be honest, not even Jim pushed most of them forward. Only the most die hard fans remembered their names. The general public knew Frank Oz because Miss Piggy and Star Wars were very popular. And nowadays, we have Disney, who think children will have a freak out if they see a puppeteer.

Plus, and I think most important, the reason the Muppets were able to do movies in the old days at all is because they had a popular TV show.

So, that's the best I can do at the moment. MMW just didn't have a hook. Though it's worth mentioning, clearly, the word of mouth wasn't too strong after it came out either.

 

[Eyeball]

No secret that I was not a fan of MMW. But just because I didn't think it was a good movie, doesn't mean that's why it didn't do well.

The Muppets (2011) had an easy hook - we're getting the band back together! That's epic right there. And you had this hero figure in Jason Segel, who defied the initial indifference of Disney and championed the Muppets' return. That's inspiring right there.

Muppets Most Wanted's hook - a Russian Kermit imposter - it sounds like a 10th season plot line to an 80's sitcom. It could work with the right marketing, if they'd played to nostalgia like The Muppets (2011) did. I just think marketing had no idea how to make that seem as epic as "we're getting the band back together!" I agree with that TP article, the ads should have focused more on the wedding and Piggy potentially marrying the wrong frog.

Plus Segel, the hero figure is gone. In his place are two completely random writers that just feel like hired guns; the public didn't know or care about them. The public knew and cared about Jim Henson. And they knew and cared about Jason Segel. To make up for this, I guess they tried to put Ricky Gervais in the foreground, but he wasn't a creator with an inspiring story.

It would have been nice if the Muppet performers themselves were more known to the general public, and therefore more of a draw. But, let's be honest, not even Jim pushed most of them forward. Only the most die hard fans remembered their names. The general public knew Frank Oz because Miss Piggy and Star Wars were very popular. And nowadays, we have Disney, who think children will have a freak out if they see a puppeteer.

Plus, and I think most important, the reason the Muppets were able to do movies in the old days at all is because they had a popular TV show.

So, that's the best I can do at the moment. MMW just didn't have a hook. Though it's worth mentioning, clearly, the word of mouth wasn't too strong after it came out either.

Wow, i don't think you could of been more right if you tried, the part about the 80s sitcom was hilarious BTW but I think they were intentinaly going for that to have a laugh at themselves.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Wow, i don't think you could of been more right if you tried, the part about the 80s sitcom was hilarious BTW but I think they were intentinaly going for that to have a laugh at themselves.

Thanks. And I think your point about the length of time between sequels makes sense. Even if a first sequel is rushed and not perfect, it can sometimes at least create enough hype to paved the way for others. It's happened before.

 

[Mr Sweetums]

I liked MMW but personally I do think there was something missing, I wasn't a very big fan of the plot (Kermit look-a-like) but the biggest fail in my opinion was the fact that it relied to much on the fans.

These are just silly examples spread out across the movie, which needed more attention to entertain non-fans not just fans.

Seeing Foo-Foo on screen makes us happy but for non-fans what did Foo-Foo really do? Was Foo-Foo a fun new character? Was Foo-Foo even a character?

Gonzo's indoor running of the bulls, just knowing that is happening excites us but to non-fans without actually seeing this happening on screen then it's nothing.

The helicopter scene, Kermit saving Miss Piggy, Lew Zealand, Link and other obscure characters in the background but what really happened? If your not a Muppet fan that scene was really not that exciting.

My non-Muppet friends really enjoyed the scenes with Kermit in the Gulag, these scenes barley included any Muppets other than Kermit yet it was their favourite parts. Why? Because those scenes spoke to everybody as soon as the screen is full of Muppets again they rely on the fans because my friends quickly lost intrest.

I also think there was a lot of potential to go TMS route and squeeze in sketches between the actual plot (backstage story) and just mix it up a bit. The film was based on a TMS world tour and we barley saw any full sketches.

I really enjoyed the movie, we all enjoyed it but for some reason it didn't do well with the general public, that leads me to believe the film reached out specifically to Muppet fans leading me to my three examples.

 

[Drtooth]

The classic Muppet movies were all based on old movie cliches and played around with. If anything, MMW got that right. I guess a lot of movie goers were too jaded to get into a classic caper sort of movie. But there's no logical way to follow up a "getting the band back together" film with another "getting the band back together" film. I guess more movie goers wanted another emotionally manipulative fan fic, which as good as TM was had that burden on it the whole movie. It's like the entire film was about a conspiracy to make the Muppets eternally miserable, and with the context edited out of Tex Richman's backstory, it's especially manipulative.

MMW was to be the classic style Muppet film, and I could have easily seen an older Muppet project with that plotline. Now, looking at the post-Henson Muppet movie length movies, we got 3 where they just took an already existing story to retell them (MCC was done waaaay too straight), one that was essentially what Muppets and Christmas movies are to what Scary Movie was to Scary Movies, a preschool TV pilot, and some "Star Wars is coming out, so we better ride those coat tails" brand Sci Fi stuff. All of them are just pure gimmickery, and not exactly Muppety. I don't like the idea of a Muppet Gimmick movie, and I don't think anyone else would have been excited anyway. I'll admit that MCC and MTI are well done for what they are, VMX is fun but horrendously dated in references and tone, MFS should have had better hands behind it, and the last two were just awful and non-Muppety.

Sucks that a classic caper with the highest played cliche done with tongues so firmly in cheek that they almost poked holes in them didn't energize anyone outside of the base, but it's not like they were exactly thrilled with any of those other films. Well, maybe MCC being a Christmas movie gets it a lot of play and VMX managed to get high ratings the first showing. But other than that, they're just DVD hits anyway. It's just absolutely redicuouls that after a kinda depressing movie (TM) there were idiotic complaints that it wasn't emotional enough. Jeez! You want a movie where Kermit gets cancer and loses the will to live or something?! TMM has very emotional moments, GMC doesn't. That's the true comparison right there.