Sesame Beginnings: Muppet Babies or not?

[Baby Rowlf]

I was having this discussion with a friend awhile back, and decided to bring it here!

Should the Sesame Beginnings gang be considered Muppet Babies? Would they count? Why or why not?

My stance on it is that they would be: First off, they're baby Muppets. Hence, Muppet babies. Besides, Kermit was a regular on Sesame Street before the Muppet show came along, and Rowlf made a cameo. And the Sesame Street gang popped up on the Muppet Show on multiple occasions so the crossover's already there!

What do you guys think?

 

[GonzoLeaper]

Sesame Beginnings is indeed a show of baby Muppets. I think the distinction here though is that the Muppet Babies cartoon was primarily based on that one fantasy scene in "The Muppets Take Manhattan" (and of course, it was really cool to see those baby Muppets again in "Muppet Family Christmas"- I think that was their way of working in "Muppet Babies" into the special without actually having the cartoon versions there.)
Kermit the Frog definitely counts as both a member of "The Muppet Show" world and the "Sesame Street" world. And sure, we can count Rowlf in there too, since he was there with Kermit in the pitch show helping him come up with the idea for the show and he did make a cameo in the Baker #9 sketch.
For that Beautiful Day Monster would count in both as well and perhaps also Gladys the Cow. (Though I think on The Muppet Show, she's just been used as a generic cow and not necessarily meant to be Gladys from Sesame Street.)
Perhaps now also because of the rights issues, I think the tendency is to think of the Muppets from The Muppet Show, The Jim Henson Hour, Muppets Tonight and all the Muppets specials and movies as separate from the Sesame Street show and its specials and movies. Sure, they intermix from time to time, but I don't know if I would always automatically think of Sesame Street when someone says The Muppets. That's more of the first group I mentioned to me. But on a larger scale, yes I include Sesame Street because obviously they're all Muppets created by Jim Henson and company.
And I don't know if that really answered your question or not, but that's what I got on it.

 

[Drtooth]

When I first heard of Sesame Beginnings, I was opposed to it... but frankly, I think a lot of the concepts put forth by SB are more interesting than what the Muppet Babies were about. MC was about Saturday Morning cartoon series and the merchandise that came with it... but SB is meant for children and adults in a much more innovative way... a time to watch a video and share routines as parent and child... but make no bones about it, I like MB better for the entertainment value.

Honestly, I think that Sb is more like the Muppets than Muppet Babies for the sake that they actually are Muppets in this, not cartoon versions of them. The only thing that would stop any categorization between them and MB is the Disney Ownership... and even then, they're still called Sesame Street Muppets.

 

[Beauregard]

I really didn't get the concept of Sesame Street Beginnings...Isn't the show aimed at small kids anyway? And doesn't it rather take away from the idea of the Sesame Street Muppets being ageless creatures to give them a growing-up type flashback?

I liked Muppet Babies precisely for the reasons that the good Doctor doesn't, because they were cartoon and filled with imagination sequences and something "outside" the Muppet continuum.

Bea{And am I the only one who thinks "The Muppet Continuum" sounds like a good name for a Pigs in Space sketch?}regard

 

[Drtooth]

I liked Muppet Babies precisely for the reasons that the good Doctor doesn't, because they were cartoon and filled with imagination sequences and something "outside" the Muppet continuum.

I liked the fact that Muppet Babies was animated, to clear up any confusion. There's a lot of stuff they just couldn't do with puppets unless they had a spectacular budget.

As for Sesame Beginnings, I just like the concept that it's a video for parents to watch along and play along with their babies. And while I say MB is the more entertaining of the 2 because it actually has a plot, SB has a more clever concept.

Besides, I never really got SS continuity and age. I mean, if Grover's a child, wouldn't someone be in trouble for hiring someone under the age of 16, let alone when he has a bunch of other jobs already?

 

[Beauregard]

I liked the fact that Muppet Babies was animated, to clear up any confusion. There's a lot of stuff they just couldn't do with puppets unless they had a spectacular budget.

Oops...sorry. Had an Eat the Rich moment there, obviously. You were just saying that the SS babies are more like the Muppets than the Muppet Babies. Which makes sense...

And, yeah, it is a good concept. I'm just not sure why they couldn't just use the normal Sesame Street characters...I guess they did have to be babies for some of the activities...

 

[Baby Rowlf]

Oops...sorry. Had an Eat the Rich moment there, obviously. You were just saying that the SS babies are more like the Muppets than the Muppet Babies. Which makes sense...

And, yeah, it is a good concept. I'm just not sure why they couldn't just use the normal Sesame Street characters...I guess they did have to be babies for some of the activities...

That's one thing I never understood about Sesame Street babies. Aren't the "adult" characters around the ages of 3-4? As they are, the Sesame gang isn't much older than the Muppet Babies (which I figured were 2 and a half years old, roughly, based on something I noticed in one of the episodes. )

 

[RedPiggy]

Well, Oscar's clearly not. The parents of the main characters certainly aren't. I don't recall them ever saying most characters' ages, actually. Certainly, based on observation and more than a passing understanding of psychology, the oldest kids are Big Bird and Prairie (at least ... not too familiar with characters post 2000). Oscar, Grover, Bert and Ernie, Count, etc ... those are clearly AT LEAST young adults if not middle-aged or more.

 

[Drtooth]

That's one thing I never understood about Sesame Street babies. Aren't the "adult" characters around the ages of 3-4? As they are, the Sesame gang isn't much older than the Muppet Babies (which I figured were 2 and a half years old, roughly, based on something I noticed in one of the episodes. )

Baby Tweety of Baby Looney Tunes. End of debate. If it was supposed to make sense, it wasn't. There are usually NO tie ins with any canon of any of these sorts of characters (Pup named Scooby Doo is debatable, since it's in the continuity of both movies and the 2000 era What's New Scooby-Doo?) and there's no time line, meaning they can do whatever they want.

But you gotta admit, SS Beginnings actually takes the whole babification bit and does a clever little spin on it besides just making the characters rounder and giving them bigger eyes so they can be even cuter on a Baby Bib. Considering that's exactly what Sesame Street Babies did in the 90's.

 

[Yorick]

Re: Scooby
Glad you brought up "Pup", DrTooth! Notice how that is obviously their first era chronologically ("In universe" that is - sorry if I'm geeking out here, but I'm using terms I've read online from other sites) and yet, they made that movie (made for TV) recently that was supposed to be their first case ever. Whoops!