Steve Whitmire has left the Muppets, Matt Vogel to continue as Kermit

DarthGonzo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2002
Messages
251
Reaction score
205
by ditching their traditional animation, for CGI animation, and changing their network channel which was once good, to something awful , and by buying franchises, for the heck of it, with out any knowledge all for money. when Walt Disney was alive, he was all about entertainment, and not money.
You've got to be kidding me.

Walt was about entertainment sure, but that's why his brother Roy was his business partner, because first and foremost, a company has to put money first, or else they'll eventually run themselves out of business. If Walt ran around doing whatever he wanted without Roy being the money guy, the Disney studio would cease to exist today.

People need to get themselves out of their little bubbles and wise up to the fact that, even in Walt's time, money and profit was the most importnant goal. Because if it wasn't, there wouldn't be any chances to create more product. It's the same now as it was in Walt's time.
 

Censored

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
557
by ditching their traditional animation, for CGI animation, and changing their network channel which was once good, to something awful , and by buying franchises, for the heck of it, with out any knowledge all for money. when Walt Disney was alive, he was all about entertainment, and not money.

I can understand preferring traditional animation to computer animation. Sadly, I really think that’s just more of a modern-day reality in technology than a calculated decision on Disney’s part. As for Walt Disney, he was no pushover when it came to business. He had disputes with his staff over working conditions, unions got involved, etc. The bottom line is that if something is not entertaining enough, it will bring in less money and reduce profit. So, it’s really not in anyone’s best interest to deliberately have less quality. But yes, I can relate to your longing for the old days of Disney, just like I long for the old days of Sesame Street. Yet, I do have good vibes about the future of the Muppets.
 

DarthGonzo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2002
Messages
251
Reaction score
205
Do I miss 2D Disney animation? Of course I do. But let's face reality for a second. Disney's 2D films were losing money, some even going as far as being outright bombs. In the meantime, computer animated films from all different companies have been massive hits these past 15 years, and have broken all sorts of box office records. CG films like Tangled, Wreck It Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6, Zootopia and Moana have not only been massive hits but also (gasp!) really well made movies, some of the best films Disney has made since the early '90s. To **** Disney for abandoning 2D animation when it's what they needed to do to stay relevant and profitable is just childish. The films are still great, they're just not being made in the medium some prefer. Disney 2D theatrical films are dead, and I don't think they're coming back, at least not for a long time.

And while many freak out over Disney buying various IPs, the reality remains that they're making better Star Wars films than George Lucas ever did during the late '90s and early 2000's, and as a far as superhero films go, they've produced some of the greatest superhero films of all time since purchasing Marvel. It stinks that Disney sometimes prioritizes properties they didn't outright create themselves, but in the end they're creating quality, successful product that audiences love.
 

Daffyfan4ever

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
4,883
Reaction score
553
This thread isn't over until they release the Muppet Thought of the Week.
Yeah. I agree. I was going to suggest closing the thread too. I think we're getting too much into it and we just need to realize what's done is done and we need to move on. Maybe we can start a separate thread once we hear Matt's :smile:. Just my thoughts on this.
 

ErinAardvark

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
977
Reaction score
690
Yeah. I agree. I was going to suggest closing the thread too. I think we're getting too much into it and we just need to realize what's done is done and we need to move on. Maybe we can start a separate thread once we hear Matt's :smile:. Just my thoughts on this.
I just hope they get on with it. The anticipation is KILLING me!
 

Oscarfan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
7,590
Reaction score
3,935
Do I miss 2D Disney animation? Of course I do. But let's face reality for a second. Disney's 2D films were losing money, some even going as far as being outright bombs. In the meantime, computer animated films from all different companies have been massive hits these past 15 years, and have broken all sorts of box office records. CG films like Tangled, Wreck It Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6, Zootopia and Moana have not only been massive hits but also (gasp!) really well made movies, some of the best films Disney has made since the early '90s. To **** Disney for abandoning 2D animation when it's what they needed to do to stay relevant and profitable is just childish. The films are still great, they're just not being made in the medium some prefer. Disney 2D theatrical films are dead, and I don't think they're coming back, at least not for a long time.
Disney does plenty of 2D outside of the film scene.

"They were 2D, that's why they did poorly" also seems like an easy excuse. They could be chalked up to poor release timing, but like, Home on the Range didn't underperform because it wasn't CG; it just sucks and people could tell.
 

scooterfan360

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
849
Reaction score
413
You've got to be kidding me.

Walt was about entertainment sure, but that's why his brother Roy was his business partner, because first and foremost, a company has to put money first, or else they'll eventually run themselves out of business. If Walt ran around doing whatever he wanted without Roy being the money guy, the Disney studio would cease to exist today.

People need to get themselves out of their little bubbles and wise up to the fact that, even in Walt's time, money and profit was the most importnant goal. Because if it wasn't, there wouldn't be any chances to create more product. It's the same now as it was in Walt's time.
yeah, but it seems to me that have gotten greedy about it, by biting the hand of someone who knows more about the franchise, more than they do. i really hope that they don't bite any other hands of those who know more about the franchise more than they do.
 

Censored

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
557
yeah, but it seems to me that have gotten greedy about it, by biting the hand of someone who knows more about the franchise, more than they do. i really hope that they don't bite any other hands of those who know more about the franchise more than they do.
But, they are also adding someone with a lot of knowledge.
 

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
40,651
Reaction score
12,802
You've got to be kidding me.

Walt was about entertainment sure, but that's why his brother Roy was his business partner, because first and foremost, a company has to put money first, or else they'll eventually run themselves out of business. If Walt ran around doing whatever he wanted without Roy being the money guy, the Disney studio would cease to exist today.
This is why a duo like Sid & Marty Krofft worked, and in fact, enjoyed far more commercial success than Jim ever did: Sid was the creative half, Marty was the business half, and while Sid's imagination would run wild with all those crazy shows they created, it was up to Marty to keep him in line because Sid's imagination had a tendancy to run them way over budget. Nevertheless, they always went for the mass, and enjoyed the commercial success of that, but that was more or less because they never really cared about the artistic aspect of what they did.

This is why even Marty admits that Jim was the better puppeteer than them, because Jim cared more about the art than he did the profit, and thus, Henson or the Muppets never did reach quite the level of commercial success that the Kroffts achieved, but you can see how Jim's work has charm, care, and attention to detail, while Krofft shows were always incredibly cheap looking, and less-than-stellar puppetry.
People need to get themselves out of their little bubbles and wise up to the fact
I've been saying the same thing about conservatives and their brainwashed-induced obsession with Fox News and Breitbart, but I know now is not the time to mention that.
 

Censored

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
557
This is why a duo like Sid & Marty Krofft worked, and in fact, enjoyed far more commercial success than Jim ever did: Sid was the creative half, Marty was the business half, and while Sid's imagination would run wild with all those crazy shows they created, it was up to Marty to keep him in line because Sid's imagination had a tendancy to run them way over budget. Nevertheless, they always went for the mass, and enjoyed the commercial success of that, but that was more or less because they never really cared about the artistic aspect of what they did.

This is why even Marty admits that Jim was the better puppeteer than them, because Jim cared more about the art than he did the profit, and thus, Henson or the Muppets never did reach quite the level of commercial success that the Kroffts achieved, but you can see how Jim's work has charm, care, and attention to detail, while Krofft shows were always incredibly cheap looking, and less-than-stellar puppetry.

Hmmm… I’m a HUGE fan of Sid and Marty Krofft’s work, but I don’t see where they were more commercially successful than Jim Henson. The Muppets have outlasted them in merchandise, time, and popularity. Even a non-muppet fan knows Kermit and Miss Piggy, but sometimes it’s a struggle to convince anyone that H.R. Pufnstuf and Lidsville even existed.
 
Top