The Mouse is Wooing Miss Piggy

[radionate]

Originally posted by Luke

I just don't understand what this site achieves by making allegations about how Dave gets his professional work - it does absolutely nothing to either prove or disprove the main point of the article and it makes a mockery of the respect and support we all have for him.

ALLEGATIONS?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!

That’s a pretty harsh word. I think the article is saying nothing more then it’s an interesting coincidence. May I quote it

But -- if you're a somewhat suspicious, cynical person like me -- you can't help but think: Is WDI's hiring of David Goelz to do Figment's voice yet another sign of the Walt Disney Company's continued interest in the Jim Henson Company. After all, there must be hundreds of performers out in Hollywood who could easily imitate Barty's distinctly raspy voice. So why -- out of that huge pool of talent -- did Disney decide to hire one of Henson's top people to do this job?

No allegations. He makes some causal connections, but he states its HIS OWN OPINION. I agree that it’s far fetched. I agree that Mr. Goelz should be respected. BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS MAKING A MOCKERY OUT OF HIM. Its a job. PERIOD. It's an article. PERIOD. It's someone's opinion that is different then your own. LEARN TO GET OVER IT.

I do find it odd that out of all the voice talent out there, they hired Mr. Goelz, but there could be a million and a half reasons or coincidences why they did that.

I think there is something deeper to your griping here, as it seems to happen a lot

 

[danielromens]

So what's the difference between Disney's Doug and Nick's Doug. The characters are the same. The voices are the same. It's just as boring. The only difference is who owns it. There are a lot of products that people think are good because they have the mouse ears on them. Not to say your opinion isn't valid. I just get ill at the fact they like to take credit for other people's work. Let's not forget the brochure with "Disney's Muppets" What the h*ll is up with that. Jim had just passed and they all ready removed his name from the picture. Yeah they're the best bet all right.

 

[Luke]

Radionate,

Yeah i kind of see it as a bit of an allegation of sorts, granted he doesn't make it blatently but certainly to someone in the business it's a bit of a slap in the face. If we look beyond your selective editing and look at the REST Jim Hill says :-

Unless -- of course -- you factor in the notion that the Mouse might be trying to "make nice" with the Muppets. Keep JHC's core creative team happy. Just so key people like Goelz don't go wandering off the reservation. Just in case Disney does actually decide to go forward with its plans to finally acquire the Jim Henson Company.

It clearly suggests that he thinks Disney are giving the creative team jobs, not because of their talent but because they want to keep them 'happy' about any sale to Disney. Maybe Jim Hill doesn't realise this, and i'm sure it was not intentional but this has been a 'Hot Potato' within the Henson company for a while now. The creative team have made it quite clear to some that they do not want a sale to Disney, so by implying that Dave is somehow taking money from them to stay at JHC if Disney buys it has undetones of being a little slanderous and makes Dave look very bad without any proof. It's saying a LOT more than it being an interesting coincidence, i just think it is worded very cleverly so that most people wouldn't join the dots and realise the connection. In actual fact, there are tons of freelance people working for JHC who ALSO accept work from Disney and they've been doing so for years, very few people are on permanent contract.

I don't see why fans shouldn't speak out when someone who has supported this site is disrespected in this way, especially with a nice big photo of him included too. Yes, it is Jim Hill's opinion and he is entitled to it, but i don't feel he clearly states it's just an article of his own opinions - instead it gives this kind of impression that you are learning what is really going on behind the scenes by some kind of informed 'eye'. I would have liked to have seen some kind of a disclaimer placed on this article and it being put in another section besides 'news'.

I guess to me, and a lot of other people here, what Dave Goelz has done at Henson is not just 'a job' and if stuff like this is going to get published on a site that we all contribute too, then it should be clearly stated that these are not the opinions of the site or it's visitors/contributors.

Thats just my interpretation of it, maybe it just affects me because i know how much it all isn't true and i can personally understand how serious saying this kind of thing is within the industry. To me, it's the same as implying that Brian Henson doesn't get jobs because of his talent but because he is Jim's son, or that Bill Baretta got a job at JHC because he used to clean toilets with the boss's son. I guess if other people draw other conclusions from the article then it's fine - i just thought the main site has stayed away from promoting this kind of controversial speculation in the past and didn't see why it should start now. It seems there's just a lot of rudeness around here when the talk isn't about 'action figures' or doesn't totally agree with something, i guess in future i'll learn not to bother sticking up for what i thought a lot of us believed in, and just go someplace else - it's really changed around here since years ago.

 

[Thog]

Originally posted by Luke

It seems there's just a lot of rudeness around here when the talk isn't about 'action figures' or doesn't totally agree with something, i guess in future i'll learn not to bother sticking up for what i thought a lot of us believed in, and just go someplace else - it's really changed around here since years ago.

I so agree with you. I've been here since the start and I see it. Thats why I pretty much keep to myself lately, because no matter what you say people feel the need to back lash and tell you that your thoughts and ideas are wrong. It seems that you can't post much without offending someone else.

Just the way I feel.
Dan

 

[towels]

Originally posted by danielromens
So what's the difference between Disney's Doug and Nick's Doug. The characters are the same. The voices are the same. It's just as boring.

Actually, if I remember right, one Doug is much younger than the other Doug. Elementary school vs. Junior High, or maybe it's Junior High vs Senior High. *shrug* One Saturday Morning lost a lot when they dropped Science Court...

And just because it's the hot topic, I see Luke's point, and agree- comparing his statement of his opinions to Jim Hill's opinions stated in a "news" article is a pretty weak arguement. I too would expect news stories to be based more on fact and less on speculation.

 

[ZootandDingo]

Originally posted by Drtooth
Well, I'm still kinda worried about Warners. Look at what they did to the Pink Panther. They made him a girls only character. I bet I got a weird look while I purchased the Pink Panther Bobbing Head, though. (This is assuming that the MGM character got bought out in the Time/Warner Merger)

Believe it or not, Warner Bros. has never had any claim on Pink Panther. The character is still owned by MGM. It's a long story why he wasn't included in the deal...let's just say it had to do with the fact that the original movies and cartoons were released by United Artists.

The MGM properties Warner Bros. acquired were everything the studio released on its own before 1985. So, WB got Tom and Jerry, Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, etc., while MGM still hung onto their United Artists stuff such as Rocky, James Bond, and the aforementioned Pink Panther.

So yes, by all means blame MGM for having him talk, and for that ridiculous girlie web site.

Now, if only Warner Bros. would fix the gender confusion they created by marketing Tweety to girls...

 

[Luke]

Ok well to get in on the other 'hot topic' - i completely agree that it was a travesty they made the Panther talk, but i kind of agree with Tweety being marketed to girls, but i don't just think its a girlie thing. Having a high maintenence girl myself i can kinda recognise the signs - cute little yellow bird, pink love hearts, sqeaky little voice, one whiff of all this and they start gushing and buying up large supplies of fluffy pencil cases and oversized cookie jars. I guess i can't blame the cunning merchandise people from showing some initiative there, but Tweety has been so overhyped on the street compared to how much the cartoon is on TV, at least here in the UK. At least they actually put Scooby on TV here if they are gonna squeeze the merchandising dollars from it.

As for the Panther - i think it's time he had another rebirth just as long as he keeps quiet.

 

[frogboy4]

Luke

Did they ever show Pink Panter and Son over there? It reminds me of the Poochy episode of The Simpsons when Itchy and Scratchy make an attemp to be trendy and create that silly skater dog with all the lame catch phrases. That's precisely what the son was in that Pink Panther show. And to make him talk...ewwww. Fritz Freling is rolling over in his grave somewhere.

 

[Luke]

Jamie

To the best of my knowledge, nope, we did not get that show. I'm kinda glad too because it doesn't sound pretty !

I'm just thankful i can look back fondly on my childhood memories of the original cartoon - it used to come on before "Jim'll Fix It" - another show that would really give you nightmares.

 

[frogboy4]

It seems to me that all charm and subtlely is lost on much of today's audence - or at least those in charge of programming. I'm still extremely peaved with what WB did with Space Jam. They didn't even consult Chuck Jones. I think that has to be one of the biggest disappointments in animation. I can't imagine it entertaining anyone above age four, but infortunately ticket sales said otherwise.