The Muppets Episode 2 - Hostile Makeover

[D'Snowth]

That basically, in order to get an audience and make money to the point that we'll get a second season, TV has to change and thus audience taste change.

That's a problem with network television in general for the past twenty or so years: it's no longer about the art, it's all about the money. From what I understand, FRIENDS is responsible for that: I believe that was the first time a network (NBC, in this case) actually tried producing a weekly series in-house, and it became a hit for them, which lead the networks to realize that they could make all their own shows their own way, rather than let actual producers and creators make shows for them, and as a result, network TV in general has kind of suffered because of it, because it's become more and more a corporate influence that's all about making money, and not necessarily about creating quality material. This also plays a factor in why so many shows today will get yanked off the air after so few episodes: if a network feels a show isn't living up to expectations, and isn't bringing in money or ratings, they'll go ahead and cancel it before the season is even over. Shows like the ones you mentioned and more would have never gotten a chance in this day and age. This is one of the reasons Jim had so much better luck getting more things accomplished in Canada and the U.K., where they still value the artistic aspect of the business, as opposed to the U.S., which is all about the commercial aspect.

But it's not so much that audience taste changes (though it does play a factor), because there's plenty of vocal groups out there who have asked for a resurgence in programming that reflects older, wholesome, family-friendly entertainment of yesteryears, but that's no concern of the networks: what they want is to cater to the coveted 18-30 demographic, which apparently can only compute lowbrow sex humor. You look at clips on YouTube of older shows and movies, and you'll find plenty of comments from Gen-Yers and even Millennials who say they wish they did stuff like this again.

I'm never happy about updated or remade stuff that is perfectly fine as an original, but the Muppet Show and the movies - as much as I love everything about them - are dated. If you want to blame anyone for this incessant insistence on remaking everything, blame parents for not showing their child the original it's based on, rather it be the book or the movie, and for just letting bad TV and movies be there babysitter.

We discuss this in another thread, but kids automatically dismiss anything old as being "bad," without even giving it a chance - they just do, it's universal. When I was a kid, I loved Rocky and Bullwinkle (and still do), but other kids hated it simply because it was "old." This is why whenever we see I LOVE LUCY on TV or DVD today, they proudly proclaim, "Colorized for kids of all ages," because kids aren't going to want to watch anything in black-and-white; heck, even Mel Brooks had trouble getting YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN filmed in b&w in the 70s, because the studio feared nobody would want to see it if it was in b&w. M*A*S*H had a documentary/flashback episode that was in b&w and the network was so horrified that they insisted they include a disclaimer about the b&w at the beginning of the episode, because they feared people would be flipping out that something went wrong with their color TVs.

I think people forget that some shows took a bit to find their voice before they got really good - Seinfeld, Cheers, 30 Rock, The Simpsons, Family Guy, and even the Muppet Show - but these shows also went on to get a large following and stayed on - or in the case of Family Guy, was brought back twice because of fan support

Yeah, and now it's gotten to a point that fans feel FAMILY GUY has long worn out its welcome and Seth MacFarlane has been wanting to end it for years, but FOX won't let him because it makes them too much money.

 

[Ruahnna]

As for the portrayal of the main characters the distinction between snarky and mean is a thin one. I'm not talking about cruel that's a big leap. But I still find Kermit in the wheelhouse of his previous self. Miss Piggy for me is a more problematic character. She is a character of wild extremes and it is through these extremes we can then settle on the nice middle ground. She can be selfish (she left Kermit on their date in The Muppet Movie). She can be insecure (She paid off the audience in the Dom DeLuise episode). I don't think either of these are necessarily bad traits. When push comes to shove I bet Piggy would pick Kermit and being a big star in a small pond (no pun intended) over being a major Hollywood star. However, she wants both and therefore needs to sometimes sacrifice one for the other. I think writing for Miss Piggy is one of the toughest assignments in the world. She has two very strong objectives and sometimes they mesh and sometimes they conflict. Jerry Juhl knew that exact spot where they meet. In my mind it's almost unfair to ask other writers to duplicate. Fozzie losing his mental compass. I am not exactly sure what you mean - is it his taking the candy dish? I think Fozzie is insecure enough to want to have a piece of physical evidence to show Gonzo, Rizzo et al. that he was at Jay Leno's. Later he realizes what he did was wrong and planned to return it. I was not happy with the repeat with him taking the rooster figure. So a better resolution there was needed.

Perhaps I should have said "cruel." Kermit used to be snarky about Piggy--now he is cruel. Setting your ex up with someone just so they are still malleable and commercially available to you is cruel and icky, as opposed to, "Piggy sure is a swell girl, even though she isn't for me. I'll bet my friend Josh would hit it off with her and make her happy. Even if she's a little bit high maintenance."

Piggy may have walked out on their date, but she was already wise to the ways of show business. She had a solid job offer on the table, in a very uncertain future with the fellow who "wanted to get them on television and make people happy." I would like to point out that one of the main things this frog wanted to do was to get her out on a date. Kermit found her far more interesting personally than he did professionally at that point in time, and since she was supporting herself, I think it's fair to give her a pass on walking out on the potential romance to take a secure job.

I refuse to give Fozzie a pass on stealing. As I mentioned before, I teach 11-year-olds. Even 11-year-olds know that you should not take anything that does not belong to you. If Fozzie really wanted to prove that he was at Jay Leno's house, he shouldn't have stolen something that belonged in that house. He should have taken a picture. Period. Duh. Double duh. The candy bowl could have been faked--the picture, not so easily.

Thanks to all for your thoughtful and reasonable responses.

 

[galagr]

I just wanna see Crazy Harry blow something up...

 

[Blue Frackle]

I am unable to understand what the Kardashians or the Real Housewives have to do with anything. Likewise American Idol. What point were you trying to make? Just because those things exist doesn't mean I have to watch them. Why would I? Surely we can ALL find something better to do with our time.

I don't know if you'd actually like the world I live in. If you'd like to live in "my world," it would be a world where we TURN OFF the television when there's nothing on. The last show I watched (except news) was last November (yes--November of 2014) until "the muppets" came out. Despite my misgivings, based on the distasteful promo, I watched the premiere and found it to be every bit as puerile as it seems to be in the promos. It wasn't just childish--it was mean--down to the bone mean--and made me sad.

I only watched the second episode because a friend told me that Kermit has a jealous rampage, and I thought, with brief hope, that perhaps the REAL Kermit had come back and all was right with the world again. Sadly, I watched only to find that Kermit's "jealousy" was only for his "property." If Piggy is actually happy and being influenced by someone whose presence threatens Kermit's ability to sponge a living off of her while making fun of her at every opportunity, well...that wasn't exactly what I thought it was going to be. What a disgustingly parasitic way to make a living.

Disney doesn't care about the muppets, and it certainly doesn't care about the viewership of someone like me, who grew up with the characters and loves them. No--no--it's fine, because Disney's got a whole new crop of viewers who have been raised on sexual innuendo instead of humor and crassness instead of compassion. Just LOOK how positively gleefoul every has been about the fact that Kermit swore on the show. I know I sit around all day every day saying, "Oh my goodness--I sure do hope my favorite comedian manages to drop in some crass language! It will be so hilarious if he does!" Good grief, how childish can you get? Adult humor? Hardly.

OMG! And how about Fozzie stealing? Wasn't that exciting? I mean, I was wondering when Fozzie was going to grow up and stop thinking that other people had a right to their own property. I mean, next week he can trash a store owner's business and maybe score some weed with the EM! Then I'll bet those uptight parents will see what a catch he is!

What a sad come-down for a show that used to be edgy on its own terms--instead of everyone else's hand-me-down gimmicks. Jim's characters broke the fourth wall to the delight of everyone who saw them. These characters break the fourth wall to imitate other sitcoms and seem "current."

Let the smarmy and the cynical rule the world and the airwaves--my world has BOOKS.

I agree with everything you have to say. It'll be rare for someone to take a hold of the Muppets and share Jim's same vision, and that doesn't seem like it will happen anytime soon as long as Disney is in control. I mean, the Muppets were Jim. Jim was a very compassionate dude, and that shone through with his Muppets. Though there were times they got angry with each other, they never resorted to calling each other "worthless pieces of fur". These Muppets, while they still look like the Muppets we all know, don't have the same soul and spirit of the old Muppets. In ep. 1 there was that 'Dancing with the Czars' moment, and that was honestly the only moment were I was like "now this is the Muppets". But the people beneath and to the side are not the same people we grew up with. Despite all of this, I have found genuinely funny parts in this show so far without the characters being mean. They are doing OK.

I like the show. I honestly think 2 seasons would be a healthy run, but I don't think they'll make it past a complete season tbh.

I don't even care about them being the characters I grew up with (personality-wise) because it's impossible to replicate that; Fozzie was Frank, Kermit was Jim, etc. Eric Jacobson is not Fozzie, just like someone else is not me. I just want it to be tasteful and quality.

Yeah, and now it's gotten to a point that fans feel FAMILY GUY has long worn out its welcome and Seth MacFarlane has been wanting to end it for years, but FOX won't let him because it makes them too much money.

That's unfortunate. Jim ending The Muppet Show in its prime was genius. The Simpsons have become pathetic and have overstayed their welcome by about 20 years. They could've learned something from The Muppet Show.

I just wanna see Crazy Harry blow something up...

I know.

He sure does love to walk around the building though.

 

[D'Snowth]

. The Simpsons have become pathetic and have overstayed their welcome by about 20 years. They could've learned something from The Muppet Show.

The thing of it is, though, Lord Grade gave Jim complete control of TMS to do with it as he pleased - THE SIMPSONS and FAMILY GUY are owned by FOX, not Matt Groening or Seth MacFarlane, respectively, so there's not much they can do without FOX having the final say. Again, Seth's been wanting FG to have a final conclusion for years now, but FOX refuses to let it die since it's such a big hit (despite fans saying it's worn out its welcome long ago).

 

[Ruahnna]

And yes, Big Mean Carl as the receptionist (sortof) is genius level.

I am not saying the show was completely without merit. But it was flawed so deeply that it was hard to enjoy the parts that were good--like Big Mean Carl and the renewed vigor of The Newsman. If ANYONE could take on Bobo with relatively little fear, it would be Newsy, who has YEARS of practice taking disaster in stride.

Pepe's been pretty okay. I admit it--I'm a Pepe fan. And I found it both funny and spot-on that HE would be the one to talk about gender fluidity. That didn't make me cringe--it was appropriate to the moment and to Pepe, who has expressed in "shaking his bon-bons with Ricky Martin" in IAVMMC and who showed up in a pink tutu in MFS. While I don't really believe Pepe is all that fluid in his gender identity, he's someone who might speak to that credible.

But I still can't imagine Fozzie stealing. The only thing I can hark back to--and I have no idea if it was intentional or not (because I don't know if the show's writers ever WATCHED the characters before or PAID ANY ATTENTION to what they did or what happened to them), but in "The Kermit-less World" Fozzie does become a thief, and Kermit is horrified to find his friend fallen so far from the straightforward and stalwart bear he had always been. In essense, in IAVMMC, the worst thing Kermit could see happen to his best friend was to find him morally vacant--and in "the muppets" he not only doesn't seem to care, but he even uses it shamelessly for reality television fodder.

Oh. My. Gosh. Maybe that's it. Maybe this show is what happens to the muppets without Kermit (Jim) there as a guiding light? Maybe THIS is what we get when Kermit is truly gone.

 

[WebMistressGina]

That's a problem with network television in general for the past twenty or so years: it's no longer about the art, it's all about the money. From what I understand, FRIENDS is responsible for that: I believe that was the first time a network (NBC, in this case) actually tried producing a weekly series in-house, and it became a hit for them, which lead the networks to realize that they could make all their own shows their own way, rather than let actual producers and creators make shows for them, and as a result, network TV in general has kind of suffered because of it, because it's become more and more a corporate influence that's all about making money, and not necessarily about creating quality material. This also plays a factor in why so many shows today will get yanked off the air after so few episodes: if a network feels a show isn't living up to expectations, and isn't bringing in money or ratings, they'll go ahead and cancel it before the season is even over. Shows like the ones you mentioned and more would have never gotten a chance in this day and age. This is one of the reasons Jim had so much better luck getting more things accomplished in Canada and the U.K., where they still value the artistic aspect of the business, as opposed to the U.S., which is all about the commercial aspect.

I actually didn't know that about Friends, which was a show I never watched as it had nothing to do with me (I was a teenager in AZ and it was about 20 somethings in NY).

I can see that making sense though - I think 30 Rock was one of their shows (or at least a bit off a spin from SNL) and ratings weren't spectacular, but it was very high among fans. I would like to see that with The Muppets - nothing groundbreaking (other than normal puppetry awesomeness), where it's doing well enough fan wise and it's making money so that it doesn't get cancelled before a second season.

But it's not so much that audience taste changes (though it does play a factor), because there's plenty of vocal groups out there who have asked for a resurgence in programming that reflects older, wholesome, family-friendly entertainment of yesteryears, but that's no concern of the networks: what they want is to cater to the coveted 18-30 demographic, which apparently can only compute lowbrow sex humor. You look at clips on YouTube of older shows and movies, and you'll find plenty of comments from Gen-Yers and even Millennials who say they wish they did stuff like this again.

We discuss this in another thread, but kids automatically dismiss anything old as being "bad," without even giving it a chance - they just do, it's universal. When I was a kid, I loved Rocky and Bullwinkle (and still do), but other kids hated it simply because it was "old." This is why whenever we see I LOVE LUCY on TV or DVD today, they proudly proclaim, "Colorized for kids of all ages," because kids aren't going to want to watch anything in black-and-white; heck, even Mel Brooks had trouble getting YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN filmed in b&w in the 70s, because the studio feared nobody would want to see it if it was in b&w. M*A*S*H had a documentary/flashback episode that was in b&w and the network was so horrified that they insisted they include a disclaimer about the b&w at the beginning of the episode, because they feared people would be flipping out that something went wrong with their color TVs.

I can go with you on that, that every generation always has a different set of tastes. For me, I'm a Gen Xer so most of us got away without either having TV or we didn't have cable, especially the type of cable we have now. So I grew up watching 'boring/old' things, like Dynasty and Knots Landing, not because I wanted to, but because the TV was on and I was being allowed to watch it. Didn't mean I got to choose what I watched

With that said, I think we're still in the midst of a retro feel, in terms of entertainment. Just look at the very, very, so very many reboots and remakes that have occurred lately - Man from Uncle, TMNT (which never happened, BTW), the Smurfs, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Get Smart, etc. There's even talk of resurrecting Casablanca, which why?

The problem with all of this is that the over all point of the movie is glossed over in favor of giving it an updated look (looking at you, Michael Bay - Reuiner of Dreams!), thus losing whatever message - if there is one - and making it nothing like the original.

Yeah, and now it's gotten to a point that fans feel FAMILY GUY has long worn out its welcome and Seth MacFarlane has been wanting to end it for years, but FOX won't let him because it makes them too much money.

Actually, I am one of those fans. I also feel the same way about the Simpsons; the simpsons have literally be on for most of my life. Just. Let. It. Die, FOX. You have your good TV with Empire, you have your Sunday Night Football. Let the Simpsons go, dude. American Dad (the spiritual successor to FG) has already moved to TBS, as has FG reruns, so try coming up with something...oh I don't know, original for a change.

It's why most people have dropped cable.

That was an unrelated rant

 

[Pig'sSaysAdios]

Actually, I am one of those fans. I also feel the same way about the Simpsons; the simpsons have literally be on for most of my life. Just. Let. It. Die, FOX. You have your good TV with Empire, you have your Sunday Night Football. Let the Simpsons go, dude. American Dad (the spiritual successor to FG) has already moved to TBS, as has FG reruns, so try coming up with something...oh I don't know, original for a change.
It's why most people have dropped cable.

That was an unrelated rant [/QUOTE]
That and they have New Girl and Bob's Burgers which are both pretty popular. But I guess, maybe FOX holds on to these shows because they don't have very many shows to air and they're afraid that if they get rid of them their already low-ish ratings will go down even more.

 

[WebMistressGina]

Oh. My. Gosh. Maybe that's it. Maybe this show is what happens to the muppets without Kermit (Jim) there as a guiding light? Maybe THIS is what we get when Kermit is truly gone.

So...this actually reminds me when the Steve Carrell version of Get Smart came out. It split the mailing list (which I'm on) down the middle, sorta the same way this new Muppets is. There were people who were like, "this is horrible! Why would Max do this? 99 would never do that! Why is Siegfried..." fill in the blank.

The movie wasn't the show to them, in any form other than sharing the name/characters of the show. Completely different, didn't want to have anything to do with it.

The other half, including me, enjoyed it for it was. It wasn't the show. Going in and knowing this was probably going to be another Hollywood TV Show to Movie movie made it easier to enjoy it. I was happy that it wasn't a two hour episode that I spent $10 for (especially when I can watch the show, at home, for free) and it held enough of Get Smart's spirit that I wasn't terribly and horribly disappointed.

From what I've seen with the Muppets, it's the same thing - half go in expecting the Jim Henson Muppets that we grew up with and are disappointed when this is not that show.

I know this is not Jim Henson Muppets. I think many of us were lucky to experience Jim Henson's the Muppets, where as our younger counter parts will never have that. It's like this with any long running fandom - Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who - I'm in a lucky elite because I actually saw Return of the Jedi in theaters, but can you imagine people who saw the first (Episode IV for you that don't know) in theaters?

And then there are those poor souls who will only remember the disaster that is the prequels.

With that said, I went in to this new revised Muppets knowing this is not Jim Henson Muppets. Even the 2011 movie, though I will forever love Jason Segal for bringing them back, was not the Muppet Movie or GMC or TMTM; but it was a great and loving tribute to this younger generation who may only know about Muppets because of Sesame Street. And even last year's movie was still enjoyable, even if it wasn't the fan driven vehicle that the first one was.

And I will totally stand by my feeling that Eric Jacobson (Jacobson's doing Piggy now, right? It's late and I didn't get through a nap) is the better singer for Piggy. Her image spot with Celine was dy-no-mite!

My point - tangent, sorry. sleepy! - is, if you're looking for the same Henson magic that we loved as kids with this show, stop. It's not there, it won't ever be there unless they manage to summon the ghost of Jim Henson. And believe me, I get it. I just wrote a mini rant about Michael Bay doing the same thing, but the difference here is, while Bay is destroying everything any of us have ever loved about our childhood, this reincarnate of Muppets mostly still holds the spirit that started it all.

I don't see Kermit passing off Piggy to some unsuspecting new boyfriend; her going out with Josh Groban was just a date to the Kid's Choice. Piggy's the one who decided that she would make Josh the flavor of the week. Did Kermit take advantage of that? Yes, he did and when he realized that Josh Groban was changing Piggy, he put a stop it. In fact, he told everyone to put a stop to it (Rizzo's line of "why didn't we stop him? There's like 20 of us!" was great as well)

In fact, he reminded Piggy of who she was through her ego. Her ego would never let Josh Groban have his name above hers.

Again, I get the 'this is not Jim Henson's Muppets!' but I'd be a little more upset if these guys weren't at least trying. This a prime time show and most of prime time is not for kids! In fact, unless I'm wrong (cause I don't have cable), this is the only family type show that's on Tuesdays, which is up against I think Scream Queens and Empire on FOX, NCIS on CBS, and the Voice on NBC. That's what the Muppets are up against on just local channels; that doesn't even count Disney, Nick, Cartoon Network.

I'm okay with a 30 Rock version of the Muppets (which, in itself, was a human version of TMS), in fact I can totally dig it. When they cross over into Game of Thrones territory, then yeah, I'm out, wash my hands of it.

 

[D'Snowth]

With that said, I think we're still in the midst of a retro feel, in terms of entertainment. Just look at the very, very, so very many reboots and remakes that have occurred lately - Man from Uncle, TMNT (which never happened, BTW), the Smurfs, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Get Smart, etc. There's even talk of resurrecting Casablanca, which why?

That's another thing entirely too: Hollywood refuses to give new ideas and concepts a chance for fear they'll bomb, so they play it safe by trying to bank on nostalgia . . . and tarnish it in the process. There are some exceptions though, such as the Chipmunks, because they're still being handled by their original creators - their new show on Nick feels like a continuation of their 80s cartoon.