The Muppets Kitchen with Cat Cora

[Luke]

From listening to Craig Shemin on Muppetcast it kinda seems like he isn't the greatest fan of Angelo, and especially not the accent - but he gives the reasons for them wanting him. I kinda get the reasons, Fozzie or Kermit would never have been able to do much with the food, and it does have a serious (ish) food element. I still don't feel that the Angelo character is anywhere near strong enough to fill the role, it may have worked better without the accent. He says if he could go back he would have put the Swedish Chef in more, it may well have worked quite well with two Muppet chefs together I think.

He said his brief was to make sure the Muppetiness was at the same level as TMS with all the crazy things going on, and I think he has certainly achieved this, the writing has been great as well as all the character appearances. He also said he fought for all the cutaway segements and again, brilliant. They have really made the whole thing great for Muppet fans to watch.

 

[Drtooth]

Sad.

Of course, there are some individuals who are both fans of Disney and the Muppets!

Such as myself.

And unless I'm off my guess, so is Duke.

That's what's actually bugging me. They had NO problem when Disney betrayed its fans and just ho'd themselves out to Tweenagers and Preschoolers and told everyone else to sit on it. But when it comes to purchasing characters that were almost going to be purchased years ago anyway, and actually seeing through on the investment and making a movie that isn't a cheap b**s^^rdization of a cult cartoon series that fails anyway makes them mad?

Sure, I wanna see a project with Mickey and Co that isn't for preschoolers (and sticks hard to the Dora mode), but that's just... bitter. I mean, the studio wanted to give Tron a second chance. Tron. It wasn't a huge success, but it was a cult film. If Disney didn't buy them up, the Muppets would have an "edgy" script written for Weinstine who would go to NOT produce it.

Still... I wonder what the motives for buying Marvel were, other than the expanding their line of acquisitions and influence. Seems like nothing's really the same or different in any way. And I wish they yanked the X-Men license from Fox. Wolverine? Icky.

 

[Mupp]

That's what's actually bugging me. They had NO problem when Disney betrayed its fans and just ho'd themselves out to Tweenagers and Preschoolers and told everyone else to sit on it. But when it comes to purchasing characters that were almost going to be purchased years ago anyway, and actually seeing through on the investment and making a movie that isn't a cheap b**s^^rdization of a cult cartoon series that fails anyway makes them mad?

Sure, I wanna see a project with Mickey and Co that isn't for preschoolers (and sticks hard to the Dora mode), but that's just... bitter. I mean, the studio wanted to give Tron a second chance. Tron. It wasn't a huge success, but it was a cult film. If Disney didn't buy them up, the Muppets would have an "edgy" script written for Weinstine who would go to NOT produce it.

Still... I wonder what the motives for buying Marvel were, other than the expanding their line of acquisitions and influence. Seems like nothing's really the same or different in any way. And I wish they yanked the X-Men license from Fox. Wolverine? Icky.

Well, I personally have no problem with Marvel being owned by Disney. Sure, it was a bit unexpected, but it could could turn out to be beneficial for both parties involved.
If nothing else, I think it will help Disney to attract the elusive boy demographic. They currently have Marvel cartoons on the Disney XD tv channel.

I think that part of the reason for Mickey Mouse Clubhouse was to keep the classic characters relevant to the newer generation.
I really miss House Of Mouse, it was a brilliant concept as far as I'm concerned.

Hopefully the Epic Mickey video game will be a success. This the first time that Disney alone is trying to make Mickey an edgier character in a darker environment. (The Kingdom Hearts series doesn't count, since that was from Square Enix)

 

[frogboy4]

Hindsight is always 20/20, but that's what fan forums are about. I'm glad that Shemin realizes the absence of our favorite Swede like I do. Still, the great cutaways and the rest of the classic Muppet bits make this project worth it. This, like Studio DC, is not necessarily for the longtime fans. They're drumming-up new fans in time for the movie.

I'm also glad that Disney owns the Muppets and they've been doing well with Marvel and Pixar too. I think they understand the importance of the brands retaining their identity while under the Disney umbrella.

Some fans don't favor anything that drives attention away from Mickey, and the Muppets can actually appear live places without altering their original form. They can improv too. There's a lot to be jealous over, but to each their own taste. I like all of it!

 

[Drtooth]

Well, I personally have no problem with Marvel being owned by Disney. Sure, it was a bit unexpected, but it could could turn out to be beneficial for both parties involved.
If nothing else, I think it will help Disney to attract the elusive boy demographic. They currently have Marvel cartoons on the Disney XD tv channel.

They had that stuff on the previous channel, Toon Disney, anyway. But They seem to know to leave Marvel well enough alone, treating it as a separate entity, so I can't really speak much about that. Comic book heroes are hot right now, and they struck at the right time for the deal... besides, NO ONE would forgive them if they screwed anything up. We all love the Muppets, but they ARE small fish compared to Marvel. If there was any lul in activity, a LOT more people would react negatively.

I think that part of the reason for Mickey Mouse Clubhouse was to keep the classic characters relevant to the newer generation.
I really miss House Of Mouse, it was a brilliant concept as far as I'm concerned.

Hopefully the Epic Mickey video game will be a success. This the first time that Disney alone is trying to make Mickey an edgier character in a darker environment. (The Kingdom Hearts series doesn't count, since that was from Square Enix)

I've been saying it for a while... sure, it's fine to have alittle kiddy show, even though I refuse to agree with the logic of "Find the X" and waiting for characters to stand around and answer their own questions. Never liked it, never have. But that's a Nick Jr. rant, and I don't want to get into that. I'm glad that they had the Goofy How To install your Entertainment System cartoon, and I love Boom's work releasing both classic comics and European translations of Mickey and Donald... but they need a strong project that isn't a video game or comic. At least another DTV project. And yes, House of Mouse and Mouseworks were Great!

I'm also glad that Disney owns the Muppets and they've been doing well with Marvel and Pixar too. I think they understand the importance of the brands retaining their identity while under the Disney umbrella.

Some fans don't favor anything that drives attention away from Mickey, and the Muppets can actually appear live places without altering their original form. They can improv too. There's a lot to be jealous over, but to each their own taste. I like all of it!

To me, the time to be outraged was when they focused mainly on forced TV show vehicles for easily cast and easily replaceable Pop Stars all singing the same music by the same writers. They are making Strides... I LOVE Phineas and Ferb, and I love what they're doing with it (for the first time since Buzz Lightyear of Star Command we're seeing a publicity/ merchandising blitz for a Disney Cartoon series... probably even Disney Afternoon), but they need to get back into the TV cartoon for older kids feild. Stuff that DOESN'T need a TV/EI to rerun over and over on ABC kids. The strides they've taken with the Muppets should in fact speak positive volumes on the whole. Again, Disney needs to find a viable vehicle for their characters (Warner Bros has that problem with Looney Tunes, Disney has been stronger than them lately), and a preschool show just isn't enough. I still wish they'd come up with some theatrical or even DTV movie featuring any of the characters in any combination in any theme there could be.

Still... I'd LOVE to see a Paperinik/Duck Avenger movie (same way they have those Tink movies... they're also based on foreign comics)... but that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

 

[Mupp]

I've been saying it for a while... sure, it's fine to have alittle kiddy show, even though I refuse to agree with the logic of "Find the X" and waiting for characters to stand around and answer their own questions. Never liked it, never have. But that's a Nick Jr. rant, and I don't want to get into that. I'm glad that they had the Goofy How To install your Entertainment System cartoon, and I love Boom's work releasing both classic comics and European translations of Mickey and Donald... but they need a strong project that isn't a video game or comic. At least another DTV project. And yes, House of Mouse and Mouseworks were Great!

Also, not to get too much off topic, but it seems that Disney is trying to embrace their classic characters a bit more.

As part of the expansion at Disney California Adventure, the Silly Symphony Swings opened earlier this year. Its themed to "The Band Concert" cartoon.
Now, for those Disney history buffs, yes, "The Band Concert" is not actually a Silly Symphony, but the cartoon has a lot of music in it so they felt that the name fit.

Also, there is "Mickey's Fun Wheel" a ferries wheel with a huge pie-eyed Mickey face. Based on the classic cartoon openings with Mickey's face in a sunbeam.

And next year, Goofy's Sky School will open. (A wild mouse coaster, based on the "Goofy's Glider" cartoon)

Sorry if that was a little bit of a stretch to mention those, I just think its great to see them using classic Disney elements.


Speaking of the Looney Tunes, I have a theory as to why they are such a hard sell these days, but that's for another new thread sometime...

 

[Drtooth]

Also, not to get too much off topic, but it seems that Disney is trying to embrace their classic characters a bit more.

It's a definate improvement over the last years of Eisner. You can actually walk into a Disney store and find Mickey stuff. For the longest time, if you weren't a fan of 101 Dalmatians of Pooh, you were out of luck. No wonder they almost closed them all down. It's just that they need a big project to really make the connection. Problem is trying to think up what it should be.

Speaking of the Looney Tunes, I have a theory as to why they are such a hard sell these days, but that's for another new thread sometime...

I think the problem is that they rely on movies. Movies of Looney Tunes characters are a tough sell. To quote a Tiny Toons episode "When it comes to cartoons, Us old timers have a 7 minute attention span." Even the early Bugs Bunny movies were just rehashed shorts with linking footage. Other than their cameos in Roger Rabbit, they just haven't had any luck. They do well on television though. I just think they need another Taz-Mania, Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries, or Duck Dodgers (woefully underrated, by the way)... they might just get that with the Looney Tunes show. They aren't going to get that with CGI Bugs/Marvin/Pepe movies.

Then of course I blame the cable and local channels for that too. Bugs Bunny cartoons were a staple of Weekday (and even Sunday Morning) line ups, both local packages like the Bugs and Woody Show and network official packages like The Bugs and Daffy Show or even Looney Tunes on Nickelodeon. There was a time in the 70's, Saturday Mornings when networks aired their own packages. Sometimes Looney Tunes shows actually ran against each other. Even up through the 90's. Then CN got first rights, and they they just gave up showing them.

Those characters shouldn't be that hard a sell. Unlike Mickey cartoons (which didn't have any syndicated or network package at least until the Disney channel), LT cartoons were always on somewhere, even locally. Sure, Disney has a LOT of things LT doesn't have (I don't want to list), but I only saw Disney cartoons as part of VHS collections or TV specials when I was younger. Woody Woodpecker, Popeye, and especially LT were always on in syndicated packages. We need to get the local packages back somehow. They shouldn't cost all that much, outside of royalties... but then again, local stations LOVE infomercial money... but that's another story. Personally, I just think whoever runs Warner Bros' animation department is clearly an unhappy person who was unhappy with the job they wound up with. It just shows so obviously. I'm not listing anything.

Yet, they manage to Keep Scooby in the public eye. he has never been without a show expect for a period in the 90's, where they had nonstop reruns and semi-annual DTV movies. He's been going strong since 68! Even before the WB buyout of Turner.

This ties in to the whole Magilla, don't worry. It takes a very special project to relaunch a popular entity. Disney is focusing on the movie, no doubt... but they've done beautifully since 2008 with online shorts, comics, that one special and everything else. They want this to happen, and this specific web series is proof they're reaching out to people beyond the fanbase while staying true to the fans without the awkward reaching and grabbing for different focus groups in a more jaded manner like a certain TV movie, which shall remain nameless.

 

[beaker]

I don't understand it, but there's a lot of irrational Muppet hatred at Disney boards.

Heck, as a Muppet fan I'll critique the frog out of things including this project, but if it were available on DVD I'd buy it! Studio DC too, but mostly it would keep my dusty copy of Kermit's Swamp Years company.

Nonetheless, we know that there's much more goodness to come on a larger scale. It's so cool to see Muppet items in the Disney Store!

Eh, I say who cares. Disney magic doesn't hold a candle to the magic of Jim Henson and the Muppets(as much as like everyone else I am a fan of classic Disney animation and the theme parks)
You cant go and meet the "real" Mickey, but you can sure go to a q and a with Steve Whitmire and Kermit or Goelz and Gonzo.

Disneyana is beyond mainstream. Virtually every middle aged woman in America has her house filled with Mickey and Pooh ephemera and knick knacks. But fans of the Muppets proper, now that's a truly select and special breed that I would almost call underground.

Sadly I could not stand either of the Studio DC, but that's probably as I cant stand the Hanna Montana/Beiber/Jonas Disney stuff.

 

[beaker]

From listening to Craig Shemin on Muppetcast it kinda seems like he isn't the greatest fan of Angelo, and especially not the accent - but he gives the reasons for them wanting him. I kinda get the reasons, Fozzie or Kermit would never have been able to do much with the food, and it does have a serious (ish) food element. I still don't feel that the Angelo character is anywhere near strong enough to fill the role, it may have worked better without the accent. He says if he could go back he would have put the Swedish Chef in more, it may well have worked quite well with two Muppet chefs together I think.

He said his brief was to make sure the Muppetiness was at the same level as TMS with all the crazy things going on, and I think he has certainly achieved this, the writing has been great as well as all the character appearances. He also said he fought for all the cutaway segements and again, brilliant. They have really made the whole thing great for Muppet fans to watch.

Eh, it works for what it does...and given I doubt too many people other than curious housewives and mostly us hardcore fans are even watching; I say they're doing just fine.

The fact we're getting more new Muppet spoofs, sketches and zanyness is nothing but good news. Angelo may ultimately be a forgettable "anything muppet" type character(much like the look of Walter) but its the supporting cast that brings it meaning.

 

[beaker]

That's what's actually bugging me. They had NO problem when Disney betrayed its fans and just ho'd themselves out to Tweenagers and Preschoolers and told everyone else to sit on it. But when it comes to purchasing characters that were almost going to be purchased years ago anyway, and actually seeing through on the investment and making a movie that isn't a cheap b**s^^rdization of a cult cartoon series that fails anyway makes them mad?

Sure, I wanna see a project with Mickey and Co that isn't for preschoolers (and sticks hard to the Dora mode), but that's just... bitter. I mean, the studio wanted to give Tron a second chance. Tron. It wasn't a huge success, but it was a cult film. If Disney didn't buy them up, the Muppets would have an "edgy" script written for Weinstine who would go to NOT produce it.

Still... I wonder what the motives for buying Marvel were, other than the expanding their line of acquisitions and influence. Seems like nothing's really the same or different in any way. And I wish they yanked the X-Men license from Fox. Wolverine? Icky.

You know, I have to say...perhaps Disney would not have the money to throw toward projects huge nerds like you and I love(Muppets, Tron, etc) if it wasnt for the tween stuff.

I mean, did you ever think youd have BOTH a Darkwing and Muppet series regularly appearing at your local comic store?

The aquisition of Marvel seems easy to me, as Disney has LONG been lacking in things that appeal to older male children, teen males and the college crowd. Disney is pretty unstoppable now,
though if only Pixar could pump out more than one production a year like DWA does.

I admit, I am still embarrassed with how anti Disney buyout I was back in the day. Can you imagine where the Muppets would be if they were still with JHC? I shudder to think.