The origins of the Muppet Babies

[Fozzie Bear]

Ok Look Fozzie. I know that but u still have those videos out there. How is it that Kermit can read books or whatever it is that he does and people don't bring that up about the MB? What do ya'll think about that?

I think it was a mistake on the part of JHC letting that happen, not unlike the accident of the MB appearing in MFC.

There is a second idea about the 'Kermit reading a book version' of the MB and then we fade to the cartoon: When you read a book, you do tend to imagine the locations read about and the characters in the book (or you SHOULD be able to do that). Not unlike when Uncle Remus tells the Little Boy about Br'er Rabbit and all and then he begins to forget he's in a cabin and starts to see Br'ers Rabbit, Fox, Bear, etc. So, in those cases it would be Kermit/Robin's imaginations about a book written about the characters from Piggy's Fantasy.

In this instance, I could accept the MB because they are still a part of someone's fantasy.

As long as they are a part of something dealing with someone's fantasy, I will be able to accept the MB. IE: I've said before that the MB cartoon could be Miss Piggy's fantasies continued and I would accept that. I would accept Muppet Kids as an extension of fantasy. As far as I'm concerned though, the TMS Muppets didn't know one another until they were on their way to Hollywood--although, Kermit says that 'it's sort of approximately how it happened.'

That leaves some room open for additional information.

 

[Beauregard]

What is Muppet Kids? I have never heard of this, can someone tell me?

 

[Fozzie Bear]

It's a book series about the Muppets in the years before (ack) Muppet Babies and (yay) The Muppet Show. Another non-canon bunch of mush which throws everything all outta whack.

If you consider it like this, though, that it's another set of stories based on an idea from Piggy's Fantasy from TMTM, which Kermit carried on while reading a book to Robin, then it'd work okay because it's a fantasy about a fantasy. I can deal with that.

 

[Beauregard]

Umhm.

 

[Bean Bunny]

Umhm.

Here a picture,

 

[Baby Rowlf]

I never liked the Muppet Kids. As for the babies, I never accepted them as history. They were just....there. And I was happy with that.

 

[Drtooth]

I never liked the Muppet Kids. As for the babies, I never accepted them as history. They were just....there. And I was happy with that.

Who said it had to be?

I always say that.

And I like the Baby bean episodes, but what's the point of a baby Bean? He's cute enough already (possibly evedn cuter as an adult!)

 

[frogboy4]

The Muppet Babies are just the glossed over story of Muppet childhood sold to the press. The real story was too shocking and inappropriate to be told. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Just you wait for the E True Hollywood Story. LOL!

 

[Baby Rowlf]

The Muppet Babies are just the glossed over story of Muppet childhood sold to the press. The real story was too shocking and inappropriate to be told. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Just you wait for the E True Hollywood Story. LOL!

*giggles* that'd be cute! Odd, but cute! BTW...I'd like to see a live action Nanny...

 

[camillachick]

I've been reading this thread and another like it. Here's my input on how the muppets met. I always thought that the muppet babies was the real story of how the muppets met and the movie (in which they meet) was just a movie they were all acting in. Like one of them said, "What if we all met this way? Sounds like a good plot for a movie". I mean the muppet babies was treated like something that really happened, while the movies always claimed to be movies. Don't the muppets make comments about the fact that they're in a movie during the movie? Someone help me out here. I mean this opinion may just be because I watched the babies first and saw the movies afterwards, but I bet none of you thought of this explanation, did you?