• Welcome to the Muppet Central Forum!
    You are viewing our forum as a guest. Join our free community to post topics and start private conversations. Please contact us if you need help.
  • Christmas Music
    Our 24th annual Christmas Music Merrython is underway on Muppet Central Radio. Listen to the best Muppet Christmas music of all-time through December 25.
  • Macy's Thanksgiving Parade
    Let us know your thoughts on the Sesame Street appearance at the annual Macy's Parade.
  • Jim Henson Idea Man
    Remember the life. Honor the legacy. Inspire your soul. The new Jim Henson documentary "Idea Man" is now streaming exclusively on Disney+.
  • Back to the Rock Season 2
    Fraggle Rock Back to the Rock Season 2 has premiered on AppleTV+. Watch the anticipated new season and let us know your thoughts.
  • Bear arrives on Disney+
    The beloved series has been off the air for the past 15 years. Now all four seasons are finally available for a whole new generation.
  • Sam and Friends Book
    Read our review of the long-awaited book, "Sam and Friends - The Story of Jim Henson's First Television Show" by Muppet Historian Craig Shemin.

Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie

Natalie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
226
Reaction score
4
Just to set a couple things straight:

I never said it wasn't depicting God, because obviously it was, but they tried really hard not to use religiousy terms so as not to offend many people (obviously it still did offend some).

Also, no, I didn't think there was anything inappropriate in the movie, with or without muppets. It just seemed like there was maybe a slightly un-kid-friendly atmosphere to it.

Ok, go on, I just needed to clear that up.
 

beaker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2002
Messages
7,761
Reaction score
858
In a way I think maybe thats part of the intended effect(maybe not, but still) to stir things up a bit. It's good were talking.
This year weve had embarassingly bad drama and flame wars concerning the Aids muppet, the Snoop thread, the 9 days conspiracy, etc. Im confident we can discuss all the issues brought up in the film with maturity.

Like I said, I get a good sense about Whoopi and David...they seem like good people...just my goodness did their scenes in heaven bog down the pacing of the film.

As for Harold the choreographer...(this was mentioned on the TP site, but I also was thinking this) he wasnt the only Muppet 'outted' the other night on the film. that's all I will say^_^
 

Luke

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2002
Messages
7,405
Reaction score
98
Originally posted by Chilly Down
I don’t agree that the Muppets have to “get with the times” or that they have to do this to make more money. Whether something is right or wrong has nothing to do with whether or not it’s fashionable or financially profitable.
I think they are taking this direction because they feel it's a good chance of them gaining some more popularity and thus more money. As a company they are at a dead end with their backs against the wall - the family targetted stuff hasn't worked enough for them popularity wise, and financially their future is unstable with EMTV on their backs to cut costs every waking hour. I'm not saying what they've done is right or wrong but clearly they've had to make a move to improve things and making other family targetted shows and movies the same as others that clearly haven't been as acclaimed to the point they would have liked is just like throwing away a blank cheque. If they had just made another 'Muppets Tonight' or 'Muppets From Space' and it went the same way as the others it's highly uncertain as to whether they would get more chances in the future to do new things so i guess they feel they want to try a new direction to try and get things on the right track again.

Originally posted by Chilly Down
[B}BUT the thing that gets me and that’s driving me nuts is that people are saying that the Henson Company has abandoned kids and forgotten their legacy. Sorry, but there was a lot going on in those original TMS’s that we just weren’t aware of at the time [/B]
I don't think it's that they are abandoning kids or want to - in media the direction of a brand is usually very tightly focused and it's clear they've had a long period since Jim died targetting kids and families specifically (MCC, MTI, MFS, MT). Obviously with this whole 'edgier' concept and also being booked on the more risque late night talk shows they are taking a chance at shifting the target to the nostalgia market and the 18-30 males. That's not to say that they don't want the kids and families to watch, just that their main target is those 18-30 males so the content is slightly more focused towards them. If the kid and family market was working for them i guess they wouldn't have changed direction at all. Granted Jim was a big fan of doing some stuff which were nods to adults and flew over the kids heads in TMS but there hasn't been much of that in the period since.
 

trekkie1701E

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2002
Messages
627
Reaction score
0
<<Well, that is the God of the Bible and that's a different case if you even believe the Bible or not.>>
Sorry, but I must reply to this.
People believe different things; "Christians" believe different things. While some believe that God created the earth, others believe in the big bang theory (This was proven during the debate on whether to teach evolution or creationism in school). While some believe that being gay & a christian is alright, other have strong feelings against it. And While some believers -- mostly old school -- hate JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, GODSPELL and JOSEPH & THE AMAZING TECHNICOLOR DREAMCOAT because, according to them, God & music above two deciples don't mix, others love these musicals. People interpret the bible & testaments in their own ways. There are quotes in there that "do" in fact imply that being gay is alright. Nowhere in that book does it say "God hates rock music." And the big bang theory: The theory "does" make very good sense; it just depends on whether one decides to believe it or not.
My point after all this? It doesn't matter if God is portrayed as a man "or" a girl. Personally, I believe God is male. Yet, I have no problem with God being portrayed in a movie "as" a woman; let alone an african american. It's a muppet movie! The powers-that-be obviously thought "God ... hmmm ... Whoopi Goldberg? That'll be fun."
"Fun" ... a muppet movie is "fun," not some Christian thing like VEGGIETALES.
But, it is up to you. Don't like Whoopi playing God? Alright; fine. No harm done. The world isn't going to end. To each his own.
Just like the bible.
 

beaker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2002
Messages
7,761
Reaction score
858
Well, it's not like this was a Muppet version of Kevin Smith's Dogma.

As for the whole 'new' direction JHC debuted recently with Kermit on Late Late and the NBC film...it's the only choice they have now. I mean sure they can churn out more purely kiddy 'safe' sentimental stuff, but is that a sane financial decision? Heck no.

I would hate to see Muppets go the way of Greg the bunny or Crankyankers...those shows give 'primetime puppet' shows a bad name before The new Fox Muppet show even has a chance to air.

I am so grateful Fox is giving JHC a chance with the show, given th current state and climate of things with the company. Some fret about what could be in the pipeline as far as direction with the show...well this aint 1977 anymore.

I cant wait to see what JHC has up it's sleave. I feel its imperative they make it at least tv-PG...in an era where unfortunately Muppet stuff in stores is still next to non existent next to Simpsons and Osbourne stuff they need to keep current...not by bowing to cheap jokes, but by bringing in smart, edgy, subversive humour that works on both ways.
 

ResidentLilly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2002
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
23
I don't know what I love more...the actual movie, or the fact that so many people are TALKING about it here and in the real world.

That's gotta be a good thing, right?
 

Rizzo

Active Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2002
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
I NEVER SAID that God was a man. I said that he was DEPICTED as a man, and not to blame me for over 2000 years of those depictions. I didn't say that I didn't respect other interpretations of a supreme being, but the special was about CHRISTmas, and in the Christian Bible, God is referred to as "HIM."
Sidcrowe, I never meant to suggest that you did say that God was a man. I was speaking generally to everyone, and I suppose I should have gone into more detail so as not to confuse anyone. I was actually intending to support you, I felt that Whoopi was not a good choice for God either. Sorry, I should have been more specific.
 

Natalie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
226
Reaction score
4
hmm...I don't remember them saying sucks either...when was it?
 

FellowWLover

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2002
Messages
695
Reaction score
4
Originally posted by Chilly Down
Also, “The Boss” did seem largely unconcerned about people; she just seemed more interested in being a couch potato. (And yes, Kermit did refer to her as God in an interview, so there’s no mistake about who they meant. Also, “divine intervention” and “works in mysterious ways” are concepts linked with the traditional Christian portrayal of God.) And even more to the point, the scenes were just BORING. They were overlong and not very funny. They were mirroring the device from “It’s a Wonderful Life,” yet in that film the heavenly scenes had good pacing and were over quickly. If only this film had that same sense.


... I’m also still a little curious about Emiligh. I wonder if the movie had been better-paced if she might not have asked for the TV to be turned off? I have to wonder what her response would have been if she had watched “Shrek” (a thoroughly entertaining, much better-paced film that I nonetheless wouldn’t show to any of my young cousins or nephews).

As for Whoopi as God, I have to say that I agree with the gist of what Sid has been saying. It didn't offend me, but it was a pretty lame, even predictable, choice on how to portray God. I think they could have gone with some twinkling lights in the sky to a much better end.

About the pacing... Emileigh has never seen Shrek. but I can tell you that, exciting or not, Emileigh doesn't go for "mean" in her movies. And that is how she saw this one, as "mean". To her, it had a hard edge that she didn't enjoy watching. I think the sexual stuff probably contributed to the feeling, but I doubt she could articulate that part. (I am trying to think of something else she has balked about, but am coming up short right now. If I think of anything, I will post it so you can get a handle on how she thinks.)

Thing is, I don't know why everyone is so shocked that I say this. Many of you wished for edgey Muppets, a lot have said they don't want "kiddie fare", and still more are looking for contemporary, adult entertainment from the Henson franchise. You got it! So why the surprise that I am saying it is no longer appropriate for children?

Seems to me some people here have been trying to convince parents like me that we are "blowing it out of proportion" and that this movie was "tame" compared to much of what else is out there. Again, I say it depends on your perspective. It may be tame compared to what is popular these days, but as you said, "whether something is right or wrong has nothing to do with whether or not it’s fashionable or financially profitable".

Many of you have referred to "sexy" comments from past Muppet endeavors. True, they may be found. But the difference (as in that Janice quote) is that in the past those moments were hidden here and there for the savvy viewer, they were random lines, not integral parts of the plot.

And why do I care so much about this? From my perspective, when a parent watches a film with their child, they are giving a sort of silent endorsement of the content of the film. And in this case, Emileigh outright asked me why we were watching it! I think that says a lot.
 
Top