What bothers me about Disney's ownership

[Drtooth]

Actually, speaking of DVD and Hong Kong Phooey, I heard somewhere that Hong Kong Phooey is on DVD now. Also, I think they also have Magilla Gorilla, I'll have to look it up, but I think that's right.

I believe they had both since August. I just haven't been able to pick either up.

What bothered me about Henson's ownership? The Jim Henson Company owned the franchise for about 20 years. But for 10 of those years they did practically nothing new with Muppet Babies and for over 5-years they were almost invisible from the public eye. Don't blame Disney for "wasting" 2-years without reviving them without also looking at the history of their hibernation.

A can agree and disagree with you on that. Henson didn't do much with Muppet babies since the show, with the exception of Merchandise and computer software. But then again, Henson didn't make other "Babies" to use in its stead. But then again, it took them forever to get their regular muppets up and running, and even then, everything had a 3+ year gap in between it.


I'm just saying, Disney hasn't really done anything big with the Muppets, and Muppet babies falls into that category. Plus, if they want to go the "baby themed" merchandising route, why have Baby Pooh and Princesses? Mickey, fine. But Pooh defies logic.

 

[Teheheman]

That, and if you wanna go as far as saying that Jim was a big part in all that Muppets stuff going on. If he were still alive during that time, then they wouldn't have had that big of a gap. With Jim being sick and then dying, I'm sure that kinda put a lot of things on hold. But I do agree, if they are gonna do something with the Muppets, and baby merchandise, do something with the Muppet Babies.

Daniel

 

[BradFraggle]

Plus, if they want to go the "baby themed" merchandising route, why have Baby Pooh and Princesses? Mickey, fine. But Pooh defies logic.

The reason is the people running the Pooh franchise are on their game and pushing hard on new Pooh creations and releases (and the top people are listening and allowing it). And it's working and doing well. Sadly the people working the Muppets haven't taken much intitive nor do they have the track record that Pooh's people has established within Disney. Disney is a big company so Disney isn't picking Pooh over Kermit - Pooh's people are popular and volenteering the franchise up, while Kermit's new people aren't (and Kermit's old people, aka Henson, were't doing it either).

 

[Drtooth]

The reason is the people running the Pooh franchise are on their game and pushing hard on new Pooh creations and releases (and the top people are listening and allowing it). And it's working and doing well. Sadly the people working the Muppets haven't taken much intitive nor do they have the track record that Pooh's people has established within Disney. Disney is a big company so Disney isn't picking Pooh over Kermit - Pooh's people are popular and volenteering the franchise up, while Kermit's new people aren't (and Kermit's old people, aka Henson, were't doing it either).

I agree. They haven't really done much for Muppets except for some spotty merchandise and a couple DVD's. I know Pooh is much more popular, but Baby Pooh is rediculous. Not just on a concept, but Pooh is big with babies and toddlers as it is. Why not just have the same Pooh stuff? I mean, a lot of stuff they do must have A.A. Milne turning around in his grave. Remember that odd Hello Kitty stylization of Disney characters a year or so back?

I'm just saying, if you have the ORIGINAL, why not use it, instead of copying it? It's like if Viacom made a crazy cartoon about a new rodent superhero, but still left Mighty Mouse in the dark.