Who wants the future Muppet movies to be...

[dwmckim]

The title of "Muppets 2" has been discussed in every third thread in this forum since it was teased. HIGHLY unlikely that will be the actual title of the next movie.

In fact...taking a big risk here since i don't know if i'm allowed to spill the beans here...but i have it on good authority that it will actually be called "The Muppets 3,672"

 

[Vincent L]

Actually, it's "The Muppets 3.141592653589793"

 

[Pinkflower7783]

HELLO!!! Words from the frog himself!!!

 

[Muppet fan 123]

Hello everyone.

I was wondering if the muppet fans wants their Muppets to be CGI like the teddy bear on the new Seth McFarlane's movie TED???

For me, I think that should be the future of the Muppets. It still looks like a stuffed animal and it doesn't look like CGI at all.

Muppets to me are like Living Stuffed Animals!! And that movie Ted made that stuffed animal come to life!!!

I take nothing away from the Muppet Performers. They are all great artists.

But with that CGI, all we need is a great voice to make those "Living Stuffed Animals" known as The Muppets come to life even more.

I feel if Jim Henson was still alive, he will appreciate the CGI of Ted and probably would turn his Muppets into this kind of media.

Anyone agrees?

No offense, but I wish there was an "unlike" button.
No, why would they be called Muppets then. Other wise they should be....The CGIs! (There would be no marionette or puppets, so why would they keep their name?)
Sorry buddy, but have you seen the new Muppet movie? The puppeteering was amazing and looked very real. And you just have to admit that Walter did some pretty cool stuff.

 

[Yuna Leonhart]

HELLO!!! Words from the frog himself!!!

Good point, Kermit. CGI is nice and all but not for Muppets. The Muppets were puppets, are puppets and will always be puppets. I can't imagine anyone wanting it in any other way.

 

[Muppet fan 123]

Wow, ok so i'm the minority

I know I don't want a "digitize" muppets either. I don't want them looking like PIXAR characters.

But TED does not look like CGI or digitized.....he actually looks like a REAL furry Life Like Stuffed animal in a REAL world. That is what I meant about CGI.....I don't want the Muppets to be CGI like Shrek, Kung-Fu Panda, or Toy Story.

They would still look like the actual Muppets with CGI animatronics like Ted.

Actually the new Muppets already went on that direction. Rememeber when they kidnapped Jack Black....Swedish Chef was CGI on that scene. And Walter was also CGI when they showed his full body walking on the sink.

No they did not. They used blue screen technology. It's all just puppeteering.
http://www.awn.com/articles/article/finessing-muppets
Now that I proved my point on that, I don't think Jim would want the characters to be CGI, at all!

 

[Pinkflower7783]

Still you can't deny the fact that Jim was very much into technology and how it was evolving at the time. I believe I posted a video about it. However Jim did say inspite of all the latest technology "simple is good too." Like I said before I am not totally knocking CGI I think it's an amazing thing what their doing with it but like most people in another 20 years from now I wanna be able to still shake Kermit's hand. Otherwise I'd look pretty silly trying to do that with a CGI frog.

 

[Muppet fan 123]

Just want to say something else.
The Muppets are REAL. They exist in our world. They are real human beings (actually, frogs, chickehs, bears..and a whatever) who have feelings, like a real human.
You can actually meet (example) Gonzo in person. I remember they talked about something similar on the MuppetCast (Steve Whitmire episode part 1).
{quote} "You can go to Walt Disney World, for example, and meet Cinderella, and tell her a secret, but when you come back the next day, Cinderella might be there, but she won't remember what you told her. It might be a different person in a Cinderella costume. If you tell something to Gonzo, and come back two years later, Gonzo will remember you, and so will Dave Goelz. Gonzo is nothing without Dave puppeteering him, without Dave, Gonzo doesn't exist anymore."
Have you ever met a CGI character? (I didn't think so, and no one ever did, not real, not a possibility.) But I know people, who have met real Muppets! With a CGI character, maybe you can meet the guy who provide the voice, but it wouldn't mean much anymore. These puppeteers bring these characters to life, voice actors, don't. That's the work of a big group of animators.
Sure, CGI is cool. No denying that TED looks really good. But the magic of The Muppets would be lost forever if they were tranfered to CGI.

 

[Muppet fan 123]

Still you can't deny the fact that Jim was very much into technology and how it was evolving at the time. I believe I posted a video about it. However Jim did say inspite of all the latest technology "simple is good too." Like I said before I am not totally knocking CGI I think it's an amazing thing what their doing with it but like most people in another 20 years from now I wanna be able to still shake Kermit's hand. Otherwise I'd look pretty silly trying to do that with a CGI frog.

True! There is no way I can deny that. Jim was very interested in CGI. (Where do you think Waldo came out of?)
But to think that Jim would want his Muppets being tranfered to CGI? Nope. Not a chance.

 

[dwmckim]

While i don't want CGI Muppets, at the same time there's no harm or shame if CGI enhanced the Muppets. It's a tool - in itself neither positive or negative - it's how it's used that makes all the difference. No different than arm wires (or later on the ability to remove arm wires from the screen), chromakey or remote control. Or in Piggy-speak, you don't need to dress the Muppets up with a full CGI wardrobe, but it can make a fetching accessory.