Would FTB and EIG Have Been Better or Worse if...

[D'Snowth]

I got to thinking about a point I brought up in the Charlie Brown and Snoopy thread about the one thing I like best about Peanuts movies is that they're essentially of the same quality as that of the TV specials and shows, and that Charles Schulz never tried to outdo himself in the movies, like a lot of animated franchises seem to think is a necessity (again, the comparison of an animated TV show and the movie it follows is supposed to be like comparing a dog house to the Taj Mahal apparently).

Which got me to thinking... we know that the SST set was shot on location in Canada for FTB, and that the street scenes of EIG were shot on a different set on a different soundstage that had more realistic lighting. But what if the street scenes of FTB were still shot on the Teletape soundstage as it was during that time? Or if the street scenes of EIG were shot on the Around the Corner era at Kaufman Astoria Studios? Would that make the movies better or worse?

In my opinion, I don't think it'd make that much of a difference for EIG, because again, the set that was built for that movie pretty much resembled the street during the ATC era, and the filming angles weren't that elaborate, they might have pulled it off... but for FTB, there were so many different angles and elaborate shots that would've been nearly impossible to achieve of the then simplistic Teletape set I think. What about you guys?

 

[Drtooth]

I don't know about you, but I think BOTH movies look better because they filmed the street segments on soundstages with bigger sets. It made SS look like a REAL busy street that people live in, and not some sort of neighborhood/cul-de-sac fusion with one apartment complex on one side. I only wish SW had the budget to show every episode like that. Place looked deserted this year with the lack of extras and other puppets.

Now, EIG would have greatly benefited from more on location filming. It looked very artificial where FTB looked very very real. Muppets film GREAT in real locations... that's the one thing I love about Murray had a little Lamb and those other scenes with him. It makes them seem even more real when they have onlookers and aren't confined to a small TV set.

 

[Mupp]

I don't know about you, but I think BOTH movies look better because they filmed the street segments on soundstages with bigger sets. It made SS look like a REAL busy street that people live in.

I agree!

And yes, like you said EIG could really have benefited from more on location filming. I don't like the fact that the whole entire Elmo movie was filmed indoors. I always thought it would have been cool if they had actually used some outdoor sets for the Grouchland world.

Follow That Bird was kind of like; Sesame Street meets the real world. While Elmo in Grouchland felt like Sesame Street meets more fantasy.

The Muppets look awesome in the real world!

 

[D'Snowth]

The Muppets look awesome in the real world!

Yeah, I would agree, and even Jim has said he loves to get to film Muppets on location, in natural light, because they not only look better in the natural lighting, but they also look more natural, and an actual part of our world, and I would agree.

 

[minor muppetz]

The rebuilt sets do add to the movies, though they don't seem to go for really impressive effects. In FTB we see the Muppets operating vehicles, but that had already been done in the Muppet movies (though FTB has them driving smaler Muppet-scale vehicles). I guess seeing Big Bird jump from a moving vehicle was impressive. And EIG used a lot of green screen and matting... Too many movies these days rely on green screen, matting, and cgi effects. It gets me wondering, "what was the last movie to really get us asking 'how did they do that...?'" (hopefully the next Muppet movie will have some effects like that).

 

[D'Snowth]

Too many movies these days rely on green screen, matting, and cgi effects.

Unfortunately, it's because that's become the inexpensive, more economical way to make movies, as opposed to building actual sets.

 

[minor muppetz]

Unfortunately, it's because that's become the inexpensive, more economical way to make movies, as opposed to building actual sets.

It would be interesting to try to see when that became the norm with most movies.