Your Thoughts: Kermit and Miss Piggy on America's Got Talent

[doc hopper]

Oh, and that's just my opinion from what I've observed from the frog and pig over the years. So you all may disagree.

 

[MWoO]

I had heard there were at least two Mobile Labs. They can have manual voice control or a few hundred programmed responses. I thought Dave and Steve both spent time down there recording all the responses and then spent more time down there walking it in the park on manual control .. but AFAIK, the plan was always for whoever was going to operate it day to day in the park would use the pre-programmed voices, not do their own.

I could be wrong, that was the info i remember. It's been a while. There is video of the Dave/Steve tests on Youtube, or was.

The mobile lab is not totally pre-programed. There is a lot of live interaction, though some parts are pre-programmed with Dave and Steve and I think all of Beakers stuff is pre-programmed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwotf4v53o4

I'm pretty sure that the person doing the live stuff is no Dave, though I could be wrong.

From what i gather they use some kind of voice synthesizing to match the operator's voice to Bunsen's. Obviously it helps if the operator is already fairly close.

As for what I think about theme park performances, I'd rather see pre-recorded stuff with perhaps some alternating lines here and there to give people a reason to come back. It would give consistency to the characters and add something very cool to the theme parks. Plus i am pretty sure a lot of their other shows are pre-recorded anyway.

 

[MWoO]

What made Kermit and Piggy's relationship so great in the very beginning was that Kermit resisted her overwhelming pushiness. Kermit was mean, often to the point of making pig jokes, sty references, etc. What made the chemistry so good between these two, originally, was friction. But they were somehow stuck with each other, and Kermit seemed to know it - so he'd give in knowing deep down that he probably loved her. Remember the Muppets' version of "We Got Us?" Kermit even mutters to himself, "unfortunately." So to have Kermit and Piggy be nice to each other just keeps them from being as interesting as they really could be.

I think during the muppet show years there was the friction but by the time of Muppet Family Christmas and the like the frog had certainly given in. The friction was brought back during the Steve years. My guess is that it was done to, as you said, make them more interesting and to keep things from getting stale. I mean, when you think of Clark Kent and Lois Lane you think of them as the couple that can never be together because Clark can never tell her he is Superman, you don't think of them as the married couple they have been for years now. Same with the pig and the frog.

 

[frogboy4]

What made Kermit and Piggy's relationship so great in the very beginning was that Kermit resisted her overwhelming pushiness. Kermit was mean, often to the point of making pig jokes, sty references, etc. What made the chemistry so good between these two, originally, was friction. But they were somehow stuck with each other, and Kermit seemed to know it - so he'd give in knowing deep down that he probably loved her. Remember the Muppets' version of "We Got Us?" Kermit even mutters to himself, "unfortunately." So to have Kermit and Piggy be nice to each other just keeps them from being as interesting as they really could be.

See, I've got to agree with that. Tension is what makes iconic relationships work in entertainment...as long as they can keep the humor fresh.

Personally I'd rather have seen Johnny and Sal sing I've Got You Babe on the show. THAT would have been really funny!

 

[doc hopper]

Personally I'd rather have seen Johnny and Sal sing I've Got You Babe on the show. THAT would have been really funny!

ABSOLUTELY!

 

[MWoO]

I actually think it would have been funnier with Gonzo and Piggy. Kermit and Piggy doing this was flat and not really funny. I mean, am I the only one that doesn't think random chickens is automatically funny anymore?

 

[Ruahnna]

Friction rubs me the wrong way

Friction drives most relationships--at least some of the time, but there is a difference between friction and grating. When Piggy first arrived on the scene, she lacked some of the glamor that we have come to associate with her, but--glamor or not--she stole and show and garnered Kermit's undivided attention. Kermit could say all day long (and sometimes did) that he didn't have an exclusive relationship with Piggy but let some hunky male co-star get too cozy and he'd wade in there with flippers flying. I LOVED those moments. I still do. That was REAL friction--not just the outward struggle between Kermit and Piggy but Kermit's inward struggle to resist her (which was so charmingly obvious to all of us).

What we've gotten in the past several years has NOT been friction--it's been ugly and rude. I wouldn't tune into a talk show to listen to some guy talk trash about the girl he's currently dating but I've sat through way too many fat jokes from Kermit in the past several years. The reason that it USED to be entertaining was that we all knew that--deep down--Kermit liked Piggy, wanted Piggy--maybe even (gasp!) loved Piggy, but he fought it like crazy. It made me love him and pity him at the same time. (This would be a good time for the single guys to take notes.)

In the past (I'm going to say three) 3 years, Kermit sort of devolved from the hilariously conflicted lover-frog that I liked into some sort of obnoxious reality show date making fun of the person he went out with (and was still going out with). Sorry, but I'm just too grown up to find that amusing or entertaining--it's smarmy and off-putting.

What I liked about the other night was that the CHARACTERS were interacting in a familiar way. When Kermit warbled, "I'll give you my key," and looked suitable weak-kneed, well--I was a goner. THAT'S what Kermit used to do to me, and he did it the other night with aplomb.

Somehow, this "discussion" has degenerated into some sort of attack/defense of the puppeteers and their roles or rights regarding specific characters. While I don't think those are unimportant issues, I'm more interested in the continuity of the CHARACTER than the other issues. (Perhaps I'm in the wrong thread!) As I said in my earlier post, if I bought a comic it was because I wanted to see the CHARACTER--not who was drawing the character. Doesn't anybody want to come over to the un-dark side with me?

 

[GelflingWaldo]

I DID NOT and DO NOT tune in to see "Steve's Rendition of Kermit." I tuned in to see Kermit and I saw him.

I DID NOT and DO NOT tune in to see "Steve's Rendition of Kermit" either. I tuned in to see Kermit but I didn't see him. I saw a Kermit puppet and I heard a somewhat Kermit-like voice; but it wasn't Kermit. Sure, it was a decent simulation... but it wasn't the real genuine Kermit the Frog. And no matter how good to puppeteering and the vocals were to simulating Steve's; it doesn't make it anything more than a simulation. I don't want simulations, I want the real thing!

Steve Whitmire is currently the one and only Kermit the Frog. And in my opinion there can only be one Kermit. Jim Henson was it for 30+ years, and Steve has been it for almost 20. Someday someone else will have to be allowed to take on the character - but not while he already has a stable performer. I care about the characters. I want rich 3-dimentional characters; not flat caricatures, imitations, vocal approximations, or simulations. I want real soulful characters that can grow evolve and connect with the audience. That can only happen if there is consistancy - and that can only happen if there is one performer at a time. Performer flip-flopping and inconsistencies like this hurt the characters (and they divide the viewers).

The truth of the matter is that I was so pleased with what the CHARACTERS were doing that I really wasn't that interested in what the MUPPETEERS were doing.

I am concerned with what this means for the CHARACTERS; and I am not overly concerned with what this means for the MUPPETEERS.

For me this is not about Steve Whitmire, this is about Kermit. I'm not upset due to Steve somehow being disrespected or under-minded by this performance. I'm not upset due to the possibility of Steve loosing work. I am not upholding of some kind of "puppeteering code of honor", nor am I trying to prevent new Muppeteers from coming into the family. This isn't because I prefer Steve's rendition of Kermit over this new interpretation or that I have some kind of unwavering loyalty to Steve. I am upset due to what's this means to Kermit.

Recast like this reduce the frog down to nothing more than a visual (a well-crafted green sock with ping-pong ball eyes), a vocal approximation (a passable Jim/Steve impression), and some Kermit-isms ("Hi-ho", some swamp puns, a pig joke, an arm-whaling “yaaahh!", and a "sheesh" or two). That's not Kermit. What makes the Muppets rich and deep characters is the relationship between the performer, their Muppet, the other Muppets, and the audience. Flip-flopping between passable performers that fit the moment reduces the characters from rich, consistent and living characters down to stale catch-phrases and clichés.

if the audience can't "believe" in the puppet because they are too focused on the puppeteer (Can you say "Avenue Q"?) then that whole "suspension of disbelief" is pretty much gone.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I've seen "Avenue Q" and totally believed and connected with the characters. The whole suspension of belief can happen even if you know (and can see) how the magic works.

 

[frogboy4]

Doesn't anybody want to come over to the un-dark side with me?

That side already seems pretty dark and less colorful than the Muppets I know - all of whom have made a habit of needling Miss Piggy in both humorous and sometimes downright rude ways since the beginning. It's clear they all still love her, but that's always been the bit (aside from a few fleeting Frog-Pig tender moments).

But seriously -the real issue isn't merely the writing or the appearances - it's that they are far too brief to cultivate any nuance. Both the Kermit-Piggy love and the Kermit-Piggy hate have all been rather cheesy and on-the-nose. They haven’t been given much of an opportunity to grow that comedy like they should. Let’s hope that changes.

 

[Ruahnna]

Characters with character welcome

Recast like this reduce the frog down to nothing more than a visual (a well-crafted green sock with ping-pong ball eyes), a vocal approximation (a passable Jim/Steve impression), and some Kermit-isms ("Hi-ho", some swamp puns, a pig joke, an arm-whaling “yaaahh!", and a "sheesh" or two). That's not Kermit. What makes the Muppets rich and deep characters is the relationship between the performer, their Muppet, the other Muppets, and the audience. Flip-flopping between passable performers that fit the moment reduces the characters from rich, consistent and living characters down to stale catch-phrases and clichés.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, but I guess my argument is that we have already gotten a belly-full of Kermit-isms--and you pretty well pegged them--in the place of the real Kermit. The Kermit on TMS had a depth to him that I miss, and there was a...a sweetness and naivete that was charming. I've not seen that lately. Telling me you can't settle for less seems a moot point to me because I think we have already acclimated to a less fully-dimensional portrayal of the character that often has little "rich" or "consistent" (if you mean consistent with the original Kermit). I'm sorry you were disappointed with the performance--I know it must have been a let down if you have been a fan for a long time and those things were important to you. I wish more people could have appreciated it for what it DID have. Sadly, however, a return to "normalcy"--if it means we get rudy, snarky Kermit back--doesn't hold much appeal for me.

Also, with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, I would like to say that I am very impressed with everyone's ability to count home many years certain performers have been doing certain roles, but I don't quite understand why longevity has anything to do with anything.