Disney in talks to buy Muppets

[frogboy4]

Re: For Froggie Jamie

Originally posted by JamieDenny
If only Jim had gone to a hospital a few days earlier

Other Jamie

It would have had the same eventual outcome. Jim would have eventually passed and the Muppets would be under Disney ownership. It just would have meant projects like Farscape and others would be under Disney.

 

[danielromens]

You know maybe you guys are right. Disney is the best place for the Muppets. After all look how supportive they were of Muppets Tonight when it was on their ABC network, they advertised the h*** out of it and gave it ample time to grow and gain an audience by leaving it in a great timeslot.

Oh wait...

 

[Fozzie Bear]

I think Jim was really wanting a deal with Disney back then; but, I don't remember all the details of it. Since 1990, though, it seems Disney has fallen into its own creative slump. I'm not as thoroughly entertained by their products as I used to be, either. Their major motion pictures (the animated ones) are all good (for the most part), but they are lost with sequels and bad shows.

Can't say too much for other companies, either.

JHC has just ended up in a limbo, huh?

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Originally posted by danielromens
You know maybe you guys are right. Disney is the best place for the Muppets. After all look how supportive they were of Muppets Tonight when it was on their ABC network, they advertised the h*** out of it and gave it ample time to grow and gain an audience by leaving it in a great timeslot.

Oh wait...

LOL...I love sarcasm at its best!!

 

[Manda:-D]

I don't like it. I really don't. I just keep getting images of Disney ENTIRELY squeezing the creative life out of the JHC...I know we keep saying "UNLESS" Diz gives the company total freedom, but I don't see that happening. Disney doesn't seem to have much creativity left in their systems. I know, Lilo and Stitch and Emperor's New Groove were both GREAT movies, (I give PIXAR the credit for the movies they did), but compare that number, (only 2, sadly), to the great amount of horrid sequels and bad movies, (Treasure Planet, anyone?), they've also made in the past few years. And then, let's talk about Disney's recent dealings with Pixar....Then again, let's not. It ticks me off.
.....I also don't find it of any significance that Eisner's turning 61. I honestly don't feel he'll let go of the company until he dies. (Hmmmm.....That gives me an idea.... )
....I know, I sound like an old grouch about all this. Maybe I am an old grouch....Even if I'm only 17!

 

[BoyRaisin2]

Though I root for a Disney purchase of Henson (though I'm kinda agitated at this point), it seems (according to the wording of these articles), that they (or whoever) may just buy the Muppets themselves and Henson's programming library, not the actual Jim Henson Company, so to speak. Though I consider those the crown jewels of the company (them and the New York office), it seems kind of odd to me. It reminds of what Ted Turner and MGM did back in 1986. I think Turner bought MGM itself, sold it, and kept all the movies and shows made up until that point. That's why Time Warner owns all the MGM, RKO, and pre-1948 WB stuff. If anyone knows what I'm talking about.

 

[Chilly Down]

Kev, I must humbly disagree with you on a couple of points. First, it's not that Disney is doing nothing with its classic stable of characters. In the past that was true, but in the past few years we've seen Mickey Mouseworks, House of Mouse, and this winter we're getting a new theatrical version of 3 Musketeers with Mickey and co. You can argue against the quality of those products if you like (I think it's good, sometimes), but the problem is not that the characters are not getting used.

Second, I think you're trying to make the case too easy by saying Disney went downhill as of 1990. On the contrary, most feel that Disney's second "golden age" was in the late 80s/early 90s, starting with The Little Mermaid. I would hardly say that Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King or even Nightmare Before Christmas was going downhill, especially when they were just coming off of a long period that included The Dark Cauldron and The Aristocats. I don't think Disney really started to go downhill till Pocahantas.

BoyRaisin: Yes, I'm aware of that whole weird Turner/AOL Time Warner owning MGM films thing. That may be what happens here. However, I'm still not convinced that we aren't all at the mercy of another lazy journalist, who doesn't understand that JHC and "the Muppets" are two different things. We'll just have to wait and see.

As for everyone else, I hear what you're saying. I'm nervous that Disney will "kiddify" and cheapen the Muppets too. But for all the complaining I'm hearing, I have yet to hear one person offer a viable alternative.

And I don't mean that in a nasty way. I'm just trying to look at the facts.

 

[frogboy4]

That's my point too. Who would be better than Disney? Who wants them besides Disney? Who will be able to promote them and fund projects for them? Who will keep the Muppets in the public eye and on store shelves? Until the WB stores closed I wanted them to own Henson. Do you think they would have kept a Henson company? Whatever big fish buys Henson will absorb the company. They will also market them to all age groups and try to make a buck. I don't like it, but do we all forget the Bean Bunny straight to video pic, the Muppet Fairy Tales, the toddler tapes starring Fozzie Bear and other kiddy projects that Henson green lighted (some under Jim Henson)?

It's not that I love Disney. In fact – here’s a project I did for school a couple years back about the evils of advertising that includes a Disney icon. www.jamesvier.com/etc/ads.html I just think that the Mouse is the best “big fish” out there. Nobody’s going to wave a magic wand and bring Henson back to the glory days, but I feel Disney is the best bet to bring the Muppet gang back into relevance for the future.

 

[WiGgY]

Disney is defintaly the best way to go. Look at MCC and MTI. I know some people don't like these movies but I loved them! Then look at MFS. Sure it was good. I liked it. But no music! No good human actors! A poorly done script for the most part! It had it's ups and downs but I think MCC and MTI were way better.

There are a few things I worry about if Disney buys JHC though. \

1. What will happen to the Palisades action figure line? Will it be more exposed or just end?

2. Will the Muppets be doomed to do classic stories forever or will we get original movies with all the great scripts and songs that MTI and MCC had?

3. Will Kermit go back to being overly nice or will the evolution that started in AVMMC continue?

I think those are the major worries. Everything else would be good for JHC, the muppets, and us!

Also, if Disney owned the muppets there would be a HUGE possibility that a muppet theme park would happen. Disney owns so much land left untouched in Florida! If they owned the muppets you KNOW they would make a whole park devoted to all the great projects and you can bet they would make some great rides, I hope. I mean, imagine an animatronic ride through Fraggle Rock, hourly shows by and animatronic Electric Mayhem, a water ride through Kermit's swamp. So many possibilities would probably become realities is Disney owned the Muppets. I'm 100% behind this deal.

 

[Chilly Down]

1. The Pallisades line doesn't threaten any of Disney's interest, and it's a big cash cow for the company right now. I'm sure Disney would be glad to let it continue (and fill their pockets with money!).

2. It's vague as to who was actually behind the whole storybook thing: JHC or Disney. It seems that phase is done now.

3. I think the one legitimate complaint against Disney is that the Muppets might become too "cute" again. Let's hope not.

While I don't think the Muppets are high-profile enough to qualify a whole theme park for themselves, I do believe a Disney buyout would mean a much more significant presence at the theme parks. And I'm all in favor of that!