Jim Hill on Saban, the Muppets, and Disney

[Phillip]

Read Jim Hill's latest editorial on the Saban Henson buyout. Find out Jim's opinion on why Haim Saban is the frontrunner to acquire Henson. Saban is willing to take on something no other company wants from EM.TV... KirchMedia.

http://www.muppetcentral.com/articles/editorials/mickey_miss_out.shtml

 

[Drtooth]

Thanks, Phil! That was a good read!

I'd hate to get back on my anti-Saban platform (dispite the fact I need the excersize!), but according to this, if Disney bought the Muppets, we'd have more Disneyworld Muppet attratcions. Does this mean that Muppetvision 3d, and this new Playhouse Disney thing will fall through? DOes it mean they're gone? Is there less reason for me to go there?

 

[Luke]

It's a nice read, but unfortunately Jim Hill has missed the connection between Disney and Saban that shoots down a lot of what he has written. I guess Henson confirming Saban was in talks with EMTV was where he took it for granted that Saban would actually be the person running JHC - in fact it's probably not the case and you can read about it here

 

[murgatoad]

Sorry, guys, but I think some of you really need a bracing dose of reality here. The Muppets are a faded commodity. Period. They may have a certain nostalgia value, but that's about it. This situation came about partly because the Muppets were primarily a novelty act, and the novelty's worn off. Plus high-tech has aced them; for most people, it's a lot more fun to watch a CGI-animated Sully from "Monsters Inc." than a hand-operated Gonzo. For one thing, the CGI Sully is far more flexible and expressive. That's just the way it is. Plus IMO there has been massive mismanagement of the characters themselves. Given all this, IMO $100 million is a VERY reasonable price. The last Muppet movie flopped. The recent special involving Kermit was panned by critics (who are usually pretty soft on Henson) and probably is a dud at the video level. What have the Muppets to offer audiences today? I have a certain fondness for them myself, the way my father had a soft spot for Kukla, Fran and Ollie, but I also have a realistic view of them and their place in this day and age. And frankly, given a choice, I'd rather watch product from Pixar then from the Creature Shop. Because Pixar does with computer imagery what the CS is still trying to do with strings, pulleys and servos. The Muppets a crown jewel? Come on; they were dethroned a long time ago by new technology and creators who, if not more talented, were at least a bit less self-deluded.

JMHO.

 

[jeffy]

Originally posted by murgatoad
Sorry, guys, but I think some of you really need a bracing dose of reality here. The Muppets are a faded commodity. Period. They may have a certain nostalgia value, but that's about it. This situation came about partly because the Muppets were primarily a novelty act, and the novelty's worn off. Plus high-tech has aced them; for most people, it's a lot more fun to watch a CGI-animated Sully from "Monsters Inc." than a hand-operated Gonzo. For one thing, the CGI Sully is far more flexible and expressive. That's just the way it is. Plus IMO there has been massive mismanagement of the characters themselves. Given all this, IMO $100 million is a VERY reasonable price. The last Muppet movie flopped. The recent special involving Kermit was panned by critics (who are usually pretty soft on Henson) and probably is a dud at the video level. What have the Muppets to offer audiences today? I have a certain fondness for them myself, the way my father had a soft spot for Kukla, Fran and Ollie, but I also have a realistic view of them and their place in this day and age. And frankly, given a choice, I'd rather watch product from Pixar then from the Creature Shop. Because Pixar does with computer imagery what the CS is still trying to do with strings, pulleys and servos. The Muppets a crown jewel? Come on; they were dethroned a long time ago by new technology and creators who, if not more talented, were at least a bit less self-deluded.

JMHO.

This makes me mad.

The Muppets are a faded commodity, but this has nothing to do with technology. The only thing it has to do with, in my humble opinion, is how the Jim Henson Company has become incompetent, regarding management and promotion their product, ever since Jim passed.

I loved watching Sulley in Monster's, Inc. (the best movie of 2001, in my opinion), but nothing in the world will replace watching Gonzo on Dave Goelz's arm at MuppetFest last year, or any Muppet in any Muppet production. Even the questionable Muppets From Space had its magical moments for me, that can never be replaced by CGI. Sure CGI is great, but its *supplemental*, not replacing.

Your saying that CGI has "aced" the Muppets is absurd. How can you say that artwork created by hand is somewhat less special than that created by on a computer graphics program?! I really enjoyed the Final Fantasy movie, but to say that computer graphic actors "aces" live actors is crazy.

It's not about how fancy the end product looks (don't judge a book by it's cover!). What grabs me is the heart that goes into making it happen.

:' (

 

[Drtooth]

Originally posted by murgatoad
Sorry, guys, but I think some of you really need a bracing dose of reality here. The Muppets are a faded commodity. Period. They may have a certain nostalgia value, but that's about it

If you hate the Muppets so much...THEN WHY THE HECK ARE YOU ON THIS BOARD!??!?!?!?!?

 

[Drtooth]

Besides.. the only reason why no one likes them anymore, is because the MORON public is too busy watching Porn and mindless reality shows!!!

Henson is too good for today's market!!

Now kindly watch your toungue, sir!

 

[GWGumby]

Originally posted by Drtooth
Besides.. the only reason why no one likes them anymore, is because the MORON public is too busy watching Porn and mindless reality shows!!!

Henson is too good for today's market!!

Now kindly watch your toungue, sir!

Actually, now they have porn, mindless reality shows, and muppets all-in-one! It's called Crank Yankers.

I think Murgatoad has a few valid points, but loses most credibility when saying people want to see Sully over a Muppet. That's just plain wrong. I want to see hand animated cartoons like Lilo & Stitch, stop-motion animation like Nightmare Before Christmas and Wallace & Gromit, and paper cut-outs like South Park (which admittedly is actually CGI), puppets, dummies and marionettes just as much as I want to see CGI animation.

New technologies do not make former ones obsolete, they merely offer alternatives. The illusion of life is what we enjoy in all animation whether puppet or drawing or computer pixels.

 

[Drtooth]

I feel that new technology cannot chew up old technology. CGI is becoming more accesable to people, causing god awful local commercials that look like something you could do on a bloody etch-a-sketch! Trust me!

But the Muppets are NOT ancient history! With the Palisades line, the New CD, and talks of a new Fox show (and sesame street still going strong), they will not die out!

Power rangers, however, died out after christmas of 1993!

 

[EmmyMik]

I think Jim said it best (or maybe it was Rowlf, I can't remember) when he said, "Technology will never replace art."