Muppet Babies: Puppets vs. Cartoon

I think several things were getting lumped together there.

On another note, projects like the Henson Hour and Muppets Tonight didn't take off. Muppet Christmas Carol (received some acclaim) and Muppet Treasure Island didn't fare well at the box office. There was a void for many years of current exposure for Muppets puppetry. Theories on that aside, Muppet Babies filled that gap in Muppet history. They didn't swipe it away; they were simply the main Muppet game going on whether in new shows or syndication. They were the most prevalent and accessible Muppets for many years while the Henson Company floundered around with the brand. Looking back on that part of history makes me glad that Disney has ownership and they're doing much more with them than many expected.

However, I am glad that Disney is strengthening the original Muppets brand before the Muppet Babies cartoon representations. I wouldn't have imagined it because I'm sure Babies merchandise would sell. I hope it comes around again, but it's good to see Disney building the Muppets back from the roots up. Again, just my opinion, but I see a much stronger complete Muppets brand being built that way.

Also, I have always wanted to see puppet versions of Baby Beaker, Sweetums and the Mayhem. Check the main page on Easter for the entire Muppet Babies menu with created versions of Baby Pepe and Baby Rizzo. It's sickeningly cute and was made from love!

I love fiction, mostly fantasy . I hate what movies are doing to some of my favorites now. So little ones would not know a book if it hit them

I want that Baby Gonzo toy...:3

Well frogboy, it sounds like (and correct me if I'm wrong hehe) you're referring to when Muppet Babies was on in the early to mid '90s. That's true, it was one of the few Muppet programs on the air. Though, Nickelodeon's Muppet matinee definitely got people introduced to The Muppet Show and many other things at that time.

I guess when I think of Muppet Babies, I think of them as a purely '80s thing, when the rest of the Muppet projects were still huge all around. I think I can see where we're getting confused.

Ok, now I sound like Pirates of Penzance ("Do you mean "orphan", a person that has lost his parents, or "often", frequently? ! Lol)

I do hope Disney does well. Though, I'd take Muppet Babies over much of what I've seen in recent years. Still, there's always hope!

I've generally been speaking about most of the Muppet Babies run, some on CBS some on Nick. The classic Muppet characters weren't as constant as the Muppet Babies for quite some time. Without splitting hairs, that's what I'm saying. They had the higher profile for a very long time. It both strengthened and weakened the Muppet brand in different ways. It's also why I believe they've been largely pigeon-holed as primarily children's entertainment by so many executives.

It took Jim Henson a long time to convince people to put The Muppet Show on the air in the 70s, it became an established brand in general entertainment I believe Muppet Babies (for various reasons already stated) inadvertently rolled-back the perception of the Muppet characters and now Disney appears to be trying to bridge that gap. Whew...hope that clears it up. You might disagree with the idea in whole or part, but my meaning should be clearer now.

I also think that's some of the reason for the few "snarkier moments" in some of the recent Muppet projects. They were trying to distinguish themselves, not only as relevant, but away from being children's entertainment. Some of those moments have been to their detriment. I'm sure you'd agree with me on that.

Yeah it definitely does, hehe, glad that's worked out!

I do definitely agree that they might be trying to make themselves look more adult now, but just end up seeming immature. I just don't think Muppets Babies is the culprit, so to speak, hehe. It was a good show all around (and I know you didn't say it wasn't ) and I don't blame it for the damage that was done later on.

Jim was the leader, and when he was gone, the focus became confused. I would have been shocked if it hadn't happened to be honest. What he did can't be easily repeated, as you would agree.

I just wish I still had the pictures from the Muppets Take Manhattan exhibit in Central Park. They actually had a whole film about the Muppeteers performing the babies puppets from ceiling, floor-level and underneath. They also had some puppets. It was a very long time ago around the time of the film's release. Absolutely beautiful work! That's a big part of my lack of interest in the cartoon. Apples and oranges, I know. I did have a Baby Kermit plush once upon a time when they first came out.

I guess to me it just seems that a lot of the Jim-era projects are getting the blame for the problems now, which I just don't agree with. I think the problem is with the NOW, not the then. If that makes sense, lol. (And I'm not talking about you specifically ). To me, the past isn't the problem; it's the solution.

Oh wow, that's so cool, I had no idea they'd done that! You're right, that would have been great to see. And just to stand up for the puppet Muppet Babies for a minute (which I always loved too), my friends and I always laugh when Kermit says "Hi Gonzo! Hi Fozzie!" even though he's just been pulverized by his rocking hourse, lol. Funny moment! And the way you can see Baby Rowlf's full body when dancing and even going upside down, very impressive! And Piggy is just perfect in the whole thing. ("Cause I want to be a good mommmy too!")

The funny thing is I first saw the movie and thought the puppets were a knock off of the cartoon *lol* .
But I love both . I would not have minded if the puppets had done the tv series, but they did'nt so the cartoon was great to

I will say that Muppet babies, as well as the Preschool "WOW you're a _________" playtime videos were pretty much proof that Jim wanted to market the Muppets to kids, while he wanted to focus on creature shop type projects for older audiences. At least that's the impression I was getting.

I still have to say, some of the voices worked beautifully (Frank Welker and Greg Berg were spot on), while some fell short (Baby Piggy, I agree with you was too shrill. But she sounded like how she should after a while). Personally, a bigger contrast would be something like Fraggle Rock. The designs of certain characters, Gorgs and Majory being the main examples, were pretty off. it's hard to simulate that kind of style in limited TV animation. I think Junior and Ma looked the worst. And the voices tried to impersonate the characters. Tried. But while there were some close ones- Red and Boober, close enough ones- Gobo, Matt, Wembly, and how was that supposed to sound like the real character- Junior.

That's the big question. What if they actually tried to make MB a puppet show? it would be slightly different. Stronger at some points, weaker at others.

And on the subject of 1980's outsorced Japanese animation...(and cartoon versions of Puppets), I was watching the DIC/Saban produced ALF and I felt the animation and overall design of that show was excellent. There were even small subtile things in the back of the show that stood out. I almost wonder what would have happened if MB and FR had that same animation style.

That said, I always ask this question and bring up 2 examples. What's more important, the story or the animation? When both are going for you, you get a great project no matter what. But sometimes, one has a higher quality than the other. Pocahauntus had supurb animation. It looked beautiful, but watching it was dull. It had a poor storyline and a bad script (and a million buzzillion historical inaccuracies). And look at Rocky and Bullwinkle. Hideous animation, but it was so well written and delivered, it is still considered great. Even as an animator, myself, it's more important to have a strong story than just strong animation.

I really liked the movie . The story was funny, sad, and lovely to me, and I did'nt see it as a replacement for history, I just saw it as a Disney movie ^.^. And I am native american myself
I hate when someone says a Disney movie was boring like everyone in the world is going to agree with them . There are fans of just about everything no matter how bad you might have thought they were. I liked everything up until after Trazan. After that everything went to pot IMHO

But as from Muppet Babies, I did not mind if the animation was bad sometimes, the characters were good, and as for Piggy's voice well, I have a high voice to so I never have seen it as too high

I guess the reason why Baby Piggy was voiced by a woman instead of a man was to make her sound younger.

And Baby Skeeter was always voiced by a man. Frank Welker made a better Skeeter than Howie Mandel did, IMO.

I've noticed that Baby Piggy and Baby Gonzo's voices sometimes sound very similar. I guess if Laurie O' Brien was unavailable to voice Baby Piggy, Russi Taylor could fill in using her Minnie Mouse voice.

Looking at the REALLY old MB episodes from the first season, Baby Gonzo and Fozzie's voices sounded pretty odd. Fozzie had a slight accent and didn't sound much like how the adult version would, and Baby Gonzo's voice wasn't as high-pitched. By the second season, the voices became more well-developed, and by the third season, Dave Coulier took over from Howie Mandel (I think he did a better job with Animan and Bunsen, IMHO) and the animation became much more refined. Then when AKOM took over the animation in Season 4, it looked a little weird at first, but soon it began to look really good, that is, until 1990.

A common thing for voices to sound different in the run of the series. Pinky had a noticably different lower pitched voice when Animaniacs started. And by the time they got their own show, it was much softer sounding. Not as abrasive.

I think that at the beginning of the series, the voice actors were trying to mimick the puppeteer voices a lot more closely. They relaxed into the role, and it took off and became different. Kermit pretty much is the only Baby who sounded the same from the beginning to the end. Greg's Fozzie actually was pretty close to Frank's Fozzie when the Muppet Show first premired, actually. And Baby Rowlf was much lower, and more masculine sounding, closer to the gruff voice of Rowlf the dog.

I always loved Baby Rowlf's voice It was so dog-like :3

Actually myself and a couple other people have said Fozzie's voice was actually rather close to the real thing. ::shrugs::

I loved his funny accent thingie actually, it is one of the things that really stays with me about the MBs

I always thought that kermit was preety close to at least steve's voice. I would also have to agree that Rolwf's voice was kind of soothing. Like in the Valentines Day one, where Rolwf didn't get a cookie and he sings a slow sad song about it. that would always calm me down.

Frank's Kermit and Greg's Fozzie were the closest, I think. They even used similar voices for their adult counterparts. Personally, watching the Little Muppet Monsters clips in "Six Flags over the Nursery" the one voice that is terribly off is Hal Rayle's Miss Piggy. I give him credit for trying, but it sounds terribly wrong.

I think Russi Taylor did a smashing job as Baby Gonzo as well. She really had the vocal patterns of the character down pat. In an impersonation, it's not just mimicking the sound of someone's voice, but it's also mimicking the speach patterns.

I always liked his 'Wooo-OH!', as a trademark yell