to the Muppet Central Forum!
are viewing our forum as a guest. Join
our free community to post topics and start private conversations. Please
contact us if
you need help with registration or your account login.
Discussion in 'Muppet Headlines' started by bknatchbull, Jul 11, 2011.
I completely disagree. What was said above is just plain being mean.
This is an opinion we're all sick of hearing. I am sick and tired of the so called "fans" who call out other fans for WANTING more stuff instead of just watching the same 3 movies over and over again.
Newsflash... NOTHING is as good as it was when the creator died. NOTHING! Heck. George Lucas is still alive and his Star Wars films aren't as good as the old ones.
Here's something... let's say that every property dies with their creator... right? Then we'd complain about the new characters and new projects and want the old stuff back again. Nothing's good enough for anyone anymore, why should anyone bother trying. Hey! Let's just pick 4 key TV shows from the past and rerun them relentlessly on television for the rest of eternity. Shut down Hollywood completely. Then we'd get sick of the reruns.
"I don't see why people still get excited" is BULL and you know it. Hey, some of us actually WANT a new movie or a new project because we've seen the old stuff a hundred times. Some of us actually, maturely, might I add accept the fact Jim's gone and we'll never see the same quality again, but WANT to see them try so we don't permanently mothball a franchise/group of favorite characters.
By your logic, bad movie poster=bad movie... wow... that means we haven't had a good movie since 1995. I haven't seen a good movie poster since then. Everything's either a bad photo shoot or a CGI composite of all the characters in a movie with a 'tude. Jeez.... I wish I could dig up the John K. rant about movie posters.....
Now that I think about it... here are some things not in the poster that ALL children's movie posters are guilty of...
Horrid, unfunny, forced puns in the bi-line, often referring to date of release
characters with sly looks on their faces that say "We're for kids, but we got an ATTITUDE, Dudes!" to try and sucker jaded 10 year olds to see than instead of sneaking into an R rated film.
Hip Hop pose! So ethnic people will love a movie starring, written, produced, and catered by white people.
And of course, random sunglasses because it's perpetually 1980's summer time.
That alone makes this poster not suck as much as everything else.
No one has a bleeding gun to your head. If you don't want to watch the film, don't !(come on! Happy Feet 2 looks so much more superior, right?) But don't ruin it for everyone else.
I don't think all movie posters are awful since 1995 o.o That's just as much a matter of taste as liking certain muppet movies or not (and quite a bit doom and gloomy). Even the sunglasses, I really don't mind if it's 80's summertime (and I look at movie posters from around the world as well).
If they don't want to watch anything after his death I say let them, it's not like it is going to end in the tv showing only three shows forever anymore than new movie posters are *never* going to be good :\.
Not that I think there are no good new muppet movies (most of my childhood was after Disney bought them and my favorite will always be when they went to Disney World) but I think tv could do with more re runs all around of old movies and shows. They would rather show reruns of already running shows that children and adult fans alike have seen the same 10 episodes of a million times than show an older (pre-2000 or even pre-1998) show or movie that they have the rights to show that is a good show and hasn't been on for years -.- Getting a fan base for new shows would not be uncut by showing more of the old ones and acting like Disney etc actually had a history beyond DVD classic sets IMHO
Ok, I'm not going to sugar coat it. You, sir, are the embodiment of fans I hate. I honestly dont care if you do not support new muppet projects or do not want to see the movie. Thats not what annoys me. Its the self righteous attitude and calling yourself a true fan of henson while suggesting that those of us who do support new projects are not true fans. Its an incredibly ignorant thing to even suggest. I believe Jim would want us to continue being fans and believing in the muppets. So go ahead hating all new muppet projects without seeing them, go ahead and continue your opinion of prefering Henson era muppets, but how DARE you suggest that we who do not share your opinions are not fans.
I'm not saying that, i just feel constantly let down by the various hands that have delt with the muppets, nobody has seemed to get the right balance, and recapture the magic. And yeah, i have seen the new projects, with hope that one day the madness will return. I honestly really do wish this film is brilliant, i really do, it's been a long time coming, but when they put out crappy posters out hoping to get us excited it's a real let down. This is disney we're talking about, one of the biggest names on the planet. At least they can do put some effort in.
Honestly. the crap going on with DC2 and Fraggle Rock the movie, and every TV pilot they tried in the last 10 years, and the Doozer Cartoon (and basically everything that isn't a CGI DTV movie or sub-licensed comic book), I am absolutely ELATED Disney bought the Muppets and actually managed to DO something with them after that dreadful power play that put someone incompetent in charge of the branch. Henson is doing bo-diddly-squat, they can't find a competent partner to get ANYTHING off of the ground. I mean, the FR movie has been in development purgatory since 2005... DC2 even longer... and we finally got the first Theatrical Muppet Movie in 12 years, Henson couldn't have even given us a DTV or Telefilm by now.
But really... true fan? That WAS bull and EVERYONE on the board, even others who dislike the new stuff know it.
I'm sorry... but who wouldn't want to blow their nose on this:
But nothing has the sheer horrifying beyond belief you don't know whether to cry or punch a hole in the wall-ness of
I'm putting my bias behind how utterly disgusting the movie became aside... but really... Butts? HAW HAW HAW! I'm a slowwitted 4 year old and it's 1998! Butts are STILL funny!
I've also noticed that EVERY SINGLE Alvin and the Chipmunk poster uses the SAME CGI composite (with Simon's "hip" arm folding! WORD!) with new clothes Photoshopped on. LAAAAAAZY!
Still, some of us are whining about the poster, but some of us are offering INFORMED educated constructive criticism. Still... I miss the days of old great movie posters.
I agree that movie posters were much better back then but there are still good ones that come out. Granted they're not paintings but there are still good ones.. now and then.
O.O For goodness sakes, I wasn't ATTACKING you All I said was that 'I don't think all movie posters are awful since 1995 o.o '
As far as the butts poster goes, I see it as more the fact that they got caught in the door (something that happens quite often in cities) than 'look at our behinds' .
The dog poster with sunglasses, well that just reminds me of all the other posters that did the same with dogs, to say nothing of the Men In Black movies (which posters are always trying to mimic anyway) and Air Bud, Beethoven etc....
I would not say that liking any newer posters means that someone is uninformed (or even, to a lesser degree, just stating that they would like a world with more reruns of the old muppet movies\shows when they are so old now they could be put back on as a new show and many generations would not be the wiser). That is as crazy as saying that fans of the newer muppets aren't true fans, just to a lesser level of the same 'it use to be good now its awful and if anyone doesn't think it's awful that makes them stupid or a four year old'.
Are my favorite movie posters from the 70's/80's/early 90's? Yes, but I still like some of the new posters they make. Not all, but some....
Of the two posters I like the M one better because they seem to be interacting a bit more than posing, but they both have flaws. Are they big enough flaws to where I would not buy a reprint of one and hang it? No...
If you meant that my comment about at Disney World was uninformed because JH wasn't dead yet (wasn't that his last project? I was very young to remember his death (Edit: Okay it was, hm.) I agree. I just realized that... Still, it had a very new muppets feel to it, vs. the older projects..I see it as three different 'generations' of muppetdom... It's felt so long between the newer shorts and the movie I almost want to say four now...
Nah! I'm just referring to those who are thinking this is going to be the worst Muppet project ever because of the poster.
Why not their heads, then? Why not their arms, like in the real world? The movie is clearly about immature butt poop fart toilet jokes that everyone is sick of by now, so why not make a poster that revels in that?
Well, with Men in Black, the sunglasses are a VERY important part of the plot... they protect them from those Neutralizers, for example. Even then, there's a difference between The Blues Brothers and their authentic attitude and coolness, and a forced coolness by shoving sunglasses on an animal.
I dunno, maybe it's just an artist's eye or something, but Movie posters used to be an artform... If there was a nice article or page or something that had some old theatrical posters, I'd post it here... especially in the 60's through the 80's... that stuff was just beautiful. I mean, those Muppet Movie posters, especially for the first film are just beautiful. There are some others I rather liked. Like the BTTF series. All 3 posters of that one. Sure, there was the simple Ghostbusters with just the logo... but even then it had a quiet minimalistic dignity about it. For kid's movies all I see are just trying too hard to be hip or slapdash immature humor. Pixar manages to do some good ones. a few of Dreamwork's haven't been too bad....I like the Igor poster, actually... overall, there's just so much magic in illustrated movie posters that no CGI composites or photoshoots or photoshop can ever recapture.
Okay then . Sorry, internet makes it hard for me to tell things sometimes...
Maybe with the Smurfs...You know now that I think of it the door would most likely kill the poor little things ;.; (Since when did a movie been set in the middle ages where magic is real become uncool to little kids? Even in today's market you could get the same readers of Harry Potter into a canon setting Smurf movie *sigh*
The weird thing is I just know that there are people on DA and other places who could draw something just as nice as the first muppet movie poster and then some for a very reasonable (by Disney's pocket book) amount of money for the new Muppet movie..And those types of posters are so unheard of now that they could become 'hip' again if moivegoers got to see them
Well, at least with the Smurf movie, that's an actual scene in the film. Ugh.
I still think they needed to get some Belgian script writers in on the film to hammer out a better plot. I've said for a long time that bringing them out in the real world is a terrible concept, a completely overused one at that. And I've said, all it will do is make jokes about how either they're small and fall into things, they question human technology (with brand names mentioned), and of course, how blue they are and how they say Smurf for everything (in the wrong way, naturally). But I've accepted that. At least we got the comics published in English out of it.
Still, kids LOVE Shrek, that took place in a Medieval fantasy setting. Heck, Disney movies are usually period pieces and kids love watching them on video. To think that they'd throw the magic out of the Smurf World out for a bunch of cheap falling into toilets jokes just shows why Sony sucks. Either the movie will horribly bomb, or it will be a success leading to MORE bad Smurf movies (and Smurfs and the Magic Flute never getting released in region 1 format).
Really, the only Muppet with sunglasses I want to see on a poster is this guy (ok, Clifford would be OK, too).
I'm undecided on the big "M" logo. It's...OK, but where it looks like it's made out of felt is kind of weird. If it looked like it was made out of something besides Kermit's skin, (like metal for instance or neon lights activated by Bunsen and Beaker getting shocked), it wouldn't look so odd. Especially with Kermit right there next to it.
It just reminds me of that old "Poison to Poison" Sam and Friends bit:
Harry: "That armchair you're sitting in is quite striking."
Chicken Liver: "Very expensive, too."
Harry: "Why is it so expensive?"
Chicken Liver: "It's made out of real arms."
The idea of Animal or Gonzo interacting with the M is a great idea.
You know...I just noticed something about Walter. Why is Beaker freaked out by him? We're all saying Walter looks too big (he's really like...Roosevelt Franklin size).
I'm almost tempted to think that where Walter is now used to be Bunsen, but they made a mistake in Photoshop, then tried to cover it up by making Walter looked like he gained some weight.
The hand-on-head thing is kind of strange. It could be Walter's "Oh wow! I'm here with the Muppets! I can't believe this!" look. To me, it almost looks like Walter is giong to impersonate John Cleese as Nearly-Headless Nick.
All in all, an OK poster.
Eh...ehh....ehhhh! Uh oh! I need to get something before I sn...sn...snn...(quickly grabs Marmaduke poster) ACHOOOO! Whew! Good thing this big tissue was here...(sniff).
They missed a very good story they could tell in the Smurfs about a clumsy boy and his donkey to :\
The only thing with the M poster is those flat pictures in the back you can tell those muppets aren't really there
Smurfs does look awful but Sony certainly don't suck, all studios make turkeys. Don't forget they made Cloudy with a chance of meatballs. I think that's the cloest film to rival pixar's offerings. A fantastic film, parts of that actually reminded me of the muppets, the way the characters were animated.
I work at a post production studio who did a lot of work around gargamel, but yeah..i'm certainly not going to stick up for it. I think the smurfs were only good in book form anyway, the old books are superb.
Oh cool, so we have an insider to the movie. But the whole not sticking up for it... tells me I should wait until the dvd comes out, right?
Well i don't know as I've only seen the trailer but it falls into the same bracket as alvin and the chipmunks it seems. The smurfs look really ugly. Do cartoon caracters really need dimples and pores? ughh. And yeah as Drtooth mentions, all these reworkings of old cartoons are terrible.. I'm sure there will be a scene where a smurf breakdances or does a matrix style slow motion jump and looks super cool when he lands..or one gets hit on the head, cut to another smurf 'oooh, that's gotta hurt'.
I've never been a fan of cartoons acting cool. Bugs bunny - Great character, perfect even.. stick him in a leather jacket and baseball cap (as they do so often).. nothing.. awful.
Nor when cartoons reference other films or shows for a quick laugh.. it's real lazy writing and it really dates the film, not to mention throwing the audience out of the picture. I'm sure there's plenty going on in the smurfs, i just hope there isn't any or much of it in the muppets.
grumble grumble. I'm going to go and watch some old huckleberry hound cartoons to calm myself down.
You don't know me very well, do you?
I've said it before, I cannot abide that film. it raped the book and turned it into a generic children's movie by explaining things that need not been explained. The magic of the original Cloudy book was that the food falling out of the sky was an unexplained phenomenon that was beneficial when the weather was good, but when a huge storm came it was a natural disaster of unnatural proportions. The told the story thus... a scientist did it. That's like saying a wizard did it or a weird character is an alien (MFS cough cough). Cheap explanations are cheap explanations. I saw a huge chunk of that, right in the climax, and it was like, Oh no... the whatever malfunctioned (successfully killing the "it's a natural disaster" bit), people running from food, stereotype black cop, hero uses one of his failed joke inventions presumably from the beginning of the movie... and that was the 10 worst minutes I ever spent at a Blockbuster.
All the stuff they've made just seems awful to me... Open Season (is there any reason for there to be 3 films?) Surf's Up... I do say, Hotel Transylvania sounds good, but only because Genndy Tartikovsky's working on it (not impressed with the voice cast, though).
You know, I fail to see what was horrible about Robert Altman's live action Popeye. The characters looked and ACTED like the characters, Popeye didn't need to hip hop or fall into piles of crap or Olive to be proactive... in fact, it was closer to the Thimble Theater comics than those cartoons where Popeye eats spinach and punches out Bluto in different settings. it was delightfully campy, and Robin Williams manged to keep one eye shut the entire film. Now, you can't even get Chow Yun Fat to wear a Beard and be bald to play Roshi. Cartoon based films are rarely done right, and rarely amazing or good when they are. Again, with the Smurfs, Paramount was planning a far superior trilogy that took place Smurfside, but something happened, the Sony exec claimed to see them when he was in the Netherlands as a kid, and bought the rights. then they just threw together a script before the rights expired. Something tells me there's zero faith in this movie, since there isn't any merchandise, and it comes out very late season. It was almost given the August death slot at one point.
agreed, popeye was a good one.
and check this smurf crap out.
I never read the cloudy book but i loved the film and I know a whole load of kids who love it too. It's funny and colourful. I don't know what you mean about stereotype black cop, what are you saying?
Luckily, I haven't seen it on store shelves yet. I know that's unfortunately the next McD's promotion... and I bet they will look movie-fied, since they always make movie versions of the cartoons they base the movies off of. That said, i love my entire collection of BK's Flintstone Prequel set that looks like the cartoon from 10 years ago.
The book is very sweet. It's an old grandfather telling his kids this impossible story of how the food just randomly was there falling out of the sky. There's never any explanation for it, the illustrations are beautiful and it has a cute little ending too. I'm just very close to the source material, it was always one of my favorite standalone books.
Mentioning the unexplained just killed the movie for me.
Separate names with a comma.