1. Welcome to the Muppet Central Forum!
    You 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.

  2. Save Muppet Central Radio
    Within days Muppet Central Radio could be off the air. Show your support and save the station by listening via Radionomy's website and apps. We're also on iTunes and Apple TV. Learn More

Ricky Gervais in Talks to Star in 'Muppets' Sequel

Discussion in 'Muppet Headlines' started by bknatchbull, Dec 17, 2012.

  1. Beauregard

    Beauregard Well-Known Member

    I stopped liking Gervais when I saw him making tasteless and mostly unfunny cancer jokes in a stand-up tour.

    That said, his part in Night of the Museum 1 and 2 is good, but that's only a small part...
     
  2. Muppet fan 123

    Muppet fan 123 Well-Known Member

    Who did he play in Night at the Musuem? I don't remember him being in there..

    I feel bad for people who can't stand the guy, cause he'll be in the movie a lot. I hope he's not going to be hogging up the screen for too long, I just can't see it happening, with him as the main human character.
    I'm glad he's in the movie, I just don't see him as the main role. I just hope his and Burrell's time are equal. If we have many great lead celeberties it's not so bad.
    So far so good. :)
     
  3. Pinkflower7783

    Pinkflower7783 Well-Known Member

    Wait wait wait...are there humans in this movie?
     
  4. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    Look people: as much as we would like a movie, or any production for that matter, only include strictly a cast of Muppets, they wouldn't be able to pull it off. If it were a cable special, like, say, Muppet Musicians of Bremen, or Emmet Otter, that'd be one thing, but in this case, the Muppets alone aren't going to be enough to bring in the masses (not just Muppet Freaks, but the public in general), they pretty much have to rely on some star power to really pull 'em in. Now, whether some people like it or not, Ricky Gervais does possess that kind of star power: he's relevant to mainstream media right now, as a writer, actor, and comedian - in fact, he's responisble for what was America's biggest hit for a while: The Office, as he was behind the original U.K. version of which the U.S. version with Steve Carell was adapted from. Now, if all the hubub is over him being an atheist, think of what Jim would do. Jim was all about inclusion: he hired white, black, straight, gay, righties, lefties, and I'm sure he hired religious and irreligious; so it's not really a matter of whether or not an actor is Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, Buddhist, Scientologist, etc, it's whether or not the actor is good enough to carry the film along... I think Gervais can carry the film along, and I give him the support and trust that I, unjustly, denied Jason Segel in the previous movie. Plus, Gervais is part Canadian, so that automatically gets thumbs up from this Canadaphile.

    Now then, as far as the human cast, in general, goes... they've only announced, what... three human leads thus far? Three? And that's some how too many? Think back to GMC again, the main human cast consisted of Lady and Nicky Holiday, as well as Nicky's entourage of three lady spies... that's five humans in the main cast of a Muppet movie. Think to MTM: there was Pete, Jenny, and eventually Ronny as the main human cast, there's three. The Muppets (2011): Gary, Mary, Veronica, Tex Richman, and Jack Black... that's five again. And of course, most of the Muppet movies are known for their countless additional celebrity cameos. So, like, what's the deal with humans in the sequel?
     
    Muppet fan 123 likes this.
  5. Beauregard

    Beauregard Well-Known Member

    Now I know this is obviously all assumption at this point, but the difference for me between the 5 mainish humans in GMC and the idea of a "human lead" is really the idea that in the old movies the Muppets were our POV of the world, with the humans as people they interacted with, whereas often in later movies (*cough* Mwoo, The Muppets *cough*) we see the Muppets through the eyes of the humans.

    As long as we see Muppets first, then humans, I don't mind at all. Even Scrooge was seen first through the eyes of Dickens, and Jim Hawkins (who had great chemistry with the Muppets) had the opening of Muppet-animals observing humans in Shiver My Timbers before he was introduced.

    In the original movies the Humans were often there to make the Muppets seem normal (the Muppets looked at them and thought, "Wow, what a weirdo...") whereas more lately the humans look at the Muppets and think, "Freak."
     
  6. Ignatz

    Ignatz Member

    I agree with Beuregard. If they are trying to get non-Muppet fans they don't neccesarily have to have a celebrity as the protagonist, the celebrity will obviously be on the poster and when they get into the cinema what does it matter what role that celebrity is playing they've already payed to get in. In my view the Muppets should always be the protagonist and humans are either antagonists, allies or speaking extras. In the original movies it was all about as Beuregard says the view of the human world from the Muppets (the exception being MCC and MTI which showed a human in a world of muppets) so just keep the Muppets as the protagonists and the humans in the antagonist and minor roles.
     
  7. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    I just have to ask... who were we expecting to be in the film? Gervais is a big name celebrity. I don't see how he's such a big problem when the last couple telefilms before the Muppets had C listers (except for Quentin Tarrentino). As long as it isn't another dated Kelly Osborn style cameo, I don't mind.

    Besides... what would you rather have? A celebrity you don't much care for that is a huge fan and has worked with them wonderfully before, or someone who's going to be aloof and wooden and only there for the sake of being there? There are plenty of people who worked with the Muppets that just seemed awkward because they didn't like the experience. Would we want an entire movie like that?
    How about availability? Remember, they tried to get him to cameo in character in the last film, but he was unavailable filming something else at the time. Maybe he'll come back for this one, but if he can't, he's an actor. Like what happened with Christopher Waltz... if someone's unavailable, nothing can be done.
     
    jvcarroll likes this.
  8. Pinkflower7783

    Pinkflower7783 Well-Known Member

    I'm just gonna go to the theater and eat my popcorn and enjoy a GREAT MUPPET MOVIE!!
     
  9. Frogpuppeteer

    Frogpuppeteer Well-Known Member

    I should Clarify, again im not saying i hate Ricky Gervais, i love some of his movies..Ghost Town and Invention of Lying are underrated in my book...ok maybe i like Invention of Lying cause its filmed in my home state...

    ill be there atleast as many times as i was for the first one, i stopped counting after 10,

    what im saying is i really hoped the Muppets wouldve been main billed this time around , i still believe in them, and like many said cameos of stars can bring in people too, BUT what D'snowth said is also true, that's not the case anymore, we may never see another Muppet movie where the Muppets are second characters, its true in any theatrical movie no matter the franchise.
     
  10. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    And not only that, but the actors themselves aren't going to accept being billed AFTER a bunch of puppets, that's some thing that dates way back: the actors weren't entirely pleased playing second fiddle to a puppet on ALF, and likewise, even further back, all of Sid & Marty Kroffts' shows had the live actors billed during the main titles, and all the puppeteers billed during the end titles.

    Even within the Muppet universe too, they had a hard time booking guests on TMS during the first season, and were only able to get those who happened to be friends of Jim's, or Bernie's... it wasn't until after it was successful that people wanted to be on the show.
     
  11. jvcarroll

    jvcarroll Well-Known Member

    I don't see this as any different than it was in the old days. I see this as a lot of worry about nothing. There has never been a theatrical Muppets-only movie. In fact, the human counterparts are very important to the dynamic of each film. The juxtaposition of normal human beings to the Muppets' fuzzy anarchy is what makes a lot of the humor.

    I have always wondered what a Muppets-only movie would be like. The idea does appeal to me. It worked for shows like Emmet Otter. It just becomes a different sort of thing.
     
  12. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    That's almost what I said earlier on this page: it works well for these type of specials, Emmet Otter, Bunny Picnic, etc... would it work for an entire movie? Especially theatrical? Perhaps, but I doubt it would be entirely successful. It would probably be overly fanciful of a movie (not that that's a bad thing), sort of like how Jim Frawley originally wanted TMM to take place in a fantasy setting on a soundstrage, but Jim (Henson) wanted to place the Muppets in the real world.

    From a producer and puppeteer's viewpoint, I can understand why Jim would want to do that; sure, there's a charming quality to a show or special where it's all puppets only, in fantasy settings, but there's some thing to placing those characters in the real world, interacting with real people, and having those real people really connect with the puppets in that world. I remember Jim saying puppets look so much better outdoors, in the natural light, and I agree, they look spectacular, which is why from time to time, I try to find an excuse to do a project where the setting it outdoors, they really do look more lifelike.

    Again, I can go either way: sure, the Muppets probably COULD carry a movie on by themselves, but it wouldn't be as good as other Muppet movies... they kind of NEED humans to interact with, not to mention, sans S&F and the early commercials, the Muppets almost always interacted with humans... what kind of a street would SST be if none of the human characters lived there? It wouldn't look entirely right.
     
    jvcarroll likes this.
  13. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    Closest thing is Dark Crystal, but even then the puppets are overdubbed with different actors in some cases. I'd love to see an all Muppet movie, but let's face it. It's fan only appeal.

    Not to mention this. Look up ANY Muppet movie on DVD on amazon. They always list the human leads. I've never seen them list Muppet characters or Muppeteers once. So basically what I'm saying is:

    Muppet films have always had human leads.

    We don't even know what role Ricky's going to play in the movie. He might be the villain, he might be a police superior... Seems Ty's role is that of a police officer. I can see a very Zenagata type role as the bumblingly by the book no nonsense superior.

    Heck, we don't even know what the plot is, so we don't know who's going to be what.
     
  14. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    I've noticed a number of SST DVDs, particularly the sets like the Old School sets, or the 40 years set, list Jim and Frank.
     
  15. Pinkflower7783

    Pinkflower7783 Well-Known Member

    I personally have nothing against ANY humans being in Muppet films. I understand the need to balance out the human and the Muppet world. I think people are associating the last film because in certain parts it seemed to focus too much on Gary & Mary. However I only found this to be true in the beginning to set the story up and the last half for them to resolve their issues. Pretty much through out the whole film once they met up with Kermit they did just sort of blend into the background and let The Muppets do their thing. I don't see this being an issue not that I really ever considered it any issue in this film at all.

    I think this film is gonna be like the original three films. Just pure Muppet fun! :)
     
  16. jvcarroll

    jvcarroll Well-Known Member

    I worry that a Muppets-only movie would alienate too many non-fan adults. I'm not saying that all wouldn't enjoy it. I just don't think a lot of people wouldn't give it a chance without some recognizable stars. Jim understood this. I do wish Disney or Henson would come out with another Emmet Otter sort of piece. It's just too expensive to create all of those non-CG effects for a modern marketplace that no longer respects that sort of craftsmanship.
     
    Pinkflower7783 likes this.
  17. Pinkflower7783

    Pinkflower7783 Well-Known Member

    I think it could work if they wanted to do some Muppet direct to DVD releases but not for theatrical releases. So I do agree with Jamie on this one. ^^^
     
  18. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    Unfortunately, you need big name stars to move just about any movie. Even if they're just celeb voice actors. I wouldn't be able to see them even get to make an all Muppet movie unless some celeb overdubs a specific movie only character.

    But the Muppets were always paired with celebrity human guests. What do you think the TV show was about?
     
    jvcarroll likes this.
  19. Reevz1977

    Reevz1977 Well-Known Member

    Put me in the disappointed category on this one. Don't get me wrong, I really like Ricky...for the most part. His original radio shows, podcasts, the office, extras and audiobooks always hit the target with regards to my sense of humour. I spend endless hours listening to his podcasts whilst I'm working and they never fail to amuse, thanks largely to Karl Pilkington really, but Ricky is brilliant in his control of Karl - borderline bullying the poor chap.

    That said, his stand up is terrible - really poor. But that in tolerable when compared to his motion pictures. Ghost Town was OK at best but the Invention of Lying was unfunny, flawed and difficult to watch without getting infuriated. It had such a promising premise, but failed miserably to deliver in the laughs department. Then theres the Night at the Museum movies...enough said. Over time his self deprecating humour has been replaced with arrogance he once mocked. He seems to have adopted a superiority complex that manifests in a "look at me" way. Again, it's best to remind everyone, I love the guy, it's just theres a side to his more recent comedy that grates, like nails down a blackboard.

    When it was announced he was to appear in "The Muppets" I thought "Great!!". A cameo appearance with the Muppets could have been a match made in heaven. However, having seen the omitted scene on the Blu Ray, I am so glad they removed it from the final film.

    When I heard Christopher Waltz was to appear in the sequel to "The Muppets" (sorry I can't bring myself to call it "The Muppets 2" - nooooo way!!!". I thought it was a stroke of genius. Like Michael Caine, an actor of high caliber whose "acting chops" would prove a brilliant juxaposition with the Muppets irreverent humour. I was disappointed when he had to drop out and was replaced by Ty Burell (something that reeks of nepotism if you ask me). Again, don't get me wrong - I adore Modern Family, Ty Burell particularly makes me laugh (although Sophia Vergara will always be my number 1 reason to watch the show...and invest in a 3D TV!!). I just don't think he's reached the caliber to lead a Muppet movie.

    Jason Segal did a fantasic job with "the Muppets". Whilst I wouldn't have chosen him to lead the Muppets comeback, it can't be argued that with him, we would not have seen the Muppets return to the big screen in such a way. He was also very clever to limit his screen presence, taking a backseat to allow the Muppets to shine through - something I can NEVER see Ricky Gervais do...ever!!

    Now, I am prepared to get egg all over my face once again. Disney have showed they finally know what they are doing with our favourite felt friends. I was petrified how "The Muppets" was going to turn out and, although its not without some flaws, it's a film that seems to get stronger with each viewing*. Ricky Gervais is a comic with some "edge" and hopefully the writers will exploit this to give us back some of the Muppets humour from yesteryear.

    Time will tell, but second time around, I really slightly more relaxed in anticipation of whats coming...I just hope they don't drop the ball!!

    *With the exception of Eric's Fozzie, which get's more and more annoying the more I see it. As I've said previously, the new puppet doesn't help, but the way Fozzie is "developing" under Eric makes him one of my least favourite characters when, in Franks old days, I'd have placed him a close "Number 2" to Kermit** :(

    **Don't hate (it's Christmas), this is just my opinion coming from a huge Fozzie fan!!
     
    Frogpuppeteer likes this.
  20. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    I don't see why. Any time in the movie Fozzie didn't sound like Fozzie, you can tell it was ADR. It was always off screen at the worst moments. Plus, it seems that Fozzie was Flanderized ever since MTi, and if he continued down that track, even with Frank, he would have been a blithering idiot instead of the naive comedian that we all know. Fozzie was pretty much his previous self ever since Eric took over. If you don't believe me, check out MFS. He seems particularly dumb in that one. MTI has the excuse he was playing a character.
     
    Duke Remington likes this.


Share This Page