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. "Muppets Most Wanted" Fan Reactions
    After you see "Muppets Most Wanted", read fan reactions and let us know your thoughts on the Muppets eighth theatrical film.

  3. "Muppets Most Wanted" Original Soundtrack
    With a new Muppet movie one of the most anticipated merchandise releases is the official soundtrack. Listen to the Muppets Most Wanted original soundtrack now playing on Muppet Central Radio.

The Muppets is now the top-grossing Muppet movie

Discussion in 'Muppet Headlines' started by Speed Tracer, Dec 16, 2011.

  1. Scooterforever

    Scooterforever Active Member

    Yeah, Drtooth, my local TRU really loaded up on Arthur Christmas stuff and I don't think it's selling, although according to Rottentomatoes AC now has a lead on The Muppets. Then again, Muppets trampled Arthur Christmas and Hugo on their shared opening week, so I don't think that matters much now.
  2. zoebell

    zoebell Active Member

    steady as a rock, another million yesterday. will cross 80 tomorrow, maybe we can expect 3 million this weekend
    Puckrox likes this.
  3. Puckrox

    Puckrox Well-Known Member

    It's officially no longer playing my college town, which is lame. BUT it means that my roommate, who works at the movie theater, was able to snag the huge Muppets poster for me and it's now hanging in our living room. :D
    Muppet fan 123 likes this.
  4. muppet jeff

    muppet jeff New Member

    awsome movie sadly i did not ask my dad to snag a poster
  5. BobThePizzaBoy

    BobThePizzaBoy Well-Known Member

  6. Oscarfan

    Oscarfan Well-Known Member

    Welp. Earth was nice was it lasted.
    BobThePizzaBoy likes this.
  7. Puckrox

    Puckrox Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
    Oscarfan and BobThePizzaBoy like this.
  8. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    There's no internet footage of someone saying "Of course it did," and punching a hole in the wall, is there? I was kinda expecting it.

    Anyway, I wish Tintin was doing better... the theater I saw it in was virtually packed with kids I swore would go see Chipmunks.
  9. Scooterforever

    Scooterforever Active Member

    Hmm... the first thing I feel when I hear news like this is the urge to hurt something:crazy:. Of course, I could never hurt animals, especially such helpless little creatures as chipmunks, so it looks like Dave's in the for beatdown of a lifetime:mad:.
  10. heralde

    heralde Well-Known Member

    If there's still any doubt that our popular culture has taken a nosedive, try comparing the Chipmunks from the 1960s and the 1980s vs. the abomination we have today.
  11. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    Here's the thing...

    I don't find the movies to be that much of an abomination (at least in substance) because Alvin and the Chipmunks never really had much to it. It was basically a recording gimmick that was anthropomorphized into cartoonish characters (and they did indeed look like actual Chipmunks wearing people clothes the way they are in the movie on the first album covers)...It was deemed worthy to be made into a cartoon in the 60's and again with more pathos in the 80's and 90's... I honestly think John K and the rest subtly commented on the 80's series in the Mighty Mouse cartoon they did (but this thread's not big enough to elaborate)...

    Now, aside from "edgy" writing geared towards kindergarteners and poor casting of Dave, I felt the first Chipmunk movie almost a biopic of Ross Bagdasarian Sr, or at least an allegory of his struggles as a song writer up until he came up with the speed up sound for Witch Doctor. That became a novelty hit that created said cultural phenomenon. And then of course there was the commentary on what fame does and what record companies do to artists (Ian keeping Alvin and the rest in cages and taking all the money for himself is a perfect allegory of how big name labels exploit artists, leaving them to have to pay royalties on their own songs... even if they're lucky enough to be able to write their own songs). While not perfect, the first movie was enjoyable enough, but David Cross salvaged the film.

    The second one was equal parts fanservice (adding the Chipettes) and trying too hard to be the 80's series. Yet, while the film had some nice little concepts, it failed overall due to Jason Lee not even thinking the paycheck worthy enough to be in the film the entire way, forcing the writers to add a horrid Marty Stu and Mary Sue romantic angle (even though they had the Chipettes and there was organic love story potential in there... same reason I hated Yogi Bear, BTW). once again, David Cross saves the film... Personally, I think Dave's loser nephew ruined the entire thing, not to mention it lost the potential to add Mrs. Miller in as their Babysitter...

    The third one's plot seems almost like a DTV or TV special... the cartoon did the stranded on a desert island already, and better... I have no desire to see this... I almost snuck in after Tintin last night, but didn't even want to bother.

    Still, I can't call these terrible... just meh and what you expect of kid's movies now.
  12. heralde

    heralde Well-Known Member

    I'm not saying the original Chimpmunks were Shakespeare or anything but they were both well written and amusing children's cartoons. These movies? They frighten me...::shivers::

    Plus the 1987 movie The Chipmunk Adventure was ten times more sophisticated than these (again) abominations, lol.
  13. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    Well, like I said, the first one actually had some redeeming quality to it, albeit poorly cast with a couple pointless bathroom jokes. The script was written by someone who did The Simpsons when it was GOOD! At least there was that nice bit of snarky satire of the music industry. The second could have at least been decent, but they "went there" and quoted other movies, shoved in product and program placements, and of course just bungled the entire thing up.

    Still, if I have to, I pick the original 1960's series over everything else. It was pretty much pure humor, and Clyde Crashcup... I don't even need to finish that sentence... Clyde Crashcup.

    Plus I kinda think the fact the Chipmunks covered both Achy Breaky Heart and The Macarena... that's far more offensive than the "it's just a raisin" sequence to me at least... really... when I stumbled on the European Smurfs pop albums where they sang Barbie Girl back in the 90's, 00's... well, that's a LOT lower than the movie IMO.

    And I hate to think to say they improved on Marmaduke with that hideous failure of a movie. I mean, the comic sucked to begin with... all he did was steal pies from windowsills... even the Ruby Spears 80's cartoon with the voice of Paul Winchell (this from a big Paul Winchell fan) was quite wretched.
  14. heralde

    heralde Well-Known Member

    Oh yeah definitely as far as pure humor, The Alvin Show and Clyde Crashcup win every time. :)

    Lol, sorry but I'm really on a witchhunt over toilet humor lately. It's just lazy and cheap and I'm sick of people mistaking it for humor.
  15. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    I don't like it either...Tim Hill has something about eating feces... look at the Bunny Rabbit that crapped jelly beans in Hop. The first film didn't need the raisin OR the fart under the towel (the dutch oven joke in the second one was way more lazy, disgusting, wrong and pointless). They only throw that stuff in for the 5 year olds these things are intended for, as they haven't seen it in every single movie.

    But Achy Breaky Heart?!? That's audio poop! I forced someone to get me the 35th Birthday Party CD (shocked it was in print, or they just happened to get a loose copy in), and even then I felt that there was one song I'd overuse the skip button on the CD player for... yuck. At the risk of going off on a tangent, I never liked any of the Hanna Montana/Miley Cyrus music, but at least she had more hits than her father ever did.

    Back to the movie, Frogboy once reviewed it and gave it a very fair C. I agree with it. If it wasn't for the toilet jokes (again, for 5 year olds) and the poor casting of Dave, I's give it a B-... still, it's sadly one of the "better" of those kinds of movies. I despise what they did to Jon Arbuckle ever to care to see the Garfield films. Jon's supposed to be a loser, sure... but he's so over the top in being one that you can't help laugh at his pain. Look at Garfield minus Garfield... it's proof that he's the true funny one in those comics. Same problem with the personality devoid Ranger Smith in the Yogi movie. I felt they got Yogi and Booboo more or less down pat, but since the film focused so much on trying to be the mediocre Garfield movies (why would anyone want to copy mediocrity?) that it was more like the "That guy from the Show Ed as a Park Ranger movie... also Yogi and Booboo are in it sort of." With the Smurfs, at least the human characters could act! And of course, the lowest esteem possible for the Underdog movie that threw out the cartoon's brilliant satirical edge to make a generic talking dog super hero movie. They could have just called it "That Darn Super Dog" or something, and it probably would have made more money instead of ticking the heck off of Underdog fans.
  16. robodog

    robodog Active Member

    I still think Underdog didn't start out as an Underdog movie. I think they got ahold of a script involving a generic dog gaining superpowers and cut and pasted the names of a few Underdog characters in and filmed it. I enjoyed the Underdog movie because I've yet to see a talking dog movie I didn't like. It's my one weakness. I enjoy talking dog movies even if I know they're bad. I knew going in this was Underdog in name only though.
    I hate the fact that Chipmunks 3 outgrossed the Muppets. I kind of like the Chipmunks movies, but in no way do any of them deserve to make more than the Muppets.
  17. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    I think they bought the rights up to an Underdog movie, and just let it about to expire and just took whatever generic super dog script they could. It's probably good from a perspective where if it was titled differently, it wouldn't be so bad. All they did here was slap a bunch of character names on very generic characters... and it's like... who is it for? Kids would see a generic super dog movie anyway. Why aggravate a fan base for the sake of slapping a famous name on it? It just ruins the potential of a franchise.

    It's all about the time of release. Chipmunks is the ONLY younger kid friendly family movie out there. TinTin's for older kids, and that film's primary competition is Sherlock Holmes and maybe MI4... Tintin's fabulous by the way. Steven's best work in years. And the Chipmunks was destined to be huge during kid's Christmas vacation. The Muppets did as good as it did during a slow box office period post with 3 other kids movies (2 with a similar demographic). It clobbered the competition, but the competition did a pretty good job taking potential BO off of The Muppets. I don't think it would have done any better in Summer or even if it was just released now.
  18. zoebell

    zoebell Active Member

    it's at 82 million now. that's respectable. i don't know where we can expect it to finish off- i guess that depends on when it's pulled from theaters. it's january now so there's no big new releases coming out anymore, not this month.

    maybe 85? it seems like a lot to ask for 90, it's been making a million a day for the past week or so, we can't expect that to continue with the holidays over

    i just hope disney sees this as a success, and tries to do more with them- because that's really the bottom line that we all want. whether it be tv or whatever.
  19. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    I think Disney saw it as successful enough and the movie did what it set out to do, bring interest back into the characters. More stuff is coming out later, I'm sure we'll at the very least see a new TV special soon. 90 would be impossible, but if it cleared that, it would be the second highest grossing one, leaving only The Muppet Movie as the highest performing movie. As it stands, it's not too far behind GMC, but I doubt it will surpass it unless it has a very solid weekend next week at theaters that still have it. Still, a few weeks ago, 82 almost seemed like an impossibility. It managed to get at least 10 mil more the past week and a half.

    Over all, The Muppets has beaten 4 of 6 Muppet Movies... and like I said, MCC (which only made about 52 mil, but became a staple on DVD) was followed by MTI, which did almost 10 mil better. If another Muppet theatrical film were to happen, I'd bank on the fact it would do at least a little better than this one. Sometimes sequels or follow up films tend to do a little better than the first one... sometimes much better. Look at Batman Begins vs. Dark Knight.
  20. zoebell

    zoebell Active Member

    i just wonder if they're going to look at it as profitable enough to do more

    i think at best it can be called a moderate success, and that's mostly because they only spent 45 million on it. if they'd spent 100 million this would not be considered successful. and it reveals the fans to be much more people who grew up with them and knew them already, with not a whole lot of potential to reach out to kids today (who apparently love and are much more responsive to stuff like the chipmunks and smurfs over this)

    so, i just wonder what disney does with a property that has shown itself to have a very devoted, but definitely niche audience. they mostly cater to broad, mainstream stuff, with their merchandising and everything, so it's an open question what they will do with the muppets now.

    i'd still love for a new tv show more than anything else.


Share This Page

Find out more about Jim Henson the Biography