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.
Muppet Central Radio
Within days Muppet
Central Radio could be off the air. Show your support and save the station
via Radionomy's website and apps. We're also on iTunes and Apple TV. Learn
Discussion in 'Muppet Headlines' started by beaker, Feb 4, 2003.
Hey, me too Add the Beethoveen 5 to that, and those are my three favorite segments in F2000.
F2K should have been longer. They cut out 3 segments that they should have used. I felt like I paid too much for that short amount of time...mainly because I thought it was such a great film that more would have made it greater. Only my onion...I mean opinion though.
I felt the same way at first, but I've grown accustomed to the length. They couldn't have made it as long as F1940 as today's audience wouldn't take it for such a film. I think maybe a segment or two longer would have made for a better feature length.
Do you know what they left out?
Actually, Bette Midler (if I remember correctly) introduced a segment that showed options for 3 or 4 other ideas that were not produced for the film. It's IN the film about what was left OUT of the film.
Mickey's the nice one....The smart guy w/the wacky friends that gets pulled into all their shenanigans.....The adventurous one whose friends always cause disatster...In other words, Mickey's the straight man.
Mickey is to Disney as Kermit is to Henson, but Kermit has more personality and works harder than the rat...er, mouse.
Heh, and you and I know one can meet/and or see the Kermit in person. Whose seen Mickey in real life? Noone, cuz hes just a cartoon. (and no pimply faced teens in a suit dont count)
Yeah, Mickey's sorta like Kermit, 'cept Kermit's not ALWAYS the straight man! And I've never seen Mickey get upset....Kermit's more developed, obviously. Actually, ALL the main Muppet players are more developed than the Disney icons, I think.
I agree with Manda on this. Kermit is more well-rounded because he has all emotions, and isn't always so "perfect" as they try to make Mickey. He was just too sweet in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and in nearly all films. After Steamboat Willie and other earlier films, he had a small mean streak, but not much.
I made Muley mischevious. My cartoon character, puppet character is sweet, mean, flirtatious, playful...all things 'humanly' emotional.
I think Mickey misses out on that, unfortunately.
And Cory, I have been holding out on this information for a long time, but I DID meet Kermit the Frog. We had coffee and some kind of chocolate covered something crunchy when we were all at MFest.
Then my alarm went off and I woke up.
Heh. Well I can understand why we didnt get to meet the Muppets...I mean Kermit is a really busy personality, along with his handler Steve. Im glad we got to meet Sweetums though.
He seems like he'd be really fun to hang out with.
And yes I have broken the third wall of reality here, I dont care.
I make a distinct seperation between character and performer when it comes to the Muppets. Honestly, Im like that little kid Jon Jon in that Sesame sketch when it comes to the Muppets. Err that, or Im completely off my rocker
Anyways, my dream would be to someday meet some of the Muppet gang. They seem genuinely warm, caring, and friendly and would definately be cool guys to hang out with. Hopefully we'll be able to do that if they have another Muppetfest.
I, too, seperate the puppet from the performer, and get disappointed when folks FIGHT the urge to do so, and will only look at ME when the puppet is being performed.
When that happens, Muley says, "Hey, pal. You look at the one who's talking to you." Person:"Which one do I look at then?"
Muley, "See? It's because of folks like you that we have to use puppet stages."
LOL! That is hillarious! Man...yeah you got it Kev...it takes away from the magic to be focusing on the performer. But ya remember Muppetfest? It never once crossed my mind that those were just puppets on performers hands...ever. A true testament to their skill.
That was just cool and weird.
Performer.....what's this "performer" you speak of?
That weird guy underneath you. That's the performer. LOL!!
Hello, everyone. This is Chris - the old Chris/Gobo/Tron2 from the old MC board who created the DvH Parody. Jackie told me that folks were talking about this again. Thanks, Jackie!
I hadn't gotten around to checking out this new board with all the chaos that's been happening in my life lately. But since I heard there was a renewed interest in this project, I figured it'd be a good time to register on the board and answer your questions.
Good point, and actually, I'm way ahead of you. I'm working on a portfolio and because Dvh remains my best example of digital video editing, I decided to include it. Only one problem... the source from the original project was lost from my harddrive, meaning I had to rebuild it. So almost ready for release now, is a (thank you, Mr. Lucas for spreading this new fever into the filmmaking world) special edition with a few additional scenes & effects, and at 640x480 resolution (that's the same number of pixels as your television for you non-techies).
I estimate the file will come to about 25 mb, and though I might have a site to host it by the time it's ready for release, I don't have space right now, so if anyone wants to host it, (or run a mirror), please let me know.
How rough things were during the attempted merger of Disney and Henson was, we will probably never know. This piece of news is but one of a number of things though that has laft a nasty taste in my mouth - and I dare say it left a very similar taste in Jim's.
"Throughout the workings of the deal there had been a clash between the more low-key Henson employees, and the big-money Disney employees. There was an incident that reportedly took place in the fall of 1989 in which Henson said to Jeffrey Katzenberg, the head Walt Disney Studios, that "all I really want out of this is a fair deal." "Fair deal!" Katzenberg said. "Get out of the 60's, pal. You're in Hollywood now."
You just DON'T say that to Jim Henson.
Now I could go on about my feelings about Disney, but my intention here is not to resurrect a topic which has produced countless heated arguments and all-out flame wars, (The truth is, Walt Disney, throughout his career, had more courage, talent and creative integrity in his little finger than Jim Henson had in his whole hand. - I won't even dignify that statement with a response). This was one of my greatest fears when I first created DvH, is that it would enrage the Disney fans. The truth is, I like a lot of what Disney hasdone as well. I love the parks, I love the animated shorts and their classic feature films. And nobody get me wrong - I am NOT attacking Walt Disney. The antagonist of this trailer is not Walt Disney, or that wonderful company he started those many years ago. This is why you don't see legacy Disney characters lining up at the other end of the battlefield in this video. It was an idea I considered for weeks, but later decided that it would cloud my intentions far too much. I'm not trying to say Mickey is launching an invasion. Notice the only Disney-related lifeform you see in this entire video is Eisner. Not Walt, not Goofy, and not the Olsen twins.
Also, don't confuse what is happening in the video as a story of the original intended merger. That is covered in the opening prologue. Everything that happens after that, is about the recent events of Disney, or who knows what, buying out the JHC. And you're right, they didn't get boarded and pillaged. Of course not. The interest was lost after Jim's death We'll never actually know what would've happened. But in my mind there were enough signs in the aftermath of the whole mess, that the Disney Company would have stolen whatever it could've from Henson if it had gotten the chance - a chance that has now arrived thanks to EMTV's sloppy spending habits. It is that window of oppertunity that caused me to write DvH.
Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but I was leaning more towards Death Star than Borg Cube - at least as far as the spacecraft is concerned.
Eisner couldn't be more blatantly playing the role of the Borg, but the ship was meant to at first glimpse appear as a spherical piece of metal - as a Death Star until it pulls far enough away from the camera allowing you to see two additional spheres affixed to the top of it.
However, the battle is definitely a mix of both Starwars and Startrek, so ultimately, it's whatever ship you want it to be.
As I just said to Scott - yes I was trying more for Deathstar than Borg ship.
As for why there that sci-fi element in there - there's a couple of reasons.
1: Pigs in Space is A 100% parody of Startrek - no doubts about it, and I used it for my opening sequence. And when I came across that other clip of Link Hogthrob panicking for help, I just HAD to do something with it.
2. This war between Disney and Henson could not possibly be contained on Earth. I wanted to emphasize just how big the battle was - that it had even spread itself out into space.
3. I love Starwars and Startrek, and thought it would be really cool.
I tried to keep it low-key enough so anyone could understand what was going on without being a deeply devoted sci-fi geek. You need not know anything about Starwars or Startrek to understand the Swinetrek and the "MouseStar" exchanging laser fire. And almost everyone, even if they haven't seen Starwars, knows what a lightsaber is, so that split-second of Kermit wielding one doesn't draw much confusion. The one remaining image, that of Eisner as a Borg, would have to be the toughest. Though you can still understand the message he's conveying without knowing one iota of Borg behavior - this is the only clip in the entire video that you're missing out on anything with. The Borg take over everything they come across, and if they can't, they destroy it. That's all you need to know, and now you know everything you need to know to get the most out of DvH.
I had hoped it was deep-rooted enough in pop-culture now that nobody would have a problem understanding it. Up to this point in time, just about every corporate supergiant in the country has been jokingly compared to the Borg at one point or another - milked for every drop that it's worth.
One additional reason for why I used the Borg analogy here though, is a more personal problem I have with Disney - and I see many of you in this thread have already mentioned it. The Borg are highly robotic - lacking in their own creativity, and survive by taking over - and are unable to learn new things by any other means. This reminds me of Disney especially recently, with their newfound love of recycling old ideas. Taking excellent classic films, beautifully done, and re-releasing them at 1/50th the quality in an attempt to strip-mine every cent they can from it. Like the Borg, they often seem unable to come up with anything new without taking it from someone else.
Anyway, that about covers all the questions I think. I thank everyone for the praise they've given this project during this renewed interest. And thank you, Scott, for hosting the video. I've long-since lost my large hunk of web hosting space and don't have the bandwidth to have it on my site anymore. I'm glad you picked it up so people can still view it.
And if anyone has any other comments or questions. Just let me know.
Great to see you at our new forum! You have been missed. Sent you a few e-mails the past few months, but I didn't know if your old account was still active.
Hope all is well for you. Hopefully we will be seeing some new Fraggle merchandise to celebrate the anniversary during the next year.
Separate names with a comma.