Muppets

[ToInfinityAndBeyond]

Odd how you seem to know Disney's business better than they do. You claim that the first movie was a financial disappointment. Yet they made the business decision to make a second one. You claim that the Muppets overall have made little to no money for Disney since the acquisition. Yet they're still actively developing new properties, including a new network television series on their own network, featuring the Muppets. You claim that the Muppets haven't helped other companies' sales with their advertising. Yet those other companies continue to pay to license the Muppets for their ads.

If what you claim is true, Disney and the companies it deals with must all be run by absolutely horrible business people who are willing to continuously throw money down the tubes for something nobody wants just because they're Muppet fans themselves. Which is completely and utterly ridiculous.

The fact that Disney continues to invest in and develop the Muppet franchise tells me much more about its profitability or lack thereof than anything you or anyone else could post on a discussion forum.

Magenta is the biggest troll that ever did troll, my friend.

 

[Tom P.]

You're right. I deleted my post.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

I think the Tower was originally just going to be a haunted hotel, right? And then someone thought of a Twilight Zone connection. That part is pretty great, all right, but as you suggest, the Tower would have been fine without it. It's that incredible of an attraction. The last great attraction the Imagineers built. I can't imagine something so awesome happening under Iger's reign. He'd have reduced it to a bunch of ghosts made of bedsheets haunting a Motel 6.

It was suppose to be an attraction with Mel Brooks called Hotel Mel..More info can be found here..http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_c...l-where-s-my-mummy-and-who-broke-tik-tok.aspx

 

[Magenta Panther]

*sigh* Really. Disney keeps trying with the puppets because it wants to get a return on its investment. I mean, duh. If the new TV show hits, then maybe that will finally happen. Frankly, all I care about is keeping non-Disney generated/adapted IP out of Walt's parks. There are plenty of wonderful things in the Disney vaults that haven't gotten an attraction yet. Unfortunately, Robert Iger seems to have very little faith in the Disney classics, which is why he tried to counter Uni's Potterland, not with a Disney's Lion King attraction, but with Cameron's Avatar in AK. I really wonder if he actually likes Disney at all, except as a collection of "brands", but that's another subject.

Yeah, use the "troll" label when you lose an argument. How original.

 

[ToInfinityAndBeyond]

You're a troll because your theories have been disproven by evidence countless times and yet you come back with something even more ridiculous every time. Your distaste for certain things is very clear, but it does not make you correct in any sense of the word.

Oh dang, now I've fed the troll.

 

[brifraz]

I'm impressed that you have some grasp of the facts and figures (and estimates)...I assure you, I'm well aware of them. But you seem unaware of a few things:

1. The budgets you mention from both films do not include the promotional and distribution costs. And those costs can be huge. From i09.com:

2. A movie has to make around 2 or 2.5 times its production cost before it can even start turning a profit. Why? Because of the costs noted above, and because studios don't get the entire box-office take:

So Disney has only gotten maybe HALF of what the two Muppet movies have made. Wow. Serious money there.

I am well aware that a movie has to make generally double it's production cost to turn a profit for the studio, hence my use of the phrase "at least made money" as opposed to saying "they made $150 million." Even if we consider that they needed to make 2.5 times production costs to turn profit, that would be $225 million. Combined the two films made $240 million which is, in fact, a profit for the studio. In reference to your points from the i09 article, the Muppets franchise does not fully fit into the mold which they are discussing. The vast majority of their promotional campaign utilized the Disney channel, ABC, and the amusement parks, which means that there was a line item transfer within the company, but not the expense that most movies incur. Thus, my use of the phrase "and at most, made decent money" because I feel quite certain that they needed to make less than 2.5 times production cost (and likely even less that 2 times) to turn a profit. And, while $15-60 million is not a headline making profit margin, it is a profit (which is what you stated the IP did not make).

An argument could also be made for the fact that the Muppet merchandise profit makes keeping the Muppets in the public eye worthwhile for Disney even if the films were to lose money. Since merchandise numbers were not readily available, I am not going to delve into this topic.

Finally, Muppets Most Wanted was obviously a flop in the US (by the generally accepted flop definition) and was called as such by many publications. However, a movie that obviously was targeted at world audiences (and perhaps done so in order to push merchandise sales in non-US markets) should be judged in terms of world box office.

Please note, I did not raise any discussion of the Muppets or any other IPs place in the parks. Not a discussion that I am interested in having with anyone. I merely wanted to address your comment that the Muppet IP was not profitable while the Star Wars IP was.

 

[Brer Panther]

There are plenty of wonderful things in the Disney vaults that haven't gotten an attraction yet. Unfortunately, Robert Iger seems to have very little faith in the Disney classics, which is why he tried to counter Uni's Potterland, not with a Disney's Lion King attraction, but with Cameron's Avatar in AK. I really wonder if he actually likes Disney at all.

Well, we know he sure as heck likes Frozen...

 

[Tom P.]

Look, bottom line, successful corporations do not continue to funnel more and more money to projects that have flopped over and over again in the hopes that maybe something will finally work. The entire notion that Disney would be doing that is ludicrous. And I'm sure Magenta knows this. But as was pointed out, he's just trolling at this point.

 

[Magenta Panther]

You're a troll because your theories have been disproven by evidence countless times and yet you come back with something even more ridiculous every time. Your distaste for certain things is very clear, but it does not make you correct in any sense of the word.

Oh dang, now I've fed the troll.

No, I haven't been disproven. I listed all of the times I've been right about this issue, based on facts, and people attack me because they don't like what the facts tell them. And you just choose to disbelieve the facts, because the facts anger you and/or make you sad, which is why you attack them - and me.

Oh, dang, I've just attempted to educate a troll.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Look, bottom line, successful corporations do not continue to funnel more and more money to projects that have flopped over and over again in the hopes that maybe something will finally work. The entire notion that Disney would be doing that is ludicrous. And I'm sure Magenta knows this. But as was pointed out, he's just trolling at this point.

Uh huh. Here's something interesting - it's clear that a large percentage of the people who saw the first Muppet film chose NOT to see the second OR buy the DVD. What does that tell you? (I can't wait to hear the excuses and the evasions). What that would tell anyone with sense is that the first film did relatively well because of two things: Jason Segel and nostalgia. The second film didn't have those things going for it and it failed. So what's Disney supposed to do next? A third movie is out of the question. The only alternative is TV - that is, if Disney hopes to make any money. So this new show is likely the Muppets' last chance. If it fails, they'll probably be lucky to end up in Playhouse Disney. So I'd keep my fingers crossed if I were you.

 

[Brer Panther]

Uh huh. Here's something interesting - it's clear that a large percentage of the people who saw the first Muppet film chose NOT to see the second OR buy the DVD. What does that tell you?

Maybe people just didn't want to see a movie that revolves around one of the most obnoxious clichés ever made?

 

[Matt_Black]

Here's my pitch for a Muppets movie- Muppets Main Event! It's basically the exact same plot as No Holds Barred, except it's Gonzo that's the wrestler that takes the world by storm, and Vince McMahon is the evil rival promoter.

 

[George]

Here's my pitch for a Muppets movie- Muppets Main Event! It's basically the exact same plot as No Holds Barred, except it's Gonzo that's the wrestler that takes the world by storm, and Vince McMahon is the evil rival promoter.

I would get caught up in this here thread, but seeing the bestest idea ever on display in the first post I read....I dunno. It will all be downhill from here.

 

[Matt_Black]

Miss Piggy wins feminism award. Apparently, some still think the Muppets are VERY relevant today.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Miss Piggy wins feminism award. Apparently, some still think the Muppets are VERY relevant today.

Heck E3's Nintendo Presentation was done by Jim Henson's Muppets...

 

[Matt_Black]

I would get caught up in this here thread, but seeing the bestest idea ever on display in the first post I read....I dunno. It will all be downhill from here.

I didn't even get to the part about my idea for a Roddy Piper cameo.

Scooter is making a deposit at the bank for the Muppet Wrestling Federation and is waiting in line. In walks Piper wearing sunglasses.

PIPER: I'm here to kick butt and chew bubblegum, and I'm all out of bubblegum.
SCOOTER: I have an extra piece; would you like it?
PIPER: Oh, thank you very much! *begins chewing*
SCOOTER: What about the other thing?
PIPER: 'Scuse me?
SCOOTER: You said you were here to kick butt and chew bubblegum.
PIPER: *stage whisper* I only say that so's people will offer me some gum.
SCOOTER: I find that asking politely and saying "please" works just as well.
PIPER: Hey, that's a great idea! Thanks, I'll remember that next time!
SCOOTER: You're welcome.

END SCENE

 

[216bruce]

Uh huh. Here's something interesting - it's clear that a large percentage of the people who saw the first Muppet film chose NOT to see the second OR buy the DVD. What does that tell you? (I can't wait to hear the excuses and the evasions). What that would tell anyone with sense is that the first film did relatively well because of two things: Jason Segel and nostalgia. The second film didn't have those things going for it and it failed. So what's Disney supposed to do next? A third movie is out of the question. The only alternative is TV - that is, if Disney hopes to make any money. So this new show is likely the Muppets' last chance. If it fails, they'll probably be lucky to end up in Playhouse Disney. So I'd keep my fingers crossed if I were you.

I begrudgingly and sadly agree with your points here. And, yep, I'm a huge fan of the Muppets.

 

[Brer Panther]

Frank Oz and Dave Goelz were in Inside Out.

I kind of wish Disney would hire Muppeteers to play characters in their animated movies like PIXAR does... I think Steve Whitmere would've made a pretty good Pleakley from Lilo and Stitch (using his Kermit voice).

 

[Matt_Black]

Frank Oz and Dave Goelz were in Inside Out.

I kind of wish Disney would hire Muppeteers to play characters in their animated movies like PIXAR does... I think Steve Whitmere would've made a pretty good Pleakley from Lilo and Stitch (using his Kermit voice).

On the one hand, I love the Muppets. On the other hand, I also love The Kids in the Hall, and putting in Whitmire would have meant taking out Kevin MacDonald, which is just... Man, I don't want to even think about it! Few people can pull off Pleakley's frenetic nuances like MacDonald. Besides, the character dresses in drag- he pretty much HAS to be played by one of the KITH.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Frank Oz and Dave Goelz were in Inside Out.

I kind of wish Disney would hire Muppeteers to play characters in their animated movies like PIXAR does... I think Steve Whitmere would've made a pretty good Pleakley from Lilo and Stitch (using his Kermit voice).

I've always thought Lucasfilm should hire Eric Jacobson to understudy Yoda instead of Tom Kane.