Journey Into Imagination With Figment To Be Replaced With An Inside Out Attraction?

Rhinocerous

Premium Member
Walt Disney hasn't been involved with Disney for a long time (on account of he died in the 1960's) and yet the company managed to create a Silver Age of animated films thanks to lessons left behind by his legacy (Lion King, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid).

Jim Henson's legacy wouldn't even exist without Disney money propping it up (with the exception of Sesame Street. That got propped up by taxpayer money, that is, if you believe the begging we get every year by PBS...)
This is a bit of revisionist history on your part. In the 23 years between Walt's death and the release of The Little Mermaid, the company wound up in pretty bad shape. Over roughly the same length of time post-Henson, I would argue that Muppets had more success, relative to their brand. Disney then bought the Muppets and proceeded to leave it stagnant for 7 years while severing ties with key members of the creative team. They had moderate success with The Muppets, but followed it up with some poor creative choices. I think the shorts and commercials that have gone viral prove that they still have broad appeal when used correctly.

Will the Muppets ever be a juggernaut like Marvel or Star Wars? Likely not. But please do not paint them as some poison pill that kindly old Mr. Iger has kept on life support in spite of all better judgment. It is insulting.
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
This is a bit of revisionist history on your part. In the 23 years between Walt's death and the release of The Little Mermaid, the company wound up in pretty bad shape. Over roughly the same length of time post-Henson, I would argue that Muppets had more success, relative to their brand. Disney then bought the Muppets and proceeded to leave it stagnant for 7 years while severing ties with key members of the creative team. They had moderate success with The Muppets, but followed it up with some poor creative choices. I think the shorts and commercials that have gone viral prove that they still have broad appeal when used correctly.

Will the Muppets ever be a juggernaut like Marvel or Star Wars? Likely not. But please do not paint them as some poison pill that kindly old Mr. Iger has kept on life support in spite of all better judgment. It is insulting.
Much has been made about CG's impact on traditional animation, but people overlook how hard it hit practical effects and puppetry too. Like the Muppets arrived at Disney just as the company was focused on trying to establish a foothold in the CG animation market alongside Pixar and Dreamworks. And in turn, the Jim Henson Company, now without Muppets, found themselves basically having to prop themselves up on their Digital Puppetry unit to survive while struggling to get any puppetry projects off the ground. With practical effects and puppets starting to come back and Dark Crystal getting a pretty successful Netflix show, there's clearly a light at the end of a tunnel here.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
And you continue to defend them despite the fact they've done absolutely nothing for the Disney company that rescued them from the trash bin.
Yes I do defend them, I won't say otherwise. The problem is your opinion on the muppets is just that, your opinion. No taste, maturity, no shame? This is why you are criticized for your thoughts on the muppets. You talk about after Disney died the company had a silver age because of what they learned from him. Yet you criticize the muppets for Disney making sub par content. When Disney shunned the knowledge of the muppets creators. You also realize Disney spent what amounts to McDonald's money to us for the muppets right? So making it seem like the purchase is some giant stain on Disney is a bit silly. And Disney didn't rescue them, if anything they moved them closer to obsolescence with their lackluster handling of them.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
This is a bit of revisionist history on your part. In the 23 years between Walt's death and the release of The Little Mermaid, the company wound up in pretty bad shape. Over roughly the same length of time post-Henson, I would argue that Muppets had more success, relative to their brand. Disney then bought the Muppets and proceeded to leave it stagnant for 7 years while severing ties with key members of the creative team. They had moderate success with The Muppets, but followed it up with some poor creative choices. I think the shorts and commercials that have gone viral prove that they still have broad appeal when used correctly.

Will the Muppets ever be a juggernaut like Marvel or Star Wars? Likely not. But please do not paint them as some poison pill that kindly old Mr. Iger has kept on life support in spite of all better judgment. It is insulting.
Uh huh. Yet Disney didn't wind up having to sell their characters to another company. How is that "success relative to their brand"?
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
Uh huh. Yet Disney didn't wind up having to sell their characters to another company. How is that "success relative to their brand"?
Disney only barely managed to escape being chopped into pieces by corporate raiders against their will during that post-Walt period. The Henson kids sold the prize cow to Disney for magic beans, but there wasn't any vulture capitalists breathing down their neck to pressure them into doing so.

Also, you know who was in the position to buy Disney to try and save it and actually considered doing that back in the 80s? Jim Henson himself.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Yes I do defend them, I won't say otherwise. The problem is your opinion on the muppets is just that, your opinion. No taste, maturity, no shame? This is why you are criticized for your thoughts on the muppets. You talk about after Disney died the company had a silver age because of what they learned from him. Yet you criticize the muppets for Disney making sub par content. When Disney shunned the knowledge of the muppets creators. You also realize Disney spent what amounts to McDonald's money to us for the muppets right? So making it seem like the purchase is some giant stain on Disney is a bit silly. And Disney didn't rescue them, if anything they moved them closer to obsolescence with their lackluster handling of them.
Good god, Disney has given those characters an online presence, two chances at movies, and a TV show and they still failed. And even if Disney did spend "McDonald's money" to purchase them, it was still a bad investment. As for Disney not rescuing them, get real. The puppet company was going to be broken up and sold for spare parts before Eisner stepped in (it). All the money Disney's thrown at that tired old franchise has produced exactly zip. If the most powerful entertainment company on Earth can't make those characters popular again, it's likely it can't be done. People aren't into them anymore. Remember when they got kicked out of Disneyland, and nobody cared?
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Disney only barely managed to escape being chopped into pieces by corporate raiders against their will during that post-Walt period. The Henson kids sold the prize cow to Disney for magic beans, but there wasn't any vulture capitalists breathing down their neck to pressure them into doing so.

Also, you know who was in the position to buy Disney to try and save it and actually considered doing that back in the 80s? Jim Henson himself.
Yes, he talked about that, and thank god that didn't happen. Pretty ironic that a few years later his characters were foundering and he wound up selling them to Disney, eh? That's the difference between what Walt built and what Henson built in a nutshell. One had staying power, and the other didn't.

As for the Henson kids, tell me, why didn't THEY try to keep their father's characters going? They sold them not once but TWICE.
 

gustaftp

Well-Known Member
Nope. Stitch can still sell merchandise well at the very least. As for "Honey, etc.", well, another movie's being made, and Rick Moranis is actually going to appear in it. We'll see how that goes.
The awful version of the Figment ride has been around longer than HISTA and Stitch's Great Escape. MuppetVision 3D has been around longer than both. It was ditched at Disneyland where regulars were ready for something new. WDW has a different audience combined of mostly out-of-towners, and MuppetVision 3D has had a staying power there that HISTA and other 3D films have not had.

The reboot of Honey has nothing to do with long-term appeal of the franchise, which is firmly stuck in the 1990s. It is meant solely to play to my fellow millennials who are excited about Dunkaroos and Full House being back.

Muppets have had a variety of films spanning generations in various stages of popularity. The Muppets are timeless and appeal to Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z who have each had them as a part of the cultural lexicon with their own relevant films and TV series in each generation without trying to appeal on nostalgia alone. The same cannot be said about "Honey" which is a flash in the pan.

As others have noted, you seem to have a really odd and malicious hatred of the Muppets that goes beyond just a mild dislike. Did Gonzo steal your binky?
 
Last edited:

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
Good god, Disney has given those characters an online presence, two chances at movies, and a TV show and they still failed. And even if Disney did spend "McDonald's money" to purchase them, it was still a bad investment. As for Disney not rescuing them, get real. The puppet company was going to be broken up and sold for spare parts before Eisner stepped in (it). All the money Disney's thrown at that tired old franchise has produced exactly zip. If the most powerful entertainment company on Earth can't make those characters popular again, it's likely it can't be done. People aren't into them anymore. Remember when they got kicked out of Disneyland, and nobody cared?
Good god is right. At this point I have to think you are just a troll. Do you mean the web videos that the top video has 85 million views? That has more views than most of the Mickey Mouse shorts? You know Mickey, the most iconic character in the world. But yea, no one cares. The tv show started with over 9mil viewers. If there was zero intrest in the muppets, that never happens. But guess what, people stopped watching because the show wasn't good. A bad investment is one that lost money. The Muppets 2011 alone made more profit than the reported 75mil Disney paid for the franchise. And no staying power? Are you kidding? Is that why they are being used, right now, in major advertising campaigns? Once again, the muppets will never ever never ever have a frozen box office. And if that is your only measure of relevancy, shame on you.
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Yes, he talked about that, and thank god that didn't happen. Pretty ironic that a few years later his characters were foundering and he wound up selling them to Disney, eh? That's the difference between what Walt built and what Henson built in a nutshell. One had staying power, and the other didn't.

As for the Henson kids, tell me, why didn't THEY try to keep their father's characters going? They sold them not once but TWICE.
You so, so misunderstand the history you're talking about here, and it's very clear that your personal interests color your perspective on the matter.

You should really quit while you're "ahead" if you can't have a discussion about the Muppets like a reasonable adult - which reflects much more on you than it does on them.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
You so, so misunderstand the history you're talking about here, and it's very clear that your personal interests color your perspective on the matter.

You should really quit while you're "ahead" if you can't have a discussion about the Muppets like a reasonable adult - which reflects much more on you than it does on them.

I should quit when I'm winning the argument? Do enlighten us as to the "truth" that would contradict anything I've stated. Prove me wrong with science! :D
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
The awful version of the Figment ride has been around longer than HISTA and Stitch's Great Escape. MuppetVision 3D has been around longer than both. It was ditched at Disneyland where regulars were ready for something new. WDW has a different audience combined of mostly out-of-towners, and MuppetVision 3D has had a staying power there that HISTA and other 3D films have not had.

The reboot of Honey has nothing to do with long-term appeal of the franchise, which is firmly stuck in the 1990s. It is meant solely to play to my fellow millennials who are excited about Dunkaroos and Full House being back.

Muppets have had a variety of films spanning generations in various stages of popularity. The Muppets are timeless and appeal to Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z who have each had them as a part of the cultural lexicon with their own relevant films and TV series in each generation without trying to appeal on nostalgia alone. The same cannot be said about "Honey" which is a flash in the pan.

As others have noted, you seem to have a really odd and malicious hatred of the Muppets that goes beyond just a mild dislike. Did Gonzo steal your binky?

It was ditched at Disneyland where regulars were ready for something new. WDW has a different audience combined of mostly out-of-towners, and MuppetVision 3D has had a staying power there that HISTA and other 3D films have not had.

Muppets have had a variety of films spanning generations in various stages of popularity. The Muppets are timeless and appeal to Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z who have each had them as a part of the cultural lexicon with their own relevant films and TV series in each generation without trying to appeal on nostalgia alone.


You kinda contradicted yourself there, pardner. The puppets are timeless and appeal to Boomers, etc. etc. etc. except in California?

This is getting sad, dude.
 
Top Bottom