Muppets

Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Kman101 said:
Well, the plot itself of course leaves a *lot* to be desired and I'm not a fan of that type of plot. Probably why I haven't rushed to see the movie. But it's about what they do with it. If it's funny and entertaining, it *could* work. It's sort of a lazy premise though.

But I see what they were going for in the movie with the jokes, thanks to your post, so I can see why it likely didn't work.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how rock solid a plot can be when it is performed by puppets. Just saying... Suspension of disbelief is either 100% or it is nothing.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Wikkler said:
Just for fun, let's go on a magical adventure through the magical history of THE JUNGLE CRUISE!

Walt wanted a Jungle Cruise at Disneyland, one with real animals. He was swiftly informed that, of course, that it was extremely impractical. So mechanical animals were plopped where Walt wanted real elephants. For the first eight years at Disneyland, the Jungle Cruise had a serious attitude. In the early sixties Marc Davis decided to add humor and whimsy. So he did. The skippers decided to do the same with their formerly educational spiel.

Read my source right here: Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4
Click to expand...

Thank you, that was interesting. And I've read about the history of the Cruise before. It's clear why humor was added to the ride's narration...but maybe there are some things even a generous layer of cheese can't help. Which begs the question: if TDO were to try an upgrade on the Cruise, what could they do to plus it? Given the ride's layout and limitations, I admit I have no idea.
 
W

wdrive

Well-Known Member
Matt_Black said:
And? Swiss Family Treehouse is horribly outdated and isn't nearly as popular as any of those, and that's not going anywhere.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the Swiss Family Tree house is outdated. And you're comparing apples to oranges comparing walk through attractions to stage shows. If you think outdated attractions are acceptable then something is clearly wrong there I feel.

The staging and costuming of Beauty and the Beast just screams early 90s. Compare it to Finding Nemo the Musical or Aladdin or the Magical Map at Disneyland.
 
FoozieBear

FoozieBear

Well-Known Member
Magenta Panther said:
2. Remember when the second Muppets film came out and bombed worldwide? That was Magenta Panther 2, Muppets 0.
Click to expand...

BOMB? Heck no. Not a bomb at all, especially considering it's low budget, but it's a fact it didn't make back nearly as much Disney wanted to get. I blame the lousy release date and the long wait time between the two movies. Too bad the Muppets didn't have a regular TV show at the time to keep them in the spotlight.

Magenta Panther said:
4. OH, and about the first Muppet film - which some here say was a success - really? Here's an excerpt from an article discussing Disney third-quarter profits, dated 2012:

The unit's revenue for the quarter was $1.6 billion. That was roughly the same as a year earlier but shy of the $1.8 billion analysts had expected. Disney said DVD and Blu-ray sales of "John Carter" and "The Muppets" fell short of last year's sales of "Tron: Legacy" and "Tangled."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/08/business/la-fi-ct-disney-earns-20120808


So, if the first film was so hugely popular, as some here have asserted, how come the DVD sales stunk so bad that they were on a level with that huge flop John Carter?
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert on DVD sales, but the fact that Disney ordered a new Muppet movies within just six months after the first film release, obviously the box office (or DVD sales) returned pretty well. Plus it was a totally low budget movie, so there's a lot of profit.


Magenta Panther said:
So you see, I've been consistently right in my assertion that the Muppets offer little or no value to the Disney company, and you've been consistently wrong, and yet here you are arguing the point again as if you've got a leg to stand on. I'm going to continue to comment on them if I choose to do so, because up to now my comments have been proven, by facts and events, to be 100% correct. Now, the new TV show might hit, or miss, who can say? But that remains to be seen, and again, as of now, I've only been speaking the truth about them.

I'll leave you with this:
Click to expand...

We can all face it: The Muppets are not blockbuster. They don't bring in the money for Disney like Marvel, Star Wars, Frozen do. As much as I hate to say it, it's a fact. But the great thing about the Muppets is that you can roll out great quality content with an incredibly low budget. Both Disney Muppet movie's budget are $50 million and under, so it's nearly all profit. Now Disney's finally doing what they should have done in 2012 and putting the Muppets on TV; exactly where they should be, so that they can consistently stay in the spotlight with weekly new content and a low budget.

Here's what I do know: ABC obviously has a lot of faith in the project, and the fact they picked up a season on a mere ten minutes tells you a lot about how much hope they have for this series. Whether it flops or not, time will tell, but Disney isn't done with the Muppets.

*drops mic*
 
Last edited:
Matt_Black

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
FoozieBear said:
I'm not an expert on DVD sales, but the fact that Disney ordered a new Muppet movies within just six months after the first film release, obviously the box office (or DVD sales) returned pretty well. Plus it was a totally low budget movie, so there's a lot of profit.
Click to expand...

The Academy Award they snagged for Best Song was probably a factor, too.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom