New Muppet Ride?

[Magenta Panther]

Zing!

More like *clunk*.

I was speaking of the characters and properties that Disney adapted and made better and made immortal. Which takes art and creativity as opposed to just a fat wallet. How many kids today would know who or what Pinocchio is, or Snow White, or even 101 Dalmatians, if it weren't for the Disney version? And I think there can be little doubt that the Disney version is often an improvement on the originals in most cases.

But I admit that the Disney hype machine seems to be doing a lot of good for the Muppets right now. After their last film flopped, they were in danger of disappearing into that dark, dusty void where once-hot icons like ALF languish. But the marketing for this movie is apparently succeeding in pushing a lot of people's emotional buttons, and the early box office looks good. According to the LA Times:

"Breaking Dawn," the fourth of Summit Entertainment's planned five movies based on the bestselling books, sold $20.3 million worth of tickets on Wednesday and Thursday and is on track to collect roughly $56 million by Sunday. "The Muppets" grossed $12.5 million in its first two days in theaters and should get to about $40 million by Sunday.

Although those are the strongest numbers posted at the box office this weekend, neither is particularly impressive. "Breaking Dawn" is on track to collect about $10 million less over the holiday weekend than the third "Twilight" movie, "New Moon," which opened the Friday before Thanksgiving in 2009. And "The Muppets" appears likely to come in below estimates based on pre-release surveys that indicated it would take in about $45 million.

So Twilight is walking all over the Muppets, of course, but the Muppets is doing the same to all of the other family films. I haven't seen it, and probably won't. But it's got the Disney name on it, so I hope it does well.

 

[RSoxNo1]

The Muppets have actually earned $24.775 million domestic per BoxOfficeMojo through Friday.

 

[twinnstar]

More like *clunk*.

I was speaking of the characters and properties that Disney adapted and made better and made immortal. Which takes art and creativity as opposed to just a fat wallet. How many kids today would know who or what Pinocchio is, or Snow White, or even 101 Dalmatians, if it weren't for the Disney version? And I think there can be little doubt that the Disney version is often an improvement on the originals in most cases.

I agree with you about Disney reinventing characters - but theres a difference because they were adapting them from books/stories/plays. There were never really any solid visual representations of those stories until Disney. If Disney re-worked the Muppets, people (including myself) would have been ed off. Instead they "saved" them. Even still, its pretty clear this movie is very creative. Its absolutely hysterical, and the musical numbers are great. It's a shame you wont see it, you are missing out!

 

[disneygeek123]

I agree. There is quite enough of a Muppet presence in the parks already. No more, please. Not when we don't even have a Lion King dark ride, or Jungle Book, or even anything decent connected to Mary Poppins.

It's still Walt Disney World. Not Walt Disney Jim Henson George Lucas James Cameron World. Let's hope it stays that way.

And I'd bet a cookie that Jason spoke out his...um...ear, just throwing the idea out there, just like he kept going around saying he was making a Muppet movie before Disney even greenlit it. Frankly, I think the dude has issues.

the lion king is my absolute favorite movie! and your right lets put in a ride for that first since it doesnt have anything. the muppets already have a show.

 

[mitchk]

I'm going to go see the movie in 2 hours :sohappy:. Please someone let me know where I can post my review. :wave:

 

[WildcatDen]

I haven't seen it, and probably won't.

Didn't you already say you were leaving this thread. LIAR! :animwink:

The Muppets is a fantastic franchise and I for one, hope they get more a presence at DHS. A dark ride through the Muppet Theater sounds epic.

Saw the movie Wednesday and thought it was great!

 

[rbrower]

the lion king is my absolute favorite movie! and your right lets put in a ride for that first since it doesnt have anything. the muppets already have a show.

Actually, there is the Festival of the Lion King show at Animal Kingdom. And even though it isn't there any longer, there used to be a Lion King show where Philharmagic is today.

 

[GLaDOS]

I was speaking of the characters and properties that Disney adapted and made better and made immortal.

Right. The characters Disney made movies for have been around for hundreds (some over a thousand) years old, but Disney was the ones that made them immortal.:lol:

Sorry, I love Disney, but this right here was hilarious.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Right. The characters Disney made movies for have been around for hundreds (some over a thousand) years old, but Disney was the ones that made them immortal.:lol:

Sorry, I love Disney, but this right here was hilarious.

Sorry, I guess I have to be specific. When people hear the name "Pinocchio", what do you believe they think of first? Carlo Collodi's story or the Disney film? When people hear the name "Bambi", what do you believe they think of first? Felix Salten's novel or the Disney film? When people hear the words "One Hundred and One Dalmations" what do you believe they think of first? Dodie Smith's story or the Disney film?

Which version, the original version or the Disney version, has made the most impact on people's hearts and minds? Is more likely to continue to entertain audiences for decades to come? Is more likely to be remembered?

That is immortality. I'm willing to wager that if some of the books I've mentioned didn't have a Disney version, they'd be out of print. I myself looked up the original Collodi stories after seeing the Disney version (and boy are they different - and probably incomprehensible to the average child of today) and they were very difficult to find. I tracked down a copy in a library in St. Augustine, FL - and the librarian told me that when people ask for Pinocchio, and she brings out the original story, they're puzzled and ask for "the real story". Which to them meant Disney's. She said that the reason her library carried a copy of the original story is because of the popularity of the Disney film. I bet that would apply to "Dalmations" and "Bambi" and likely many others.

I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the artistry and genius that went into Disney's adaptations of classic stories, and how Disney has very likely given those stories a much longer life than they might have had otherwise. :shrug:

 

[Tigger1988]

Again, most of the fairy tales Disney acquired had been around for HUNDREDS of years before their cartoons came out. Their life was quite long before Disney came around, pretty sure any story/myth/fairy tale that can stand on it's own for hundreds (or thousands) of years is already immortal.

 

[WDWGoof07]

Well, if Disney had bought the rights to the Muppets, and then adapted them into a Disney version, and the results were as good as other Disney adaptations like Pinocchio and Snow White and Mary Poppins, then I'd say they truly belong in the Disney pantheon. But that's not the case here. Again, there's a difference between acquisition and artistry. Just because a Disney company CEO thought it was a great business move doesn't mean purchasing Marvel is the equal of a work like Fantasia.

But what if said acquisition is of similar artistic merit to Disney's works?

 

[mitchk]

Just got back :shrug: I was not the worst, but it was not the best, that's all I will say

 

[Magenta Panther]

But what if said acquisition is of similar artistic merit to Disney's works?

That's a good question. The only thing the Muppets did that I consider similar to the best of Disney is the original Muppet Movie. That was cute and well-done. Its humor is more like Dreamworks, but its emotion is Disneyish, I suppose.

The thing is, if we start equating purchasing a property to adapting a property - making a Disney version of it, which to me is what makes Disney special - where does it end? What's next, buying the Smurfs? The Chipmunks? Does anybody regret that the Power Rangers are now no longer part of Disney? Did they belong in the first place? What's with all this purchasing? Disney/Pixar is very capable of creating new characters, like the Incredibles, that are equal to anything from the Muppets or Marvel. But maybe the sad fact is that Disney doesn't have a creative vision anymore; it just has CEOs, who probably regard a purchase as being creative.

It just makes me sad...I'm afraid Disney is going to totally lose what made it special, and just become another corporation made up of this and that, like a bad mosaic...

 

[Magenta Panther]

Actually, there is the Festival of the Lion King show at Animal Kingdom. And even though it isn't there any longer, there used to be a Lion King show where Philharmagic is today.

The Festival of the Lion King is nice, but surely The Lion King deserves more - and better - than that.

 

[Magenta Panther]

the lion king is my absolute favorite movie! and your right lets put in a ride for that first since it doesnt have anything. the muppets already have a show.

THANK YOU. And the Muppets area is pretty elaborate as well. It's a heck of a lot more elaborate than that Lion King show (which I find underwhelming, frankly).

 

[Horizonsfan]

Saw the Muppets yesterday, wonderful film as others have said. Made me hope for a revival of the Muppets Studio concept or at least a weekly show on ABC.

If the response in the theater I was in was any indication, people of all ages seemed to really enjoy the movie, even those who were not muppet die-hards.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

The movie was good..However the plot was very much like......

 

[rbrower]

The Festival of the Lion King is nice, but surely The Lion King deserves more - and better - than that.

Oh, I agree. Don't get me wrong, I love the Lion King. It's one of my personal favorites. I was just simply stating that, since the show exists, technically both the Muppets and the Lion King have one show and are equal in those terms. I guess, to me, the two are different. Lion King is a movie (with a sequel and a retelling of the original from another character's point of view), whereas the Muppets are a whole set of characters with their own universe that includes movies, TV shows, etc. This difference seems to gratify the existence of several Muppet-inspired attractions, while multiple attractions for (basically) one movie is frowned upon by some. Look at the Toy Story franchise. No attractions (that I'm aware of) were built before the first sequel debuted, and it was definitely a success compared to Lion King 2, and Toy Story 3 was an even larger success. The fact that multiple Toy Story attractions exist causes some to give the Disney company flack, even though it has become a large franchise.
I know I'm just talking around myself. I guess I'm just trying to say is that, while I love the Lion King as well, I myself see why multiply Muppet attractions may be built, even though movies such as Lion King only have a show and no ride. :shrug:

Sorry, end of random tangent. :lol:

EDIT: now that I think about it, I'm not quite sure when Buzz Lightyear's Spaceranger Spin opened at WDW in relation to the second movie. I don't think they were very far apart in their debuts to the public though, correct?

 

[bstiles]

According to box office mojo the film already has surpassed the total domestic gross of the last muppet movie that had a run in theaters back in 1999. This all happened before the weekend is even over.

 

[Nemofinder]

The movie was good..However the plot was very much like......

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeyLetsPutOnAShow its not the originality that warrants the praise but more so the characters and character acting involved. where else do you feel for a couple ping pong balls on a green sock?