New range of Walt Disney quote T-Shirts at Mouse Gear

[Evil Genius]

I would applaud Disney reshaping the characters, story and theme of a worn property like the Muppets, because they could certainly use it. But Disney IMO could better invest the time and money elsewhere. Like, I don't know, fixing the Yeti in WDW and the dragon at DLR. For starters.

My...we are a broken record aren't we?

For starters, calling the Muppets a "worn" property really does a disservice to property. While maybe not perhaps at the same level, The Muppets (and all Jim Henson creations) are of an inconic status. Perhaps not in your incredibly narrow vision, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still a very viable franchise.

Case in point: The Muppet show which began airing in 1976 and ran through 1981 was such an amazingly creative and innovative show that even upon viewing it now on DVD many of the segments appear new and cutting edge. Not to mention the fact that the Muppet show season DVDs have done remarkable numbers.

Now granted mah of the recent offerings haven't been up to par, but that's the point. Disney see the Muppets are something that are prime for recapturing the original magic of the characters and breathing new creative life into the franchise.

Besides...the time and money going into the Muppets isn't the same as the money going into park projects. Completely different departments and budgets.

 

[Tigger1988]

I would applaud Disney reshaping the characters, story and theme of a worn property like the Muppets, because they could certainly use it. But Disney IMO could better invest the time and money elsewhere. Like, I don't know, fixing the Yeti in WDW and the dragon at DLR. For starters.

One has nothing to do with the other, something you don't seem to grasp.

 

[sshindel]

Speaking of the OP, I take it from reading through the thread that these shirts are no longer available at the parks? Is this confirmed? If so, I think I need to dig around on Ebay for a few. These seemed to come out after my last trip, and prior to me joining this amazing forum, and I think I might NEED one or two of them.

 

[Magenta Panther]

One has nothing to do with the other, something you don't seem to grasp.

Sure it does. It's about where the current Disney administration chooses to spend its dollars. Instead of acquiring ill-fitting properties, maybe it should choose to focus on the true source of Disney's success: in-house creation. And that applies not just to movies and TV shows, but to Imagineering as well. Why did the dragon and yeti fail? Was it outsourcing? Downsizing and demoralization of the Imagineering division? Would have focusing more money on Imagineering resulted in a better-built yeti, or a better, home-made dragon? I think the question has merit, and that the answer is obvious. But that's just me.

 

[Evil Genius]

Sure it does. It's about where the current Disney administration chooses to spend its dollars. Instead of acquiring ill-fitting properties, maybe it should choose to focus on the true source of Disney's success: in-house creation. And that applies not just to movies and TV shows, but to Imagineering as well. Why did the dragon and yeti fail? Was it outsourcing? Downsizing and demoralization of the Imagineering division? Would have focusing more money on Imagineering resulted in a better-built yeti, or a better, home-made dragon? I think the question has merit, and that the answer is obvious. But that's just me.

Well you got the last part correct...it is just you.

I wont' deny more energies should be focused "Disney originals" but your opine on The Muppets couldn't be more off base if you also stated that Kermit ate babies.

 

[gibsonc]

Right, but we need the codes for them, right? You can't just call and describe the item.

granted this is an old thread, but yes, you can just describe an item or send a photo to WDW mail order and they will do their best to find it for you, I have done this before.

 

[mightynine]

By the way, just for your edification, it's actually possible to disagree with someone's opinion without mocking them. You might try it sometime.

Ok, I disagree with you that combining a Walt Disney quote with a drawing of Kermit on a t-shirt and/or pin is wrong.

I also disagree that the Muppets are an ill-fitting property for Disney.

And when it comes to in-house creation, there's plenty of it - from Phineas and Ferb to Hannah Montana to Tangled. You may not like some of it, but that doesn't mean it's not being done.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Well you got the last part correct...it is just you.

I wont' deny more energies should be focused "Disney originals" but your opine on The Muppets couldn't be more off base if you also stated that Kermit ate babies.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Magenta Panther]

Ok, I disagree with you that combining a Walt Disney quote with a drawing of Kermit on a t-shirt and/or pin is wrong.

I also disagree that the Muppets are an ill-fitting property for Disney.

And when it comes to in-house creation, there's plenty of it - from Phineas and Ferb to Hannah Montana to Tangled. You may not like some of it, but that doesn't mean it's not being done.

In what way does Kermit have anything to do with Walt Disney? With his philosophy or success? Answer: zip. That's why it looks all wrong for the two to share space a t-shirt IMO. I suppose it'll be Spiderman on such a T-Shirt next, with the phrase "I just hope we don't lose sight of one thing...that it was all started by a spider". :ROFLOL:

 

[sshindel]

In what way does Kermit have anything to do with Walt Disney? With his philosophy or success? Answer: zip. That's why it looks all wrong for the two to share space a t-shirt IMO. I suppose it'll be Spiderman on such a T-Shirt next, with the phrase "I just hope we don't lose sight of one thing...that it was all started by a spider". :ROFLOL:

If we use that as a barometer, we need to separate out any character created after Dec 16th 1966, because they have nothing to do with Walt Disney.

Disney purchased the Muppets in 2004, so they have been officially part of the Disney family for 6 years, and the Muppetvision 3D attraction opened in 1991, which means that they have had something to do with Disney for 19 years.

Add to that the fact that Disney is putting a strong push to bring that brand back to the public's eye (much deservedly so!). All the viral videos that are reaching many viewers, and the new movie in development. These things are all things that Disney as a company is doing, because they own and believe in the characters.

I just don't see how Walt is rolling over in his grave right now over the fact that they put Kermit on a shirt with a quote from him on it. IMO, Walt would have loved the Muppet Show.

But I guess I am a bit biased. The Muppets and Disney hold an equal love in this household. Our couch as 2 throws on it, a classic Mickey Mouse, and a Muppet one. My DD's room has art from the 50th anniversary of Disneyland, as well as Fozzy, Kermit, and Miss Piggy. I love the fact that Disney and the Muppets are partnered up, and only hope that Kermit is the new Stitch, and added to every single attraction. Kermit's Great Escape!!!! The Tiki Room starring Gonzo and his chickens!!! Pigs in Star Tours!!! Ok, maybe that went too far...

 

[Maerj]

In what way does Kermit have anything to do with Walt Disney? With his philosophy or success? Answer: zip. That's why it looks all wrong for the two to share space a t-shirt IMO.

Actually, I recall a long time ago on the Wonderful World of Disney tv show that they had the Muppets on and Kermit and Mickey Mouse found that their philosophies were very similar. Very!

 

[TinkerBelle8878]

I love Disney and I love the Muppets. That being said, and I said in the beginning of this thread when it was first started, it seems a little sacriligious to put Kermit on a shirt with a Walt Disney quote.

The reason being that Kermit was Jim Henson's creation. If it was a Henson quote, wouldn't sticking Figment on the shirt seem odd? Or if its a quote from Disney and Spiderman is on the shirt, its also not going to work for the same reason. Spiderman isn't Disney's creation. He's just a property acquired through a corporate sale.

THere are plenty of characters that are Disney's creation solely. Mickey and the gang. Put them on the shirts with his quotes. I know there's a big lack of Daisy merch for one.

 

[Tigger1988]

If we use that as a barometer, we need to separate out any character created after Dec 16th 1966, because they have nothing to do with Walt Disney.

Disney purchased the Muppets in 2004, so they have been officially part of the Disney family for 6 years, and the Muppetvision 3D attraction opened in 1991, which means that they have had something to do with Disney for 19 years.

Add to that the fact that Disney is putting a strong push to bring that brand back to the public's eye (much deservedly so!). All the viral videos that are reaching many viewers, and the new movie in development. These things are all things that Disney as a company is doing, because they own and believe in the characters.

I just don't see how Walt is rolling over in his grave right now over the fact that they put Kermit on a shirt with a quote from him on it. IMO, Walt would have loved the Muppet Show.

But I guess I am a bit biased. The Muppets and Disney hold an equal love in this household. Our couch as 2 throws on it, a classic Mickey Mouse, and a Muppet one. My DD's room has art from the 50th anniversary of Disneyland, as well as Fozzy, Kermit, and Miss Piggy. I love the fact that Disney and the Muppets are partnered up, and only hope that Kermit is the new Stitch, and added to every single attraction. Kermit's Great Escape!!!! The Tiki Room starring Gonzo and his chickens!!! Pigs in Star Tours!!! Ok, maybe that went too far...

:sohappy::sohappy::sohappy::sohappy:

 

[Silver Britches]

Speaking of the OP, I take it from reading through the thread that these shirts are no longer available at the parks? Is this confirmed? If so, I think I need to dig around on Ebay for a few. These seemed to come out after my last trip, and prior to me joining this amazing forum, and I think I might NEED one or two of them.

I live in Central Florida and have been to WDW 4-5 since May, and I haven't seen these shirts (I looked). So based on GlenAngl's post, they MIGHT still be had in one of the outlets...

 

[sshindel]

I live in Central Florida and have been to WDW 4-5 since May, and I haven't seen these shirts (I looked). So based on GlenAngl's post, they MIGHT still be had in one of the outlets...

Thanks. I'll have to see if we have time to squeeze in a trip to one of the outlets. I did a quick Ebay search yesterday and came up with nothing. Oh well, I guess it saves me some money for another shirt. I never seem to have issues finding one I love!

 

[Silver Britches]

Thanks. I'll have to see if we have time to squeeze in a trip to one of the outlets. I did a quick Ebay search yesterday and came up with nothing. Oh well, I guess it saves me some money for another shirt. I never seem to have issues finding one I love!

Ditto (on the ebay thing). But I randomly saw a girl in Target with the Shapers of the World shirt on today! I was like "Whoa... Coincidence?"

 

[Magenta Panther]

If we use that as a barometer, we need to separate out any character created after Dec 16th 1966, because they have nothing to do with Walt Disney.

They have everything to do with Walt Disney. They were created by his company. The Muppets and Marvel characters were not.

 

[sshindel]

They have everything to do with Walt Disney. They were created by his company. The Muppets and Marvel characters were not.

I know it's been mentioned in this thread before that technically, most of the movie characters were not created by his company. They were former stories and fairytales, created and fully fleshed out by other people. Disney then took those characters and put his own amazing spin on them to make what is widely considered THE version of all of these fairy tales.

How is it that different than the Muppets? Jim Henson created them, gave them stories, personalities, etc. They had "their time" but have been mainly out of the public eye for years (probably a generation). Disney has now taken these characters and are reintroducing them to the public, using their people and their creativity to create new stories for these characters and give them a new platform. Is it the passage of time is not enough? Is it that they were both introduced in the same "medium" (TV/Movies)? Does Disney have to take all the characters and reinvent them, maybe make them somehow different than their original stories like Disney did with the other characters? To say they are somehow different than say Pinnocchio or The Little Mermaid is where I dont agree.

I dont know, I guess I dont see how it is such a difference. And it's all a business anyway, so bottom line is if it makes money, they'll do it, and if not, they wont.

Now Marvel, I'm still reserving my judgement. Even though I am a comic book reader, a Marvel fan, and a former Marvel stockholder I'm reserving judgement to see how Disney uses that brand. So far I've not seen any change in direction in the Marvel comics, so that makes me happy. If it means I can get some cool Marvel merch when I take my annual WDW trip, I'm happy, and yes, even if it's a shirt with Spider-Mickey fighting Duck-Ock. I'll even give them the benefit of the doubt if they want to start encorporating them into the parks, and wait until I see the actual execution before forming my personal opinion. Now, if I pick up my next issue of Amazing Spider-Man and see Peter starting a relationship with Princess Aurora, that is where I'm going to start complaining...

I guess somehow this has just flat out hit me in my wheelhouse. I love Disney, I love Muppets, and I love Marvel comic books, so if I can get 3 of my "fixes" on a trip to WDW, I'm a happy guy.

 

[Evil Genius]

Care to elaborate?

I think I (along with many others) have elaborated plenty.

Or are you simply not reading our responses? :shrug: