shmmrname
Active Member
First, I think the Muppets attraction in MGM is very well-done. Not only the movie/show, but the pre-show as well are enjoyable. I do think there are a couple points this thread is missing however...
1. Oz was a made-for-TV-movie that, while establishing the fact that Disney certainly won't be sitting on the franchise, it is not ready to use a large amount of its resources yet as well. Anyone who thinks an undertaking of this scale would instantly draw a new, vital audience for these characters to thrive, has not taken into account the form in which the attempt was made. A made-for-TV-movie is simply a no-lose "feeler" and can't be used at all to see where the future will be.
2. That said, children probably connected with the undertaking much, much more than many on this thread realize. One, it was free for them to see. Two, it was based on something their parents could feasibly stand to watch for an hour or two. Three, it did feature a celebrity that is tied to the present, in an attempt to tie these characters to the present as well, at least in a child's eyes.
3. There is some truth to be said about the casting. Personally, I feel it was a great decision. There stood to be no true winners when they decided who to lead. There wasn't enough money or creativity put into the project to land an actress to make it intriguing. Yes, the choice obviously had something to do with creating an better relationship with a minority audience; however, I believe it also might have had alot to do with how wrong the other options were. Personally, I'm just glad the Muppet's comeback vehicle wasn't turned into another Jessica Simpson car wreck.
4. The true grasp of the movie won't be known until DVD/VHS sales figures are known for an entire year.
5. Muppets Babies would be so much better than most of the Morning Disney Channel options. Minus Winnie the Pooh of course.
6. Another attraction would be nice, though I think completely unwarranted. Some classic characters, and even newer ones have only a rotating show, or less to tie themselves to the Disney parks. The ones with successful ties into attractions don't start franchising outward. As an attraction is added it would be best that Disney try to employ an underused personality rather than dillute an already used cast.
I don't mean to stary an argument in any way. These are just my opinions, and not shaped in anyway by articles in print or on-line. I don't put much stock into Disney rumors, and the things I lay out are plainly visible without having to guess what the executives are thinking.
1. Oz was a made-for-TV-movie that, while establishing the fact that Disney certainly won't be sitting on the franchise, it is not ready to use a large amount of its resources yet as well. Anyone who thinks an undertaking of this scale would instantly draw a new, vital audience for these characters to thrive, has not taken into account the form in which the attempt was made. A made-for-TV-movie is simply a no-lose "feeler" and can't be used at all to see where the future will be.
2. That said, children probably connected with the undertaking much, much more than many on this thread realize. One, it was free for them to see. Two, it was based on something their parents could feasibly stand to watch for an hour or two. Three, it did feature a celebrity that is tied to the present, in an attempt to tie these characters to the present as well, at least in a child's eyes.
3. There is some truth to be said about the casting. Personally, I feel it was a great decision. There stood to be no true winners when they decided who to lead. There wasn't enough money or creativity put into the project to land an actress to make it intriguing. Yes, the choice obviously had something to do with creating an better relationship with a minority audience; however, I believe it also might have had alot to do with how wrong the other options were. Personally, I'm just glad the Muppet's comeback vehicle wasn't turned into another Jessica Simpson car wreck.
4. The true grasp of the movie won't be known until DVD/VHS sales figures are known for an entire year.
5. Muppets Babies would be so much better than most of the Morning Disney Channel options. Minus Winnie the Pooh of course.
6. Another attraction would be nice, though I think completely unwarranted. Some classic characters, and even newer ones have only a rotating show, or less to tie themselves to the Disney parks. The ones with successful ties into attractions don't start franchising outward. As an attraction is added it would be best that Disney try to employ an underused personality rather than dillute an already used cast.
I don't mean to stary an argument in any way. These are just my opinions, and not shaped in anyway by articles in print or on-line. I don't put much stock into Disney rumors, and the things I lay out are plainly visible without having to guess what the executives are thinking.
