The Muppet Kingdom

yedliW

Well-Known Member
Are they going to be building a new stage? Where would it go? It's already a kind of congested in that area.. It would be kind of cool for the stage to be on a balcony of the HoP.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
I think the muppet show is a good idea to get more people interested in the Hall of Presidents.

Too few people were interested in the Muppets' new show, and it got cancelled. If they can't even get people interested in THEM, how can they help HoP?

And the HoP doesn't need help anyway. It's a masterful show that is very moving and inspiring. At least for anyone over the age of 10.
 

Cowboy Steve

Well-Known Member
No, he's a caricature of blind jingoism, and the other puppets all make fun of him for it.
Ok... I'm just a dumb retired firefighter... so I'll man up and admit I had to look this one up. For those of you in the same boat:

jingoism

[jing-goh-iz-uh m]
noun
1. the spirit, policy, or practice of jingoes; bellicose chauvinism.

Which didn't really help... so:

jingo

[jing-goh]

noun, plural jingoes.
1. a person who professes his or her patriotism loudly and excessively,favoring vigilant preparedness for war and an aggressive foreign policy; bellicose chauvinist.

2.English History. a Conservative supporter of Disraeli's policy in theNear East during the period 1877–78.

I seem to vaguely remember this from H.S. - maybe a political science or history class? I'm a little smarter today!
 

HauntedMansionFLA

Well-Known Member
C
I just dont get it?? They have somewhat a whole area dedicated to them and possibly a land coming up for them at Hollywood Studios and they get a show at the Magic Kingdom? Okay then..
Could be a way to move Muppets out of DHS so Star Tours can be connected to Star Wars Land. Valuable land there
 

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
Too few people were interested in the Muppets' new show, and it got cancelled. If they can't even get people interested in THEM, how can they help HoP?

And the HoP doesn't need help anyway. It's a masterful show that is very moving and inspiring. At least for anyone over the age of 10.

Yeah, that's why many on this board list it as a great napping spot.
 

Cowboy Steve

Well-Known Member
I just saw on Allears that the Muppets are getting their own show in the Magic Kingdom this fall. For some reason, I'm not sure I really like the idea of the Muppets being in the Magic Kingdom. Anybody else feel kinda conflicted about this? For the record, I adore the Muppets in general. I'm just more of a "purist" about the MK and think of it more as a place for more traditionally animated characters.

Hmmm... knee jerk reaction is I don't like it. Not because I don't like change... just not sure this fits the spirit of MK. Most, if not all, the other character related attractions/shows are themed or performed by Disney characters from Disney shows & movies. The muppets are a fine addition to the Disney family, but are not Disney originals. Traditionalists like myself associate the MK with Disney and Disney characters. I will see the show when we are there in late Nov... and I will keep an open mind when I watch it!
 

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
Hmmm... knee jerk reaction is I don't like it. Not because I don't like change... just not sure this fits the spirit of MK. Most, if not all, the other character related attractions/shows are themed or performed by Disney characters from Disney shows & movies. The muppets are a fine addition to the Disney family, but are not Disney originals. Traditionalists like myself associate the MK with Disney and Disney characters. I will see the show when we are there in late Nov... and I will keep an open mind when I watch it!

Pixar characters aren't Disney originals, either, and they're all over MK.
 

DuckTalesWooHoo1987

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Hmmm... knee jerk reaction is I don't like it. Not because I don't like change... just not sure this fits the spirit of MK. Most, if not all, the other character related attractions/shows are themed or performed by Disney characters from Disney shows & movies. The muppets are a fine addition to the Disney family, but are not Disney originals. Traditionalists like myself associate the MK with Disney and Disney characters. I will see the show when we are there in late Nov... and I will keep an open mind when I watch it!
Yeah it's not that I won't watch it or anything but just that I think the MK is sort of an odd place for The Muppets. I love the Muppet Show at Hollywood Studios and actually consider it an under appreciated attraction. I'm definitely more comfortable with the Muppets than I ever will be with Marvel characters in the MK or even Star Wars characters for that matter. I've heard that Marvel characters aren't allowed east of the Mississippi though because of some kind of contractual stuff with Universal. Not sure if that's true or not. I wouldn't mind them at Hollywood Studios but I would absolutely oppose them at the MK.
 

DuckTalesWooHoo1987

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Pixar characters aren't Disney originals, either, and they're all over MK.
They are definitely perceived and identified with Disney though. When I think of the Muppets I think more Jim Henson than I do Walt Disney. When I think of Pixar I do think of Disney. Although I probably think more John Lasseter when I think of the sort of "mastermind" behind a lot of it. I can't stress enough how much I love the Muppets though. Muppet Babies was one of my favorite shows as a kid and I still think it's awesome today.
 

Cowboy Steve

Well-Known Member
Pixar characters aren't Disney originals, either, and they're all over MK.
Not true at all Matt. The Pixar movies were released and distributed under the Disney name. At the time of the early Pixar movies, Pixar was still an independent production company. But significant funding and support came from Disney. And probably a little story line assistance as well. The first Pixar feature film was a collaboration with Disney. As was every one since. Until Disney just outright bought Pixar.
 

DuckTalesWooHoo1987

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Not true at all Matt. The Pixar movies were released and distributed under the Disney name. At the time of the early Pixar movies, Pixar was still an independent production company. But significant funding and support came from Disney. And probably a little story line assistance as well. The first Pixar feature film was a collaboration with Disney. As was every one since. Until Disney just outright bought Pixar.
Most of the big name people there studied at Mickey Mouse Academy and that's why A113 appears in every Pixar movie because it was the number of their college classroom.
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Not true at all Matt. The Pixar movies were released and distributed under the Disney name. At the time of the early Pixar movies, Pixar was still an independent production company. But significant funding and support came from Disney. And probably a little story line assistance as well. The first Pixar feature film was a collaboration with Disney. As was every one since. Until Disney just outright bought Pixar.

You're giving Disney way too much credit for the early Pixar films. Way too much.
 

Cowboy Steve

Well-Known Member
You're giving Disney way too much credit for the early Pixar films. Way too much.
Not really. Everything Pixar did before Toy Story were shorts that were more to showcase the technology they were developing than anything. There was no full length feature from Pixar that was not a collaboration with Disney. Pixar (read Steve Jobs by the way - he created Pixar) developed the computer animation technology. Disney took them to mainstream stardom.
 

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
Pixar (read Steve Jobs by the way - he created Pixar) developed the computer animation technology.

Didn't Jobs BUY Pixar after they separated from being a division of Lucasfilm? Prior to that, most of their film work was doing CGI for live-action films, like the Glass Man sequence from The Adventures of Young Sherlock Holmes, a bit far better than the movie it's in. (That's not to say I dislike the film, but it's a really goofy movie.)
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Yeah, that's why many on this board list it as a great napping spot.

And so Liberty Square has to be dumbed down for their sake, yeah, I get it. :D

Not true at all Matt. The Pixar movies were released and distributed under the Disney name. At the time of the early Pixar movies, Pixar was still an independent production company. But significant funding and support came from Disney. And probably a little story line assistance as well. The first Pixar feature film was a collaboration with Disney. As was every one since. Until Disney just outright bought Pixar.

And Lasseter actually worked for Disney as an animator. He got his start and education there. Pixar and Disney have a connection and history that no other non-studio-generated Disney IP has. It's hardly comparable to Eisner's impulse buy of a played-out novelty act.
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
It's hardly comparable to Eisner's impulse buy of a played-out novelty act.
You do know the Henson family initiated the sale right? That after reclaiming the company from the Germans that barely did a thing with the assets, they decided to give CTW full custody of Sesame Street and sell the Muppets to Disney to check off those things on what Jim wanted, while desiring the freedom to do experimental adult stuff hence why they didn't go all in.
 

DuckTalesWooHoo1987

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Didn't Jobs BUY Pixar after they separated from being a division of Lucasfilm? Prior to that, most of their film work was doing CGI for live-action films, like the Glass Man sequence from The Adventures of Young Sherlock Holmes, a bit far better than the movie it's in. (That's not to say I dislike the film, but it's a really goofy movie.)
But at least it's not an Extremely Goofy Movie. Get it??? (i will show myself out now)
 

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

Back
Top Bottom