The Muppet Kingdom

[FigmentJedi]

What are people's opinions if there had been announced the exact same show, but with the Fab Five?

Totally uninterested one way or the other because it'd be as bland and dull as all the other non-Fantasmic theme park stage shows featuring Mickey and the gang.

 

[Magenta Panther]

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.

And why do Henson's kids keep selling his characters? They have their own production company right? Why didn't they keep them and do something with them? People talk about Jim Henson's legacy and yet all his kids want to do with it is sell it. (Well, that's one way to make money with it, I guess...)

 

[Matt_Black]

And why do Henson's kids keep selling his characters? They have their own production company right? Why didn't they keep them and do something with them? People talk about Jim Henson's legacy and yet all his kids want to do with it is sell it. (Well, that's one way to make money with it, I guess...)

Well, why did Glen Keane go to work as an animator instead of taking over The Family Circus? Kids love their parents, and are inspired by them, but they are also individuals who may or may not want to be beholden to their parents' creative endeavors.

 

[FigmentJedi]

And why do Henson's kids keep selling his characters? They have their own production company right? Why didn't they keep them and do something with them? People talk about Jim Henson's legacy and yet all his kids want to do with it is sell it. (Well, that's one way to make money with it, I guess...)

Because in theory Disney had greater resources in being able to keep the Muppets going as an evergreen franchise while the Jim Henson Company had been floundering in output between their bad deals with Sony distribution and the Germans not knowing what to do with them. But at the same time, Brian probably felt like Eisner would never let him do anything new, experimental or adult. If the deal had been made under Iger and his vaguely laissez-faire attitude towards acquired stuff, I feel like they might have gone all in.

As for Sesame Street, it was something in Jim's will that ended up getting put off. Sesame Street was always off the table in the initial talks of selling the company in the 90s because Jim didn't want Sesame Street's educational mission being corrupted by corporate interests and Eisner saw nothing but a money printer in them. Of course now, we got HBO gentrifying the hell out of the show, getting rid of the old human characters, and making it harder to access for the poor working class audience it had initially been created for.

 

[Matt_Black]

Because in theory Disney had greater resources in being able to keep the Muppets going as an evergreen franchise while the Jim Henson Company had been floundering in output between their bad deals with Sony distribution and the Germans not knowing what to do with them. But at the same time, Brian probably felt like Eisner would never let him do anything new, experimental or adult. If the deal had been made under Iger and his vaguely laissez-faire attitude towards acquired stuff, I feel like they might have gone all in.

As for Sesame Street, it was something in Jim's will that ended up getting put off. Sesame Street was always off the table in the initial talks of selling the company in the 90s because Jim didn't want Sesame Street's educational mission being corrupted by corporate interests and Eisner saw nothing but a money printer in them. Of course now, we got HBO gentrifying the hell out of the show, getting rid of the old human characters, and making it harder to access for the poor working class audience it had initially been created for.

It's still amazing to me. Fraggle Rock started on HBO, and the one human character on that was old as all get out! Shame on HBO! I think my thoughts on this were best summed up by The Iron Sheik, in one of his few tweets that wasn't completely loaded with profanity.

"SESAME STREET YOU BREAK MY HEART I LEARN THE ENGLISH FROM THE BOB. I SUPLEX THE BIG BIRD IF I EVER SEE HIM"

The Iron Sheik is very wise.

 

[Cowboy Steve]

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.)

Honestly didn't have an answer for this... so I went to the source. Per Pixar's website:

1986
"Steve Jobs purchases the Computer Graphics Division from
George Lucas and establishes an independent company
to be christened "Pixar." At this time about 44
people are employed."

I would really love to read a book about the history of Pixar, or even a documentary as I have been fascinated with them since seeing Toy Story for the first time. Here is what I could quickly piece together, based mostly on Wikipedia (for what that's worth):
George Lucas was not able to fully tell his space opera stories due to limitations of the technology of the time. The clunky animation (Imperial Walkers as an example) and models with green screens weren't cutting it. Computer technology was just starting to take off... and I think he knew they were the future. So he starts putting together a team to create what would be called CGI. Enter Ed Catmull and eventually John Lasseter. Lucas eventually created an independent company for developing hardware for computer animation. Lucas needed an investor, Jobs was interested. Eventually Jobs bought the company and called it 'Pixar' (according to Wikipedia, the early graphics computers were called Pixar Image Computers - thus the new company name). Disney was an early buyer of these computers. Pixar continued to develop animation software in addition to the hardware, and eventually sold off the hardware division of the company. Through their hardware relationship with Disney, and the success of the animation software, Disney and Pixar agreed to collaborate on 3 full length animated features. Pixar would produce the movies and have full creative control, Disney would distribute them. Toy Story was born. Lots of money was made. Then there was much head butting between Jobs and Eisner during the production of the next 2 movies from the 3 movie agreement (The Incredibles and Cars). Lots more money is made. During the production of Cars, Disney was negotiating to acquire Pixar. On again off again negotiations continued until Eisner left Disney. Negotiations started again when Bob Iger took over, cooler heads prevailed, and eventually a deal ($7.7 Billion) was struck just before the release of Ratatouille. The rest is history.

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

I stand corrected Andrew. Pixar had full creative control over the production of the first 3 Pixar full length features, Disney strictly distributed them. And truth be told, Pixar has remained an autonomous entity with full creative control even under Disney. Pixar personnel do not creatively interact with Disney Animation, and vice versa.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

Honestly didn't have an answer for this... so I went to the source. Per Pixar's website:

1986
"Steve Jobs purchases the Computer Graphics Division from
George Lucas and establishes an independent company
to be christened "Pixar." At this time about 44
people are employed."

I would really love to read a book about the history of Pixar, or even a documentary as I have been fascinated with them since seeing Toy Story for the first time. Here is what I could quickly piece together, based mostly on Wikipedia (for what that's worth):
George Lucas was not able to fully tell his space opera stories due to limitations of the technology of the time. The clunky animation (Imperial Walkers as an example) and models with green screens weren't cutting it. Computer technology was just starting to take off... and I think he knew they were the future. So he starts putting together a team to create what would be called CGI. Enter Ed Catmull and eventually John Lasseter. Lucas eventually created and independent company for developing hardware for computer animation. Lucas needed an investor, Jobs was interested. Eventually Jobs bought the company and called it 'Pixar' (according to Wikipedia, the early graphics computers were called Pixar Image Computers - thus the new company name). Disney was an early buyer of these computers. Pixar continued to develop animation software in addition to the hardware, and eventually sold off the hardware division of the company. Through their hardware relationship with Disney, and the success of the animation software, Disney and Pixar agreed to collaborate on 3 full length animated features. Pixar would produce the movies and have full creative control, Disney would distribute them. Toy Story was born. Lots of money was made. Then there were many years of head butting between Jobs and Eisner during the production of the next 2 movies from the 3 movie agreement (The Incredibles and Cars). Lots more money is made. During the production of Cars, Disney was negotiating to acquire Pixar. On again off again negotiations continued until Eisner left Disney. Negotiations started again when Bob Iger took over, cooler heads prevailed, and eventually a deal ($7.7 Billion) was struck just before the release of Ratatouille. The rest is history.



I stand corrected Andrew. Pixar had full creative control over the production of the first 3 Pixar full length features, Disney strictly distributed them. And truth be told, Pixar has remained an autonomous entity even under Disney with full creative control. Pixar personnel do not creatively interact with Disney Animation, and vice versa.

Good information. I always laugh that George still refers Pixar as his company when interviewed about the camp any.

 

[Andrew C]

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.

Yes, Disney distributed their films, but the creative process and control over the story was almost 100% in the hands of Pixar. Disney wanted Pixar to turn Toy Story into a musical, Pixar rejected the idea, and Disney went along with it. Pixar stories are their own with very little say so from Disney. Sure, Disney was a bit a part of the review process, but they left most decisions in the hands of Pixar. Pixar essentially operated 100% independently from Disney.

I am aware of Steve Jobs and his connection to Pixar. He did not create Pixar but essentially bought them from LucasFilm. He was a major player in Pixar (most times) from that point on as CEO until he sold them to Disney. However, John Lasseter and Ed Catmull had the most creative control.

There is a reason that Iger brought in Lasseter and Catmull to head Disney Animation. And in my opinion, it was a smart decision given the resurgence of Disney Animation in recent years.

 

[Heffalump333]

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.

I know HoP is a great show I'm just thinking if they have a show by it people will be more interested about HoP.

 

[216bruce]

The smart- in me loves the idea. I mean..."And now a salute to all nations, but mostly America", smack dab in the middle of Liberty Square! That's great. The Disney purist in me says...Walt would disapprove. Strongly. He'd give it a 'raised eyebrow and a good finger drumming while chain-smoking'. He was a mega patriot, jingoistic kinda guy and the traditions that everyone holds dear about the 'spirit of Disney' stems from him.
As far as other Muppet presence in MK...When the Muppets are presented in the right way, they fit in...cute, fun, harmless. I'm thinking "Muppets 'Live'" stage show vibe, not original "The Muppet Show". Depends on how it's implemented and written.

 

[Matt_Black]

Pixar personnel do not creatively interact with Disney Animation, and vice versa.

Well, now that's not entirely true. Since Lasseter stepped up, there has been some cross-pollination, as it were. Watch the credits for films like Wreck-It Ralph or Frozen; the Pixar Brain Trust gets credited.

 

[Andrew C]

Well, now that's not entirely true. Since Lasseter stepped up, there has been some cross-pollination, as it were. Watch the credits for films like Wreck-It Ralph or Frozen; the Pixar Brain Trust gets credited.

Other than the top guys like John and Ed who oversee both studios, they really do not share resources at all for the most part. This is something they intentionally put in place.

 

[MKCP 1985]

I like the Muppets and am glad for this bit of news which should make Liberty Square a little more fun and interesting to the target Magic Kingdom audience, i.e., parents with younger kids. Likewise, it gives Muppet exposure to the younger crowd and keeps the characters visible and recognizable to the millions who visit the Magic Kingdom park.

Regarding the comment about Liberty Square's 13 lanterns and Liberty Oak, my response would be to lighten up and remember the entire Magic Kingdom is intended to be fun as well as informative and would point to the occasional appearances of Mickey Mouse and friends in colonial garb to sweeten the mood.

I'm willing to "wait and see" before judging the show but am more optimistic than fearful of what it represents in the direction of the park's offerings.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Because in theory Disney had greater resources in being able to keep the Muppets going as an evergreen franchise while the Jim Henson Company had been floundering in output between their bad deals with Sony distribution and the Germans not knowing what to do with them. But at the same time, Brian probably felt like Eisner would never let him do anything new, experimental or adult. If the deal had been made under Iger and his vaguely laissez-faire attitude towards acquired stuff, I feel like they might have gone all in.

As for Sesame Street, it was something in Jim's will that ended up getting put off. Sesame Street was always off the table in the initial talks of selling the company in the 90s because Jim didn't want Sesame Street's educational mission being corrupted by corporate interests and Eisner saw nothing but a money printer in them. Of course now, we got HBO gentrifying the hell out of the show, getting rid of the old human characters, and making it harder to access for the poor working class audience it had initially been created for.

LOL, "evergreen". Disney hasn't seen ANY kind of green from those characters since it bought them. I think the answer is that the kids knew the Muppets were played out and were willing to sell them to anyone who'd take them. The German company wildly overpaid for them, then the kids bought them back at a fraction of the selling price and sold them again to Disney. They've made out like bandits. The companies who bought the characters...not so much.

 

[Cowboy Steve]

Well, now that's not entirely true. Since Lasseter stepped up, there has been some cross-pollination, as it were. Watch the credits for films like Wreck-It Ralph or Frozen; the Pixar Brain Trust gets credited.

Other than the top guys like John and Ed who oversee both studios, they really do not share resources at all for the most part. This is something they intentionally put in place.

As a rule, both sides tend to stand on their own. There may be some interaction, but it is the exception to the rule. As Andrew stated, it was John and Ed's desire to keep the creative streams separate. Probably to help keep each's own unique style and creativity. Otherwise you would end up with a bunch of movies that don't really differentiate themselves. It may not always be possible, and we don't really know the extent of the Pixar Brain Trust's involvement. Was it technical? Was it creative? Who knows. The point is you don't have the same creative minds working on both team's projects.

 

[RoysCabin]

And why do Henson's kids keep selling his characters? They have their own production company right? Why didn't they keep them and do something with them? People talk about Jim Henson's legacy and yet all his kids want to do with it is sell it. (Well, that's one way to make money with it, I guess...)

If I recall correctly, it was Jim who initiated the idea of selling to Disney shortly before his death (while working on Muppet Vision for MGM).

 

[Magenta Panther]

If I recall correctly, it was Jim who initiated the idea of selling to Disney shortly before his death (while working on Muppet Vision for MGM).

And frankly, I bet he sold them for the same reason. He knew they were played out, and he didn't have the funds anyway to keep propping them up.

 

[Nausicaä]

I do like The Muppets, but I'm not crazy about their placement in Liberty Square. I feel like Liberty Square has a quaint vibe to it. Putting The Muppets there seems incongruent with Liberty Square. I'll guess I'll wait and see and perhaps be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Andrew C]

And frankly, I bet he sold them for the same reason. He knew they were played out, and he didn't have the funds anyway to keep propping them up.

You can be frank with a total BS guess? interesting...

 

[Weather_Lady]

I love the Muppets and I love the idea for this show -- I just think WDW is putting it in the wrong park. With a Muppet venue in HS and a dearth of things to do there, why put it in the MK in a tiny land (with no performance space) that is devoted to a more straightforward presentation of American history rather than a comic/fantasy version? Why, that would be like putting an Arendelle-based "Frozen" attraction in a World Showcase pavilion meant to depict an actual, real-life country, or an Avatar-based sci-fi land in a park otherwise devoted to earthly animals in their native, real-world continental habitats... oh, wait. Crap.