The Status of Muppet*Vision 3D

Donaldfan1934

Donaldfan1934

Well-Known Member
The Real Buzz Lightyear said:
Wow I'm shocked with a lot of this Muppet hate on this forum. The Muppets are timeless and they bring a lot of joy to people including myself. As someone who dealt with depression for a long time two things helped me lifting weights and watching the muppets and Disney movies and tv shows. Plus the theme parks and my girlfriend, friends, and family helped me through it as well. Whats the harm of people liking the muppets?
Click to expand...
If you’re surprised by what @Magenta Panther has to say about the Muppets, you haven’t been paying much attention on these forums.
 
The Grand Inquisitor

The Grand Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Donaldfan1934 said:
Good for you for staying positive. Just keep in mind that @Magenta Panther’s anti-Muppet bias is strong, so whatever he has to say about them isn’t worth putting much weight on.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I mostly try to stay positive in my daily life( it can be hard with how negative the world is now). I feel sad Magenta has a lot of hate and negativity in their heart, I hope they become more positive. I bet they would feel a lot more happy if they were a little bit more positive. :)
 
Casper Gutman

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Magenta Panther said:
The Hall of Presidents is an original Disney creation, and it's outstanding. Pity you're unable to appreciate it. And even more pitiful that you need hand puppets to instruct you on Presidential history. Tsk.

And maybe YOU ought to examine your feelings about why you're so attached to hoary old hand puppets. Muppet cultists are damn weird. Say a word against their puppet gods and you're a soulless infidel. And the thing is, the puppets have made like 8 movies or something, each one a lesser effort, but that's just not enough for you. You gotta have more! I feel sorry for you dudes. And frankly a bit sorry for the objects of your obsession. Jim Henson is dead. Frank Oz is retired. The Muppet fad is long over. And yet you pester Disney to keep trying to resurrect those old corpses. Today's kids don't care about them. Maybe it's time you kinda, you know, let it go?

As for TRON and Dinosaur (and I can't believe I keep having to point this out) they are original Disney creations and by that pedigree alone they belong in the parks, merch sales or no merch sales. Get it now?
Click to expand...
A great number of people have contributed to my knowledge of presidential history, and hand puppets were never involved. You continue to bark up the wrong tree there.

But let’s talk about your very odd dedication to “original Disney creations.” What sense can we extract from your use of that statement? Well, first, you seem to use Disney to refer to the corporation, not the man, since ol’ Walt had no hand in TRON or Dinosaur. Now, on its face that’s odd - lots of folks have “brand loyalty” to Disney products, but they usually don’t insist on some kind of purist pedigree that dismisses corporate acquisitions.

Now, more then most corporations, Disney’s brand is generally thought to denote certain traits - a family friendliness. So do you consider the stripper-centered film Blaze Disney and thus more fitting for a Disney park then the Muppets? How about Pretty Woman, Cabin Boy, and Con Air? Those are all Touchstone, which Disney created, not acquired. And if those are out, so is Roger Rabbit.

Actually, does only the production company matter? Because as I’m sure you know, the early Disney classics were released through UA and RKO. Does that render them less pure then later films that were both produced and released by Disney? Is Altman’s Popeye, a co-production, “Disney” according to your guidelines?

And wait - as you say, Disney has produced several Muppet films - aren’t those Disney, even if the earlier ones aren’t? And if your rule is that something isn’t “Disney” if it was a preexisting property that Disney adapted, I have real bad news about Snow White, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Pooh, and a whole lot of other characters.

I mean, we need to establish some ground rules to be sure we know what is and isn’t original Disney content. Otherwise it might look like the concept is hopelessly arbitrary and meaningless.

P.S. You must really hate the Tower of Terror.
 
Last edited:
Donaldfan1934

Donaldfan1934

Well-Known Member
The Real Buzz Lightyear said:
Thanks! I mostly try to stay positive in my daily life( it can be hard with how negative the world is now). I feel sad Magenta has a lot of hate and negativity in their heart, I hope they become more positive. I bet they would feel a lot more happy if they were a little bit more positive. :)
Click to expand...
@Magenta Panther is certainly entitled to his opinions. However, the way he often goes about expressing them is boarder line trolling. Therein lies the problem.
 
M

MiddKid

Well-Known Member
The Real Buzz Lightyear said:
Why though? Because its not as popular as the other shows?
Click to expand...

Because it's a massively under-utilized space in the park. Shows continually play to small crowds all day. The single biggest cost to running the park are the hourly labor costs which are constantly being looked at to either save budget by cutting labor or re-deploying it elsewhere. With an attraction like MV3D trimming hours, it saves labor to be redeployed elsewhere while having virtually no impact on guest experience. During that last two hours of the day let's say there are 500 people that would have seen it. The attraction easily has 500 people worth of capacity earlier in the day...it's always playing to less-than-full houses. Those people who really want to see it will note that it closes early and see it earlier in the day while the Studios gets a few hours of labor costs back into the hopper.

It's all about supply/demand. Balancing labor costs with guest experience. If the intent were to have everything open from park open to close, the World Showcase at Epcot would open at 9am each day.
 
Cmdr_Crimson

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
MiddKid said:
Because it's a massively under-utilized space in the park. Shows continually play to small crowds all day. The single biggest cost to running the park are the hourly labor costs which are constantly being looked at to either save budget by cutting labor or re-deploying it elsewhere. With an attraction like MV3D trimming hours, it saves labor to be redeployed elsewhere while having virtually no impact on guest experience. During that last two hours of the day let's say there are 500 people that would have seen it. The attraction easily has 500 people worth of capacity earlier in the day...it's always playing to less-than-full houses. Those people who really want to see it will note that it closes early and see it earlier in the day while the Studios gets a few hours of labor costs back into the hopper.

It's all about supply/demand. Balancing labor costs with guest experience. If the intent were to have everything open from park open to close, the World Showcase at Epcot would open at 9am each day.
Click to expand...
And yet Disney Pixar film festival is still running which I'm surpried still is and is more low maintenece compared to Muppetvision.
 
Donaldfan1934

Donaldfan1934

Well-Known Member
Cmdr_Crimson said:
And yet Disney Pixar film festival is still running which I'm surpried still is and is more low maintenece compared to Muppetvision.
Click to expand...
Maybe Muppetvision being higher maintenance is part of the reason for it closing early instead of Disney Pixar film festival. That way they’re saving on operational costs while getting a head start on serving the attractions maintenance needs.
 
Last edited:
WondersOfLife

WondersOfLife

Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
I dont know if this was posted anywhere, but here is a pic from the last performance of the history show.

6D5D05D9-A7DC-45B7-88C8-EA7A63B63794.jpeg
 
GenerationX

GenerationX

Well-Known Member
We missed MuppetVision on our last trip, because it had been closed early. Not this time. We've got FastPasses for it.

I'll be proudly wearing the Muppets shirt I bought at the Stage 1 Company Store in DHS.

It's great that it's still open with how costly it is to operate. Kermit, Miss Piggy, and Fozzie's hourly wages are pretty high now. Even the Swedish Chef makes more than the average front line CM.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Casper Gutman said:
A great number of people have contributed to my knowledge of presidential history, and hand puppets were never involved. You continue to bark up the wrong tree there.

But let’s talk about your very odd dedication to “original Disney creations.” What sense can we extract from your use of that statement? Well, first, you seem to use Disney to refer to the corporation, not the man, since ol’ Walt had no hand in TRON or Dinosaur. Now, on its face that’s odd - lots of folks have “brand loyalty” to Disney products, but they usually don’t insist on some kind of purist pedigree that dismisses corporate acquisitions.

Now, more then most corporations, Disney’s brand is generally thought to denote certain traits - a family friendliness. So do you consider the stripper-centered film Blaze Disney and thus more fitting for a Disney park then the Muppets? How about Pretty Woman, Cabin Boy, and Con Air? Those are all Touchstone, which Disney created, not acquired. And if those are out, so is Roger Rabbit.

Actually, does only the production company matter? Because as I’m sure you know, the early Disney classics were released through UA and RKO. Does that render them less pure then later films that were both produced and released by Disney? Is Altman’s Popeye, a co-production, “Disney” according to your guidelines?

And wait - as you say, Disney has produced several Muppet films - aren’t those Disney, even if the earlier ones aren’t? And if your rule is that something isn’t “Disney” if it was a preexisting property that Disney adapted, I have real bad news about Snow White, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Pooh, and a whole lot of other characters.

I mean, we need to establish some ground rules to be sure we know what is and isn’t original Disney content. Otherwise it might look like the concept is hopelessly arbitrary and meaningless.

P.S. You must really hate the Tower of Terror.
Click to expand...


Yeah, your vaunted knowledge about American history doesn't really mean much here. It's your dippy idea of the Hall of Presidents being replaced by a Muppet show that's at issue.

But to answer your question, NO, just because Disney buys an already-developed/play-out/past-its-prime property, that doesn't make the property Disney. Not the way the Disney version of Peter Pan, Mary Poppins, Jungle Book, 101 Dalmatians is Disney. Why? Because Disney developed the original stories of those properties and added the legendary creative Disney magic. I can guarantee you that NOBODY with brain cells considers the Muppets Disney. Nor Marvel, nor Star Wars. But the Disney version of Pinocchio is the definitive version of that work because the Disney version is that damn good. What makes the Disney adaptations of stories timeless is the artistry invested by Disney creative teams. The classic films that Walt and company created are still popular and have stood the test of time. Not so the puppets (not without Disney money propping them up). If those characters are still so red-hot, how come Henson's kids sold them twice? Why didn't they try to keep them going? Pffft, easy answer. They're smarter than you and know damn well how unlikely a true revival would be, and they weren't willing to invest their own capital in it. Better to sell the things to some sucker company and let THEM waste their dough. The Henson kids made out like bandits, laughing all the way (at Disney) to the bank. I have to admire their savvy. They knew when to cut and run after their old man died.

And yeah, I love the Tower of Terror. One of the best attractions the Imagineers ever built. But its genius doesn't lie with the IP (which was an afterthought, by the way). It lies with the execution. The Tower could just be a haunted Hollywood hotel, minus the Twilight Zone, and it would be just as effective. Instead of Rod Serling, the host could be the hotel manager, etc. The ride would still be great. The only way an IP could truly make a difference is if someone stuck a gun-happy raccoon and a talking asparagus stalk in it...oh wait...
 
tissandtully

tissandtully

Well-Known Member
Magenta Panther said:
Yeah, your vaunted knowledge about American history doesn't really mean much here. It's your dippy idea of the Hall of Presidents being replaced by a Muppet show that's at issue.

But to answer your question, NO, just because Disney buys an already-developed/play-out/past-its-prime property, that doesn't make the property Disney. Not the way the Disney version of Peter Pan, Mary Poppins, Jungle Book, 101 Dalmatians is Disney. Why? Because Disney developed the original stories of those properties and added the legendary creative Disney magic. I can guarantee you that NOBODY with brain cells considers the Muppets Disney. Nor Marvel, nor Star Wars. But the Disney version of Pinocchio is the definitive version of that work because the Disney version is that damn good. What makes the Disney adaptations of stories timeless is the artistry invested by Disney creative teams. The classic films that Walt and company created are still popular and have stood the test of time. Not so the puppets (not without Disney money propping them up). If those characters are still so red-hot, how come Henson's kids sold them twice? Why didn't they try to keep them going? Pffft, easy answer. They're smarter than you and know damn well how unlikely a true revival would be, and they weren't willing to invest their own capital in it. Better to sell the things to some sucker company and let THEM waste their dough. The Henson kids made out like bandits, laughing all the way (at Disney) to the bank. I have to admire their savvy. They knew when to cut and run after their old man died.

And yeah, I love the Tower of Terror. One of the best attractions the Imagineers ever built. But its genius doesn't lie with the IP (which was an afterthought, by the way). It lies with the execution. The Tower could just be a haunted Hollywood hotel, minus the Twilight Zone, and it would be just as effective. Instead of Rod Serling, the host could be the hotel manager, etc. The ride would still be great. The only way an IP could truly make a difference is if someone stuck a gun-happy raccoon and a talking asparagus stalk in it...oh wait...
Click to expand...
oh look Magenta complaining about Muppets again
 
phillip9698

phillip9698

Well-Known Member
Magenta Panther said:
Yeah, your vaunted knowledge about American history doesn't really mean much here. It's your dippy idea of the Hall of Presidents being replaced by a Muppet show that's at issue.

But to answer your question, NO, just because Disney buys an already-developed/play-out/past-its-prime property, that doesn't make the property Disney. Not the way the Disney version of Peter Pan, Mary Poppins, Jungle Book, 101 Dalmatians is Disney. Why? Because Disney developed the original stories of those properties and added the legendary creative Disney magic. I can guarantee you that NOBODY with brain cells considers the Muppets Disney. Nor Marvel, nor Star Wars. But the Disney version of Pinocchio is the definitive version of that work because the Disney version is that damn good. What makes the Disney adaptations of stories timeless is the artistry invested by Disney creative teams. The classic films that Walt and company created are still popular and have stood the test of time. Not so the puppets (not without Disney money propping them up). If those characters are still so red-hot, how come Henson's kids sold them twice? Why didn't they try to keep them going? Pffft, easy answer. They're smarter than you and know damn well how unlikely a true revival would be, and they weren't willing to invest their own capital in it. Better to sell the things to some sucker company and let THEM waste their dough. The Henson kids made out like bandits, laughing all the way (at Disney) to the bank. I have to admire their savvy. They knew when to cut and run after their old man died.

And yeah, I love the Tower of Terror. One of the best attractions the Imagineers ever built. But its genius doesn't lie with the IP (which was an afterthought, by the way). It lies with the execution. The Tower could just be a haunted Hollywood hotel, minus the Twilight Zone, and it would be just as effective. Instead of Rod Serling, the host could be the hotel manager, etc. The ride would still be great. The only way an IP could truly make a difference is if someone stuck a gun-happy raccoon and a talking asparagus stalk in it...oh wait...
Click to expand...

The Muppets are more popular than a couple of the Disney movies you named at this point. They have just shifted to a more kids based IP than adult. If Disney built an attraction based on the muppet baby versions of those characters it would do well with that demographic. The Muppets as an adult IP has run its course.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom