Muppets Movie (2011)

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Good respect for the mix of self-awareness and sweetness that made the old Muppet Show successful; and avoids the overwrought Disneyfied soil that some of the other movies have on them.

[TransMonk]

I've been avoiding this one. I'm expecting a Phantom Menace letdown.

[seawolf17]

4.5. I thought it was really, really well done. The right mix of schmaltz, humor, & cameos (Dave Grohl!) for me.

[bmfc1]

Lots of fun. A smart script with clever songs (by Ken McKenzie of Flight of the Conchords). Well worth seeing.

[Guest Jazz Radio DJ]

TransMonk wrote: I've been avoiding this one. I'm expecting a Phantom Menace letdown.

I similarly have not been able to work up much excitement especially with the track record of the post-Henson era that precedes it. Under Henson there was a tradition of young Muppeteers creating new characters and making them their own. I'd think I'd like to see a movie that was true to that tradition with the Muppeteers investing their love and art into their own characters rather than just continuing the characters of retired and deceased Muppeteers.

[Edgy MD]

I kinda like the early-nineties post-Jim Treasure Island and Christmas Carol movies more than the last two Jim-era ones: The Great Muppet Caper and The Muppets Take Manhattan.

I agree that a more evolving muppet pantheon would be a good idea. But Disney is all about the rehashing.

[Vic Sage]

on the one hand, it was sweet, corny, sentimental, entertaining ... but more for me and my wife than it was for my 11-year old son (who was bored but polite enough not to say so) or my 14-year old daughter (who wouldn't be caught dead going to this movie).

on the other hand, its a nakedly cynical attempt by Disney to revivify a moribund asset. Yes, i teared up a bit during RAINBOW CONNECTION. fuck you, Uncle Walt.

[nymr83]

I didnt love it, but I liked it.

[seawolf17]

Vic Sage wrote: on the one hand, it was sweet, corny, sentimental, entertaining ... but more for me and my wife than it was for my 11-year old son (who was bored but polite enough not to say so) or my 14-year old daughter (who wouldn't be caught dead going to this movie).

My niece and nephew -- same age range -- hated it. It's for adults who get the injokes and sentimentality and cameos, and for little kids who like talking animals and goofy songs.

[Elster88]

Vic Sage wrote: on the one hand, it was sweet, corny, sentimental, entertaining ... but more for me and my wife than it was for my 11-year old son (who was bored but polite enough not to say so) or my 14-year old daughter (who wouldn't be caught dead going to this movie).

I grew up watching and love the Muppets, but when I was fourteen I wouldn't have been caught dead going to see it either. Especially with my parents. Because I was fourteen.

Vic Sage wrote: on the other hand, its a nakedly cynical attempt by Disney to revivify a moribund asset. Yes, i teared up a bit during RAINBOW CONNECTION. fuck you, Uncle Walt.

Nah, you're the cynical one. Jason Segel was the one who pushed to do this, he describes it in the first three minutes of the interview below. Disney doesn't have to be the pure embodiment of evil.

HzKcuj1EUvw

[Vic Sage]

Disney doesn't have to be the pure embodiment of evil.

Agreed they don't have to be... they just choose to be. Time and time again.

Even acknowledging this was an artist-initiated project, and one not hatched by Disney, would Disney have financed and distributed this movie standing on its own merits, if they didn't happen to own the Muppet franchise, with the Muppet corners of their theme parks remaining relatively empty, and merch sitting unsold on their shelves? Do you know what impact their "notes" to Segal as writer had on the final direction of the film? Can i bet alot, since the financing entity usually exercises its authority on most Hollywood movies?

The entire theme of the movie is about reviving the Muppets (as an entity in the entertainment industry)... now whether that notion was conceived by Segal, then brought to Disney, or whether Disney helped him reach that theme, isn't really the point. Certainly, if Segal as writer wants to get Disney to let him use their property, he's going to have to come up with a concept they will love. So that precludes a whole range of ideas and perspectives that an artist might explore in reconsidering the iconic cultural artifact called "muppets" and leaves only that perspective that most serves Disney's commercial interests.

So sorry, but i don't think that what some earnest actor/writer says on a talk show sheds much light on what motivates the business decisions of Uncle Walt's empire.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

seawolf17 wrote: Vic Sage wrote: on the one hand, it was sweet, corny, sentimental, entertaining ... but more for me and my wife than it was for my 11-year old son (who was bored but polite enough not to say so) or my 14-year old daughter (who wouldn't be caught dead going to this movie). My niece and nephew -- same age range -- hated it. It's for adults who get the injokes and sentimentality and cameos, and for little kids who like talking animals and goofy songs.

So... it's like every Muppet thing ever made?

[Vic Sage]

So... it's like every Muppet thing ever made?

similar, not identical. While somewhat more self-referential than most of the movies, that self awareness was always an aspect of their shtick. And it's superior in quality to most of the later films.

If you liked the TV show and the first movie, this is in that spirit, with a bit more cheek.

[nymr83]

Vic Sage wrote: Disney doesn't have to be the pure embodiment of evil. Agreed they don't have to be... they just choose to be. Time and time again.

How, exactly, has Disney been "evil" (in the context of The Muppets)? Why does it matter if they made the movie to make money? Isn't that why 99% of films get made? All that should really matter is how much you liked it.

[Vic Sage]

i wasn't the one who characterized them as "evil", in this context; Elster did. I just said the movie was a nakedly cynical attempt to revive a franchise they own. i think the are evil for other reasons.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: So... it's like every Muppet thing ever made? similar, not identical. While somewhat more self-referential than most of the movies, that self awareness was always an aspect of their shtick. And it's superior in quality to most of the later films. If you liked the TV show and the first movie, this is in that spirit, with a bit more cheek.

And if you don't like the first movie, well, check for a pulse.

Really, though, guys, you could have told me how bad most of the original songs were, and how whenever this baby got any momentum, a musical set piece would bring it to a screeching halt.