The NEW Muppet Movie

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 17821
Joined: October 22nd, 2004, 1:27 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Re:

Postby Ben » December 1st, 2011, 5:35 pm

Agreed, and how, Dacey. Also...

EricJ wrote:So like I'd been saying all along--There WERE other films you could've been seeing this weekend. :P


Um...execpt you weren't saying that. You've just been ragging on The Muppets for the past few weeks, and that's all.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 659
Joined: July 9th, 2008, 3:53 am
Location: Australia

Postby Bill1978 » December 1st, 2011, 9:58 pm

Also the public were aware their were tother movies that could be seen but enough of the public chose The Muppets to place it at #2 ahead of everything BUT the series I refuse to acknowledge exists. Which implies the public were happy with the end result.

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 4953
Joined: February 8th, 2005, 5:54 pm
Location: The US of A

Postby Dacey » December 6th, 2011, 12:25 am

Finally saw this today.

Really, I think the only way you're going to hate this movie is if you're allergic to smiling.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 4953
Joined: February 8th, 2005, 5:54 pm
Location: The US of A

Re: The NEW Muppet Movie

Postby Dacey » December 6th, 2011, 5:14 pm

"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7522
Joined: October 25th, 2004, 8:53 pm
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re: The NEW Muppet Movie

Postby ShyViolet » December 6th, 2011, 5:28 pm

I saw that too! That's just so ridiculous. Tons of movies have had "corporate bad guys", without any agenda. :roll:
"It is written among the limitless constellations of the celestial heavens, and in the depths of the emerald seas....the world which we see is an outward and visible dream of an inward and invisible reality."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2838
Joined: September 27th, 2007, 2:06 pm

Re: The NEW Muppet Movie

Postby EricJ » December 6th, 2011, 10:14 pm

Fox News (and the Republican's green-eyed envy that entertainment news takes attention away from themselves).....Uhhh-huh. :roll:
We didn't exactly see the "Evil Businessman" as the Muppets' idea, but as Jason Segel's idea, which means we didn't really consider it part of the film.

---
And on a side tangent, yes, smartypantses, I did brave the weather to go use my ticket--
I would scoff at Ben's scoff and say, yes, there WAS a lot of conscious de-Segelizing of the movie on Disney's part at the last minute: Whole scenes from the "real" trailers (like the Mahna-mahna's annoying our characters in the car) seemed to be missing or rewritten, and the whole year-hyped plot of "Celebrities helping out with the show" was nowhere to be seen. (I didn't see one single FRAME of Lady Gaga in the movie, and don't think I didn't freakin' look.)
Basically, after the first half hour setup, Segel had almost zero to do in the movie, except gasp in horror at the plot developments, and mug his character's "innocent" goo-goo puppy-dog expression, trying to stay in the same shot with Kermit. Amy Adams clearly didn't get the role because of her Oscar nomination for "Doubt"; she's on tap because the movie wanted to hire Princess Giselle on demand to out-Enchanted "Enchanted" (considering that that movie also started out as a snide kitsch-slap retooled into a loving tribute at the last second), but the movie only seems to find its pace when the Muppets have it all to themselves. Segel joked that "Little kids in the focus group thought it would be a better movie if I wasn't in it", and y'know, Jason, kids say the darnedest things. ;)
Did I LIKE the movie?...Given what we'd heard for an entire year before it opened, I would say I take Disney's policy that I tolerated the movie, knowing how much worse it could have been. That doesn't make it the original Muppet Movie, but it doesn't make it "A Very Muppet Christmas", either. (Even with Whoopi Goldberg in it.) I'd be happy if Disney and the Muppet-fan Pixar writers had the new confidence to make another one by themselves without the "help", but...then we'd probably just get another Muppet Wizard of Oz again.

(And with spoilers enacted, what was the other "Jim Henson tribute"? I spotted the
click to reveal content
photo, and the museum exhibit,
which I expected, but what did I miss?
I did like the Kung Fu Panda nod in the new Toy Story Pixar short, though.)
Last edited by EricJ on December 6th, 2011, 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 4953
Joined: February 8th, 2005, 5:54 pm
Location: The US of A

Re: The NEW Muppet Movie

Postby Dacey » December 6th, 2011, 10:50 pm

We didn't exactly see the "Evil Businessman" as the Muppets' idea, but as Jason Segel's idea, which means we didn't really consider it part of the film.


By "We," you mean "You, yourself and Eric," right?

What was this post beyond another "Jason Segal is evil, had nothing to do with the movie even though he absolutely did" rant from you? Heck, even the "Amy Adams didn't get the role because of her Oscar nomination in 'Doubt'" line was something I think we've heard you say on here before.

Also, it's not "news" that Lady Gaga wasn't in the film, since there were several internet articles over the last few weeks over how her part was cut. What WASN'T "cut," however, was the joke about the Muppets in the car gag, which was shown during the montage but in a different context. And movie trailers are making gags seem "different" in trailers constantly.

Seriously, this whole "de-Segaling" thing is a product of your own invention. If anything, with how much success this one has found, Disney will probably want to go to Seagal to write another "Muppet" movie if they do decide to do another one.

But hey, at least you "tolerated it." Coming from you, that's like, what, a four star review? ;)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2838
Joined: September 27th, 2007, 2:06 pm

Re: The NEW Muppet Movie

Postby EricJ » December 6th, 2011, 11:05 pm

Dacey wrote:Seriously, this whole "de-Segaling" thing is a product of your own invention. If anything, with how much success this one has found, Disney will probably want to go to Seagal to write another "Muppet" movie if they do decide to do another one.


Well, that was the point I was referring to--
Back during the Pixar story-writers' last-minute story tweaks on Tron Legacy, Disney heads let them also have a go-over on the original "Greatest Ever" Segel Muppet script, as they thought it needed a "little tightening". The press played up that many of the story writers were real Muppet fans from way back, and...I somehow have the feeling that was the "improvement" Disney had in mind.

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 17821
Joined: October 22nd, 2004, 1:27 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Ben » December 7th, 2011, 11:30 am

Eric knows everything, Dacey. Eric knows all. Even what "we" are thinking.

Anyway, I'm glad he loved the Jason Segel And The Muppets movie.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 659
Joined: July 9th, 2008, 3:53 am
Location: Australia

Postby Bill1978 » December 7th, 2011, 5:48 pm

I would scoff at Ben's scoff and say, yes, there WAS a lot of conscious de-Segelizing of the movie on Disney's part at the last minute: Whole scenes from the "real" trailers (like the Mahna-mahna's annoying our characters in the car) seemed to be missing or rewritten, and the whole year-hyped plot of "Celebrities helping out with the show" was nowhere to be seen. (I didn't see one single FRAME of Lady Gaga in the movie, and don't think I didn't freakin' look.)


Ever heard of a little thing called deleted scenes? You know stuff gets filmed but ends up on the cutting room floor for lots of reasons. Perhaps GaGa scene jsut didn't flow, cause really having GaGa in there could have got a few more bums on seats for 5 minutes of crap.

Using your views Eric J the only reason why scenes are removed is becusse of bad testing OR because Jason Segal is in a scene. So I guess the Harry Potter world demanded that Viktor Kym be removed from Harry Potter 7 Part I or they wouldn't watch it. Cause that's the only possible resaon for why there were scenes of him in the trailer but he made no appearance in the movie.

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 17821
Joined: October 22nd, 2004, 1:27 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Ben » December 7th, 2011, 6:26 pm

Gaga was shot (haha, I didn't mean it that way!). It's been said it'll be on the DVD, either in an extended cut or a deleted scene.

I know Eric can't wait: "Jason Segel And The Muppets - now with added Gaga!" :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2838
Joined: September 27th, 2007, 2:06 pm

Re:

Postby EricJ » December 7th, 2011, 9:56 pm

Bill1978 wrote:
I would scoff at Ben's scoff and say, yes, there WAS a lot of conscious de-Segelizing of the movie on Disney's part at the last minute: Whole scenes from the "real" trailers (like the Mahna-mahna's annoying our characters in the car) seemed to be missing or rewritten, and the whole year-hyped plot of "Celebrities helping out with the show" was nowhere to be seen. (I didn't see one single FRAME of Lady Gaga in the movie, and don't think I didn't freakin' look.)


Ever heard of a little thing called deleted scenes? You know stuff gets filmed but ends up on the cutting room floor for lots of reasons. Perhaps GaGa scene jsut didn't flow, cause really having GaGa in there could have got a few more bums on seats for 5 minutes of crap..


Yeah, but the point is....NOBODY showed up--
For an entire year, the press hype had been telling us about all the "celebrity cameos" who would be performing musical numbers in the show, and then, apart from one line by "How I Met Your Mother" co-star Neil Patrick Harris, the biggest star who appeared in the movie was
click to reveal content
Alan Arkin (and he at least had show credit) Oh, that, and Jack Black hogtied.

(Sadly, even a rumored Charles Grodin cameo was lost, which would have at least been tribute.)
Think that was around the same time that Disney changed the title from Segel's "The Greatest/Cheapest Muppet Movie Ever Made" to simply "The Muppets". (As in, "And nobody else.")

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1435
Joined: December 16th, 2004, 9:23 pm
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank

Re: The NEW Muppet Movie

Postby droosan » December 7th, 2011, 10:22 pm

This is why I prefer to avoid the 'press hype' as much as possible, for any movie I intend to see. Paying too much attention to that stuff tends to lessen my enjoyment of the movie, itself. :|

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004, 8:48 pm

Postby GeorgeC » December 7th, 2011, 10:43 pm

Bingo, Droo!

And it's not as if the mainstream press isn't always looking for the negative angle on things unless it suits THEIR agenda to praise someone. Always be cautious of who these dimbulbs (and they're really mostly know-nothing, completely lacking-in-common sense people) annoint as chosen ones. They're usually the worst human beings you could elect to high office!

The press exists to remind the common rabble that we're all scummy, bad, good-for-nothings and that they're here to "illuminate the way." (I don't believe in that cynical view myself but it's real obvious the lead reporters on the Alphabet Networks DO...) There's nothing illuminating about 24-hour news cycles when they're all regurgitating the same story about a kid who fell down into a well or the latest celebrity break-ups.

As if there weren't enough fruity cults in California to begin with, the entertainment press has evolved into yet another cult...
"Waiter, more champagne...and plenty of ice!"
- Randall/Time Bandits, 14 April 1912, 20 to midnight -- local time

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 17821
Joined: October 22nd, 2004, 1:27 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Re:

Postby Ben » December 9th, 2011, 9:30 am

EricJ wrote:(As in, "And nobody else.")


Nope, wrong. Again.

Actually "as in" not wanting to imply this was a continuation. It was a reboot. As with many recent rehoot titles, they just went with a very basic title that essentially describes the movie. The Muppets.

Like Winnie The Pooh. Only with Muppets. Surely even you can see that? Or doesn't it chime with the view you're trying (only just trying though) to suggest is the way you think you know we're thinking?

Basically, we don't share the view. Better you maybe give this thread (the whole board?) a rest for a while? You're in danger of sounding like some of our more tired members.

Sorry...did I say "in danger"...? ;)