The Muppets

[Ben]

Agreed, and how, Dacey. Also...

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

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

[Bill1978]

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.

[Dacey]

Finally saw this today.

Really, I think the only way you're going to hate this movie is if you're allergic to smiling.

[Dacey]

Sorry to double post--and for bringing "politics" into the topic here--, but this is just SO stupid:

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/the-mup ... ignite.com

[ShyViolet]

I saw that too! That's just so ridiculous. Tons of movies have had "corporate bad guys", without any agenda.

[EricJ]

Fox News (and the Republican's green-eyed envy that entertainment news takes attention away from themselves).....Uhhh-huh.
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

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.)

[Dacey]

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?

[EricJ]

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.

[Ben]

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.

[Bill1978]

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.

[Ben]

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!"

[EricJ]

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

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.")

[droosan]

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.

[GeorgeC]

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...

[Ben]

(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"...?