The Muppets

[Kai "the spy"]

I generally liked monday's episode, but against how many female guests does Piggy have a grudge, anyway?! Loved the part with Fozzy and his girlfriend Becky. Not original, but fun.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I generally liked monday's episode, but against how many female guests does Piggy have a grudge, anyway?! Loved the part with Fozzy and his girlfriend Becky. Not original, but fun.

Knowing Piggy, it's probably every single woman who is slightly more famous than her.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

And I'll note that, despite your claims that it's "contradictory" you've not provided any examples where CGI might be implemented with the Muppets in such a way where the CGI is not ... obviously CGI.

But that is exactly the thing you're not getting about my point. You're thinking in terms of hiding the CGI to pass it off as reality. You're buying into the modern assumption that CGI-ness is something shameful that needs to be disguised. What I'm saying is that I don't think Henson would've gone for that paradigm. I think he would've been more in the vein of the early CGI pioneers who wanted to embrace the difference in appearance between CGI and other visual media, to explore the potential of this new art form to create whole new kinds of visuals.

Saying "the CGI should not be obviously CGI" is like saying "The sculpture should not be obviously sculpture instead of painting" or "The violins should not sound obviously like violins instead of tubas." I'm not talking about hiding the nature of a new art form, I'm talking about embracing its uniqueness. I'm talking about a mindset that CGI should look like CGI, because the fact that it's different from other forms of visual expression is what makes it valuable and interesting, in the same way that the differences between violins and tubas and timpanis and oboes makes listening to an orchestra interesting because of the ways the different sounds complement each other. That's the approach I think an innovator like Henson would've taken -- to play up the differences between physical and CGI, to use the contrasts between them as the basis of his art, rather than trying to make them seem interchangeable.

Oh, I get your point, Christopher. I just disagree with it. I don't want to watch The Muppets, as performed by puppeteers, and notice the CGI - as has been currently demonstrated in film. The juxtaposition is not something I find particularly interesting or aesthetically pleasing. Rather, I find it to be a distinct distraction and detriment (e.g. Waldo).

If there were to be an all-CGI variation, I'd watch it, and more than likely enjoy it - as long as it was well-written and entertaining. But the mixing of aesthetics, the juxtaposition of puppets and (obvious) CGI is not something I enjoy. If (and when) CGI matches the aesthetics of puppetry - to the point where it is indistinguishable from puppetry (re: the Muppets, of course, since that is the topic of discussion), then its inclusion with traditional puppets wouldn't be problematic for me. Until then, I stand behind my original statement on the matter:

as yet, CGI hasn't advanced to the point where it can (plausibly) coexist with live-action puppets

 

[Christopher]

Oh, I get your point, Christopher. I just disagree with it. I don't want to watch The Muppets, as performed by puppeteers, and notice the CGI - as has been currently demonstrated in film. The juxtaposition is not something I find particularly interesting or aesthetically pleasing. Rather, I find it to be a distinct distraction and detriment (e.g. Waldo).

But that's just it. You've been conditioned to think of CGI as a bad thing, something that needs to be hidden away and disguised. That's the mentality that Hollywood has embraced over the past quarter-century. I'm trying to open your mind to a way of thinking beyond the one you already have, to point out that, in the early days of CGI, there was a different mindset, one that was about embracing and exploring its potential as a new art form capable of creating images totally unlike physical reality. If Hollywood had embraced that paradigm and explored those artistic possibilities, instead of going in the opposite direction and just trying to mimic physical reality, then we might have a very different way of looking at computer-generated imagery today. And if Henson had lived, he might have embraced that difference, discovered intriguing new visual possibilities in unrealistic CGI, and created a climate in which filmmakers and viewers would not see CGI as some undesirable thing to be hidden away but as something exciting and visually intriguing in its own right.

In short: You look at CGI the way you do because that's how a generation of filmmakers have conditioned you to see it. In an alternate reality where Henson lived and became an innovator in the field, it's possible that he would've found or promoted some potential in it that others missed, and by now it might play a different role in our view of filmmaking and aesthetics. In that reality, you might not see it the same way you see it in this reality, because your opinions would've been shaped by different input and experience. We can't know what possibilities we've missed out on because Henson died too soon.

 

[Velocity]

My favorite bit was Dr. Bunson Honeydew telling everyone that Beaker did a great Miss Piggy impression. Beaker then goes, "Me me me me me.." Great!

 

[Kelso]

I love this show.

The Muppets have been hugely influential in my life. Not only did they inspire me to start building and performing my own puppets (some of which can be seen in the link in my sig), but my wife and I had a Muppet themed wedding. The Muppets Take Manhattan is one of my all-time favorite films, and it had been a dream since childhood to see my wife march down the aisle to "He Makes Me Happy".

The show is phenomenal, easily one of the sharpest and funniest shows on TV. And the puppetry is astounding. My only criticism would be that I would like to see more of the musical numbers and skits the characters talk about. We've had some singing in the recent episodes, but I'd love to see more.

 

[Forbin]

I love that the bear squeezed honey into his coffee - with a plastic honey bear.

 

[Tulin]

I don't get all the criticism - I'm loving it and just loving that the Muppets are back on the telly!

I just wish they could get Piggy's voice a little better but, what are ya gonna do?

 

[Kelso]

I don't get all the criticism - I'm loving it and just loving that the Muppets are back on the telly!

I just wish they could get Piggy's voice a little better but, what are ya gonna do?

I still have not grown accustomed to Eric Jacobson's Piggy or Fozzie.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Oh, I get your point, Christopher. I just disagree with it. I don't want to watch The Muppets, as performed by puppeteers, and notice the CGI - as has been currently demonstrated in film. The juxtaposition is not something I find particularly interesting or aesthetically pleasing. Rather, I find it to be a distinct distraction and detriment (e.g. Waldo).

But that's just it. You've been conditioned to think of CGI as a bad thing, something that needs to be hidden away and disguised.

In short: You look at CGI the way you do because that's how a generation of filmmakers have conditioned you to see it.

Nope.

Not even close. It's a shame that your posts are leaping to erroneous conclusions and making assumptions that, simply, do not exist.

Fact is, I look at CGI in terms of how it is presented on-screen, in terms of how well it helps the suspension of disbelief. Like any other special effects technique, I've no problem with CGI in principle. There's no "conditioning" at work - rather, it's an objective evaluation of the strengths and limits (to date) of how CGI has been utilized. As such, any issues I have with it are in terms of how well it's executed on-screen. Gollum, Caesar, the dinos in the original Jurassic Park, heck even a couple of scenes in, say, Forrest Gump - all fantastic, exceptional examples of using CGI. I'm certainly open to that level of integration for the Muppets. But I've yet to see an example of it that would do the same for the unique aesthetic of the puppetry of the Muppets as it did for Jurassic Park, or The Two Towers, etc.

In other words: The problem with CGI & the Muppets isn't CGI in general, but rather how it has evolved (or at least been presented) to date. If CGI can match the aesthetic of the Muppets (to the point where its inclusion is indistinguishable from the puppetry), then I'd be all for it being part of the production. Until then, I'd rather the Muppets stick to just puppetry.

And that was, and remains, my point.

 

[Christopher]

Not even close. It's a shame that your posts are leaping to erroneous conclusions and making assumptions that, simply, do not exist.

Fact is, I look at CGI in terms of how it is presented on-screen, in terms of how well it helps the suspension of disbelief.

But that is exactly what I'm saying. You look at it in terms of how it is presented on-screen. I'm talking about a hypothetical alternate reality in which the evolution of CGI had taken a different path, one it didn't take in this reality. I'm saying that it could possibly have been different, and that would've shaped perceptions of CGI differently.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

I suppose one of the potential alternatives would be kinda similar to movies that have combined live action and traditional cell animation like Mary Poppins or Who Framed Roger Rabbit? They didn't try to make the animation look photo realistic. That wasn't the point. The point was the juxtaposition of the 2 styles next to each other.

 

[Christopher]

I suppose one of the potential alternatives would be kinda similar to movies that have combined live action and traditional cell animation like Mary Poppins or Who Framed Roger Rabbit? They didn't try to make the animation look photo realistic. That wasn't the point. The point was the juxtaposition of the 2 styles next to each other.

Yes, that's along the lines of what I'm suggesting. I think that if Henson had lived, he might've been more interested in exploring the contrasts between physical and CGI creations than in trying to make CGI pass for physical reality. Basically, to embrace CGI as a new form of cartooning rather than as a substitute for live-action images.

 

[Karzak]

Looks like ABC is making some changes...

‘The Muppets’ Showrunner Bob Kushell Exits As Series Heads For Reboot

There is a behind the scenes shakeup on ABC’s freshman comedy series The Muppets. Gone is co-creator, executive producer and abclogoshowrunner Bob Kushell. Kristin Newman (Galavant) is in negotiations to succeed him as new showrunner under her overall deal at ABC Studios, the studio that produces The Muppets. The move is part of a creative overhaul of the freshman comedy, which is expected to take a hiatus after finishing Episode 10 for a reboot. ABC recently ordered 3 more episodes, bringing The Muppets‘ first season to 16 episodes — 10 to air in the fall and the other 6 in midseason after a winter hiatus. The spring run will likely be treated as a relaunch.

Kushell co-wrote the original Muppets presentation with The Big Bang Theory co-creator/executive producer Bill Prady. Because of Prady’s commitment to the hit CBS comedy, Kushell was tapped as solo showrunner on The Muppets, with Brady coming in two days a week.

The Muppets was rushed to air by TV standards, filming a last-minute presentation in April and getting a slot on the fall schedule just a couple of weeks later — before its concept, style and tone had been fully formed. That added tension to the already stressed environment on the show, which faced a tight production schedule and a complicated shoot because of the seamless mix of real actors and puppets.

Because it marked the TV return of beloved characters, there were high expectations for the series, which was launched with a big marketing campaign that employed ABC’s biggest stars plugging the Muppets’ comeback comedy. But after a highly-rated premiere, ratings dropped. The Muppets has done an OK job opening Tuesday night for ABC at 8 PM, with its numbers on par with lead-out Fresh Off The Boat, but because of its marquee title, The Muppets has been held to a different standard, so its performance has been considered somewhat disappointing, and there has been a concern about its creative direction.

Behind the scenes, I hear there was a clash in styles and vision for the show between Kushell and Prady, which was exacerbated by Prady’s part-time participation, leading to swings in direction on scripts that had been already in progress. I hear Kushell was well-liked among the cast, crew and the producers, but the discord proved too taxing on everyone and was starting to show on the screen. It was getting harder for the show to go on with both Prady and Kushell, and a decision was made to let Kushell go, though I hear many wanted him to stay.

The Muppets follows Kermit the Frog and the rest of the Muppet gang as they produce a late-night talk show, Up Late With Miss Piggy. The series stars Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, The Great Gonzo, Pepé the King Prawn, Rizzo the Rat, Scooter, Rowlf and the Electric Mayhem.

Season-to-date, The Muppets still ranks as Tuesday’s highest-rated new TV show among Adults 18-49 (2.6). On average, the freshman show is improving its half-hour for ABC by 69% in Total Viewers (7.6 million) and by 86% in Adults 18-49 (2.6), standing as the net’s strongest performing Tuesday comedy in 4 years. In its most recent airing last night, The Muppets matched its delivery from last week, a 1.4 in 18-49 (Live+same day). Fresh Off The Boat did a 1.5.

Newman had a fast start in TV writing. She landed her first staff job in 2000 on That ’70s Show, rising to supervising producer. Following the end of the Fox sitcom in 2006, Newman got her first overall deal at 20th TV where she joined another long-running young ensemble comedy, How I Met Your Mother, as co-executive producer. Newman, repped by UTA and Hansen Jacobson, also worked on the NBC/WBTV dramedy Chuck, created the ABC/ABC Studios comedy Single With Parents and served as co-executive producer on ABC/ABCS’ The Neighbors and Galavant and as executive producer/showrunner on ABC/ABCS’ comedy pilot Delores and Jermaine this past season.

Newman would executive produce The Muppets alongside Prady, Randall Einhorn, Bill Barretta, Debbie McClellan and Kyle Laughlin for ABC Studios and The Muppets Studio.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I know there has been some upheaval about this new version of the Muppets not being as "family friendly" as its 80's progenitor. It contains a lot of double-ententes and sometimes-subtle wordplay that would go over most kids' heads but seem to be targeted towards the adults who were kids when the first version originally aired. This may leave a large portion of potential target-market out in the cold, with younger kids left scratching their heads about certain references to side-effects experienced by recreational pharmaceutical usage by the band, to name an example. The not-so-subtle sexual tension between Kermit and his two porcine love interests would be another. This may be a possible explanation why the ratings haven't gotten to expected levels, as well as the recent show-runner shake-up.

There is this interesting review in Forbes which doesn't focus so much on the notion of perceived innocence (or loss thereof), but discusses more on how this new version of the show doesn't really work because the characters, who were never intended to be "real", are put in a "real world" meta-mockumentary environment, making them fall unbelievably flat. An interesting viewpoint. Entertainment Weekly was exceptionally scathing of the show. I can see the reasoning behind some of the criticism cited here, but my wife and I like the show in any case.

 

[Christopher]

I haven't seen Galavant, but I've been very dissatisfied with the show so far, so I welcome a retool. The characters just aren't recognizable as themselves, and most of the comedy just isn't funny to me. The pilot was okay, but practically the only bits I liked in the next few episodes were the ones recycled from the initial presentation film -- and they were funnier there.

I know there has been some upheaval about this new version of the Muppets not being as "family friendly" as its 80's progenitor. It contains a lot of double-ententes and sometimes-subtle wordplay that would go over most kids' heads but seem to be targeted towards the adults who were kids when the first version originally aired.

The Muppets are no strangers to being aimed at adults. They came to fame on The Tonight Show and other late-night programs, airing when the kids would've been sound asleep. The Muppet Show was family-friendly, but had plenty of subversive or adult-oriented humor. Even Sesame Street has always had its adult fans, since it was meant for parents and children to watch together.

So I had no problem with giving the show an adult focus. My problem is that it's just too mean-spirited, that the characters are jerks and neurotics with none of the endearing or redeeming qualities they had before. And it's just not funny.

There is this interesting review in Forbes which doesn't focus so much on the notion of perceived innocence (or loss thereof), but discusses more on how this new version of the show doesn't really work because the characters, who were never intended to be "real", are put in a "real world" meta-mockumentary environment, making them fall unbelievably flat. An interesting viewpoint.

I don't buy that at all. The Muppet Show itself was essentially a "behind-the-scenes" look at the making of a theatrical variety show. The Muppet Movie was presented as a dramatization of how the Muppets got together and started their careers, introducing them as inhabitants of the real world. What set the Muppets apart from previous TV puppet characters is that they were never confined to a stage, that they interacted freely with real people and environments. So being in the real world is fundamental to the Muppets.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I've been enjoying the direction of the show. I hope the retool doesn't ruin it and it just makes it for kids.

 

[Squiggy]

Give me ONE time a network has gotten involved in a show and made it worse. Just one. I bet you can't!

 

[Awesome Possum]

I don't think it's possible to an executive to make a bad decision.

 

[Tosk]

Hiatus and then re-tooling? In other words, they'll ruin what works on the show right now in an effort to improve it, alienate the current fans without making new ones, run the show into the ground.

Hopefully not though. But I'm having difficulty thinking of any show that ever truly got better from a re-tooling. Maybe These Friends of Mine? (Or Blackadder, depending on whether you count that as a re-tooling.)