Is Henson being sold?

[Jrobert]

Hello to all, I was wondering if anyone has any current information on if Henson is being sold or bid on and who the potential bidders will be?

Is Disney still looking into Henson? Viacom?

Any updates?

[FER SURE]

If disney buys Henson i will have to shoot myself. They offer nothing positive in the field of creative development. I used to love them , then I worked for them. They arent a happy family company. They are a major media conglomerate with money as a bottom line for all decisions.

[DrGoshposh]

I think the official answer is "No one knows for sure."

Their German owner has been very vocal in the past about wanting to get rid of them, but they have stalled repeatedly, most likely because they can't find anyone who will pay what they need to get their money back (they over paid for the company in the first place).

Michael Eisner said recently in an article, that the asking price for the Henson Company was too high for Disney right now (but I believe Disney is, and will always be interested in owning the Muppets).

So things are up in the air for now, and we're all anxiously waiting for any kind of news.

Scott

[PeachBlossom]

In a recent post, DrGoshposh said:
> (they over paid for the company in the first place).

Duh, Of course they did because after Jim died his wife Jane, son Brian and daughter Lisa got greedy and they tried to BLACKMAIL (and I make no bones or apologizes for use of that word) Disney into paying more money Eisner then turned around and said "See Ya Wouldn't Wanna Be Ya!" then came along EM.TV & Merchandising AG who was suckered into buying the company and much like that episode in the Simpsons where the Germans bought Mr.Burns power plant the Germans realized the error of their ways and sold the power plant back to Mr.Burns for less money then they paid. Unfortunately and unlike the Simpsons EM.TV can't find anyone to buy The Jim Henson Company because potential suitors are not stupid enough to pay the amount that they Germans want!

[Luke]

Actually blackmail allegations aside, that Simpsons episode is VERY like the whole EMTV/Henson thing - even staff at the Henson company recognise that. There are certainly people at the Henson company who haven't stopped laughing about just what EMTV bought and for how much.

[Muppets1985]

Will Disney just give darn EM.tv there money and be done with! Grrr... sorry lol got a little mad for a sec, lol

[frogboy4]

I think you have the situation entirely wrong. I think the idea f Disney being the victims of some sort of blackmail scheme is completely laughable.

Once Jim died, Disney chopped their asking price substantially and attempted to bully the company into completing the merger. By then most all of the Henson licensing and merchandising deals had been cancelled so there was no one but Disney to promote their product.

The original deal penned allowed Jim to retire at anytime, but once he passed away, that deal flew out the window. Henson received a settlement from Disney and remained in debt for several years. Around the time Muppets tonight was released they were worth nearly three times the Disney offer. If anyone was trying to take advantage over a situation I think it was Eisner.

And with Disney’s new disrespectful practice of releasing their two (WD produced) Muppet DVDs in a cropped format shows how truly uninterested the Mouse is in the Muppets or their fans. I was in the fence for a while, but now I really hope they don't get them. They are only after the cheap buck!

[sidcrowe]

Yeah, cropping our beloved Muppet stuff is inexcusable.

With the evolution of technology, we should be getting MORE not less.

I guess they edit down to acommodate most casual folks' small attention spans, or get them
hungry for more. Either way, it's not right for Henson stuff because all of us here know that
although Jim used puppets, his work was complex. We meepers of the faith are having a bit of an uphill climb.

Plus, Henson (the Frog) owned by another enterprise of that sort (the Mouse), will ALWAYS have
Disney execs thinking of the Mouse first. Our beloved characters and what they represent will
PERMANENTLY be thought of as a profitable, yet micro-managed sidekick. They would NEVER want to have Henson usurp Disney. >:(

I hope they don't get Henson, either.

[frogboy4]

Disney has time and again exhibited a lack of respect for Henson and do not seem to understand their heart or appeal. Funny that they may end up being their reason for survival, though I hope not.

[Muppets1985]

**Funny that they may end up being their reason for survival, though I hope not.** .... Frog Boy what do u mean by that? im confused! lol sorry!, but u know how i am all ways...confused. i guess thats my middle name Stevie Confused Baker lol lol....

[frogboy4]

Henson is owned by a company that is in financial trouble and Henson Co hasn't had many successful projects for a while. It has been public knowledge for a while now. Disney would likely milk a lot of money out of the Muppets and get them over their latest hurdle, but I (and many others) believe that it will be at the overall expense of the Muppets by turning the enterprise into cheap children's entertainment. With the new Fox series, I think Henson is trying to stay away from that and keep the characters on the more adult end of the spectrum.

[sidcrowe]

I'd rather have greasepit McDonald's own them than Disney.

Maybe they'd stay outta their way and we'd get more toys...

...and fatter:D

[frogboy4]

I think the MCC DVD's cropped release sums up Disney's judgement on the Muppets.

[Foreignman]

I think every member form this forum, and all genuine Muppet fans, should pitch in 4 million dollars each to buy the Muppets. Then it would then be owned by us, the fans. If we wanted the Muppet Movies on widescreen, too, we could just make it so! Whose with me?!?!?

[frogboy4]

Own the Muppets? I call Pepe!

[Luke]

Jamie :- Have you switched opinions on this ? I thought you were pro Disney/Henson around about the time this forum started ? Jeez - release a DVD in full screen and the full wrath of the frogboy is released !!!! ;-)

All :- I am very much pro-Disney - i think it's a little wrong to use how the company has produced a single DVD as to how they would treat the Muppets if they owned them. The decisions on DVD's are made for reasons (even if they are wrong) and by very different people. In thinking whether you are pro or anti Disney owning the Henson company i think you have to be mature about it and rather than just go with what you want, look at it from a different (maybe business level) and think about whether what Disney can give to the Henson company would be the best thing for them. People have been saying how the muppets need more exposure, better deals, better promotion, a large 'brand' behind them, lots of finance, access to studio and TV sets and facilites, stores and merchandising deals on a high street scale. All these things Henson don't have as much as they'd like off right now but if Disney owned them, they would have it by the bucketload.

You need to weigh up whether losing a small part of their independance and business control (while retaining the brand, puppeteers and tradition) is worth giving up when you are getting so much back in return. The few things Henson would give up, they aren't actually doing very well at on their own and they seem to need help (like getting indpendant producers in to do the Fox show) so i actually think that to the everyday muppet fan, a Disney owned Henson would be visibly better (ie :- more shows & merchandise) but i do understand that the Henson company and more hardcore fans might feel otherwise. The thing is, if it isn't Disney (and its extremely unlikely now to be Henson themselves) then it's just gonna be some other U.S or European mega corp and they might not be as friendly as EMTV have been when the latest project doesn't make enough money.

[frogboy4]

I have always been wary of Disney. This problem with the DVD highlights a larger-scale problem with the company. If they had done any research on the Muppet series at all (and I believe it is crucial to do so) they would have discovered that the other releases contain widescreen versions.

They are obviously going with the kiddie market here instead of the typical Muppet fan. I see this sloppy and cheap treatment of the Muppets as a symptom of a larger problem if they buy Henson. I understand and do see the pros of a Disney buy-out, but this latest thoughtless decision has brought me back to the other side of the argument. I just wish they had more respect for the Muppets. They still do not understand the Muppet market or don’t care.

How could they? They don’t even care enough about their beloved classic films. They keep releasing sequels to animated films while critics slice them apart and audiences roll their eyes or stay home. The Disney label has really been cheapened in the last decade. The only reason they release these disposable sequels is because they make quick cash from parents of very young kids. Smart in the short-term, but at what expense?

I feel the four-fingered bloated white glove is too constricting for Kermit’s flipper.

[sidcrowe]

Great analysis.

"Sloppy" and "cheap" is the truth.

I mean, they have THE films there, and when they're deciding how to package it, WHY omit
a widescreen option? What would it have taken? A few hours' of rendering time on a supercomputer
to do it?

There is no widescreen option, because "widescreen" is typically intended for work that is important, and the Disney
people simply DO NOT feel that Jim's work is important.

Merely including a small line of text on the box that says "widescreen option," would--to them--seem laughable.

Who needs a "widescreen" option on a **** Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen video? It'd be ridiculous!

Sadly, by its omission, Disney is clearly demonstrating what little real respect they have for Henson.

To have the Henson legacy cut, edited, chopped up and presented as forgettable kid vid fodder would be worse than
the whole company failing. At least we fans would always respect it.

And that's all that matters.

[sidcrowe]

Yeah, my text is a mess.

Sorry, my iMac won't display the entire submission field as it did for Delphi.

Darn. It looks a little messed up, but then so am I :)

-CAW!

Disney:mad: :o :confused:

[frogboy4]

That's kind of what I am thinking. Disney certainly doesn't stand for quality anymore (with the exception of Pixar, of course).

[sidcrowe]

That's for darn sure.

"Snow Dogs," resplendent with its tired umpteenth invocation of that terrible
"Who Let The Dogs Out?" song, is certainly not a chunk of crud that I would
associate with the term "Disney Magic."

Let's try...

Snow Dogs=Disney Magic!

Yeah, right.:mad:

I'm really dreading their exploitation of the Jim Henson legacy.:(

[Luke]

I think if you can change your opinion based on how a subsidary treats a DVD release that ISN'T anything to do with the people who would actually be in control of how the Henson company was treated if it was aquired, well it's a bit misguided.

I can understand that as an adult muppet fan you'd like widescreen but as you quite rightly say, Disney are aiming it at the kids - and the truth is that to the majority of the population the Muppets ARE kids matierial. When you say that they still don't understand the muppet market then what about Henson themselves - they are releasing "Kermits Swamp Years" direct to video, aimed at exactly the same age group that these DVD's are.

You are totally right when you say how Disney are releasing and producing whatever they can right now for a quick and easy buck. The media indistry is in a big slump, and Disney haven't been doing massively well so they've followed just about every other media company and started releasing their catalogue on DVD as fast as possible. You are absolutely right that they don't put much thought into it - they just go through a list in a meeting and say yea or nay to about 50 suggestions on what can be released as easily and cheaply as possible. I know it may not be right but they are just following their standard procedures - 80% of people who went to see MTI or MCC were probably kids so i can understand why they are releasing it to kids and in a "kid friendly" format. Yes, they don't understand that there is an adult market out there, and they should, but this seems to be their tried and tested "method" of DVD production and i don't think in this age of mass DVD releases we could have expected much more of them. If fullscreen kids DVD's didn't sell - Disney wouldn't be making them !

More generally, I just don't think on the whole they are disrespecting the Henson company, or do not feel that Jim's work is not important. Just because a DVD doesn't get 5 star treatment doesn't imply that at all. Lets look at Henson themselves (along with Columbia) - they released the original 3 movies with no special edition, no extra features actually relevant to the film, no promotion. These were really Jim's legacy and theres so much more they could have done with them but they chose not to. MFS on the other hand was produced and put together very well simply because it was quite easy to do it being a 'current' film. So if you think how one company treats a DVD is a statment of how they regard Jim Henson then you should use the same test on Henson themselves.

[frogboy4]

The other 4 DVDs in the series DO have extra material. Not a massive amount, but it is completely false to state otherwise. The reason I mentioned collectors editions is that Disney seems to favor them when it comes to Aladdin or Tarzan, so why not this? They can charge more for them. I can see why that wouldn't be popular with execs as the Muppets haven't been incredibly popular for a decade. It was simply offered as a thought.

Just because my view doesn't match yours, it certainly doesn't mean it is misguided. You tend to use loaded words sometimes and this is such a case. I have always been on the fence about Disney ownership and I understand the pros and cons - and the fact that it was Jim Henson's idea in the first place. I don't think Disney's disrespect of the Muppets is personal, rather it is the way they treat all their products. I just don't want the Muppets to fall victim to the same sort of fate and be cannibalized by the Mouse.

My thoughts on this issue have never changed. I have always been uneasy about Disney. This just drove home many doubts I had and it certainly is important to see how they will be treated and promoted. This is all consumer side stuff and it is the packaging that we will receive if there is a buyout. I find it unacceptable.

I have continually commented about my lack of initial enthusiasm for Swamp years, but it is premature and "misguided" to judge it before it is released. The cover art so far looks like it is targeted to a young market, but we'll see.

[Bean Bunny]

Bean Bunny here,

With regards to the whole Pan & Scan deal. Basically a ton of consumers were making complains about the black bars on the bottom of their scence. Therefore Disney decide to put almost all of family DVD in full screen. Disney was just listening to their consumers.

Alot of people have been complaining the upcoming "Spider-Man: The Ulimate Villian Showdown" before it even come out. Well, it turn out that the people who were bashing it, were wrong about it.

See ya later

Bean Bunny

I am cute as a button!

:D

[frogboy4]

I feel that Disney was listning to one side of the consumers arguement because until the compaints roll in this year about their cropped titles they really don't know the other side of consumer preference. I don't see why a compromise can't be reached by releasing both on the same disc. Just plain weird.

Ultimate Spiderman, huh? Haven't seen it, but I may check it out. I have always felt that it is unfair to critique a film that hasn't been released. Even clips can't accurately describe a film - as we all have been misled by good and poor previews.

Good to see ya hoppin' around the new forum!

[Luke]

<<The other 4 DVDs in the series DO have extra material. Not a massive amount, but it is completely false to state otherwise.>>

What i said was that they didn't have RELEVANT features meaning nothing much specific to the film. No commentaries, no deleted scenes, no interviews with the producers. They had the original muppet screen test which was for the show, not the movie and the muppet VT clips. If we use the idea being talked about here that how a company (or subsiduary - in Diz's case) treats a DVD dictates how they treat a property then Henson is as guilty as Disney. If Henson/Columbia wanted they could have gone to town with these releases for they are Jim's original work and deserve better treatment - lets hope it comes at some point. I just wonder how come we weren't all up in arms against Columbia insisting on 'Special Editions' when they released the original 3 movies - after all they are the ones that really matter to the majority of Henson fans and i'm sure you'll agree that they could have been treated better.

<<The reason I mentioned collectors editions is that Disney seems to favor them when it comes to Aladdin or Tarzan, so why not this? They can charge more for them. I can see why that wouldn't be popular with execs as the Muppets haven't been incredibly popular for a decade. It was simply offered as a thought.>>

I am totally with you there and i think you are right that it has a lot to do with the films not being 100% property of Disney. It stinks for Muppet fans but then that's the media for you. That happens everywhere and it isn't particularly specific to Disney but i totally get where you are coming from.

<<Just because my view doesn't match yours, it certainly doesn't mean it is misguided. You tend to use loaded words sometimes and this is such a case.>>

Jamie, maybe misguided was not the right word to use, but i certainly wasn't using it in a loaded manner on this occasion. I just think that you know your stuff, so giving the impression to people that how Buena Vista (a subsiduary focusing on Video & DVD releases) treats a DVD release has much relation to how Disney would treat a 300 million dollar aquisition is just (in my opinion) way off. If that is your opinion then fine, you are entitled to it, but i'm sure you know that these two companies (Buena and Disney) are both massive and to an extent, work seperately most of the time.

Personally, i doubt that Disney has very little communication with Buena on how minor releases are treated but from the way i read what you were saying (and maybe i interpreted this wrongly) was that you thought the way Buena was treating the MCC DVD showed how Disney regarded the Henson company. If that's the case - then BITBBH would be an unpromoted, unmerchandised mess stuck in a rubbish time slot. It's not - Disney and Henson have worked very well together and the name 'Jim Henson' is up there in larger letters than Disney. I just think that this DVD problem we have gives us absolutely no clue as to how Disney would treat an aquired Henson company - the people making the decisions would be totally different and a Henson company owned by Disney would likely be treated way better than now. If you really feel otherwise, then that's your opinion, and as we are on a forum i guess stating it means you are open to debating it.

<<I just don't want the Muppets to fall victim to the same sort of fate and be cannibalized by the Mouse. >>

I agree - i wouldn't like all the Henson stuff to be treated the same way Buena is treating third party products now. Obviously though, thats merchandising, and it might be worth putting up with when you consider everything else that Disney can give to Henson on a wider scale (broadcast, facillities, budget, retail outlets, promotional deals). I think the only hope we have is that if Disney owned Henson they would put a lot more effort into how they merchandise the brand. *fingers crossed*

<<I have continually commented about my lack of initial enthusiasm for Swamp years, but it is premature and "misguided" to judge it before it is released. The cover art so far looks like it is targeted to a young market, but we'll see.>>

I wasn't really being "misguided" or "premature" - i was going from what Henson have said themselves. If you check out the original press release Henson clearly state it's aimed at a younger audience. I know how you feel about Swamp Years, but i was interested to see what you thought about both Henson and Disney releasing Henson products specifically for the SAME market and packaging them for that market (when we all know there is a more 'mature' audience) - yet Disney are being slammed for it, and Henson are not.

I'm not really specifically aiming all this at you, Sid and others have expressed the same kind of opinions so i'd love to get their take on it too.

[frogboy4]

The difference in Swamp Years and Muppet Treasure Island is that Swamp Years (from your report) is intended for a younger target audience. I understand your point, but unless a Henson production is like Bear in the Blue House, Disney is perplexed how to market it. By the way - don't they own part of the characters in that show? They may own the rights to a coupe Muppet films, but they have no realy ownership of Kermit. That is likely why they promote it so much. That and it is very successful.

This sort of makes me glad that Swamp Years is direct-to-video when it clearly didn't have to be. Maybe Henson feel s like they need an avenue to introduce these characters to a younger audience. I disagree with this method, but I'll have to wait for the film. I still don't see why any of this prevents Disney from including the widescreen version on the disc.

I do see that many view Muppets as childrens entertainment and they have lost their way in the last decade. Much of this is in direct relation to the failed Disney merger and subsequent releases in my opinion.

I feel that these thoughtless DVD releases are a symptom of a larger problem. I see that they are enforcing too much of the Disney formula on the Muppets and this is just anotehr example. Considering Muppets Tonight, the notorious production feuds during MTI and MCC, Disney's strong arm techniques in the failed merger and now this release, they add up to an unfavorable conculusion in my mind. I can't say that there are not pros, but there seem to be many cons - and now another fresh one that is rather big in the minds of fans. I see this as less of a Muppet problem and more of a DVD issue, but it puts me over on the other side again.

I know that unless AOL/Timewarner, Dreamworks or an enormous corporation buys them first, Disney will get the Muppets. They are just wisely playing a waiting game. Heck, they figure if they wait another five years if/when the franchise is really in trouble, they can offer what ever lint and paperclips they have mixed in with the change in their pockets in return for the Henson empire. They really remind me of the vultues in the Jungle Book. But you know, in another five years widescreen will likely be the standard anyway.

[Luke]

Yup you are totally right about BITBBH and Swamp Years is intended (from what i've read) very much towards the younger audience. Though i remember all the fan complaints when MCC and MTI got it's cinematic release that Disney were aiming it more at kids than families that included adults. I guess i am hoping that once Disney bought Henson they would start to treat them as well as the BITBBH example i brought up. It does show that the two companies can make a good team, rather than all the scare stories from the MCC/MTI film set. I honestly think that we would have got those same stories no matter who the Henson company were partnered with - the Henson staff had been so used to working on their own. I also can't totally lay this Muppets as kiddie fodder blame just with Disney. The next film after the Disney ones, MFS was just blatently kiddiefied and that was all thanks to JHC ! I think there is a BIG line between Jim's films and the one's after his death - in the original 3 its easy to see them as family orientated films that adults could easily enjoy rather than kids films that an adult would be dragged to see.

I have never been 110% happy with Disney owning the Muppets but i do see them as the next best thing. I agree with you about the game Disney are playing. I also think that we have a lot to worry about with EMTV still owning the Henson company. The German media is in such turmoil and if EMTV went into liquidation then Henson could get broken up, and sold to the highest bidder and that could mean absolutely anybody owning them, or part of them. If Disney are going to get them i'd prefer it be soon rather than seeing the people in charge of picking up the pieces after EMTV, not getting enough money for Henson as a whole company and deciding to break it apart. That'd be nasty !

Getting back to the DVD thing. Yup - i am with you - i can't see why both versions could not be included. Although i can see Disneys point of view and i can see why they are getting a lot of flack for not including the 'retro' market in their plans. Maybe these DVD's are being released too soon - possibly once the Muppets are on Fox people will understand they can be 'edgy' and appeal to adults. While i don't see this as having much of a relationship with how Diz would treat Henson once they owned them, i do see it as one big P.R blunder. Obviously upsetting the fans who you may well depend on and market to, in the event of any aquisition is a BAD move and i don't think they are oblivious to the fact that there IS an adult audience - just they ignore it because it doesn't buy Muppet DVD's by the hundreds of thousands !

[frogboy4]

Originally posted by Luke
...i don't think they are oblivious to the fact that there IS an adult audience - just they ignore it because it doesn't Muppet DVD's by the hundreds of thousands !

That is precicely my point. Disney has turned into more of a hack company these days than one of thoughtful quality entertainment. The obnoxiously dayglo-colored boxes of their VHS releases of TMM and TGMC in the nineties was my first clue into how they felt the Muppets fit into their marketing plans. They see it as, dare I say, Barney or some sort of relics from the past that translate into childrens fare. They have no vision under their company. Releases are either kids or adults and there is not much bridging the gap. I wish they'd treat the Muppets like they initually treat their animated releases - before they create terrible sequels. Just think Return to Muppet Treasure Island or Another Muppet Christmas Carol. That is the NEW Disney way. Ick!

That is what bugs me the most. They have no more decency even with their own product it seems. I'd like to see how competitive Disney would be if Pixar were taken off the payroll. Just my ideas. I know Disney's eventual ownership is 80% likely.

[Luke]

I'm glad you agreed on that comment i made - i just don't think there is much we can do to change their minds. To (roughly) 80% of the population the Muppets ARE regarded as purely kids stuff so i don't think we can really argue with the Disney marketing people that they have got their homework totally wrong. The whole idea of doing the ol' mass release your catalogue on DVD thing is to get a quick buck in the easiest and cheapest way possible - every media company is doing it because a) they want to take advantage of the DVD boom while prices are still high, and b) all media companies are making losses right now and need cash injections.

I do totally agree that Diz have big problems when it comes to properties that do not fit easily into either the adults or kids categories and i think being more of a kids company they have always had that problem rather than it being a new thing. I don't particularly agree that they see the Muppets in a similar vain to 'Barney' but i get your point. Disney are too smart for that - if they did buy Henson they would always leave some control and creative control with them because firstly they can make lots of money on the whole 'traditional' family aspect, and second, they would be completely stuck without the Henson people or the muppeteers, and no way are they going to let that kind of aquisition go down the pan. Thats why i think we wouldn't see a 'Return to Muppet Treasure Island' but i do certainly see your point but i guess at the end of the day it's all about making money so until the number of adult muppet fans buying merchandise outgulfs the parent in the Disney store buying the first thing that will keep the kid quiet, i guess we will not get what we want ! LOL

Danny wrote some stuff on this at Toughpigs - he spoke directly with a woman at Henson and she confirmed the notion that they would like to release 'fan wish list' style stuff but we aren't a large enough fan base.

[frogboy4]

I just wonder if anyone has gotten a reply from these Disney execs? They really don't care about anything but the bottom line. As a firm believer in capitalism, I certainly understand this to some extent, but hacked off the existing fans of a franchise is a poor idea. And I just don't get why they always fight an uphill battle trying to market things so strictly when it really just homogenizes the projects and makes them unappealing. This is one time I am grateful for critics and I hope the new cropped DVDs receive an embarrassing and scathing review. I really feel they need to take notice. This cropped decision (even beyond the Muppet releases) have really upset me. I really hope they get bit in the butt with this decision.

[sidcrowe]

The cropped DVD is like the tip of an iceberg: not too much of a deal by itself, but nonetheless it gives some of us pause for worry.

I think all of us here feel, via one way or another, that the Muppets are special. The problem is that there is a great deal of profitable material out there such as Barney, the (who BUYS this stuff) Olsen Twins, etc, which is not at all special, and which merely fits the bill for "entertainment" and moves on into the scrap pile of worthless pop culture.

Does the same care that Jim Henson offered while performing Kermit in the desert as he questioned his whole life go into a clumsy, cloying performance of Barney? No.

How about the people handling the Olsen twins? Do they go the extra mile to bring us something brilliant? No.

It is unsettling, to say the least, that the stewardship of the Henson legacy–the Muppets–would be handled by people who don't care; by people who merely want to churn out enough product of a similar low quality just so that they can compete at the same rate.

People who make movies such as "Snow Dogs."

People who see ONE darn fine movie, The Bad News Bears, and then go ahead to remake it a ton of times with NO SHAME, over and over again.

The Mighty Ducks, 1, 2, and 3...and a terrible cartoon series

Angels in the Outfield

The Big Green

People who produce bloody awful sequels to great films that were never meant to have a sequel, made by people who had NOTHING to do with the original film.

Those are the folks who may very well have the Muppets. People who make garbage and put Walt Disney's name on it, and that's their OWN GUY!

And the garbage KEEPS COMING!

Owning the Muppets gives Disney a heretofore unmentioned advantage: the elimination of competition.

The WWF's Vince McMahon recently bought the WCW. For what? To develop the WCW's storylines and characters? To continue the tradition of WCW events? No.

He bought it to bury it and make himself a monopoly.

The Muppets NEED to find a home with a company that is full of FIRE to make them as BIG as they can be, and they simply WILL NOT find that with Disney.

In nature, amphibians devour rodents. Unfortunately for us true believers, in the business world the converse may prove to be true.

Bummer:(

[frogboy4]

I still see some up-sides to a buyout, but I do agree with your statements. It is inevitable that they will get the Muppets. I just hope that when/if they do, they will allow Henson more independance than they have shown so far. I can see a "Jim Henson Division" being a good selling point for stockholders, but I hope it will be more than a shell company.

[Bean Bunny]

Bean here again,

I have been reading of what you guys have been saying about Disney. True, over the past few years Disney has done some, how should I say this, okay stuff. Example: Snow Dogs, sequels, & lower Disney Imageering to spinner rides. With that said, Disney has also did some wonderful things such as Fantasia 2000, Tarzan, Tokyo Disneysea, and Walt Disney Treasues DVDs.

The Walt Disney Company is not the only ones who is making sequels, doing pan & scan, and other things. Example: AOL Time-Warner, who has overdone their exposure of Scooby Doo with airing like every hour on Cartoon Network and Kids WB as well as the upcoming feature film. Speaking of the live-action Scooby Doo, the film was supposely request by the marketing departmetn of Warner since they found that they would make a bucket lot of money on promotions and tie-ins. Don't count out the numerous direct to video sequels and the new "What New, Scooby DOO!" series debuting in the fall. Don't get me started on the remake of Willie Wonke and The Cholcate Factory and the live-action Jetson movie. Time Warner was quoted in reset artilce saying that they will francise all of their major properites including Scooby Doo, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Cats & Dogs, Flintstones, Powerpuff Girls, The Matrix, Conan, and others such as Aquaman. Yes, AOL-Time Warner are planning to develop a live-action Aquaman movie. Finally Time-Warner is current almost done with Baby Looney Tunes. Yes, Baby Looney Tunes, an animated planned for the 2003-2004 season on either Cartoon Network or Kids WB. Guess what, Granny is the nanny of the baby Looney Tunes.

[Muppets1985]

Well said!!! Thats what i was trying to get across for the past year!, Baby Looney Toons (Sick!) see Disney doesn't NEED all the blame, WB is just as bad as Disney (But in my opption WORSE!!!), Now a days just about EVERY company are makeing 2's and 3's NOT just Disney, and with the direct to video thing WB and Universal do it too ex: for WB all that Scooby Doo stuff on video & dvd and ex: for Universal with all of there Lad before Time's theres like what? 13 of them movies and theres 3 or 4 American Tales.

[frogboy4]

I see your point, but there a big difference between Disney's classic films and Scooby Doo. Though I enjoy classic Scooby, it was never a high quality project and wasn't a WB project to begin with. Making a cheap sequel to Beauty, Mermaid and Cinderella is a much bigger deal. WB has been scraping the bottom these days, but they are definitely taking their cue from the Mouse.

Baby Tunes! Eeeek! And I thought Tiny Toons ended up being in poor taste. And they're ripping off the idea from the Muppet Babies (which I never really enjoyed). WB has been on my bad side about Luney Toons since they releaed Space Jam. I found the film to be ridiculous and they didn't even have the respect to contact Chuck Jones for his input.

Other companies may follow suit in rehashing and disrespecting their classicsm but Disney is certainly king.

[Luke]

I don't really agree - i think the whole rehashing of ideas is spread evenly right the way across the media including TV, Radio, Print & Film.

Just look at TV - they have got into the trend of making yearly events of these reality show - Big Brother 1,2,3 , Survivor 1,2,3 etc etc. Movies - basically anything successful from whatever company gets a sequel (or the more trendier prequel - even Henson has fallen into that gravy boat). It's the same with every other media and it's all for two reasons - the media industry is down financially right now, and the more important reason - there is a real lack of original ideas. I think that although Disney is a big player in this department, companies like 20th Century Fox and Warners probably lead the way.

I agree with Sid that the Muppets need an owner with fire in their belly and a wad of extra cash to boot BUT there simply isn't anyone out there who won't treat the company exactly like WB or Disney would. If a company spends multi-millions on Henson and it looks like their latest project is a turkey or they haven't put enough into promoting the brand then who can blame them for interfering ? Not me !!!!!! As i've said before, i see Disney as the 'next best thing' - we can only hope that they get an idea that part of what they are buying is the tradition and the creativity and do give Henson a degree of independance but the company is sick and does need help. I think Disney would care, otherwise why bother buying the company - it's not like it poses a serious threat like WCW and WWF.

[frogboy4]

I feel that your point is moot when comparing a sequel to Big Brother to a sequel on a Disney classic like Peter Pan or Cinderella. That makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

[Luke]

Well i was hoping you'd read between the lines on that one Jamie - i am saying that there is a lack of original ideas right the way across the board in media - everywhere, be it films, television etc etc.

I don't think Disney or any of the other companies are doing all this to be nasty or dumb - they don't have any new ideas and writing talent has gone down considerably over the years - obviously they all have production quotas to fill so they just drag out something that WAS successful and try to resurect that success. What else can they do ?

Also, if we are going to start comparing the treatment of things - they are treating Muppet Treasure Island far better than they are Peter Pan 2 or any of the other sequels so at least we can be thankful to that, and obviously the original MTI doesn't even begin to compare to the original Peter Pan.

[frogboy4]

Well what you were stating was going way off topic from anything I was saying. I feel that this is an entirely different discussion that I haven't commented on.

I do see your points, but I don't think that Muppet Treasure Island has or ever will get the fanfare and good treatment that the Peter Pan sequel received. The theatrical release of Muppet Treasure Island was barely promoted in this city when Peter Pan 2 ads saturated the airwaves, busses, billboards and film trailers. I see San Francisco as a good gage on this sort of thing because, like Manhattan, we are bombarded by advertisements (not that I'm complaining, I actually like that).

When the Little Mermaid 2 was released, there were posters up on every bus shelter in the city months ahead of time. I haven't even seen a flyer or report on MTI. Not that in the scheme of things there needs to be much promotion for it, but I was pointing out that maybe such advertising and promotion is different abroad because I don't know what you were talking about when you said the Disney Company has treated MTI better than films like Peter Pan 2.

[Luke]

Ok well the way i saw the discussion was that Disney was getting slammed for releasing crappy sequels of things and treating even it's own stuff badly. I was more or less agreeing with that, saying that everyones at it anyway, and adding in another reason that wasn't being mentioned - that there aren't many other decent ideas around anyway so it's not just because they want to milk the cash cow. If you want to slam Disney (and i'm not saying you are wrong) you need to look at all the reasons behind something rather than just grabbing one and going with it.

Talking about the treatment of MTI Vs Peter Pan 2 we may get into some UK/USA problems here but from what i understand MTI was pretty well promoted here with a lavish party/premiere (Warrick and Michael went to it along with Frank Oz, Brian Henson etc), toy premiums, and plenty of TV exposure. Obviously i am a little blurry on what it was like in the states but i do have a lot of the TV appearances and promos on tape and it seemed like Disney was getting behind it though they did have something else out as well at the time. Obviously Peter Pan 2 got made a fuss off - they released it in a fairly quiet period for kids movies, it's 100% their own so they make more money, and they have places like Mc Donalds in their pocket so plenty of promotion there. While PP2 was promoted well though i don't think the promotion was as effective as MTI and at least over here, Peter Pan 2 was a total washout despite the promotion. I'm just saying that for a film that wasn't totally 'Disney', MTI didn't get a real bad deal from them.

I guess we are getting back to how people were saying that Disney doesn't respect or understand Henson but i actually think that things aren't as bad as people think. Yes Disney get upto all sorts but then all companies do - i guess the question is whether any other company would treat Henson any differently than Disney would - i really doubt it right now. Seeing as the Henson sale contracts don't (as far as i'm aware) give up total creative control you might find Disney treating Henson a little better than they do their own productions.

[frogboy4]

I was actually surprised how little promotion there was for MTI in the West Coast. There were a few 20 second spots and an appearance by Kermit on the Tonight Show, but on E (Entertainment Televison) they never ran the MTI preview - and they run any and everything they are sent. There were no bilboards or posters except for at theaters and no displays at that. I don't even rememver a public premier being reported. It was all very discouraging to me.

[Drtooth]

"We're in a sewer. Nothing beats the Magic of DIsney"--Gonzo (you can take this quote either way!) Buying copyrights is a dangerous game. It may have a positive effect, or a negitive one. Most companies just buy a copyright because it's there. Viacom bought the rights to all the Terrytoons cartoons, and except for a few Mighty Mouse Tees, they've disappeared. L'oreal cosmetics company once bought the rights to Filmation, and did nothing with it! On the flip side, Golden Books purchased the rights to Underdog cartoons, and released him on home video and DVD! But let's look at the facts. Disney owning Henson may have as many advantages as disadvantages. Back about '90, they started having Muppet attractions at their themeparks (one of the only things I'd die to do, I'd rather go to Universal and see Bullwinkle!). And in '93, videos came out by the dozens (Fraggles, Muppet Babies, Muppets, etc.). Plus they eased us in to the purchase with the Muppets at Disney World special (so much more watchable than any number of sitcoms go to Diseny!) I doubt they'd have a Muppets go to "Weird German Studio no one has heard about" special. (It'd go something like this, Kermit: Here we are at EMTV Studios. Fozzie: How can you tell? Kermit: I'm not sure. I don't even think any of the employees know what this is!) --------------------------------------------
But on the down side, let's face it, Disney may have a cutesy, sugar coated apperence, but deep down, they're an evil cutthroat business. They've no idea of what they are doing. They've given up catering to the mouse, and started cowtowing to the Bear (Winnie the Pooh, to be more exact). They'd over merchandise the stupidest things and the Muppets would be, in these times, left out in the cold. Look at the 102 Dalmations merchandising frenzie. It was a critically reviled movie, it flopped, and merchandise was shipped to a landfill just to get rid of it. Meanwhile, Emperor's New Groove was a Two thumbs up movie, and it was left out. Not to mention the fact that DIsney could find a way to butcher the Muppets or ruin them or something. (For some reason they bought the rights to Power Rangers! No kidding!) WHo knows what the new business will do?
So what ever side your on, just think that who ever buys it may, or may not use them.

[Fozzie Bear]

I know somebody's gonna fuss at good ole Foz, but here goes:

2 things I complain about: Muppet Babies and Disney.

Muppet Babies cause I don't think they help the story at all (although Baby Fozzie is cute, he's really made to be dumber than usual).

Disney because I know that they will murder anything that is not originally Disney, which is evident since they murder their OWN stuff.

EM.TV was disastrous, and folks have said "They promoted such and such..." and I don't see where anything was helped by it.

But these are only my own opinions and not necessarily intended to be the sermon by which others may follow.

I think JHC has got a grasp of what they want to do now, and I think they're beginning to look "BACK" at what they've done, and we will see bigger better things from the Muppets. I'm still set in my decision that I think JHC should belong to the JHC and all will be well again...they can partner with other companies who don't necessarily have to own them.

I wish I had the money to buy JHC, and we'd all have some jobs there! LOL! But, JHC would be able to make their own decisions and carry out the ideals set forth by Jim the Man, not those ideals decided upon by Michael Eisner and Co.

But, that's only what I think.
FOZ

[Drtooth]

RIGHT ON, FOZZWOCKA!!!

[Patty]

I actually hope it all goes to Disney. I'm not a Disney fan by any stretch, but it is what Jim wanted. He said in late interviews that the muppets would live forever at Disney. He was no fool. He'd seen Disney's high times and low times.

Disney has put other properties above the mouse before and will gladly do so for love of money. Perhaps Disney would release some long-forgotten Muppet TV specials. Perhaps they'll open additional amusement park exhibits.

Say, shouldn't the Henson kids be able to buy the company back for what they received?

[frogboy4]

Half of what the Henson family received was in EMTV stock which is slightly more valueable than Enron stock - or at least the last time I checked. :)

[Luke]

The Henson kids actually managed to get rid of their EMTV stock just before it really dropped massively. From what i've heard they made a big loss but narrowly avoided serious financial catastrophe. I don't think there is a member of the Henson family now with EMTV shares !

If the company was going for say 300 million they could probably be able to afford to buy it back, but i doubt they'd want to. They must have forseen big potential financial problems with the company to actually sell it - i think it's safe to say they didn't see things getting any better. They still make enough money out of Henson stuff and their own businesses - charging EMTV rent for the Henson studio's must bring in a few million.

[Fozzie Bear]

I think had Jim lived, the deal with Disney would have been okay as long as he was there to over-see it all; but I don't think he would have really REALLY wanted them to own the whole thing.

FOZ

[Luke]

I don't think Jim would have approved of the EMTV thing - they made all this crap up at the start about Haffa having a family business but i really don't think Jim would have wanted his company in German hands. The Muppets are kinda an American institution - i think if anyone it would have been Disney.

[frogboy4]

"The Muppets are kinda an American institution"

I couldn't agree more. An American born institution with UK relatives, of course. LOL!:)

[Bean Bunny]

EM.TV sure has been very silent about the Muppets right now. They said that would sell them this spring but there have no article or news about this going on. Is EM.TV just going to keep the Jim Henson Company?

[Fozzie Bear]

I agree with Luke. I don't think Jim would have approved of that, either.

In the meantime, EM.TV could just give JHC to me, and I'll make sure we all have jobs!!

FOZ

[Luke]

Yeah it's amazing that the Henson kids did that - i would think there is a big reason why that we all have no clue about, it wasn't very like them. I suppose money talks though and EMTV certainly made them an offer they found hard to refuse.

I agree with Foz, we should all have jobs at Henson - and i volunteer to be head penguin trainer and chicken stuffer !

[EmmyMik]

Originally posted by FOZZI3B3AR
I agree with Luke. I don't think Jim would have approved of that, either.

In the meantime, EM.TV could just give JHC to me, and I'll make sure we all have jobs!!

FOZ

I'll give you a pack of gum if you'll let me be Bill's bodyguard...

:)

[Fozzie Bear]

You are the guards of Bill's Body, the keeper of the glasses and the scissors, and the protector of Steve's hair and Jerry's beard, and Karen's Red Fraggle Hat. :)

FOZ

[Luke]

You may have appointed the keepers of the hat but as CEO of the 'Karen Prell Canoodlers' club i must insist the hat is placed on a golden plinth at all times, aside from Muppetfests whereby it will be placed in a bag with the gratuitous penguin and be surrounded by security guards at all times.

[Drtooth]

First of all, I'd like to correct myself. The first post I put about this subject, I said DIsney purchased Henson. That's wrong. I meant "Merged." But beside that,
I hope the Muppets don't get purchased by Viacom. Why? They own, like I said before, Terrytoons (mIghty Mouse, Mighty Heores, Heckle and Jeckle). They do absolutely nothing with it, except put stuff on t-shirts. They're more interrested in making money off RUgrats (Muppet Babies were soo much better), and Rocket Power (BLEEEEECH!!!). Spongebob, as well, but I like Spongebob! They'd probably put the Muppet gang on a coupla bad t-shirts, Lunchboxes, and say good day, let's toss 'em in the vault!
I can't stand when someone decides to purchase a company, just for kicks. It's an impulse buy. It's the three dollar Magazine you buy that's right next to the counter that you never read again!

[EmmyMik]

Originally posted by FOZZI3B3AR
You are the guards of Bill's Body, the keeper of the glasses and the scissors, and the protector of Steve's hair and Jerry's beard, and Karen's Red Fraggle Hat. :)

FOZ

I can't speak for Jackie, but Luke, you can be keeper of the hat.

Foz, can I have a nifty title like:

Emmy the Spoovy -- Safety Operations Advisor of the Jim Henson Company

(well I already have the "Emmy the Spoovy" part. I just want to be the "Safety Operations Advisor")...

:D

[sidcrowe]

Yeah, I've thought about that, too. But the deal fell through when Jim passed, and most important, the people Jim himself picked to deal with, to be the stewards of the Muppets...the people he trusted personally...well....they aren't there anymore. The folks he made his deal with aren't the ones who'll get the Muppets.

That's why I don't want Disney.:mad:

[frogboy4]

Oooh. You used a meanie face. LOL! I feel the same way on the topic. Can't use a meanie face though 'cause all that frowning gives ya wrinkles.;)

[Bean Bunny]

The folks he made his deal with aren't the ones who'll get the Muppets.


Eisner still there. :D

[Fozzie Bear]

Originally posted by EmmyMik
I can't speak for Jackie, but Luke, you can be keeper of the hat.
Foz, can I have a nifty title like: Emmy the Spoovy -- Safety Operations Advisor of the Jim Henson Company

Emmy the Spoovy--you are hereby declared "Safety Operations Advisor of the JHC" and will be the thus appointer of the security over the Karen Prell Red Hat, the gratuitous penguin, and the Muffin counter, not to mention co-guard of Bill's Body.

Key guard over the hat and penguin should be Luke, I think, because he's so passionate about those items...and his avatar is really pretty right now! I think maybe we should attempt to acquire Karen Prell herself for our company to be kept under guard and well protected...of course, Mike can visit! :)

Jackie still is one of the guards of Bill's Body, the keeper of the glasses and the scissors, and the protector of Steve's hair and Jerry's beard, and superior-supervisor over those who will be appointed the security people to help make your job easier.

By the way, all security members are armed with rubber chickens and talking vegetables.

*Sigh!* It's good to own the JHC and give my friends jobs!!

FOZ!

[Muppets1985]

**The folks he made his deal with aren't the ones who'll get the Muppets.


Eisner still there** Bean what do u mean by that???? btw MTI was on Disney channel (5/7/02) just to let every one know!

[EmmyMik]

Emmy the Spoovy--you are hereby declared "Safety Operations Advisor of the JHC" and will be the thus appointer of the security over the Karen Prell Red Hat, the gratuitous penguin, and the Muffin counter, not to mention co-guard of Bill's Body.

Can I wear a cape too?

:D

:cool:

[Fozzie Bear]

You ABSOLUTELY CAN wear a cape, and carry an invisibility robe with you, and bullet deflecting wrist bracelets, too!!

Not that anybody could see you through that invisibility robe...oh, but what fun you can have with Bill while protecting him, right?

FOZ:rolleyes:

[Jackie]

Originally posted by FOZZI3B3AR
You ABSOLUTELY CAN wear a cape, and carry an invisibility robe with you, and bullet deflecting wrist bracelets, too!!

Not that anybody could see you through that invisibility robe...oh, but what fun you can have with Bill while protecting him, right?

FOZ:rolleyes:

WAIT!! I thought I was protecting Bill!!!!!

[EmmyMik]

Originally posted by Jackie


WAIT!! I thought I was protecting Bill!!!!!

Jackie, we can both protect Bill.

However, I don't think you get a cape...


:D

[Jackie]

Can i have a mask like Zoro?

[EmmyMik]

Originally posted by Jackie
Can i have a mask like Zoro?

You know, we're gonna be the coolest looking bodyguards ever.

But, that's what it takes to guard Bill...


:D

[Jackie]

Originally posted by EmmyMik


You know, we're gonna be the coolest looking bodyguards ever.

But, that's what it takes to guard Bill...


:D

If we didn't look cool we would just be the average Bill Barretta Borrowers, looking cool is what makes us special and worthy of protecting him LOL!

[EmmyMik]

Originally posted by Jackie


If we didn't look cool we would just be the average Bill Barretta Borrowers, looking cool is what makes us special and worthy of protecting him LOL!

We'd be even cooler than those Secret Servie guys!

[Fozzie Bear]

You can have a Zorro mask and hat, and carry a toothpick; that way, if anybody gets too close to Bill or Pepe, you can poke them...considering that they might cause harm to either of them.

Bobo can handle himself as long as he doesn't get too confused.

Emmy and Jackie, Official Bill Baretta Bodyguard Super Duo!

FOZ

[EmmyMik]

Emmy and Jackie, Official Bill Baretta Bodyguard Super Duo!

Now that's a title!

And we have our own theme song, thanks to Joggy.

I think we're on our way to having our own Saturday morning cartoon show (hey, if the **shudders** Olson Twins can do it, Jackie and I can!)...

:D

[Fozzie Bear]

Yeah, but *shudders even more* Bob Saget has to be your DAD?!

FOZ
:eek:

[EmmyMik]

Originally posted by FOZZI3B3AR
Yeah, but *shudders even more* Bob Saget has to be your DAD?!

FOZ
:eek:

Bob Saget.

:eek:

Olson Twins.

:eek: :eek:

Let's just change the subject now, before I start having nightmares...

[Fozzie Bear]

Too late, I just fell asleep...

*shudders*

*shudders, whimpers*

*frowns, tenses up, shudders some more*

*dreams Dad Saget is tucking him in and...*

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

I just had the WORST nightmare! I dreamed...

I WAS AN OLSEN TWIN!?!!! AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

[Bean Bunny]

Maybe the Olsen Twins' company "Dual-Star Entertainment" should buy "The Jim Henson Company", think of the video possiblies. Mary Kate & Ashley With The Muppets, Mary-Kate & Ashley's House Party co-starring The Muppets, and Mary-Kate & Ashley's "The Return Of Bob Saget with Pepe."

[EmmyMik]

Originally posted by Bean Bunny
Maybe the Olsen Twins' company "Dual-Star Entertainment" should buy "The Jim Henson Company", think of the video possiblies. Mary Kate & Ashley With The Muppets, Mary-Kate & Ashley's House Party co-starring The Muppets, and Mary-Kate & Ashley's "The Return Of Bob Saget with Pepe."

Oh geez, I hope it never comes to that!

:D



I think I'm gonna have nightmares now!

:)

[Fozzie Bear]

The nightmares get darker and more evil!

[Drtooth]

ARRRRG!!!! NIGHT TERRORS!!!! COBRAS!!!! BOB SAGET!! NO NO NO NO NOOOO!!!


shudder.. only a dream.. only a dream. The olson twins will get uglier and Fat and no one will hire them.. I gotta keep telling myself that!!!

[scarylarrywolf]

YOU GUYS ARE SOOOOO PREDICTABLE!! I looked at the first page of messages and then skipped to the last and you're on a COMPLETELY different topic! : )

--"Scary" Larry Wolf

[EmmyMik]

Originally posted by scarylarrywolf
YOU GUYS ARE SOOOOO PREDICTABLE!! I looked at the first page of messages and then skipped to the last and you're on a COMPLETELY different topic! : )


Well, you know how it is.

One moment you're talking about who will own the Muppets, and the next you're talking about the Olsen Twins.

It's just one of those Circle of Life type things...

:)

[Fozzie Bear]

Yeah, but the REAL question is...who's gonna be owning Scary Larry Wolf when all is said and done?????!!!!

:D
FOZ!

[scarylarrywolf]

NO no! No one's gonna own me!!! I claim the 16th Ammendment!!!!!!!!!

--"S." L. W.

[Fozzie Bear]

Scary Larry...

I got $5 says they will!! Who's with me? :)

FOZ

(I'm nearly owned my own self...it's called DEBT my friend! LOL!)