Jim Hill on Saban, the Muppets, and Disney [Archive]

murgatoad

10-09-2002, 09:39 AM

Sorry, guys, but I think some of you really need a bracing dose of reality here. The Muppets are a faded commodity. Period. They may have a certain nostalgia value, but that's about it. This situation came about partly because the Muppets were primarily a novelty act, and the novelty's worn off. Plus high-tech has aced them; for most people, it's a lot more fun to watch a CGI-animated Sully from "Monsters Inc." than a hand-operated Gonzo. For one thing, the CGI Sully is far more flexible and expressive. That's just the way it is. Plus IMO there has been massive mismanagement of the characters themselves. Given all this, IMO $100 million is a VERY reasonable price. The last Muppet movie flopped. The recent special involving Kermit was panned by critics (who are usually pretty soft on Henson) and probably is a dud at the video level. What have the Muppets to offer audiences today? I have a certain fondness for them myself, the way my father had a soft spot for Kukla, Fran and Ollie, but I also have a realistic view of them and their place in this day and age. And frankly, given a choice, I'd rather watch product from Pixar then from the Creature Shop. Because Pixar does with computer imagery what the CS is still trying to do with strings, pulleys and servos. The Muppets a crown jewel? Come on; they were dethroned a long time ago by new technology and creators who, if not more talented, were at least a bit less self-deluded.

JMHO.

jeffy

10-09-2002, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by murgatoad
Sorry, guys, but I think some of you really need a bracing dose of reality here. The Muppets are a faded commodity. Period. They may have a certain nostalgia value, but that's about it. This situation came about partly because the Muppets were primarily a novelty act, and the novelty's worn off. Plus high-tech has aced them; for most people, it's a lot more fun to watch a CGI-animated Sully from "Monsters Inc." than a hand-operated Gonzo. For one thing, the CGI Sully is far more flexible and expressive. That's just the way it is. Plus IMO there has been massive mismanagement of the characters themselves. Given all this, IMO $100 million is a VERY reasonable price. The last Muppet movie flopped. The recent special involving Kermit was panned by critics (who are usually pretty soft on Henson) and probably is a dud at the video level. What have the Muppets to offer audiences today? I have a certain fondness for them myself, the way my father had a soft spot for Kukla, Fran and Ollie, but I also have a realistic view of them and their place in this day and age. And frankly, given a choice, I'd rather watch product from Pixar then from the Creature Shop. Because Pixar does with computer imagery what the CS is still trying to do with strings, pulleys and servos. The Muppets a crown jewel? Come on; they were dethroned a long time ago by new technology and creators who, if not more talented, were at least a bit less self-deluded.

JMHO.

This makes me mad.

The Muppets are a faded commodity, but this has nothing to do with technology. The only thing it has to do with, in my humble opinion, is how the Jim Henson Company has become incompetent, regarding management and promotion their product, ever since Jim passed.

I loved watching Sulley in Monster's, Inc. (the best movie of 2001, in my opinion), but nothing in the world will replace watching Gonzo on Dave Goelz's arm at MuppetFest last year, or any Muppet in any Muppet production. Even the questionable Muppets From Space had its magical moments for me, that can never be replaced by CGI. Sure CGI is great, but its *supplemental*, not replacing.

Your saying that CGI has "aced" the Muppets is absurd. How can you say that artwork created by hand is somewhat less special than that created by on a computer graphics program?! I really enjoyed the Final Fantasy movie, but to say that computer graphic actors "aces" live actors is crazy.

It's not about how fancy the end product looks (don't judge a book by it's cover!). What grabs me is the heart that goes into making it happen.

:' (

Drtooth

10-09-2002, 11:01 AM

Drtooth

10-09-2002, 11:18 AM

Besides.. the only reason why no one likes them anymore, is because the MORON public is too busy watching Porn and mindless reality shows!!!

Henson is too good for today's market!!

Now kindly watch your toungue, sir!

GWGumby

10-09-2002, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Drtooth
Besides.. the only reason why no one likes them anymore, is because the MORON public is too busy watching Porn and mindless reality shows!!!

Henson is too good for today's market!!

Now kindly watch your toungue, sir! Actually, now they have porn, mindless reality shows, and muppets all-in-one! It's called Crank Yankers.

I think Murgatoad has a few valid points, but loses most credibility when saying people want to see Sully over a Muppet. That's just plain wrong. I want to see hand animated cartoons like Lilo & Stitch, stop-motion animation like Nightmare Before Christmas and Wallace & Gromit, and paper cut-outs like South Park (which admittedly is actually CGI), puppets, dummies and marionettes just as much as I want to see CGI animation.

New technologies do not make former ones obsolete, they merely offer alternatives. The illusion of life is what we enjoy in all animation whether puppet or drawing or computer pixels.

Drtooth

10-09-2002, 12:59 PM

I feel that new technology cannot chew up old technology. CGI is becoming more accesable to people, causing god awful local commercials that look like something you could do on a bloody etch-a-sketch! Trust me!

But the Muppets are NOT ancient history! With the Palisades line, the New CD, and talks of a new Fox show (and sesame street still going strong), they will not die out!

Power rangers, however, died out after christmas of 1993!

EmmyMik

10-09-2002, 01:52 PM

I think Jim said it best (or maybe it was Rowlf, I can't remember) when he said, "Technology will never replace art."

danielromens

10-09-2002, 04:01 PM

Actually I don't think he's wrong when he says people would rather watch Sully, but I don't think he's right either. I also don't think Dr. Tooth behaved when someone states and opinion he disagrees with. But check the numbers and see for yourself who did better in the box office, Kermit and Gonzo or Mike and Sully?

There you go. It doesn't mean the one is instantly more liked, but it shows you what's pop right now. The Muppets are not. Most of the buzz their getting now isn't because of the shows the characters are in, but a toy line. Yes it's helping, but I don't think it will fill a theatre. However every picture Pixar has done has been gold. Not because the characters are more likable, but because the writing is a h*** of a lot better than the stuff Henson has been doing. At Pixar the story is the most important and they are on top of their game.

That's why they don't need Disney anymore. Dis is doing nothing but sucking up profits for work they have nothing to do with outside of funding. But thankfully not for long. I see the tyranny of the mouse coming to a close. Why would Pixar want to stay anyway. Disney has made Dinosaur without them and is talking to the Shrek folks. thats just not good business.

The muppets better step it up if they want to retain the attention of the fickle viewing audience.

GWGumby

10-09-2002, 04:35 PM

You hit a very valid point that story is most important. It doesn't matter what medium a production is in, it's the story that matters. Also, a true understanding of one's audience. I think that's been the biggest problem with the Muppets in the past 10 years is that they've blurred too much with their Sesame Street counterparts. I think the figures are a step in the right direction in making Muppets appeal to older fans. Bringing some edge back to their humor and not just marketing them to kids could really help rediscover a wider audience.

By the way, I think it's fairly understood that when I say "edge" I do not mean "Crank Yankers." I mean sophisticated wackiness.

beaker

10-09-2002, 04:45 PM

Heh, I guess Murgatoad didnt make it to Mupptefest, where he would have been proven beyond wrong.

murgatoad

10-09-2002, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by GWGumby
Actually, now they have porn, mindless reality shows, and muppets all-in-one! It's called Crank Yankers.

I think Murgatoad has a few valid points, but loses most credibility when saying people want to see Sully over a Muppet. That's just plain wrong. I want to see hand animated cartoons like Lilo & Stitch, stop-motion animation like Nightmare Before Christmas and Wallace & Gromit, and paper cut-outs like South Park (which admittedly is actually CGI), puppets, dummies and marionettes just as much as I want to see CGI animation.

New technologies do not make former ones obsolete, they merely offer alternatives. The illusion of life is what we enjoy in all animation whether puppet or drawing or computer pixels.

You make valid points, I must admit, but I still insist that MOST people prefer watching a CGI-generated Sully over a Muppet just like most folks prefer to drive a Jaguar over a Model T. And it's not just technical prowess that makes Sully superior; it's the fact that the character was well-written for and well-performed by his "handlers". Something Gonzo and co. can scarcely claim about THEIR handlers since ol' Uncle Jim died. IMO.

murgatoad

10-09-2002, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by danielromens
Actually I don't think he's wrong when he says people would rather watch Sully, but I don't think he's right either. I also don't think Dr. Tooth behaved when someone states and opinion he disagrees with. But check the numbers and see for yourself who did better in the box office, Kermit and Gonzo or Mike and Sully?

There you go. It doesn't mean the one is instantly more liked, but it shows you what's pop right now. The Muppets are not. Most of the buzz their getting now isn't because of the shows the characters are in, but a toy line. Yes it's helping, but I don't think it will fill a theatre. However every picture Pixar has done has been gold. Not because the characters are more likable, but because the writing is a h*** of a lot better than the stuff Henson has been doing. At Pixar the story is the most important and they are on top of their game.

That's why they don't need Disney anymore. Dis is doing nothing but sucking up profits for work they have nothing to do with outside of funding. But thankfully not for long. I see the tyranny of the mouse coming to a close. Why would Pixar want to stay anyway. Disney has made Dinosaur without them and is talking to the Shrek folks. thats just not good business.

The muppets better step it up if they want to retain the attention of the fickle viewing audience.

FWIW I totally agree with you about how Disney is treating Pixar - like SH*T! But then I thought Disney was on its way down the tubes when Eisner, in all his arrogance, let Katzenberg go. I know Jeffy boy can play rough, but his grasp of what makes a good Disney animated film is what really brought back Disney's animation division. His loss is still being felt IMO. As for Pixar - Disney is essentially trying to get a free "Monsters" sequel out of them, from what I understand. Good for Pixar for standing up for its rights.

And also FWIW, I think the Muppet Christmas movie at NBC has a chance of doing well. Nostalgia is big right now. I don't necessarily think that a successful TV movie will engender a comeback - but it couldn't hurt. ;)

kansasteen14

10-09-2002, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by GWGumby
Actually, now they have porn, mindless reality shows, and muppets all-in-one! It's called Crank Yankers.

I think Murgatoad has a few valid points, but loses most credibility when saying people want to see Sully over a Muppet. That's just plain wrong. I want to see hand animated cartoons like Lilo & Stitch, stop-motion animation like Nightmare Before Christmas and Wallace & Gromit, and paper cut-outs like South Park (which admittedly is actually CGI), puppets, dummies and marionettes just as much as I want to see CGI animation.

New technologies do not make former ones obsolete, they merely offer alternatives. The illusion of life is what we enjoy in all animation whether puppet or drawing or computer pixels.

have to say I agree with you 100 percent.also I would like Dis to buy the muppets.

Drtooth

10-11-2002, 11:31 AM

I still could not disagree more! CGI will NEVER replace Muppets, Puppetry, or animatronics, such as they way it will not replace human actors in a movie. Sure, Shrek and Monsters Inc were well done, but also well written. Look at all the crappy, dirivitive CGI shows on TV. Cubix, Max Steel, and Action Man in particular. They are just..just unbearably awful!!! Mindless claptrap that uses the animation to sell the show (and the crummy toys they make). Reboot was one of the few likable shows made from CGI!!!

And bvesides, the Muppets are NOT fading from popularity. Remember the Simpsons when they first came out? Every where you'd go, there'd be Bart T-shirts, toys videogames, etc. Then in like 1992 or 3, they (though still on the air) bottomed out merchandise wise. Nothing! No toys, just a few crummy video games and so on. Now look! Comic Books, comic strips, action figures, Burger King promos..the works. Now we are hit with great stuff like Muppet action figures, bobble heads, videos, a christmas special, a fox show, and even talks of a comic book!

It's just a Muppet Dry spell. We'll see plenty of them in months, years, decades to come!

Luke

10-11-2002, 11:53 AM

Thats right - just look at whats happened to ALF now - even more peculiar. Nothing for ten years almost and now a 3 year advertising deal, soon to come prime time series, DVD's, loads of merchandise. All the retro stuff is getting so popular right now.

Beauregard

10-11-2002, 03:24 PM

OK. All you people every where. Beau is about to speak.

I want to start by addressing you all and saying that each and every one of you has a point.

Murgatoad:
Although I disagree that the Muppets have been badly Performed since "Ol' Uncle Jim" died. The puppeting in KSY was the only thing that almost saved it, the puppets were rubish the script was dreadful, and the actors were well some words do come to mind.

Which moves me on to say that yes I agree that the Muppet script writers have somhow gone downhill. Compare Muppet Treasure Island to KSY.

The maiprolemI think with the muppets now is that, because of the Hoops, Mopotops Shop, andBeari the Big Blue House which are doing well for childrenn the last film was aimedat children.Where as Toy Story and Mosters were writen for adults to enjoy as well as kids.

So what I'd say to JHC is that they should bull up their socks, get some better writers and story lines and aim their films back at an older geeration where they belong.

And now Beau has spoken ---------- Naghy

BoyRaisin2

10-12-2002, 07:07 AM

EM.TV does not own KirchMedia (in case didn't say that already). They are two different companies. I know Saban is interested in them too, but I seriously doubt that has anything to do with the Henson sale.

Unless someone knows different.

Luke

10-12-2002, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by BoyRaisin2
EM.TV does not own KirchMedia (in case didn't say that already). They are two different companies. I know Saban is interested in them too, but I seriously doubt that has anything to do with the Henson sale.

Yeah i think you are quite right, though EMTV is i think one of KirchMedia's main creditors - they were jointly tied in with the F1 deal and many others. Kirch is now being sold off by a German bank and i think the creditors have some influence with them and sit on a board but i'm not sure. Maybe thats where Jim Hill was coming from, i have no idea - maybe Phillip can get some clarification on what he meant.

BoyRaisin2

10-13-2002, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Luke
maybe Phillip can get some clarification on what he meant. [/B]

Alcohol.

Anyway, I wonder if Saban still has any ties with Disney since they own and air all of his shows, which were on the other hand part-owned by Fox? Probably not...

I hope Disney bought Fox Family for the network and not for the bonus of (practically) washed up Saban shows.

Who knows, Henson could always be sold AGAIN. I wouldn't be surprised.

Phillip Chapman

10-13-2002, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Luke
Yeah i think you are quite right, though EMTV is i think one of KirchMedia's main creditors - they were jointly tied in with the F1 deal and many others. Kirch is now being sold off by a German bank and i think the creditors have some influence with them and sit on a board but i'm not sure. Maybe thats where Jim Hill was coming from, i have no idea - maybe Phillip can get some clarification on what he meant.

Remember Kirch Media went bankrupt in July 2002. That changed everything because Kirch lost control of his business, which is now being overseen by administrators working with creditor banks and other companies like EM.TV who have a vested interest in the company's future.

Kirch did help rescue EM.TV when EM.TV almost went bankrupt 18 months ago. That deal was finalized in the Spring of 2001. However, EM.TV has paid off quite a bit of that debt already through selling of other assets (the Henson ones were Sesame characters for $180 million, selling their 65% ownership in Igel, and the Crown Media rights for around $100 million along with selling Formula 1 and many other various deals).

I don't know all the details here exactly, but Kirch still owed EM.TV quite a bit of money from the Formula 1 breakup and several other major partnerships that they agreed to last year, so that's why EM.TV supposedly has a say in who gets Kirch. Reportedly, the same banking firm is also representing EM.TV and Kirch as well. So having Kirch would give Saban more media prowess. While Kirch isn't what it used to be, he'd be getting the Kirch empire along with Henson at a bargain-basement price.

EM.TV has to have 63 million in cash to pay off a loan by the end of the year, so that's why most believe the Henson sale will be complete in November in order to secure the cash necessary to pay off their loan.

BoyRaisin2

10-13-2002, 05:51 PM

From Big Bird and The Dark Crystal to two German companies named Kirch and EM.TV. How far we've come.

Saban, buy KirchMedia. It's bigger!

I still just don't understand how EM.TV could let Mr. Saban get Henson for close to $100 million while Disney (or whoever) could have been expected to pay $200-250 million for our beloved corporation. This is the part that confuses me most of all, since Disney and Viacom are major media companies.

Luke

10-13-2002, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by BoyRaisin2
This is the part that confuses me most of all, since Disney and Viacom are major media companies.

Yeah, i'm sure there would be a lot of speculation as to whether they could get the money together or not in the end, but i actually thought Rivkins management buyout was rumored to be more than $100 Million. I guess Saban could get lucky - we'll be seeing pretty soon. As for Disney - it looks like they would like the Muppets, but their board are looking more at internal expansion rather than external - i guess they don't want to take on any more problems right now than they already have. However, as mentioned - that doesn't neccasarily mean we won't be seeing any Disney/Muppet projects in the future.

BoyRaisin2

10-14-2002, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Luke
As for Disney - it looks like they would like the Muppets, but their board are looking more at internal expansion rather than external - i guess they don't want to take on any more problems right now than they already have. However, as mentioned - that doesn't neccasarily mean we won't be seeing any Disney/Muppet projects in the future.

They had to buy Fox Family, didn't they? Though I've been rooting for Disney, kinda figured they'd never buy them. It was so likely it wasn't likely.

Well, rather a billionaire than AOL Time Warner.

Muppets1985

10-14-2002, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by BoyRaisin2
From Big Bird and The Dark Crystal to two German companies named Kirch and EM.TV. How far we've come.

Saban, buy KirchMedia. It's bigger!

I still just don't understand how EM.TV could let Mr. Saban get Henson for close to $100 million while Disney (or whoever) could have been expected to pay $200-250 million for our beloved corporation. This is the part that confuses me most of all, since Disney and Viacom are major media companies.

YES!! this HAS been bugging the HECK right out of me, Disney offered EM.tv $200, million and EM.Tv sayed "NO!" and now the price IS $100 million and Disney isn't DOING A THING??? GEEEZZZZ!!!...:mad: :mad: Im mean Im just Soooo...so ...sooo MAD right NOW ITS NOT EVEN FUNNY!!! Im mean here i HAVE been Hopping and Prying EVERY night ever since i've heard about this sale (1year ago) and now...**Sigh**......Im soooo sad!:( :( :( :( :( (for real I am!)

latter *crying*

Michael

10-16-2002, 04:37 AM

I just got around to reading Jim Hill's article and I really think in future it might be better for all parties to wait a little before they jump into getting an "Editorial" online ASAP that is basically a rewording of the first press story that we all saw. That with as many attempts as possible to get the editorial on to more comfortable ground (i.e.: Disney) makes it much more of a non editorial than anything new or revealing.

I generally like Jim Hill's articles, but lets face it they are Disney articles and they belong back on a site similar to Laughingplace. This latest one only goes to prove that more.

Those of us who have frequented MC for a while are all used to such phrases as "sources at Henson" in order to give what you are saying more justification, however if they continue to be hollow leads that cannot be proven then that not only reflects on the writer but in turn the site.

In truth nobody really knows what's going on (and that includes the vast majority of people at Henson) and nobody will until just before its announced. We see in the Berlin version of Variety EMTV have said that the Henson company still has possibilities to buy the company back, its going to be a matter of time which is why writing an Editorial one month where you describe Disney as the buyer and then writing another a month later where you presume (because of the latest stories being banded around) that Saban is the new owner only goes to prove that there really is no inside knowledge.

However what Jim Hill has failed to mention is that even if the company does go for the "rock bottom" price of $100 Million there is one h*ll of a lot of baggage that comes with it. The overheads of a company that is producing very little material and whose libraries are bringing in less are massive. There are enormous daily outgoings plus wages and the upkeep of three main offices, two in the States and one in the UK only add to this. The Creatures Shop in London is no where near as busy as it has been in the past and the latest talk is that it may close by the end of the year. Whoever took the company on would not simply be paying out $100 - $200 Million you could at least triple that for the outgoings which would need to be forthcoming almost immediately, not counting the possible debts that have been run up lately.

Basically in my opinion I think Jim should stick to writing about what could have happened rather than what is going to. His articles on Laughing Place giving an insight into the Disney deal were great and provide far more enjoyment than trying to predict the future and ending up with egg on your face.

At least that way Phil will get a better deal for his money.

Michael.

grail

10-16-2002, 04:52 AM

just as an aside...there's a story on Ain't it Cool News (http://www.aintitcoolnews.com) about Pixar. one of the briefly mentioned "super secret" things that the guy found out (it's one of their regulars, not an anonymous poster), is that some upcoming project that no one's supposed to know about involves a "crazy Chef". it's a bit of a stretch, BUT with Pixar and Disney's working relationship, the fact that there's no hard and fast rule that says that Pixar HAS to do animation, and the fact that Disney IS still in the running. it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that "crazy" could mean "Swedish". especially since they made a point of pointing out they didn't know how big a part he would play, if he was part of it at all...which sounds like an ensemble cast to me.

obviously, that's a lot of ifs and thens, but how cool could it be to see the Muppets in the hands of those that brought us Toy Story. the more i think about it, the more i think Lasseter may be one of the few people currently in the entertainment industry that could do them some justice.

oh, and completely by coincidence, there were quite a few Muppet references in the talk back, which was kinda spiffy to see...it wasn't all bile spewing for a change. here's the direct link to the story:

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=13562

make of it what you will, it's probably nothing...but it could be greatness...

*edit*

and i forgot to mention Time Dogs...Henson's first foray into a CGI movie. who better to help with any future projects than Pixar? man, if i turn out to be right i'll really have earned myself a Jr. Detective badge...of course when i'm wrong, i'll just quietly forget that i ever said anything...as will everyone else...right?

heh...

Fozzie Bear

10-16-2002, 08:49 AM

But I STILL say I want JHC to get JHC back in their own grips again.

-I've seen Saban's work, and it doesn't work for me.
-Disney? Overkill on their sequels and use of their animated films into bad tv series and not enough focus on ORIGINAL works: ie, Tarzan and all those other films based on books. Again I ask, "What's wrong with Mickey, Donald, Goofy, et al?"

I don't see anything wrong with a few parodies/remakes of other tales, but not EVERY movie you make.

Honestly, I liked MCC and MTI, but I don't want to see anymore films made based on other works, as I like the original Muppet productions myself.

On another sentence, I would LOVE to see the JHC go back and look at the original TMS, original sketches on SS, and special 'guest' spots they did on other shows and STUDY THOSE WORKS. In my opinion, that is some of their best work, and by studying it, I think they can get back on track to where they need to be going.

Glad to see KPrell posting again. Good to hear a voice (or at least READ it). Reminds me of Muley having gone on RADIO and being asked, "Are you a democrat?" Muley: "No, but I have a demo-video--wanna show it?"

Funzie ;)

Drtooth

10-16-2002, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Fozzie Bear
But I STILL say I want JHC to get JHC back in their own grips again.

-I've seen Saban's work, and it doesn't work for me.
-Disney? Overkill on their sequels and use of their animated films into bad tv series and not enough focus on ORIGINAL works: ie, Tarzan and all those other films based on books. Again I ask, "What's wrong with Mickey, Donald, Goofy, et al?"

Fozzwocka, you have some really valid points, so here's my 2 cents:

Yeah! Saban's work doesn't work for anyone over the age of five! But, he didn't REALLY create them, he just stole them from Japan, and prayed to God that international copyright laws would work for him. Though I must admit, back in the 80's when Hiam Saban wrote music for such shows as Heathcliff, Inspector Gadget, and Super Mario Super Show, he was really good with that stuff. At shows he stinks! He should go back to cartoon scores!

Though I do like the Buzz Lightyear cartoon (what a schnook am I, huh?) I agree with the anti Disney rant! I mean, Tarzan was a disapointment enough as a movie, but an unfunny, uninterresting cartoon show, and sequal (which I bet is nothing but clips of the show spliced together) are awful. I hoped the sequal would be good, since it left out Tarzan's rightful place as the Duke or Lord of something. My entire understanding of Tarzan is based on a 50's MAD article called Melvin of the Apes, so if I'm wrong, please don't get snippy!

But then again, House of Mouse (starring good ol' Mickey, as you put it) is junk, a corny commercial for the other movies. Mickey goes and says.."Hey gang! I'm goin' over to the Beast of Beauty and the Beast, who just so happens to have his movie rereleased to video!" Plus, I don't think Mickey is such a big deal anyway, since Disney himself stopped making cartoons of him to focus on DOnald and Goofy (whom I like waaaayyy more than the mouse).

However (agian) Disney has released some GOOD original cartoon movies, Lilo and Stitch, Emperor's New Groove (both my absolute fave Dizzy flicks), and Atlantis. No more of this lame-a-zoid Princess movie junk. Boy, that really got on my nerves after Pocahauntas! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!

The live action movies, however, are pure..well...let's say I don't talk about it in mixed company! Snow Dogs and Country BEars?!?!?! I think that Henson should have refused to make any animatronics for those doo-doo flicks!

I'm not really good at Buisness, though! Basically I cannot see why Henson can't stand alone. Basically I cannot see why ANY company can't stand alone! What the Heck is up with companies purchasing everything in sight when copywrites expire?!??!?!