The Mouse is Wooing Miss Piggy

[Phillip Chapman]

As mentioned yesterday, Jim Hill's "Movin' Right Along" series of articles (http://www.muppetcentral.com/news/newsbits/2002/021602.shtml) are still in the works. They've just been slowed down due to the Henson sale.

In the meantime, Jim is assisting with writing some supplemental stories about the current status of the Henson buyout. The first of these is now on-line. It's entitled, Forget about "Froggy Went A 'Courting." Check out how the Mouse is wooing Miss Piggy! (http://www.muppetcentral.com/news/newsbits/2002/060402.shtml)

Let us know your thoughts on this interesting perspective of the Disney-Henson relationship.

[DrummerMan]

You know what... I'm a die hard Disney fan... not the company, but the man, and what he stood for. Sadly, the company has done almost a complete 180 from that. As much as I believe Disney could funnel tons of money into the Muppet franchise, I also believe that their management style and money first attitude would absolutely kill what makes the Muppets great.

I say that Pixar should buy out the Muppets. Then together, they could become bigger than Disney and buy them out, returning them to their former glory.

Just a thought. :D

[radionate]

I don't honestly know what to think anymore. I've always been a huge fan of Disney, but I really don't know what to think about ownership anymore.

Disney seems like a logically choice, just because of their sheer power, financial position, visibility, and vast resources available at their disposal. Unfortunately though, they are at a very dry point creatively (which we discussed to no extent on the board). However, all things are cyclical, and things might begin to swing upward in the near future. If that happens, then we might see some wonderful things with the Muppets, including their own section of the park in Florida, and in California Adventures. But, I feel we'll also see an influx of crap in the Disney stores. Is lots of crap better then no crap at all? Dunno.

And what about CTW? I seem to remember that Disney was trying to strong arm JHC with regards to merchandise from Sesame Street. Will this happen again? Will our beloved Big Bird be the newest Bean Bag in the Disney store, with no money from its sale going to CTW or Sesame Workshop? I haven't kept up with that all that much. Perhaps someone can elaborate.

Is a company buyback a good thing? Dunno either. Will Rivkin have enough capital to make projects happen? What happens if they have a couple of big flops on their hands? Will they go back on the selling block?

AOL/Time Warner. No can do. Don't think they'd be able to do what needs to be done with Kermit and Co. Look at the crap Hanna Barbara is pumping out now.

Universal. Nah. They’d be reduced to kid's fare. Need I remind everyone of the hundreds of direct to video sequels for "Land Before Time" and "All Dogs Go To Heaven"!!!! (Universal is the one that started all this direct to video sequel nonsense stuff.)

So Regis, my final answer is....well I still don't know!!!!

Let the debate begin!!!!!!:confused:

[Phillip Chapman]

EM.TV sold the rights to the Sesame Street characters (http://www.muppetcentral.com/news/tv/2000/120400.shtml) for 180 million to Sesame Workshop in December 2000.

No matter who ends up with JHC, it's good to know that the Sesame characters should be in capable hands (so to speak) with the Sesame Workshop.

[radionate]

Phillip,

Thanks, first off, for the link! But I have questions that I'm hoping you or someone else could answer.

Does the JHC have any control over the Sesame Characters now? What’s to stop S.W. from hiring new performers not affiliated with JHC to perform Elmo or Cookie Monster. The whole press release seemed a little vague.

All merchandising revenue goes directly to S.W. correct?

JHC has no input on product development, correct?

Would new owners of the JHC allow whatever partnership that is there to continue? Would new characters be created from the Muppet Workshop?

I'm confused (story of my life)

[statnwaldorf]

Firstly to answer the SS Q's.

Henson's do have a contract or such like with CTW (sesame workshop) but there is nothing stopping them hiring other puppeteers or makers and from what I have heard (and witnessed) this has actually started to happen.

All revenue goes to Sesame Workshop.

JHC does have input through the artists, performers etc that work for Sesame via them.

There is no doubt that the partnership that Henson has with Sesame is extremely important and also fantastic publicity however it may not be Henson's (or its new owners) choice to sever or change some of the working relationships.

Now to Jim Hill's article. First off great, well done. I enjoyed it and I like Jim's style. However he is rather crafty, and talented, in that he's taken a few quite separate and generic crossovers between Henson's and Disney and tried to make rather more out of them than there really is.

Obviously there is no doubt Disney is the largest player in the bidding for Henson, you'd have to have your head in the sand if you didn't think that. However I really don't think the examples that Jim has given prove that they are any more or any less interested than if these things hadn't happened.

We begin with the fact that Dave Goelz voices the new Figment. Most of us knew this already, but is the fact that he is doing it really such a surprise? Henson have great voice talents everyone knows that, Dave clearly spent a lot of time at Disney over the years and I'm sure they are very aware of the talent that he has for voices. Just like Pixar used Frank Oz in Monsters Inc, does this also mean that Pixar are clearly ready to pounce? No it basically means that within this field they are using recognised talent, who at the moment lets face it have very little else to do apart from a couple of Denny's commercials.

The reference that they are now wooing Dave Goelz because Brian Henson resigned as Chairman is a little far fetched. Obviously Disney if they were to buy the company would want the talent to remain. But do you think they are really that scared that they have to start bribing them with jobs? Of course not they know that if they bought the Muppets and proposed new shows for them to be in, the vast majority of the time the puppeteers would be right there with their hands in the air. In one sense Disney are reported to have this hardened attitude to their home-grown talent such as their animators, then according to some people the next thing they are meant to be is extremely worried that the voice of a puppet, from a company that they "might" one day buy, may not work for them........it just ain't like that. All they are doing is using talent that is there for a project that became available.

Despite the history between the companies Disney and Henson have generally had a good working relationship. The Creature Shop is well known as the leaders in its field when it comes to animatronics and therefore when creating a film such as Snowdogs or Dinotopia they chose Henson's to create the animatronics for them. just as they have so many times over the years with such films as 101 Dalmatians or George of the Jungle to name but two. This is nothing new, it has happened for a very long time and probably always will. To make out it is another form of Disney helping out and keeping the Henson team busy ready for a takeover, really is clutching at straws. Remember they are providing revenue for EMTV when doing this, not just Henson.

And finally renting, and I emphasise the word RENTING, the studio space out to Henson for Kermit's Swamp Years, was more of a coup for Disney than it was a "deal" to keep the Henson team happy. The Henson Company were filming in the Florida swaps what better place than Walt Disney World to have the studio, especially with the added bonus for WDW that those little tour guides with the fake grins could tell the kids who were hanging on every word that Kermit filmed his latest film here. It works for both companies Henson get good studio space close to their location filming and Disney get an extra attraction on their backlot tour. Its no conspiracy, no wooing, as Jim hill seems to be making out, just good business sense.

Overall I really like Jim's style, I loved his work for LaughingPlace.com - but don't patronise us! We all know its a possibility that Disney may buy Henson, we don't need the evidence of a few mildly related incidents to prove it. If that were the case we might as well say NASCAR or Denny's were in with a chance.

Michael.

[ZootandDingo]

Originally posted by radionate
AOL/Time Warner. No can do. Don't think they'd be able to do what needs to be done with Kermit and Co. Look at the crap Hanna Barbara is pumping out now.

Although I cannot stand most of Cartoon Network's new productions, how can one deny that The Powerpuff Girls are unbelievably popular right now?

And also, look at it this way....in 1997 Warner Bros. took a 30-year-old low budget lackluster Saturday morning cartoon and turned it into one of the hottest kids properties of the 90's. And that was something that had virtually zero audience for several years, unlike the Muppets that have always maintained a strong fanbase.

Likewise, Viacom has taken properties such as Ren and Stimpy, Beavis and Butt-Head, and SpongeBob SquarePants and have made them cult hits with both kids and adults.

No matter which studio (if any) acquires Henson, each one is going to have its faults in the past for whatever reasons. But honestly, it's not as bleak as some seem to make it. Disney is NOT the only viable option.

I have very little confidence in Disney myself, so I would be happy with almost any other solution. If I may use their most popular acquired franchise as an example, the corporation is currently being sued over due profits made from the billions of Winnie the Pooh products worldwide. Plus, a few years ago they decided to whittle down the cast by firing thirty-year Tigger voice Paul Winchell and replacing him with Pooh's voice artist Jim Cummings. Granted those are just individual examples in a whole nigh-century of the company's existance, but when I hear stuff like that happen with their most successful property it makes me leery of what could happen to another franchise that they're looking for a dirt cheap deal on.

[radionate]

Originally posted by ZootandDingo
Look at it this way....in 1997 Warner Bros. took a 30-year-old low budget lackluster Saturday morning cartoon and turned it into one of the hottest kids properties of the 90's. And that was something that had virtually zero audience for several years, unlike the Muppets that have always maintained a strong fanbase.

Which series are you talking about?

Likewise, Viacom has taken properties such as Ren and Stimpy, Beavis and Butt-Head, and SpongeBob SquarePants and have made them cult hits with both kids and adults.

I credit that to excellent writing, not production quality. But you have a point, they are fun shows, but will they stand up to the test of time? Ren and Stimpy and B & BH are already starting to disappear from the collective conscious of the public.

Plus, a few years ago they decided to whittle down the cast by firing thirty-year Tigger voice Paul Winchell and replacing him with Pooh's voice artist Jim Cummings.

Did he get fired or did he retire? Or did he "retire" at the request of Disney. He is getting up there in years you know.

[Luke]

Phillip,

I basically agree with what Michael says, but i'm going to be a litle less forgiving, basically because i haven't really read Jim Hill's work before, and i also don't know his background.

I just found the whole article very badly put together, and as Michael implies, it just basically picks at straws which support the argument, and ignores other things that would prove it wrong - thats no way to build a hypotheses.

You can't SERIOUSLY make a connection between Dave Goelz voicing a character for a ride, and Disney aquiring Henson. Thats just TOTAL rubbish. The whole process of aquiring a company would be dealt with at top management level - the producers involved with hiring voice talent wouldn't even be in the loop. I also think any relationship between Brian Henson stepping down and Disney wooing Muppeteers is total fantasy as is any connection with the Treasure Island DVD - it clearly isn't happening. As for pointing out and linking to press releases where it's speculated that Disney are interested in aquiring Henson then fine, but what about the press releases and articles that say Disney aren't interested (especially at the asking price) and also the recent one that says Rivkin is the current sole bidder, and pretty much implies Disney is no longer interested. I'm not saying that either version is true or false but if you focus on both of them rather than just quickly gloss over one then it becomes a more accurate and structured article.

Apparently the 'big dogs' are circling the Henson deal, hoping against hope that the price tags for the Muppets will hit basement level. Is this person serious ? It's probably been one of the longest sales in history, with fairly lacklustre interest, and Allen & Co are having to seek out a second round of bids. I know theres been a fair amount of interest, but please !

I know that Jim Hill has a fairly nice writing style and it has obviously worked well for the Disney site, and all kudos to him for taking the time to write an article for 'Muppet Central'. I do though think that the content was pretty laughable and contains nothing more than an uninformed fan opinion that could have been posted on the forum. If you want someone to give media industry insight into this kind of sale process then it's probably a good idea to find people who really know what they're talking about and have experience of it professionally rather than getting a fairly well known writer to look at the press releases and make some guesses that are just total twaddle. I know it's his own personal opinion but it's so way off course and just so untrue - i would have expected something more accurate for the main site. If this kind of thing can get published are you gonna give everyone a page on the main site to air their conspiracy theories ?

I'm beginning to dread to think what the 'Movin Right Along' articles contain, and i hope that you have a little think about publishing total inaccuracies about Henson people on a site that they come and read for themselves. I also think you should consider removing the references to Dave Goelz or at least seeking permission for them - its very offensive to him to imply that by accepting professional work from Disney he is somehow being kept happy by them and may be being 'sweet-talked' into accepting any aqusition by Disney - if that was me i would be absolutely furious !

[danielromens]

Luke, isn't it you who has posted a lot of "conspiricy theories" yourself. Not only that but your buddies at Toughpigs aren't exactly A-1 writers of fact either. It's opinion, and though I also think it to be far fetched, lets watch for the hypocracy dude.

[radionate]

Luke,

I'm not backing the article by Jim Hill at all, in fact I believe that in many instances he is indeed grasping at straws, but in regards to Figment being voiced by Dave, I find it a little interesting.

Disney has a stable full of voice talent that they use on a regular basis. Add to that the vast number of voice over artists out there, it seems odd that they would hire a muppeteer.

Now I'm not saying that its a causal relationship between Disney and Henson, but it does raise eyebrows when you seriously think about it. Has Dave done much independent voice work in the past? No. He's a Muppeteer. Period.

Perhapes the WDI execs met Dave while he was in Florida for Kermit's Swamp Years (if he even worked on the show). But then again....

[Luke]

Daniel,

The point is that these 'conspiracy theories' are in a professional article about the Henson sale on the main internet site, and i'd also like to think i've spent a little more time studying this. Anything i've said has been on the forum and i have the same amount of airspace as you or Frogboy, or Boyrasin etc etc. As you've said before, you don't like reading in-between the lines but this is just what this article is doing, but it's presented as more than that and still coming to the wrong conclusions. I don't feel like the statements made in this article deserve any special treatment on the main site above what other people have already said.

Seeing as you brought Toughpigs into it - the article i recently wrote for Toughpigs was seen by the production team of the show, and also had input from a Henson puppeteer working on the show - it was written in a humorous way but it was accurate.

I also find it totally offensive to Dave Goelz using both his name and image without persmission to imply things about his professional work. He's a very nice and honest guy, and i'd hate people to think he is in some way being 'bought' into accepting Disney - thats totally unfair !!!!! As someone else has pointed out, yes it might be 1% interesting that they used him, but at the end of the day they can use whoever the heck they like. I didn't like the way that by the end of the article it kind of sums up in a kind of 'now we know this is whats really going on' tone - and that just simply is NOT the case.

[statnwaldorf]

I have to agree with Luke on the point about Dave Goelz, that was the impression I got and intimated to in my response earlier.

To almost blatantly say (along side a photograph of Dave Goelz from Muppetfest) that Dave is being given jobs by Disney just to keep him "sweet" and in order to make sure that he stays on whenever a possible buyout takes place, is pretty disgraceful. I am sure, without attempting to speak for him, that Dave was given the job of voicing Figment on his own merit and his past record and not some "bung" from Disney to ensure that he's happy.

This clearly is Jim Hill's own opinion which is fine, but when it relies on supposition then it is right to think that it belongs more here on the forum than as a hyped up article on the main site. Unless of course there is some actual evidence that Dave really was given the job as a favour from Disney, if not its probably best not said.

As I said before I have read Jim Hill's articles on Laughingplace, more than once and found them to be great, really informative with an easy style and great content. However I fear that either in a rush to achieve something quickly or with a lack of actual content this time he's scored an own goal.

Michael.

[Muppets1985]

Well all I can say is that Disney has my vote 100% all the way!. And I think way deep down EVERY one here knows that Disney WILL end up with the Muppets. YES! You can tell that Disney IS sucking up, but hey thats HollyWood for you. and I don't think Disney is really "luering" Dave in, well... maybe.

[frogboy4]

I enjoyed the article though I do think it takes the examples a little too far. I do feel that they should be examined and I am glad somebody did so. I guess articles like anything else are like Rorschach tests. Reactions often reflect our own perspectives rather than what is on the page. This may not be the case, but it is food for thought. It seems sometimes that negative themes can be read into anything. I personally think everybody has gone a little overboard in this analysis including Jim too, but it made for an interesting column. Isn't that what columnists do - analyze information to a conclusion? :)

[ZootandDingo]

Originally posted by radionate
Look at it this way....in 1997 Warner Bros. took a 30-year-old low budget lackluster Saturday morning cartoon and turned it into one of the hottest kids properties of the 90's. And that was something that had virtually zero audience for several years, unlike the Muppets that have always maintained a strong fanbase.
Which series are you talking about?

My error. I was referring to Scooby-Doo.


Likewise, Viacom has taken properties such as Ren and Stimpy, Beavis and Butt-Head, and SpongeBob SquarePants and have made them cult hits with both kids and adults.
I credit that to excellent writing, not production quality. But you have a point, they are fun shows, but will they stand up to the test of time? Ren and Stimpy and B & BH are already starting to disappear from the collective conscious of the public.

Of course, it is apples and oranges when you look at the actual quality and styles of the shows, but I was moreso referring to how effectively Viacom has marketed them. They have taken otherwise overlooked programs and had launched them into the forefronts. My point is simply can one imagine if that kind of corporate drive was applied to something with an already built-in fanbase as The Muppets?

And veering off the topic slightly, Ren and Stimpy are coming back courtesy of their creator, so we'll see if lightning can strike twice.

Plus, a few years ago they decided to whittle down the cast by firing thirty-year Tigger voice Paul Winchell and replacing him with Pooh's voice artist Jim Cummings.
Did he get fired or did he retire? Or did he "retire" at the request of Disney. He is getting up there in years you know.

I'm not exactly sure what the proper terminology would be. They invited Paul Winchell to audition for whatever the next production was, and then they went ahead with Jim Cummings. So whether or not it was a "firing" in the legal sense is open to debate.

From what I have learned about voice artists (particularly the old school gang that contained Mel Blanc, Daws Butler, and Paul), they will pretty much keep doing it until they drop. So, I would doubt it if he was willing to retire just yet.

And I forgot to mention this before, but do we need to discuss how Fox handles their properties such as The Simpsons or Planet of the Apes? I'm just reiterating my point that all of the studios have had successes as big as Disney's with handling characters and marketing.

And as far as I know, every major studio has the same odds of lasting as long as Disney, so I hardly see how that needs to be factored in. I don't think anybody is really worrying about Universal or Warner Bros. going away anytime soon.

Every one of the studios has their strong points (likewise their weak points, as well), so I'm just not going to write Disney off as the victor just yet....especially since there has yet to have been a public offer made by them.

My prediction is that Disney is going to sit on its thumbs for too long waiting for a good deal, and someone else is going to grab the company in the meantime. Eisner can make all of the public love letters he wants to, but if another studio calls his bluff and makes a bid, then we will really see how serious he is in owning Henson.

[BoyRaisin2]

Well, at least now I have a nice picture of my favorite Muppet with my favorite cartoon character (not to mention Ozzy Osbourne).

Is it me or are Mickey and Kermit looking at each other funny?

[frogboy4]

You are correct. I wanted Mickey and Kermit's expressions to be ambiguous to reflect the varietly of opinions on the topic. Glad you like the pic (pssst - drew the Mickey myself). ;)

[radionate]

Originally posted by frogboy4
You are correct. I wanted Mickey and Kermit's expressions to be ambiguous to reflect the varietly of opinions on the topic. Glad you like the pic (pssst - drew the Mickey myself). ;)

Way to go Frogboy!!!!! Awesome job!:D

[BoyRaisin2]

Oh that was you Frogboy! Awesome pic! Got any more? :-)

[radionate]

Originally posted by ZootandDingo
Of course, it is apples and oranges when you look at the actual quality and styles of the shows, but I was moreso referring to how effectively Viacom has marketed them. They have taken otherwise overlooked programs and had launched them into the forefronts. My point is simply can one imagine if that kind of corporate drive was applied to something with an already built-in fanbase as The Muppets?

And veering off the topic slightly, Ren and Stimpy are coming back courtesy of their creator, so we'll see if lightning can strike twice.

ZootandDingo,

Scooby Doo has had a LARGE fan base since its inception. Why else would there have been so many incarcerations of it over the years? Warner Brothers had very little to do with creating a "breakout hit", it already was one. What helped propel it back into the limelight was the fact that the first generation that grew up with Scooby and Shaggy are now having children that are also watching; it’s a double whammy. The worst thing is that Warner Brothers almost saturated and did overkill with Scooby when they gained rights to the Hanna Barbara library a few years back.

I think the success of shows like Beavis and Butthead, Ren & Stimpy, and Sponge Bob Square Pants isn't so much the marketing of Viacom, but rather a MINIMAL AMOUNT OF marketing and a lot of fan base. Word of mouth is what propelled these shows. Then they ran with the marketing stuff. I believe it was the press that embraced all three of these shows (for good or bad publicity), and that thrust them into the limelight and thus garnered them a larger audience. I don't know if Viacom can properly market a show that doesn't have outside factors helping. Of course, with the Muppets, it would be a whole different story, as they have momentum that Viacom can build from. So I agree with you there.

And finally, Ren & Stimpy coming back? Oh Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy! :p

[Luke]

Hey Jamie,

Cool picture, i hadn't realised it was from you, or that in fact it was't some official picture from over the years - i guess if nobody notices then it's the best compliment right ? ;-)

[ZootandDingo]

Originally posted by radionate
Scooby Doo has had a LARGE fan base since its inception. Why else would there have been so many incarcerations of it over the years? Warner Brothers had very little to do with creating a "breakout hit", it already was one. What helped propel it back into the limelight was the fact that the first generation that grew up with Scooby and Shaggy are now having children that are also watching; it’s a double whammy. The worst thing is that Warner Brothers almost saturated and did overkill with Scooby when they gained rights to the Hanna Barbara library a few years back.

This I have to politely disagree with you on. I would say Scooby's mass appeal and fanbase up until this recent renaissance probably equaled The Muppets' now (or rather, until the time of this anniversary celebration). And I'm speaking as a lifelong Scooby fan, so I'm not out to bash the dog. By the early 90's Scooby was as cold as, say, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are now.

Scooby was getting good ratings on Cartoon Network, and when Time Warner purchased Turner (Hanna-Barbera), they just marketed the heck out of him. As you said, he was completely saturated, but that overexposure did help. In 1998 and 1999, Scooby was Time Warner's best selling licensed character, moreso than Bugs, Tweety, or Batman.

So yes, the nostalgia helped, but there was a definite corporate boost. If it was simply a matter of nostalgic parents introducing him to their kids, then why haven't The Muppets enjoyed the same sort of hype?

I believe AOL Time Warner knows how to market and profit off nostalgia (whether or not that's a good thing is open to debate). Just look at the ads they run for the Time/Life Muppet Show DVD's. They're definitely trying to go for the "You enjoyed them, now buy these for your kids" approach.

So, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on why Scooby is popular now, I just think you're underestimating all that was involved in shoving him upfront.

Furthermore, it goes back to my point that Disney isn't the only studio out there that can take an acquired character and turn them into a household name (again).

[dwmckim]

As a fan of Jim Hill's work (and as someone who suggested MuppetCentral as a possible venue for his work after he was let go from laughingplace.com), i'm happy to at least see a piece from him while we're waiting for his regular column. The conclusions he makes are a bit controversial but i like that he at least tries to put recent events in some kind of perspective - even if it's one that not everyone agrees with.

My main criticism is that i really think that even though this wasn't yet one of his regular columns officially, i very much think that such a piece should go in the Articles section as opposed to News. Some of the criticism that's been mentioned is probably amplified due to the fact that when it comes under the banner of "News" it tends to give the impression that an opinion piece is being presented as absolute fact. (Granted, most professional journalists seem to be forgetting that these days and setting a poor example for tomorrow's generation but that's a whole different bugaboo!)

[BoyRaisin2]

I totally agree. It really should be in the "Articles" section since it didn't come from some newspaper and/or magazine.

Supplemental stories? You mean we are going to see more of these before "Movin' Right Along?"

[Phillip Chapman]

Putting this in the articles section is a valid suggestion and will be considered. It kind of depends how some upcoming additions play out, but it's a good idea. Thanks.

The Movin' Right Along columns will definitely be in articles though.

[Jessie]

Hey you guys we should start a bet to see who can guess which company finally gets Henson...I have my money on Disney. (Wishful thinking?) But I don't believe that Jim Hill would agree wth me...

[Drtooth]

Though I do have my problems with Disney buying Henson, I'll just come out and look on the bright side. First of all, there will be no way that the Muppets 3-D attraction will be closed down for legal reasons (If anything, this should keep the show in the parks) and secondly, none of this Denny's / Long John Silvers reagonal stuff. If a Muppet Promo for a fast food resteraunt should come up, it'd be at a McDonalds (due to the Disny/ McDonalds relationship!) I know, the food's bad, it's like burnt rubber, but at least there are McDonald's "resteraunts" (and I use the term loosely) all over the country. That way they'll be easier to get (provided the chain doesn't do another dumb, gender-stereotype Babie Hotwheels Happy Meal instead)

Oh! And how exactly are Ren & Stimpy coming back?

[Bean Bunny]

Ren & Stimpy will return via TNN's not TNT, new adult animtaed block. John. K ( the creator) and his studio Spumco will return to make new episodes and a new made for tv movie. check out http://www.cartoonreseach.com in the news section.

[danielromens]

Luke,

My point was more to think about what you are writing. Have you done something similar. I can think of a few times wheere you or someone else has scewed the news with your own interpretation or opinion. Most recently with Brian stepping down. Again, I stated that I didn't really agree with the article. To be quite honest I think his opinions are kind of BS. Yeah I think he's looking into things, but I sure has h*ll thought you have done the same things in the past. I probably have too for that matter. I just found it odd that you seemed so bent out of shape by another persons reading between the lines.

Also I think part of this is my fault in that I have a tendency to write in the same humorous or sarcastic tone as the toughpigs folks, but since you don't know me, it's taken as insulting or the like. Chalk that up to good old fashioned bias.

In this aspect I speak of a bias you seem to have toward your comrades at Toughpigs. In your "It's your fault" responce to Ken Lilly regarding his annoyance with toughpigs, you stood up for their criticism, be it sarcastic or not, and really sort of threw it in his face. Again I don't know you so I really can't be sure of the context of the emotion behind it, just the words themselves, as you have done with me. In your case, taking only the words, I thought it quite rude in your approach, as Ken has been quite awesome to share how a business works. You gave him the same "you better be ready to handle it" responce that could and should be given to you. Clearly in doing so much production you and the folks at Toughpigs should know things don't always go as planned. Although I know you guys want to seem humorous, it's just as easy to see you as whiney fan boys. I myself can be guilty. I've read some of my past post when people get offended and can recognize how it happens. I don't think you seem to grasp that completely. I think it's hard to criticize your own writings. Do I think we should change to make sure nobody gets hurt? H*ll no! I know what I'm saying and I trust others will no better to not get offended. I write these words with a smile on my face and my heart on my sleave and hope others respect me enough to do the same. I digress.

In returning to the subject at hand, How is Jim Hills article of his opinions on this FAN forum any different from the articles at toughpigs? TP also posts Muppet news and often in a humorous and sarcastic way as you put it. I guess I don't see the difference.

Also on a side note I find it laughable the Toughpig got disallusioned with a website. That just seems rediculous. It's all in good fun. Fans talking to fans. We can't agree all the time. TO me I find that some of you just seem to have a hard time dealing with criticism or disagreement of your posts. Again, If I do come off as attacking, just think of it as sarcastic. Yes it's an easy excuse, but no different than the one given to your own. I'm a lover not a fighter buddy (buddy being a term of indearment here, just so you think I'm trying not to condiscend). In fact inside I'm hugging you. Mmm, can you feel the love, I certainly can. Uhh....I should go.

Again food for though. I'm a real introspective fellow and am just trying to gain a level of understanding. I think it will help to achieve more discussion and less "hey that was harsh".

[Drtooth]

Well, I'm still kinda worried about Warners. Look at what they did to the Pink Panther. They made him a girls only character. I bet I got a weird look while I purchased the Pink Panther Bobbing Head, though. (This is assuming that the MGM character got bought out in the Time/Warner Merger) Anyway, If Disney purchases Henson, the only way I'll sleep at night is if the Muppet people have creative controll over the characters. But anyway, I've got to say that I like cartoon Network's line up, mainly because the shows are created by cartoonists and not the board of directors that killed Saturday morning in the 80's (As a firm believer in John K. I say that) I especially think that Cow and Chicken and Dexter (as well as Power Puffs) are much more imaginative (and funny) than the bull they have on broadcast, non-cable TV (How many times must they copy Pokemon before someone realises that they're all the same?) Regardless, I hope that this doesn't effect the Palisades toy line!

[frogboy4]

And who's decision was it to make the Pink Panther talk a decade ago? Total heresy!

[Jrobert]

I personally will vote for Disney in the buyout (even though I think we all know it's the best choice and probably inevitable).

It was not too long ago that I heard of some of the creative thoughts for Disneyland and some of the other Disney parks that were chalk full of nothing but greatness for the Muppets. All of these thoughts were from the past before the last Disney/Henson deal fell through. But I think it would be amazing to see at least part of those plans come through to have things like the Muppet characters in the parks, additional attractions, shows, parades!

Muppet would be taken to a new level in live entertainment.

Just my .02

[danielromens]

Here's a real responce and not just me and Luke playing post tennis.

I really feel Jim Hill is looking into things a little much on this. I actually agree with Luke. Goelz is a good man, and come on, he's got to work. Why can't these guys do freelance or outside work. We see Henson puppeteers on Sesame Street, no longer owned by Henson, we've seen them work for Nickelodean, we see them work for Between the Lions, yet it's only when Disney comes knocking do the wheels of conspiricy get put into motion.

I do find it odd that they'd team up Disney and Henson Pictures though. That's odd. What happened to Sony. I just don't think working with all these rivals is a good idea, or maybe it is. Keep your options open and just work, who cares who it's with. I suppose we should just be glad they are doing something. On the other hand.....ugh let's not start that.

I'm going to stick by my regular opinion, granted Disney is big, but that's just it. Bigger is not always better. Disney has a million characters, what makes you think the Muppets will be anymore important to them. Where's Doug now, what's going to become of Pokemon (not that I care). All they're doing is buying the competition so they can make the money for themselves. Do you think they buy these things for the love of the product. Please. If that's true let my skull explode in Muppetty fashion. Well it's still there. Also it sickens me to see there name then plastered on someone elses creation. Did you know that Tim Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas sat undone for years. I did a paper on it a while back. Here's the back story that I remember.

Burton worked as an animater for Disney during their Black Cauldron days. Burton created some of the characters on company time, thus they are owned by the company. He had pitched the idea to them and they turned it down saying it would never fly. Time passes, Burton gains notariety as a director and voila, Nightmare is made. Yet not by Disney, but by Touchstone Pictures, which is owned by Disney. Not knowing if the project would be a success they did not want to put the movie out under their label. More time passes, Nightmare becomes a cult classic and gains a huge fan base. Ala peanut butter sandwhiches, suddenly we see Nightmare merchandise in the friggen Disney stores. So this is the treatment we want for Kermit. F*** that!

That's not to say any other company is less greedy, but Disney has made an art of it. I love Henson, but at least I'm realistic that they aren't the same. I don't see this reality in some of the pro Disney folks here.

I'm sure some of these other companies could easily be good for the longevity of the characters. In my opinion Dis has enough on it's plate to worry about. Let someone who can use the characters have em. I think Viacom would be great personally. Nickelodean is a kids station, but their work has an uncanny ability to span the age gaps. This is something Disney has seem to have lost.

[frogboy4]

I object to the accusation of not being realistic as you have suggested. I am not exctatic about a Disney buyout, but I would favor it over the other companies you have listed. Sure the others have some great content, but once the novelty wears off from their projects they shelve them. Disney has a way of keeping things in perpetual circulation. I do see that there are many cons to Disney, but there are cons for all the other companies. Being a harsh critic of Disney (as can be seen in many threads) I still feel that they could be the best bet. We'll see. It's not like we actually have control over the situation.

[Muppets1985]

Originally posted by danielromens
**Where's Doug now**

Try Toon Disney or Disney Channel. Disney still owns the rights to Doug (not the Nick Doug which I hate by the way!). Worry worry worry... Disney is the best Company for them point blank!!!

[Zack the Dog]

Well there was not that many All Dogs Go to Heaven Videos, i mean at least the 2nd movie was in theaters, the TV show based off the 2nd movie was pretty good and the christmas video was based off the tv show, so it worked out good....land before time is another story, or is it like 8 stories now? An American Tale took a turn for the worst as well.
the thing that kept All Dogs alive would be the great Dom Deluise! Itchy wouldn't be Itchy with out him! he's the gule that kept it together. they had a few series so the show did well and was very funny. Denny's even had plushes of Charile and Itchy when the Christmas video came out so the marketing was well.|



Zack)Rowlf the, Always have been an All Dogs fan, just like the Muppets,Dog.

[Zack the Dog]

Hi Steve, Yeah Doug is littered all over Disney AND Toon Disney!!!That goes for that Peper Ann Pig as well! Toon Disney got rid of TaleSpin to shove Doug & Peper ann there! TALESPIN! why TaleSpin? one of there best cartoon shows other then DuckTales.

Zack)Rowlf the,they got rid of Bumb in the night as well,Dog.

[frogboy4]

I think the original All Dogs Go to Heaven was a good film, but all the ones that came afterward were really poor quality. They took a plunge in frame-rate as well - it appeared to be a cheesy 6fps. It's just not considered high quality work by industry standards and I didn't enjoy the projects either. Fival Goes West was a kind of weak idea, but the animation was fantastic so I found some value in it, but not much.

[Luke]

Hey Daniel

I get where you are coming from - basically, yes, i have given my own interpretation of the news before and in some people's opinions it might have been seen exactly in the same way as Jim's has been interpreted here, but i posted on the forum along with all the other joe's here and as such it is just seen as a fans personal comment - Jim Hill's article is published on the main site and it kinda gives the impression that 'Muppet Central' supports what he is saying. Maybe there should be a disclaimer ? I do also think that myself saying that it would be easier and less controversial for Brian Henson to leave JHC at a point in the future with less fuss than if he was chairman is more common sense than a 'conspiracy theory' - certainly nowhere near as slanderous as implying a Muppeteer is being given work not on his own merits but simply as a 'bung' to accept any sale to Disney.

As for Toughpigs - I have written one series of articles for it, and have contributed two or three things for MC. When i posted to Ken about Toughpigs i was giving my own personal view of how i saw the style at 'Toughpigs' and i feel that it's a kind of loving satire. I'm not saying that this makes it right or wrong, though i can see Danny's viewpoint and you have to remember that he was writing NOT about anything Ken had said on this forum but the OFFICIAL dates given out - it is indeed a special insight that Ken has given to MC readers and so they can perhaps be a bit more understanding but Danny was writing from the viewpoint of those not privy to this info. When i said 'its your fault' to Ken i did so in a humorous way - you can't seriously expect to hype something up so much to fans and them not be slightly dissapointed when the product doesn't turn up.

I do think there is a world of difference from the articles at Toughpigs to Jim Hill's article here. Things written at Toughpigs in this style are presented in a humorous way - Jim Hill's article is written more as an informative piece, like you are being given insight into whats really happening. Although i think they are as you say - B.S - i don't have a problem with his personal opinions regarding the business side of Disney/Henson being aired, but i think it should have been pointed out CLEARLY that these are Jim Hill's personal insights and may not be correct, and are certainly NOT the opinions of the people who contribute to and support this site.

The major thing i do have a problem with is the Dave Goelz references and picture - it is NOT appropriate to suggest that a kind and honest, and incredibly experienced muppeteer such as Dave is somehow being given jobs as a 'sweetner' to accept any kind of Disney deal unless you have proof. It's quite a slanderous thing to say, especially as we all know how unhappy the Muppeteers have been about a possible sale to Disney. Dave has been very supportive of this site giving an interview and also endorsing MC by wearing a 'pin' at Muppetfest. I think maybe the 'powers that be' should have remembered that before giving weight to Jim Hill's allegations. Yes - it's a valid observation to say that it's interesting that Dave got the job voicing a Disney character, but it went too far by implying he got it as some kind of 'bung'.

I've actually now gone and read some of Jim Hill's other articles and i feel that compared to the others (most of which are very good, and informative) this Henson one seems rushed and ill judged. Jim is obviously used to writing Disney stuff and it shows, in fact this would be right at home on a Disney site. What i'm saying is that when you are writing things for a Henson site you have to consider things from that point of view - the Henson company are nothing like Disney and don't operate anything like them so a lot of the conclusions that the article has come to seem way off base, perhaps it might have been kinder for the editor to have gently pointed this out before the publication and re-worked it rather than lead the writer into the lions den.

I just don't understand what this site achieves by making allegations about how Dave gets his professional work - it does absolutely nothing to either prove or disprove the main point of the article and it makes a mockery of the respect and support we all have for him.

[radionate]

Originally posted by Luke

I just don't understand what this site achieves by making allegations about how Dave gets his professional work - it does absolutely nothing to either prove or disprove the main point of the article and it makes a mockery of the respect and support we all have for him.

ALLEGATIONS?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!

That’s a pretty harsh word. I think the article is saying nothing more then it’s an interesting coincidence. May I quote it

But -- if you're a somewhat suspicious, cynical person like me -- you can't help but think: Is WDI's hiring of David Goelz to do Figment's voice yet another sign of the Walt Disney Company's continued interest in the Jim Henson Company. After all, there must be hundreds of performers out in Hollywood who could easily imitate Barty's distinctly raspy voice. So why -- out of that huge pool of talent -- did Disney decide to hire one of Henson's top people to do this job?

No allegations. He makes some causal connections, but he states its HIS OWN OPINION. I agree that it’s far fetched. I agree that Mr. Goelz should be respected. BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS MAKING A MOCKERY OUT OF HIM. Its a job. PERIOD. It's an article. PERIOD. It's someone's opinion that is different then your own. LEARN TO GET OVER IT.

I do find it odd that out of all the voice talent out there, they hired Mr. Goelz, but there could be a million and a half reasons or coincidences why they did that.

I think there is something deeper to your griping here, as it seems to happen a lot

[danielromens]

So what's the difference between Disney's Doug and Nick's Doug. The characters are the same. The voices are the same. It's just as boring. The only difference is who owns it. There are a lot of products that people think are good because they have the mouse ears on them. Not to say your opinion isn't valid. I just get ill at the fact they like to take credit for other people's work. Let's not forget the brochure with "Disney's Muppets" What the h*ll is up with that. Jim had just passed and they all ready removed his name from the picture. Yeah they're the best bet all right.

[Luke]

Radionate,

Yeah i kind of see it as a bit of an allegation of sorts, granted he doesn't make it blatently but certainly to someone in the business it's a bit of a slap in the face. If we look beyond your selective editing and look at the REST Jim Hill says :-

Unless -- of course -- you factor in the notion that the Mouse might be trying to "make nice" with the Muppets. Keep JHC's core creative team happy. Just so key people like Goelz don't go wandering off the reservation. Just in case Disney does actually decide to go forward with its plans to finally acquire the Jim Henson Company.

It clearly suggests that he thinks Disney are giving the creative team jobs, not because of their talent but because they want to keep them 'happy' about any sale to Disney. Maybe Jim Hill doesn't realise this, and i'm sure it was not intentional but this has been a 'Hot Potato' within the Henson company for a while now. The creative team have made it quite clear to some that they do not want a sale to Disney, so by implying that Dave is somehow taking money from them to stay at JHC if Disney buys it has undetones of being a little slanderous and makes Dave look very bad without any proof. It's saying a LOT more than it being an interesting coincidence, i just think it is worded very cleverly so that most people wouldn't join the dots and realise the connection. In actual fact, there are tons of freelance people working for JHC who ALSO accept work from Disney and they've been doing so for years, very few people are on permanent contract.

I don't see why fans shouldn't speak out when someone who has supported this site is disrespected in this way, especially with a nice big photo of him included too. Yes, it is Jim Hill's opinion and he is entitled to it, but i don't feel he clearly states it's just an article of his own opinions - instead it gives this kind of impression that you are learning what is really going on behind the scenes by some kind of informed 'eye'. I would have liked to have seen some kind of a disclaimer placed on this article and it being put in another section besides 'news'.

I guess to me, and a lot of other people here, what Dave Goelz has done at Henson is not just 'a job' and if stuff like this is going to get published on a site that we all contribute too, then it should be clearly stated that these are not the opinions of the site or it's visitors/contributors.

Thats just my interpretation of it, maybe it just affects me because i know how much it all isn't true and i can personally understand how serious saying this kind of thing is within the industry. To me, it's the same as implying that Brian Henson doesn't get jobs because of his talent but because he is Jim's son, or that Bill Baretta got a job at JHC because he used to clean toilets with the boss's son. I guess if other people draw other conclusions from the article then it's fine - i just thought the main site has stayed away from promoting this kind of controversial speculation in the past and didn't see why it should start now. It seems there's just a lot of rudeness around here when the talk isn't about 'action figures' or doesn't totally agree with something, i guess in future i'll learn not to bother sticking up for what i thought a lot of us believed in, and just go someplace else - it's really changed around here since years ago.

[Thog]

Originally posted by Luke

It seems there's just a lot of rudeness around here when the talk isn't about 'action figures' or doesn't totally agree with something, i guess in future i'll learn not to bother sticking up for what i thought a lot of us believed in, and just go someplace else - it's really changed around here since years ago.

I so agree with you. I've been here since the start and I see it. Thats why I pretty much keep to myself lately, because no matter what you say people feel the need to back lash and tell you that your thoughts and ideas are wrong. It seems that you can't post much without offending someone else.

Just the way I feel.
Dan

[towels]

Originally posted by danielromens
So what's the difference between Disney's Doug and Nick's Doug. The characters are the same. The voices are the same. It's just as boring.

Actually, if I remember right, one Doug is much younger than the other Doug. Elementary school vs. Junior High, or maybe it's Junior High vs Senior High. *shrug* One Saturday Morning lost a lot when they dropped Science Court...

And just because it's the hot topic, I see Luke's point, and agree- comparing his statement of his opinions to Jim Hill's opinions stated in a "news" article is a pretty weak arguement. I too would expect news stories to be based more on fact and less on speculation.

[ZootandDingo]

Originally posted by Drtooth
Well, I'm still kinda worried about Warners. Look at what they did to the Pink Panther. They made him a girls only character. I bet I got a weird look while I purchased the Pink Panther Bobbing Head, though. (This is assuming that the MGM character got bought out in the Time/Warner Merger)

Believe it or not, Warner Bros. has never had any claim on Pink Panther. The character is still owned by MGM. It's a long story why he wasn't included in the deal...let's just say it had to do with the fact that the original movies and cartoons were released by United Artists.

The MGM properties Warner Bros. acquired were everything the studio released on its own before 1985. So, WB got Tom and Jerry, Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, etc., while MGM still hung onto their United Artists stuff such as Rocky, James Bond, and the aforementioned Pink Panther.

So yes, by all means blame MGM for having him talk, and for that ridiculous girlie web site.

Now, if only Warner Bros. would fix the gender confusion they created by marketing Tweety to girls...
:rolleyes:

[Luke]

Ok well to get in on the other 'hot topic' - i completely agree that it was a travesty they made the Panther talk, but i kind of agree with Tweety being marketed to girls, but i don't just think its a girlie thing. Having a high maintenence girl myself i can kinda recognise the signs - cute little yellow bird, pink love hearts, sqeaky little voice, one whiff of all this and they start gushing and buying up large supplies of fluffy pencil cases and oversized cookie jars. I guess i can't blame the cunning merchandise people from showing some initiative there, but Tweety has been so overhyped on the street compared to how much the cartoon is on TV, at least here in the UK. At least they actually put Scooby on TV here if they are gonna squeeze the merchandising dollars from it.

As for the Panther - i think it's time he had another rebirth just as long as he keeps quiet.

[frogboy4]

Did they ever show Pink Panter and Son over there? It reminds me of the Poochy episode of The Simpsons when Itchy and Scratchy make an attemp to be trendy and create that silly skater dog with all the lame catch phrases. That's precisely what the son was in that Pink Panther show. And to make him talk...ewwww. Fritz Freling is rolling over in his grave somewhere.

[Luke]

To the best of my knowledge, nope, we did not get that show. I'm kinda glad too because it doesn't sound pretty !

I'm just thankful i can look back fondly on my childhood memories of the original cartoon - it used to come on before "Jim'll Fix It" - another show that would really give you nightmares.

[frogboy4]

It seems to me that all charm and subtlely is lost on much of today's audence - or at least those in charge of programming. I'm still extremely peaved with what WB did with Space Jam. They didn't even consult Chuck Jones. I think that has to be one of the biggest disappointments in animation. I can't imagine it entertaining anyone above age four, but infortunately ticket sales said otherwise.

[danielromens]

Nobody on this forum should think their opinions are wrong. they are opinions and that is impossible. For the same reason people should not think that they are being lashed out upon or told they are wrong, just disagreed with.

I agree, Pink Panther sure did get the wuss treatment.

So did tweety and a lot of others for that matter. It's only to be expected, the same girls who buy all the tweety stuff probably stocked up on Elmo wear as well.

[frogboy4]

I knew it was a matter of time before Elmo was brought into it. LOL! :)

[Luke]

Oh my gawd - so THATS why Elmo sells ! Personally i just wish Elmo would go take the place of the Roadrunner and that cunning Coyote getting lucky just this once.

[Zack the Dog]

The animation for "All Dogs"2 was poor from the first movie, the second movie was also meant more for kids, but I was in 6th grade at the time.The orignal holds an adult apeal to it.
(I was seven years old when it came out) I still don't think "All Dogs go to heaven 2" is a bad movie thought, Itchy was fantastic! Dom has always done a great job with him.
Burt Renolds will always be the real Charile.B. Barkin, I'm not to keen on Charile Sheens voice. Steve Webber totaly had a change on Charile on the TV show, he was kinda goofy but it was enjoyable, just not "Charile, Burt" like.


Zack)Charile the, "These are some of the poorest people I know, why, there more broker then the ten comandments!...hahaha, just a little joke...err, very little..."Dog.

[frogboy4]

The original All Dogs impressed me very much. The trailers seemed iffy to me at the time, but it proved Bluth's talent in creating an Animated Feature on par with Disney and it also his best film since The Secret of Nimh. He has done little I enjoyed since then, though Titan AE was certainly interesting.

Dom is a great voice talent. It's a shame he's not in more comedies these days, but we still have his work in Mel Brooks films, Burt Reynolds movies and of course, The Muppet Movie! It would be cool to have a future Muppet film in which some of the old cameo characters make another appearance as their previous roles.

Is All Dogs on DVD yet - and is it widescreen if it is?;)

[Zack the Dog]

Hiya Jamie


Yes All Dogs 1-2 are both on DVD, I don't have them yet,but they haven been out for a bit. i'm not sure but i think they are widesreen, i have looked on the back and i do know that they both come with their trailers, but thats' pretty much it.

hmm, I remember the All Dogs Go to Heaven trailer pretty well and it really made me want to see the movie I still remember Itchy runing up the canon and another larger dog fallowing him as Itchy sreams as not to be trampled on and then runs into the hole of the canon and a another little dog jumps on his head as he peeks out.

there were a lot of great voices in the movie, Charlies Nelson Reilly as Killer who along with Dom Deluse are good friends to Burt Reynolds and his wife at the time was Loni Anderson who perfromed Flo, Charile's abanded girl friend with the pups whom were chariles as well.

Zack)Rowlf the,I have like three copies of All Dogs go to Heaven for some reason what's one more $10.00 DVD, maybe the price when down again!Dog.

[danielromens]

A Bluth film I really enjoyed was "Cat's Can't Dance". I believe that's the title. The character design is awesome, and the animation was great. I'm also a huge Randy Newman fan and he did a great job as well. Unfortunately animated movies without the Mouse Ears are seen as lesser product. It's sad really. I thought Iron Giant was pretty great as well. It's weird that the critics really liked these movies, but the general public held back.

[radionate]

I could be wrong, but I am 99.9% sure that Don Bluth didn't produce Cats Can't Dance. I believe it was a Warner Brothers feature.

Off the top of my head, Don Bluth has done the following:

Banjo the Woodpile Cat
The Secret of Nimh
The Land Before Time
An American Tail
An American Tail 2 (I'm pretty sure he did this. I'm not at my house right now, so I can't verify)
All Dogs Go To Heaven
Rock-a-Doodle
Thumbelina
Anastasia
The Pebble and The Penguin
A Troll In Central Park
Titan A.E.
Dragonslayor (Video Game)
Space Ace (Video Game)(I think that was the name of it, my mind is going in my old age)

I know that his health has gone down hill in recent years, and I wonder how much longer he'll be with us. His spirits are still high, but he's been dealt so many blows over the years, that I seriously wonder if there will ever be any more Don Bluth films. At his best, he truly is a magical moviemaker.

[Zack the Dog]

Not to sound pushy but the name of the moive is Cats Don't dance, you were very close thought!;-) yes it is a WB movie, and a very good one at that! not that the movie did great, but i like it a lot.

Rock-a-Doodle is a good film too!


Zack)Rowlf the, who just watch All Dogs go to Heaven last night,Dog.

[frogboy4]

Hmm. I guess I'm just really picky about animated projects. Cats did have some good animation, though. I just didn't like much else. I did enjoy Rover Dangerfield, A good little non-Disney film. That scene with the dead turkey totally cracks me up!

[radionate]

For all you animation freaks out there (while we are on the subject), try and find a copy of Tiny Toy Stories. Its a collection of all of Pixar's animated shorts (minus Geri's Game and For the Birds). It really shows you the magic that the whole crew at Pixar yield.

[ZootandDingo]

Since this has popped up in the discussion, I'm sure a lot of you will be happy to know that a "Cats Don't Dance" DVD has just been announced for September 3rd....while plans are still underway for an "Iron Giant: Special Edition" disc for either this Christmas or early next year.

I don't know yet what the aspect ratio will be for "Cats," but I think Warner Bros. knows the kind of audience that wants this movie will want it available in both formats.

But just in case, below is some contact information for Warner Home Video if you want to support widescreen:

Warner Home Video
3903 West Olive Avenue, Room 3144
Burbank, CA 91505

[Muppets1985]

Originally posted by radionate
For all you animation freaks out there (while we are on the subject), try and find a copy of Tiny Toy Stories. Its a collection of all of Pixar's animated shorts (minus Geri's Game and For the Birds). It really shows you the magic that the whole crew at Pixar yield.

I have this video when it came out in November of 1996 as a promo like thing for Toy Story the woman told me at the Disney store! NO! Geri's Game is NOT in this video thats on the "Bug's Life" video/DVD and NO "For the Birds" is NOT in this video ether its planed to be in the "MOnster's, Inc video/dvd and plus its a New short film that just came out! here are the Pixar shorts on the video (I have the video right here with me)

1. The Adventures of Andre & Wally B.

2. Luxo Jr.

3. Red's Dream

4. Tin Toy

5. Knicknacks

[Jessie]

Radionate- My favourite Pixar short (besides "The Birds" that cannot be purchased yet) is "Knick Knack." Such a cute film! You can watch them online at www.pixar.com but you have to have Shockwave 5, I think.

As for Don Bluth films, I throughrougly did not enjoy All Dogs Go To Heaven. I guess for the same reason that I didn't like all the Homeward Bound movies. But one of my favourite animated films is The Secret Of NIMH. I thought that was a well put together film with great music. (And Jeremy--"I've always wanted a sparkly...of my very own...")

[radionate]

I just wanted to correct myself cause its been driving me nuts all night. Don Bluth did not produce, nor work on, An American Tail 2: Fivel Goes West. I wound up going home after work to watch it. This was the first time I've seen it in years, and after just a few seconds into the film, I could tell from the animation style it wasn't him. Sorry for the incorrect info!

Also, one Tiny Toy Stories. I believe this video is out of print. I have a copy in my collection. It's pretty tough to find, but well worth it. It came out shortly before Toy Story was released on video. It wasn't a promo for Toy Story, but rather Disney capitalizing on the popularity of the movie. (go figure, Disney trying to squeeze every last nickel out of something.)

[frogboy4]

I think American Tail 2 was directed by the same guy responsible for some of the Roger Rabbit short cartoons.

[radionate]

Great Jamie,

As if my day isn't going to be long enough (double shift at the station and a rehearsal when I get home), now I'm going to have to go home, check out the credits for American Tail Two, and watch all the Roger Rabbit shorts and find out:

a.) Who this guy is
b.) If he indeed did both

It's hard work being anal about animation (Maybe I should join A.A.A.)

[frogboy4]

I can't find any director's info on American Tail 2 for the life of me. I guess no one found it worthy to write up the film credits online. :(

Who I am thinking of is Rob Minkof (sp). I could be wrong though.

[radionate]

Originally posted by frogboy4
I can't find any director's info on American Tail 2 for the life of me. I guess no one found it worthy to write up the film credits online. :(

Who I am thinking of is Rob Minkof (sp). I could be wrong though.

My online sources show Phil Nibbelink and Simon Wells as the directors. Rob Minkoff Directed the Lion King and Stuart Little (1 and 2). Couldn't find any of the directors from the Roger Rabbit shorts. That will have to be a project tonight.

One interesting note, The Best of Roger Rabbit, the tape that contains all the shorts was for sale on Yahoo. This tape, so I thought, was really hard to come by. I had thought that Disney had recalled them, as they can gotten into hot water with Jessica. Perhapes they edited them and then released it, but I didn't think they did. If anyone is interested in this, I would snatch it up right away, as this looks to be the 1995 release, and I haven't seen one in ages.

[frogboy4]

I've got it the Roger shorts in a box around here somewhere. I wondered why that release was yanked away so quickly. I thought the Jessica debate was with the feature and not the shortsm though. Disney and Spielberg really had a terrible relationship and that's why I thought the tape was axed.

Thanx for the tidbit about Tail - I couldn't find that info. I wonder what I was thinking of.

[radionate]

Originally posted by frogboy4
I've got it the Roger shorts in a box around here somewhere. I wondered why that release was yanked away so quickly. I thought the Jessica debate was with the feature and not the shortsm though. Disney and Spielberg really had a terrible relationship and that's why I thought the tape was axed.

Going back into my vast knowledge of usless triva (which is slowly getting harder and harder to recall), I believe the tapes were recalled because some family friendly organization put up a big stink about Jessica. They claimed that she was inappropriate to be in cartoons marketed to children. Hence the tapes were pulled. The full length movie got into stink for a different Jessica problem (I'm sure you know about that one).

It's a shame really. Disney was moving towards producing more and more animated shorts, then suddenly they dropped the ball on it. These are classics in their own right, and I think it'll be a long time before we see the animation studios of any major company produce animated shorts (except for Pixar, who uses their shorts as grounds for experimenting with new techniques - i.e. Geri's Game with human characters, and the feathers in for the birds)

[Muppets1985]

Originally posted by frogboy4
I've got it the Roger shorts in a box around here somewhere. I wondered why that release was yanked away so quickly. I thought the Jessica debate was with the feature and not the shortsm though. Disney and Spielberg really had a terrible relationship and that's why I thought the tape was axed.

Thanx for the tidbit about Tail - I couldn't find that info. I wonder what I was thinking of.


From what i was told was that same thing "Disney and Steve having a bad relationship" good thing i got my tape, at the Disney back in 1995 when it was out the 3erd day in Febuary of 95, b/c i got it for my b-day. Roller Coaster Rabbit is the best one then Trail mix up then Tummy Trouble the video says its 25 mins long.

[frogboy4]

Family groups are so silly. Jessica is barely even in the shorts and kids see worse imagery on daytime television. How weird.

I do know the reason that future Roger projects have fallen through is directly related to Disney and Spielberg. Each short was to alternate appearance from a Disney produced film to an Amblin produced one and Disney kept breaking the rules: Tummy Trouble=Honey I Shrunk the Kids, Roller Coasterr Rabbit=Dick Tracy and Trail Miz Up=Cheetah (a film nobody saw and hasn't been heard from since).

I think a major factor into the decline of shorts is commerce. There's simply no money in it so companies don't make them and they take up time that can be spent promoting other films or products (I hate TV ads in movies). That being said, I hope they come back anyway.

[radionate]

Jamie,

Well I went home and watch the tape, and you were right (my hats off to you), Rob Minkoff directed Tummy Trouble and Roller Coaster Rabbit. He didn't direct, but executive produced, Trail Mix Up.

I had forgotten how great these shorts were. A real tip of the hat to the great directors of years gone by, especially Tex Avery. One could only imagine the stuff that would have come out had they continued the series. Not to mention the talent that could have been developed from the new guys that were working on these things. Sigh

And as far as Jessica goes, she is in each short for a matter of seconds (along with Droopy Dog!), and you are right, a lot worse is seen on TV. Although you have to admit some of her scenes in the shorts are kinda risque. The biggest flack is that the "Disney" name was attached to them. I still think they were fussing over nothing.

Maybe if they had been watching the background more, they would have caught some of the more classic and adult sight gags that are missed unless you watch in slow motion or repeatedly! (Just like the good ole Simpsons )

[Phillip Chapman]

Yeah, theatrical animated shorts are pure genius when done well. It's such a shame it's becoming a dying art form.

It was even great when Warner Brothers were celebrating the anniversary of Bugs Bunny awhile back (I believe 1990), and featured Looney Tunes cartoons in theaters for a year or so.

[radionate]

Hey Phillip,

It was Bugs' 50th Birthday. Not only did some great merchandise come out that year, but you are right, a lot of shorts where in the theaters. I remember getting so excited at the opening of Gremlins 2 when Daffy showed up on screen.

Chuck Jones also did a few new Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote shorts in the 90's as well.

I have a feeling its not quite a dying art form, but it is getting too close to its last breath. I've noticed more and more internet shorts in recent months. While many are nowhere near the quality of the classics, they are experimenting with styles and a few gems have surfaced. Especially Chuck Jones' Timber Wolf. Everyone needs to check it out if they haven't already.

[frogboy4]

Yeah, that AMC cartoon shorts thing in the 90s was all too brief.

[Bean Bunny]

The WB is making new shorts and a new movie "Looney Tunes:Back in Action co-starring Brendan Frasier (Mummy Series and George Of The Jungle).
See Toonzone.com for more info.

[radionate]

Originally posted by Bean Bunny
The WB is making new shorts and a new movie "Looney Tunes:Back in Action co-starring Brendan Frasier (Mummy Series and George Of The Jungle).
See Toonzone.com for more info.

Somehow I'm able to keep my composure over that announcement...:rolleyes:

[frogboy4]

Oh, Nate - Brendan Frasier has been in so many beloved classics. :D I hope this doen'nt turn into another Space Jam, but who knows. The one thing that bugs me most (no pun intended) wth the WB characters these days is their voices. They really seem off to me. Does Noel Blanc still do them? I never found him to be that good of a mimic. I wnder if Sppedy will make an appearance.

[radionate]

Originally posted by frogboy4
Oh, Nate - Brendan Frasier has been in so many beloved classics. :D I hope this doen'nt turn into another Space Jam, but who knows. The one thing that bugs me most (no pun intended) wth the WB characters these days is their voices. They really seem off to me. Does Noel Blanc still do them? I never found him to be that good of a mimic. I wnder if Sppedy will make an appearance.

Jamie, Jamie, Jamie,

Please tell me you are being just a little sarcastic. If not, may I remind you of Enceno Man!!! (however you spell it)(Me I spell it C-R-A-P)

I don't think Noel has done any of his father's characters for years. The main plan was that he would take over after his father's death (as Mel had been training him for years), but as far as I know, he hasn't really done anything. Does anyone know more about this. Its something that I haven't researched, and would like to know more about.

[frogboy4]

Yes, I am being completely sarcastic. I don't think he's done amany good films exept for Gods and Monssters and maybe School Ties.

[radionate]

Gods and Monsters was incredible. I also got a small kick out of George of the Jungle (but I admit it was bad)

[frogboy4]

I remember that a scene from that film tied up traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge for hours a few years ago.

[DrGoshposh]

I was curious about Noel Blanc not too long ago, so I did an internet search, and it just happened to be around the time that Noel got married (the ceremony was on the WB lot in front of a mural of the WB cartoon characters). The articles said that Noel's main profession is licensing his father's character voices. I guess the ownership of the voices was passed to him, and he now gets paid when WB wants to use the characters for something. I found the whole situation interesting.

When I looked further, I found that he occasionally did voices on Tiny Toons, and when he did, it was very rarely doing Mel's characters. It seems that WB doesn't use the same voice actor every time for the characters.

I agree with Jamie, the voices have been off lately. You'd think the studio could find people who could do better than some of the voice actors they use. But who knows.

Scott

[Phillip Chapman]

Scott,

I agree with you because animation is solely focused on the voice. That is what matters most unlike puppetry which is a totally different art form. A voice is just a small part of the total puppetry performance.

[ZootandDingo]

Originally posted by DrGoshposh
I was curious about Noel Blanc not too long ago, so I did an internet search, and it just happened to be around the time that Noel got married (the ceremony was on the WB lot in front of a mural of the WB cartoon characters). The articles said that Noel's main profession is licensing his father's character voices. I guess the ownership of the voices was passed to him, and he now gets paid when WB wants to use the characters for something. I found the whole situation interesting.

To just elaborate on what Scott said, what Noel owns are thousands of hours of recordings that his father made throughout the 1980's in his home studio. Warner Bros. retains all rights on the characters, including the voices, but the actual recordings are Noel's property.

Noel did try his hand at doing some of the voices shortly after Mel passed away, but his heart just wasn't in it. He thought there were plenty of other actors out there who could do them better, so he instead turned his energy to keeping his dad's legacy alive. Noel took all of the recordings that Mel made and created a unique computer studio. With it, he can create practically any possible phrase in any of Mel's voices. If you purchased a talking Looney Tunes product in the last four years and the voice sounds like Mel, odds are that Noel supplied the dialogue.

I got to hang out with Noel about a year and a half ago at a Warner Bros. gallery show that I worked on and helped promote. He's a pretty cool guy, and he seems to just really get into discussing his father's work.

Interesting enough, a journalist was covering the event for the newspaper, and she was asking Noel what he thought of sons picking up their fathers' characters, "like Jim Henson's son Brian doing Kermit the Frog now?" I had to politely tell her later that she didn't really do her research well.

I agree that Warner Bros. has been doing a, for lack of a better word, sloppy job on keeping the characters consistent in recent years. The problem was for many years the studio was looking for one person to do all of the voices, and we just know that will never happen again to the same effect.

I think perhaps the best ensemble Warner Bros. has used lately are the voice artists who worked on the short "Carrotblanca," but apparently they didn't seem to realize it themselves.

I like the way the Jim Henson Company handled Jim and Richard's characters, where instead of trying to force a new person onto them they let new performers come into it more naturally. I think that's why hearing something like Bill's Rowlf isn't as jarring as, say, if Dave was suddenly drafted into the part in 1991.

[frogboy4]

Biggest mistakes people make with the Muppets:
That Kermit is voiced by Jim's son [Brian]
That Disney owns them
That they are the same as the Sesame cast or Muppet Babies
That Piggy is voiced by a woman (many people still don't know)
That there hasn't been a Muppet show since the early eighties.

Just thought I'd list a few of the things that the laymen think that peeve me. :D

[BoyRaisin2]

Yeah, I must say when people think the main troupe are "Sesame Street" characters, it kind of annoys me, especially if it's an official news article.

And for the past ten years, it was easy to say Disney didn't own the Muppets, but try to explain that some company called EM.TV (not MTV) owns them. Then try to explain in a few months that some other company (likely Disney) will own Henson.

Good grief...

[radionate]

Hey Everyone,

Thanks for the update on Noel Blanc. I really figured that he just had no interest in voice work, was only letting his father train him to appease him, and had just gone off to do his own thing. The fact that he is keeping his father's memory and work alive is wonderful news. That made my day!

[radionate]

Fraser in action with Warners on 'Looney' feature
Tue Jun 11, 2:36 AM ET

Cynthia Littleton and Zorianna Kit


LOS ANGELES (The Hollywood Reporter) --- Brendan Fraser has been tapped to star alongside Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and other Termite Terrace contract players in Warner Bros. Pictures' live-action/animated feature "Looney Tunes: Back in Action," directed by Joe Dante.

In addition, the studio has committed to producing a series of Looney Tunes shorts that will run in theaters in tandem with high-profile Warners releases. The Warner Bros. Animation unit, headed by president Sander Schwartz, is also producing a new "Baby Looney Tunes" series to premiere this fall on Cartoon Network.

The push to revive the Looney Tunes franchise has been a big part of the expansion of the Warner Bros. Animation unit during the past 18 months since Schwartz signed on as president. The division, which will produce the animation for "Looney Tunes: Back in Action," has stepped up its output with new animated series for the Kids' WB! service; direct-to-video productions, including a fresh "Scooby-Doo" adventure; and more Looney Tunes shorts for the studio's looneytunes.com Web site.

Production on "Looney Tunes: Back in Action" is set to begin July 29 in Southern California and Las Vegas for a November 2003 release. The movie, set in a live-action world in which animated and real characters interact, begins on a studio backlot in Hollywood as the celluloid heroes embark on a comic adventure that takes them from Las Vegas to the jungles of Africa in search of Fraser's character's missing father and a mythical blue diamond.

Larry Doyle wrote the script, which is being produced by Bernie Goldmann and executive produced by Chris DeFaria and Doyle.

"The Looney Tunes are a perfect example of stylish wit that never dates itself," Warner Bros. Pictures president of worldwide production Lorenzo di Bonaventura said. "We're really pleased to welcome Brendan Fraser, with his terrific comedic timing and gift for physical comedy, to the Looney Tunes fold. And it's great to have this series of opportunities to bring Bugs, Daffy and Co. to theatrical audiences in both feature-length and short stories that highlight the humor, action and imagery that made these characters famous."

As for theatrical shorts, the series now in the works will mark the first time since 1961 that the studio has had an in-house division dedicated to Looney Tunes production. Legendary animator Chuck Jones supervised the production of a handful of animated shorts during the past dozen years, including 1990's "Box Office Bunny" and 2000's "Little Go Beep," but those were handled largely outside the studio by Jones and did not receive the promotional and marketing support that the studio plans for the current Looney Tunes initiative.

"It's an exciting and almost frightening thing for us to be working on Looney Tunes," Schwartz said. "The classics are still so popular on TV and through merchandising. The key for us is going to be maintaining the level of writing and wit and timing and all the elements that have made the (Looney Tunes) characters last for so many years."

To handle the increased workload, Warner Bros. Animation has expanded its staff to nearly 400 employees this year, compared with less than 200 in March 2001 when Schwartz joined the studio after a successful stint as head of Columbia TriStar TV's animation unit. Warner Bros. Animation has benefited from the cutbacks in local employment of animators made in recent months by the Walt Disney Co. and Viacom's Nickelodeon. The 21st century version of Termite Terrace is a large complex in Sherman Oaks that was once home to a Robinsons-May department store.

"We've been able to get some really great people. You can only get great product if you have really talented people," Schwartz said.

And Looney Tunes isn't the only archival project that Warner Bros. Animation has its eye on. There's a wealth of characters to be revisited from the Warner Bros.-owned DC Comics library, Schwartz noted.

"There are several thousand characters in the DC library -- many we know, and many we don't know," Schwartz said. "They're just ripe for development."

Not surprisingly, Warner Bros. Animation also is involved in the studio's push to resurrect "Scooby-Doo." It helped provide much of the animation featured in the film that opens this weekend, and it is also producing two feature-length direct-to-video "Scooby-Doo" titles, plus the "What's New Scooby-Doo" series for Kids' WB!

But as much as it looks to the past for inspiration, Warner Bros. Animation also is developing a slew of original properties for the Kids' WB! and Cartoon Network outlets. Among the series in the hopper for Kids' WB! this fall are "Mucha Lucha," a wacky comedy revolving around Mexican pro wrestling, and "Ozzy & Drix," a buddy-cop comedy based on offbeat characters from the studio's 2001 animated feature "Osmosis Jones."

"We've had a tremendous partnership between Kids' WB! and the (Warner Bros. Animation) studio," said Kids' WB! executive vp Donna Friedman, who worked with Schwartz on several shows during his previous tenure at Columbia TriStar. "Sander's coming to the studio brought a whole new energy and spirit to the production. He's got a clear understanding of the kind of diverse, character-driven shows that have made us No. 1 with kids. 'Scooby-Doo,' 'Mucha Lucha' and 'Ozzy & Drix' are all very distinct in their own right, and we're very proud of them."

[Phillip Chapman]

Thanks for the news. Very interesting about the theatrical shorts since we've been talking about the lack of them the past few days.

[radionate]

Thats what I was thinking, and that's why I posted it here. I'm not holding my breath on them though. I have a feeling it will be another flash in the pan. Two or three shorts released, then the department will be shut down.

[Drtooth]

I know this is pretty delayed, but here are some rebuttals

Originally posted by frogboy4
Did they ever show Pink Panter and Son over there? It reminds me of the Poochy episode of The Simpsons when Itchy and Scratchy make an attemp to be trendy and create that silly skater dog with all the lame catch phrases. That's precisely what the son was in that Pink Panther show. And to make him talk...ewwww. Fritz Freling is rolling over in his grave somewhere.

Actually, Friz Freling had had a part in the Pink panther and sons show, it was made by Hanna Barbara, mainly because the studio that produced the original show had become defunct by 1980! (Shame, too. they were going to make a new Rocky and Bullwinkle show, with all involved in the first, until the studio shut down) As for making him talk, it isn't half as bad when Tom and Jerry talked in that terrible movie (Actually, Tom did talk [a line here and a line there] in the old cartoons, from time to time) But seeing the great Pink Panther on ladies errr.. underthings really chaffed my hyde!

As for Universal, I totally agree with you guys on over sequalling Land Before Time. Though in all honesty, All Dogs only had Two sequals (one released theatrically, and one based on the cartoon series). Disney has perpetrated many "cheapquals" (a new coined phrase, see www.cartoonresearch.com for details) especially the dreade Cinderella 2 and Return to Neverland (though Corey Burton does a good job reprising Hans Conreid's role) and the innumerable, mind numbingly bad, endless sequals to the crittical and commercial flop "Air Dud, er.. I mean Bud" Though I did like Aladdin 3 (only because of Robin Williams) and Extreemly Goofy Movie (despite the celophane, transparent plugs of ESPN, a Disney owned comapny)

Scooby Doo? Well, I'll meet you half way. Scooby did have numerous TV shows, some even without him (Scrappy going solo for a season) and I do like watching the show from time to time. But I sometimes think that (dispite this) his reapperance kinda seemed arbitrary, since it was't Hanna Barbaras best, or first series (Their first, Ruff and Ready has gone completely forgotten to those under age 30). This is one of those "seventies nostalgia" pieces that have come up in the 90's. (luckily it was Scooby and not Schoolhouse Rock again, somehow, I just hate the show and share BArt and Lisa Simpson's view on the show.)

Cartoon Network! Yeah, the Powerpuffs have become really popular, but mainly it fell in the line of Pink Panther and Tweety as a "girl's show" when it is actually so much more. The show was created, again, by a guy in his 20's. It was in a student film called, forgive me, "Woop*** Stew." (Don't ask). I think this show is actaullt really funny, mainly because of the colorfull villians (which cartoons are lacking lately).

Spongebob, Ren, Stimpy et al. Well, if you think about it, they do have a pretty good marketing. Spongebob stuff isn't hard to find (every store I've been in in the last month has at least one thing anoter store doesn't) Ren and Stimpy lost that after Nick got furious at the creators after numerous complaints from puritanic "decency" Nazis (the same people who let Jerry Spring on TV, but you can't even mention a "Booger" for some reason!) After a while, they just pretended it wasn't on the network, and despite showing up five weeks every other year, they hide reference to it any way. While Bevis and Butthead were abandoned by the creator, mainly beacause he grew sick of them, and made "King of the Hill" (far more sophisticated, but not as funny).

Finally, Doug? Well, at least it's not the ;lame-0a-zoid, dumb, snooze and a half disappointment of "Sabrina, the series" The last show made under the DIC/Disney relationship. I could go on about that all day, but I don't have the time!

[frogboy4]

Thanks for the info. Some good news - some bad nes, but very interesting!

[ZootandDingo]

Originally posted by Drtooth
Actually, Friz Freling had had a part in the Pink panther and sons show, it was made by Hanna Barbara, mainly because the studio that produced the original show had become defunct by 1980! (Shame, too. they were going to make a new Rocky and Bullwinkle show, with all involved in the first, until the studio shut down) As for making him talk, it isn't half as bad when Tom and Jerry talked in that terrible movie (Actually, Tom did talk [a line here and a line there] in the old cartoons, from time to time) But seeing the great Pink Panther on ladies errr.. underthings really chaffed my hyde!

If I understand my animation history correctly, the DePatie-Freleng studio didn't technically shut down, but rather was purchased by Marvel Entertainment in or around 1980.

The only reason I bring it up is because the newly renamed Marvel Productions studio was responsible for a string of moderately-budgeted Saturday morning cartoons....including one about a troupe of baby versions of popular foam and felt characters.

[Bean Bunny]

They made such shows as "Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends", "The Incredible Hulk", "RoboCop:The Animated Series", "Muppet Babies", "G.I. Joe", "Transformers", "Jem", and some other. I believe that Stan Lee become the chairman of Marvel Studio when they bought them.

[Drtooth]

DePatie Freling was bought by Marvel, huh? I never new that! But anyway, Zack, you were saying that Doug and Pepper Ann are dominating Toonn Disney? Well, I do like Doug and Pepper Ann, but not nearly as much as I like Talespin!! My favorite Disney shows were actually Disney Afternoon season 1991-92 (From Ducktales to Darkwing Duck). It's a shame that Doug and Pep aren't on The Disney Channel instead (replacing those Hack sitcoms The Smart guy and Boy Meets World, bleech) and leave Talespin alone. Unfortunately, they run some shows too many times a day, and stop showing good shows. I wish they'd neuter all 101 Dalmations, and stop milking Winnie the Pooh for more Money. I also wish they'd bring back Bump in the night as well, but what are you going to do?

[towels]

I have to say, IMO, the best recent disney toon was the Timon and Pumba cartoon. The outside the box gags and inside jokes that made Alladin 3 so much fun were very prevalant in this series.

[Zack the Dog]

You see my thoughs exactly! oh but by the way even thought Doug and Pepper Ann are littlered all over Toon Disney...i belive they are also on the Disney channle as well! shove crap on the Disney channle and then shove the same crap on Toon Disney! and tossing TaleSpin at that! I even emailed them about it in a kind way and asked if it would be placed back on and...they never e-mailed me back, TaleSpin is played when it's turn is on chiling with the villians on Sundays but does not have a daily showing or two daily...actualy it was three but they did one repeat of the same show a day when they did air it.

Yes Timon & Pummba was Disney's last great show, Hercules was pretty good too,I'm ok with 101 Dalmations the animation is pretty bad thought but it's funny, I'm kinda sick of Pooh, but it is classic so the show is very good, but the kimpossable, ProudFamily, teachers pet, loyd in space crap makes me glad i was born when i was born, TV wise....But i'm gald i was born when I was born anyways;-)


Zack)Rowlf the, whats with this olsen twins cartoon as well!!!Dog

[CaptCrouton]

Okay, sorry. But the bestest cartoon of all time was "Rubik the Amazing Cube." followed by the Laverne and Shirley join the Army cartoon. :D

Wasn't there also a worthless cartoon about Kweeki Koala, or something like that? That might just be a nightmare tune in my head based on something else..

[Zack the Dog]

hmm i remember an older Koala cartoon on nick jr, but then there was also another one on fox (i think)it was called bliky Bill on like in 1995.

Zack)Rowlf the, there are millions of weird cartoons, dog.

[frogboy4]

Someone actually remembers Rubik! I don't think it's a very high quality show, but I enjoyed it some as a little kid. It amazed me that they could design a whole program around an inanimate object and make a cartoon out of the crazy fad! I remember his Elmoish squeaky voice too.

As much as I've bugged on ALF (never really kept my interest after mid-second season), the animated program was quite mature and imaginative. It also looked very different than the other shows at the time. People go off on how Fox's Batman had such an interesting style and it did, but Alf had an artfully crafted style all its own too.

I also loved the Smurfs until they totally kiddified it with adding younger characters. I wish they'd bring it back. There used to be so much magic and imagination in animated programs and now it's either crass humor or violence. Not that there's anything wrong with these other programs, but there's little balance IMHO.

(Anyone remember Q-bert? I rememver all those vid-game shows. Not the greatest but very nostalgic.)

[CaptCrouton]

Yeah, Rubik brought the cynic out of me. A cartoon about a puzzle toy. That was a stretch.

The cool thing about Alf was the continuity between the show and the cartoon. I appreciated the expanse of Alf's world and how faithful the writers stayed to Alf's descriptions of home to the Tanner family. It was as if to say, "See, Alf really was telling the truth about Melmac and Rhonda." (Sheesh I can't believe the worthless trivia I recall) Alf didn't have the best credibility when it came to story telling as the series progressed so I was impressed that he was at this point.

Smurfs now jumped the shark at some point during the cartoonist strike. I don't know if the writers got tired or if they hired a different bunch. All of the sudden they kept adding new characters to rescue the sinking ship. Remember they added Grandpa smurf as well. Perhaps the show relied too much on magic spells. Whatever the problem was, Papa could find a magical solution if they found the right ingredients. That's what the show eventually boiled down to. The PeeWee character got annoying in a Scrappy Doo kind of way.

Incidentally, Clockwork became my favorite smurf when it was all said and done. Though I was fond of Handy Smurf, who I found more powerful than Papa because he used his brain to come up with solutions. My childhood was riddled with philosophy. I don't know why.

[frogboy4]

Interesting perspective - I agree. And I always liked Smurfette with black hair better.

[Luke]

Kudos to you Frogboy on the ALF reference. Yes, the cartoon set in it's own little world was in some ways the less popular Simpsons of its day.

[Thog]

Originally posted by frogboy4
(Anyone remember Q-bert? I rememver all those vid-game shows. Not the greatest but very nostalgic.)

I remember the Q-bert cartoon. That was on back when Saturday morning cartoon shows were good.

Back when on a Friday night in the fall they had a show on that would show you all of the cartoons that were going to be on. I remember the one on NBC where they did ALF Loves a Mystery. It had a few NBC stars from 227, The Hogan Family, and Rags To Riches. The were promoting Fraggle Rock (cartoon), Foofer, Smurfs, ALF (cartoon) and others.

No Saturday mornings are horrible. On CBS you get the same crap thats on Nick Jr. and all ABC shows is Disney stuff.

I miss the 80's :(


Dan

[Bean Bunny]

Do anybody remeber the last season of the Smurfs, when they go to other dimisions trying to find their way home.?

[frogboy4]

I agree that the magic is gone on Saturday mornings, but I always hated waking up so early anyway. These days Saturday morning-type media can be seen all week long! I wish they would at least play something on Saturday. I just saw a movie that had a reference to watching cartoons on Saturday and I was like - the writer didn't do his research because there are no more toons really.

[towels]

I love reading through old comics and seeing the ads for the Saturday morning cartoons...
There was a two page spread in the NBC Cafeteria (including an animated peacock) with Alvin and the Chipmunks, Punky Brewster, Smurfs, Kidd Video (I think)...
I miss the Cartoon Network of four years ago too. They had some of these classics on before they got so Scooberific.
:(

[Thog]

Anyone remember when they had the USA Cartoon Express on USA? They would show Pac Man and others like Captin Cave Man.

[Zack the Dog]

I remember that, they had all the toons riding the train with some polar bear driving it, gosh how i miss that Pac Man show!

The magic in Saturdays is gone now, i don't know if it's because i'm growing up or if the show are junk...The shows are junk!!

I remember watching Pee-Wee Playhouse,Camp Candy,Garfield & Friends,Heathcliff,The Raccoons,The Super Mario Brothers super show, and Teenage Mutant Nija Turtles and knowing TV could be better, and then it took a turn for the worse.


Zack)Rowlf the, Anyone remember "The Littlest Hobo"?taped in the 80's. this is not a cartoon show but it was about a stray dog then travled around and found new humans friends in each ep, so the dog had a diffrent name because who ever found him named him. Then at the end of the show he would leave the person and set out in the world again. I know it aired in Canada, I'm just so close in New York i got the TV station.Dog.


"There's a voice that keeps on calling me, down the road that's where i'll always be. Every stop I make, I make a new freind,but just stop and turn around and I'm gone again."

[towels]

I always thought the Garfield and Friends show was fairly clever. To me the symbol of the Saturday AM downfall was the Must need Morphine to 'Preciate Rangers. That pushed the Animaniacs out, although they were part of a strong WB lineup for a while (Animaniacs, Freakazoid, Earthworm Jim)
That and NBC's decision to use Saved by the Bell clones as "educational" filler.

[Thog]

Originally posted by Zack the Dog
I know it aired in Canada, I'm just so close in New York i got the TV station.


I also grew up in upstate NY on the border of Canada and watched the Racoons, Mr. Dress Up, The Poka Dot Door, The Edison Twins and all that stuff. It was great. CBC also showed lots of Muppet stuff back then.


Dan

[frogboy4]

I think you hit the nail on the head of that coffin - when Power Rangers etc take the place of something as cleverly written as Animaniacs.

The educational programs you are refering to are ordered by the government (I believe) to have more educational programming on for kids. That's a bunch of bunk in my opinion, but whatever. We still have Spongebob for the time being and he gets the highest ratings on cable tv! Eventhough he's on like 20 times a day. I do like Invader Zim too.

[towels]

Well, the educational requirement has been around for a long time or at least there used to be a requirement that stations had to offer some sort of public service other than just entertainment. Somehow NBC figured out how to classify those insipid shows as good for the community.
*shrug*
The FCC is so toothless now that it scarcely matters. Community doesn't enter into it since they've basically promoted the multi-market monoliths.
Ah, for the chance to become a millionaire and run my own TV station...

[frogboy4]

Yeah, those shows really do bite. I could understand if they were clever, but they're not IMHO. No one I knew when I was a kid would have watched those programs. They have the impact and charm of a public service announcement.:eek:

[scarylarrywolf]

As long as we're slightly off-topic:

30th post -- Yay. I'm a Member.

--"Scary" Larry Wolf

[frogboy4]

Well you were always a member to us! :D

[danielromens]

I've been to busy to post lately but the thought of Brendan Frasier in that movie makes me want to gut myself with a make shift shiv. Personally I think it would be a much better idea if the characters were just fending for themselves rather than supporting the antics of some fading star. Bugs and friends should be the real focus not just the help.

Similarly thats where I think Treasure Island failed. In the old days the Muppets were the stars of the films. Instead it was the same deal. We have some jagball kid with a poor falsetto. Oh well they teamed with the Diz and that's what they came up with. I still liked aspects of the movies, but Jack was just another Anakin Skywalker to me. I with Kevin Smith could have re-edited that one too. Snoogins.

[Disney Corner]

So, do you think there is any hope of Disney building the Muppet Movie Ride if they do buy the Muppets?

[Drtooth]

Originally posted by towels
To me the symbol of the Saturday AM downfall was the Must need Morphine to 'Preciate Rangers. That pushed the Animaniacs out, although they were part of a strong WB lineup for a while (Animaniacs, Freakazoid, Earthworm Jim)

I agree with you right there! I dispise those mighty Toyetic money rangers (which Saban took all the credit for, and all he did was buy stock footage of an old 1970's Japanese show!) And Animaniacs wasn't the only show it bumped. Fox had a great line up until recently. When they cancelled the Ripping Friends (created by John K.) I stopped watching. In fact, they blew off their entire Weekday line up, forcing double shows of Power Rangers the Billionth series and Digimon. I discussed this on another site, but I was shot down by some 50 year old ranger fan :confused: :confused: :confused:

I also agree that CBS's crummy Nick Jr. reruns have killed the network (though it's educational cartoons were majorly lack luster, and The Weird Al show was the last great show they had!) It's that stupid ruling that you must have a certain amount of eductional dreck shows per week, and Saturday is when they cash it all in making corny shows. That killed saturday, as well. (Ditto on the TeenNBC drivel!)

But, I must argue about a few things. I do agree with you that Timon and Pumbaa was the last great Disney show. After Darkwing, the shows kinda yo-yoed in quality. Goof Troop was funny (though hardly Ducktales) and Bonkers had its moments (until Lucky was replaced by the non-personality Miranda Wright). Though, I do think that Teacher's Pet is pretty good! I find it very funny, and I like Nathan Lane and Jerry Stiller. I also like the Illustrator that designed the show, Gary Baseman.

Another point is that, though the 80's cartoons were probably great (depending on who you talk to), most of them were just toy commercials in disguise (a pretty flimsy desgusie in some cases). Transformers and Care Bears spring to mind. Even if you happen to be a fan, these shows paved the way for Pokemon, Digimon, and (uck!!!) new Transformers. I preferr the cartoons of the 60's early 70's. You know, Flintstones, Pink Panther, Fat Albert (etc) before they became kids, or babies. I strongly believe that cartoons should be made by cartoonists, and not toy companies! But that doesn't mean we can't enjoy them (goodness knows, I love Super Mario Super Show!)

But I just want to say, that I couldn't care less about toon Disney's line up. The disney channel has got my goat. I hope after the purchase, they air the Muppet show, Fraggle Rock, or anything muppet in the Boy Meets World/ SmartGuy hour time slot. Come to think of it, air anything in that slot! Even dead air, or an infomercial. Just get rid of those WB and TGIF sitcoms.

[Zack the Dog]

and Bonkers had its moments (until Lucky was replaced by the non-personality Miranda Wright).


Speeking of Bonkers, did you know that the Miranda Wright ep's were made before th Lucky ones? That's why they are both shown in the opening theme song. they decided to change it and the edited the last lucky show with lucky and his family along with the other characters such as fallapart rabbit and Toots to leave with lucky.Then Mairanda would take over, but it was really the other way around. The lucky eps were much better. Bonkers started on the Raw Toonage show with regular cartooney shows along with marsupalmi(sp)


Zack)Rowlf the, Once apon a time in toon town, Dog.

[Drtooth]

You're right. I watched the series a lot in my youth, and though the Miranda ep's were made before, they were aired later. I remember the episode was made in which Lucky gets a new job offering and leaves. Miranda took his place. It's one of those "grand scheme of things" type of deals. Possibly to hook viewers in, and they didn't want to throw out the Miranda ep's. (the one where they go to Japan was the only good Miranda episode, though!)

But since you're interrested in Talespin, here's some news...

I went into a Disney store to look at the Lilo & Stitch Toys (I saw the movie and loved it, and had to to go in. I never usually walk into one of their locations). I saw a big display of pins. They had some of the old (and a couple new) cartoons. They had Timon & Pumbaa (hard to tell if it's the cartoon series, it could work for the movie, too) Pepper Ann, Mighty ducks (I know you don't like the last two, i'm just making a list) Bonkers, something else I can't remembr, and Talespin. I spent five minutes going through to find Ducktales or Darkwing Duck, but to no avail! Maybe at another location. If you want to know, the pins are about 5 bucks.

[radionate]

Drtooth,

What were the pins for? Certainly they weren't for the 100th anniversary of Disney collection were they? Or were they just some Disney Afternoon pins?

[Drtooth]

radionate, I think your latter assumption is right! Maybe they are just a bunch of Disney afternoon pins. "bout time they give them something, huh? I waited like an idiot for them to release Darkwing bean Bags. I wonder if they have a marsupilami pin, though they probably don't. You see, Marsupilami was a comic book in Belgium long, long before Disney made it an American cartoon show. In fact, I think there's a website on the comic.

www.marsupilami.com

It's amazing what you can find when you should be doing something for school...heh heh heh!

[radionate]

There is nothing more that I treasure then my Marsupilami stuff that disney came out with. Some of the most fun toys I had gotten in years.

[Foreignman]

So, do you think there is any hope of Disney building the Muppet Movie Ride if they do buy the Muppets?
-Disney Corner
I wish, I wish, I wish... however, I fear, realistically that's all this will ever be, just a wish. Creating an amazing (expensive) ride like this, just isn't Disney's thing anymore. They create cheap rides that will get them quick cash, and this is what's going to kill them, not now, but eventually. With the Disney that we have right now I think it's more realistic that we'll get the Flying Muppet Ride (the next in Disney's epic series of whirly-gig Flying-Dumbo-emulations, then anything else. I hope so badly I'm dead wrong...

[Drtooth]

As long as they don't go ahead and build that "Put you inside a box with a poorly drawn Kermit face on it and push you ndown the stairs ride!"

[Foreignman]

Originally posted by Drtooth
As long as they don't go ahead and build that "Put you inside a box with a poorly drawn Kermit face on it and push you ndown the stairs ride!"
Hey, I happen to like the "Put you inside a box with a poorly drawn Kermit face on it and push you down the stairs ride!", it's among my favorites that they may build, along with the add-on to the Tower of Terror, the "Put you inside a barell with a creudly painted Fozzie on it, and then hurl you from the top of the Hollywood Tower of Terror"

[Drtooth]

Foreignman! Bad news according to bad-amusment-park-rides.com, the Crudely drawn Fozzie and Kermit rides are being shut down. Well, not really. They're being re-tooled! They're crossing out Kermit's head and putting a poorly drawn scribbly Winnie the Pooh on it. As for the Fozzie ride, it's of a yet undisclosed Toy Story Two character. It depends on what sticker comes out of the gumball dispenser at the mall. Michael Eisner has yet to say anything, but at press time he was hiding between the matresses of his bed, and saying that he's hiding from the monster in his sock drawer. The monster was allegedly with the government.

However, this was not to stop Disney from releasing "Snow Dogs 2, now they play Basketball" and the direct to video "Air Bud, Golden Jai-lai-trevier." Unfortunately, plans of an upcoming live action remake of Clutch Cargo was put on hold, when the computer that superimposed CGI animated mouths on the actors (Ted Danson, Max Headroom, and the fat kid from the Cosby show that always ran out of the house) was actually a television that was on the C-Span network.

So, until the sale of the Muppets and Henson loom, Disney has purchased the rights to the words "Bacon" "White Noise" and several words meaning "green lunchbag!" Hope this helps.

[Drtooth]

sigh... and that was my best joke!:(