Critics Consensus: The Muppets is Certified Fresh

Big Brother

I'd amend that to say Disney Live Action is always a concern since between Disney Animation and Pixar (Owned by Disney) that's pretty much the definition of sustained quality for more than 70 years. I've never really gotten the hate for Disney aside from people who don't care for them because they're a massively successful corporation which offends some people on principle I guess. Argue all you want, but their's no discussion on the fact that the world is a better more magical place with Snow White, Fantasia, The Lion King, Alladin, Toy Stories 1-3, The Incredibles, Cinderella, Monsters Inc, and the literally hundreds of other things that would never have seen the light of day without Disney.

Nov 23 - 06:04 AM

Jason Wilkerson

It has nothing to do with him being an Apatow alum, they liked the puppet bit in Forgetting Sarah Marshall which he wrote and heard he was a huge fan of the Muppets so they asked him to pitch what he'd do for a Muppet movie. Also this is the first big screen Muppet movie from Disney, but it is not the first Muppet movie from Disney. The Muppets' Wizard of Oz was under Disney. Disney doesn't bother me, the fact they got someone who is very passionate about the material and is a good writer to work on the project eased my mind.

Nov 23 - 09:57 AM

Janson Jinnistan

@Big Brother - Disney is a very different place than it was 70 years ago. I'm not talking about those classics. And I'm not talking about their Pixar ventures. Even though I'm in the minority in having little interest in the "Eisner era" Disney (there were a few genuine classics then), post-Eisner has been worse. Disney means dollars. Yes Disney was happy to find Segel interested in a Muppet Movie (and, again, it's not about HIS sincerity), but Disney would not have made it if they didn't think it would translate into Apatow dollars.

Nov 23 - 01:07 PM

Jason Wilkerson

The problem with that statement is that Forgetting Sarah Marshall, the movie that got him the job didn't make Apatow money. It was a modest hit, but not a massive hit like Knocked Up, The 40-Year-Old-Virgin or Bridesmaids. Domestically FSM only made $63 million in its lifetime. If they really wanted to get someone from the Apatow school that's been really successful they would have gotten Rogen to write it.

Nov 23 - 03:23 PM

Dave J

According to "boxofficemojo.com" Forgetting Sarah Marshall was also a substantial hit since it costed only 30 million dollars to make, grossing 67 million dollars- that's 37 million dollars profit- not including the 42 million overseas! Also, how do you know how Segal negotiated his contracts with studios!

Nov 23 - 04:39 PM

Janson Jinnistan

@chains - The fact remains that Disney was not interested in a Muppet movie until Segel pitched his script idea. Here's some background - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-muppets-jason-segel-amy-adams-jim-henson-250805

Nov 23 - 07:10 PM

Jason Wilkerson

@Dave J: Yeah that's still what's called a modest hit. Its not huge Apatow numbers, if its gross comes to under $100 million domestically that's not a huge hit, that's a modest hit. My point is that if they really wanted to do Apatow numbers they would have picked someone else other than Segel. And his negotiations for The Muppets were very much like Kevin Smith's negotiations for Superman when he was writing that. They liked what he did with the puppets in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and asked him to come in for a pitch. From that pitch they hired him. That's not just negotiations that's how it works, pay would later be negotiated between his agent and the studio, but that part of the pitch process is always going to be more personal.
@Janson J: Being a big fan of the Muppets I had been following this process since it was first announced that Segel was writing the flick. They had been wanting to reboot the Muppets, they hadn't just sat on the property without wanting to make money on it, but they knew to make money they would have to make sure it was sincere especially after the failure of The Muppets Wizard of Oz. They had been waiting for the right person to do it and they knew it was Segel from his reverence of puppets in FSM. When they asked for a pitch (they approached him) they picked him because of his enthusiasm and reverence for the material, not just because they expected Apatow money at the box office. They thought he could do the best job to make something authentic that would connect with viewers.

Nov 23 - 10:36 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Since you're incapable of reading for yourself, I'll spell it out (from the above link) -- A Disney insider confirms, "Once we had them, they became an orphan in the company." The Muppets were handed over to Disney's consumer products division, where "they languished." "They treated us like a stepchild nobody really wanted," says a Muppets veteran. "Suddenly, they've got Michael Eisner's prize, and nobody knows what to do with it." Until 2006, when custody of the Muppets was transferred to the film studio. Then-chairman Dick Cook couldn't interest his own movie executives, so Kermit and friends were assigned to the studio's special-events group. Cook engaged Oz to develop a script, which Oz was to direct. (He had directed The Muppets Take Manhattan as well as live-action movies including Little Shop of Horrors and What About Bob?) But as that film was on the brink of getting a green light, Cook was ousted. While the special-events unit was developing the Oz script, Cook's executives were talking to Segel. When he pitched the idea for a Muppets movie, those previously unenthusiastic executives became more interested. The fact that Disney moved ahead on the script Segel wrote with Nicholas Stoller left the old Muppets pros suspicious, as one puts it, that "this is a case of Disney wanting to get into the Jason Segel business," as opposed to reviving the franchise. This insider adds, "My biggest hope is that it comes across as a Muppets film and not a Jason Segel film that the Muppets happen to be in." -- Now, exactly why should I take the word of Jason Wilkerson, Rock Star from Wisconsin, over that of one of the more respected entertainment publications in the country?

Nov 23 - 11:36 PM

Jason Wilkerson

Janson J: Thanks for the snark, I greatly appreciate it! Actually you are correct, I was incapable of reading the article at the time. I was up north without my computer, and on my phone I was only getting page one of the article and didn't realize there was more to it at the time I responded. And while you called me incapable of reading the article, now that I've read the article and not just the snippets you carefully selected for me to read which shows that you didn't actually catch the nuance of the article. A lot of the issues that are brought up are speculations from unnamed insiders who also acknowledge the fact that they're biased. Mentioning moments like the fart shoes, the gag was more about the juxtaposition than the joke itself. And they also acknowledged that the characters came through in the end. There could also be more factors within Disney that led to them choosing Segel's script over Oz, the only thing that says that Disney wanted to get into the Apatow business is the speculation of an insider who "feels" that's what Disney was doing. Oh, also thanks for reminding me that I need to change my bio on here, I no longer live in Green Bay or sing in a band, I'm an English and film studies major at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee now, that being one of the first three schools in the country to obtain a film studies major. That means that I know a little something of how studios work and films are made because that's what I'm going to school for.

Nov 26 - 02:44 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Say what you will about my selection of the article's material. A paper like Hollywood Reporter would not run quotes, even or especially by unnamed sources, if they weren't accurate because of the veracity of Disney's lawyers. I wanted to correct your faulty theory that Disney approached Segel for the Muppet movie based on his work in "FSM" on this irrefutable sentence: "When he pitched the idea for a Muppets movie, those previously unenthusiastic executives became more interested." It's clear that Jason Segel, not Disney, was the impetus of the project. Good luck on your film studies, and I hope your unbrideled adulation of Disney gets you a foot in the door.

Nov 26 - 03:08 PM

Jason Wilkerson

Janson J: My tenacity in playing devil's advocate has nothing to do with an unbridled love of Disney, I'll clear that up right now; nor do I have the intent of ever working for Disney nor do I typically watch their movies unless it has the Pixar name on it or receives strong word of mouth. Disney's made a lot of mistakes and as a corporation it'll never have the love of material that an arthouse studio would have for their material. Of course it is more about money than anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were just simply getting into the Segel business. They had a script from Oz, but remember that was also around the same time that Oz directed The Stepford Wives. He might have been an originating member and director of the Muppets, but George Lucas is the creator of Star Wars and look what happened after he returned to the series for The Phantom Menace. Oz's previous project was critically reviled and bombed. On top of that he only wrote and directed one Muppet film back in 1984. So with that I'm sure he didn't instill much confidence in the execs, which might not have been deserved, but when the last Muppet movie didn't do very well with critics and audiences naturally Disney's going to do what's better for the bottom line. And the comments are going to avoid any litigation from Disney's attorneys because they're very carefully worded with language that states this is the opinion of the insider rather than an exact factual statement therefore it can be used without being considered libel. Maybe they were trying to get into the Segel business, but it could be that he just had the better pitch and Oz's current track record and pitch were lackluster. There's always two sides to the story, and all we see here is one side.

Nov 26 - 09:05 PM