The Muppets’ many spiritual insights
therevealer.org
therevealer.org
https://twitter.com/TheRaDR https://mastodon.social/@TheRaDR@mstdn.social
He pretty much nailed it.
This lead it to being mostly missing from it on streaming services.
The cut part was then also lost, but very recently they found it again and added it back in. Still, at least on apple streaming it’s missing and we have to switch to YouTube to see it at the right point (my family watches it every year).
This came up in my family because I had only seen the movie in theaters and my wife had seen the VHS copy many times, so when we watched it on our blu-ray back in December I blithely selected "widescreen theatrical release" and got what I remembered and she was wondering where that song went, if we'd selected 'Full-screen VHS release' we would have gotten this song that I didn't remember at all.
In it they say Disney cut it - I had read elsewhere it wasn’t an order but they definitely seemed to have pushed it despite what he wanted.
That article says they then lost it after.
>” While the scene was cut from the theatrical release, Henson very much wanted it to be included. Speaking to Entertainment Weekly in November, Henson explained that Jeffrey Katzenberg (yes, the Quibi one, who was then in charge of Disney) was the one who had the scene cut. “He’s like, ‘It’s just a little too adult-emotional for little kids to stay connected,’” Henson recalled Katzenberg saying, adding that the film “certainly plays well without the song, but I obviously preferred having the song in. I think it’s good for kids to be pulled into deeply emotional moments, even if they feel slightly awkward about it when they’re in a movie theater.” According to Henson, Disney lost the original footage soon after, but efforts have been made to recover it. “For years and years, I’d call them every six months and see how they were doing. And they actually even put together a team and a little budget to try to find it, and they still couldn’t,” he told EW. “It’s very frustrating.””
Also at the end of the movie the last song is a throw back “when love is found” which loses some meaning with the other song cut.
As for which is shown on Disney+, given that streaming generally has to pick one version, I can see the argument for going with the theatrical release or the director's cut, or even going Disney Vault style and swapping back and forth somewhat randomly, which is what they appear to be doing.
We had it on vhs which is the first one I saw.
It looks like Disney finally updated Disney plus December 9th 2022 - it just took them 2 years after finding the masters to do it (and more than a decade since their unfortunate decision to cut it when releasing it on dvd I guess?)
One thing I find very striking about it is that it felt free to swing between being a Muppets movie and being a faithful rendition of the story according to whatever was better for the movie. There are two Marleys in the Muppet Christmas Carol, because the best Muppet personality match to Jacob Marley is a set of two Muppet characters. That's great. But then on the other end, when Dickens has produced a great piece of writing that doesn't translate well to film... Rizzo the Rat can whip out his copy of the book and just read that passage to the audience. Even better!
Someone had a vision for this movie and did an amazing job.
> I feel like since then we have somewhat lost the capability to make these sorts of movies.
Copyright is a big problem here. If you want to find the best possible version of a story, you need to let different people experiment with different ways of telling it.
It also let them have the parental bonus of a character named Robert Marley.
> Rizzo the Rat can whip out his copy of the book and just read that passage to the audience.
The neat thing about that is that the book was basically meant as a read-aloud. Dicken's had a condensed version which he'd get up on stage and read to audiences in a dramatic way. (He'd failed as a professional actor, but definitely found another path to success!)
So I love that Gonzo reciting narration passages directly from the book is even more true to authorial intent in some ways.
Henson's Kermit had a kind of realism, he was kind but not cotton candy airhead.
He showed contempt, anger, hints of cynicism and sarcasm sometimes even hints of what we would call 'violence' in todays parlance - but profoundly humanist.
Every GenXer hates 'Barnie' the syruppy naive Dinosaur because he's an inauthentic fool, I think that says a lot about generations. The 'villains' in Gen X films used terrible language because they were 'bad guys' and all of them complicated. See 'Casino' for stellar peformances by Pesci/Deniro/Shrone Stone . You can't make that film today because of depictions of violence against women, ugly slurs. But it's clearly very good. But 'verbotten' for common creators who have to make their way through the industry.
Barnie kids villains aren't allowed to be evil.
I really think kids ought to have more rounded role models, and not infantile empty characters.
I assure you, both of those elements are found in recent film.
> Barnie kids villains aren't allowed to be evil.
I wasn't aware Barnie had villains; modern villains in kids shows are, in fact, often evil.
+ 'Barnie kids' villains, not Barnie's villains.
Villains are barely disagreeable. Aside from maybe 'Hans Landa' here hasn't been a dark villain in a very long time. They are at best, sad charicatures of 'bad people'. 'Grand Moff Tarkin' from Star Wars is scarier than most bad guys, merely with his presence.
Plenty of good villains in 'Andor' and that's a Disney thing.
Popular media for kids now typically is gaming media and/or fanfiction. Undertale, FNAF, Harry Potter, and God knows what else (I try my best to avoid hearing about it). True villains feature quite prominently in all of this.
Neither was Casino, the upthread film that “couldn’t be made now”. The question was a “popular film”, not a “kids film”.
One of the few remaining greats.
I agree Andor has better writing.
I could be crazy, but I feel that there is a 'sanitzation' happening, and it could be a multi-faceted thing.
Of course there is 'violence' but it's generally very clean and surreal, even when they are trying really hard to make it dirty, it just feels fake.
It might even just be bland writing by people with limited life experience?
But I feel that we are all 'careful about what we say' in a way we were not before.
On Smartless and Conan all the actors just tell each other how much they 'love one aother', it's purid, a bit revolting. ('aka' I hope you consider me for you next project and don't think I'm one of the 'bad people').
Where are the deviants? Wierdos? Trolls? Odd looking people?
Just Google 'Character Actor' - and you get a long list of old guys!
Scorsese packs his films with tons of very regular looking people, and the production design embellishes but it feels very real, just part of why I think his villains are more 'scary'.
The Joe Pesci "You Think I'm Funny?" from Goodfellas is one of the most unsettling bits in cinema - and consider how simple the scene is and even the relative power dynaic of the characters. He's not the head of the mob, or even a mass murderer like 'Dahmer'.
And probaably 'globalism' aka 'global audiences' is a primary factor among others.
Anyhow - Kermit himself is a classic case.
Have a look at this classic Kermit and Cookie Monster, the later throws a wrench into Kermits thing and he gets pissed. For some reason that level of emotional reality just does not exist on Barney or Paw Patrol.
Watching Paw Patrol feels dystopian, I watch my newphews watching that and it feels more like a 'visual opioid' than anything else.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=kermit+being+violent&client=...
Paw Patrol and Daniel Tiger are safe and inoffensive and inclusive and diverse and socially correct. Its suits some parents, I guess?
That’s why my 4 year old watches Bugs Bunny from the 40s-70s. People and shit blowing up. Guns and bombs and violence and LAUGHTER. Bugs saying, “what the heck!” And it’s ok.
yes, some kids are taught not to say “what the heck”, probably the same ones taught not to say “hate”? It’s NOT ok you hate beets, damn it. Well, you can hate them but don’t use THAT word.
I saw a couple of “Bluey” episodes yesterday (the ones Disney temporarily banned for discussing farts). I was impressed. Maybe because it’s Australian it does not have the same modern American values being taught to kids.
Bugs and Kermit are essentially 'adults' whereas newer kids characters are themselves kind of infantalized, obviously not children, but removed from all hints of potential conflict or ascerbic nature.
I really do feel there's something very creepy and ultimately very obvious happening right in front of us, that we just won't see until retrospect becuase it wasn't a purposeful characterization.
I have some dealings with Spin Master (aka Paw Patrol) and it's 100% 'just business'. It's just a product like anything else: eyeballs, distribution, attention, view count etc..
Quite frequently, they are explicitly children (e.g., PJ Masks, where, AFAIK, the existence of adults is implied but never shown, Ada Twist, Scientist, where the focal characters are children, with adults in supporting roles, etc.)
But, no, generally there is plenty of conflict, and often more realistic conflict than in older kids programming. Murderous intent and lethal violence (both serious and played for laughs) are less common than in children’s programs when I waa growing up, but... I don't see thr problem with that. .
> I have some dealings with Spin Master (aka Paw Patrol) and it's 100% 'just business'. It's just a product like anything else: eyeballs, distribution, attention, view count etc..
As if that has ever not been the case with most kids programming (with the biggest counterexamples being some of the early leaders in inoffensive, conflict-minimizsd TV, like pre-HBO Sesame Street.)
> I really do feel there's something very creepy and ultimately very obvious happening right in front of us, that we just won't see until retrospect becuase it wasn't a purposeful characterization.
That seems, historically, to be a very common reaction people have to situations that don’t fit the subconscious expectations of their formative years.
My children (25, 22 and 17) have long outgrown it, but when they are all home together for the holidays, will sometimes put it on.
Someone has missed the Paw Patrol discourse.
If you want the movie to make audience feel like the woman is culpable for being beaten, then you are asking for waaay more then just "depiction of violence against women". You are asking for moral lesson that it is ok to hit women (or people) if they are annoying.
Ironically, if you just watch the darn film, you see it for what it is. It's also not a morality tale, it's mostly just entertainment. They're all faulty people, and 'it's complicated'. You can hate them and sympathise with them at the same time.
I suggest almost nobody has a problem with 'Casino' the way it is - I do however believe that it wouldn't get made today, for exactly the 'moral concerns' that the commenter indicated.
Not only are studios risk averse, there's a culture of people who would just feel such a depiction immoral and 'problematic' as though everything we see is a morality tale, or, that these films directly influence behaviour a bit like Joe Rogan yapping on about vaccines when he probably should not be ... except that this is different.
And possibly generation of writers who don't come across enough 'ugly people' in real life to provide fodder as writing material. We're just all becoming a bit too genteel without accents, colour, hints of ethnic orientation.
Oh - and teeth. Look at the teeth. Everyone has perfect teeth on film. It's hilarious. It happened over a few years, but now it's unthinkable that someone doesn't have a perfect smile, even the bad guys. Compare it to British TV where they don't select for that and it becomes obvious.
The baddies had braces and definitely use 'Crest Strips' and god forbid they don't smoke or drink coffee!
And that is the thing, I do watch movies and there is plenty of bad or immoral characters being depicted. It is just not true, at least for shows I watch on netfix, that they would be full of likable moral characters. But they are not enough, because I guess those movies do not have specific lesson you want there to be.
Also, there are plenty of characters with moral ambiguity on Netflix, they're just not that good.
'Perfect Teeth, Perfect Smile' most often don't make good bad guys, unless those are the specific characteristics.
It's been a while since 'Swearengen' from Deadwood or 'Chicurg' from No Country for Old Men. Game of Thrones had some baddies.
But relatively spekaing I think it's thin pickings.
Maybe it's just Netflix fomatting pushing us towards bland content ...
What op asked for is literally specific moral judgement and lesson. Just not the one you (presumably) agree with.
Moroever, the 'making the audience contemplate her culpability' in having attacked a man before she was hit, is definitely the 'verbotten' form of depiction, the reason being too many people would feel that would somehow justify domestic violence.
This is the essence of 'what cannot be put on screen' - ideas that are counter narrative or don't fit nicely.
A man hitting a woman is tricky, but a man hitting a woman who is harrassing him is much worse because it might seem to imply the 'guy had a good reason to hit her', even if that 'implication' isn't necessarily obvious, lot of people would freak out anyhow.
In 'Gone Girl' the film, you can see the woman was the villain, making 'fake claims' of being raped etc. - this was met with severe blowback, because some people didn't want to see the depiction (and therefore possible justification of the narrative) of woman lying abour rape. The 'social justice imperative' is to 'believe women' and so from their view, it's not something they want on the big screen. The blow back is strong enough that it pushes producers and writers away from those kinds of things. Nobody in the industry wants to be see as 'that guy' aka that 'guy' who may secrety be a 'trump guy' etc..
Unlesss they have a lot of power and people give them the benefit of the doubt, aka Scorsese.
See also https://bloodknife.com/everyone-beautiful-no-one-horny/ ; it's a conundrum of modern action movies that they're allowed unlimited violence but must be strictly unshocking in all other ways. And then there's the total dominance of superhero CGI.
To a great extent this stuff just moved to TV. Would Game of Thrones meet your criteria for domestic violence?
'Game of Thrones' initally was pretty good. Towards the end however, it veered a bit to safety as they had to 'make it up' given the story was not written.
We should note that it's fundamentally a European production, not Hollywood, and, that it started even before 2011, so a while ago, before a lot of the sanitization has sunk in.
S: "Do you think this show constitutes cruelty to animals?"
W: "Not unless you're watching it."
Comes to mind pretty much any time I see an advert for a reality TV show, a lame YouTube video, etc, etc.
Not always fair, but always fun to remember.
Did the actor for Ernie ask for a raise? What's the scoop?
Kermit was very much Jim Henson’s avatar and was the core character that the Muppet Show was built around, and existed before Sesame Street (IIRC, he was the very first puppet that Henson made, cut from his mother’s green coat). I believe that the Sesame Street Muppets other than Kermit are all owned by Children’s Television Workshop which is at least in part why they only made limited appearances in non-Sesame Street productions. There was a significant overlap in the puppeteering staff between Sesame Street and the Muppet Show (most notably Jim Henson and Frank Oz who were arguably the greatest comedy duo of the late twentieth century, but I think some other SS puppeteers also worked on the Muppet Show).
Of course, all of this is going from memory and someone going to Wikipedia could probably find all the places where I’ve misremembered things or am just plain wrong.
I also learned that Henson did some delightfully bizarre commercials. My favorite was this one for La Choy chow main. It absolutely caused me to buy some: https://youtu.be/4bfdaR4xMeU
Also: Oz was better at doing different voices than Henson. I think Ernie and Kermit in a scene together would be bad, since the voices were so similar.