https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/16/movies/muppet-treasure-is...
> Curry emphatically denied that interpretation. “I saw the Muppets as actors with distinct personalities,” he said. “It’s astonishing how quickly you see them as people.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/16/movies/muppet-treasure-is...
> Curry emphatically denied that interpretation. “I saw the Muppets as actors with distinct personalities,” he said. “It’s astonishing how quickly you see them as people.”
> In this video, we look at why Tim Curry’s Long John Silver works so well in Muppet Treasure Island, not just because he’s funny, theatrical, and completely larger than life, but because he understood the real magic of acting with the Muppets.
> There’s a popular idea that Michael Caine treated the Muppets like real actors, while Tim Curry treated himself like a fellow Muppet. But according to Curry himself, that isn’t quite right. He didn’t see Kermit, Miss Piggy, Gonzo, Rizzo, or the rest of the Muppet crew as props or puppets. He treated them as fully formed characters with their own personalities, timing, and emotional lives. That may be the key to why his performance feels so alive.
> This video essay explores Tim Curry’s casting as Long John Silver, his love for the Muppets, his larger-than-life theatrical style, and the behind-the-scenes energy of Muppet Treasure Island. We also look at how the Muppet performers stayed in character, how Curry approached the songs and comedy, why the “A Professional Pirate” number works so well, and how one surprisingly heartfelt scene with Jim Hawkins revealed a more vulnerable side of Curry’s acting.
It doesn't say anything about how Tim Curry viewed the Muppets, but rather about how Tim Curry treated himself. It stands to reason that if he was, say, method acting as an actual Muppet, that he too would view the other Muppets as fellow actors with their own identities etc.
I can definitely see how someone could interpret it that way, assuming it's implying that he didn't see them as real, but I think that's an incorrect assumption and the quoted observation wasn't actually implying that at all.