- 1 New material?
- 2 The Muppets (2011) Awards
- 3 Plot
- 4 Cameo Spoilers
- 5 Overhaul
- 6 Locked?
- 7 Cameo sourcing again
- 8 Viddy
- 9 Image farm
- 10 Cactus in poster?
- 11 Clifford In This Image?
- 12 New robot character?
- 13 Lips?
- 14 Muppet Performers-related
- 15 Text is blocked by images
- 16 Nigel?
- 17 Clifford
- 18 Lady Gaga
- 19 Fake titles
- 20 Closing song
- 21 Cast and Crew items
- 22 Actual Movie Page
- 23 Just for fun
- 24 Scooter's jacket will be shiny
- 25 Plot on Muppet Central
- 26 Title
- 27 GQ
- 28 title
- 29 tracking progress
- 30 More News?
- 31 Wondering
- 32 Best Movie I Have Ever Seen!!!!
- 33 Sequel?
- 34 Pizza
- 35 Extraterrestrial Origin Nod
I'm pretty sure it's Tex Richman's infamous 10th birthday party. Someone on Muppet Central put that together. You can make out "10th birthday" on the banner. Philo & Gunge 18:30, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
The Muppets (2011) Awards
The Awards season has started, and the movie has already earned some nominations on both the Satellite Awards (http://www.indiewire.com/article/war-horse-leads-satellite-award-nominations) and the Broadcast Film Critics Association (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/hugo-artist-broadcast-film-critics-list-272679). Should we create a new page or just add a new section here? -- User:EnekoR, December 13, 2011
- For now, it's best to list the nominations on the page. We don't need to start creating pages until they start making appearances at ceremonies. —Scott (message me) 18:41, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
We've got some folks writing, re-writing and competing for their own plot summaries for the movie. Anyone have thoughts on how best we should handle that section? How extensive does it need to be? Do we need much more than the official summary? —Scott (message me) 06:24, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
- I was going to ask that, too. The Muppet Movie is only 4 paragraphs, and seems to cover the main plot. I know people might come here to read about what happens, but we shouldn't transcribe every single thing that happens. I think we can eventually erase the official synopsis, since that's kind of like a press release about a DVD, unless we want to put it somewhere else as a record of what they said. -- Ken (talk) 06:43, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Ken. I don't think that the plot summary needs to get into too many details, at least not yet. I think it should be kept light. For now, the official summary seems to be fine. More details can be added (if need be) when the film is released on DVD.-Gonzofan 07:11, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Also agreed. We decided long ago that we don't need to describe every scene and detail for every production when that project is either on DVD, TV, or in this case in theaters (we only do so for things like the rare pilots and so on, basically for historical and research purposes). We also decided long ago not to use spoiler tags, *but* for something like this, we don't want to ruin it for our users who haven't been able to see it yet. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:47, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Since we have a consensus of four, I took out the synopsis, only because I'm not sure how to rewrite yet. I'm parking it here, since major spoilers on a talk page are less of a problem than on a main page where everyone from casual visitors to our main editors who haven't seen it yet will be visiting but don't want to ruin their enjoyment. It's too point by point (even spoiling the last scenes, and several jokes which don't need to be mentioned anyway) but we might be able to rework it and cut it down/merge with the official synopsis (since obviously anything revealed there is no longer a spoiler by now, that's premise). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:47, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
"In an opening montage, we learn about Walter and his brother, Gary (Jason Segel), two life-long Muppet fans who have adored the Muppets after discovering The Muppet Show while they were young. In present day, Walter and Gary continue to live together in Smalltown, USA. Gary has planned a trip to Los Angeles with his girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams) and surprises Walter with an extra ticket, so that he can come along and visit the Muppet Theater. Gary is thrilled to be able to spend time with both Mary and Walter, however, Mary feels differently, thinking that Walter is distracting Gary from their relationship. They arrive in Los Angeles and visit the Muppet Theater, which is in ruins and poorly maintained. During the tour of the studio, Walter leaves the group and sneaks into Kermit's old office, where he witnesses Statler and Waldorf sell the Muppet Theater to oil magnate Tex Richman (Chris Cooper). Waldorf shows Tex the standard rich and famous contract Kermit signed years ago, and warns that the Muppets, if they choose to, can raise the ten million necessary to buy back the Muppet theater. After Statler and Waldorf leave, Tex explains to his associates, Bobo and Uncle Deadly, that he intends on tearing the theater down and drilling underneath for oil. Devastated, Walter shares the news with Gary and Mary and the three begin to search for Kermit, and eventually find him living in a mansion. Kermit is distressed by the news, and realizes that the only way to raise the money is to put on a show, which the Muppets have not done in a long time. After a few encouraging words from Walter, Kermit decides to give it a try. With 80's Robot's help, they find Fozzie performing with a punk-style Muppets cover band, The Moopets (with Dave Grohl in costume as Animool). Next they find Gonzo, who has become a powerful plumbing magnate. They try to persuade him into returning, but he refuses. However, rejoins after realizing he misses his daredevil days; after blowing up his business. They find Animal at a celebrity anger management clinic, being sponsored by Jack Black. Animal rejoins and Jack Black encourages him to stay away from drums. After picking up the rest of the Muppets in a montage they travel to Paris, where Miss Piggy is working as editor-in-chief at Vogue Paris. They beg her to return, but she refuses due to a falling out between herself and Kermit years prior. They replace Piggy with her Moopet counter-part, Miss Poogy. They begin pitching their telethon idea to TV executives, but with no luck. However, Veronica (Rashida Jones) agrees after the sudden cancellation of their popular show leaves a 2-hour window in their broadcasting time, however, she demands they get a celebrity host. The Muppets clean up the theater and being rehearsing, which goes terribly. During this time, Miss Piggy returns and kicks Miss Poogy out. Kermit, realizing he has yet to secure a celebrity host, goes to Tex and asks for the theater back. Tex refuses due to a personal vendetta against the Muppets, and reveals that not only did Kermit sign away the theater, but also the Muppet name, which the Moopets intend on buying. Mary, meanwhile, returns to Smalltown after Gary forgot about their anniversary dinner. Gary and Walter have a falling out and Gary returns to Smallville and reconciles with Mary while Walter stays in Los Angeles after being asked by Kermit to help out with the show. Miss Piggy gathers the Muppets (aside from Kermit) and kidnaps Jack Black to fulfill the network's requirement of a celebrity host. The telethon begins rough, with only Hobo Joe (Zack Galifiankis) and his friends attending the theater. However, people (and celebrities) soon begins filling the theater after the telethon begins gaining a large amount of attention. Realizing the Muppet's potential success, Tex and his associates (now including the Moopets) infiltrate the Muppet Theater and cut the power. However, Gary and Mary repair the lights, after returning to support Walter. Uncle Deadly realizes he may be working for the bad guy and tries to stop Tex. The Muppets perform "Rainbow Connection", during which Animal begins drumming again and Kermit and Piggy reconcile. After the telethon runs short, Walter performs a whistling act which serves as the telethon's grand finale, however, the counter stops at $99,999,99 after Tex brings down a nearby telephone pole. The counter glitches, revealing that the Muppets only raised $99,999.99. Tex evicts everyone and Kermit tells everyone he is proud of them for trying and together, as a family, they will start building their way back up to the top. Outside, they witness a gathering of fans and paparazzi. Gary encourages Walter to join the Muppets, and proposes to Mary outside of the Muppet Theater. Jack Black is taken by Hobo Joe and Friends, and Tex returns the Muppet Theater and the Muppet name to the Muppets after Gonzo's "failed" head-bowling act affects Tex, giving him the ability to laugh."
This is tangential slightly but related enough to the above that this seems the best place to ask. That's something I even wondered about for some of the other pages, but usually there, we figure people are more apt to expect spoilers. But for example, I finally saw it last night (hooray to being well enough to watch Muppets!) and I'm not sure how much to add to Jack Black without spoiling (I know I enjoyed it more not knowing the details). Right now, my gut feeling is more details and clarification for any cameos with roles listed in the credits, since that means they're hardly spoilers and folks will be looking for them, but not sure how to handle the unbilled ones or those who are just credited as names (although really for most of them, which are brief for a Muppet movie, I think it may help to know where they are just so we're not straining to figure out "Who is this? Is this a cameo or just an extra?") -- Andrew Leal (talk) 15:17, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Per, my edit summary: I locked this article for a brief time so I could do a major overhaul. The intention to do so has come up several times lately, so with the movie only a week away, and official documents in our hands, I went ahead and cleaned this article up in a way that should make sense.
As information has come out over the months, we've been breaking chunks of promotion and production out into their own articles. At first I was against it, but as those articles grew, it became clear to me that they make sense and are probably necessary.
As such, I've gone ahead and removed duplicate info on this article and put together a list of links to the pages where it can be properly covered without cluttering this space up. The trailer screenshots were a good example when it was brought up a few weeks ago. As I expressed in that discussion, I thought it would be nice for readers to come and see a big collection of pictures, but it's clear that it was becoming too much for one article. Both for the purposes of maintaining a cohesive article, but also because the page was taking forever to load.
Anyway, I'm unlocking the article now. I don't think any information was lost, it was just moved. If I'm in error, please post here and edit the article accordingly. —Scott (message me) 03:51, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
- I think it looks great! There is so much information available about the film (and its release, marketing, promotion, etc.) and there is so much interest in capturing every minuet detail that it can become overwhelming and at times unmanageable. -- Brad D. (talk) 04:30, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Scott left an explanation when he did so: "Temporary protection while I do some major clean-up." This is just to avoid edit conflicting while he works on it. I sent him the full final credits copy which I had. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 03:10, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
Cameo sourcing again
Just did a clean-up on the credits from the final presskit. A bunch of cameos aren't credited, but I can't fully tell from the list we have which have been reliably confirmed and which are't. Obviously several (Wanda Sykes, Danny Trejo) have been confirmed by ages, others just recently from events and such. The main ones I'm wondering about are George Clooney and Ben Stiller (sourced from a single September 2010 article) and Eric Stonestreet (especially since the source dates to the Lady Gaga rumors) and a few others. The final film will tell of course. Right now I used the blanket "Uncredited or unverified" phrase for this group, but the majority probably are in fact confirmed, so if anyone cares to divide, please do (and of course seeing the movie will confirm for certain). I'm tempted to just park the really out of date claims like Clooney and Stonestreet until/unless someone actually sees them in the movie (the Clooney one, while way out of date, actually sounds a little more likely as one of the secret uncredited cameos). Thoughts? -- Andrew Leal (talk) 01:02, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Jack Black, Wanda Sykes, and Danny Trejo have all been seen in the trailers; and we have pictures from the set of Billy Crystal, Ricky Gervais, Kathy Griffin, and Mila Kunis with the Muppets. However it is possible that their scenes/cameos were cut from the final film. The Muppet Mindset's review of the movie suggested that there were some trailer-exclusive cameos and other reports from an early test screening suggested that the Sykes/Trejo scene was omitted. -- Brad D. (talk) 02:03, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if some stuff winds up on the DVD as deleted scenes/bonus stuff. The main ones I doubt are a bunch of those from iffy sources like The Wrap and The Vulture which haven't been verified since, but from the sound of things, the telethon segment has a lot of celebrity cameos on the phones (or in the show), so we'll see. Thanks for the help, Brad. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:06, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
- As for the others... I removed Eric Stonestreet (he personally disproved his involvement months ago) and Beth Broderick (the source we had listed made no mention of Broderick and I can't find any other articles out there that do). Liza Minnelli was mentioned in a Disney publication and Sterling Knight confirmed his involvement personally. That still leaves George Clooney, Ed Helms and Ben Stiller unaccounted for. -- Brad D. (talk) 02:47, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
This page has close to 500 pictures on it (and growing). Where do we draw the line? Do we really need (or want) to collect every single pre-release image we can get our hands on? While they are nice images, it seems to be getting a little overwhelming and the article seems to be losing focus. Do we really need 360+ individual screengrabs from the trailers. We have the images on the inidivual trailer pages; couldn't we just put [[User:BradFraggle/The_Muppets_(2011)_videos|collection of all the individual trailers]] instead of the endless scrolling of individual pictures we have on this page now? I think this page needs a little cleaning up. Thoughts? -- Brad D. (talk) 16:25, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree. All the screenshots from the various trailers are already on separate pages linked to this one, so I don't see much of a point in keeping them here. -- Jon (talk) 16:33, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
- I actually don't see the point in all the separate pages. I like the fact that all the screenshots are here on one page. If I've learned anything from marketing and outreach, it's that people don't bother to click around to different pages. They want to see everything in one place. —Scott (message me) 16:40, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
- I sorta agree and have been wanting to bring it up for awhile. It isn't only with just the movie, it seems like a glut of screen grabs have been popping up for awhile. The promo shots are fantastic, this is the place for behind the scenes pictures as well and of course all the movie posters are wonderful, but it seems a little much at times with the screen grabs from all the trailers, especially when some seem to be so similar to others and a few even blurry or just bad pictures. I've debated bringing this up on the current events page for a wiki wide discussion.
- For example, these images all appear for one trailer:
- That seems a little much to me.
- Same goes for these images. They are blurry and in any other instance we would take them off the wiki for poor quality.
- Okay yeah, I hadn't seen some of those duplicates. There's a lot of nonsense in there that needs to be weeded out. I took most of the early screenshots and I was really careful to get shots that didn't have a lot of blur, and make sure that each shot was unique. That's not what's been happening with whomever has been adding the latest screenshots. —Scott (message me) 18:09, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this is a good time to start pruning. This has been an awesome resource for fans who want to scrutinize every frame of the trailers -- but now that we're getting closer and seeing more clips, we don't need to visually document the trailers and clips as much as we did before.
- This might be silly, but can I propose just leaving those images there until the movie comes up (on the extra image page). My only logic in doing that is if there is something significant about that particular shot (a reference, story point, location, etc.) that will be covered on the wiki, then we have it handy. After the movie comes out, we can purge. It's a far fetched thought, but just a thought. They are off the main article, and most people wouldn't stumble on that housing page for now. -- Nate (talk) 19:26, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Although I'd say go ahead and nuke those which are just duplicates, say something like "THIS THANKSGIVING," or the blurry limb/mouth shots (basically images which we never use to illustrate anything unless there's truly no other image available, which wouldn't be the case there). I don't think we want to start a "Miss Piggy's Blurred Legs" page (after all, Piggy's gams of ham deserve to be glimpsed in their pure glory). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:06, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
- We don't have every available screenshot, publicity photo, behind the scenes picture, or ad for The Muppets Take Manhattan displayed on that page - likewise, I don't think we need to post ever single image related to The Muppets that we can get our hands on here. Do we need 40 candid photos taken from across the street of the El Capitan Theater during filming? Do we need 2 dozen screenshots of Kermit or Piggy? We don't do this for any of the other movies. -- Brad D. (talk) 23:56, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
My queestion is this Brad, if the wiki were around in 1984, would we have housed every publicity photo, behind the scenes picture or ad for Manhattan? Maybe not every one, but more than we have now. I think the advertisments are totally relevant to the wiki and need to stay (maybe not all the web based ones which are just basically photoshopped photos). The behind the scenes photos are historical and interesting. Screen grabs though are another thing and I feel can be purged with time. The film itself isn't going anywhere, but the other stuff (ads, behind the scenes, etc.) becomes more scarse as time goes on. -- Nate (talk) 00:25, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think we can hold this to the same standard as anything that came before the information age. We went through the same excitement looking forward to Letters to Santa, and Danny and I did the same on Toughpigs.com in anticipation of The Muppets' Wizard of Oz. As Disney continues to market The Muppets, we're going to want to keep up with a dynamic page I think. —Scott (message me) 00:52, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying we should cut this down to equal to the other movie pages (if anything we should be bulking those up with more details and such). But in the grand scope of things, I think we need to remember to focus this article, otherwise we just end up with a giant rambling mess of random facts and pictures. It becomes uninteresting and unreadable. In 10 years will we care that "On September 7, 2011, Jason Segel was interviewed for MTV News" or that "In May 2011, The Muppets Studio changed the backgrounds of their YouTube and Twitter pages" or the details of when each TV spot debuted and a detailed summary of each? This article should be focused on the film (there is so much information and marketing and promotion that if we try to include every single little thing then we end up with a worthless mess of an article). Some of the information (and pictures) are (in my opinion) just not that notable. -- Brad D. (talk)
- How about we create a separate page to hold the pics? Like [[The Muppets (2011)/Gallery]]? Then we can add a link and be done with it. Or if you really think all those photos can't be held on just one page, we could make several gallery pages, like [[The Muppets (2011)/Gallery 1]], [[The Muppets (2011)/Gallery 2]], etc. What does everyone say to that?--The World's Smelliest Onion (The World's Smelliest Talk Page) 18:28, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
Well, since a lot of the screenshots I took were trimmed from the article already, and since the page has become really slow to load, I went ahead and removed the stuff that someone create separate pages for. —Scott (message me) 02:36, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
Cactus in poster?
I observed the poster and up behind Rowlf and the chicken, I noticed a green Muppet. It looks like a cactus. A cactus sounds like something they might use for a joke on The Muppet Show... anyone have ideas? This could be a new character.--The World's Smelliest Onion (The World's Smelliest Talk Page) 22:39, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
- That's a cactus. They were also in "Bohemian Rhapsody". —Scott (message me) 22:56, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, behind the cactus is a green frackle. Did anyone else notice that? It's right above the chicken. You can see it's eye. -Casey
- I definetely see Gloat the Green Frackle behind the Cactus and the Chicken. I wonder who or what the gray furry thing behind the other side of the Cactus is. Maybe Catgut?
- I see what you're talking about, Casey. It does look to me like a part of Gloat's eye and beak. It's most likely a stock photo, however. We really shouldn't be speculating anyway. He hasn't been seen in any of the trailers, so there's no telling if that Frackle's going to be in the movie or not until it's out. -- Jon (talk) 16:51, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
I know who the gray thing is, I think it's Chopped Liver from "Pigs in Space" and "The Vile Bunch."
Clifford In This Image?
I looked at this image:
And right in the middle of Jason Segal and Amy Adams, if you look closley, you can see a Muppet with sunglasses. Could that be Clifford? User:Gary the Gaget Dude
- I honestly don't see any Muppets with sunglasses. - Oscarfan 15:45, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
- It's right by Amy's arm. User:Gary the Gaget Dude
Yeah, I can see how that looks like sunglasses --
But if you look at the whole area, the bit that looks like light gleaming on a pair of sunglasses is actually Behemoth's two upper teeth. But you can only see one eye, so I can totally see how you thought it was Clifford. -- Danny (talk) 17:52, July 31, 2011 (UTC)
New robot character?
I take it that robot we saw in the new trailer is a new Muppet character? ChipmunkRaccoon 20:55, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
- You can see him in the third trailer -- here's the screenshot. -- Danny (talk) 22:50, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. User:Gary the Gaget Dude
I know that Bill Barretta, Eric Jacobson, Peter Linz, David Rudman, and Steve Whitmire are in the movie due to them being on the set in some pictures. Do we even have positive and official proof of the Muppet Performers that were just re-added? Rtkat3 (talk) July 12, 2011 (UTC)
- I know that the official websites for Leslie Carrara-Rudolph() and Karen Prell () mention their work on the movie. Checking the history, it looks like other fellow puppeteers have added their names to the list here, such as Sean Johnson (who also added his brother Patrick's name), and Paul McGinnis (who also added Alice Dinnean). Nathan Danforth and Michael Oosterom have worked with Jason Segel in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, so it doesn't surprise me that their names are here. However, I can't speak for Tyler Bunch or Bruce Lanoil. Brad might know. -- Jon (talk) 21:37, July 12, 2011 (UTC) (UTC)
- Yeah, while we do need to use more careful notation for now, the blanket erasure wasn't needed either (the Carrara note was even in the recent history, whereas the others took more digging). For additions by puppeteers, since we do try to protect those folks' privacy, noting it here is fine, but stuff from resumes should be footnoted for now. (It's not that many months before the full presskit will be out anyway). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:43, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
Text is blocked by images
As one can see when scrolling through the page, the "cameo guest stars" text is being covered by pictures. Perhaps the page has too many images on it?--Gonzofan 05:29, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
Is that Nigel from Muppets Tonight on the right of the group shot? Infront of the Mutation and to the right of the chicken? Wozza 22:04, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
- I believe it is. -- Jon (talk) 06:16, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that Clifford is listed in the cast of Muppets. Was it ever confirmed that he will indeed appear in the movie? If so, where was that reported? I'm just curious.--Gonzofan 21:43, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks!--Gonzofan 22:07, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Any word if his appearence will be included on the DVD or UK versions since it was cut fromn the US Theatrical release? - Stulz 17:22, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
- We'll see when they come out, but in fact it's not really clear if it was even filmed. In February 2011, a fan who talked to Kevin Clash said "Clifford WILL be in the new movie." That's the whole source. So it's unclear if it was in the script, puppet built, if a scene was filmed, or if Clash was even involved in the end (Scott said someone else asked him at a screening after the release, and he said no). So it's just another "wait and see," or someone would have to ask Kevin Clash about it (and quote him this time) to clear it up. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 18:31, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
- That article came out when Paul Rudd was still supposedly scheduled. I'm not sure it can be trusted. TenCents 18:40, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
- It also includes the disproved Jane Lynch rumor (when she wasn't even asked, as we now know). So no, not a reliable source (in fact, the Lady Gaga page right now has the best source, Segel saying in December 2010 [one month after the above link] that he'd scripted a cameo but she hadn't said yes yet and he had no idea if she would; a cameo was written for Charles Grodin after all, and that didn't work out). At this point, an official press release, clip or photo, or (in just a few months) the final screen credits are needed for this. Otherwise it's just an outdated rumor. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:03, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't it make sense to just merge Green with Envy and The Fuzzy Pack into one page that can just be called "The Muppets (2011) Fake Title Teasers" or something like that? TenCents 18:38, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
- That's an awkward suggested title. However, I understand the idea. Probably a page closer to The Muppets' Wizard of Oz commercials, only more detailed (and simply titled to encompass any noteworthy trailer info) could work, but with anchored redirects (since right now it seems those titles are generating a certain amount of traffic and also potential confusion, which the solo pages clarify). Maybe wait just a little bit to merge? -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:26, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
This video, though not excellent quality(clearly filmed with a camcorder), reveals that the closing number is called "Life's a Happy Song".Should we put that in the article now?--Fred (talk) 18:03, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
- I would wait until we get confirmation of the music from somebody at Disney, or the composers. Sometimes the title of a song isn't always the phrase that's repeated the most. -- Ken (talk) 18:29, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
Cast and Crew items
Take a look: http://cgi.ebay.com/Muppets-New-Movie-2011-Cast-Crew-T-Moopets-/270738312408?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f0942ccd8 -- Wozza (talk) 22:36, April 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Someone should make a page for that. Would it go under "production gifts?" Parstin32 00:01, April 21, 2011 (UTC)
Actual Movie Page
Shouldn't we make an official page for the movie at this point? I mean, it's obvious they're going through with this thing, and a lot of the details have come out already. We have the official logo, so why not make it official? An official page for the new movie! Whaddya say? - hairsprayman111 22:05, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Good point. Unlike last year when it was unclear and bouncing back and forth between "The Greatest Muppet Movie of All Time!!!," "The Cheapest Muppet Movie Ever Made," and everything in between....it now looks like they have settled on "The Muppets" (according to official press releases, statements, interviews, articles, logos, etc.)... So I wouldn't oppose moving this to The Muppets (film). Now of course it is possible that the title could end up changing before the actual release, but that could be said about any in development item. Are we going to wait until November to change this over? -- Brad D. (talk) 01:09, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if they already released the logo and press releases and things like that, the chances are VERY VERY slim that they will change the title again. They were advertising the movie on the Disney website, so I thik that's a sign that the movie is pretty rock-solid. I think it's a go for moving this page. -hairsprayman111 00:18, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
- The question there was if we needed two pages. The question now is should this page be renamed. -- Brad D. (talk) 06:05, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
Just for fun
I'm probably way off on the ones with the question marks, but it's just too much fun! Any ideas about any of these, or any differing guesses from other folks? :D — Julian (talk) 19:50, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Nice work Julian! although I think Lyle the dog is The Newsman with his arm extended and hand on someone infront of him? So excited about this! Wozza 22:43, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder who's playing Thog this time around. Probably not Jerry Nelson, but someone else. ChipmunkRaccoon 00:45, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
Scooter's jacket will be shiny
"It is confirmed, Scooter's jacket will be shiny."
What? Why's that under a picture of Miss Piggy in the photo gallery? Later pics of Scooter show a non-shiny suit. -- Zanimum 18:25, January 15, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not the one who put that there, but in that person's defense, Scooter's jacket is on the picture of Miss Piggy. — Julian (talk) 19:50, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Plot on Muppet Central
Do we trust this? Other than 4chan, I can't find this exact wording anywhere. -- Zanimum 15:42, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how, the theater's a landmark and can never be torn down. ;) Powers 16:52, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Har har. No, I'm meaning can the specifics be trusted, like the character names, the telethon bit. Given how the mainstream media seems rabidly reporting every shred of detail, it's amazing Muppet Central would be the only one to post this. -- Zanimum 21:15, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in a roundabout way, I'm saying that it sounds a little fishy to me. That's awfully similar to the plot of the Christmas special from a few years back. While it's true that the Muppets have never been known for their continuity of plot, it still seems odd to recycle a plot in that way. Powers 18:23, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
- I think the basic idea seems correct. --Edward Rankin 15:48, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
It is looking more and more likely that the title of this film could very well end up being "The Muppets." Now the release of the film is well over a year away (things could change), and it may be a while before substantial promotional material (such as a trailer or poster) come out to confirm anything officially. Right now this page works well to chronicle the news and developments of the project, but eventually we'll rework it into an article on the film itself.
If the title does end up actually being "The Muppets" how are we as a wiki going to handle it? Will we reappropriate The Muppets (which is currently just a redirect to Category:The Muppets Characters) for the article on the 2011 film? Or will we disambiguate it using something such as The Muppets (film) as the page title? What about for related categories? Will, for example, Walter go into Category:The Muppets (2011) Characters and the soundtrack into [[:Category:The Muppets (film) Merchandise]]? There's no need to move stuff around or create categories/pages right now, but we might want to discuss it preemptively before any conflicts arise when more information and excitement start to flood in. -- Brad D. (talk) 06:05, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's still too early to tell. The film is over a year away still. We should wait for promotional materials to surface before committing to anything. For now "Muppet Movie News" is best for SEO anyway. When the time comes, if the title is indeed The Muppets, then some form of disambiguation would be in order. But we should cross that bridge when we come to it. — scarecroe 06:08, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I have access to Disney's presskit site (which right now is still calling it The Muppets, but their latest CG film was initially Rapunzel, then Tangled (Formerly Known as Rapunzel) for ages, and the name change was official less than six months ago), so I'll be able to upload the final film credits and any prior publicity as it surfaces (so far it's just the same "table read" picture that everyone has). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 07:48, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that we should wait before moving or renaming anything. There is no big rush to answer the question - but I think it's worth discussing. The title could end up changing from "The Muppets" and this whole issue would be moot. However when a title is confirmed, if it does end up being "The Muppets" it would nice to know how we're going to handle it here (not just for the main article, but sub-cats too). "The Muppets", "The Muppets (film)", "The Muppets (movie)", "The Muppets (2011)", "The Muppets (feature film)",...? Because the moment an official title hits the web and the information and editors start to flood in (like when the first trailer or poster is released), it would be nice to have an answer standing by and ready to go to prevent any conflicts or un-uniformity. I know it may be a long way off, but I think it would be good to work out what form of disambiguation we want to use while there isn't any presure on us, and to avoid the potential of any one person making an improper, impulsive or solitary decision. Then we'll have an answer already standing by just in case the title is indeed "The Muppets". -- Brad D. (talk) 14:51, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, obviously we can't use "The Muppets" and I think "The Muppets (movie)" would be too confusing given the 1979 movie. "The Muppets (film)" is out because we don't use that identifier to disambiguate anything else here and "The Muppets (feature film)" is long and clumsy. The one that makes the most sense to me is "The Muppets (2011)" using the year of release to disambiguate as we do sometimes with books and albums. — scarecroe 17:27, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Well usually we don't disambiguate films, and give priority to the film and disambiguate everything off it. However we have used (film) as an identifier - see Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (film), Where the Wild Things Are (film), Alice in Wonderland (film), Nashville (film), Gone with the Wind (film), Henson (film), Nashville (film), The Seven Deadly Sins (film)...
- Usually we disambiguate based on medium (i.e. (soundtrack), (song), (book), (video), (character)...) and only use years if there are two articles within the same medium (such as two songs or two books with the same titles - although we've often use composers/authors; or two characters with the same name - although we often use production or character type there). Do you have some examples of where we've used years?
- Also how would we disambiguate ancillary products like storybooks, soundtracks, and home videos of the film? Simply "The Muppets (video)", or "The Muppets (2011) (video)", or "The Muppets (2011 video)" (which would be confusing when the DVD actually comes out in 2012)? -- Brad D. (talk) 19:09, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
- What about "Jason Segel's The Muppets"? --Edward Rankin 21:02, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, we have used (film), haven't we? Okay, that would be consistent, then. — scarecroe 21:06, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Judging by Segel's talk with MTV, it seems that the title is, officially, The Muppets. Still, it's a year away, so the title could change.--Edward Rankin 00:17, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
The July 2010 issue of GQ magazine (Taylor Lautner cover) features an interview with Jason Segel, during which he discusses puppetry, the importance of sad Muppets, and his driving-force-involvement in getting the new movie made. You guys might want to check it out and add whatever you deem relevant to the wiki. Ernie and Bert make an appearance in another article (with the catchy title "Is it okay to call your friend a Queerbot? How about a Gaywad? >Clearly you need our Handy Guide to Homophobia") that might be worthy of a mention over here. Just a heads up. — Julian (talk) 00:50, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
- Here's the Muppet-relevant part of the interview:
- How's the Muppet movie coming along? Nothing against any of your other projects, but this is the one I'm most excited about.
- It's my dream come true, man.
- How did you end up pitching yourself to relaunch the Muppets?
- It was right after Sarah Marshall, and I had a little bit of juice all of a sudden. Writing juice. And I took this meeting at Disney, and they're pitching me different stuff to rewrite, and I stopped, and I said, "Thank you, this is all very flattering"—which it was, it's supercool to suddenly be in that position—"but listen. You guys own the Muppets, and you're just kind of sitting on 'em. I really love the Muppets, and I think I know how to bring the franchise back." And there was literally laughter in the room. Like, "Oh—R-rated Segel is making a weird joke." And I said, "No, I'm serious. And I'm not gonna make it the Judd Apatow version of the Muppets. It's not gonna be ironic."
- So you pitch that, and then they laugh.…
- They laughed, and then I got a call on the way home from my agent, going, "They bought it, if you're serious." What happened was, Henson Company created the puppets for Sarah Marshall. And I was there, and I said, "Hey, while I'm here, can I maybe see a Kermit and a Miss Piggy?" And they got this kinda sad look, and they said, "Um, we don't have Kermits or Piggys. We sold everything to Disney." [incredibly serious now] And it all sorta made sense, why the Muppets have disappeared. That's something that really has to come from an individual person's passion. There's CGI now, and there's all these things that are theoretically cooler, but you'll never be able to replace the actual, tactile thing. Like when Kermit scrunches his face? You can't repeat that with CGI. I think when you can sit and make it perfect to the degree you want, you lose some of the humanity of it.
- Who's your favorite Muppet?
- It's between Kermit and Fozzie. I cannot get over Fozzie's bad jokes and the confidence that he delivers them with. Fozzie Bear has so many bear puns in this script—like, "Traffic is grizzly!" "This is unbearable!" It's the greatest. But when you get to one of those really earnest Kermit speeches? That is fucking awesome. [perfect Kermit voice] "Guys, this is about friendship, not about money! If we're not together, then, heck, I don't want to be here at all." Kermit was the original Everyman to me. The original Tom Hanks, the original Jimmy Stewart.
- Muppets Take Manhattan fucking destroyed me when I was a kid. The part where the Muppets break up is really emotionally affecting.
- Yeah. When Kermit sends them off, and they sing "Saying Goodbye"? I had to cite that a lot in these pitch meetings, because I kept getting notes from, like, the Muppet brass, saying, "Muppets are never sad. Muppets never break up." And I had to be like, "No—they do. And that's the best part." That's sort of where they got away from the beauty of the Muppets. They became all happy-go-lucky. Even the opening of The Muppet Movie. "Rainbow Connection"—that's not a happy-go-lucky song. He's alone in a swamp, hoping for something more.
--Justin 02:45, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
I moved this back to "The Greatest Muppet Movie of All Time!!!" as there's no real source that the title has changed. The Playlist got their information from The Film Stage and they don't cite a source. It's likely coming from Box Office Mojo which is only using "The Muppets" as a placeholder title. —Scott (talk) 17:05, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I deleted "The Muppets" earlier today but time and PC problems prevented me from doing anything else. So to reiterate the rule which we'd discussed before (when it was unclear which title would be given to the actual movie), given how convoluted the history of this project has been (and likely will be until it actually opens), should be that any potential retitling be discussed *first* on this talk page, since it otherwise just messes with links and so on and adds more work. Sources should be cited clearly on the talk page and the subject open to discussion before any actual move takes place (plus, unless we actually get Segel saying "Oh yeah, now the movie is just called 'The Muppets'," it's not surprising for the press or even those involved to use a shorthand title over a seven word title with three exclamation marks). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:34, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
So, in light of our discussion about how to handle the movie news between the two different scripts (one by Segel and an original treatment by Jerry Juhl), it looks like they're going with the Segel script, or at least a version of it. The latest AP article quotes a Disney exec talking about the original character created for his story. —Scott (talk) 18:20, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
I've been seeing tons of articles popping up stating pretty much the same thing:
““[It's] about Gary, Mary, and Walter (a man, his girlfriend, and the man’s life-long nondescript, brown puppet best friend) getting the old Muppet gang — now retired entertainers known for the same Muppet show we know them from — together to save the TV studio that the original show was shot in. A villain, Tex Richman, bent on drilling for oil underneath the studio, is due to take over the studio in weeks and the only way to stop him? Putting on a show that draws ten million viewers.””
On November 25 The Muppets made over 12 millon, yesterday it made under 3 millon. This is a huge drop, usually movies do not lose so much in a week. I hope people n this site keep spreading the message, so , because the movie coulddissapear in just a week at this rate. Spread the workd of the amazing new movie.
Who is the main character of this film? Walter or Gary?
Interstate2011 19:02, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
Best Movie I Have Ever Seen!!!!
This movie is the funniest movie I have ever seen besides besides Get Smart. I ve got to see the other movies now. DeanSims 18:46, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
So I heard some talk that there's going to be a sequel and that Jason Segel will not be returning for it. Is any of this true? Or some of it? Or none of it? Or is any of it unconfirmed? Or is this just a rumor? Please let me know! Thanks, guys!!!!!!
ILoveGonzo 00:31, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
When the telethon is going on, what is the name of the muppet who orders the pizza? I have been looking all over and can't find a name.
Extraterrestrial Origin Nod
The page includes a section on references to previous works, including Muppets from Space. Whenever Gonzo quit the plumbing company (and blew it up), I caught one part of his line--"People of Earth"--which I thought may be a nod to his alien origins and thefore also a reference to Muppets from Space. I was about to add it to the list, but I just thought I'd check with you guys in discussion in case I'm just overthinking his line. DanMat6288 (talk) 02:53, October 20, 2012 (UTC)