The Muppets

[Greylock Crescent]

But to my eye, though, I've yet to see a digital creation that could stand alongside a traditional, live-action puppet in such a way that it isn't obvious which is which.

Err... why would you want to?

Precisely. I wouldn't want to because there's an aesthetic you can get with a puppet (in the style of the Muppets) that, at the moment, cannot be achieved via CGI. And while CGI has proven exceptional in some films (LOTR, Apes, Jurassic Park, etc.) the juxtaposition in the context of the Muppets (e.g. Waldo at Muppet Vision 3D) isn't something I particularly enjoy ... yet, because the difference is, currently, too easily distinguishable (heck, even the blue screen work for Muppets Most Wanted was distracting to me). That was the whole point of my original post about the Muppets and CGI.

 

[Awesome Possum]

But to my eye, though, I've yet to see a digital creation that could stand alongside a traditional, live-action puppet in such a way that it isn't obvious which is which.

Err... why would you want to?

Precisely. I wouldn't want to because there's an aesthetic you can get with a puppet (in the style of the Muppets) that, at the moment, cannot be achieved via CGI. And while CGI has proven exceptional in some films (LOTR, Apes, Jurassic Park, etc.) the juxtaposition in the context of the Muppets (e.g. Waldo at Muppet Vision 3D) isn't something I particularly enjoy ... yet, because the difference is, currently, too easily distinguishable (heck, even the blue screen work for Muppets Most Wanted was distracting to me). That was the whole point of my original post about the Muppets and CGI.

To be fair, Waldo was created in 1989 and Muppet Vision 3D is from 1991. It's not comparable to modern CG. You could probably create a pure CG muppet now. The characters in Inside Out have a fuzzy appearance similar to the felt muppets. There's just no point, part of the charm of the Muppets is that they are physical puppets. I have gotten to see some of them in person, Red and Mokey Fraggle with the original muppeteers. There's something about them that makes you ignore the performer and just focus on them.

 

[Christopher]

The point is, saying "You can't create a CGI character that looks just like a Muppet" isn't a valid criticism any more than saying "You can't create garlic bread that tastes just like lasagna." The goal in the first place would be to create something different and complementary, so the fact that they aren't the same is a feature, not a bug. At least, that's how I think Henson would've approached CG had he lived -- not as an alternate way of doing the same thing, which would be pointless, but a way of doing something new and distinctive that couldn't be done otherwise.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

To get back to the actual show, I've enjoyed it thus far. But I have to say, especially after this week's episode, Kermit comes off way to manipulative and ruthless. In the earlier episodes, it was okay, because with Piggy's boyfriend (I didn't know the guy outside the show, so I can't remember his name), he basically just gave Piggy the push she needed. His stunt to break them up hadn't been successful if the relationship wasn't doomed from the start.

But this time, yeah, sure, he had to keep the show going, but instead of just being tough and take the blame from the crew, he manipulated Piggy into being the bad guy (or bad girl). That just didn't feel right.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I don't see Kermit that way. He's really trying to keep the show going as best he can. In the latest, he tried to keep Piggy from getting involved. He just didn't expect her to actually go to the bar since she's usually on an ego trip most of the time.

 

[Christopher]

Well, I just don't recognize the characters anymore. I tried watching episode 3 yesterday while my computer was in the shop and I was trying to kill time until it was ready, but I just couldn't get past the first act. Not only was it not funny, but the characters just weren't acting like themselves. They've been replaced with different characters who look like them and kinda sound like them, but who don't act like them and aren't remotely as fun to watch.

(Still, I am impressed at how dead-on Eric Jacobson's Fozzie is. He sounds exactly like Frank Oz's Fozzie. Too bad his Piggy isn't as accurate.)

 

[Greylock Crescent]

The point is, saying "You can't create a CGI character that looks just like a Muppet" isn't a valid criticism any more than saying "You can't create garlic bread that tastes just like lasagna." The goal in the first place would be to create something different and complementary, so the fact that they aren't the same is a feature, not a bug. At least, that's how I think Henson would've approached CG had he lived -- not as an alternate way of doing the same thing, which would be pointless, but a way of doing something new and distinctive that couldn't be done otherwise.

Of course it's a valid criticism - until the technology manages to replicate the original incarnation to the point where it actually complements ... the original incarnation. Waldo certainly didn't do that. And I haven't seen anything since that could.

As I've said before, it's not an impossible task ... and it's not like CGI isn't a valid means of achieving a desired result ... but, as yet, I've haven't seen any CGI that would fit well with the puppetry of the Muppets.

To put it another way: (Unless the two were indistinguishable) an all-CGI production would be much more appealing than trying to meld CGI and traditional puppets. Kind of like Muppet Babies. That was pure animation - and fun and enjoyable ... but knew that it wasn't ever going to be at the same production aesthetic as the puppet productions.

 

[Christopher]

Of course it's a valid criticism - until the technology manages to replicate the original incarnation to the point where it actually complements ... the original incarnation. Waldo certainly didn't do that. And I haven't seen anything since that could.

But that's a contradictory sentence. Replicating something is the opposite of complementing it. You complement something by being different from it, by offering something it doesn't have. You've heard of complementary colors, right? Red and green complement each other. Red and red do not. A complement is an opposite, an alternative, not a duplication. We're talking peanut butter and jelly or peanut butter and chocolate, not peanut butter and an indistinguishable replica of peanut butter.

Isaac Asimov once said, "If robots turn out exactly like human beings, it would be a terrible waste; we've got human beings." The same principle applies here. We've got puppets already, so it's pointless to try to make CGI look exactly like puppets. The goal should be to use it to create something you can't do with puppets, to embrace its differences from the art of puppetry. Otherwise there's no point in using it at all.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I didn't see a thread on this yet, so what do you think of the new show? I've loved the Muppets since Sesame Street, and he new movie a few years ago was just fantastic; although the follow-up not so much.
I like the IDEA of what they're trying to do with the new show, it's just not working for me though.
1. The guest stars of the original Muppet Show were A/B list celebrities back in the day, and so farr we've had Elizabeth Banks, and Josh Grobin. Not on par with Julie Andrews and Steve Martin.
2. Who is the audience for this show? The humor mostly goes right over the head of my seven year old, and my thirteen year old thinks it's lame. My wife and I get it, but it's not that good.
3. Kermit and Miss Piggy broke up - stop beating us over the head with this, and focus on something else for a while.

Am I alone in this, or does anyone else feel the same?

The show is not meant to be like the previous ones (a good thing) and is meant to be like Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Newsroom, Made In Canada (aka The Industry in other countries), Action, Bracken's World & 30 Rock-that's the vibe they're going for. This is not a straight variety show, and that's great, because that kind of show is dead and could only work with certain younger pop stars. It's not meant for younger kids, either-not everything in life with puppets (or Muppets) has to be or should be (this show in particular wasn't.) Besides, kids have a ton of other things to watch anyway.

I think that 'beating people over the head' with the breakup of Kermit & Piggy is good-Piggy was an abuser of Kermit to begin with. Why they're doing this is so that people not familiar with this new show will get it and not be upset that they are no longer together (especially if some people missed the first episode.) Think of this as, 'For those of you just tuning in...'

 

[martok2112]

One Million Moms seem to think this show is the worst thing to happen since... I dunno.. Harry Potter? (Well, most soccer moms seem to hate Harry Potter.)

I'll wait for this to hit Netflix. It sounds interesting enough.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

One Million Moms seem to think this show is the worst thing to happen since... I dunno.. Harry Potter? (Well, most soccer moms seem to hate Harry Potter.).

I thought that Campbell soup ad with the two fathers was the worst thing according to One Million Moms.
Then again, these people appear to only be able to communicate in extremes. Like the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons.

 

[Marc]

One Million Moms seem to think this show is the worst thing to happen since... I dunno.. Harry Potter? (Well, most soccer moms seem to hate Harry Potter.).

I thought that Campbell soup ad with the two fathers was the worst thing according to One Million Moms.
Then again, these people appear to only be able to communicate in extremes. Like the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons.

And they didn't even wait until the show had even aired before trying to get it banned.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I think Kermit is better off without Piggy. She was extremely abusive, poor frog was constantly getting karate chopped across the building. He's 60 years old, he can't keep taking that.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Of course it's a valid criticism - until the technology manages to replicate the original incarnation to the point where it actually complements ... the original incarnation. Waldo certainly didn't do that. And I haven't seen anything since that could.

But that's a contradictory sentence. Replicating something is the opposite of complementing it. You complement something by being different from it, by offering something it doesn't have. You've heard of complementary colors, right? Red and green complement each other. Red and red do not. A complement is an opposite, an alternative, not a duplication. We're talking peanut butter and jelly or peanut butter and chocolate, not peanut butter and an indistinguishable replica of peanut butter.

Well, then you've missed the point entirely. I didn't say that "CGI had to precisely replicate puppetry," I said it had to, "replicate the original incarnation to the point where it actually complements ... the original incarnation." You can throw any two colors (or ingredients) together, but that doesn't necessarily mean they compliment one another. Thus far, puppetry and CGI has been the equivalent of peanut butter and ketchup - teal and hot pink. Sure, you get attention with the jarring juxtaposition, but that doesn't make it genuinely complimentary.

 

[Christopher]

^I don't know what you're using as a referent. CGI has long since advanced to the point that, with sufficient budget, time, and talent, it can blend indistinguishably with live-action. That's been the case since Jurassic Park came out 20-odd years ago. You seem to be arguing as if it's still 1989 and we're watching Waldo on The Jim Henson Hour.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I'm using the aesthetic of the Muppets as a point of reference and the fact that, as yet, I've not seen CGI that would seamlessly compliment that puppetry aesthetic. Sure, there are plenty of examples of CGI blending into live-action shots in other films ... but whether it's Waldo, or Jar-Jar, or Gollum, or Caesar ... I've yet to see it match the specific behaviors and expectations of the Muppets. And that is precisely the point. I'm not arguing against CGI in general. Nor am I saying that it cannot possibly ever compliment genuine puppetry. I'm saying that I've yet to see CGI that actually achieves that goal.

 

[Christopher]

I'm using the aesthetic of the Muppets as a point of reference and the fact that, as yet, I've not seen CGI that would seamlessly compliment that puppetry aesthetic. Sure, there are plenty of examples of CGI blending into live-action shots in other films ... but whether it's Waldo, or Jar-Jar, or Gollum, or Caesar ... I've yet to see it match the specific behaviors and expectations of the Muppets. And that is precisely the point. I'm not arguing against CGI in general. Nor am I saying that it cannot possibly ever compliment genuine puppetry. I'm saying that I've yet to see CGI that actually achieves that goal.

Again, you're talking about two contradictory things. To "match" is not to complement. To complement is to be different. You're talking about merely using CGI to imitate what live action already looks like, and that is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about, what I think Henson would've tried to do with CGI if he'd lived.

Heck, the worst thing about CGI's development over the past three decades is that the early experiments to use it to create totally new types of imagery -- like the original TRON -- have given way mostly to attempts to simulate the appearance of live action. That's limiting the artistic potential of the medium, and it's not the direction I think an innovator like Henson would have taken.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Nope. Again, what I'm talking about is not contradictory. I'm saying that, despite the obvious advances and successes of CGI, I've yet to see an example of CGI that would fit, aesthetically, on screen with the puppetry from the Muppets. Full stop.

I'm not saying that CGI should be vilified. Nor am I say that it should never be used with live-action puppets - that it could never achieve a seamless coexistence with the Muppets. I'm simply stating that, in my experience, I've yet to see it be successfully implemented with the visual tone we expect to see from the Muppets. It's a pretty straightforward opinion. And I'll note that, despite your claims that it's "contradictory" you've not provided any examples where CGI might be implemented with the Muppets in such a way where the CGI is not ... obviously CGI. (Pro Tip: Jurassic Park is not a suitable comparison.)

That's not a contradictory position, it's merely a personal commentary on how CGI has, to date, been developed and implemented.

 

[Gaith]

This is still a thread about the latest Muppet series on ABC, oui?

​

Karaoke night should obviously be a recurring feature of the program, as the last episode was the best yet.

 

[Christopher]

And I'll note that, despite your claims that it's "contradictory" you've not provided any examples where CGI might be implemented with the Muppets in such a way where the CGI is not ... obviously CGI.

But that is exactly the thing you're not getting about my point. You're thinking in terms of hiding the CGI to pass it off as reality. You're buying into the modern assumption that CGI-ness is something shameful that needs to be disguised. What I'm saying is that I don't think Henson would've gone for that paradigm. I think he would've been more in the vein of the early CGI pioneers who wanted to embrace the difference in appearance between CGI and other visual media, to explore the potential of this new art form to create whole new kinds of visuals.

Saying "the CGI should not be obviously CGI" is like saying "The sculpture should not be obviously sculpture instead of painting" or "The violins should not sound obviously like violins instead of tubas." I'm not talking about hiding the nature of a new art form, I'm talking about embracing its uniqueness. I'm talking about a mindset that CGI should look like CGI, because the fact that it's different from other forms of visual expression is what makes it valuable and interesting, in the same way that the differences between violins and tubas and timpanis and oboes makes listening to an orchestra interesting because of the ways the different sounds complement each other. That's the approach I think an innovator like Henson would've taken -- to play up the differences between physical and CGI, to use the contrasts between them as the basis of his art, rather than trying to make them seem interchangeable.