puddinheadwilson says: The question is, why did they choose an “oil baron” as the evil protagonist? Why not … oh let’s say “power-hungry politician”? Or maybe “left-wing radical activist”? The subtext of the message is clear.
» SFB says: Here’s why they chose an “oil baron”: Because unlike the Media Research Center, most people who create art don’t create it with an ulterior motive. Let’s face it, the character is cartoonish at best: This villain is a guy who raps. This is a guy who says “maniacal laugh” instead of actually making a maniacal laugh. It’s meant to be absurd. If you bother to take the “subtext” of the villain in “The Muppets” seriously and suggest it’s brainwashing kids, you get your pundit card taken away. — Ernie @ SFB
» SFB also says: The 1998 Norm MacDonald film “Dirty Work” has a real estate mogul as its villain; does that make “Dirty Work” an anti-real estate mogul film? Suppose the villain in “The Muppets” was the owner of a baseball team. Would that constitute a subversive anti-baseball team owner message? A film’s antagonist has to have some profession (unless the point is that they’re unemployed). The fact that the writers chose a profession that plays a role in the political zeitgeist doesn’t, in and of itself, mean there’s a political statement being made. — Seth @ SFB