» A bad crop of films, or something else? With a bunch of also-rans in the theater and two weak films — a movie that scored 7 percent on Rotten Tomatoes in the lead and a Jonah Hill vehicle, “The Sitter,” right behind — to hold up the box office, it may not have been the best week for films … but December is a very strange time of year for the box office to struggle like this. One analyst blames a lack of male-oriented films. We blame a lack of exposure for Foozie Bear, who is by far the the best part of “The Muppets.”
OK. So apparently I said some things that offended little Kermit and Miss Piggy the last few days. And I — listen, I apologize. … I just wanted to say, listen, froggy — what’s his name? Kermit, Miss Piggy, if you want to debate this any time, I’m all for it. So let’s bring it.Fox Business’ Eric Bolling • Apologizing for a segment last week, in which he and the Media Research Center’s Dan Gainor ripped “The Muppets” for daring to have a plot with an evil oil baron. They’re still idiots. Meanwhile, a great Twitter hashtag has cropped up over the last day — #GOPMuppetHearings.
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
It’s amazing how far the left will go just to manipulate your kids, to convince them, give the anti-corporate message. I mean this is a Muppet movie for goodness sakes! The only thing green on the screen should be Kermit!The Media Research Center‘s Dan Gainor • Missing the point of “The Muppets” by assuming that it had anything to do with the environment whatsoever. (Rather, the plot had to deal with an oil baron who planned the destroy The Muppets’ film studio, with no real eco-friendly focus.) Excuse me, friend, we just took away your pundit card. You’re not allowed to say anything on television anymore. For your own safety. source (via • follow)