DigitalPIMPonline.com

by **joerules** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:20 pm

Oh I agree. Saving a theater isn't part of their history but "putting on a show" is. Whatever their reason for putting on that show - so be it. You're focusing on the reason why instead of the act of doing it which was the point all along.

They can put on a show for an reason - as long as it's not "saving up money to go into space", which (even though it was them) I don't consider "putting on a show". The point is, they're putting on a show. And that is part of their "roots".

by **batsofchaos** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:28 pm

The reason is what irks me, so that's why I focused on it. However, I'm perfectly happy with them putting on a show, no arguments about that.

by **logosmonkey** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:52 pm

joerules wrote:I think the whole package of the comic is a little busy. Like there's too much going on. You were the first to notice the puppeteers but no one has seen the No Country for Old Grover poster.

Wow, I noticed everything but the Grover poster. That's completely awesome and quite frankly I never consider little details like that a waste, it just makes the strip more endearing.

by **Tom Brazelton** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:55 pm

For the record, I didn't mean to imply it was a waste when I said it was too much detail.

I'm just amazed Joe puts that much effort into his work. I'm glad he does.

by **logosmonkey** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:55 pm

Oh can you post a copy of the poster? I'd like to see it full on.

by **joerules** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:07 pm

Here's a blown up version of it.

by **logosmonkey** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:09 pm

That's digital awesome right there sir.

by **Tom Brazelton** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:13 pm

Wow - Not just Grover, but SUPER Grover.

Joe pulled out all the stops!

by **The Bodyguard** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:24 pm

God I really want to see No Country for Old Grover now. I just noticed and was coming to comment when I see a better picture of it.

by **MonkeyPlaypen** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:30 pm

All I have to say is, this new movie had better have Rowlf in it. Ever since Christmas Carol, he's been shunted to the back in favor of characters two-bit characters like Pepe. Rowlf's one of the best characters who always had the best lines!

"I go home, read a book, drink a few beers, take myself for a walk, and go to bed."

Anyone who says a line like that doesn't deserve ensemble.
Sorry for the tangent. That's my two cents.

by **batsofchaos** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:39 pm

Well, Rowlf was portrayed by Jim Henson originally, and he has a distinctive and harsh enough voice to make replacing him hard. In fact, it wasn't until '96 that he spoke again, and it's been single words or phrases.

by **MonkeyPlaypen** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:38 pm

Yeah, but Kermit's voice is distinctive, but they replaced him.
I don't mean to argue. Just playing devil's advocate.

by **batsofchaos** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:26 am

Rowlf's voice is more rough than Kermit's for one, and for another Kermit is more iconic and central to the muppet characters. Rowlf was always sort of a background character; on the show he played the piano, he was a bit part in the movies, etc. When Henson died, they had someone take over for Kermit and retired Rowlf for a while. Since he was reintroduced he's remained mostly in the background.

by **Styles Bitchly** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:00 am

Rowlf was Jim's favorite Muppet so he was retired out of respect. He was the first Muppet after all.

by **opie301** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:32 am

I'm not sure what the bugaboo is with Putting on a Show to Save the Theater. It sounds like a fine reason to get the Muppets back. The show was great because of all the backstage stuff that went on. The movies were great because the Muppets acted like real people... real people made of felt of course.

It's good stuff, and I'm excited to see what they come up with.

Bats... what if they were putting on a show to defend the world from attacking bees?

DigitalPIMPonline.com

#344 Saving the Muppets

Who is online