So glad for organic muppets back then, CGI muppets would've stunk !

[deleted]

There is no craftsmanship anymore. People have gotten lazy and the work ethic is gone.

Couldn't agree more. CGI muppets would not have been as charming as the old fashioned method. As a kid watching I knew they were puppets but it didn't detract from their magic and fun. I didn't need any gimmick to make them seem more 'real'.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

Everything is made for money.

Convince the bean counters for more time and money.

Newer television is glossy and faster-paced... but the heart isn't always there.

Sometimes, older tv isn't perfect either...

"CGI muppets would've stunk !"

There is no reason to put a space before the exclamation point. It looks repulsive.

About your claim;

.. um.. no.

They wouldn't have "stunk" for the following reasons:

1) "CGI muppets" is an oxymoron. If it's a muppet, it's not done with computer graphics - and vice versa. It's like saying "CGI Animatronics". It's either one or the other. Before you counter-argue, remember that the word "muppet" means a -very-specific- kind of a puppetlike contraption. Not just a visual imagery of it.

2) "CGI" didn't really exist back then. Computers of Earth were not powerful enough to render textured polygons into 'believable images', nor did programs to do so exist, neither. So it would NOT have been possible for anything 'CGI' to exist, and non-existent things do not stink.

The first movie with proper computer-generated, rendered and textured 3D-scenes
was probably "The Last Starfighter (1984)", though the movie "Tron (1982)" already utilized computer-generated graphics in a big way. In any case, The Muppet Show began in the Lord's year 1976 Anno Domini.

And even if it could have been technically plausible (after all, you could in theory render a computer-generated movie on a Commodore 64 - it would just take a 'very long time'), it would not have been commercially viable. It would have been astronomically expensive.

3) "CGI" refers to "Computer Generated Imagery", or "Computer Graphics Integrated", and as such, it's completely ODORLESS. It can't have a stench. So it can't stink any more than a video file can stink. Bits don't have a smell.

I also fail to see the point of what you are trying to say.

The muppets weren't good because they were mechanical - they were good because:

1) They were made in the glorious seventies-and-eighties vibes, where inspirative energy flow was ebbing all over the planet in a very powerful, strong and sensitive, uplifting way - more in the eighties

2) They were made by real innovators and creative, inspired human beings, who had a vision, and knew what they wanted. They also had a great sense of humor. The point here is; it was the PEOPLE, WHO MADE IT that were in a big way responsible for its greatness. They could have made it work with any other format just as well - it would have been different, but surely great, and there would be people who would be now saying that if it had been some kind of puppets, it would have 'stunk' (what's the matter, afraid of using the word "suck"?).

These people, in those seventies-eighties vibes, would have been able to make it work with CGI, ink on paper cartoons, pixel paintings, claymation, animatronics, cleaning equipment .. ANYTHING. It's not about the FORMAT, it's about the CREATIVITY behind the format. You CAN be creative with computer graphics, but these modern 'artists' just don't seem to have any creativity in them. It's not the fault of the format.

And so the greatness is not the glory of the format, either. Muppets, cartoons, live actors, guys in costumes (actually, they did use these sometimes) -- it doesn't matter. Why do people always think the magic lies in HOW something was made, instead of WHO made it and WHEN? Sheesh.

3) It had great musics

4) It had great writing

5) It had interesting 'guest stars'

6) It had immersive and relatable characters

7) The way the characters interacted with each other, was believable and pure genius

8) .. AND SO ON!

It was never the 'muppets' format. I don't care how they made the muppets - if they had been just painted hands, it would have been just as good (just wouldn't have looked as sophisticated and probably would have damaged the immersion a bit).

So, "CGI" would NOT have "stunk", consider your silly argument obliterated and abolished without mercy.

Write something better next time, please.

Star Wars VII is not going to be one iota better just because they use 'practical effects', by the way. The effects are not what make or destroy a movie or a TV show. It's how you use them, and how good the story/characters/acting/directing/writing/music/dialog/atmosphere/feel/vibes/etc. are.

But be my guest and fool yourself into thinking you found the magical axe that can make the water gush from the rock, that you have found the one ingredient that's needed to make things good again.

You can make 'practical muppets' all day long and never reach the level of goodness that 'The Muppet Show' showed us in almost every episode. It's because it doesn't matter what the format or platform is. What matters, are different things altogether.