You're the one to ask about this: what's this from? What is it a parody of, if anything? I found it deep down in my files, titled vanity-fair.jpg, saved in 2005. Any idea?
I've not seen this one before. So here are my first thoughts. Immediately my hunch is that it is part of the photos that were part of Zink Magazine. My other gut reaction was Kermit is Howard Hughes in this picture because it looks like he has a pencil moustache and a scarf, both associated with Hughes. Andrew would be super good to get in on this conversation as well, but for now that is all I got. I did a reverse image search and came up empty handed, as did a google image search for "kermit the frog and howard hughes"
I don't know who designed that dress. I'm guess it falls under the costume designer for the film, although I'm not holding my breath on that. Do you have a picture of the PVC? Were there others? I wish we had something like that in the states. My movie theatres here didn't even have a drink cup like they do for Twilight or Alvin and the Chipmunks, which made me super sad.
You're probably right with that it's just a "generic" Piggy dress. Still, I present you the Muppets-Menü, showcasing the glorious PVC of her! I really like it lot, and was wondering the same about US movie theaters missing out on offering a cup or a toy or something to go with the film. Even the UK has those bobble heads (and the Miss Piggy one seems to have the same body as this one).
I have an idea: Oder yourself a set of, say, 250 pieces right here (click "Shop" on the left)! Or ask nicely if they're willing to send you leftovers! :)
I wish they'd send me leftovers. LOL. I might have to investigate. I wonder how many people aside from us hardcores people would want an unused popcorn tub though. LOL
Hi! Where did you find all those pictures? I can't believe what we've been able to find from just the stuff on the web for the theatrical release. I can't imagine what we're going to find when you guys start going through the entire movie frame by frame!
Are they not fantastic!?!?!? I just was doing searches for the El Capitan display of Piggy's costumes and stumbled onto all that. I wish I could have gone to see it. Piggy's fashions are my new fascination in the Muppet world. lol. And I totally get into stuff like that so I would have spent hours just pouring over those displays. The dressing room and office really fascinated me and I just studied every square inch that I could. I think I know one of the artists of the frog sculpture on Kermit's desk, so I'm trying to verify that right now too. I'm a geek to the bone. :)
Heya. I assume that the Playboy on the conference table in the Wilson's Meats film can be seen in this reel. The film exhibit you attended no doubt had a better quality copy than the on on YouTube. I have a better copy too, but I'm still having trouble finding the Playboy. Do you remember what part it's at? I'm trying to identify what issue it might have been.
We've kept things such as that off the wiki in the past. It's not really relevent to this site anyway. They can find information about that on his wikipedia page.
They can find out that Jack Black was in Kung Fu Panda on his Wikipedia page, as well. Even if not convicted, his career in children's entertainment is pretty-well shot. When someone ends their career with the Muppets to become a novelist, we include that, it just seems we should have less fortunate ends included.
There is at least one other individual with a page on here that we have ommited the information from as well in another child pornography case. This is a wiki about the Henson universe, and that falls outside the scope.
See Talk:Chris Langham. This falls under the "personal lives" rule (as opposed to ("other creative works"), just like we don't cover divorces, and for deaths, we don't need to be overly detailed over cause (we can say "died of cancer," we don't need to specify exactly which kind if it's covered over on Wikipedia and so on). By the same token, we don't track even positive stuff like "just gave birth to first daughter." We only track such info when it's Wiki relevant (i.e. for people like Sonia Manzano when it affected their work on the series and character plot, and so on).
For that matter, see also Paul Reubens, Michael Jackson. Even for Northern Calloway, we mention the reason for his departure and link to a couple of articles about his death, but we don't go into the nitty gritty about his downhill slide and death (much of which wasn't fully revealed until "Street Gang" anyway, and which we could probably add as a citation for more details without becoming tabloidy in our own coverage). It's a policy decision the community came to years ago.
Reubens, Jackson, and Langham were all famous outside of Sesame. Arguably, Sesame and the awards that came with it *made* Mr. Rivas.
Marriages, divorces, etc. don't end careers (unless the person is a Kardashian), so I agree that's irrelevant and invasive, unless it's Sonia, or Marty and Annie marrying (and starting an official Sesame blog), etc. With Northern Calloway, agreed, it's enough to summarize his decline, and let people find a copy of the book.
But people will connect Rivas with Sesame, and thus the Muppets. Thus they'll expect us to at least have a footnote that they can learn more info through. Especially when there's a direct connection between career and alleged crime, it seems silly to not even have a sentence, if found guilty.
Of relevance, look how many people turned to Wikipedia after the news broke:
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Fernando_Rivas
Surely a few hundred turned to Muppet Wiki. Without the arrest mentioned, they think we're either slow or in denial.
It just seems with this, and with the image width discussion (also not on the policy page), you expect that every contributor to this project spends every waking moment reading CE.
We don't, Nick. But these have been policies for years now. You're right that the Policy page needs updating (it covered those which were the biggest problems at the time; the width one, honestly you're the first person to actively challenge it, and we'll get to it (I thought of bring it up on Current Events just the other day). Thanks for pointing it out. But please Nick, while I agree that a lot of the policies established from Current Events and talk discussions need to be noted on the page, that doesn't make them less of a policy. Thanks!
Nick has a good point that this particular bit of personal life is impacting Rivas' professional career and thus not entirely irrelevant to his page. It seems to me that a compromise might be simply to state an end date to the time he wrote for Sesame Street (I assume he won't be working with them anymore?) and cite that with a link to a reasonably factual presentation of what and why. The end date to his association with Sesame is relevant and well within the scope of the wiki.
What do you guys think?
I think that should hopefully satisfy both Nick's desire to have a more complete article with a link to more info for anybody who is curious, and our general policy of not including details of people's personal lives. Nick can you come up with a suitable link to cite for this? If not yet, please add the information when there is one.
As for the policies in general, we should have that as a more public discussion.
Monsterena in 1998 seems to be his last song, at least on this wiki. Why he stopped working for them then would likely have to be answered by Rivas himself.
As for sources, there's 41 options on Google News. Among them are CBS News, FOX News, USA Today, Reuters. (I guess one thing to note, the only other "personal life details" about Sesame staffer in the last decade was Loretta Long being hit by a car. So long as the mainstream news doesn't report, we don't.)
yup. Andrew also just told me he stopped a long time ago, which the article does not currently reflect. Let's straighten that out so it's clear in our article when the association ended -- as is, it seems as if he started in 1990 and is still writing for them. No need for a reference in that case though, as the current problems are not the reason he stopped working for them, and the evidence that he stopped is the lack of songs.
And yeah, we try to keep included personal information relevant to their career with sesame/henson; I don't personally think it matters whether it's "mainstream" news that reports it or not. It would seem odd to put this stuff in on one composer from 10 years ago when we don't have it on so many others.
We don't have it on so many others, simply because they never were the subject of headlines, except for their professional careers. (And even then, most were still never the subject of headlines.) And if mainstream news coverage of something is irrelevant, we should get rid of Misinterpretations of Sesame Street product voices.
Well that's coverage of products, not people's private lives; I was referring to the latter when I said I didn't think it mattered if the news source were mainstream or not. The point being we don't cover details of people's private lives, headlines or not.
I really don't think this is a big deal for us. Rivas wasn't even important enough to have a page on the wiki until now. It's good that we have a page on him now, but we're not expected to be an up-to-the-minute news source for every minor Sesame alumnus.
We can talk back and forth about policies, but honestly, this really does come down to a matter of taste. We have no idea what the facts are in this case; our only sources are vague summaries about the charges. I don't want to print that stuff here, because if he's proven innocent, then I don't want to be part of a smear campaign that destroys his life and his career. It's not cool.
I'm not doubting it, but there's nothing to indicate why on the article, or in the one video clip. What did he do? Switch voices with Elmo in one of the skits, or become a Muppet?
This would be why. He was the voice of a chicken, which was him in disguise. I'm gonna add this picture to his page. It's a stretch I guess for the category, but fun. I'll make some adjustments to the page, but feel free to remove the category if you think it doesn't count.
Hey! I posted "The Muppets" production notes on Scott's wall yesterday (because Wiki was giving me problems when I tried to paste to the talk page for the movie), but here's the section I know you'll like: the costume design! Lots of stuff for Category:Fashion in here. Although if Polly Smith wasn't involved at all in the movie, I will feel fairly sad. Also, dig the direct reference to Audrey Hepburn! Combined with Breakfast at Tiffany's, I think this justifies a page.
MUPPET COUTURE
Costume Designer Rahel Afiley Dresses Muppets, Men (and Everything in Between)
When it came to costumes for the Muppets, costume designer Rahel Afiley had her work cut out for her. “The biggest challenge was proportion of the Muppet body,” says Afiley. “Even if you design something that looks good on a person, it doesn’t mean it will look good on a Muppet. You have to keep in mind how much detail there is in the outfit, because if you have too much, it just takes over. If you have too little or if it’s below the waist, the detail is lost since the Muppets are only shown from the waist up.”
According to Afiley, fabric selection is critical in designing costumes for the Muppets. Lightweight fabrics aid in the ease of maneuverability of the Muppets. The costume designer also considered how each fabric would lay on the Muppet’s felt “skin.” And though cost was certainly a consideration, the needs of the scene were always top of mind. “We didn’t skimp on the quality of the fabric,” she says. “Miss Piggy has a jacket made of cashmere that cost 300 dollars a yard.”
True to her character, Miss Piggy was the biggest wardrobe challenge due to the quantity of costumes she required as well as her role as editor of Vogue Paris. Says Afiley, “James [Bobin] and I are not really into trends. We both love classic looks, and it was really important to us to bring Piggy back to how she was in the early Muppets.
“If you watch old movies,” Afiley continues, “you can take an outfit worn by someone like Audrey Hepburn that could easily be worn on the red carpet today. That was my inspiration for Miss Piggy’s fashions.”
To dress a fashionista like Miss Piggy, Afiley called on notable designers like Christian Louboutin, who designed a pair of glitter platform stiletto heels complete with the Louboutin signature red bottom. “We sent him a picture of the potential outfit the shoes would be worn with and he designed a custom creation based on that,” says Afiley.
Zac Posen was also tapped, designing a signature dress for the diva. Says Afiley, “I felt it should be a vintage-inspired gown.” The result? A spectacular Posen-designed gown in lavender that was used in the film’s finale.
Miss Piggy wasn’t the only Muppet who captured the attention of the fashion world. Kermit was dressed by the high-class men’s fashion house Brooks Brothers, which was already involved in the film—providing much of Chris Cooper’s wardrobe as well as tuxedos for other cast members. The Brooks Brothers design was worn by Kermit in the scene when he and Piggy walk the streets of Paris together.
Walter proved a fun challenge for the costume designer. The first task was to establish the newest Muppet’s character, and Bobin was convinced a powder-blue suit would do the trick, says Afiley. “Walter is like a proper little man, and James felt that the powder-blue suit represented this manly personality.” Brother Gary donned a similar suit for the film’s early travel scene, which helped showcase their attachment to each other.
Afiley had a clear vision for costumes for both Amy Adams and Jason Segel: timeless and classic. Because Segel is so tall, vintage clothes were hard to find for him because they tend to run small. “We literally went from thrift store to thrift store looking for his clothes,” says Afiley. While Gary’s character goes through an evolution in film, so did his attire. “He kind of grows up and evolves,” says the costume designer. “He transforms into a more mature person and we tried to reflect that in his wardrobe.”
According to Afiley, small-town girl Mary had to have clothing that wasn’t too trendy. “In the opening number, I wanted Amy to stand out and, because it was such a happy number, I wanted her outfit to reflect that. The yellow skirt was definitely a strategic choice to represent the happy world she came from.”
Mary’s wardrobe was to reflect her positive attitude across the board. The catch? Afiley was assembling the wardrobe during autumn months. “Everything in the stores was black, brown and gray,” says Afiley, “so we decided to go the vintage route. I designed all of her dresses with a vintage inspiration and then we found vintage fabric.” And like Gary, Mary’s character evolution inspired her wardrobe, says Afiley, who dressed the actress in a sophisticated look for the finale.
I just died a little inside. I almost didn't read this because I've tried to stay away from anything I think might be a spoiler. I want to know almost nothing going into this thing next week (and I acidentally read something on here which was a minor spoiler). But this IS FANTASTIC! I'm gonna have a field day researching all this stuff! Next week cannot come soon enough.
Awww, I didn't mean to spoil anything (the production notes are pretty vague beyond what's been made obvious in trailers or the basic premise summaries), but I knew you'd love the fashion stuff.
Oh it wasn't a spoiler at all, or if it was it didn't sink in. I meant I read something on the wiki that was a bit of a spoiler. But it's going to be hard for the next seven days to not find something out I don't wanna. But I'm gonna try.
Yeah, it's the simultaneous curse and blessing of the communications age. Some of the Disney presskits I've seen are *really* bad about this, but fortunately they're movies I never planned to see except to examine the Spanish dubbing (or another of my interests is seeing if the stunt performers are credited by role/actor doubled, as has become more common, and spotting patterns). I can't remember a thing I read about "Real Steel" now anyway, for example.IMDb can often be worse; I *hate* looking up the cast list of an old whodunnit to find that someone "helpfully" identified all of the imposters and aliases, even though it's against IMDb policy, or for "The Sting," gave away a major spoiler which in the movie isn't revealed until the end, and the screen credits were circumspect about it for that reason. (That's one reason I find I have to hold on to my old multivolume Motion Picture Guide from the 1980s, although its clunky to keep around, since the professional editors involved knew better than to, you know, say "Mr. So-and-So, the killer" as an extraneous description. That and, despite errors of its own, it's more accurate on the whole and the side notes by the late Stanley Ralph Ross, a showbiz pro himself, are fun to read.)
Gotta love it. This isn't as cool an example as yours, but I haven't read the last Twilight book because I thought it might be fun to see at least part 1 of the movie and then read it. Then for a lark I rented "Vampires Suck" and had the major spoiler revealed. Ugh. That is why I just went ahead and read the last page of Harry Potter's last book when it came out and was done with it. LOL
Hi, just saw that you removed "References" category from the page about The Ellen DeGeneres Show. Not sure who added that, I but expect it was the fact the set itself appeared on Sesame Street. Though I'm leaning more towards keeping the category off, I thought you should know.
