Is "Alter Egos" really an appropriate title for this page? I mean, Grover's alter ego really is Super Grover. Grover doesn't pretend to be Super Grover. He really believes that he has a secret identity. Sidebottom, in that vein, would probably also be an alter ego. Kermit, on the other hand, does not believe that he is Captain Abraham Smollet. I find the distinction to be very important. Also, the baby versions are a third thing altogether and don't belong on this page, even taking into account the most liberal definition of alter ego. Discuss--Pantalones 22:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I could call it "alternate personas" if you like. Basically, I created the page as a list to keep track of which characters played by characters have or still need pages, and as sort of a test, to see whether there's enough of these types of character pages, which are characters within a given universe but not new Muppets, for a new category (and for that reason, I didn't want to call it "Muppet Characters as --Pantalones 18:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Characters" or something). The Grover page's list of "alter egos" is really why I chose "Alter Egos" as the title, based on that listing. Many of those, like Waiter Grover, are arguably not alter egos at all, just specific occupations, but I still thought it worth exploring. Sidebottom is a more literal, psychological type of alter ego. He and Boober are more definitevely seperate characters interacting as two puppets with each other, which Grover and Super Grover are not (and in interviews and such, Kermit and the others have "discussed" playing their roles in Treasure Island etc.). So I'm open for suggestions for a more precise page name, but for conveneience sake in categorizing these things, I'm not sure the distinction between Dr. Bob and Bob Cratchit is as great as you think. Baby versions, though, yeah, you have a point there. --Andrew, Aleal 02:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! I'm glad to have you two backing me up on this one. I once suggested that Gonzo from Muppet Treasure Island needed his own page because he's clearly not Gonzo the Great in that movie. I think we'll eventually need a category for this. -- Scott Scarecroe

Yeah, see also User talk:Pantalones. I think it's important to discuss the issue, though. I mean, which version of Kermit is the *real* one? For example, in the Muppet Movie, is he Real Kermit in the framing sequence but Muppet Movie Kermit in the movie sequences? We should have some in-depth conversations about this before we go off the deep end.--Pantalones 17:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Before we go off the deep-end? Well, I'll take that as an indication that Rosenthal isn't going too far, just yet. As far as movies, I've sort of shifted re Cabin Boy Gonzo. He's not as distinctly different from Gonzo in role and function, or especially name, as Charles Dickens or Tin Thing. However, now that I think about the movie, this Gonzo isn't just different because he's friends with Jim Hawkins, but it's implied that Gonzo *and* Rizzo are also orphans, taken in by Mrs. Bluveridge, and there may be other seperate backstory elements in there. The fact that it's a costume drama and most of the others play roles also raises the question, though as with all pages, I think it may ultimately lie in whether someone wants to create a page, and what they can put in it (several of the above pages are still stubs or blanks with a "see also" link, so I'd definitely discourage creating more of that type for now unless there's an image or better yet info as well to put on there). The other movies, the trick is partially how consistent the characters are. Even when they break the fourth wall, are they still pretty much Kermit or Miss Piggy (in ways that Cowardly Lion or Squire Trelawney, despite similarities, are not still Fozzie Bear)? And Grover and Super Grover are still the same personality, yes, but the addition of powers, silly costume, and slight name adjustment, and especially the fact that "Super Grover" has appeared in segments only as Super Grover and has been marketed as Super Grover, are factors. In Muppet Movie, I'd say Kermit the movie star and Kermit who stars in a movie about becoming a movie star are effectively the same (though Kermit as Fozzie's brother/reporter is much iffier, I definitely agree). --Andrew, Aleal 17:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I think having a page for Kermit from Episode 114 is going off the deep end.--Pantalones 17:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely more liberal about pages and categories than I was when we first started. I was trying to keep a lid on things early on, but now I feel like, y'know what, if somebody wants to make that into a page, then go ahead and do it. The only thing I try to keep track of is that the items in a category have a clear relationship with each other. I would put Super Grover and Alistair Cookie in the same category -- maybe "Alter Egos", maybe something else. But I don't know if Rosenthal is the same type of thing. I love having a Rosenthal page, though. -- Danny Toughpigs 17:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Y'know what? I just realized that I don't know what I'm talking about. I thought this was going to be a category, but now I figured out that actually it's a list. So scratch some of what I said. -- Danny Toughpigs 18:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Kermit is himself all through The Muppet Movie. He's himself in the framing sequence and he's himself playing himself in the movie within the movie. It's a whole different story in Great Muppet Caper. He's Fozzie's brother, he meets Piggy for the first time in England, but his name also just happens to be Kermit. -- Scott Scarecroe 18:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a list with discussion of whether or not it should become a category or remain a list, and in either case, what to call it and what really belongs here (I'm still in disagreement about Sidebottom, though he's the most accurate match for the current page name, as I don't think he fits in with Alistair or Super Grover or heck even Rosenthal). Rosenthal is arguably an impersonation more than a persona, but the fact that the name is repeated and the whole scene struck me as interesting enough to merit a page. The name sort of clinched it for me, in contrast to "Kermit the Frog, Broadway Producer" in The Muppets Take Manhattan, which is arguably Kermit just trying to look like a hit producer should look. Though both do have Kermit in moustaches. Maybe a "Kermit with Wigs and Facial Hair" page would be better. --Andrew, Aleal 18:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The dual nature of Kermit in The Muppet Movie (or the lack thereof) gets us into the contradictions of Muppet History. Forget about the Muppet Babies music video in A Muppet Family Christmas. What about Camilla? Did Gonzo fall for her before The Muppet Show as in the movie or during the course of its run? What about Scooter? Are we to believe that the backstage portions of The Muppet Show are canonical or are we to believe that The Muppet Movie is? I always sided with the show, but that's me. So, to me, Kermit in the framing sequence of the Muppet Movie is very obviously different from the Kermit in the movie sequences of the Muppet Movie. After all, it's only kinda sorta how it happened.--Pantalones 18:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess one question is if there's anything interesting to put on that page. A page on Rosenthal is funny, and basically writes itself. I can imagine what you'd write on a GMC Kermit page. But if you were to create a Muppet Movie Kermit page, I can't think of what you would write that wouldn't just be a repeat of what's already on the regular Kermit page. -- Danny Toughpigs 18:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'd make the page. I'm saying someone could. It would be easier with Muppets Take Manhattan. You have Kermit as Broadway producer, Kermit as Amnesiac Advertising Executive, etc.--Pantalones 18:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, The Muppet Movie is kinda sorta how it happened, so I figure they took liberties and don't take it as canonical. But then I got to thinking, if the Muppets are playing characters in all the movies, when are they themselves? Is it The Muppet Show? They play characters on stage, but we're to believe that they're themselves when they're backstage. Except, they're performing backstage, too. There's laughter and applause whether they're "performing" or not. But maybe I'm taking it too far. -- Scott Scarecroe 18:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say you're taking it too far. There really is no "canon." I mean, I'm sure we could cobble one together. The Muppet Babies were separated at age three when they were too young to remember each other, but someday, years later, a home video was sent to the Muppet Theater in a striped green envelope, and so forth and so on. But I've always felt that Muppet Show was when they were most themselves. As for the backstage camera, think of it as pre-Reality TV Reality TV. --Pantalones 19:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Complication I just remembered. All the Elmo variations in Elmo's World! Elmo never actively assumes these roles, they all seem to exist in the fevered imagination of Dorothy, or brought about for demonstration purposes by the Book or whatnot. Should they each have a seperate page (I know Danny talked about creating an Elmo's World category; actually, having an individual episode guide would help with that, as Elmo the angler fish or Elmo the bunny or especially "Elmo the Von Trapp Family of Goatherds including Father Elmo and Daughter Elmos" were all one shots)? Or since they're not really Elmo, just clones of Elmo in Dorothy's fishy mind, should they all be considered seperate Muppet Characters and just forget about the alter-ego issue? --Andrew, Aleal 23:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)