Contents 1 Big Bird In China 2 Tags 3 Dr. Teeth 4 Anachronisms versus Goofs? 5 Muppet Movie 6 Muppet Movie Rainbow Connection Finale Goof

Big Bird In ChinaEdit

I know, yes, technically, it is a "Muppet movie". But wouldn't it fit better on the Sesame Street Goofs page? Joe put it here in July, but it doesn't seem to bother anyone else. Thoughts? -- Mark (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me.— Joe (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Sesame Goofs is better for that. —Scott (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that Sesame Goofs didn't exist back then. Oh how far the Wiki has come! — Joe (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It did exist, but the Wiki's so large now, I'm not surprised Joe didn't see it (plus the format is different, with the chart and all). Just like nobody noticed the inclusion of Big Bird in China until Mark pointed out. I've moved it accordingly. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

TagsEdit

I don't like tagging each one... I think it's distracting -- especially because the tags are in bold, which means the eye is drawn to the tags, and not to the actual text. It's more fun just reading the list of goofs. I think we can trust the readers to figure out what kind of goof it is, whether it was intentional or accidental, and all that. I think you guys might be overthinking this page, trying to explain too much, when really it's just a fun page for people to browse through. It feels a little bit like if we went through and tagged all the names in Characters Whose Names Sound a Bit Rude as "Phallic Reference" and "Euphemism for Sex". Is it possible to take the tags off? -- Danny Toughpigs 19:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's mainly because they're under "goofs," and given some of the odd anonymous editors we've had, we clearly can't always trust readers. I prefer the tags myself, but I guess we can give way. I'm just still bothered by how subjective the whole thing is (but that's my English major/researcher self talking, I guess). Here's an example: In The Muppets Take Manhattan, in the wedding finale, the pigs including Link and Dr. Strangepork are on one side, no doubt representing the bride's guests, and Robin and the other frogs are on the other. The Sesame Street gang are shown way behind the pigs. No obvious inconsistencies there, but by rights, one may wonder why this wasn't reversed, given that they were friends of Kermit and most never even met Miss Piggy. It's kind of a neat thing to wonder about, but given that the whole Broadway thing is a show anyway, and as Scott pointed out, one could imgaine factors (maybe the other seats were already taken, maybe Bert wouldn't sit anywhere that didn't look out on the pigeons, etc), so is it a goof or not, or should it be listed anyway just because I think it might be? I guess it's also because, unlike a lot of the other lists, this one is presented in such a way that it *doesn't* feel like just a fun page, but a more cogent analysis. --Andrew, Aleal 19:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Where the Sesame gang sat wouldn't be a goof - maybe Kermit brought more guests so they spilled over to the back of Piggy's less full side. Maybe they did know Piggy. Maybe they were just actors in the play. There is no facts to back the mistake in that goof up other than jumping to conclusions or speculation. However almost all goofs could be explained if you try hard enough (even the crew coming into shots could be explained if you tried). Now the fact that the whole wedding takes place on the church set which, as shown in the film, is completle walled off on all four sides. How could the paying audience see this part of show? That's more of a goof - its for the sake of storytelling/art but its still a literal inconsistancy with the story/plot. -- BradFraggle 19:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

See, that's the same problem I have with the Sweetums thing or the Happiness Hotel "not being free" (we never see money change hands) and "no food" (the kitchen bit is questionable, but the latter especially could have meant simply no food at the time). And Chris obviously is pretty adamant about his VMX bit. So either we just don't care and let anything in, or we try to define it more carefully in the article, or (and I admit this is my preference, outside of just giving up and ignoring anything I have doubts about) we split this up, one for technical goofs, and one for plot/continuity goofs, with a note on subjectivity, and no tags on either page/section. --Andrew, 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the VMX thing keeps going back and forth -- every time I look at the recent changes, I see it coming on and off the page for no reason that I can figure out. That says to me that you guys are way overthinking this page, and taking it much more seriously than you should. Can I ask for an unofficial Time Out on this page for a couple days? I think maybe if nobody plays with it for a couple days, we can all come back to it fresh, and figure it out. Also, Chris, I think it would be helpful if you would work on some other pages for a while -- as far as I can tell, this one little piece is the only thing you've worked on so far, and that doesn't help you to build a track record on the wiki. Can we agree to a couple days off from this page, and then we'll come back to it later? -- Danny Toughpigs 20:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr. TeethEdit

Is the VMX goof really a goof? I vote no. How are we to know a character's motivations? He might have realized he had to go to the bathroom, so he never made it out the front of the theatre with everyone else. He could have caught his tassles on a nail in the stage floor and fell head-first into the orchestra pit and broken his neck. -- Scott Scarecroe 18:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I vote no goof. He might have even been outside just not even in view of the camera. Or maybe he had to go find his coat. I would say no goof. -- BradFraggle 18:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I took it out. For the record the goof was:

"Right before the finale, Bobo appears in the doorway and tells the Muppets who are on stage that people are singing carols outside and they should join in. One of the Muppets on stage is Dr. Teeth who appears excited to join the caroling and seems to follow the other characters off the stage and outside, yet is not outside the theater singing in the following scene."'

-- BradFraggle 18:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, broken neck. Yeah, that was part of my concern with the plot/movement related "goofs", as I discussed with Danny here. The Happiness Hotel bit also bugs me a bit (since even if he asks for payment, Pops clearly doesn't expect any, so the effect is the same). Apparently the idea is that they stay as long as they're entertaining to read, even if it does mean that some of these contradict the bit at the end about not including such errors. It's a brave new world, I guess. (I'd removed the VMX bit earlier, but the poster registered and re-added it, and Danny okayed it, so). --Andrew, Aleal 18:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Aaand it's back in again. Really, given how subjective a lot of these are, maybe it's a non-issue. It does bug me a little, but I can live with it. The more specific tags for types of goofs help, though maybe some more text *specifying* that a lot of these are perceived errors or something. I still disagree very strongly about the Happiness Hotel not being free, and Sweetums popping up at the end; it could have been documentary footage, filmed as they went along, and there's the question of who's filming everything anyway. However, I can live with them if we fix the surrounding wording a bit (and at least the Great Muppet Caper bit has been moved in as an actual goof, so there's no longer internal inconsistencies). It does make me worry that soon we'll see "goofs" such as "Fozzie is not wearing his hat at all in The Muppet Christmas Carol." But I guess we can deal with extremes on a case by case basis, or maybe actually split this. I know it's more convenient this way, but the technical goofs and puppets showing are verifiable and confirmable, wheras opinions on what violates plot continuity are not. --Andrew, Aleal 19:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some goofs can be explained away. But with this one I think it's no good. I rewatched the scene and it is not really a continuity goof. First, we don't see a whole lot of who's outside. There are no long shots or full pans; there could easily be more people out caroling in the crowd that the camera doesn't show. Second, aside from Dr. Teeth there are others inside who are "excited" to go caroling that we don't actually see outside (Crazy Hary is one). Third they don't go straight outside, as they get coats and scarfs, so Dr. Teeth and others could just be trailing behind. I don't see this as a continuity goof.

With some of the other questionable goofs. The Happiness Hotel not being free thing is fuzzy and not knowing what the guide book actually said (it could say that they charge but you can sneak out in the middle of the night and the man on the bench said it was a free place). Maybe that one should be taken off. I think the Sweetums one is a kind of plot continutiy goof, but then again the whole movie-within-a-movie thing has its loop holes. It should be a case-by-case basis. -- BradFraggle 19:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I updated VMX to reflect Crazy Harry's involvement in the controversial goof I posted, re-posted, and re-posted again. Wow. When I originally posted this yesterday I didn't know it would become such a hot button issue. With all this brew-ha-ha you'd link I posted a Danish cartoon or something. :) Stulz 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what is and is not a goof perhaps you should consider adding a maybe pile and letting people decide for themselves.--WeirdoWannabe 17:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Anachronisms versus Goofs?Edit

I'm enjoying this page, but as it grows, should we differentiate between "goofs" which are mistakes in continuity or shooting, and goofs which were likely deliberate anachronisms? The teddy bear thing is what had me thinking about it, as The Muppet Christmas Carol also references bicycles and rubber chickens, neither of which would have been available in 1843 (when Dickens wrote the work), plus of course Muppet Treasure Island has sombreros and maracs, references to margaritas, and rat tourists. --Andrew, '"Aleal 15:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to whether or not some of these things should be considered goofs anyways, since in some of these movies, the Muppets are aware that they are actors in a movie. So, maybe, something like the teddy bear comment could be heard as spoken by an actor as opposed to a ghost in the 1800s. Just a thought. -- JParanoid 20:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for removing the teddy bear comment. --Erik Ebrowne 20:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, once you open this door to this you open it to a bunch of things. How could a bear and frog be identical twins? Where did the rats get the jet-ski from in Muppet Treasure Island? And how come the figurehead can talk? They aren't really goofs in the technical sense - the writters knew what they were doing. I'm removing the teddy bear thing as a goof. -- BradFraggle 20:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Muppet MovieEdit

I heard something about Kermit's armsock problems in The Muppet Movie -- that the problem is actually with the video transfer, which is taken from a cut that shows too much at the bottom. From what I heard, when the movie was originally shown in theaters, you didn't see below Kermit like you do on the video and DVD. Can anybody confirm this? -- Danny Toughpigs 15:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked into this, the non-matted full-screen transfers of the film which hold a lot more socks and heads (I was told that most of the initial VHSs are of this print). I added a note about this to the article. But I don't think goofs from this version should count here as they were intended to never be seen and were originally taken care of (and still are in most versions). -- BradFraggle 20:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked into this even more and found that the non-matted transfer is more common than I was led to believe (last time I take the word of a 16-year old at Muppet Central with out double checking it). The non-matted version is on the Columbia Tri-Star DVD (not sure about the restored and remastered Disney DVD - I don't have it). And most VHS are of the non-matted copy. I check the other films and The Muppet Movie is the only one with matted/non-matted problem (I think they learned it was better to cut more off the sides than have hands and heads in the shots). I added a sub-section to the Muppet Movie goofs to list all the goofs exclusive to the somewhat popular non-matted Full-screen transfer. -- BradFraggle 04:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Muppet Movie Rainbow Connection Finale Goof Edit

I have a dvd copy of The Muppet Movie and if you looke at one of the Snowths in the Rainbow Connecton finale, you can see the arm who is performing one of them. KermitFan 02:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)