Well, as you know, it didn't happen at the time. Use of the Muppets was restricted to the stage show and the 3-D attraction at the studio park, where it belonged, and they appeared in a few Disney-produced television specials and films. They did not get lost in the Disney universe, scattered throughout all of the theme parks, and that was a good thing.

As I said above, I've enjoyed both sets of creative work. However, I didn't believe then that they should be intertwined, and I don't believe it now.

Hey, I like the whole Star Trek thing and I think "The Lord of the Rings" is the best trilogy in cinematic history, but it doesn’t mean I want to see James Tribeca Kirk running around Middle Earth. I think the traditional Disney style is an entirely different thing than the Muppet style. Mickey and Kermit do not belong together. It's just wrong.

That isn't to say The Walt Disney Company shouldn't own the Muppets or any other property anyone wants to sell them.

I just hope they are used in a way that doesn't cause them to lose their unique identity or dilute the traditional Disney style. Perhaps the Company can even restore that group to their former glory. Heck, while they are at it, maybe they can restore Mickey to his former glory.

Either way, it is another example of the Company buying content instead of creating it, which could be taken by some as an admission of weakness in regards to the nurturing of internal creative operations and properties the Company already owns. At least in this case, the Company will be making these characters its own instead of renting talent from a company that is going to go its own way someday, as it did with Pixar.

Remember that hypothetical couple I mentioned at the start of this column? You know what usually happens to those couples after they finally get officially married? They end up breaking up for good.

Let's hope happy days are ahead for The Walt Disney Company and the Muppets, and the Disneys and the Hensons.