The computer was asked to produce photos of Kermit the frog. It failed spectacularly at rendering anything resembling Kermit the frog.

Yet, it did produce things which "look like weird designs for the Ninja Turtles movie in the 90s."

In other words, it has done as good a job of costume design, lighting and photographing a live action Kermit as New Line Cinema paid $13.5m to accomplish for TMNT in 1990.

And you know who they got to do those creature designs?

Jim Henson

So maybe we shouldn't be so dismissive.

These are crazy takes honestly

Agreed. They are self-evident, high-quality representations of KtF. When faced with disagreement on that, it's hard to know what to say in response to convince someone other than to point to another canonical representation of KtF and say, "These are the same."

The OP pointed specific examples:

> - For any of the "live action" ones, Kermit should still always be a puppet. - Kermit notoriously has lanky arms, - Kermit never has eye lids - His eyes sit way on top of his head. - He often has his weird neck decoration. - His eyes have a very distinctive pupil shape.

This is something akin to isolated demands for rigor. Apparently these features are not essential to KtF-ness, because most people look at these pictures and see unambiguous KtF.

When it completely does capture the feel of Kermit.