darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Mask of the Phantasm is better than both of them put together...
Fox execs, not the X-creatives: the real origin of XMO: Wolverine?
- Thread starter Gaith
- Start date
Mask of the Phantasm is better than both of them put together...
Cartoons (oh excuse me, animated films) shouldn't be compared to live-action films. A live-action production requires a much greater range of skills than any animated film.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Bull**** they shouldn't!
That's the sort of snobbish attitude towards animation that keeps it from drawing mainstream audiences in numbers.
A movie like Titan AE would have been a huge hit as a LA film, but barely gets noticed as animation...for no good reason! The script is excellent, the cast superb and animation has an UNLIMITED set construction/costuming/fx budget!
Same with MotP: well scripted, BETTER performed and with a superior story to any of the LA films.
s
Nonsense. Animated films collectively gross hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office, every year.
You mean that this animated film had a ZERO budget for sets and costumes.
The Academy has separate categories for animated films, and for a good reason. Apples and oranges...
Last edited:
The producers of Shrek will be surprised.
QFT.
Getting back to the Wolvie debate, I'm just waiting for them to realized the Singerverse of X-Men is way passed its use by date (as evidenced by X3 and XO:W) and restart with a true First Class movie starring Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Angel, Iceman, and a hairless non blue Beast. With nary a Wolverine in sight.
I have to agree with Bad Bishop on this one. It's not like animation filmmakers go to locations, spend months building sets, or hours and hours of time physically training for a fight sequence or action scene. I doubt Kevin Conroy -- all respect to him -- ever had to endure the physical transformation Christian Bale had to go through.
^ Thirded. I always shake my head at the people who list Conroy as the definitive Batman when all he does IS PROVIDE THE FRIGGIN' VOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For all they know, he might look like Jack Black or Woody Allen in the cape, yet they put his performance on a par with Bale's.
Ditto the people who used to clamour for Mark Hamill to be cast as a live-action Joker, despite his being too old, too short, too scar-faced and physically all wrong for the role.
And apart from anything else, affording all this credit to voiceover actors takes away from the animators. Conroy's Batman and Hamill's Joker were hugely enjoyable, but would they have been quite as memorable with less striking visuals to accompany them? I think not.
For all they know, he might look like Jack Black or Woody Allen in the cape, yet they put his performance on a par with Bale's.
Ditto the people who used to clamour for Mark Hamill to be cast as a live-action Joker, despite his being too old, too short, too scar-faced and physically all wrong for the role.
And apart from anything else, affording all this credit to voiceover actors takes away from the animators. Conroy's Batman and Hamill's Joker were hugely enjoyable, but would they have been quite as memorable with less striking visuals to accompany them? I think not.
The skills necessary to provide a convincing performance in animation are different but not inferior to those needed to pull off a character in live action. The jobs are allocated a little differently, but it still takes years of hard work to produce an animated movie.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
But basically only in "kiddie" catagories. Because that is the perception of animation in America: "kiddie fare". Witness the relative lack of BO success for Titan AE and MotP.
No I mean that ANY set or costume that the designer could dream up could be put on the screen, even ones that either would not necessarily look that good on a real human body, or would be prohibitavely expensive to make for LA. Non-human characters are not limited by the CG budget or the budget for puppets/stopmotion/etc. Furthermore, it can be done LESS expensively, since a handful of animators are doing all the work, as opposed to several hundred gaffers, lighters, carpenters, etc.
Yeah, because THEY are animation snobs...
I note you completely dodged the fact that MotP was the superior film in the measures listed, instead you just say "it's...different"
A film firmly in the "kiddie/family" market. I'm talking about animation outside that sub-genre, like the films listed above.
1) Quality animation takes a LOT of time...easily as much as the average LA film.
2) LA filmmakers are limited to the natural settings they can find/adapt. In animation, ANY setting can be realized that can be conceived. Which of the two do you think yeilds more settings for stories?
So? Does that lessen his talent any? Conroy can do with JUST HIS VOICE what Chris Reeves did whole body: portray two totally different characters sharing one body with just mannerisms and inflections.
That is talent, in my book.
When it deserves to be, yes. That's one of the beauties of animation. A person may have the perfect "voice" for the character, but lack the bodily attributes. This gives animation a wider range of talent to pick from to fill parts.
Again, animation allows all that to be compensated for, allowing us to enjoy a wonderful actor's ability to bring his character to life.
And this is a blow against animation how?
Last edited:
^ I didn't say it was a blow against animation. It is, however, an argument against voiceover artists being put on a par with live action actors. The latter ARE the performance you see onscreen - the former are only a part of it.
Nowhere did I slag off animation - I simply maintain that voiceover work isn't as demanding or impressive as live-action acting.
Nowhere did I slag off animation - I simply maintain that voiceover work isn't as demanding or impressive as live-action acting.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
The voice actor has an even BIGGER presence than the LA actor. How many times has the complaint been made that "he looks good in the role but can't act"?
That's because 90% of the work is in the ACTING, more specifically, the way the character speaks and sounds, that conveys character. It's the vocal performance that has to carry the character. It's no different than that of a LA actor.
No, but BB did, and this is addressed as much to him as anyone else.
And I entirely disagree.
I wasn't a huge fan of Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. However, I did very much enjoy Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. That movie was totally sick & twisted. I love it!
You might have a point about Kevin Conroy. Have we ever seen what he looks like?
However, we all know what Mark Hamill looks like from his movie appearances in Star Wars, Slipstream, and Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back as well as various interviews he's done over the years. And I would argue that Hamill has a look that would work for the Joker. Physically, I'd say he fits about as well as Jack Nicholson. And since when is "too scar-faced" a disqualifier from playing the Joker?
You might have a point about Kevin Conroy. Have we ever seen what he looks like?
However, we all know what Mark Hamill looks like from his movie appearances in Star Wars, Slipstream, and Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back as well as various interviews he's done over the years. And I would argue that Hamill has a look that would work for the Joker. Physically, I'd say he fits about as well as Jack Nicholson. And since when is "too scar-faced" a disqualifier from playing the Joker?
I don't want to hijack this thread into an argument about the merits of live action v voiceover acting. Hamill's performance was undoubtedly a very memorable one. Other voiceover performances like Eddie Murphy's in Shrek or Robin Williams in Aladdin are classics.
But as for the claim that 90% of acting is in the voice, well, I'll direct you to Heath Ledger's Joker. Remember the way he tossed his hair? Licked his lips? The stance? The walk? The little jump he gave when the hospital blew up behind him? All of these gestures, mannerisms, tics and movements went towards making this one of the most memorable villains of recent years. He did a good voice too, but to say that that was 90% of the performance is just ridiculous.
I just don't see how a performance that omits facial expression, body language, motion and mannerisms can be compared to one that does.
But as for the claim that 90% of acting is in the voice, well, I'll direct you to Heath Ledger's Joker. Remember the way he tossed his hair? Licked his lips? The stance? The walk? The little jump he gave when the hospital blew up behind him? All of these gestures, mannerisms, tics and movements went towards making this one of the most memorable villains of recent years. He did a good voice too, but to say that that was 90% of the performance is just ridiculous.
I just don't see how a performance that omits facial expression, body language, motion and mannerisms can be compared to one that does.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
That's the other 10%.
If he had delivered his dialogue in a wooden, droning manner, all the "tics" and "twitches" in the world would not have saved the performance from being perceived as stiff and lifeless.
That only means that the voice actor has to carry even MORE of the weight of bringing forth the character (100% as opposed to 90%). If you accept the arguement you posit, then EVERYTHING depends on the voice in animation.
I've done some voice work for my uncle's advertising company, Ogilvy, here in Chicago. I was recording some voices for BP's website. I sat in a sound booth, recited my lines. My uncle told me to change the inflection of my voice for different takes, different ways of saying the same line each time. Between sessions, I would lounge around, eating complimentary snacks and drinks. I didn't have to worry about memorizing my lines because they were in a script I could read off right in front of me.
I've also done some theatre and improv. Entirely different beast. Whereas for the voiceover work it was just about mastering the inflection of my voice, with theatre you have to be conscious of almost everything you do. Even age and appearance is widely taken into consideration. For example, I was trying out for the milk delivery man in an Asolo Theatre Company production of A Streetcar Named Desire. I was apparently too young for the role, which required me to kiss a much older woman named Ms. Dubois. However, the director liked me so much she gave me the role of a sailor instead, and said had I been older she would have cast me on the spot.
Actors who start out in live-action performing and dabble in animation voicework have always joked how voice acting is infinitely easier than live-action. Mike Myers, no stranger to sitting long, ardous hours in the makeup chair, has said in the past how luxurious it is to be able to go to work in the morning and be able to keep his "real face", and not have to endure hours in the makeup chair.
It still puzzles me how anyone could compare the performance of Kevin Conroy, who sits in a sound booth all day, to Christian Bale, who spends hours and hours and months and months physically training. Bale was merely inches away once from being sliced by helicopter blades as he stood atop the Sears Tower. With all due respect to Mr. Conroy, I doubt he's ever had to worry about losing his head in the studio.
To say that the physicality of an actor's performance is only "10%" of what they do is hugely disrespectful and shows a clear lack of knowledge or experience. I'm not trying to put myself on the level of Conroy or Bale -- I certainly don't have the physical discipline Bale does, or the vocal range of Conroy -- but to claim that live-action performing and voicework is all the same is just... I can't see the logic behind it.
I doubt Bad Bishop, Captaindemotion or myself are denouncing the credibility of voiceacting and animation. We're just trying to say it's a completely different yet all together equally valid form of performance art.
I've also done some theatre and improv. Entirely different beast. Whereas for the voiceover work it was just about mastering the inflection of my voice, with theatre you have to be conscious of almost everything you do. Even age and appearance is widely taken into consideration. For example, I was trying out for the milk delivery man in an Asolo Theatre Company production of A Streetcar Named Desire. I was apparently too young for the role, which required me to kiss a much older woman named Ms. Dubois. However, the director liked me so much she gave me the role of a sailor instead, and said had I been older she would have cast me on the spot.
Actors who start out in live-action performing and dabble in animation voicework have always joked how voice acting is infinitely easier than live-action. Mike Myers, no stranger to sitting long, ardous hours in the makeup chair, has said in the past how luxurious it is to be able to go to work in the morning and be able to keep his "real face", and not have to endure hours in the makeup chair.
It still puzzles me how anyone could compare the performance of Kevin Conroy, who sits in a sound booth all day, to Christian Bale, who spends hours and hours and months and months physically training. Bale was merely inches away once from being sliced by helicopter blades as he stood atop the Sears Tower. With all due respect to Mr. Conroy, I doubt he's ever had to worry about losing his head in the studio.
To say that the physicality of an actor's performance is only "10%" of what they do is hugely disrespectful and shows a clear lack of knowledge or experience. I'm not trying to put myself on the level of Conroy or Bale -- I certainly don't have the physical discipline Bale does, or the vocal range of Conroy -- but to claim that live-action performing and voicework is all the same is just... I can't see the logic behind it.
I doubt Bad Bishop, Captaindemotion or myself are denouncing the credibility of voiceacting and animation. We're just trying to say it's a completely different yet all together equally valid form of performance art.
The idea of voice work being 90% of acting and that actors who don't have to do any type of acting with the rest of their bodies somehow giving superior or more demanding performances is just total nonsense.
For one thing, most psychologists would say that a great portion of communication is non-verbal. Eye contact, smiles, frowns, arm-folding .... all the basics. No matter how animated a voice, if the rest of the body isn't moving, then an actor isn't going to engage the audience. By this logic, we could watch movies with offscreen actors providing voiceovers for onscreen mannikins and this would be 90% as good as the real thing.
Secondly, if 90% of acting is voicework, then how come in polls of actors' favourite actors, Charlie Chaplin regularly polls highly, despite mostly making silent movies? How come actors regularly praise the comic talents of Harpo Marx, who never spoke in his movies? How come Marlee Matlin won an Oscar for Children of a Lesser God, despite being deaf and having limited speaking ability? Did she win that for her lovely speaking voice? Why did Robert DeNiro win for Godfather Part II or Roberto Benigno for Life is Beautiful, when their roles were in Italian? Do you really think most of the voters could understand what they were saying and their fluent Italian delivery? Or were voters impressed by the physical and non-verbal parts of their performances?
When you read interviews with actors praising actors, they more often than not single out the movements and motions rather than the delivery of lines. Brando picking up a flower before catching up with Eva Marie Saint in On the Waterfront. Ian McKellen maintaining his hunchback and gammy arm while dressing in Richard III. The twitch in Nicholson's eye when Cruise catches him in a lie in A Few Good Men. Travolta's swagger & strut in Saturday Night Fever. Daniel Day-Lewis becoming dextrous with a knife for Gangs of New York or learning to eat with his foot for My Left Foot (for which he won an Oscar while speaking in Christie Brown's almost unintelligible mumble).
I think if you asked any of these actors to confirm that acting is 90% in the voice and that acting becomes HARDER when you don't have to create body language or facial actions for your character, they would just laugh at you.
Of course delivery is important - just listen to Keanu Reeves' or Steven Seagal's monotones to see just how important. But it is nothing like 90% of the job.
For one thing, most psychologists would say that a great portion of communication is non-verbal. Eye contact, smiles, frowns, arm-folding .... all the basics. No matter how animated a voice, if the rest of the body isn't moving, then an actor isn't going to engage the audience. By this logic, we could watch movies with offscreen actors providing voiceovers for onscreen mannikins and this would be 90% as good as the real thing.
Secondly, if 90% of acting is voicework, then how come in polls of actors' favourite actors, Charlie Chaplin regularly polls highly, despite mostly making silent movies? How come actors regularly praise the comic talents of Harpo Marx, who never spoke in his movies? How come Marlee Matlin won an Oscar for Children of a Lesser God, despite being deaf and having limited speaking ability? Did she win that for her lovely speaking voice? Why did Robert DeNiro win for Godfather Part II or Roberto Benigno for Life is Beautiful, when their roles were in Italian? Do you really think most of the voters could understand what they were saying and their fluent Italian delivery? Or were voters impressed by the physical and non-verbal parts of their performances?
When you read interviews with actors praising actors, they more often than not single out the movements and motions rather than the delivery of lines. Brando picking up a flower before catching up with Eva Marie Saint in On the Waterfront. Ian McKellen maintaining his hunchback and gammy arm while dressing in Richard III. The twitch in Nicholson's eye when Cruise catches him in a lie in A Few Good Men. Travolta's swagger & strut in Saturday Night Fever. Daniel Day-Lewis becoming dextrous with a knife for Gangs of New York or learning to eat with his foot for My Left Foot (for which he won an Oscar while speaking in Christie Brown's almost unintelligible mumble).
I think if you asked any of these actors to confirm that acting is 90% in the voice and that acting becomes HARDER when you don't have to create body language or facial actions for your character, they would just laugh at you.
Of course delivery is important - just listen to Keanu Reeves' or Steven Seagal's monotones to see just how important. But it is nothing like 90% of the job.
Oh wow. I am so suprised that fox wants more Wolverine. 
There is a reason why I didn't even bother to watch Origins. I was to disgusted by the previous three films. I came to watch X-men. I got Wolverine and others. The forgettable death of Cyclops and X made me to disgusted to bother watching it anymore.
There is a reason why I didn't even bother to watch Origins. I was to disgusted by the previous three films. I came to watch X-men. I got Wolverine and others. The forgettable death of Cyclops and X made me to disgusted to bother watching it anymore.
I like cracked.com's comments on that movie.
Phantasm is a surprisingly sophisticated work for a kid's cartoon, within the beautiful animation and classic noir trappings. The story deftly deals with complex themes such as love, revenge and betrayal, in a way that is accessible to children without pandering to them ...
... at least not until the Joker fights Batman on a jet pack.
Good movie, The Dark Knight was better because of how far they were willing to go. With Mask of the Phantasm basically you talk about how far they were willing to go ... for a kid's cartoon. That's the key difference. I think animated movies should be considered with live action ones, but I do think animated movies aimed at children need to have that in mind.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
This is exactly the sort of thinking I've been talking about. MotP is NOT a "kid's cartoon" or "aimed at children". True, it keeps the sensibilities of the youth demographic in mind, but one of the Timm-verse's greatest strengths has always been it's "all ages" approach to it's material: safe for kids, but something the older viewer can watch and enjoy as well.