Modern animations and voice over actors.

[HAL.9000]

Since CGI makes animations look so cool, I doubt we will see a reduction in animations coming to a screen near you. One observation though:

Why is it these film makers insist on using well known celebrity actors to do the voices? It doesn't make one bit of difference to me if Johnny Depp did the voice for whatever, or if it's some unknown but talented voice over actor.

Does having a well known actor doing the voice in an animation bring in the crowds? We never get to see their face or their performance other than audio...so I fail to see the significance.

On another point, studios would sure to save major bucks by getting new, unknown voice actors as well. Celeb actors demand big paychecks even for their voice-over parts.

Your thoughts?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Why is it these film makers insist on using well known celebrity actors to do the voices?

Same reason celebrity actors keep getting cast in major live-action movie roles, when there must be a thousand unknowns who could play any given role as well or better - to help market the movie.

That's Hollywood.

On another point, studios would sure to save major bucks by getting new, unknown voice actors as well.

And lose a lot more money than they save when the box office tanks because there isn't a marquee name on the poster.

 

[Admiral2]

Since CGI makes animations look so cool, I doubt we will see a reduction in animations coming to a screen near you. One observation though:

Why is it these film makers insist on using well known celebrity actors to do the voices? It doesn't make one bit of difference to me if Johnny Depp did the voice for whatever, or if it's some unknown but talented voice over actor.

Does having a well known actor doing the voice in an animation bring in the crowds? We never get to see their face or their performance other than audio...so I fail to see the significance.

On another point, studios would sure to save major bucks by getting new, unknown voice actors as well. Celeb actors demand big paychecks even for their voice-over parts.

Your thoughts?

There are plenty of actors with great voices I would pay to just listen to. If they got cast in good VO roles I'd be there.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

$$$$$$

And that the answer to everything in Hollywood.

Everything.

Big names DO bring in bigger crowds and revenue. It's just the way it is.

 

[Christopher]

I think it's a good thing that the old dividing lines between on-camera acting and voice acting have broken down, that we now have lots of people who work in both fields. It brings a wider range of talents to animation as well as raising its prestige and profile. And it helps erode the ghettoization of animation as a medium, and that can't be a bad thing.

 

[Shazam!]

Since CGI makes animations look so cool

I'm not sure what this means

 

[Marc]

Has anyone ever looked at how much having well known actors in the V.O roles actually makes a difference?

Was it Mike Meyers who made Shrek work well or was it that Meyers did him with a Scottish accent (which wasn't originally intended but after the hearing Meyers work, the producers spent a large chunk of money re-doing some of the animation to synch with the voice work).

 

[Starbreaker]

Half the fun of an animated movie is trying to pick out the voice actors.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Has anyone ever looked at how much having well known actors in the V.O roles actually makes a difference?

Good point.

Let's go back in time, hire an unknown for Shrek and see how well the movie does compared to having Mike Meyers.

(I don't think it's possible to really figure something like this out)

 

[zakkrusz]

Personally, I couldn't really care less who does the voices as long as they can act well enough. Apparently, it does matter to a lot of people though.

Also "animation" is it's own plural and there is no need to add an S to it.

 

[paudemge]

Has anyone ever looked at how much having well known actors in the V.O roles actually makes a difference?

Good point.

Let's go back in time, hire an unknown for Shrek and see how well the movie does compared to having Mike Meyers.

(I don't think it's possible to really figure something like this out)

I'm sure it is not possible to know for sure, but I bet the number crunchers have put numbers to it.

But I think mentioning Shrek is a good, I doubt Shrek would have been anything like it was without Myers.

 

[Yoda]

Shitty big name actors with questionable voice acting talent are even making it into video game voice work. I think that's completely insane, but there ya have it.

I mean they even get 'name' talent for the fucking Aflac duck and the Geico Gecko. Or David Spade as the "weee all the way home" pig. I've got to think that there are cheap voice actors who can do the jobs just as well, and I doubt most people even notice the 'name' actors in some of these roles anyway!

I don't know, I guess with Mike Myers or Eddie Murphy, their comedic talents lend themselves pretty well to voice work... but uhhh... what the fuck does Cameron Diaz bring to the table?

 

[Christopher]

Shitty big name actors with questionable voice acting talent are even making it into video game voice work. I think that's completely insane, but there ya have it.

Why is it insane for there not to be some rigid segregation between onscreen acting and voice acting? You're decades out of date here. The idea that voice acting is some separate discipline beneath the dignity of on-camera actors is mercifully dead. Acting is acting, regardless of whether it's on-camera or not.

I mean they even get 'name' talent for the fucking Aflac duck and the Geico Gecko.

Gilbert Gottfried has been involved in voice acting for many years, which shouldn't come as a surprise given that his career is built on his distinctive vocal performance. Surely you remember his turn as Iago the parrot in Disney's Aladdin, nearly 20 years ago. Indeed, in the past dozen years or so, I daresay Gottfried has done more voice acting than on-camera acting. So it's completely ridiculous to say he doesn't qualify as a "legitimate" voice actor.

As for the actor who plays the gecko, Jake Wood, he's apparently fairly well-known in England but is an unknown in the States. And British actors, unlike American actors, have never believed in any kind of segregation between different types of acting, freely moving from stage to film to television to radio. Voiceover acting is just another job to them.

I've got to think that there are cheap voice actors who can do the jobs just as well...

If they do the job just as well, then it's unfair to pay them less, isn't it?

Besides, despite your dismissal of them as "cheap," professional voice actors tend to be very busy, working on dozens of shows at once. Sure, there are voice actors that do commercials and promos -- I recall hearing Maurice LaMarche doing some car commercials not long ago, for example, and I think Jim Cummings was the NBC announcer back in the '90s -- but their time is valuable too, and if "name" actors are willing to try out for voice roles, why shouldn't they get to do so?

I don't know, I guess with Mike Myers or Eddie Murphy, their comedic talents lend themselves pretty well to voice work... but uhhh... what the fuck does Cameron Diaz bring to the table?

What does she bring as a live actress? Voice acting may have its differences in approach and emphasis from screen acting, but it's not a fundamentally different discipline. As I said before, the idea that there's some fundamental divide between screen actors and voice actors has been dead for a generation now.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Gilbert Gottfried has been involved in voice acting for many years, which shouldn't come as a surprise given that his career is built on his distinctive vocal performance. Surely you remember his turn as Iago the parrot in Disney's Aladdin, nearly 20 years ago. Indeed, in the past dozen years or so, I daresay Gottfried has done more voice acting than on-camera acting. So it's completely ridiculous to say he doesn't qualify as a "legitimate" voice actor.

Gilbert Gottfried as Mr. Mxyzptlk was perfect.

what the fuck does Cameron Diaz bring to the table?

What does she bring as a live actress?

As a live actress, she's totally hot, she's great in comedy roles, and she can dance. And, she can do all three at the same time. Obviously, being hot and being able to dance are generally inessential for being a successful voice actor.

But she also has a great voice, which I believe is generally necessary for being a successful live actor. I suspect this tends to be forgotten when we focus on the visual requirements of actors. Furthermore, understanding comedic timing clearly pays off in voice work.

 

[Christopher]

Obviously, being hot and being able to dance are generally inessential for being a successful voice actor.

Although there are some prominent voice actresses who are really hot, like Tara Strong, Jennifer Hale, and Maria Canals. Thank the gods for behind-the-scenes DVD featurettes. I think a number of sexy actresses go into voice acting as a way to avoid being typecast for their looks. Back in the '90s, supermodel Kathy Ireland, who'd been perceived for years as someone who had nothing going for her as an actress but her looks, began doing voice work for Marvel's animated shows. She started out in Fantastic Four playing the lovely Crystal, but then on The Incredible Hulk she did the voice of Ogress, a totally hideous character. And I just bet she loved it.

 

[HAL.9000]

Since CGI makes animations look so cool

I'm not sure what this means

CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) versus traditional pencil on paper animation. CGI takes the 2D world of animation and gives it an extra dimension. Thus it looks "cool."

 

[Christopher]

CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) versus traditional pencil on paper animation. CGI takes the 2D world of animation and gives it an extra dimension. Thus it looks "cool."

In some people's opinion. It's a ludicrous overgeneralization. Especially since most 2D animation these days is animated on computers. At most, the initial drawings are done in pencil, then scanned and digitally inked, painted, and composited (often in combination with cel-shaded 3D elements, which has become increasingly the default way to represent vehicles and other rigid moving structures in 2D animation).

2D and 3D animation are merely different artistic media, and it's as ridiculous to say that one is intrinsically "cooler" than the other as it would be to say that sculpture is superior to oil paints or string instruments are superior to woodwinds.

 

[HAL.9000]

CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) versus traditional pencil on paper animation. CGI takes the 2D world of animation and gives it an extra dimension. Thus it looks "cool."

In some people's opinion. It's a ludicrous overgeneralization. Especially since most 2D animation these days is animated on computers. At most, the initial drawings are done in pencil, then scanned and digitally inked, painted, and composited (often in combination with cel-shaded 3D elements, which has become increasingly the default way to represent vehicles and other rigid moving structures in 2D animation).

2D and 3D animation are merely different artistic media, and it's as ridiculous to say that one is intrinsically "cooler" than the other as it would be to say that sculpture is superior to oil paints or string instruments are superior to woodwinds.

Recently I saw a Road Runner/Coyote remake done in 3D CGI. You cant tell me that didn't look cool.

I doubt Toy Story, Wall-E, Ratatouille, Finding Nemo, would have had the same impact had they've been done in 2D.

Then you have master pieces like Watership Down done in 2D that would pretty much suck if re-done in 3D CGI.

But I do see your point.

 

[Christopher]

Recently I saw a Road Runner/Coyote remake done in 3D CGI. You cant tell me that didn't look cool.

If you're referring to Coyote Falls, that looks okay, but largely because it's emulating the art style that Chuck Jones and his team mastered in 2D. If you're referring to the 3D Roadrunner shorts from The Looney Tunes Show, that looks a lot worse, nowhere near as good as the original cartoons. A medium is only as good as the artistry that goes into it. Actually the artistry in the TV shorts is better than I expected, but still, it takes a lot of time and money to make 3D computer animation look anywhere near as good as 2D animation. It can look great on a feature film budget and production schedule, but on a TV budget and schedule, 2D still gives better and more consistent results. Like any medium, 3D has its benefits and its limitations. It's not better, just different.

And even when it looks great, that doesn't mean it's intrinsically superior to 2D animation. It's a difference of medium, not quality. Just because Alex Ross's lifelike, painted superhero art is awesome, that doesn't mean the more cartoony, line-drawn style of Bruce Timm isn't equally awesome.

I doubt Toy Story, Wall-E, Ratatouille, Finding Nemo, would have had the same impact had they've been done in 2D.

And I doubt Wallace and Gromit would've had the same impact if it had been done in a computer, or that Samurai Jack would've had the same impact if it had been done in 3D. It's bullshit to say one medium is superior to another. The films you list worked in 3D because they were designed for 3D. That was the medium chosen by the artists, not because it was "superior," but because it offered artistic possibilities that they chose to explore. If you'll notice in recent films, the Pixar artists are experimenting more and more with 2D and traditional animation -- see the end titles of The Incredibles and Ratatouille and the Your Friend the Rat short. Because you can produce great art in any medium, and it's ridiculous to throw out one technique just because a different one has come along.

 

[Shazam!]

Since CGI makes animations look so cool

I'm not sure what this means

CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) versus traditional pencil on paper animation. CGI takes the 2D world of animation and gives it an extra dimension. Thus it looks "cool."

Oh. CG 3D animation isn't cooler than to 2D though. It only really works when used to augment 2D animation like Futurama or something.


Unless you're a Pixar movie.