I am coming off the Shark Tale thread with this, but this is an issue that REALLY bothers me.
It seems that studios INSIST on bringing in big name actors in order to do their voices for animated films. Shark Tale, for example, is LOADED with them, and it seems that this is the films biggest "selling point". I understand using big names who have something cool in their voices (i.e. Eddie Murphy or Rob DeNiro), but come on... Rene Zelwigger and Angelina Jolie??? What do they possibly have to offer a film with their voices?
You know, having been in a few casting sessions throughout my career, I have heard MANY, MANY GREAT voices done by folks who have never been seen or heard from before. For example, one series I directed ("the Kids From Room 402") had a character named Polly in it, the spoon collecting geek of the class. Her voice was done by a virtual nobody, but to this date was one of the most fun, animated voices I have ever heard in my life, and she stole the show. It can be done.
I am just tired of hearing all the "featuring him and her" crap... Do you think that kids know who Rene Zelwigger is, or even give a crap?
Anyways... That is my rant.
Cheers
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
.
PIXAR makes some of the best and highest grossing animated features of all time. Look at their ads... rarely do you ever even know who the voice is. They advertise their characters and story.
Dreamworks and others however hit you over the head with celebrity names. Sure you know who does the voice, but do you know anything about the movie? Do you know anything about the characters? Most of the time, I don't even know the names of the characters from their ads. Nor do I even care.
Who are they selling to? Obviously not the kids, they don't know who Bruce Willis or Gary Shandling are. The parents don't care even if they do know the names. Animation fans certainly don't care. I would argue that voice actor names do NOT "sell".
This is my opinion, they are using the name of actors who also have kids. Most of the actors keep talking about how they can now take their kids to a movie that they are in.
Ok now, don't hate me for this, I like Shrek and Shrek 2. On my grading scale, they were both enjoyable, but I wont not wont to go back and see them a second time.
Are you kidding? You're kidding. Is he kidding?
Of course the big name actors sell. In the mind of the "average person", a big name actor is an indication of whether the movie is gonna be any good. People immediately associate what they like about that actor and project that on the movie. Big name actors create buzz, they create excitement. They're part of the overall marketing strategy studios use to pack the theaters' seats. Movies aren't the exception, either. Videogames (don't tell me that people played that 50 Cent game for the gameplay) do it. Television does it. The Internet does it.
Think back to the days before Finding Nemo. How often did you see Ellen DeGeneres on talk shows and news shows? Remember Toy Story 2? Joan Cusak, Tim Allen and Tom Hanks were all over the place.
Kids care because they DO know those actors. Adults care for the same reason. Animators and animation fans care because we get to create or watch a character animated to that voice we know.
...you're kidding, right? :D
Follow @chaostoon on Twitter!
"The Fuzzy Caterpillar" starring Mark Harber, Sheila Wort, and Richard Schoonover.
or
"The Fuzzy Caterpillar" starring Steve Martin, Drew Barrymore, and Keanu Reeves.
Who cares if Mark, Sheila and Richard are the best voice actors on the planet? Little Timmy and his mom don't.
IMHO, spending big money on name actors should come from the marketing budget, because that's ALL it is.
Kids can't tell you the name of a single actor in The Incredibles, nor could they pick them out of a lineup. Ditto for Nemo. Betcha they could for Shrek or Toy Story or Shark Tale, though.
I've probably proposed to Anne Hathaway three times but even if she accepts the fourth time, it won't get me to see Hoodwinked.
I always felt that showing the actors was a white flag, as if the studio felt "We've already been outshined creatively so let's bring out whatever we have that could be considered a big gun."
That's why if I get shown actors I stay away. It's like they're saying we don't have tons of confidence in ourselves or the story, or art, or anything, so we'll expose this other side. My loss, as I've heard things like Treasure Planet are actually quite pretty, but I think that kind of exposing of who the voice actors are had more to do with the drop in 2D features than most people realize.
.
It should be noted that the studios may not have necessarily BEEN outshined but if the right person thinks so the outcome is no different than if they had.
You don't give kids enough credit. Here's a science experiment for you... Sit a five year old in front of a re-run of Coach and time how long it takes for the kid to say "That's Mr. Incredible." I've seen a similar thing happen with You've Got Mail and a kid saying it's Woody.
Yet again, touche.
Personally, I put a LOT of judgement on trailers and commercials. I see the white flags too. Take the recent Hoodwinked commercial where all the kids are yelling "We love Twitchy!" Eh... I don't want to "be a Pepper too." I'll probably see that the same way I saw Batman and Robin... when a friend rents it, and I'll still walk out.
Follow @chaostoon on Twitter!
I totally agree with you. I actuyally made a thread on this topic months back. You just worded it better.
Hi Archie,
Yeah, this thread was posted a LONG time ago, when Shark Tale was about to be released. Somehow, it got rezzed. Hehehe
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
Well as if the animation vo industry was not competitive enough for us TRUE voice actors whom have to compete with Canadian studios whom ONLY hire Canadian actors, but now film / tv celebs whom want these gigs because as some have been heard to say; "gee mr agent this work is easy - you mean all all I'll have to do is show up, read some lines in my own voice as myself?" - and I'll be paid how much? WOW yea sign me up...hey do you want me to call my other celeb friends?
See the day of "original" voice characters in films are a thing of the past aside from a few cartoons "mostly" dubbed / voiced in Canada to avoid US unions, etc. (it's the law there)
So my reserach too as shown it is NOT about talent - more 2 little factors:
1-studios want house-hold names to secure ticket sales. This is their ace in the hole just in case the end product is weak and not up to speed. Gee just which recent animations might those be....hmmmm. -)
2-there is something called the "good ol boys club" and it is even now totally effecting cartoons, animation and even games casting. (e.g. the recent recasting of sega vo's, etc)
So to all the hungry vet voice actors with the goods just hang in there because sooner or later these BIG studio budgets will have to be reduced with the never ending flood of new titles entering the market and once again even the BIG studio will have to return to casting us "real voice actors" whom they know - will work for food :-) not 2.5 million for a weeks work in the studio. Long live the "voice" actor!!!
Movietoonz,
I am not bashing Americans... I am simply stating that there are many who feel the way you do (if it ain't American, it's crap), and we do not intentionally shoot around American voice talent for any other reason except that we have to. We are producing here in Canada, and it is beneficial to have our voice talents in-house, but barring that, the government says we must in order to benefit from their credits.
It all comes down to business. Bash the studios who send the work to us because we are cheaper and have a giant talent pool. Don't bash us for taking these opportunities.
As for big name studios, etc., this thread was not only directed at them. We did Pinnochio 3000 here in Montreal at a studio that is anything but a big studio. However, we still found it necessary to cast Whoopi Goldberg and Howie Mandel, as well as a few other "big name" talents. I am against it all-together. I simply said originally, there are many other local unknown talents that may not have emmies or oscars behind them, who can do the job just as well, if not better than the Rene Zellwiggers or Angelina Jolies.
I apologize for lashing out at you, but some of your comments seemed a bit "supremesistic" (if that is even a word), such as saying that you were a true voice talent, and yet Canada is not willing to use you. There are many "true voice actors" here too, so why go elsewhere?
Regardless... We could both use a bit o' diplomacy in this conversation I think. Especially when we both seem to haev somewhat the same ideas.
Cheers
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
I believe that's three incorrect applications of "whom" within a single sentence, although I could be wrong. (The who/whom dichotomy can be confusing.)
This is just a friendly heads-up. I usually don't correct people's grammar on this forum, but that was a very distracting sentence.
Umm, Voicetoons...
I am going to have to interject here, even though you are a self-proclaimed "TRUE" voice actor, adn I am in fact in Canada, where there are no real actors. I find this comment very arrogant, and ignorant.
Now, voice acting is not done in Canada because of American unions... We have unions here too. You have S.A.G., we have A.C.T.R.A. Same crap, different pile. Productions as a WHOLE are done here in Canada, because our wonderful government gives grants and tax breaks to studios to produce in Canada. Therefore, producers such as Fox, or Sony Entertainment, Cartoon Network, or what have you send the work up here to take advantage of the currency exchange and the cheaper cost of production due to these tax breaks. In return, the Canadian studios promise to keep a certain percentage of the production costs in Canada, thus creating work for Canadians. Seems fair, doesn't it?
I can respect some of the passion in what you have to say, but you really need to get your facts straight, and lay off the American supremesist attitudes... Instead of ranting to us on an internet forum, maybe write to your congressman, and voice your displeasure. If the U.S. supported film production the way Canada does, then maybe more productions would stay in the U.S.
P.S. What doe sthis actually have to do with my original post?
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
lol- I think it was the repetition. Those are indeed INcorrect "whom's." If it's he/she, it's who. If it's him/her, it's whom.
Sorry. I'm a grammar Nazi.
On topic: I've read all this stuff, but I don't know how much more there is to say about it. Names can sell a film. A sad, simple fact. It follows that if you cast Will Smith, Jack Black, Renee howeveryouspellit, and Deniro- you've covered every demographic you need to make it a hit. I admit I almost went to see it because Marty Scorcese appeared. I resisted.
As long as people pay to go see these names, there's not much else we can do, other than not show up at the theater. Or I suppose we could eliminate cultural stereotypes, that'd show em. Any better ideas?
On another note, usually big names aren't to draw children, but draw the parents into bringing the children. "Oh, there's another new cheesy animated film- but hey, it's got Eddie Murphy in it. Ok, I'll sit through it."
Thanks Harvey for the grammer help. Guess one should pay better attention to his spelling / proper grammer even when writing in a casual forum. Yes I too agree with your points as it is simply at the end of the day all about the bottom line and about pr to get mom and dad in the theatre with the gang. (I have 4 under 12) It is MORE about the pull / draw, than about who is the better voice talent at least that was merely my "arrogant and ignorant" point in what was to be a simple statement. Of course the using non-name talent verses big names cast topic could go on forever...thanks for your feedback.
As to Sir Wade K who asked for our "opinions" on the original topic. My so called "arrogant and ignorant" American comment as you stated about the Canadian comment I made (which was obviously taken personally) pertains to "the use of voice talent for their skills" not their location, or country of origin.
This was NOT about Canada in general, it's studios and/or the many tax benefits and perks offered to producers for doing business in Canada. So since you've gone all personal on me, some might find it most interesting how you were so willing to ride on the "bash big studios wagon" when it came to America / Hollywood / BIG studios and their taking bread and butter from us non-name "voice actors", offering those parts to Celebs. However then take such GREAT personal insult at the mention of a well known industry fact about Canada and it's cast local habits for talent and how we across the border are turned away when casting NOT due to our non-celeb status, rather DUE to our "non-canadian" status. This is a whole other topic.
I think most would agree these are one in the same. I'll be careful how I respond to your posts in the future. My apology to you if you were so insulted by my exposing the "so called secret" pertaining to voice talent exclusion if non-canadian, while being happy to take our casting and production work.
As a professional who has paid his dues after 20-years in the biz, I'd ask you to make your comments in this forum purely of business in nature and save your personal and anti-american insults for when we ever get to meet in person sir.
That's kinda "reverse engineering" my remark.
What I meant was more like this: Would a kid beg to go see "The Incredibles" because he enjoyed "Coach" reruns? No, but I bet there were a few who begged to see "Shrek" because of Mike Myers or "Shark Tale" because of Will Smith.
Recognizing the actors who provided the voices afterwards is easy. But while a kid can watch the cartoon and know it's Will Smith's voice, could any kid tell you by listening to Marlin that it's actor Albert Brooks? He might see Brooks afterwards and recognize him, but not before.
I Can't realize that Is it possible to explore this Forum using synonym keywords instead of exact words.
I searched for synonym keywords in http://www.google.com and
http://www.boardexplorer.com and I found this Forum.
but inside the web site I could not find any intelligent search. you ought to know exact words to find related topics
any one who knows something?
wedding budget
What are you searching for Jack?
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
I HATE Shark Tale with a passion for exactly that. It's not like ANY of the celebs lending their voices were really challenged, artistically. What else did the designers do than transform them in their stereotypical roles into a kettle of fish?
Well, that's the Simpsons site, so naturally they're going to highlight her work with the show. If you check her site, she had a busy acting and voiceover career going before Bart. For sure, Bart launched her into the strastosphere, but she was a pro before then.
Newhart and Gabor were the main voices in "The Rescuers". The practice of celebrity voice casting goes much further back than that though. In "Pinocchio", Jiminy Cricket was voiced by an actor Cliff Edwards, a popular actor at the time who was on the radio under the name of Ukelele Ike.
I'm fine with celebrities doing voices as long as they bring something unique to the role. For example, I've never enjoyed an Eddie Murphy voice performance because he's always Eddie Murphy.
I also hate the precedent DreamWorks set by paying the cast as highly as they did for Shrek 2. Their work is a very small portion of the overall production, and I don't see any of the animators (who actually contribute the motion and the pictures to the motion picture) getting paid multi-millions.
It sucks, yeah, but you gotta look at it this way... Dreamworks is paying the actors for their name association. Its kinda like when you buy cereal at the grocery store. Are you gonna pay three bucks for the Lucky Charms with the cartoon character on the box, or are you gonna pay one dollar for the clear plastic bag with the exact same cereal. Most folks choose the leprechaun.
Think about it... when is the last time (besides the JibJab guys) you saw an animator on The Tonight Show? Is there even an E! True Hollywood Story about Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston? The sad fact is... when average people think about an animated character they think of them as (using Mushu as an example) that part played by Eddie Murphy, not the character animated by Tom Bancroft.
I agree with you, it sucks. But the trade-off is that we don't have paparazzi making animators lives miserable. A similar pay would be nice, though.
Follow @chaostoon on Twitter!
You're absolutely correct. When I'm asked if I've ever met anyone famous, I throw out names like Bill Plympton, Mark Henn, John Canemaker... and then I have to explain who they are. They're famous to me, not the average moviegoer.
Yes, they're tapping into the cachet attached to the actor's name. But so did Disney when they cast "name" actors in films like Beauty and the Best and Lion King, and they only paid them scale. DreamWorks screwed that all up, and then they went out and promoted the fact that they were paying the big coin to these guys.
As a connoisseur of cereals, let me say that it should be noted A) boxes are way easier to store in a pantry than "sack of dog food" size containers and B) with the exception of a few "brand name generic" brands like Malt-O-Meal (which can be verified to be identical to General Mills, and even produced and shipped from the same region of the same state), generic must almost always be avoided. Anyone who's eaten Cocoa Dots knows they're about as close to Cocoa Puffs as sasparilla is to garbage water. When the ingredients are different, and the consistency is different, and the taste is different, pay the extra 70 cents to a dollar and enjoy a better quality of life.
Touche, my friend, touche.
Bad analogy, but an analogy none the less. I'll think of a better one next time. :D
Follow @chaostoon on Twitter!
Actually it was a great analogy, just founded on a common misconception.
I apologize for the thread hijack.
.
I guess it's marketing. It does sell.
...but I swear if I ever hear one of those celebs explain again that the animation is done by video-taping them in the reading......
The last I saw was Cameron Diaz say this a couple days ago. But I've heard it before on other projects. Will someone explain to the voice actors that the video is just reference.
I certainly understand some of a marketing value involved in big actors in your film... But the entire cast? I can understand using one or two, WHO HAVE DISTINGUISHABLE, ENERGETIC VOICES THAT WILL ADD SOMETHING TO THE FILM, but in the case of shark tale? Rene Zellweger, Angelina Jolie, Martin Scorcese, and even Will Smith (but I can almost go along with Will Smith)? These people have NOTHING distinguishable to their voices. Funny you had mentioned Cameron Diaz... Yet another one who has nothing to offer voice-wise (not criticizing or attacking you at all, Graphiteman. Just fed up with these films and their main selling point being the actors).
Kids have NO IDEA who these people are, and do not care either. They are, for the most part, who we make these films for, no?
Anyhoo...
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
Ka know, I don't know if its a direct correlation, but I was listening to an NPR broadcast a few days ago that was saying a lot of times they have top name talent in certain movies because having them brings a great deal more success to the film in *foreign* markets. For instance, I know its a shallow example, but one of the reasons Brad Pitt was chosen for Troy is because Brad Pitt is enormously popular with adolescent Japanese girls. They interviewed some girls in Japan who said they aren't going to go see the movie for the story at all. They just want to see Brad Pitt in another film.
Maybe it has some connection with Voice talent?
Captain Obvious signing off,
Ender
hu wade??
rene zelwegger is actually a pretty good selling name..
Working in commercials myself, I can't stop hearing clients refering to those people..
Oh i'd like our litle character in this animated commercial tohave a Renee je ne sais quoi, with a touch of Angelina.. etc etc..( ok, i'm pushing it , but.. the idea is the same!)
Nevertheless..
I do agree that the trend for having big names actor all over a movie is getting out of control.
It is easy to see where it COULD lead.
Simply that , as the cameron diaz interview mentioned, someday, someone will have the idea of taping teh actors and basically copying that onto the animation..
I do thnk having great voices is a necessary component to animation.. for, it does drive a lot of the acting ..
yet...
The art of the animator is also to act it out , isn't it??
P.
I agree... Voices ARE a big selling point in any film/series. However, there are a multitude of no-name actors, who are no-names probably because they do not have the looks of Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, and have never scored big in the live action film side of things. However, they are FANTASTIC for animation, with a lot of personality and animated quality to their voices, instead of using one of the Rene Zellwegers or Cameron Diaz' (I am sorry, but I haev to whole-heartedly disagree with the Zellweger thing. If she auditioned for one of my films/series, I would say thank-you, don't come again after the first take. Mayeb a matter of taste, but in animation, voices need to be energetic, and hers is anything but).
I think the funds used to pay these actors could be used better elsewhere thoughout the animation pipeline (these actors are not cheap, as I am sure you can imagine).
Cheers
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
Just a bit to add to the melting pot: I would be curious to see what percentage of people who go to see these movies are adults and what percentage are kids. Are they just marketing to kids, or are they pulling in adults too with big names we've all heard of? I do agree with your point though, Wade. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Nancy Cartwright do much before the Simpsons? She gives voice to numerous characters. Living proof you they don't need big names to make an animation successful!
Hey I agree the voices for the most parts are names and indistinguishable.
I agree that it's simply a marketing strategy. Producers know that Tom Hanks or De Niro will sell more tickets at a live-action feature, and it certainly works that way at an animated feature.
The more "stars" you have in a cast, the more general appeal, so you attract De Niro fans, Smith fans, Black fans, Zellweger fans, Sopranos fans, etc. A larger variety of popular actors insures more ticket sales which in turn insures more money for the general production budget. Unknown actors do not have fan bases.
Wade.
I guess my post wasn't very clear..
i wasn't saying that these actors were kid friendly.. i mean.. c'mon.. Deniro??
in a kid's movie?
the raging bull guy??
Kids might know his name,but i'm not so sure the parents would let them watch movies with him..
If you had a kid, would you let him watch fight club( brad pitt)
No.
I thinkone of the reasons for the big name stars is the parent appeal, as well as the character role!
I was In france when they had that simpsons episode with sting.. at that time it was a big hit.
Same with paul mc cartney.. interestingly enough..my MOM was the most interested in the episode!
go figure.. she'd never wanted to watch the simpsons before..
Animation is becoming hollywood's new big gun.
And the marketting guys are all over that..
That's were the art parts with the business i guess!
Now..
On theother hand.. When you have a really good actor truly investing himself in the role.. you do get a terrific performance.. and, well, that's what actors are good at, isnt it??
P.