Open Forum Friday: Do Animated Movies Really Need Big Name Voice Actors?
There once was a time when voice acting was something that A-list Hollywood actors would rarely ever waste their talent on. Whenever you needed someone to provide a voice for an animated movie, you would go to someone who specialized in such things, because let’s face it, they were cheaper and probably much more versatile too. But things have been slowly changing ever since the ’90s, with Robin Williams having a prominent role in Aladdin, and then blockbuster CG films like Toy Story and Antz featuring star-studded casts (the latter of which even modeled its characters to subtly resemble its stars). Nowadays it’s pretty much a given that any feature-length animated CG movie will secure big name talent in order to better their chances for box office success. But is this actually a good thing?
One of the concerns here is that the A-list actors are taking away jobs from the real voice actors — people who don’t get paid nearly as much and who, in some cases, are already struggling to make a living. But there’s also a question of whether or not the big name actors are actually providing a better performance. In a lot of cases I think the answer is no. Voice acting is an art form with its own subtle differences, and just because you can act on screen doesn’t necessarily mean you can give a decent vocal performance. For proof of this, just look at the despicable studio practice of having voice actors read for a role, only to give the recording to a Hollywood actor to use as a guide for their own performance. Pixar seems to be one of the few animation studios that still tries to cast a part based on the actual voice work rather than star power. What do you think? Do A-list actors help or hurt animated movies? Are you more likely to see an animated movie if one of your favourite stars provides a voice for it? Is voice acting itself in danger of becoming a lost art form? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (25)
I think that A-List actors help sell tickets but after that they can help or hurt, it depends on the performances. It’s impossible to say they’re all the same. For example, Patton Oswalt is amazing in Rattatouille but Cameron Diaz is terrible in Shrek.
Posted by Mike on September 11th, 2009Diaz is beyond terrible, and even worse is more or less the entire cast of madagascar. Thank god I usually watch my animated films dubbed to Danish, I find them (though often star-studded) to be of a much higher quality than the English versions in general.
Posted by Kasper on September 11th, 2009There didn’t seem to be a problem attracting people to the theater some decades ago without the help of an A list talent. I’ve never felt it was necessary to have some Hollywood star in the cast, usually it detracts from the film because you have that actor’s image in your mind and it makes you not buy in to the character. But that of course depends on how the actor uses his voice and on his performance.
Posted by swarez on September 11th, 2009I agree with swarez. I immediately associate the actor with the character when watching a star-studded animated film. I definitely DON’T think of Kevin Conroy when watching an animated Batman flick. I think well established voice actors have worked VERY hard to be where they are and are generally just better when it comes to this kind of thing. They can become a character rather than just being an animated version of themselves. Disney never really used famous actors in their films up until the 90s and they were better for it. How many people watched Aladdin and didn’t picture Robin Williams and Gilbert Godfried?
Posted by fatbologna on September 11th, 2009A1) Yes, big name actors are needed for animated movies for exactly the same way big name actors are “needed” for non-animated movies: They improve ticket sales.
A2) The more recognizable the voice, the more distracting it is while you’re watching the movie. Just like non-animated movies.
So I don’t think there’s any difference between animated and non-animated movies where stars are concerned.
Posted by Doug on September 11th, 2009As with acting, use the person who will be best for that role, not “just because….”.
Posted by Tomas on September 11th, 2009Similarly, really talented doctors are taking away jobs from drunk guys with hacksaws who operate out of garages. These old-school doctors — like voice actors – don’t get paid nearly as much as these other doctors and, in some cases, are already struggling to make a living.
It’s just unfair.
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on September 11th, 2009Yeah, this is one’a my biggest pet peeves. Because you see movie trailers for these films and there’s a good couple of seconds at the end dedicated to throwing all the names at you hoping the audience will go, “Ooh, well if Will Arnett’s in this, I’m down!” Come on.
Gimme K.T. Vogt any day. I like going back to old films (I just watched “Peter Pan” a few weeks ago) and just watching the film instead of thinking, “Gee, is that…?” But if big names sell tickets, well this is what we get, then.
Posted by Falsk on September 11th, 2009It’s very vey very simple FUCK NO! I’ve been saying this for year’s.
Posted by jaime on September 11th, 2009Shut-Up Ed, do you really think that big name=talent? With doctors, look and charisma doesn’t mean as much as with actors.
Posted by Henrik on September 11th, 2009you get who fits, and if they’re big, they’re big. Tom Hanks voiced Pixar’s first major outing and he was the right choice.
Posted by Goon on September 12th, 2009The short answer is No! I believe that this is a hold over from the Disney films from the early 90’s and it seems that everyone else followed suit. Basically executives were like, hey lets sign “Cameron Diaz” instead of a trained voice actor to play the part of the princess. It’s nothing more than a name to promote on the TV spots and trailers.
Can you imagine how much better the quality of these films would be if they put more resources into the story and visuals instead of paying “A big actor” 10 million plus.
Don’t get me wrong there are a number of Stars who have done a great job “see Pixar films” but I for one think that it’s overrated and isn’t really necessary.
Posted by Marc on September 12th, 2009Pixar seems to be picking the right voices, whether they are huge stars or not, aside from Kevin Spacey I don’t remember anyone “famous” in A Bugs Life. They rely on story and visuals first and foremost and finding the right voice instead of the right name is more important to them, like Graig T Nelson and Helen Hunt in The Incredibles. Ratatouille and Wall-E had no major stars in them and they were huge, but I think it’s more due to the Pixar label than anything else.
And, what about all the other animated films with big name stars that have absolutely bombed at the box office? The marketing machine probably has more power than who’s name is on the poster.
Posted by swarez on September 12th, 2009I don’t get why people care if Will Smith is doing the voice in an animated movie? You don’t see him anyway. I personally like animated movies without a-list actors better.
Madagscar is a great example of a movie that I think would be a lot better if it had better voice cast.
Posted by Niklas on September 12th, 2009no they don’t
Posted by mitch on September 12th, 2009It is all about name dropping at its best or worst.
Posted by Big Hungry on September 12th, 2009The practice of getting “big name” actors probably doesn’t help their bottom line as much as they think. I’d be willing to bet the movies are more profitable w/o big names (because they would cost half as much and sell to the same pack of families anyway).
I do think that having live-action actors actually does work out to the benefit of a lot of anime though. The Miyazaki films would be hurt by the cheesy and over-the-top performances that voice actors typically provide. Sure, the now legendary VHS-only dub of AKIRA was fun; but probably a lot more people would have taken AKIRA more seriously if a cast of real actors (big or little names) were behind the mike.
Like Big Hungry, I think the directors/producers like working with big names so that they can name drop and feel more legitimate.
Posted by Ryan M. on September 12th, 2009Pixar seems to be picking the right voices, whether they are huge stars or not, aside from Kevin Spacey I don’t remember anyone “famous” in A Bugs Life.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, David Hyde Pierce, Denis Leary, Madeline Kahn and Phyllis Diller say “Hi.” And that doesn’t even include the rest of the cast, all of whom have pretty recognizable voices. Hell, Hayden Panettiere was even in that freaking movie.
Posted by Matt Gamble on September 12th, 2009If it’s a fitting voice role, then sure. I think Robin Williams was a great Genie, just as Tim Allen was great as buzz Lightyear. I don’t however think that 90% of the castings recently are appropriate. Miley Cyrus etc is obviously shameless cash-in.
Posted by stevie_baby on September 13th, 2009I still think it’s wierd people will go and see a film just because of a name. The director, the screenplay and yes the trailer all persuade me more than the actual actors. Don’t care. Just don’t give one. Just actors. Eff them. And I’ve never liked a voice actor I’ve met.
Posted by Robin on September 13th, 2009As great as the classic (and current) voice actors are, I don’t see any reason animation producers shouldn’t turn to live actors with name recognition if they think they’ll a) help the box office, and especially b) deliver a **performance** beyond what what a Tom Kenny or Billy West – who can do great voice characterizations – can provide. Name value aside, does anybody really think Kenny and West could have delivered as emotionally powerful performances as Jack Black and Dustin Hoffman provided for their characters in “Kung Fu Panda”?
Disney may not have used name performers for their voices, but he kept going back to the same P
Posted by Joe Strike on September 13th, 2009As great as the classic (and current) voice actors are, I don’t see any reason animation producers shouldn’t turn to live actors with name recognition if they think they’ll a) help the box office, and especially b) deliver a **performance** beyond what what a Tom Kenny or Billy West – who can do great voice characterizations – can provide. Name value aside, does anybody really think Kenny and West could have delivered as emotionally powerful performances as Jack Black and Dustin Hoffman provided for their characters in “Kung Fu Panda”?
Disney may not have used name performers for their voices, but he kept going back to the same Phil Harris / Sterling Hollway / Pat Buttram well over and over – as much a crutch in its own way as turning to stars to voice the lead characters.
Posted by Joe Strike on September 13th, 2009IMO, many of the big names doing animated aren’t all that great, they either seem to be phoning it in or are just being their normal persona IE Chris Rock, he’s funny as a comedian, but he only plays himself when he voices animation.
Transformers fans raised a ruckus to get Peter Cullen to voice Optimus Prime in the Transformers movies, without this small concession the hardcore fans may have snubbed the movie and only seen it once instead of five times.
Frankly I think kids make the choices and they really aren’t aware of celebs doing the VO, though they can tell when the voices are different, I said to myself as a kid, WTF is wrong with the Smufs’ voices in their animated movie, they sounded nothing like the TV show.
Some of the problem is that regular voice actors usually don’t or can’t promote themselves, they won’t be asked to guest on Conan or Letterman. Sure some have a hardcore following like Cullen and Frank Welker, but the mainstream audiences would great them like the ‘Chocoalte Rain’ guy performing on Jimmy Kimmel. Cullen did voice a CGI optimus prime reading Letterman’s top ten list.
Posted by Duke Togo on September 13th, 2009I really like your blog and i respect your work. Ill be a frequent visitor.
Posted by Girlsoutloud on October 19th, 2009Hey nice info.. very interesting post!
Posted by Hanna on October 23rd, 2009Leave a Reply