Master Index of Archived Threads


Justin Timberlake and Cartoon Voices (split from Apropos)

Lefty Specialist Dec 16 2010 07:43 PM

The other day I actually caught myself saying, "You know, Justin Timberlake does a pretty good Boo-Boo."

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 17 2010 09:21 AM Re: Apropos of nothing thread 2010

Same. Still not seeing it, though. Does ANYONE go to see an animated film because it's got a particular star's voice in it? Even kids don't think that way, right? So if you're an animated feature producer, why up your budget? Why not hire, say, a really good relative unknown instead of, say, Tom Hanks or Jessica Alba or the vampire dude?

Edgy DC Dec 17 2010 09:37 AM Re: Apropos of nothing thread 2010

I'm certain they know what they're doing. It's about Q-scores. Somewheres in our subconscious, there's supposedly a tickling of our decion-making processes that says, "I like him. I don't know what to do this evening, but if Craig T. Nelson has lent his soul to this project, that's all I need to know." Look at people's Facebook updates, touting their newly favorite cause with posts like "I LOVE LOVE LOVE that Emma Thomposon is behind this and I love her MORE now that I know she's doing this!"

metirish Dec 17 2010 09:52 AM Re: Apropos of nothing thread 2010

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Same. Still not seeing it, though. Does ANYONE go to see an animated film because it's got a particular star's voice in it? Even kids don't think that way, right? So if you're an animated feature producer, why up your budget? Why not hire, say, a really good relative unknown instead of, say, Tom Hanks or Jessica Alba or the vampire dude? Probably not but in the Toy Story saga the voices seem perfectly cast don't they?

Frayed Knot Dec 17 2010 09:53 AM Re: Apropos of nothing thread 2010

I always thought the same thing re: animated films; the kids don't know who these voices are and the adults shouldn't care. In fact, knowing the who makes it worse in a way since you can picture the real face behind the voice as the one doing the talking, whereas with an anonymous name it allows you to see the toon as the source of the voice.

seawolf17 Dec 17 2010 09:57 AM Re: Apropos of nothing thread 2010

I always thought the same thing re: animated films; the kids don't know who these voices are and the adults shouldn't care. In fact, knowing the who makes it worse in a way since you can picture the real face behind the voice as the one doing the talking, whereas with an anonymous name it allows you to see the toon as the source of the voice. Disagree. Exhibit A: "Monsters vs. Aliens." Some of the casting (notably Stephen Colbert as the President, Rainn Wilson as Galaxhar) is brilliant. One of my favorite animated movies ever.

Ceetar Dec 17 2010 10:02 AM Re: Apropos of nothing thread 2010

I always thought the same thing re: animated films; the kids don't know who these voices are and the adults shouldn't care. In fact, knowing the who makes it worse in a way since you can picture the real face behind the voice as the one doing the talking, whereas with an anonymous name it allows you to see the toon as the source of the voice. Why shouldn't the adults care? It's all about marketing and advertising. How many kids are begging their parents to see these movies versus the parents pegging it as something to take their kids to?

Frayed Knot Dec 17 2010 10:16 AM Re: Apropos of nothing thread 2010

If I'm going to an animated movie (something I don't think I've done since Gerald Ford was in the White House, but just hypothetically) I'd care that the voice of said monster was done well but I don't see why I should care if Jack Nicholson or Jack Nobody was the one providing the goods. Colbert and Rainnnnnn Wilson may have been great, but I wouldn't have gone to see it simply based on my knowing their names beforehand.

Ceetar Dec 17 2010 06:34 PM Re: Apropos of nothing thread 2010

Frayed Knot wrote: If I'm going to an animated movie (something I don't think I've done since Gerald Ford was in the White House, but just hypothetically) I'd care that the voice of said monster was done well but I don't see why I should care if Jack Nicholson or Jack Nobody was the one providing the goods. Colbert and Rainnnnnn Wilson may have been great, but I wouldn't have gone to see it simply based on my knowing their names beforehand. You could make the same case for just about anything though. if the actor plays the character well, why should I care if he's a "nobody" or a "somebody"?

Lefty Specialist Dec 18 2010 05:26 AM Re: Apropos of nothing thread 2010

Disney has always done a good job of matching voices to characters. In the Toy Story movies, Tom Hanks and Tim Allen are perfectly cast. And 5 minutes into the movie, you forget about the actor behind the voice anyway. Not going to see Yogi though. My son's 15 now, so the animated movie ship has sailed. For a while and I my wife and I took turns because he wanted to see EVERYTHING. My mother-in-law really took the bullet for us when she took him to see Pokemon The Movie 2000, though. Afterwards, she said, "Well, there's 75 minutes of my life I won't get back."

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 18 2010 11:28 AM Re: Apropos of nothing thread 2010

Yes, Tom Hanks and Tim Allen are perfectly cast as Woody and Buzz Lightyear. But so are Wallace Shawn and John Ratzenberger-- would their roles have been better off voiced by, say, Adam Sandler and Robert Downey, Jr.? But picking the best movie/series in recent animation isn't exactly instructive-- Toy Story's creative team does virtually everything right. And besides, Pixar's the real draw there; they're one of the safest bets in popular entertainment, for both consumer and investor, with Toy Story as the best cared-for brand in their creative stable. Ask yourself instead: how many people-- hell, how many die-hard fans of his-- went to go see Bill Murray voice Garfield? Or, hell, let's go ahead and assay Pixar-- who went to see Cars because Hansel from Zoolander was the lead?

Edgy DC Dec 18 2010 01:16 PM Re: Justin Timberlake and Cartoon Voices (split from Apropos)

I'm certain (expecially in the Garfield case), more poeple went than would have otherwise gone. (Even though everyone knows the voice of Garfield is Carlton the Doorman.)

Edgy DC Dec 18 2010 01:30 PM Re: Justin Timberlake and Cartoon Voices (split from Apropos)

I mean, what got me on Emma F. Thompson is my FB friend Kimberly. She's currently in Africa on a Fullbright Fellowhip. So, you know, she's reasonably smart, if not always wise. Here's one of her posts of late. Kimberly B. ?"I'm not beautiful; I clean up nice." My God, I LOVE this woman. Helen Mirren says her looks are 'bloody irrelevant' www.ctv.ca Actress Helen Mirren thinks her looks are "bloody irrelevant" and things there is too much pressure put on women in Hollywood. December 8 at 9:51am Now, if a Fullbrighter can publickly declare out loud how excited she is by such (essentially) a banal statement from a film actor, can there be any doubt that many of us (if not Frayed Knot) let such feelings influence our subconscious?

Fman99 Dec 18 2010 05:33 PM Re: Justin Timberlake and Cartoon Voices (split from Apropos)

The voices are for the adults. The kids wouldn't know Tom Hanks if he bit them on the arse. (And thanks to that court order, John Ratzenberger will hopefully stop trying to bite my kids' hineys).

RealityChuck Dec 18 2010 07:37 PM Re: Apropos of nothing thread 2010

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Does ANYONE go to see an animated film because it's got a particular star's voice in it? Even kids don't think that way, right? So if you're an animated feature producer, why up your budget? Why not hire, say, a really good relative unknown instead of, say, Tom Hanks or Jessica Alba or the vampire dude? That's missing the point. They use a big name star because the star can go on all the talk shows to hype the film and people will tune in. Frank Welker may be one of the greatest voice men around these days, but if you book him on Conan -- if you could -- no one would care. But if it's Dan Aykroyd, then not only can get get on the show, but people will watch him promote the film. And in order for kids to go to an animated films, you have to convince their parents it's worth watching, too (the days where you would leave your kid in a movie theater alone are long gone). As for expense, big name stars do not get big salaries for voice work. Probably more than an unknown, but far less that what they'd make as a face actor. Most do it because they like doing it, and because you only have to work a day or two: Basically, you go into the studio at your convenience and read all your lines. Occasionally the other actors are there, too, but not often. And you don't have to memorize anything -- the script is right there in front of you. It's an easy gig.

Kong76 Dec 18 2010 07:59 PM Re: Justin Timberlake and Cartoon Voices (split from Apropos)

Who is Justin Timberlake?

Nymr83 Dec 18 2010 08:02 PM Re: Justin Timberlake and Cartoon Voices (split from Apropos)

Kong76 wrote: Who is Justin Timberlake? be thankful if you don't know.

SteveJRogers Dec 19 2010 01:13 AM Re: Apropos of nothing thread 2010

RealityChuck wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Does ANYONE go to see an animated film because it's got a particular star's voice in it? Even kids don't think that way, right? So if you're an animated feature producer, why up your budget? Why not hire, say, a really good relative unknown instead of, say, Tom Hanks or Jessica Alba or the vampire dude? That's missing the point. They use a big name star because the star can go on all the talk shows to hype the film and people will tune in. Frank Welker may be one of the greatest voice men around these days, but if you book him on Conan -- if you could -- no one would care. But if it's Dan Aykroyd, then not only can get get on the show, but people will watch him promote the film. Just to add a bit of a flip side to this, the Transformers live action films got a bit of a boost for the nostalgia angle of fandom due to the fact that Peter Cullen, the voice of Optimus Prime in the old 1980s cartoon, did the role in the movies. Conversely, Frank, who was Megatron (Prime's opposite number) did not do Megatron in the films. Not sure how Transformers fans have felt about that, but Frank's "replacement", Hugo Weaving, does have some cred in the sci-fi/fantasy/horror genre with his appearances in the Lord of The Rings and The Matrix. On the question at hand. One the one hand I don't mind it that much. Sure a 5 year old kid watching Toy Story today won't know Tom Hanks from Tom Seaver, but say that kid becomes old enough to watch Hanks' live action stuff, he might pick up on certain things in his voice and go "Hey, THAT'S WOODY!" But on the other, well some do it in over kill mode. Especially Dreamworks, I mean how freakishly over the top was their promotion of Jerry Seinfeld's work on Bee Movie? I mean NBC was in complete overload with promotion for that thing! Sure you want people to see the movie and the target audience is not paying attention to the overkill, or not that aware of it, but at the same time, it can be seen as a turn off if done poorly.