Cartoon Brew:Once and For All, Al Pacino Proves the Worthlessness of Celebrity Voice

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  07 July 2013
Cartoon Brew:Once and For All, Al Pacino Proves the Worthlessness of Celebrity Voice

Quote:
"
Among the juicier dramas surrounding the production of the megahit Despicable Me 2 is Al Pacino’s sudden departure from the film. Six weeks before the film’s premiere at Annecy, Pacino quit the film as the voice of the antagonist El Macho. Neither side will say what happening, simply citing ‘creative differences.’

At that point, the production was nearly finished and the animation had already been locked. This sent Illumination head Chris Meledandri scrambling to find a replacement, which turned out to be Benjamin Bratt. Since no new animation could be created at that late stage, Bratt re-recorded the dialogue by matching the existing animation, and in true Hollywood fashion, they fixed it all in post.

"

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-co...tors-85592.html
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government


Last edited by RobertoOrtiz : 07 July 2013 at 08:31 PM.
 
  07 July 2013
It will be a wonderful day when cg movies stop wasting money on big name voice actors just to put their name on the movie poster.
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by SheepFactory: It will be a wonderful day when cg movies stop wasting money on big name voice actors just to put their name on the movie poster.
One million percent agreed.
__________________
SKETCHBOOK
MDI
moonjam.com
 
  07 July 2013
Awesome, never even knew Pacino was going to be a voice in that movie.

Even though Kristen Wiig wouldn't have gotten paid as much as Pacino, her voice in the movie was distracting to me and didn't really need to be in there in my opinion.
I totally have nothing against her, loved her on SNL, but I saw her and not the character she was portraying.

I had to look up her name, but Donna Murphy who played Mother Gothel in 'Tangled' was amazing. Maybe because I didn't know who she was (lack of type casting?) is the reason why I appreciated her voice for that role. That and she has Broadway training/experience and she really knows how to sing and use that voice of hers.
She can read me bedtime stories any night.
 
  07 July 2013
That title is just being needlessly sensationalistic. The fact is, celebrity voices don't matter - until they do. Yes, a lot of animated films try to feature big names for their ad campaigns (Brad Pitt, etc) but the truth is, a lot of those big names are hugely talented actors with distinctive voices. But you cannot tell me that Woody would be the same character without Tom Hanks. Same goes for many other characters, too. Pixar and DW mine great voice talent by balancing voice quality, name recognition and cost, which is a smart way to go. But by the third movie of a billion dollar+ franchise, the leads should be getting a big payday, imho.
__________________
www.artbot.com

 
  07 July 2013
Until we get to the point where the cinema going public at large, base their movie going decisions upon who wrote, who directed and who produced the film, rather then 'who's in it?' which seems to be the most common first question people ask, then the actors will always hold great worth when it comes to a device to draw audiences in.
I find it frustrating, tedious and depressing, but i recognise that it's primarily a business, not an 'artform' and it makes sense on risk-management projection terms, which is the foundation of the studio movie making business,
__________________
Over one hundred polygons
 
  07 July 2013
I am glad in the early days of animation they werent inclined to use big stars.
Hate to think who could have replaced Mel Blanc or Arthur Q Bryan.

While there are actors who have distinctive voices--there are also others who sound so bland its hard to tell them apart.
On the other hand, sometimes a well known voice can be memorable--like Boris Karloff as the Grinch.
 
  07 July 2013
Casting for live action or animated its the same deal. if you can afford big actors then execs would love it to be so. Though being animated it can take a different skillset.

I feel pixar have always cast their films well. Tom hanks wasn't a massive name in '92/'93 as he was later in the decade (he did his recordings between Sleepless in Seattle), Tim Allen, Don Rickles, Wally Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Jim Varney. The Toy story series is one of the best cast films to date (i feel).

There have been times i thought Dreamworks went big just to attract people (always though Shark Tale was a low point), but some of their more recent films have been just right in terms of the vocal talent.

Casting can be so hit and miss. You can use an actors previous work as reference but then you wont be looking for them to bring anything new. Or you can cast someone unexpected but experienced and bring something unexpected to the role.

As much as we like to sing our own praises, "talent" is still needed. Does Tom Hanks deserve 15 mill, well who does, but he is woody to me.

The main reason people talk about this is because it really is only the voice that is required. Yes reference is helpful, but animators are pretty good these days and they have imaginations. Pixar have cast their staff a number of times.
__________________
Blog

Last edited by Phrenzy84 : 07 July 2013 at 01:35 AM.
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by Phrenzy84: I feel pixar have always cast their films well. Tom hanks wasn't a massive name in '92/'93 as he was later in the decade (he did his recordings between Sleepless in Seattle),

Hmm, oscar nominations apparently didn't mean much back then. He had one 4 years prior, for big.

Tim Allen, that was 2 or three years into home improvement which was a top show on TV. By the time the movie came out these two were some of the hottest names.

Overall pixar's been better than most for sure, but they aren't without their Samuel L Jackson. I mean their second film is loaded with stars. David Foley was hot with News radio, Julia Luis Dreyfus with Seinfeld, David Hyde Pierce with Frasier, Kevin Spacey, Bonnie Hunt Dennis Leary, it wasn't short of hot names at all.
__________________
Quote: "Until you do what you believe in, how do you know whether you believe in it or not?" -Leo Tolstoy
Kai Pedersen
 
  07 July 2013
The title is arse backwards.
It doesn't prove voice talent is worhtless, only that in this case it wasn't the key to the success of the movie. For all we know had it been in the movie might have made 100M more.

Given how many people still comment on, and go watch, a movie based on who's voicing I would hesitate to call it worhtless.

I'll agree on it being overpriced, often over-rated, not a necessary condition, and not a guarantee of success. Not a line in the article of an instant of these facts qualifies it as worthless though, it's completely flawed associative logic.
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by LucentDreams: Hmm, oscar nominations apparently didn't mean much back then. He had one 4 years prior, for big.

Tim Allen, that was 2 or three years into home improvement which was a top show on TV. By the time the movie came out these two were some of the hottest names.


I understand what you are trying to say, but i am not saying that they were unknowns. Oscar nominations does not necessarily equal mass name recognition. "By the time the movie came out" is a different perspective since Pixar had already chose Hanks many years prior. Was i really that wrong in saying Tom Hanks was a bigger star post-1992?
__________________
Blog
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by Phrenzy84: Was i really that wrong in saying Tom Hanks was a bigger star post-1992?
To be fair, you actually said

Originally Posted by Phrenzy84: Tom hanks wasn't a massive name in '92/'93
And that isn't really true at all.

Splash, Bachelor Party, The Man with One Red Shoe, Dragnet, Big, The 'Burbs, Turner & Hooch, Joe vs the Volcano, Bonfire of the Vanities - he had starring roles in all of these pre-Toy Story and was absolutely a household name.
__________________
SKETCHBOOK
MDI
moonjam.com
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by AJ: To be fair, you actually said

And that isn't really true at all.

Splash, Bachelor Party, The Man with One Red Shoe, Dragnet, Big, The 'Burbs, Turner & Hooch, Joe vs the Volcano, Bonfire of the Vanities - he had starring roles in all of these pre-Toy Story and was absolutely a household name.


To be really fair would be to quote the rest of the sentence.

Quote: Tom hanks wasn't a massive name in '92/'93 as he was later in the decade


Post 1992: Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Apollo 13, Saving Private Ryan, You've got Mail, Cast Away, The Green Mile.

Like i said, i wasn't saying they were casting unknowns. Just that they he wasn't as massive compared to later in the decade.
__________________
Blog
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by ThE_JacO: The title is arse backwards.
It doesn't prove voice talent is worhtless, only that in this case it wasn't the key to the success of the movie. For all we know had it been in the movie might have made 100M more.

Given how many people still comment on, and go watch, a movie based on who's voicing I would hesitate to call it worhtless.

I'll agree on it being overpriced, often over-rated, not a necessary condition, and not a guarantee of success. Not a line in the article of an instant of these facts qualifies it as worthless though, it's completely flawed associative logic.


This.

more words
 
  07 July 2013
Quote: That title is just being needlessly sensationalistic. The fact is, celebrity voices don't matter - until they do. Yes, a lot of animated films try to feature big names for their ad campaigns (Brad Pitt, etc) but the truth is, a lot of those big names are hugely talented actors with distinctive voices. But you cannot tell me that Woody would be the same character without Tom Hanks. Same goes for many other characters, too. Pixar and DW mine great voice talent by balancing voice quality, name recognition and cost, which is a smart way to go. But by the third movie of a billion dollar+ franchise, the leads should be getting a big payday, imho.


The star name does not really matter anymore. We have seen star power wane over the years.

There are however specific voices that bring a character to life the character would not be the same without that voice actor. Examples Woody, Buzz and alot of other cast members.

Some actors just breathe real life into the characters and are worth the money sometimes.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.