There are some good comments on the article that contradict the title. I recommend reading them. But, in short, there are way too many excellent celebrity voice actors for the main thesis to be...
There are some good comments on the article that contradict the title. I recommend reading them. But, in short, there are way too many excellent celebrity voice actors for the main thesis to be true. I'll give just a few examples from the top of my head:
Rainn Wilson as Lex Luthor (DC Animated Movie Universe)
David Tennant as Scrooge McDuck (DuckTales)
Kiefer Sutherland as Snake (Metal Gear Solid)
Tom Hanks as Woody (Toy Story)
Abbi Jacobson as Bean (Disenchantment)
Katey Sagal as Leela (Futurama)
Mark Hamill as The Joker (several DC animated series)
Also, the cast of almost everything by Disney/Pixar, and all the Western releases of Studio Ghibli films. Beyond the ones you mentioned there is also Robin Williams, John Goodman, Tim Allen, James...
Also, the cast of almost everything by Disney/Pixar, and all the Western releases of Studio Ghibli films. Beyond the ones you mentioned there is also Robin Williams, John Goodman, Tim Allen, James Earl Jones, JK Simmons, Tim Curry, Will Arnett, Samuel L Jackson… the list of big name celebrities behind iconic animated characters goes on and on and on. Does the author of this article consider all of those to be “stunt casting” too?
They're missing the forest for the trees. What the author actually does not like is bad casting, not the casting of recognizable names as voice talent. But this is the internet, and it's not...
They're missing the forest for the trees.
What the author actually does not like is bad casting, not the casting of recognizable names as voice talent.
But this is the internet, and it's not enough to just point out when a poor creative decision ends poorly. We need to come up with an overly simplistic explanation for why it happened so that we can pretend the solution is super easy.
The thing I think weakens both of your arguments is that at least some of the people you mention are arguably more famous for their voice acting than for their in-person acting. James Earl Jones...
The thing I think weakens both of your arguments is that at least some of the people you mention are arguably more famous for their voice acting than for their in-person acting. James Earl Jones has a lot of roles both on and off screen, but the most memorable part of him is his voice - if there's one thing I'm most likely to remember him for, it's for being the voice of Mufasa. I probably wouldn't even recognize Will Arnett's face, but I'm much more likely to remember him for his voice. Tim Curry is one of my favorite performers of all time, but he's got more work behind the scenes than he has in them. There's a lot of younger people who don't care that he's Rocky but love his work as Nigel Thornberry.
Some of these are particularly strong examples of this, actually. Mark Hamil is probably best known for his role as Luke Skywalker because it's a very socially important role, but look at his IMDB page - he's had far more roles for his voice than for his body, and he's arguably a much better voice actor than an in-person actor. I didn't even know who Abbi Jacobson was until I looked her up, and with an exception for having created Broad City, Wikipedia brought up her VA roles before any of her acting roles.
Reading behind the lines of this article, I think what the author is trying to criticize about these animated movies is that their casting is simply bad. They are right to say that voice acting is a different kind of skill from film acting, but IMHO they're still very close; the problem is that the people who are being hired are being hired for their celebrity rather than their actual talent. Take Kevin Hart for an example; he's a great comedian who doesn't have very great acting skills. He essentially plays himself in anything he's in. He's done a couple of voice roles by now, but they all sound just about the same because he uses his fine-tuned comedy voice for everything he does. Will Arnett honestly has the same problem, but he's learned enough acting that he's at least better at being a dynamic character and he fits into the movies much better as a result. On the other hand, the author also mentions that there are times when the performance is so good you don't even recognize the voice until you read them in the credits.
I agree. Voice acting and acting are two distinct skills and phenomenal actors can be pretty middling voice actors in the same way that incredible stage actors can be mediocre on the screen and...
I agree. Voice acting and acting are two distinct skills and phenomenal actors can be pretty middling voice actors in the same way that incredible stage actors can be mediocre on the screen and vice versa. They may have skills that translate and there is a lot of overlap between the two, but they are not the same.
And, like you said, the casting is often simply bad. For example, casting Phil Hartman as Jiji in the English dub of "Kiki's Delivery Service" was, I would argue, a poor call even though Hartman was a pretty good voice actor in his own right. It's just that he has a very distinctive sound so not only is it hard to hear him without thinking "Oh it's Troy McClure in another one of his roles," but he played the character very differently. He came off more sarcastic and a bit snarky where the Japanese VA played him to be a bit sassier and more "prim." (Honestly, I might have gone with David Hyde Pierce fresh off playing Niles Crane).
But a lot of what passes for casting is really nonsensical stunt casting. Chris Pratt as Mario is a perfect example. It's honestly a baffling choice. Kids don't know who Chris Pratt is. Older movie buffs and gamers know who Mario is well enough to know he's a bizarre choice to be Mario. It's like, who likes Chris Pratt enough to get pulled into a Mario movie starring him?
Illumination are the kings of stunt casting. They actually spend a good chunk of their budget on cast alone. It’s part of their formula for creating box office hits.
Illumination are the kings of stunt casting. They actually spend a good chunk of their budget on cast alone. It’s part of their formula for creating box office hits.
I would argue that Illumination is largely creatively bankrupt, at least compared to studios like Pixar. For them, bad "stunt casting" is just a symptom of their general lack of creativity, and I...
I would argue that Illumination is largely creatively bankrupt, at least compared to studios like Pixar. For them, bad "stunt casting" is just a symptom of their general lack of creativity, and I doubt limiting themselves to dedicated VA talent would do anything to make their movies actually good.
Sure. But the entire purpose of illumination’s existence is to make money. They actually have a semi-interesting backstory. The CEO created the company because he felt animated movies were too...
Sure. But the entire purpose of illumination’s existence is to make money. They actually have a semi-interesting backstory. The CEO created the company because he felt animated movies were too expensive. So he decided to change that.
He actually influenced all the other animated studios. Both Dreamworks and Walt Disney Animation have lowered their budgets since illumination became a big player. The only holdout has been Pixar whose budgets are often in the 200 million dollar range due to their commitment of keeping all animation in-house.
Have they? Looking at Walt Disney Animation Studios movies over the last two decades, they've maintained a pretty consistent $150-$175 million average budget for their tentpole animated films....
Have they? Looking at Walt Disney Animation Studios movies over the last two decades, they've maintained a pretty consistent $150-$175 million average budget for their tentpole animated films. This is a bit less than double what their average budget was during the Disney Renaissance, though that's not a great comparison since we are mostly talking about CGI.
Tangled is the notable exception at $260 million, but that film was subject to a protracted production cycle that inflated its budget well beyond what they planned for.
I feel that in the case of Disney Animation Studios and Pixar a large part of their budget is in R&D. For instance if you were to visit the Disney Animation website you'll find a lot of...
I feel that in the case of Disney Animation Studios and Pixar a large part of their budget is in R&D. For instance if you were to visit the Disney Animation website you'll find a lot of information about their wide array of in-house tools they use to help build their films, and of course with Pixar they are built around developing the more math-intensive rendering pipelines that allow them to get crazy photorealistic if they were to try a little harder.
In the meanwhile the costs to make a good looking 3D film are constantly going down because we've reached a point where artists are far more interested in having great aesthetics instead of hyperrealistic materials and backgrounds, while tools that help production are becoming less and less expensive as patents run down. Look at Dreamworks' last film; The Bad Guys looked fantastic and only had a budget of $70M.
I haven't heard it, but having followed Pratt since Parks and Rec, I can see why they'd choose him. His voice does reach a similar register naturally at times, and has a playfulness and goofiness...
I haven't heard it, but having followed Pratt since Parks and Rec, I can see why they'd choose him. His voice does reach a similar register naturally at times, and has a playfulness and goofiness that could be converted into a decent Mario. I can "picture" it in mind. I'm not saying he's the best choice, since Mario already has a voice artist, but I do think it can work. I mean, buff Jurassic Park Chris Pratt won't work, but Parks and Rec Chris Pratt might.
Maybe, but a lot of them aren't. The majority actually. Also, Will Arnett to me is the guy from Arrested Development, I totally knew Abbi from Broad City, Mark Hamill is and always will be Luke,...
The thing I think weakens both of your arguments is that at least some of the people you mention are arguably more famous for their voice acting than for their in-person acting
Maybe, but a lot of them aren't. The majority actually. Also, Will Arnett to me is the guy from Arrested Development, I totally knew Abbi from Broad City, Mark Hamill is and always will be Luke, and I'm pretty sure most people know James Earl Jones as Eddy Murphy's father in Coming to America. Besides, they were all "stunt voice cast" once 🤷
That may be, but they're not really known as much for those major castings as they are their less prestigious roles. Mark Hamil's Joker and Tim Curry's Nigel Thornberry were both for children's...
That may be, but they're not really known as much for those major castings as they are their less prestigious roles. Mark Hamil's Joker and Tim Curry's Nigel Thornberry were both for children's cartoons, which has always been the bottom tier of American media. Enchanted is a level up because it's for adults but it was, itself, not really well received by audiences. The biggest exception here is James Earl Jones, because his unquestionably biggest role has always been a VA role; he's the voice of Darth Vader. And you certainly couldn't call that a stunt cast because he was originally uncredited for the role (And to the best of my knowledge it is the his first voice-only role).
The fact that Mark Hamel's performance as the Joker is irreplaceable is just more proof that you need to bring more than just a unique voice to the table to be a good choice as a VA. He brought so much character to the role that nobody else can replicate it. And that's why every actor who tries to portray that character in anything since has to spend a lot of time and effort into reinventing the character - everyone's living under the high expectations originally set by Hamil.
The premise of the article is that choosing celebrities for voice acting is a bad idea, when history shows that it's just the opposite. Celebrity actors consistently deliver great performances. In...
The premise of the article is that choosing celebrities for voice acting is a bad idea, when history shows that it's just the opposite. Celebrity actors consistently deliver great performances. In any case, your argument feels a bit forced, all the examples that you give are of performers that not only rose to fame in live action but continued to be defined by their live action performances. Only very dedicated fans will even bother to know who voices who. Most people will never read the credits to discover that Rainn Wilson is the voice of Lex Luthor, but everyone knows he was in The Office.
I see this brought up all the time and I don't understand the problem. Lots of "celebrity actors" are also great voice actors. Just cast whoever works best in the role. I struggle to imagine...
I see this brought up all the time and I don't understand the problem. Lots of "celebrity actors" are also great voice actors.
Just cast whoever works best in the role. I struggle to imagine anyone other than Mark Hamill as the Joker in the Batman cartoon or the Arkham games.
If you write shitty movies like Illumination does, it doesn't matter if your cast is made up of well known screen actors or top tier voice talent; your movie will still suck.
Well, this seems to be a problem sometimes so I think this is what most people are objecting too. Sure a lot of famous actors can do great VA but sometimes it seems like their celebrity status is...
Just cast whoever works best in the role.
Well, this seems to be a problem sometimes so I think this is what most people are objecting too. Sure a lot of famous actors can do great VA but sometimes it seems like their celebrity status is more important than their actual skill or how they fit the part.
There are some good comments on the article that contradict the title. I recommend reading them. But, in short, there are way too many excellent celebrity voice actors for the main thesis to be true. I'll give just a few examples from the top of my head:
Also, the cast of almost everything by Disney/Pixar, and all the Western releases of Studio Ghibli films. Beyond the ones you mentioned there is also Robin Williams, John Goodman, Tim Allen, James Earl Jones, JK Simmons, Tim Curry, Will Arnett, Samuel L Jackson… the list of big name celebrities behind iconic animated characters goes on and on and on. Does the author of this article consider all of those to be “stunt casting” too?
They're missing the forest for the trees.
What the author actually does not like is bad casting, not the casting of recognizable names as voice talent.
But this is the internet, and it's not enough to just point out when a poor creative decision ends poorly. We need to come up with an overly simplistic explanation for why it happened so that we can pretend the solution is super easy.
The thing I think weakens both of your arguments is that at least some of the people you mention are arguably more famous for their voice acting than for their in-person acting. James Earl Jones has a lot of roles both on and off screen, but the most memorable part of him is his voice - if there's one thing I'm most likely to remember him for, it's for being the voice of Mufasa. I probably wouldn't even recognize Will Arnett's face, but I'm much more likely to remember him for his voice. Tim Curry is one of my favorite performers of all time, but he's got more work behind the scenes than he has in them. There's a lot of younger people who don't care that he's Rocky but love his work as Nigel Thornberry.
Some of these are particularly strong examples of this, actually. Mark Hamil is probably best known for his role as Luke Skywalker because it's a very socially important role, but look at his IMDB page - he's had far more roles for his voice than for his body, and he's arguably a much better voice actor than an in-person actor. I didn't even know who Abbi Jacobson was until I looked her up, and with an exception for having created Broad City, Wikipedia brought up her VA roles before any of her acting roles.
Reading behind the lines of this article, I think what the author is trying to criticize about these animated movies is that their casting is simply bad. They are right to say that voice acting is a different kind of skill from film acting, but IMHO they're still very close; the problem is that the people who are being hired are being hired for their celebrity rather than their actual talent. Take Kevin Hart for an example; he's a great comedian who doesn't have very great acting skills. He essentially plays himself in anything he's in. He's done a couple of voice roles by now, but they all sound just about the same because he uses his fine-tuned comedy voice for everything he does. Will Arnett honestly has the same problem, but he's learned enough acting that he's at least better at being a dynamic character and he fits into the movies much better as a result. On the other hand, the author also mentions that there are times when the performance is so good you don't even recognize the voice until you read them in the credits.
I agree. Voice acting and acting are two distinct skills and phenomenal actors can be pretty middling voice actors in the same way that incredible stage actors can be mediocre on the screen and vice versa. They may have skills that translate and there is a lot of overlap between the two, but they are not the same.
And, like you said, the casting is often simply bad. For example, casting Phil Hartman as Jiji in the English dub of "Kiki's Delivery Service" was, I would argue, a poor call even though Hartman was a pretty good voice actor in his own right. It's just that he has a very distinctive sound so not only is it hard to hear him without thinking "Oh it's Troy McClure in another one of his roles," but he played the character very differently. He came off more sarcastic and a bit snarky where the Japanese VA played him to be a bit sassier and more "prim." (Honestly, I might have gone with David Hyde Pierce fresh off playing Niles Crane).
But a lot of what passes for casting is really nonsensical stunt casting. Chris Pratt as Mario is a perfect example. It's honestly a baffling choice. Kids don't know who Chris Pratt is. Older movie buffs and gamers know who Mario is well enough to know he's a bizarre choice to be Mario. It's like, who likes Chris Pratt enough to get pulled into a Mario movie starring him?
Illumination are the kings of stunt casting. They actually spend a good chunk of their budget on cast alone. It’s part of their formula for creating box office hits.
I would argue that Illumination is largely creatively bankrupt, at least compared to studios like Pixar. For them, bad "stunt casting" is just a symptom of their general lack of creativity, and I doubt limiting themselves to dedicated VA talent would do anything to make their movies actually good.
Sure. But the entire purpose of illumination’s existence is to make money. They actually have a semi-interesting backstory. The CEO created the company because he felt animated movies were too expensive. So he decided to change that.
He actually influenced all the other animated studios. Both Dreamworks and Walt Disney Animation have lowered their budgets since illumination became a big player. The only holdout has been Pixar whose budgets are often in the 200 million dollar range due to their commitment of keeping all animation in-house.
Have they? Looking at Walt Disney Animation Studios movies over the last two decades, they've maintained a pretty consistent $150-$175 million average budget for their tentpole animated films. This is a bit less than double what their average budget was during the Disney Renaissance, though that's not a great comparison since we are mostly talking about CGI.
Tangled is the notable exception at $260 million, but that film was subject to a protracted production cycle that inflated its budget well beyond what they planned for.
I feel that in the case of Disney Animation Studios and Pixar a large part of their budget is in R&D. For instance if you were to visit the Disney Animation website you'll find a lot of information about their wide array of in-house tools they use to help build their films, and of course with Pixar they are built around developing the more math-intensive rendering pipelines that allow them to get crazy photorealistic if they were to try a little harder.
In the meanwhile the costs to make a good looking 3D film are constantly going down because we've reached a point where artists are far more interested in having great aesthetics instead of hyperrealistic materials and backgrounds, while tools that help production are becoming less and less expensive as patents run down. Look at Dreamworks' last film; The Bad Guys looked fantastic and only had a budget of $70M.
I haven't heard it, but having followed Pratt since Parks and Rec, I can see why they'd choose him. His voice does reach a similar register naturally at times, and has a playfulness and goofiness that could be converted into a decent Mario. I can "picture" it in mind. I'm not saying he's the best choice, since Mario already has a voice artist, but I do think it can work. I mean, buff Jurassic Park Chris Pratt won't work, but Parks and Rec Chris Pratt might.
Maybe, but a lot of them aren't. The majority actually. Also, Will Arnett to me is the guy from Arrested Development, I totally knew Abbi from Broad City, Mark Hamill is and always will be Luke, and I'm pretty sure most people know James Earl Jones as Eddy Murphy's father in Coming to America. Besides, they were all "stunt voice cast" once 🤷
That may be, but they're not really known as much for those major castings as they are their less prestigious roles. Mark Hamil's Joker and Tim Curry's Nigel Thornberry were both for children's cartoons, which has always been the bottom tier of American media. Enchanted is a level up because it's for adults but it was, itself, not really well received by audiences. The biggest exception here is James Earl Jones, because his unquestionably biggest role has always been a VA role; he's the voice of Darth Vader. And you certainly couldn't call that a stunt cast because he was originally uncredited for the role (And to the best of my knowledge it is the his first voice-only role).
The fact that Mark Hamel's performance as the Joker is irreplaceable is just more proof that you need to bring more than just a unique voice to the table to be a good choice as a VA. He brought so much character to the role that nobody else can replicate it. And that's why every actor who tries to portray that character in anything since has to spend a lot of time and effort into reinventing the character - everyone's living under the high expectations originally set by Hamil.
The premise of the article is that choosing celebrities for voice acting is a bad idea, when history shows that it's just the opposite. Celebrity actors consistently deliver great performances. In any case, your argument feels a bit forced, all the examples that you give are of performers that not only rose to fame in live action but continued to be defined by their live action performances. Only very dedicated fans will even bother to know who voices who. Most people will never read the credits to discover that Rainn Wilson is the voice of Lex Luthor, but everyone knows he was in The Office.
I see this brought up all the time and I don't understand the problem. Lots of "celebrity actors" are also great voice actors.
Just cast whoever works best in the role. I struggle to imagine anyone other than Mark Hamill as the Joker in the Batman cartoon or the Arkham games.
If you write shitty movies like Illumination does, it doesn't matter if your cast is made up of well known screen actors or top tier voice talent; your movie will still suck.
Well, this seems to be a problem sometimes so I think this is what most people are objecting too. Sure a lot of famous actors can do great VA but sometimes it seems like their celebrity status is more important than their actual skill or how they fit the part.