MovieChat Forums > The Tale of Despereaux (2008) Discussion > Voice-over Hogs (and not the ones on the...

Voice-over Hogs (and not the ones on the farm)

posted 15 years ago by josebut8
10 replies | jump to latest

Is anybody else sick of these big time rich movie stars taking work away from struggling actors and unknowns who really need the exposure and money? Does anyone really go to see a movie like this because Matthew Broderick,Dustin Hoffman, Kevin Kline, Christopher Lloyd (two lines yet!)et al are supplying the voices? Seriously, there should be some SAG rules against it.

[–] BakedCarbon 15 years ago

Struggling actors and unknowns? If you're talking about voice artists of the "good old days", they were far from struggling. They might only seem unknown to you because you aren't familiar with any of their other work. Most were and are established Broadway stars and/or singers who, just like film actors, choose to dabble in voice acting because they are given the chance: the actors are not taking work, work is being given to them. It's ultimately up to the casting director and Co., so your frustration is misdirected.

Obviously, the big-name cast has largely affected your opinion of the film, so doesn't it make sense that fans of the stars will also more than likely give the film a go because of them?

The logical reason behind casting famous film actors is simply that casting directors and producers already know what the actors sound like from viewing their work; they know what they're hiring, and they know what they're going to get. Likewise, it's common to cast a Broadway singer for the singing voice of a character because they're familiar with their talents. It saves time spent having to organise casting calls and auditions, especially when they already know someone who has the voice they're looking for. Having actors with household names involved also means they can help with promotion. Why shouldn't film actors be allowed to cross over into voice acting if producers ask for their services? What's the problem with people crossing over into other media if they're given the opportunity? Does that mean voice actors shouldn't be allowed to progress into film acting? That Broadway actors have no right to be on the big screen? Why should film actors be punished because you know their name? And I'm assuming you weren't completely serious when you said this, but how silly would it be for SAG to forbid their members from attempting another profession outside of live acting, if only just to pull them from the lime light so that little guys like us can "have a go"?

[–] josebut8 15 years ago

Don't get me wrong. I love every one of the actors who supplied voices in "Despereaux" (but couldn't they have gotten a child for the voice of Despereaux?). Of course, Liberalis, producers can voice cast whoever they want in their films. And of course it would be ridiculous for SAG to impose rules (right...? They have rules for everything else, though) And it's great there's so much media cross pollination for actors. I'm just saying...does a huge Superstar like Tom Hanks with his millions of dollars really need to be the voice of Woody in Toy Story and get a big splashy credit at the beginning of the film just so we won't miss that it's Tom Hanks. Or Julia Roberts? Or whatever A-List star is doing it. It just strikes me as a kind of creative greed. As far as promotion goes, I don't buy it. There were no Big Ass Voices in "Tarzan" and that made a fortune. The voice of "Ratatouille" was a nobody (and it was a great, perfect voice for the character) and that made a mint too. And how about a little modesty? How about a single title card that says: "With the voice talents of:" and then the list of A-list fat-cats.

[–] BakedCarbon 15 years ago

How about a single title card that says: "With the voice talents of:" and then the list of A-list fat-cats.

If you watch the trailer for The Tale of Despereaux, you'll find that it doesn't even have that: not one cast member is mentioned.
If you're talking about at the beginning of the film, virtually all films have opening titles and closing credits. You've paid the money at that point so it doesn't matter either way. You're pretty much implying that the bigger the actor, the smaller their name should be in the credits. Is that fair? Be reasonable.

And like I said, the fact that you know who Tom Hanks is, and the fact that he's already more than financially well-off should not make him any less able or any less "worthy" of voice-acting. If casting directors happen to find a plumber with the right voice, shouldn't he be allowed to take the job? Or a teacher? Why not an actor? Because they've already had their share of the limelight? If anything, actors are more aware of what they need to do and are therefore more experienced and desirable. Don't discriminate because they're rich and famous; they deserve whatever work they can get in their unstable career.

True, Tarzan did not have "Big Ass Voices", neither did Ratatouille. However Kung Fu Panda did, and so did Shrek. Shouldn't that mean well-known actors' voices should have no influence over the success of a film, meaning it shouldn't matter if they're there either way? Tom Hanks does not need to be Woody you're right, but why does it need to be a struggling unknown? Why not Tom Hanks? This all goes back to my second paragraph in my first post:
The logical reason behind casting famous film actors is simply that casting directors and producers already know what the actors sound like from viewing their work; they know what they're hiring, and they know what they're going to get.It saves time spent having to organise casting calls and auditions, especially when they already know someone who has the voice they're looking for.

And like I said (again), the actors are being hired, just like us average Joes. Those of us with more experience obviously get better jobs, further experience to go for a better job etc. That's how it works. I'm glad you're willing to come back to chat about this though, so thank you.

[–] josebut8 15 years ago

You're welcome. Spirited debate and open conversation are what makes this country great!
I don't really disagree with any of your comments. But I must say again that I find the phenomenon of Big Ass Movie Stars hogging all of the severely limited slots for voice-work distressing and yes, greedy. It's greed that starts with the studios and moves on through to the agents and managers and finally to someone like Dustin Hoffman who should know better. Then it sort of becomes about the movie stars doing the voices; rather than telling a good story (which ultimately killed "Despereaux"). A massive chunk of the budget that should've been diverted into the paychecks of a good script doctor and editor go directly into the bank accounts of Cameron Diaz, Meryl Streep, and Ashton Kutchner.
It's kind of like when the indie-movie movement got appropriated by Hollywood and glutted with Big Ass Movie Stars. Let me put it this way. If I was a movie star of the magnitude of say, Tom Hanks, I simply wouldn't do it. I've got millions of dollars, several Oscars, work for the rest of my life...let Tommy Smothers be the voice of Woody.
And really, how much could it cost to set up voice auditions? Not the several million it cost to pay Rosie O'Donnell, Tim Allen, and Meg Ryan. And which of these stars ever brought any real juice to their voice-work (except, perhaps a bit ironically, Tom Hanks). "Oh, yeah J.B.! Let's get Kate Winslet to do the voice of a teen-ager from Omaha." "But don't you think Kate Hudson could bring so much more voiciness to it?" "Maybe you're right J.B., but I can't tell them apart!"
Even when I get a huge title card at the beginning of the movie, I still usually can't tell who is doing the voice. So that "They know the voice they're getting" theory is weak. And if "average Joes" were getting the work, we wouldn't be having this spirited debate. And I guess I do disagree with some of your comments. So there!

[–] BakedCarbon 15 years ago

Lol okay then xD Let's try putting this into perspective though. I agree - as it's impossible to even deny - that actors get way too much than they deserve for the work they do. But it's successful actors like Dustin and Tom Hanks who aren't doing it for the money, but for the experience. I don't see why they should feel they owe anything to struggling actors by turning down the role. They might as well turn down other movie roles too so that the little guys can have a go. Successful actors voiced characters in the past, so I don't see why it's such a problem now. Like I said, characters are usually voiced by well-known film actors, Broadway performers, singers etc, not struggling actors and unknowns.

Even when I get a huge title card at the beginning of the movie, I still usually can't tell who is doing the voice.

Well then that's fantastic! Lol. You're not meant to think about the actor. Jack Nicholson, Johnny Depp; people often say they forget about the actor because they're so immersed in the role. Does that mean that there was not point in hiring them because you don't notice them anyway? No. A review of Matthew's performance:
"Broderick shines as the impassioned Despereaux. He does the best thing a voice actor can do, make you forget the man behind the mouse. Broderick lends Despereaux a sense of wonder, which makes him an endearing character."
So as far as I'm concerned, it's a good thing.

And let's face it; if you were for example an established Broadway performer, would you turn down a role in the selfless hope that they will offer the job to an amateur? Nope. because if you say 'no' it will only go to the next big shot. Like I said, they're being given roles, they aren't taking them. If Dustin was not cast, casting directors would just move on to the next big celebrity. They decide who they want, and the actors then say 'yes' or 'no'. Justin Long was originally set to play Despereaux; he couldn't do it, so they asked Matthew. So I still think you're putting too much blame on the actors, and you're expecting too much from them. They may seem larger than life but they aren't any more or less human than we are. They are not selfless and saintly, and they have an unstable career to keep afloat. You can't buy good editing and scripts just like that. You make it sound like the easiest thing to find but it's not. There is no solid writer who brings in success after success. Everyone involved is talented, but no one ever has all hits and no misses. It's easy to say what they should have done, now that you've seen the results. But you can't predict this sort of thing. It's not only money that goes into audition processes, but also time, which can end up costing much more than you'd expect. And actors don't get paid a lot comparatively for voice work.

It's funny that you bring up Tom Hanks though, because I actually had no clue what animated movie you were talking about. It's only when he kept coming back into the conversation that I even remembered he'd done Toy Story. I don't think anyone really notices him in the role. Or Tim Allen. He's hardly a box office draw anyway. I've no clue about what Meg Ryan's done, or Rosie O'Donnell... "Let Tommy Smothers be Woody"? Why? That sounds like a pretty half-assed decision. Casting directors don't want to "let" people play the characters as if it doesn't matter either way. They have a voice in mind, and luckily for actors, they're in the public eye so they're known. I ask again: Why not Tom Hanks? Because his voice is worse than everyone else's? Because he's too rich and famous and fabulous and successful and it's not fair?

You are complaining about greed, and greed is just part of the human condition. It can't be helped, and it can't be reasoned with. So if that's what this discussion comes down to - actors shouldn't be so greedy - well then, you can't really expect me to persuade you to think any differently since we are all just as greedy. It's a lost cause, but you're just blaming actors for being human.

[–] mojo2004 15 years ago

Is anybody else sick of these big time rich movie stars taking work away from struggling actors and unknowns who really need the exposure and money? Does anyone really go to see a movie like this because Matthew Broderick,Dustin Hoffman, Kevin Kline, Christopher Lloyd (two lines yet!)et al are supplying the voices? Seriously, there should be some SAG rules against it.

I agree and posted the same opinion on the boards of many animated films. At one time A-list stars wouldn't be caught dead doing voice work but now it's all they do. Not that they're the best. What would Transformers be if Peter Cullen who did the voice of Optimus Prime on the tv show hadn't done the film. It would not have been the same. I heard the fanboys fought for him! It's sad. Filthy rich stars taking work away from those who really could use the work. Not to leave out the ones who also get jobs for their kids. Will Smith & his family really don't want anyone else to work in Hollywood!

I don't think anyone really notices him in the role. Or Tim Allen.

Are you kidding? For one thing Disney promoted the hell out of that movie with both of them. At one time Disney constantly during the promos of it's animated films would show the behind the scenes interviews with these stars. They couldn't wait to go on & on about the role and tell us that Disney uses the face and mannerisms of the person that does the voice. After the premiere we saw how their kids got swamped with Disney stuff and got to go to Disney World & Disneyland for free of course. It's a status symbol. That's why the stars now break their neck to do them. Bragging rights. Especially if it makes a ton of money. I think there was something special in not knowing the people behind the voices. A lot of roles are ruined IMO by well known stars such as Billy Crystal who also does his schtick in his roles. Watch Howl's Moving Castle for his annoying voice!

Sidewalks have rights too! They refused to be stepped on anymore!

[–] BakedCarbon 15 years ago

Are you kidding? Did you even read the rest of my posts? I'm sorry to be rude but unlike josebut8, you obviously haven't processed anything I've said. All you've said, I've already addressed, and josebut8 has already responded to.

[–] missyshell1970 15 years ago

Actually, Tarzan did have some big name voices. Tony Goldwyn from Ghost fame (not an A-lister, but still recognizable), Minnie Driver (who would also have been recognizable, though not considered an A-lister at the time), Rosie O'Donnell, and let's not forget the two "biggest" voices in the film: Glen Close and Phil Collins (who supplied all the music.)

[–] GoldenHelikaon 15 years ago

Does anyone really go to see a movie like this because Matthew Broderick,Dustin Hoffman, Kevin Kline, Christopher Lloyd (two lines yet!)et al are supplying the voices?

Actually, yes. Not those voices in particular, but I like Emma Watson and so I decided to give the movie a shot as I do with all movies that my favourite actors and actresses are in. I might have seen this eventually if she wasn't voicing the princess, but because she was I decided to get it on DVD.

"Did I know that I had just met the most dangerous dark wizard of all time? No."

[–] tvashtar2919 14 years ago

i do not like it at all when a 'celebrity' does the voice for animated characters. there is the whole money issue, but that isn't really important to me. no question that too much is given to them, but a lot of that is recovered in ticket sales. what i really dislike is the association of a person with a cartoon. instead of seeing the animated cartoon creature as a unique entity, we hear the voice of a well known person, who we can all easily visualize and we end up with some actor that has been 'tooned'. these actors do not create anything, as they just read lines in their own voice. we all know the name of mel blanc, but his wide range of voices, with amazing talent and lack of personal pictures does not distract from the new animated creations. doubt we can make it a sag rule, but absolutely no well known actor should ever be allowed to do the voice in an animated movie, if it is possible to recognize them by sound.