MovieChat Forums > Monsters vs. Aliens (2009) Discussion > Celebrity Voices in Cartoons? Do you ch...

Celebrity Voices in Cartoons? Do you choose cartoons based on actors?


I liked this movie a lot as a film that was pretty entertaining for both kids and adults. My five year old nephew loved it and has been playing M vs. A - for months now. But does anyone other than me wonder why producers put huge stars like Reese Witherspoon in a cartoon? Wouldn't any decent SAG scale actress do? Do people actually choose to see cartoon films based on what actor is in them? This is a real question that I'd love to know the answer to.

"Malt does more than Milton can, to justify God's ways to man."

reply

Read some comments below this video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWISTWwkvRM

---
Nathaniel: Sire, do you...like yourself?
Edward: What's not to like?

reply

Never. Anybody could do these voices; the focus is the animation, creativity, story, and humor. Maybe some producer thinks they need to get these people just for marquee recognition, but these celebs add absolutely nothing.

reply

[deleted]

I usually pick animation based on if it looks good. Sometimes a certain actor doing a voice makes me want to see it. This movie is a good example, I wanted to see it mostly because I love Seth Rogen and I'm glad I watched it. I enjoyed the movie overall, but Rogen was the best character!

Dragonzord! Mastodon! Pterodactyl! Triceratops! Saber Toothed Tiger! Tyrannosaurus!

reply

I go and see a film like this based on the characters, fun etc, but if if they happen to use celebrity voices who I'm a fan of it's a bonus (in this case)

Trolls Should Be Treated Like Terrorists

reply

I think that any animated movie with or without using a celebrity voice is okay by me, I just morely focus on the characters and the main plot to their movies that catch my interest to seeing it.

RIP Brittany Murphy 1977-2009

reply

I don't. If someone I like happens to be in it, that's just a bonus. I don't specifically pick an animated movie based on the actors.

reply

I think it depends on the movie....

I mean for a movie like Wall-E, well okay... how much of Voice-Acting is needed to make that movie better?

But Seriously, take a movie like Kung-Fu panda... yes the Story is good, the characters are cool and the animation is obviously superb...

However, trust me when I say this, the movie would be very different if you'd have just generic SAG actors doing the voice acting and replacing Lucy Liu, Angelina, David Cross, Jack Black and Jackie Chan... And Seriously, DUSTIN HOFFMAN? Seth Rogan?

Okay, I get that a movie, especially a cartoon shouldn't be about the voice acting... but those actors' voices are quite authentic and hold a certain feel when you hear them in a different context...

Yes, Kung Fu Panda and other great movies alike, a especially movie like Shrek... Do you honestly believe that they'll be as good with generic voice actors?

reply


Liu, Cross, Jolie, Chan and Rogen had like perhaps 5 lines each in the film, it really wouldn't have made any difference at all.

And yes I can easily believe that the film would've been just as good without the big name stars. There are plenty of great voice actors: René Auberjonois, Mark Hammill, Dan Castellanetta, Hank Azaria, Billy West and (my personal favorite) Dom DeLuise are a good example. Sure, it doesn't hurt and it can even be great (Robin Williams is the first one that comes to mind for FernGully and Aladdin) but it's not necessary at all.

reply

Okay, first off I am going to tell you that you're extremely biased here and left very little for realistic objectivity.

Just because the 5 actors didn't have as many lines as Jack Black's or Dustin's, it doesn't mean that their lent voices didn't a make a difference. Even Chan's 2-3 line in the movie, still so recognizable as him, it just fits.

And again, you have to take these movies, especially those which are cast with highlight actors/actresses, as movies with characters written with the context of the actor/actress. Many times the scripts or the ideas come along hand in hand where the writers will think this person would be great as this character, let's alternate the character a bit, let's change some animation about it to make it work better with the context of the actor/actress and the movie itself.

Like I said, with some movies, yes I'd agree some voice actors/actresses are damn unrecognizable and then later you wonder if that was really him/her/. Biggest example is the Movie Monsters Vs Aliens. Unless I knew that Reese was the giant girl, I never would've guessed. Granted she lent a very unique, crisp and clean cut voice, it just wasn't authentic enough as a lead. However, the supporting team, like Seth Rogan as Bob, and Hugh Laurie and as the Roach... Serious brilliance in the performance. Their characters and the lines would not have the same impact with other generic actors. And by the way, some the actors you suggested are fairly famous and do posses unique and recognizable voices. So you're being somewhat hypocritical.

But just to prove you incorrect here, take for example Ice Age Dawn of the Dinosaurs. While Ray Romano fits perfectly, there is no way anyone would guess that John L. is voicing the Sloth. And yet, I can't think of anyone who could do it better. Then again, you get Diego, which again, could be voiced by almost any Daytime Soap actor, yet Denis Leary's voice is simply unmatched for this character. And of course, DUG who unless I read the cast, would never realize it was Simon Pegg. And you know what, he is popular and recognized, but nowhere nearly as the other actors in Hollywood. Yet, he stole the show in the movie. Pretty much every scene Dug is in, are pure humor brilliance.

And of course, the biggest example is Shrek. Say what you will, but there no one, and I MEAN NO-ONE who can replace Eddie Murphy as Donkey. Yes, Michael's role originally was written for Chris Farley, but, he did the character justice.


Be more objective, majority of the times the main characters are written around the actors who portray them, and many times animated with accordance to their body language and facial movement as they speak.

reply

AMDG

Slipsider, I get what you're saying about good voice actors being able to do a good job, but Shotor has a point about voice recognition counting for something. The producers aren't necessarily hiring the best actors for the job; they're hiring stars.

And to some extent, it does matter. Audiences have loved Jacky Chan for decades; even if they don't immediately recognise his voice, something will click in their minds. There will be a connection to the character--even if he does say only a few lines.

Whether people will watch an animated movie based on the voice work of popular stars is another question. I know I don't . . . but I'll bet a familiar voice will still affect me more than an unfamiliar voice will.

(There's kind of an ironic reversal in the case of Transformers, when producers hired Hugo Weaving to voice Megatron instead of Frank Welker, who was the original voice actor from the 80s cartoons. When I saw the movie and heard Peter Cullen--the original Optimus Prime--speak, it was as if my childhood had come alive again. But although Weaving was familiar to me from The Lord of the Rings and The Matrix, he left me cold as Megatron.)

reply

Good question.
Acting has a lot more to do with the voice than people realize. Acting is extremely tough. I suspect that many secretly believe that they could be a great actor if given a chance. Lithgow is an actor Will Smith is not.

Cast doesnt motivate me to go watch an animation. However, I will choose not to see something if it has crappy, one trick pony 'actors'. A good actor can deliver a great, entertaining performance even with a bad script. It doesn't ever work the other way around.

Just my two cents.








boom.I blame civilization

reply

also there's a real difference between actors and 'voice actors' just listen to a movie where the two mix and the voice actors leap out where the normal actors usually fall flat, because they aren't used to not having their body and face to express themselves.

----

Even if you hate Uwe Boll, give Postal a try, be offended or entertained.

reply

For me it's something bad if they use known actors.
Here, in Spain, we have dub actors and famous actors (for animated movies). The dubbing actors are great, because they are experts in what they do.
Ocassionally the companies use famous actors, to get more audience I guess, but usually they ruin the movie.
Monsters vs Aliens is one of those cases. The main character is dubbing by Carolina Cerezuela, with a particular voice (a dumb voice)and that makes me dislike the movie than otherwise I could have love it. Other examples of bad dubbing are Over the hedge or Kung fu panda (maybe is a Dream Works issue...)
Disney always use dubbing actors here.

reply

I don't. The only name in this movie I recognized was Sutherland's, and I didn't know he was in it until the opening credits, heh.

reply

the actors are not hired because of their voice talent, but because they are famous. so how would some famous actors help the movie? promotion.

famous actors get interviewed on tv and print all the time, and the chances of them mentioning the movie they are on are pretty high. i became aware of monsters vs aliens on an junket paul rudd did on his other movie. i mean that is something an unknonw voice talent cannot do, and which would cost production companies a lot more money for promotions. you gets lots of publicity from the famous actors you hire when they do talk shows or even just by their reputation (even a negative one is better than nothing).

i bet studios would love to hire cheaper voice actors for their animated movies, but famous actors bring more than just their voices.

reply

[deleted]