I see your point. I just think it's too bad that this VFX supervisor seemed at all SURPRISED to find that a voice artist did more than "just the voice." It shows that we don't give voice talent the credit they deserve as actors.
I admit that I'm getting a bit bent out of shape over wording, but the way the article refers to "actors" and "voice talent" as though they're different entities, just makes it worse. Seems like they're propagating the wrong idea here.
Big-name actors are hired not just because their names will draw fans, but because their performances really DO make the movie. You can't "get just about anybody" to do a great voice performance.
Some voiceover talents out there are naively bitter, saying "The celebrities get all my work." Um, that's because they have awesome voices and they deliver great reads.
See, big-name stars are big-name stars in the first place partially because they have great voices and know how to bring dialogue to life. "The voices is a big thing" in live-action movies as well. Otherwise, directors would just hire models to look pretty on screen.
This is so lame that I just have to comment on it.
The BBC article says: "So are we moving towards a time when we can get rid of human actors and just use voice artists and computer generated characters? [Visual effects supervisor] Joe Letteri says: "I don't think so. That was the lesson we learnt on Gollum. Andy Serkis was brought in just to be the voice, but what worked really well was that you had an actor there present in the scene doing all of this."
Hmmm . . . "Get rid of human actors and JUST use voice artists"?? Oh, so I guess this Joe Letteri assumes a voice talent ISN'T an actor? Or human, for that matter? Gee, thanks.
Voice artists ARE actors. Acting is just as much about the voice and the way lines are delivered as it is anything physical. If it wasn't, we would just cast models and stunt people in all our live-action films.
Nope, acting requires a voice. That's why it's called an "audition": acting is an auditory medium.
I think it's difficult to pick apart voice and physical action. You can't really have one without the other. Anyone who has seen a decent voice talent at work in the recording booth can see that they're acting using their whole body. The guy who plays Homer Simpson goes nuts inside there. He's an actor all right. The body backs up the voice.
And if voice were only a small part of what makes a good actor, then Julia Roberts and Morgan Freeman would never be doing any voiceover work. (They do lots.)
A visual effects supervisor who brings in someone not to act the part, but "just to be the voice," clearly lacks the understand that "being a voice" IS acting.
Not to dis on porn, but I've always thought that porn tended to lag behind when it comes to distribution formats. I have friends who keep their VCRs around JUST to view porn distributed only on VHS. I also hear that one particular porn website is starting a DVD distribution business. They're a little behind the curve. DVDs will be like 8-tracks for everyone else in 5-10 years.
"Certain types of customers would love that sort of thing." Yeah, the ones with RAID arrays in their living rooms and time to watch hours and hours of un-color-corrected, noisy, botched takes. Hint: that footage didn't make it into the movie for a reason.
While "providing all the original uncut footage" might be a wet dream for some fans, it would be horrible PR for the actors and director, and a total invasion of their privacy, not to mention COMPLETELY discounting the work of the editors, sound editors, visual effects guys, and music guys.
The ONLY purpose of something like this would be to give the public an appreciation of what goes into making a film . . . something you seem to be lacking in as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I see your point. I just think it's too bad that this VFX supervisor seemed at all SURPRISED to find that a voice artist did more than "just the voice." It shows that we don't give voice talent the credit they deserve as actors. I admit that I'm getting a bit bent out of shape over wording, but the way the article refers to "actors" and "voice talent" as though they're different entities, just makes it worse. Seems like they're propagating the wrong idea here.
Big-name actors are hired not just because their names will draw fans, but because their performances really DO make the movie. You can't "get just about anybody" to do a great voice performance. Some voiceover talents out there are naively bitter, saying "The celebrities get all my work." Um, that's because they have awesome voices and they deliver great reads. See, big-name stars are big-name stars in the first place partially because they have great voices and know how to bring dialogue to life. "The voices is a big thing" in live-action movies as well. Otherwise, directors would just hire models to look pretty on screen.
This is so lame that I just have to comment on it.
The BBC article says: "So are we moving towards a time when we can get rid of human actors and just use voice artists and computer generated characters? [Visual effects supervisor] Joe Letteri says: "I don't think so. That was the lesson we learnt on Gollum. Andy Serkis was brought in just to be the voice, but what worked really well was that you had an actor there present in the scene doing all of this."
Hmmm . . . "Get rid of human actors and JUST use voice artists"?? Oh, so I guess this Joe Letteri assumes a voice talent ISN'T an actor? Or human, for that matter? Gee, thanks.
Voice artists ARE actors. Acting is just as much about the voice and the way lines are delivered as it is anything physical. If it wasn't, we would just cast models and stunt people in all our live-action films.
Nope, acting requires a voice. That's why it's called an "audition": acting is an auditory medium.
I think it's difficult to pick apart voice and physical action. You can't really have one without the other. Anyone who has seen a decent voice talent at work in the recording booth can see that they're acting using their whole body. The guy who plays Homer Simpson goes nuts inside there. He's an actor all right. The body backs up the voice.
And if voice were only a small part of what makes a good actor, then Julia Roberts and Morgan Freeman would never be doing any voiceover work. (They do lots.)
A visual effects supervisor who brings in someone not to act the part, but "just to be the voice," clearly lacks the understand that "being a voice" IS acting.
Not to dis on porn, but I've always thought that porn tended to lag behind when it comes to distribution formats. I have friends who keep their VCRs around JUST to view porn distributed only on VHS. I also hear that one particular porn website is starting a DVD distribution business. They're a little behind the curve. DVDs will be like 8-tracks for everyone else in 5-10 years.
"Certain types of customers would love that sort of thing." Yeah, the ones with RAID arrays in their living rooms and time to watch hours and hours of un-color-corrected, noisy, botched takes. Hint: that footage didn't make it into the movie for a reason. While "providing all the original uncut footage" might be a wet dream for some fans, it would be horrible PR for the actors and director, and a total invasion of their privacy, not to mention COMPLETELY discounting the work of the editors, sound editors, visual effects guys, and music guys. The ONLY purpose of something like this would be to give the public an appreciation of what goes into making a film . . . something you seem to be lacking in as well.