Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Bug's Life >>>>>>>>>Antz i just have to give one reason.....Hopper!! Baddest grasshopper ever!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
So last night I saw the HBO First Look: A Sharks Tale..(rant)..
- Thread starter Ned Flanders
- Start date
- Status
Hmm, see, I don't think voice work should have anything to do with finding well known voices and just having them do the same thing. Not an animated film, but my biggest problem with AI was the obtrusive voices of Chris Rock and Robin Williams. Chris Rock has one of the most distinct voices out there, if I hear him, I think Chris Rock, not the character. And Robin Williams, well he's distinct and he's already played an animated character, yet he continues doing more.FreakyFink said:
I mean, I think most people would agree that some of the best voice work either recent or ever is Mark Hamill doing the Joker, right? And no one recognizes him. It's just an awesome voice that serves the character. All of this crap about hiring flavor of the month or big famous actors to speak the same way they always do into a microphone is counterproductive to creating good animation, as far as I'm concerned.
So... I can see the complaint about their voices not being strong enough, but the recognizable factor is only important to the masses of adults who aren't particularly interested in anything of quality anyway. It's just marketing.
Dan said:
I don't think it works as marketing either. It didn't save Sinbad, or any other Dreamworks flops. Sometimes it does work though, Robin Williams speaking like he always does in Aladdin gave that film its humour and character for me. Pixar seems to do it right. well, they use big names too sometimes, but they work. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen in Toy Story was perfect, and I'm sure Samuel L. Jackson's voice would work well in The Incredibles.
I didn't say the marketing was successful, but I do think that's pretty clearly the goal.Timbuktu said:
And yeah, Pixar does it well, but that's because their characters actually have personality before the voice actors come in. Then Pixar seeks talented actors who can fit those personalities. It seems to me that other movies have generic characters that are then given random big name actors for voices, and the character becomes the actor, rather than the other way around. The CGI creations on screen are just avatars for the actors, which I think is pretty much epitomized in Shark's Tale. Pixar does it differently, the character comes first and the actor has to assume that role. Not like in Shrek where Shrek is pretty much Mike Myers and Donkey is Eddie Murphy.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
"Not like in Shrek where Shrek is pretty much Mike Myers and Donkey is Eddie Murphy."
I don't see this at all. Eddie Murphy is a good voice actor. He sounds like , well, Eddie Murphy, but I find he creates a unique character with each performance. Mushu in Mulan might seem similar to Donkey, but I find them nothing alike. Mushu is brash, arrogant, and paternal, whereas Donkey is naive, immature, and needy. I understand this is a big DREAMWERX SUX PIXAR 4 LYFE wank fest, but let's not drag Eddie Murphy into this.
I must say Pixar is guilty of boring voice acting choices based on celebrities. Billy Crystal? Snore. John Goodman as a big loveable oaf character? What ORIGINALITY! Nothing like his character in The Emperor's New Groove (oh wait). This is of course balanced by the good voice acting choices for Nemo (they actually wrote the Dorry character for Ellen before they even asked her if she would do it).
I also disagree that characters are Pixar's strong suit. In my mind, that is the area they need to improve the most. I find Pixar characters to be bland and genericly motivated; I don't understand how anyone could have strong affection for Woody, Nemo, Flick, Sully, Buzz, or Eyeball guy. To me they are functions of a plot rather than truly memorable characters. Plus they are BORING.
I don't see this at all. Eddie Murphy is a good voice actor. He sounds like , well, Eddie Murphy, but I find he creates a unique character with each performance. Mushu in Mulan might seem similar to Donkey, but I find them nothing alike. Mushu is brash, arrogant, and paternal, whereas Donkey is naive, immature, and needy. I understand this is a big DREAMWERX SUX PIXAR 4 LYFE wank fest, but let's not drag Eddie Murphy into this.
I must say Pixar is guilty of boring voice acting choices based on celebrities. Billy Crystal? Snore. John Goodman as a big loveable oaf character? What ORIGINALITY! Nothing like his character in The Emperor's New Groove (oh wait). This is of course balanced by the good voice acting choices for Nemo (they actually wrote the Dorry character for Ellen before they even asked her if she would do it).
I also disagree that characters are Pixar's strong suit. In my mind, that is the area they need to improve the most. I find Pixar characters to be bland and genericly motivated; I don't understand how anyone could have strong affection for Woody, Nemo, Flick, Sully, Buzz, or Eyeball guy. To me they are functions of a plot rather than truly memorable characters. Plus they are BORING.
FortNinety
Member
Personally, I could give a rat's ass who's ripping off who, as long as the films are good. And personally, I find most of Dreamwork's animated fare to be pretty damn horrible.
Saturnman said:
I consider neither top notch, but my point was not about quality. It was about taking someone else's idea and rushing out your own version of it. See Wife Swap and Trading Spouses, as well as The Next Great Champ and the Contender.
Oh...and am changing my estimate to 45-55 Million...it's opening in over 4000 theatres. Third highest opening of all time.
I didn't say characters are Pixar's strong suit. I said that they have a clear picture of what the character is going to be before they seek a voice. It isn't a matter of finding an actor interested in voice work and then cramming them into the character. For Pixar, it seems very much about finding an actor that will bring the character to life.Mega Man's Electric Sheep said:
I'm not even going to touch the rest of that paragraph because 1) it's very subjective 2) hard to define whether the character serves the plot or the plot serves the characters; and 3) completely irrelevant to the discussion of voice talent.
Eh, I like Eddie Murphy as much as the next guy, at least the old Eddie Murphy, not the new child-friendly one. I also have to admit to not yet seeing Mulan. That said, I can't watch Shrek and forget about the actors behind the voices. I don't hear Donkey, I hear Eddie Murphy, just as I hear Mike Myers and Cameron Diaz. I find Pixar avoids this much more than other current animated studios, modern Disney included. I'm not saying Pixar hasn't fallen into this though. I found Wayne Knight to be quite distracting in Toy Story 2. I'm also really, really wary of Samuel L Jackson in The Incredibles, and while there hasn't even been footage shown yet, I'm quite hesitant about putting Owen Wilson in as the lead of Cars. Overall though, I think Pixar's been much better than others in recent history.
I never saw The Emperor's New Groove because I couldn't get past David Spade's voice superseding everything about the film, so I can't say whether or not Goodman had some defining character there that would somehow make a second vocal appearance in Monster's Inc somehow bothersome. I can't say I agree about Crystal either, I thought he worked reasonably well as Mike. If I had any problem them, it was more with the writing going too over-the-top than the way Billy Crystal delivered it. Neither Goodman or Crystal are nearly as high profile and generic as some of the choices for voice acting in Shark Tale, so Pixar's still better in my book. Not perfect mind you, but way better.
Almost all scripts are written with certain people in mind for the main characters. The only real surprise is that Ellen DeGeneres accepted. I don't know the full story there, but I'm wary whenever people claim they wrote the script for the person who took the job. It's often not true, just look at Garden State. Zach Braff has went on and on about how he wrote the part for Natalie Portman and how she was his first choice. Meanwhile, she's went on the record as saying she knows other actresses who turned down the part and laughs at how Braff keeps saying what he says.
But yeah, I think DeGeneres worked well.
Great Wasabi Man
Member
ahh A sharks Tale...I wondered when they would get to a Jabber Jaw feature film
ManaByte
Gold Member
I honestly can't see how anyone can think that Toy Story and Toy Soldiers are meant to one up each other. Toy Soldiers wasn't done by PDI and was more live action than CG.
Anyways.
I find both Antz and A Bug's Life mind-numbingly boring. Toy Story and Toy Story 2 are brilliant. Monster's Inc. and Shrek are two completely different types of movies for very different audiences. Nemo was great the first time through. In terms of pure humor, Shrek 2 takes a shit on any Pixar or PDI movie that came before it.
I'll see Shark's Tale this weekend, but every Pixar/PDI movie will look very bad in November when Brad Bird's The Incredibles hits.
The Iron Giant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other animated movie. Period.
Just the fact that Brad Bird and a very large number of Iron Giant people did The Incredibles is enough to make it one of the best movies of 2004. Thankfully Disney is actually promoting it, unlike what Warner did with Giant.
Anyways.
I find both Antz and A Bug's Life mind-numbingly boring. Toy Story and Toy Story 2 are brilliant. Monster's Inc. and Shrek are two completely different types of movies for very different audiences. Nemo was great the first time through. In terms of pure humor, Shrek 2 takes a shit on any Pixar or PDI movie that came before it.
I'll see Shark's Tale this weekend, but every Pixar/PDI movie will look very bad in November when Brad Bird's The Incredibles hits.
The Iron Giant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other animated movie. Period.
Just the fact that Brad Bird and a very large number of Iron Giant people did The Incredibles is enough to make it one of the best movies of 2004. Thankfully Disney is actually promoting it, unlike what Warner did with Giant.
Alcibiades
Member
"John Goodman as a big loveable oaf character?"
Fred Flinstone, Rosanne Husband!!!
so true...
Fred Flinstone, Rosanne Husband!!!
so true...
Alcibiades
Member
SickBoy said:
Chicken Run: caco
The Prince of Egypt: The Passion of the Christ
see the pattern?
IMO, Dreamworks just does their own thing and tries to bring out stuff that isn't always "Disney"/traditional...
Antz is the one time where they really did rip them off right? Some former Disney employees went to Dreamworks, and they were able to bring out Antz in theaters first right? As well as having Deep Impact beat Armageddon to theaters.
Smiles and Cries
Member
anyone seeing this today?
can't really hate it if you have not seen it.
can't really hate it if you have not seen it.
I'll save my $8.50 and settle for saying it looks really lame, rather than being able to say it is really lame.naz said:
Oh, interesting fact. Shark Tale apparently has the lowest Rotten Tomatoes score of all widely released CGI films, including Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.
Smiles and Cries
Member
Okay I saw it
The thing is they showed trailers to The Incredibles and Madagascar before the movie
Both blew away A Sharks Tale... the movie is cute not terrible but not a Pixar or Shrek level.
Angie was the only fish I liked in A Shark's Tale
Can't wait for the Incredibles
The thing is they showed trailers to The Incredibles and Madagascar before the movie
Both blew away A Sharks Tale... the movie is cute not terrible but not a Pixar or Shrek level.
Angie was the only fish I liked in A Shark's Tale
Can't wait for the Incredibles
- Status