Search Results for: celebrity

Doing the Math On Celebrity Voice Acting

4 Comments / Analysis /
There is absolutely no legitimate reason whatsoever why this man was ever let near an animated film.
There is absolutely no legitimate reason whatsoever why this man was ever let near an animated film.

It’s a topic that strikes a nerve within the animation business, but celebrity voice acting (in features and TV) has become ubiquitous over the last 25 years. Today, practically all features from the larger studios rely upon celebrity voice talent regardless of whether or not the performer is right for the role. Aside from that though, is their cost, which is what we’re taking a look at today and why it’s detrimental to them.

The Base Cost of Celebrity Voice Acting

For starters, there’s the salaries. Not all will make a killing, but certainly the ‘millions’ term is bandied about often enough when it comes to celebrities that it makes as good a starting point as any.

Yes, millions of dollars is a lot of money, especially for one person and especially when there is often a full cast of them in a single film. All those extra millions add up once you get larger stars involved. Chris Rock may get one million for Madagascar, but Cameron Diaz purportedly got around $10 million for one of the Shreks.

Where Their Cost Multiplies

Say we have one or two big stars and, oh, five lesser known ones. The two at the top earn $10 million each and the lesser ones earn a million. There’s $25million right there; a quarter of the cost of a $100 million film!

Now, we have to double that to cover marketing costs so a $100 million film has to pull in at least $200 million just to break even. Where do the celebrity voices fit into that? Well, they were a quarter before and they’re just about a quarter now as well. So your $25 million voice actors are actually costing $50 million before you even make a cent.

Ah, but we’re not done yet. After all, box office grosses are no reflection on revenues since cinema chains keep a significant portion (up to half). Even at a conservative estimate (25%), that’s another $6.25 million that celebrity voice actors have cost the production.

Grand total: $56.25 million for seven voices before even $1 in profit is made and we haven’t even touched on those stars that can get gross points; you can add many millions for those if the film is successful.

What That Means For the Production

You see how easily celebrity voices can get out of hand? Is Eddie Murphy voicing the donkey in Shrek and getting $10 million really going to bring in $22.5 million in extra ticket sales?

If you’re making a film, wouldn’t you much rather put that $25 million into the animation itself? Or better yet, save the money and realise it as profit?

Regular readers of this blog will know where I would put it (hint: employment is a profitable investment), the question is: why do studios insist that major non-professional voice actors are a necessity? Remember, it was Robin Williams performance that made is appearance in Aladdin so successful; not the fact that it was Robin Williams doing the voice.

Today, (and we’ll defer from naming names right now) it seems that studios attempt to grab as many celebrities as possible and throw their names on the poster without thought to their talents. Sure Beyonce is a great singer, but does that make her a great voice actress? The trailer for recently-released Epic suggests not in an avoid-at-all-costs kind of way.

Animated films will continue to suffer the blight of celebrity voice acting until there is a bit of a shake up of the business. It’s coming at some point to be sure, but hopefully it puts things right.

Lastly, for your viewing pleasure, here’s professional Marice LaMarche at work:

Maurice LaMarche in full flow at a recording session
Maurice LaMarche in full flow at a recording session

Doing the Math On Celebrity Voice Acting Read More »

Epic: A New Low In Celebrity Voice Casting

2 Comments / Animation /

It’s a topic I’ve covered in the past, and one that continually grinds my gears in more ways than one. However none more so than the recent announcement of the cast for the upcoming FOX animated film, Epic. When I saw it, my heart almost sank.

Who picks these people? That’s what I want to know. Beyonce? OK, sure, she has some sort of vocal talent, for which there had better be some good songs coming out of this film. Pitbull on the other hand; how does he fit into the mix? I once read a tweet that described him as the guy who shows up in the middle of songs and starts rapping gibberish. How about Johnny Knoxville? The guy’s a decent actor for sure, but what about his voice? Can you picture anyone else shouting “I’m Johnny Knoxville and welcome to Jackass”? I can think of at least 5 personal friends that will give him a good run for the money. Throw in Colin Farrell, the guy from the Hunger Games and Steven Tyler among others and you have a very weird cast altogether.

Is this something that studios are losing sight of? Yes, a star can help sell a film, but it won’t make the film. Think of Delgo, it was a film that had an admittedly admirable B-list celebrity voice cast, but it was a terrible film that failed. Celebrities far from made that film into a success.

So why keep doing it? If Eddie Murphy costs $10 million, that’s $10 million that can’t be spent on (a lot of) animation. In addition, you have to earn double that at the box office to turn a profit. What studio wouldn’t want to get the same or similar film for a good deal less? Add in a couple of celebrities and we’re already talking double-digit percentages of the total cost. Will Eddie Murphy bring in $10 million more in box office gross? For something like a family film like Shrek, I would hope to doubt it, but then I do tend to overestimate the intelligence of people.

Another aspect of the practice is that celebrities are a brand onto themselves. By associating them with a film, a studio is essentially betting that their brand identity will be strong enough to boost sales. That may be OK if it were a company, but if you’re betting on a single person that could prove problematic, if say for example, that person ends up in rehab but you just cast them in a family film, and so forth.

Who si to blame? Studios are to be sure, but celebrities and their agents are the catalyst and someone in the casting department is getting hoodwinked.

I’m sure Epic will be an OK film, but with a cast like that, I can’t help but wonder whether the film will actually suffer instead of benefitting.

Epic: A New Low In Celebrity Voice Casting Read More »

Celebrity Voice Acting Part Deaux

1 Comment / Misc., Opinion /

This morning I was watching CBS Sunday morning. It’s a show I particularly like because, quite frankly, there aren’t many shows like it being broadcast, at least not in the US anyway. Long story short, they had a quick segment on voice-acting, focusing initially on Dora the Explorer followed by the world of commercials, etc.

During the course of the report, I learned even more about celebrity voice-acting than I knew when I previously wrote about it, surprisingly enough, in April 2009. As it turns out, celebrities do all sorts of voice-acting nowadays, not just for animation shows or films.

Just some examples from this morning include:

  • Morgan Freeman: CBS Nightly News
  • Michael Douglas (!): NBC Nightly News
  • Gene Hackman: Lowe’s Home Improvement

With the likes of Wanda Sykes, George Clooney, Tom Selleck (!!) and so forth doing various TV spots. What I find fascinating is that at least for a TV show or film, the producers can at least broadcast or notify the public as to who is in the production in question. For advertisements, there’s nothing of the sort!

If I hadn’t been told this morning, I would have no idea that it was such well known celebrities doing such voice-overs. Why on earth would you, as a company allow your advertising agency to engage in such behaviour?

For one, celebrities are expensive (hey, I’m sure George Clooney, as damn fine a voice as he has, doesn’t rent it for nothing), and unless it is clearly obvious that the person in question is in the advertisement, your basically wasting money.

As I mentioned in the previous post, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of professional voice-actors out there that are more than capable of conveying the fact that Boniva isn’t for people with a heart condition or whatever.

Recently I’ve been reading the excellent book, Ogilvy on Advertising. Witten by David Ogilvy, a Scotsman who went from being a farmer in the Pennsylvania Amish country to the head of one of the most successful advertising agencies on Madison Avenue, it offers many lessons he has learned on the basics of advertising.

One thing he points out numerous times is that celebrities don’t improve your sales. Imagine that! People normally believe (and most of the time they are right) that when a celebrity appears in an ad, they are getting paid to do so, not just because head & Shoulders really does leave them dandruff free.

Ogilvy points out data that he believes proves that normal, unknown actors are more effective at selling stuff than celebrities. More so when it comes to voice-acting, which is a profession with a lot of skill. Any eejit can stand in front of a microphone, but to put emotion into a voice takes work and sadly, I think celebrities aren’t the best people to do that, real voice-actors are.

Celebrity Voice Acting Part Deaux Read More »

Great TV is Like Punk Rock, But Our Screens Are Filled With Adult Contemporary

6 Comments / Analysis /

Great TV is everywhere nowadays, at least that what everyone is telling me. Creators are pushing boundaries, genres are being stretched, and cultural barriers are falling. If only it were all true! Great TV is like Punk Rock in more ways than one, and what is on our screens nowadays isn’t inspiring me to get a leather jacket, or a mohawk.

…

Great TV is Like Punk Rock, But Our Screens Are Filled With Adult ContemporaryRead More »

Great TV is Like Punk Rock, But Our Screens Are Filled With Adult Contemporary Read More »

How Animated Films and Cinemas Can Avoid Sliding Into Oblivion

3 Comments / Analysis /

The theatrical market for animated feature films has remained much the same for many decades. A few things have changed of course, but on the whole, things operate in much the same way that they always have. That is to say, films are released to cinemas first, then home media, then PPV cable, then regular cable, before finally spluttering onto regular TV many years after the initial release. Such a model has served the industry well for decades, but for cinemas, the jig may finally be up, and animated features are going to have to change if they are going to survive and thrive.

…

How Animated Films and Cinemas Can Avoid Sliding Into OblivionRead More »

How Animated Films and Cinemas Can Avoid Sliding Into Oblivion Read More »

The Most Underrated Man in Hollywood

Analysis /

Let’s not spoil the surprise just yet, but see if you can guess who the most underrated man in Hollywood is before the reveal.

His Achievements

This person’s list of achievements is long over the course of his career. He has received numerous Academy Awards and has risen to a prominent place within a large animation studio.

He has been instrumental in the development of technology that has played such a significant role in the history of animation that without it, things would be quite, nay, substantially different than what we know it as today.

In addition to these achievements, he is also known as a man with a clear vision of the future. He was quite literally decades ahead of his time and his vision for animated entertainment was proven exactly as he envisioned. Naturally, he was astute enough to place himself in roles that would serve this purpose and his arrival at certain companies at particular times was quite fortuitous for both parties.

Today, his technological achievements continue to find widespread use throughout the world, and the films that he helped create rank among the highest grossing animated films of all time.

Although well known within the animation community and afforded some recognition outside of it, this relatively quiet intellectual does not enjoy the same celebrity status that some of his contemporaries do. As such, while his achievements, creations and the films that they have enabled have become synonymous among the public with quality entertainment, this man remains somewhat of a mystery to many of ordinary folks who enjoy his films.

Can you guess who it is?

Yes, it is of course, Ed Catmull.

Via: Ieee.org
Via: Ieee.org

You probably know who he is, and you definitely know the studio he helped found (Pixar), but his 34 credits on IMDB enormously belie his contributions to contemporary animated films and even to the wider movie industry itself.

Why He Deserves the Title

His Influence is Felt Everywhere

As one of many people behind Pixar, Catmull could be construed as being one of the backroom boys, but this is far from the case. While John Lasseter and others were forging ahead on the creative side, Catmull was heading up the technical side that was making the films possible.

That alone would make him noteworthy if it were not for the fact that he was instrumental in seeing how the technology he was developing could be applied to entertainment. That action puts him right up alongside Walt Disney in his forward thinking. Heck, he was mulling CG animated films in the 1970s, but had to wait until technology advanced enough to make it economical and until he found someone willing to give him the resources necessary to experiment. That person was George Lucas, who was apparently (thankfully) blind to the fact that a rogue computer animator was running around at Industrial Light and Magic.

Although initially Catmull’s software was only suitable for purely animated films, it has since found its way into special FX and today, CG FX often form so much of a film’s on-screen visuals, that they are considered fully animated.

Today, CGI animated films are prevalent. They dominate the American box office and have proliferated into TV shows too. At one point, they were considered to be the sole future for animation with result being that Disney shut down the traditional animation department that made them famous.

His Foresight Rivals His Patience

Although Catmull knew where CG technology would eventually go and what it could potentially achieve, he showed enormous patience as he wound his way through various universities and ILM before Pixar was spun off in 1985. Even then, his goals were not within arms reach. It took a few more years before Tin Toy debuted and showed that computers could make high quality animation.

Catmull’s goal ramained a few years away though. Finally, Toy Story was put into production and became the world’s first entirely CGI-animated film. This was Catmull’s ultimate goal and he only had to wait, what, nearly 20 years for it to reach fruition? That’s a heck of a lot of patience that most people in entertainment could stand to learn from.

His Passion For The Animated Technique, Not Just the Technology

It may be surprising to learn that Ed Catmull has a passion for all animation, not just the CGI stuff he helped develop, but also the traditional stuff too. In fact, when installed as the president of Walt Disney Feature Animation, in conjunction with John Lasseter, he was instrumental in getting traditional features going again at a time when many thought the technique was a dead as silent films.

Why He’s Underrated

As mentioned way up at the top, Catmull resides much more out of the limelight compared to his more publicity-friendly compadres like John Lasseter, Pete Doctor, Andrew Stanton, etc. Many people acknowledge his contribution to what Pixar became, but few seem to acknowledge the wider contributions to animated films and animation in general. Yes, he was not alone in this work, but he is the single link between otherwise disparate people and studios.

Ed Catmull’s grand contribution to modern film should not be overlooked, and that’s why he’s the most underrated man in Hollywood.

The Most Underrated Man in Hollywood Read More »

Comparing Animated Kickstarter Projects

4 Comments / Animation /

With all the talk of Kickstarter these days and how it’s enabling creators in ways never thought of before, I thought comparing animated Kickstarter projects would make for a good blog post. The three in question are John K’s Cans Without Labels, Vegtoons and Lunatics. All represent the goal of getting something animated in production, but all three take a different approach to the Kickstarter process and their ultimate goal.

The Goals

The goal is to create an animated cartoon, naturally, but while Cans Without Labels and Lunatics focus more on the entertainment side while Vegtoons is more evenly balanced between entertainment and education. So far so good.

Where things really start to differ though, is what each project hopes to use the funds raised for. Cans Without Labels and Vegtoons will use them to actually create a completed cartoon. That’s things like the animation, backgrounds, sound, music and so forth. Both projects have their voices recorded already. Where they diverge is that Cans Without Labels is a once-off (at least for now). In contrast, Vegtoons aims to be an entire series. The aim here is to fund the first episode through Kickstarter and then use that as a proof-of-concept for an investor to take a chance on a full-fledged series.

As you can probably tell, I haven’t mentioned one yet. That’s because the Lunatics project is by far the black sheep. Instead of raising money to create the vast bulk of the project, the creators are instead asking for only enough to complete the next stage of the production process. In this instance it is the voice tracks and the animatic, both of which are fully budgeted in the description. This kind of piecemeal approach may suit independent projects like Lunatics which can’t benefit from the celebrity and experience of John Kricfalusi or the studio and talents of Cartoon Saloon.

The Context

The context for all three projects are also relatively different. Cans Without Labels is meant for entertainment plain and simply. Vegtoons aims for a mixture of entertainment mixed with education and Lunatics is primed for entertainment but with a heavy leaning towards the “what-if” theory.

Clearly we have three different projects gunning for three different audiences. That speaks to the value of Kickstarter in providing a platform for a variety of projects. Now obviously something that is pure entertainment like Cans Without Labels will fare better for the simple reason that it appeals to a wider audience, but for the other two, Kickstarter provides an even platform on which to attract potential backers.

The Funds

This is where things get really interesting. All three are aiming for the same ultimate goal, but all three believe that the cost to get there will be different.

Vegtoons reckons they can complete a full episode for about $20,000 (they’re asking for $16K to complete the first episode). Presumably that’s for an 11 minute cartoon in the style of flash animation we’re all used to on TV.

Lunatics is asking for just $4,235 although that covers only part of production. An original Kickstarer project attempted to raise $100,000 for a complete episode but was unsuccessful. As noted in the current project’s description, that was perhaps a bit of an adventurous goal for a small, independent project. As a result they have re-launched with the piecemeal approach and appear to be having much more success raising the necessary funds.

Cans Without Labels blows both out of the water with its $110,000 budget (and $136,724 raised). In contrast, to the other two projects, this is for a single cartoon, Both Vegtoons and Lunatics are aiming for a series (with the latter actually aiming to squeeze two episodes out of their original budget).

Will the quality differ? Undoubtedly, but with all the modern technology at people’s disposal, it does seem to be hard to justify a budget of a hundred grand for a single cartoon. Vegtoons will use Flash and Lunatics is aiming to use as much open source software as they can to keep costs down.

Final Thoughts

Although two of the projects are ongoing at this point in time. It is clear that two of them are focusing on the people associated with the projects (John K. and Tomm Moore) while the third is choosing to focus more on the goals and results. Not to say that the first approach is wrong (it’s the reason Disney made sure his name was present on every film he made), but in particular with Cans Without Labels, its easy to choose style over substance.

 

 

Comparing Animated Kickstarter Projects Read More »

The A.V. Club Takes The Ice Age Voice Cast to Task

Animation /

Via: NY Daily News

The A.V. Club, as the serious, cultural  arm of The Onion is sometimes quite trite in their reviews of films. The latest Ice Age film is no exception, but what is noteworthy is the grilling the voice cast receives. Naturally they are all celebrities with no real voice-acting experience:

On paper, Continental Drift boasts a jaw-dropping voice cast, including but not limited to Jennifer Lopez, Patrick Stewart, Wanda Sykes, Aziz Ansari, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Nicki Minaj, Drake, and Alan Tudyk. But in practice, the overstuffed ensemble leaves the cast no room to distinguish themselves, and directors Steve Martino and Michael Thurmeier don’t seem interested in coaxing performances that might render their money stars less identifiable. With the help of some low-end boosting, Dinklage musters a decent amount of kid-appropriate menace—although he never does explain his gift for finding chunks of ice shaped like pirate ships—but Romano and Leary mainly sound bored, droning through their lines as if they’re simultaneously texting the contractors building the additions on their houses funded by their fat sequel paychecks.

Ouch! There is no punches being pulled there. Now we all know that celebrities being hired simply for being them is always a bad idea for a film (DreamWorks’ upcoming Smeckday features the voice talents of all people, Rihanna) but I can’t help but wonder whether we are in a bit of a bubble with this one.

As more and more large studio films use celebrity voice acting, there is bound to come a point where there will simply not be enough celebrities to go around. Second-rate talent will likely come in, and for most of the public, only the very best animation can make up for a poor voice.

Will we hit a point where star names can’t sell an animated property? Yes, we will. How far away that is though, will depend on how long the quality holds up in films like Ice Age. Professional voice actors  live and die by their vocal performances so while they may not have the name power that celebrities have, they are more than capable of matching them in abilities.

And as a bonus, here’s the best line from the article, right at the very end:

But the only person who earned their keep on Ice Age: Continental Drift is the MPAA flunky who shoehorned in the line, “Silly rabbit—piracy doesn’t pay!”

The A.V. Club Takes The Ice Age Voice Cast to Task Read More »

UPDATED: The Wall Street Journal On Gender And The Legend Of Korra

Animation, Nickelodeon /

Updated at the bottom.

Via: The Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal is the straight man of American journalism. It’s supposedly “above the fray” of other news organizations that would rather concern themselves with celebrity gossip than real news. Of course all that is less true now that the Journal is owned by the same person whose made a killing muckracking others, but that’s beside the point.

What IS the point is that they currently have a very nice write-up of the new Nickelodeon series Legend of Korra. (The direct link to the WSJ is here, but for the proles among us, I recommend going to Google News and searching for “The Next ‘Airbender’ Gets Older, Wiser and Adds a Feminine Touch” in order to get the full text).

While the article provides a good overview of the new series and its origins in Avatar: The Last Airbender, what makes it stand out is the deceleration that while this series is more girl-friendly than the original, male viewer numbers won’t be affected:

According to Nickelodeon, the median age of “Avatar” viewers is 12.8 years old, and the audience is roughly 65% male and 35% female. Mr. Konietzko said Nickelodeon tested the new series and young boys readily accepted the show’s female hero. “You can’t say it’s gonna fail when there aren’t that many things to point to in animation like this,” Mr. Konietzko said. “Luckily, Nick was brave enough to let us do it.”

Now in fairness to Nickelodeon, they’ve been a bit more progressive than others when it comes to the whole matter of female-led shows with the likes of My Life as a Teenage Robot being a great example. The paragraph above flies in the face of conventional traditional “wisdom” which states that boys won’t watch a show with a female lead. While I think  that is pure bunk, it nonetheless was on Disney’s mind when they altered their film from Rapunzel to Tangled.

Perhaps the best indicator of things to come though, is in this quote, which sums up very nicely the current trend in movies:

“Korra” has been in the works for years, but Mr. DiMartino said that with the success of “The Hunger Games” movie and the coming Pixar film “Brave,” which both feature strong female leads, “The time is right in the cultural zeitgeist for all these female heroes to come out.”

I can’t wait to see them when they do  🙂

Update: Megan over at Forever Young Adult has written a very enthusiastic post about the series that did a good job of confirming that I should catch this show. On top of that, she had this to say about Korra herself.

Guys, Korra is a kick-ass heroine to be reckoned with. She’s strong, brash, and stubborn. But she’s also kind-hearted, fun and brave. You will love her almost instantly. Plus, when was the last time you saw a show that had a non-white 17 year old girl (albeit, animated girl) as its lead? And when was the last time you had a YA girl as a lead in something that wasn’t (at least originally) exclusively marketed toward YA girls?? It sounds so pathetic, but THIS IS THE SHOW I’VE BEEN DREAMING OF. This is the kind of show you should watch with your daughters AND sons because it’s important for them to have an awesome young woman to look up to and emulate and/or admire. And it’s great for us olds, because I know I always want to read about/watch cool ladies, 24/7/365! Also, look at those guns! You should watch the show for her guns alone.

While it comes close to going over the top, it is nonetheless a great description of the main protagonist and why there is so much to like about her. I certainly hope we see more series like this one promises to be.

UPDATED: The Wall Street Journal On Gender And The Legend Of Korra Read More »