Voice actors are NOT the same as actors.
It takes a specific kind of skill-set and training to be able to warp and meld the voice. It takes a certain kind of talent and dedication to hone that talent into the ability to meld the voice and invoke emotion with one's voice alone. Actors are used to using their voice secondarily to their body language and their facial expressions. It's all mirrored back on camera. They do have nuance. But it's a different kind of nuance and a different kind of training to produce that nuance.
Voice actors might get their likeness transposed on their character's design, and maybe their mannerisms might seep into the character's animation. But when it's all said and done: their presence is in their voice. They are bringing a character to life, showing that emotion in their voice, trying to keep a specific accent, drawl, pitch, tone in that voice and keep it consistent for their recording sessions.
The voice actor is like a classically trained musician who can play first chair in a competitive, world-renown orchestra. The actor (who fills the voice actor's role) is like a moot who played violin in beginner and intermediate high school orchestra and thinks they can get into Juilliard with that 2-4 years of experience.
This doesn't mean that the HS orchestra moot can't play. They can even be really good at it. Maybe they won competitions and sat first chair. But they are not in the same league as the person who's been training their whole lives and lives and breathes to hone their craft using the instrument and all of the training they've ever acquired to perfect it. They are not meant for the same roles. They are not in the same caliber. You do not hire the HS equivalent when you want to play complex music in a competitive orchestra.
Actors are not the same as voice actors.
And furthermore, actors - especially big name actors - taking the roles of animated characters for big budget films or TV pilots makes no sense anyways when - at least in the case of TV pilots - there's not a point to hiring a big budget actors anyways. That money could be used elsewhere (like paying your animators), and the talent that is brought onto the screen for X character could then be hired on to voice said character no recasting required.
I wouldn't say voice acting as a profession is in danger exactly, but it's certainly being disrespected and overlooked for celebrity clout, and this has ALWAYS been an issue. Shoot, even Robin Williams knew that much - which is why he tried so hard not to be used as a marketing chess piece for Aladdin and got royally pissed off when it happened anyways. People shouldn't go to any movie (but especially not animated films) because "oh famous actor is in it". People should go because it's a good movie and the voice acting is good.
People who honest to god think that voice actors are replaceable because "oh well anyone can voice act" or "I like xyz celebrity so naturally it'll be good" ... Honestly I just wish you'd reassess your priorities because you're missing the point and are part of the problem.
Voice Actors ≠ Actors.
84 notes
·
View notes
Thanks for your answer about Remus & Tonks!
I read both posts attentively, and yeah, I agree with pretty much everything. That plot point always baffled me, I always wondered why JKR went there.
Was it a way to thwart the fandom, which was already start to annoy her at the time? IDK.
I'm not judging the relationship (in Canon), I'm neither pro nor con, it's just that it always mystified me.
But I like your take about Tonks being a v. realistic 23 y-o, a lot!
Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to answer. Have a lovely day! :3
Of course! You have a lovely one, too.
If we're talking about Doylist interpretations of the story — i.e. why the Author as a person whose to do something, as opposed to what's going on purely inside the text — I don't have the history to remember if Wolfstar was big enough at the time for JKR to notice or want to respond to it. Sirius dies in Book 5, which seems like enough to sink the ship in any case. My theory is that she decided during the outlining process of Book 5 that she wanted the series to end with Harry being the guardian of a child whose situation paralleled his — a war orphan whose parents were killed fighting Voldemort — to demonstrate that the story had come full-circle.
At that point, I think she looked at the characters she'd sketched out for Book 5 and decided Lupin would be the best candidate, since he would be the only person likely to name a seventeen-year-old Harry as godfather (my read of that scene is Lupin's deep in the textbook Marauder project-my-relationship-with-James-onto-Harry coping mechanism, which is why he's so shocked when the Literal Neglected Child rips him a new one for attempting to neglect his newborn child). At that point, Rowling needs to find Lupin a wife, and Tonks is one of the few female characters who's (a) unattached and (b) potentially of the age to be considering marriage and children. So she spends the next two books setting up the marriage, childbirth, and eventual martyrdom at the Battle of Hogwarts.
Like you, I don't take this as a point in favor or against their relationship; I think that most dynamics can be interesting if done well, and there was a lot to explore in Tonks and Remus. But the later books got really fucking crowded, and you see the toll in plot lines like this, where the scenes they have together just aren't enough to establish two people who are falling in love.
17 notes
·
View notes