In the news article, “Vin Diesel as The Silver Surfer?” I raised a question. In a good comic movie or Star Wars type movie, is the actor who plays the part more important then the person who may “voice” the part like James Earl Jones did for Darth Vader. Do most of us even know who the actors name is who played Vader? If we can’t recognize the actor because of a mask or other disguise, is he less important? What do we think? What are some examples to back up your opinion?

Test reply

Umm.

Cartoon’s use voice over’s exclusively (duh, animated figures don’t have voices).

It’s human psychology to try and associate a mental picture with a voice. I think that if the person on the screen has lips, it’s important that it is the same person doing the voice-overs because only they can get their cadence right.

If it’s a caricature or masked creature where the lip movement is artificial, I don’t see any problem with another person other than the actor in the costume being the voice-over.

Now the person in the costume (I.E. David Prowse) might object but aren’t we all glad that James Earl Jones was the voice of Vader?

Customer Service is best served with a lightsaber.

Yes it is an interesting point. The voice is the most important, in the world of animation. Of course, in that world, maybe an artist who does the drawing may have a different opinion.

Still, it sure seems like the voice, in most instances, is so vital to the success of a great character. Guess I am thinking along the likes of movie like “Shrek” where big name stars are only heard and not seen.

Of course who hasn’t enjoyed a Martial Arts film that has the worst voice over ever?

Another point of view on the actor VS voice over. In Star Wars, Chewbacca is played by the actor Peter Mayhew but was that the actor’s voice or a voice over? No words were ever really spoken by Chewbacca.

I did Chewies voice.  Hwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.  See.

Hence my rule Lufguy. If they are artificial lips then voice-overs are cool

I watch most Martial Arts movie in subtitle exclusively because the dubbing usually sux big time. The only Martial Arts movies that I found had good dubs where Crouching Tiger and House of Flying Daggers because the actors themselves did the english dubs.

(1970’s chop sockey excluded for nostalgic reasons. I totally watch those dubbed)

Customer Service is best served with a lightsaber.

Yeah, I spent many a Sunday afternoon watching Kung Fu Theater and it sounded like the same person did both male and female voices without ever getting in sync with either sex.

I think there was even a future California governor who made a movie and his voice had to be replaced because his accent was too hard to understand but I can’t recall the name of the movie. The voice was easily most important in that instance.

curvezilla - 11 July 2006 12:26 AM

I did Chewies voice.  Hwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.  See.

No you didn’t, I think you had a baseball game or football game or were probably playing a video game that day. Maybe eating a pepperoni sandwich! That is as close as you got to Chewies voice. I didn’t mention anyone “chewing”.

It was “Hercules in New York” where they dubbed Arnold.  And it was a pepperoni sandwhich, aaaaah the good old days.

Doh! How could I forget The New York Movie?

John Rhys-Davies voices Treebeard in Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings films. Who knew? Not me.

Speaking of Vader said what, has anyone else checked out the “Vader sessions” video on the front page?

"I just wish I knew how to quit you” - Best quote EVER

“Booyakasha!”

“Respek”

Kelsey Grammer winning his first non-Frasier Emmy for voicing Sideshow Bob on The Simpsons.

Now I learn they give Emmys for voice work! Man, the world has been passing me by.

Lufguy - 08 July 2006 09:39 AM

In the news article, “Vin Diesel as The Silver Surfer?” I raised a question. In a good comic movie or Star Wars type movie, is the actor who plays the part more important then the person who may “voice” the part like James Earl Jones did for Darth Vader. Do most of us even know who the actors name is who played Vader? If we can’t recognize the actor because of a mask or other disguise, is he less important? What do we think? What are some examples to back up your opinion?

David Prowse played Vader

advocatus diaboli
Vexilla regis prodeunt inferni

Lufguy - 08 July 2006 09:39 AM

In the news article, “Vin Diesel as The Silver Surfer?” I raised a question. In a good comic movie or Star Wars type movie, is the actor who plays the part more important then the person who may “voice” the part like James Earl Jones did for Darth Vader. Do most of us even know who the actors name is who played Vader? If we can’t recognize the actor because of a mask or other disguise, is he less important? What do we think? What are some examples to back up your opinion?

If I had to evaluate which is more important, I’d generally say the voice actor.  But I think it’s a rather generic opinion.  The creating of the a character like Smeagol/Gollum can prove that the physical performance can be just as valuable as the voicing.  But that might also open a sub-topic of weighing digital actors versus real actors.  For example, compare Gollum in Two Towers or Return of the King to General Grievous in Revenge of the Sith.  Gollum was a physical actor using motion capture as well a voice actor. (granted, they were the same guy) General Grievous was a totally digital creation with a voice actor.  Now, there’s many, many differances between the two as pertains to production quality, creative directing and execution, but ultimately, it comes down to the finished products.  Gollum meshed into and became part of the tapestry of the LotR films, where Grievous became a distraction with action scenes just for the sake of having action scenes.  Bottom line:  You felt something for Gollum/Smeagol, while Grievous you were just ready to be done with and continue forward with the important story.

It definately requies both, maybe 40% actor/60% voice.  And both have to compliment each other, or it’s just wasted effort.

Chris Mettler
Madness Games & Comics

“Play the Games because You Love the Game"

You make some good points, one of which further confuses my thoughts on this subject. The technology involved creates another issue for me. Did Andy Serkis do both the acting and voice of Gollum/Smeagol? There must have been some “green screen” work in there for him to play the role(s). Does that make him the actor even though the technology makes the movements real in the movie itself? I wonder how much of the acting was him and how much (if any) was created on a computer.

The tech angle especially seems to stretch further and further these days when big comic style movies are made. It is just interesting to me to see how close we come to making movies that look like humans are acting in while applying technology to do things that humans can’t do.