News 'Awesome Planet' coming to The Land pavilion

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
His successors have failed to leave up to that legacy. Lillard and Seacrest are terrible in those respective roles.
I still love the slap in face in Looney Tunes Back in Action...
What+is+the+from+_4454d22f5a2ce84b64a6a93d96e71ec4.jpg
 
Last edited:

RoysCabin

Well-Known Member
This is a thing that I agree with. Very, very much. Disney's been doing this sort of thing with their movies and TV shows as well. I don't dislike the idea of celebrities doing voice acting in general (there are a lot of celebrities that are good at it), but there's such a thing as too much. Not everybody has a distinct voice that lends itself well to animation, and just because someone is a good live-action actor doesn't mean they're going to give a good voice performance. There was no point in casting Shakira as a character in Zootopia who barely has any screentime or lines, and does Disney really think somebody not in the target audience of Mickey and the Roadster Racers is going to watch it simply because it's got Jay Leno voicing a recurring character?

Of course, with theme park attractions there doesn't seem to be as much of a reliance on celebrities. I could be wrong, though.

It's funny to consider, but a big culprit in creating that environment is, well...Disney.

Namely, it was the use of Robin Williams in Aladdin that really kicked off this era of "everything animated requires celebrity voices"; not to say it didn't exist before, as it existed in older Disney films, too, but Genie was designed entirely with Williams in mind, and his performance was such a success that it created a perceived need to stock up every animated film with as many big name actors as possible, especially in the roles of the side characters meant to drive the marketing of the film. It hit all over the animation industry, from Disney to Don Bluth to others, who all tried to ape the model while ignoring what was so particular about Williams' performance that made it stand out and stand the test of time.

Consider how it led to most Disney flicks requiring a comedic sidekick character with voices by Danny Devito (Hercules), Jason Alexander (Hunchback), Martin Short (Treasure Planet), and others. Heck, it happened outside of Disney: Quest For Camelot back in the 90s tried to do it with its two-headed dragon character, and Dreamworks has been completely riding that style for years now. Illumination makes entire voice casts of nothing but celebrities at this stage.

Speaking as an amateur voiceover hobbyist, the trend has never sat well with me; stinks to see a lot of fantastic voice talent shunted aside for big roles not because they're inferior to other performers, but simply due to name recognition in the public. Add to that the factor you mention with regards to theme parks: when you go the celebrity route, you usually place an expiration date on the relevance of your attraction, ala how Ellen's Energy Adventure got dated pretty danged quickly.
 
Last edited:

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
And yet, a lot of movies that have celebrities doing the voices wind up flopping... Kubo and the Two Strings, UglyDolls, Turbo, Rise of the Guardians, the fifth Ice Age movie, Early Man, Norm of the North, and Penguins of Madagascar come to mind.

Although it should be noted that having celebrities do voiceover work started before Aladdin. I mean, even Pinocchio had celebrities in it.
 

RoysCabin

Well-Known Member
And yet, a lot of movies that have celebrities doing the voices wind up flopping... Kubo and the Two Strings, UglyDolls, Turbo, Rise of the Guardians, the fifth Ice Age movie, Early Man, Norm of the North, and Penguins of Madagascar come to mind.

Although it should be noted that having celebrities do voiceover work started before Aladdin. I mean, even Pinocchio had celebrities in it.

Oh, absolutely, and even in the early 90s we had things like George C. Scott as the villain in The Rescuers Down Under, albeit near the end of his career. It's more that Williams redefined using a celebrity voice, to the point of entire animated films being built around celebrity presence or otherwise trying to mimic the type of marketing juggernaut the Genie was in '92, which wasn't really a thing that happened much before then.
 

Ripken10

Well-Known Member
Oh, absolutely, and even in the early 90s we had things like George C. Scott as the villain in The Rescuers Down Under, albeit near the end of his career. It's more that Williams redefined using a celebrity voice, to the point of entire animated films being built around celebrity presence or otherwise trying to mimic the type of marketing juggernaut the Genie was in '92, which wasn't really a thing that happened much before then.
I thought it was the case that due to Robin Williams contract, they were not allowed to use the Genie in the marketing for Aladdin back in '92.
 

RoysCabin

Well-Known Member
I thought it was the case that due to Robin Williams contract, they were not allowed to use the Genie in the marketing for Aladdin back in '92.

And initially, at least, they tried to stay true to that (see the original Aladdin posters), but it went way off the rails and played a huge role in the nasty breakup Williams had with Disney leadership, namely Katzenberg, before new leadership offered him an apology. Very awesome YouTube movie and media critic/analyst Lindsay Ellis has a great video about the Disney/Williams relationship that came out around a month ago, pretty good history on the whole dynamic.
 

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
I've had the theory for a while now that Shrek was responsible for the "animated movies must have celebrity voices in order to be successful" mindset. After all, a lot of studios were trying to cash in on its success, including DreamWorks itself, with the whole "pop-culture references and toilet humor" thing.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
I've had the theory for a while now that Shrek was responsible for the "animated movies must have celebrity voices in order to be successful" mindset. After all, a lot of studios were trying to cash in on its success, including DreamWorks itself, with the whole "pop-culture references and toilet humor" thing.

Yeah, I always think of Shrek as the starting point of that phenomena though of course it may have been "inspired" by the success of Williams in Aladdin.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
Or how about just let "awesome" mean "awesome" and thus timeless? I get the overuse in the '90s, but it still means "awesome" -- unlike "lit" and "woke". So, I like the name OK. It's not trendy or IP. Just "awesome"! :)
Yes, the term makes sense if you think of it with the original meaning inspiring great admiration (i.e. awe)
"Lit" and "woke" are basically newer generations trying to come up with words that have the same staying power as the words earlier generations used...and failing miserably. The reason "awesome" has had the staying power its enjoyed is specifically because of it's actual meaning. "Lit" and "woke", while cute, will never see the same world-wide use and longevity because they don't resonate with as many age groups and their meaning isn't evident. They're the modern-day versions of "rad".
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
I've had the theory for a while now that Shrek was responsible for the "animated movies must have celebrity voices in order to be successful" mindset. After all, a lot of studios were trying to cash in on its success, including DreamWorks itself, with the whole "pop-culture references and toilet humor" thing.
Don't forget to throw Toy Story in there. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen (at the height of his popularity)...

I don't think it was any one film, just a trend that started in the early 90s.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom