 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was only disagreeing film actors by default have the credentials and skills to be voice actors. I find most don't.
Well, I would say that not necessarily all actors have the credentials and skill to be voice actors, but pretty much all good ones do.
I wonder if voice actors would agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was only disagreeing film actors by default have the credentials and skills to be voice actors. I find most don't.
Well, I would say that not necessarily all actors have the credentials and skill to be voice actors, but pretty much all good ones do.
I wonder if voice actors would agree with you.
It's really about "acting"... it's not as if acting becomes something completely different if you do voice acting, it's not as if there is a segregation between "voice actors" and "full body actors"... There are actors, some work more on stage, some more in movies, some on TV, some do voice acting, some a little bit of this or that. What is Mark Hamill? What was Phil Hartman? "Voice actors" or "actors"?
I'd say most good actors are also good voice actors because good actors act with their voice. If they can't manage their voice, they can't act. If they can't really "voice act", chances are they can't really "act" at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's really about "acting"... it's not as if acting becomes something completely different if you do voice acting, it's not as if there is a segregation between "voice actors" and "full body actors"... There are actors, some work more on stage, some more in movies, some on TV, some do voice acting, some a little bit of this or that. What is Mark Hamill? What was Phil Hartman? "Voice actors" or "actors"?
I'd say most good actors are also good voice actors because good actors act with their voice. If they can't manage their voice, they can't act. If they can't really "voice act", chances are they can't really "act" at all.
Largely true, but voice acting is fun and allows more freedom in that there is no visual typecast to limit the effect. The character is delineated by the director and by the artwork of the character (if in animation) and the writer. In radio, there isn't even the artwork to worry about. The voice must fit the character, but the actor's appearance is irrelevant. (I once even played an elderly Scottish lady comedically).
Celebrities are used for the likes of Family Guy because they're satirically good, though if they're not distinctive they do sometimes need heavily plugged in the credits so people know to look out for them. Sometimes, in advertising or drama, they're used for their RECOGNISABILITY and kudos.
But most voice actors need a bit of versatility. Not all actors have that much. You can be far more versatile in radio or animation because your physical persona doesn't limit you.
Also ... with radio acting, you don't really need to learn your lines. You just need to have digested and rehearsed them ... if you're allowed the luxury ... Nor do radio actors always need to be simultaneously present, AS LONG AS they can 'react' to the other player in a scene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is all quite true (and in no way contrary to anything I said).
Obviously, some actors will have a wider range, some actors have a wide range as actors on screen, and some may have a wide or even wider range voice performing. Obviously, actors (and I don't use the word "voice actor" here on purpose) may be able to easily voice characters who are completely different from their own "look". I mean, Nancy Cartwright is a 59 year old woman who plays a ten year old boy on The Simpsons. :-) Comes with the territory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 16, 2017 - 3:50 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ray Faiola
(Member)
|
I'd say most good actors are also good voice actors because good actors act with their voice. If they can't manage their voice, they can't act. If they can't really "voice act", chances are they can't really "act" at all.
Not necessarily true at all. In film especially, for many actors the voice is a natural outlet rather than a crafted instrument. Every year when I do my radio night at Shadowland, even though I have a few regulars I also often have new cast members, sometimes from the just-having-ended main stage season. These are all professional, mostly New York-based, actors and it is a definite adjustment for them to have their entire performance voice-centered. All of the emotions and intimations have to be conveyed solely with the voice. A gesture or expression, while it may help the actor, means nothing to the microphone. Most actors today are organic and we convey our sense with all our senses and the vocal aspect combines with the visual and the emotional (as it should) to complete a performance. For radio (or voiceover) all that has to be rechannelled so that the voice alone carries the whole magilla. Which is not to say a voice performance cannot be genuinely emotional. When that happens, it is very exciting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say most good actors are also good voice actors because good actors act with their voice. If they can't manage their voice, they can't act. If they can't really "voice act", chances are they can't really "act" at all.
Not necessarily true at all. In film especially, for many actors the voice is a natural outlet rather than a crafted instrument. Every year when I do my radio night at Shadowland, even though I have a few regulars I also often have new cast members, sometimes from the just-having-ended main stage season. These are all professional, mostly New York-based, actors and it is a definite adjustment for them to have their entire performance voice-centered. All of the emotions and intimations have to be conveyed solely with the voice. A gesture or expression, while it may help the actor, means nothing to the microphone. Most actors today are organic and we convey our sense with all our senses and the vocal aspect combines with the visual and the emotional (as it should) to complete a performance. For radio (or voiceover) all that has to be rechannelled so that the voice alone carries the whole magilla. Which is not to say a voice performance cannot be genuinely emotional. When that happens, it is very exciting.
Aaah, someone who can contribute beyond conjecture! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say most good actors are also good voice actors because good actors act with their voice. If they can't manage their voice, they can't act. If they can't really "voice act", chances are they can't really "act" at all.
Not necessarily true at all. In film especially, for many actors the voice is a natural outlet rather than a crafted instrument.
There are actors who have a limited range, and there are actors who have a great range. This goes for both actors and voice actors, to use these terms. Marlon Brando's voice was a natural outlet, yet that does not mean he could not manage it (or could not entertainingly have voiced a character only.) Christopher Lee had a great range with a very trained voice, yet obviously that did not prevent him from being a good actor in films.
It may be important at this point to explicitly take note that what I am saying is that just because somebody acts in movies or on screen does not mean he is less qualified to do voice work and that I don't find it an assett or advantage for an animated character if the actor voicing it is "unknown". By now means follows from there that I have a preference for known actors to voice animated characters. Indeed, I have no preference either way, I'm quite neutral about it. I just want to hear good voice work. (Christopher Lee as King Haggard for example was the biggest asset the animated movie THE LAST UNICORN had.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
