I think Astrid Hofferson has a bad case of the 'my childhood was wasted, I grew up too fast for something ultimately proven pointless.' Syndrome and that she deserves to get to do silly things she missed out on and take up new hobbies, even if she's not particularly good at them–it's purely for the experience yknow, and learn to finally breathe no longer needing to be on constant high alert and get to be truly happy
194 notes
·
View notes
I don't think people seem to understand that they could've given up. We know fox was blocking bisexual Buck and that probably means they were blocking buddie, so they could've given up. Buddie is a love story. Their devotion to each other is canon. There isn't anything the show can do that's gonna convince me they don't love each other. But they could've given up at any point. Backed off, actually give any other love interest a fighting chance, double down on them being best friends and not make it bigger. They choose not to. They kept adding to this love story as best as they could. They are best friends. They are partners. They are family. They would die for each other but they also have fun together. They have one braincell they keep pingponging between them. They love each other. That's a fact. That will always be a fact. They are each other's person. And now we are at a place where that can be explicitly explored. It's a slowburn. It's a network slowburn. The desire to rip your hair out comes with it but it makes the moment they finally get their shit together that much sweeter. We're getting there. Somehow y'all had more hope when all we had to go on was a couch. Buck is actually queer now. This time last year Buck and Eddie were getting a comphet ending. Now one of them is actually queer. We're gonna get there, but they are not just gonna trip into a relationship because they are too careful with buddie as a friendship to not address the issues and make things natural before getting them together because everyone involved in this madness knows what they have in their hands. They know once they get buddie together it's forever, they're not gonna rush into it now they have actual room to play.
152 notes
·
View notes
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.
86 notes
·
View notes