#why aren't i watching that show

[uniiiquehecrt]

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.

[politemagic]

everyone say congratulations to the first time homeowners!

edit: i may or may not have been inspired to write some headcanons based on this, if you're interested

[nagashtheundying]

why whenever you criticize imagine dragons do people come crawling out of the woodwork to say "they're actually really nice and donate money!"

ok??? i was just saying their music is bad and boring and meant for commercials and middle schoolers, i could give a fuck what kind of guys they are

[panharmonium]

i am not usually interested in dramatically canon-divergent scenarios because the canon story is what compels me, but i've been obsessed with this moment ever since i re-heard it during my second viewing. from the perspective of someone who already finished the story once and now knows the truth - this was wild.

WHAT IF?

[fallloverfic]

I've seen some very odd takes about certain language used in the scene where Mizrak rebukes Olrox at the end of Castlevania: Nocturne, which I think might be due to lack of knowledge about the historical context of certain things.

CW: historical racism against First Nation groups

I know reading academic articles isn't for everyone, but I have to wonder if a lot of people in the Castlevania: Nocturne fandom have not watched things like, say, Disney's 1995 animated Pocahontas, which, for all its many, many flaws, features the song, Savages. I'm not going to quote it in full here, you can find the song lyrics elsewhere (though the European colonizers do use the lines "vermin" and "barely even human", among other epithets). It's not a great song for a lot of reasons (among them being it tries to "both sides" things). But to look at the scene in CN where Mizrak, a Christian working in a European Christian church with at least some Europeans, calls Olrox, a First Nation man, an animal without the understanding of how Christian European colonizers (typically as part of or at least backed by some Christian churches) have viewed First Nation peoples and treated them, and certain epithets used for them, and how European Christian dehumanization of "new world" groups and non-Christians generally worked/works?

Well.

[ithacanradio]

"do you miss kissing?" is a bonkers line to say to your newly acquired ghost friend as you're dying of hypothermia ily charles rowland

[cassierobinsons]

you ever watch an episode of the sopranos that originally aired in 2002 only to see janice talk about her ex the same way some of your mutuals talk about castiel

[hadesknockedupintheunderworld]

"We need more messy/awful/cringefail female characters!"

You guys couldn't even handle Wanda Whipple...

[iwtvdramacd18]

Ok no more white people can watch amc iwtv we've had enough we've reached the quota thank you....

[naivety]

very weird to frame your abuse apologia as being aware that the writers intended to illustrate a mutually harmful dynamic and not an abusive one. when the writers in question also wrote the line 'once you put it out there, they [the audience] decide what it is' because nothing you ever create has any innate definition. when the writers in question decided to racebend major characters and then showcase them being harmed by white or nonblack characters in a repeatedly racialized pattern when they Did Not Have To Do That and then genuinely or disingenuously decide to dialogue about their directly or indirectly illustrated racialized dynamic of intimate partner violence within and outside the narrative. like to be quite honest it does not matter what they intended because this is what they made and this is how it Looks to a notably large amount of people. who just happen to be interpreting it wrong? according to what metric? the very metric they say Doesn't Work in their own fictional creation? ok

[lotus-sunn]

more prone to anger?? I've only seen that you are pretty postive on your blog and like to keep your posts more postive then negative I haven't seen you insult anyone?

AH AND THAT MY DEAR ANON IS WHERE YOU ARE WRONG! I'm pretty postive yes and I like my blog that way, hell, I literally have "It's always sunny" on my profile! So allow me to involve you in the past posts that involved me acting out of character from the usual sunny days.

[badgirlcoven-official]

"Willow is a bad character because she's a mary sue" me when I missed the entire point of the show

[lollitree]

This is the best way to introduce a character

[amplexadversary]

I'm screenshotting rather than derailing this post but

I'd like to call it now before I'm accused of this by someone who thinks the thematic foundation of a particular show is the "romance"

just. Based on some *takes* I've seen.

[weedle-testaburger]

I haven't shared a South Park Fandom Hot Take (tm) in a while, but I've been thinking about one lately based on posts I keep getting recc'd and I kinda want to share it as politely as possible.

I keep seeing posts trying to divide the show into 'filler' and 'story' episodes and basically insinuating you should skip the 'filler' ones and just watch the 'story' ones to follow the 'lore', and... no offence to the people doing that, but I think that's a really bad way to watch the show. South Park isn't a serialised drama or even much of a narrative-driven show, it's an issue-of-the-week comedy series. The writers barely bother to keep the characters' traits consistent (Stan's asthma and Kyle's diabetes anyone?) because they aren't the point of the show, the social commentary and jokes are.

I get doing it if you want to rewatch and kinda try to pick out bits that stay consistent, that does sound fun, but if you only care about 'lore' it's harder to appreciate the point and/or humour of an episode. Plus it means you have to prioritise, to be blunt, watching a fair amount of the shitter stuff in the show and skipping some really good stuff. I mean ffs, telling someone to skip All About Mormons and watch Mr Garrison's Fancy New Vagina is basically a hate crime.

[batfamfucker]

Appreciation post for 'girly girl' characters and/or shows that celebrate traditionally feminine things that girls and women are shamed for.

Characters on this list that love makeup, fashion, hair, etc. Characters that are still written as strong, intelligent, brave, etc. That told young girls that these interests are valid, they are not lesser interests. Being feminine and liking traditionally feminine things does not make them weak.