Possible Strike Threatens Hollywood Voice Talent in Games
But does it really matter?
Time was a game was a game. These days, games seem to form part of some all-consuming media monster, awash with cross-marketing synergies, demographically desperate to appeal to the lowest possible MTV-type denominator.
Now that little rant’s out of the way, we can examine news breaking this morning which threatens the inclusion of voice-acting from Hollywood’s finest in future game releases.
As Variety Magazine reports, “The Screen Guild and AFTRAAFTRA are in a critical, final stretch of negotiations with a group of major videogame publishers, all of which have come to rely on union talent for increasingly cinematic and lucrative videogames. The last contract covered Electronic Arts, some 70 other big gaming companies agreed to its terms. Present contract, currently in its second extension, is set to expire on Friday, and there will not be a third extension, setting the stage for a potential work stoppage.”
But do we really care? As far as SPOnG can make out, voice talent brings little more than yet another reason to filter money away from development in favour of a marketing tagline, the benefits of which are somewhat intangible. So Toby McGuire doesn’t supply the voice-over in the next Spider-Man game. Do you really care? Or would you rather have the money paid to Mr McGuire and his band of merry agents pumped into the studio, perhaps paying for a few new artists or coders?
Now that little rant’s out of the way, we can examine news breaking this morning which threatens the inclusion of voice-acting from Hollywood’s finest in future game releases.
As Variety Magazine reports, “The Screen Guild and AFTRAAFTRA are in a critical, final stretch of negotiations with a group of major videogame publishers, all of which have come to rely on union talent for increasingly cinematic and lucrative videogames. The last contract covered Electronic Arts, some 70 other big gaming companies agreed to its terms. Present contract, currently in its second extension, is set to expire on Friday, and there will not be a third extension, setting the stage for a potential work stoppage.”
But do we really care? As far as SPOnG can make out, voice talent brings little more than yet another reason to filter money away from development in favour of a marketing tagline, the benefits of which are somewhat intangible. So Toby McGuire doesn’t supply the voice-over in the next Spider-Man game. Do you really care? Or would you rather have the money paid to Mr McGuire and his band of merry agents pumped into the studio, perhaps paying for a few new artists or coders?
Companies:
Electronic Arts
Read More Like This
Comments
Rustman 15 Apr 2005 19:06
1/3
I find it's curious the word "talent" has been used at all. Everytime I have played a game with a "famous" face behind the voice, they have appeared bored and far more unconvincing than any live action performance.
There is only ONE game that I can recall the voices for and that was Panzer Dragoon Saga. And they were all japanese. I can still hear "Ed-ge" being called out in my dreams. Now these chaps (and chapettes) are certainly not known to me even if they might be known in their homeland, but their performance was captivating even in a foreign tongue, because they cared about the performance they were giving.
Maybe more money can be pumped into paying a voice director to give a damn about the acting a jobbing actor may be able to give the part instead.
There is only ONE game that I can recall the voices for and that was Panzer Dragoon Saga. And they were all japanese. I can still hear "Ed-ge" being called out in my dreams. Now these chaps (and chapettes) are certainly not known to me even if they might be known in their homeland, but their performance was captivating even in a foreign tongue, because they cared about the performance they were giving.
Maybe more money can be pumped into paying a voice director to give a damn about the acting a jobbing actor may be able to give the part instead.
Joji 15 Apr 2005 19:33
2/3
You see this is those pesky money grabbing yanks again and even though their SAG contract doesn't cover games they are sniffing other avenues for even more money to add to their coffers.
Hollywood are now sniffing games because they see the dollar digits are more than theirs.
I couldn't care less if the strike or not. Gamers do not buy games to hear a damn jumped up overpaid hollywood voice actor (even though in some cases they add something). We buy games to play games, and if I do listen to voices I'd rather they be unknown to me or be japanese.
And one thing that is not mentioned is the small voice actors trying to make their way in the world, who need work in games to pay their bills. It's such a big misconception that you must be a big name actor to be any good. Smaller voice actors won't get as much work because of the hollywood elite who are already minted.
Hollywood already make enough dollars at the box office, if they then decide to sniff for gaming pay plus royalties that kind of money may have developers opting not to use them. This wouldn't bother me one bit to be honest. Royalties also form a nice part of the average coder or artists wages, so for Hollywood w****rs to take money from those that need it more is ridiculous.
Hollywood are now sniffing games because they see the dollar digits are more than theirs.
I couldn't care less if the strike or not. Gamers do not buy games to hear a damn jumped up overpaid hollywood voice actor (even though in some cases they add something). We buy games to play games, and if I do listen to voices I'd rather they be unknown to me or be japanese.
And one thing that is not mentioned is the small voice actors trying to make their way in the world, who need work in games to pay their bills. It's such a big misconception that you must be a big name actor to be any good. Smaller voice actors won't get as much work because of the hollywood elite who are already minted.
Hollywood already make enough dollars at the box office, if they then decide to sniff for gaming pay plus royalties that kind of money may have developers opting not to use them. This wouldn't bother me one bit to be honest. Royalties also form a nice part of the average coder or artists wages, so for Hollywood w****rs to take money from those that need it more is ridiculous.
Nosce 16 Apr 2005 16:16
3/3
To be honest, I found 007: NIghtfire odd, as EA paid lots of money for the likeness of Mr. Brosnan, and got a different voice actor for the game. Then in Everything or Nothing they had ALL the proper voices and likenesses from the films, but Peirce Brosnan sounded like he was sat at home on a sunday afternoon and slightly bored. Yet again, I can't imagine the Dirty Harry game being any good without Clint providing the voice.
It depends how much money the company has, EA can usually pay for the likenessness and voice of the appropriate actor and still pump money into development. (or at least that what they should be doing).
However, I don't think its really nesessary having random stars in games when more money could be spent on the actual game side of things.
It's a fine line.
It depends how much money the company has, EA can usually pay for the likenessness and voice of the appropriate actor and still pump money into development. (or at least that what they should be doing).
However, I don't think its really nesessary having random stars in games when more money could be spent on the actual game side of things.
It's a fine line.