@lon3wolf2002: Never!!! There was a videocast that often referred to Jill and Barry. One guy would imitate them all in good fun. I watched The Critical Drinker play the game in the last week or so on his YouTube channel. Anyway, I hope voice actors get the same kind of contracts that other actors do. Again, I find it strange that things like that aren't in place already. I think that it has long been part of SAG rules that actors who have spoken lines in a production, get paid more than an "extra" without lines. Stay well.😊
I'll admit it. I don't play console games, or games that have voice acting. So my comments are based on what I think should be fair compensation for doing a job. Am I wrong in thinking that the best solution would be that voice actors should have the same type of SAG contracts as other actors? If there is no such mechanism, I think there should be one. I think this is going to be a broader issue, as CGI is used to make films and TV series that rival the unnecessarily huge budget productions being produced currently. In my opinion, there is so much "financial bloat" in the productions that studios and streaming services are producing. I think that it is worth remembering that the public is paying for to see, and/or play these products, and we deserve our money's worth. Further, I have no understanding of how important a voice actor is in video games. I just remember the earlier games where the actors continuingly said... JILL!... BARRRRY!😄
@Destructionzz: Once again, thank you not only for your kind and intelligent comments, but for taking the time to address them to me. Basically, we are in total agreement. The observations that I'm going to offer here now, are only observations and in no way are meant to contradict what you have said or our overall agreement.1) As a very old guy, I have many years as a reference point. Sadly, a lot of the people that post comments on social media, (and here sometimes). Have a limited knowledge of what has gone before, and therefore have little foundation for their opinions, because they are drawn from a very short amount of time. I think that it is well known that one of the big changes in the entertainment industry. Is that the merger of very large corporations has put decision making in the hands ofa very few people. This is true in film making, Streaming services and TV. There is a reason why various federal agencies look very closely at mergers between extremely big and important companies and corporations. When they are doing their jobs, they have to make sure that the public will have options in making various choices. That means that there has to be a reasonable amount of competition in any given industry. Unfortunately, federal agencies have not been very effective in preventing cable and satellite companies from having near monopolies in the areas where they operate. My point is that in film and TV productions. Very few powerful people make decisions as to what will be produced. Since there are so few of them, with a large population desiring new products. Quality is not going to be their main concern, and a large portion of the population doesn't mind. There were some sequels made "back in the day", but rarely. Most often directors would have their favorite genres and stars. Director John Ford produced films starring John Wayne in films that were somewhat related, but weren't actual sequels. His "The Horse Soldiers" and "She wore a yellow ribbon", are good examples of that. Those two films are favorites of mine. Then there were the films that starred actor teams like Bing Crosby and Bob Hope in the half dozen "Road" films. Along with the Abbott and Costello, and Charlie Chan films, that weren't actual sequels, but more series of films featuring the same characters, for example.2) I can tell you that the "instant gratification" syndrome has caused a lot of change in recent decades. "Anything, all the time, when you want it." This has been driven somewhat by technology. Streaming services offering VOD, retailers offering incredibly short delivery times etc. It's not the public's fault entirely. Business has been able to take advantage of not so mucha human weakness, but innate desire. We love it when we can have it now, or asap! I rant constantly in other forums about the "cookie cutter" crime dramas that are being produced in the U.S. and other Western nations. The production companies know that there is a hug consumer base hungry for content. Often, that content doesn't have to be very good. I draw your attention to all of the iterations of TV series like CSI, Law and Order, and NCIS. There are members of the public who just want something to watch, that isn't stressful, and that is familiar. Since you mention it. I assume the same is true to some degree in the computer game industry. That doesn't impact me as much, because my gaming is somewhat specialized, and I don't use my gaming console at all. Here again, mergers are affecting the availability of content, and the quality of the content that is on offer to consumers. I guess the bottom line is that as consumers. We have to show our approval, or disapproval of what is offered to us. Our purchases will determine how well a production or service does. Hopefully, that will encourage any business or industry to offer better quality products. I guess basically, as the saying goes, "voting with our dollars". One of the things that really makes me angry, is that the entertainment industry generally, along with the various steaming services. Seem to feel that we should be grateful for anything they offer us. The point is that though we tend to forget it. We are PAYING them to give us the best product possible. They are not doing us any favors, or giving us something for free. Lastly, I would suggest to you personally. That if you are interested in true cinema art, that you support the various Independent film studios, production companies, festivals, and TV channels. I will say again, it has been my pleasure to communicate with you. Stay well.👍😊
@Destructionzz: Thanks for your comments. I assume that when you say "I can't disagree". You mean your are agreeing with Mr. Scorsese? It's not important, because in my view, very few films are done for "Art's sake". In my opinion the entertainment industry sees itself as a producer of products that aren't as tangible as say automobiles, but are made for profit. I think some films are classics and can be considered Art, because of the impression they make on the public. They bring together the talents of actors, directors, writers etc. To create something truly unique, but those are rare examples of what most films and/or TV productions are. I would say that generally speaking, "How much will it make?", is the determining factor as to what will be produced. Just my opinion of course, and I respect yours.
@Barighm: Sorry if I misunderstood your comment. It is pretty uncharacteristic for me to challenge people on their views in these forums. I shouldn't have commented, and I apologize. Stay well.😊
Is it just me that only saw a few photos and a lot blank space between each movie or TV show discussed? As for the list. The only show that I would kind of miss is Raised by Wolves, and I was only mildly interested in that series. I guess the series' structure would have allowed it to go in different directions and expand, but the writers would have had to raise the action level. Otherwise, I don't think anyone is going to be upset that the movies and shows on this list are in Limbo at best, and may never be released. I think the entertainment industry as whole, should get some new "blood" in their creative departments. Starting with talented writers, and new material.
Mr. Scorsese should call a conference of all of the important people in the entertainment industry. He should sit them down an tell them that they shouldn't worry about recouping the millions of dollars they spent producing films and paying about a dozen "A list" actors millions of dollars to appear in those films. Spend 500 million dollars producing a movie, and get a box office of oh.. 3 million back? No problem. We all know that everyone in Hollywood is only working in the entertainment business, just for arts' sake.
@Barighm: Interesting. So what have you got to replace capitalism? I assume you're doing quite well living in the cradle of Capitalism, and if you aren't. What wonderful Marxist/Neo liberal Garden of Eden do you reside in. Talk is cheap. Without capitalism.. you wouldn't have a job, that is, if you actually work. Western society has taken Capitalism to an extreme, but China isn't far behind, regardless of what they call their economic system.
Tread33's comments