Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Depending on the kind of show it is contextual, but here's some.
If it is a tight self contained story that ends...and then more things happen. Stranger Things for example pretty much perfectly ended in season 1. There was a tiny dangling mystery regarding Eleven's fate. Such things do not need to be a sequel hook, they can simply exist to tantalize and never be expanded on. This is like if Inception 2 was made and it answered the questions about Cobb's spinning totem; it would utterly miss the point that the story was over and the ending was intentionally ambiguous.
If the actors or voice actors are simply getting too old for the part. Personally I have a good ear for animation's voice acting. It drives me absolutely crazy when I hear noticeably aged actors reprising role or continuing them as if nothing has changed. Obviously some performers can last longer than others but for example modern Simpsons is unwatchable to me entirely on the basis of the voices. Even if somehow the writing turned around I simply can't get past the voices. Similarly I could barely sit through The Incredibles 2, which supposedly picks up right as the first movie ends but all the voices are aged 14 years and I can hear it.
Modern Marge sounds like Julie Kavner's been fronting a death metal band for the last 30 years. Let the poor woman rest.
I mean her net worth is estimated around 90million (and she makes about 400k per episode.), she could easily quit if she wanted to. She's also in her mid 70s.
I'm kind of ambiguous about the first point. I think you can expand on a tightly-written, concluded story... but not repeatedly. Furthermore, it requires you to - to some degree - shift the focus of the following stories. Continuing the meta-story is all and just fine, but the immediate story can't be about the same theme/issue/encounter indefinitely.
Normally when I see that, it is a signal to me that the show as intended ended but it was so popular/lucrative that moneypeople demanded it keep going, so the writers have to take an already concluded story and and un-conclude it. I'm sure shows in this situation have worked, but I'm struggling to think of one.
I suppose certain animes, especially shonen essentially do this, but they are designed from the outset to be nearly endless if successful. I'm thinking about shows like Stranger Things which clearly had one intended season, and then four seasons of whipping together something to put on screen.
Like I disclaimed at the top, it is contextual to the type of show, but I get a Spidey-sense when a show essentially restarts. Even Stargate SG-1 did it near the end, and it was overall a pretty weak few seasons.
That's why young boys are usually voiced by women
That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about actors that have already been cast who then play the same role for decades as if nothing about their voice has changed.
Have you heard Bart Simpson's voice recently?
It seems like you’re both saying the same thing! The other person might have been suggesting that women’s voices tend to change less dramatically than men’s as they age. And hey, Bart Simpson is voiced by a woman!
That's why I specifically mentioned Bart. Bart sounds absolutely terrible now.
I'm well aware adult women are often cast to play boy children. That has less to do with longevity compared to casting men as it does their ability to better mimic the higher pitch of children. Over a significant time period though, the voice talent ages no matter the gender.
By the powers of pedantry, I have been summoned!
What the heck are you talking about?
they were saying "that's why child characters get voiced by women instead of men", they said "that's why child characters get voiced by women instead of children"
Because that choice absolutely does have to do with the longevity of the voice.
That's a wild way to misunderstand them lol.
Point to the child actor being discussed in this sentence.
Not cosmOS, Crunchy. The person who said "that's why young boys are voiced by women" to which you replied "that's not really what I'm talking about"
I could have replied directly to that but I didn't wanna fork the thread, since it's more or less the same convo. Although in hindsight I should have.
But generally I feel like y'all are talking past each other
Not a word in there about children doing the voices. If they wanted to clarify a supposed ambiguity, they could have done it themselves.
You coming in and very confidently declaring exactly what they meant despite nobody talking about children doing children's voices, and giving your "correction" it in a condescending way:
That makes you the asshole. Be gone.
Hey, I'm coming in and matching your energy.
They didn't specifically mention children or adult men, for you to assume they meant adult men is a crazy assumption to make.
Then they can clarify it for themselves. Talking about actors working in voice acting industry, in TV production, means adults more often than children doing the work. Not always, but adults are more common than children. It is a reasonable assumption, and if it is wrong, again- the poster can clarify it on their own.
I was being civil and didn't insult anyone's opinion or "lol" at what they were saying until you showed up doing just that. We can look at the thread and see exactly where I started having bad energy and it was after you came in acting like an ass. So in actual fact, I'm matching your energy as it is exceedingly rare for me to insult other users, in fact it might be a first for me here, but you managed to be special.
Fuck off. Seriously. You're just coming in and making an opposite assumption based on the exact same vague statement and acting smug about it.
Lol yeah for sure, none of that is preachy. You're totally reading your own words in a totally unbiased way