This year, a new animated Garfield movie is coming out. Directed by Mark Dindal, the guy who did The Emperor’s New Groove, this seems like a simple but decently fun little movie. However, any conversation around this movie has been overshadowed by one little detail, and rightfully so. The studio decided to cast Chris Pratt as Garfield. Yes, the same guy who caused a stir when he was cast as Mario, a character who is defined by his specific voice, is now going to go through the motions with his regular voice as another iconic character who also has a known distinctive voice.
It’s no secret that Hollywood has had a bad habit of filling their animated casts with known celebrities. Ever since Robin Williams was cast in Aladdin, the prevailing mindset from executives is that star power should be prioritized for these types of movies. While this was a modest trend in the 90s, it exploded into a different beast once the 2000s came around with Shrek becoming a monster hit. While I and many others love Shrek, there is no denying that Hollywood took all the wrong lessons from it. What people appreciated about the movie was its great comedic dialogue, characters, and story that pushed conventions and experimented with new ideas compared to other animated films around the same time. Instead, studio heads believed that the elements that made Shrek successful were that it was CGI, that it was filled with crude humor and pop culture references, and most importantly, that it had a huge all-star cast. Even since then, so many American animated films have focused on these elements, especially in regard to loading the voice cast with any type of relevant celebrities.
In hindsight, this has been played out in that it just feels like there’s no point in casting a celebrity in these types of movies both in practice and in terms of marketability. Before, actors would at least try to perform distinctive characters. While Mike Myers was a draw for Shrek, he also put in the effort to portray a distinctive character rather than just himself. Now, it feels like so many celebrities are just playing themselves when they are cast in an animated film. They either sound just like themselves rather than trying to play a distinctive character, or give a stilted performance that doesn’t try. While more of them do the former with some effort put in, it is frustrating that so many characters end up being defined by being voiced by so-and-so rather than for their traits. A lesser-known performer would help give distinctive traits to a character they perform and would probably try harder since a lot of celebrities see animated films as less like important work and more like an easy paycheck. Even going into the argument that celebrities help with promotion, let’s ask this, did casting Chris Pratt in the Mario movie increase ticket sales? Would the movie have made any less money if they cast a lesser-known actor or even a voice actor in the role? Given that Mario is one of the most iconic and successful franchises, the excuse of marketability is nonexistent since the brand itself easily sells tickets. Or how about Sean Penn in The Angry Birds Movie. Did getting an actor like him to only do growls bring more people into theaters? It just feels like so many casting choices are either made with shortsighted perception or just don’t make sense when their presence doesn’t bring anything to the movie they are attached to.
Plus, movie stars just aren’t as big of a draw anymore in movies in general. Back in the ’90s and early 2000s, actors headlined comedies and action films and could draw in people simply based on their names being attached. However, with how franchises and brands have been the focus for the past decade, while actors are recognizable and people do still follow their work, they aren’t the end-all-be-all anymore for what sells tickets. The success of Oppenheimer and Barbie was likely helped by who they cast. However, it is also clear that other factors like social media trends, the prestige and popularity of the directors, and in Barbie’s case, the brand were more important in getting someone to spend money on a ticket. The age of the movie star has dwindled and audiences don’t always go to a movie simply because they have a recognizable actor involved anymore. Thus, I don’t think that putting known celebrities on the poster of an animated film is the marketing draw it used to be.
Finally, casting celebs can be a drain on the resources for these movies. Whenever a celebrity gets a voice role, studios tend to empty their pockets to get them on board. Steve Carell was paid 12.5 million for his role in Minions: The Rise of Gru, which is a reasonably large percentage of the 80-million-dollar budget of the film. Given how so many known actors are brought on board with even smaller parts, it’s not unreasonable to assume that studios use a large and quite unreasonable part of the budget for just them. It’s even gotten to a point where it has started to self-cannibalize itself at some level. For Inside Out 2, Amy Pohler was paid 5 million with a ton of bonuses, but the rest of the cast was only offered 100,000 each. This led to Bill Hader and Mindy Kaling not coming back and being replaced. And yet, despite this spending, studios are crying poor and trying to downsize their in-house staff out of the claim that they can’t sustain themselves. Disney has produced films that, on average, reach 150 to 200 million budgets. DreamWorks has recently started gutting about half of its workforce and will sell its current campus in a desire to outsource much more of its work even though they have shifted its budgets to be lower than 100 million on average in the past few years. At some level, spending so much for a celebrity who might not be the draw studio heads think they would be doesn’t seem to be the most reasonable investment.
I’m not saying that studios should hire no-names so they don’t have to pay them that much either. Rather, I feel that getting lesser-known talent exposure through roles like these and decently sized paychecks should be what replaces over-exposed and unfitting celebrity casting. There are so many voice actors who would do a much better job performing many characters in recent movies compared to the celebrities that are brought in. Doing a voice-over is different from regular acting, so those who are trained in that field would do a better job than someone who is only brought on board for their name recognition. And if not voice actors, why not aim for lesser-known or more niche actors in general? For example, there are plenty of Asian actresses aside from Awkwafina that could be cast in the roles she has been given since only relying on her would feel redundant and limiting. Unfortunately, most studios would view this more frugally to cut down costs since that’s how they operate. Either open the vaults for a name they believe will bring in money, or get obscure names so they won’t have to pay much. Even then, the fact that it’s been proven that just having a big name doesn’t immediate equate to box office success shows how flawed this thinking is.
Hollywood in general has had a problem of overspending on their movies and it has come at the cost of jobs lower on the ladder. Given recent labor strikes in Hollywood and talks of a potential one for animators sooner or later, it just seems ignorant to keep throwing so much money at celebrities who only come in to record voices for a few days rather than addressing the problems affecting the people doing most of the work for these projects. Plus, it just feels like an endeavor that limits the potential of films. When you get a celebrity like Jack Black who commits to their part and makes it their own and genuinely cares about the film they are involved with, then it’s fine. But most of the time, it just feels like a celebrity is there for the sake of it and either adds nothing or detracts when a lesser-known performer could have done their job much better. It does feel like an outdated perception pushed by executives who want to keep a formula for success going. I mean, that does describe the entertainment industry in more ways than one. But regardless, while I don’t think we should have no recognizable performers in these movies, it’s reasonable to ask the industry to tone it down. Smaller or even larger parts can go to a variety of performers and open up new opportunities. Plus, it adds to the memorability of stories and characters rather than reminding them of some performers they recognize. Lesser-known actors were cast in Disney films before, but the lack of celebrities in the cast didn’t limit the success their films initially had. The stories and characters appealed to audiences and made them want to go see it which is what a good film should do. Even Robin Willaims, the casting choice who arguably started the trend, was beloved in Aladdin because of his performance and how well he fit the character, not that he was famous. Some studios do cast better than most such as Pixar since they have usually cast actors who while recognizable aren’t gigantic names. However, most still think getting a big comedian to speak a few lines is what brings in money and it just feels unnecessary at this point. I do feel that animated films have to evolve and change at some level since it’s been over 20 years since Shrek and relying on the trends it created feel more dried out than ever. Take more risks, experiment, and let new things flourish rather than just doing more of the same thing.
