That you are aware of. They obviously had one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser
Printable View
That you are aware of. They obviously had one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser
And a more legitimate one they could not possibly have. I never thought I'd see the day when I'll identify with those Star Wars fans complaining about Lucas making changes to the original trilogy, but hell, now I do more than ever (and if anything this re-cast is a greater offence than anything Lucas has done to Star Wars).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hav0x
Tricia Helfer is a really good choice. Her voice suits Kerrigan's.
Yup, no chance of Glynnis coming back anymore. Blizzard sold out by going the route of the higher profile actress, which I understand, but I will never respect them for.
Check out the poll at http://blizzconlive.com/en/8/starcraft-ii-lore/Quote:
Originally Posted by Eligor
I'll leave it at that.
http://www.justin.tv/mr_fj2
Free stream if anyones been looking.
Tricia Helfer is a brilliant choice for the character...Quote:
Originally Posted by Raisk
Honestly guys, HEAR HER TAKE first, before you judge.
That's a rather crummy poll. It doesn't allow you to specify what you're happy or unhappy about (or for that matter, whether you're specifically unhappy about the recasting of Kerrigan).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hav0x
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldrius
I'll use the old and tired Darth Vader analogy and would ask you to imagine Darth Vader being recast in the middle of Empire Strikes Back with Orson Welles now doing the voice instead of James Earl Jones. Now, Welles is by far a more highly regarded and "accomplished" actor, but would it be good for the character? Or the story?
If someone truly hated them not going with Glynnis as much as you seem to they would not go with any of the positive options. You are in the minority on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eligor
It doesn't matter. HEAR THE VOICE FIRST.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eligor
Seriously, man, I've been arguing harder than anyone for Glynnis, but let's hear who they cast before we judge.
Oh please. There have been numerous complaints on various websites about them not going with Glynnis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hav0x
Listening to the Kerrigan vs Zeratul clip, was it confirmed that was Strassman? Because if not, I'm pretty sure it's Tricia voicing her there.Quote:
Seriously, man, I've been arguing harder than anyone for Glynnis, but let's hear who they cast before we judge
My issue is with the idea of recasting in the first place. Of course it'll be nice if whatever replacement they have is actually good. But it's much more than just an issue of good vs. bad acting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldrius
She can be as brilliant as she wants. Was Glynnis not brilliant?
And its a bit silly this is spread over two threads, but I'll say it here too. We heard her in the new Old Rivals Kerrigan vs Zeratul CG. What if I do hear more of her and I still dislike it? It wont matter anymore.
I'm just glad that at least clotworthy is back. If I had to choose between Raynor and Kerrigan it would be Raynor's original VA.
And come on people, it's been 4 years since BW, listen to her damn voice and give it a chance as Aldrius says.
Also, I'm ecstatic that Mengsk's original VA is back, I love his voice.
Mengsk's voice is so god damn fantastic I'm considering committing the rest of my life to mimicking it :P
Tricia Helfer as Kerrigan makes me feel weird tho. Maybe because the only roles I've seen her play were as characters you kinda hate? (Six in Battlestar Galactica, whatever her name is in Burn Notice)
Even if she's good, and she may very well be, I don't like the idea of such an important character being re-cast. Especially when she did such a good job the first time around... It really makes me sad - it's like if you'd replaced James Earl Jones with Morgan Freeman inbetween the first and the second Star Wars movie. Sure, both are great, but it doesn't feel right.
Oh well, everyone else sounded great - wish they'd played a clip with her at least.
Another thing to consider is that they DID bring Mengsk and Raynor back... Kerrigan though...??? In a way it would have been MUCH more tolerable had they recast everyone from the get go and been adamant about it.
And I have to repeat that it has nothing to do with "giving the new actress a chance" (why does it seem to me that this is a question of affection for actor winning over affection for character?). Characters SHOULD stay consistent, unions, money and second thoughts on the creative side be damned! Metzen should have thought over his choice for Kerrigan back when they were casting her for the first StarCraft. By now, since he "let it out into the world" the character "belongs" as much to the audience as to him. I'm sick of Blizzard's recent "we didn't do it well enough on the first try/it sucked, so let's change it completely" attitude. It's all very fine and well that the people you cast "weren't exactly what you had in mind/weren't up to industry standards", but that's what the audience fell in love with. Have the integrity and artistic backbone to stick with it (it's not like they didn't do the best they could at the time, they did, but it would be nice to acknowledge and respect it). Especially if you're making a POINT out of continuity and coherence. Gaming is a young industry but one that sure as hell doesn't need famous and glamorous actors to stand on its own ("glamour" in the modern sense of the word is one of the most irritating and pernicious things about show business, all hype and gossip taking attention away from what really matters).
Now, with all this in mind. I still respect Metzen, at least as a writer, and everyone else working on this game (in fact, that the ones responsible are NOT idiots but immensely talented and intelligent people makes it all the more painful). I will still buy the game (most of the effort gone into it wasn't coming from the perniciously self deprecating point of view delineated above) and I would (by most probabilities) enjoy and appreciate the story (yes, including Tricia Helfer as Kerrigan, after all it's not her fault and she will most likely put her best into the character (and actors live to be appreciated)*). However, Blizzard (if you're reading this): if you do bring Glynnis Talken back as Sarah Kerrigan I will buy two, no, FOUR copies of the game and would encourage everyone I know to do the same (hell, I'd happily buy a copy of StarCraft 2 every month for the span of a year or two if you do that!). So, have we got a deal?
Eligor signing off.
*That of course doesn't change the fact that the characters and story will suffer from Talken's absence, however good the replacing actress.
They easily could have. They already brought Raynor back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hav0x
It's her in the new version of the Old Rivals trailer, and they did show a clip, but I couldn't hear it. =[Quote:
Oh well, everyone else sounded great - wish they'd played a clip with her at least.
And I'm really positive Tricia Helfer wasn't hired for the glamour. That's why they built her up over the last few weeks, but I've heard her play voice roles, and she's been fantastic in all of them.
You don't hire an actress like that, parade her around, and then fire her because some people on a forum say so.Quote:
I'd argue with that. As good as she may be, it breaks continuity, and that's something which is not redeemed by an actor's skill (unless there truly is no other choice, the original actor is sick/dead e.t.c).
So, Blizzard is going to remake SC1 using Trisha's voice? No? Then your analogy doesn't work.Quote:
I never thought I'd see the day when I'll identify with those Star Wars fans complaining about Lucas making changes to the original trilogy, but hell, now I do more than ever
Yeah, that's a total sellout. It's not because Trisha rocks ass or anything. :rolleyes:Quote:
Blizzard sold out by going the route of the higher profile actress
In the middle of the movie? Is Trisha only voicing half of Kerrigan's lines in SC2? When was this said?Quote:
would ask you to imagine Darth Vader being recast in the middle of Empire Strikes Back with Orson Welles now doing the voice instead of James Earl Jones.
No. Before or after the movie is acceptable. During it is not.
Well, that's your right as a viewer.Quote:
I'm sick of Blizzard's recent "we didn't do it well enough on the first try/it sucked, so let's change it completely" attitude.
It is Blizzard's right as an artist to choose whatever they feel is appropriate for the artistic work they're making currently.
Actually, it's worse, because then we'd have two alternative versions to choose from. Here there's no alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Just because someone "rocks ass" is no reason to cast them as a certain character, in fact, it's the crummiest and shallowest reason possible. There must be more to a casting choice than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Let me amend it then to "in the middle of a story".Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Not quite. As an artist you can't just go and erase the past, or disregard your former works because you consider them inferior. If you propose to make a sequel to something you ideally should respect not only the letter but the spirit of the thing, especially if you're setting high standards for yourself. You need a very deep and solid reason for any fundamental change, you don't do those things on a whim (of course you can, but then your standards go out of the window).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
I'm gonna quote myself from earlier in the thread, as I made basically the same point as the person you quoted, with a slight difference (which is significant):Quote:
In the middle of the movie? Is Trisha only voicing half of Kerrigan's lines in SC2? When was this said?
No. Before or after the movie is acceptable. During it is not.
Wouldn't that feel weird to you? The new VA will probably do a good job (I mean, it's a Blizzard title... they wouldn't hire her if she didn't), but there is something to be said for continuity and throwing old fans a nostalgic bone.Quote:
Even if she's good, and she may very well be, I don't like the idea of such an important character being re-cast. Especially when she did such a good job the first time around... It really makes me sad - it's like if you'd replaced James Earl Jones with Morgan Freeman inbetween the first and the second Star Wars movie. Sure, both are great, but it doesn't feel right.
Plus, Talken's Kerrigan is very, very good.
So let me get this straight. You have a voice actress who is very good at her job. You've done appropriate testing to make sure that this actress is capable of delivering the performance that you are looking for.Quote:
Just because someone "rocks ass" is no reason to cast them as a certain character, in fact, it's the crummiest and shallowest reason possible. There must be more to a casting choice than that.
And this is the "crummiest and shallowest reason possible". What would be a "good" reason? A decision made 11 years ago?
SC1 was a complete story. SC2 is a new story.Quote:
Let me amend it then to "in the middle of a story".
Bull. That's a modern belief, born of the codification of art that comes with prolonged information storage and copyright.Quote:
As an artist you can't just go and erase the past, or disregard your former works because you consider them inferior.
Retcons, different interpretations, out-and-out rewrites, etc, all have been part of various forms of storytelling in the past.
This modern need to see a work as a finished product that cannot be changed, redacted, and must be followed to the letter by any story that comes after it is exactly that: modern. It isn't true, it isn't good for art in general, and it limits the freedom of the artist to tell the story they want to tell.
What I was talking about was integrity and standards, quite different from copyrights and codifications. Retcons, interpretations and re-writes are wonderful when you make them your intent from the get go (and are clear and candid about it). Claiming to honour a previous work and provide impeccable continuity and then failing to do so has very little to do with artistic freedom and much with artistic fallibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Consistency is an important storytelling tool for any long-standing franchise. It helps make the characters seem more real and fleshed out. Retconning and be a useful tool in small doses, when you have a MUCH, MUCH better idea in mind, but Blizzard overuses it big time.
They are honoring their previous work, it's got nothing to do with fallibility. They have an actress who's performance they feel is better or more fits what they want. Does that make them justified? No, absolutely not. But they're the creators, it's their decision, they made this decision as artists, not as weird, evil, hateful people.Quote:
Claiming to honour a previous work and provide impeccable continuity and then failing to do so has very little to do with artistic freedom and much with artistic fallibility.
So basically...
Consistency is important. (And I think consistency is held here, Tricia's Kerrigan doesn't have the same inflection as Glynnis' but she still sounds quite a bit like her, as far as the core voice is concerned.) But it's Blizzard's prerogative to recast if they want. And doing so isn't damaging their integrity.
Yes -- and they show a complete lack of skill on the part of the writer. If you are constantly relying on changing the rules in your work in order to have the freedom to express whatever the fuck you want, then that, no matter how "cool" or "pretty" or "neat" the changes are, can only mean one thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
YOU SUCK
Actually, this is a very old concept -- centuries old in fact. Artists, writers, and musicians of the past have always enjoyed the challenge of maximizing the beauty of their creations while under the limits enforced by the genre in question. It's a challenge that shows unique skill and talent. It's even almost like a game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
It's one thing thing to write rules for an entirely new genre, but trying to totally break the rules of an established genre just shows a lack of talent and an abundance of stupidity. The same could even apply to gameplay. Quality devs can add gameplay mechanics that are absolutely amazing while under the limit of strict lore. Devs that add random shit and then write in some cheap lore excuse are worthless.
Anyway, point is, while this new chick will probably do fine, I am astounded by the decision not to bring back Glynnis. Metzen himself said that he believed the relationship between Raynor and Kerrigan to be the heart of the Star Craft story line, so why didn't he bring back Glynnis just as he brought back Clotworthy? The whole "new direction" thing is just a bunch of bullshit. Something stupid must have happened.
But yeah, it's way too late now. You don't just fire a big timer like that chick for the sake of some fans. She would have to absolutely suck in order for that to happen, but I think she's gonna do too well for that.
However, no matter how good she sounds, she will NEVER tug on my heart the same way Glynnis did.
EVER
Why do people assume this stuff all the time...?Quote:
The whole "new direction" thing is just a bunch of bullshit. Something stupid must have happened.
This isn't the first time that a creative team has decided they'd like to go in another direction. They do have a new voice director, they are trying to step up the quality, they did hold casting calls for the parts of Jim and Kerrigan. It's not like they didn't try the part out with Glynnis, and as SHE said, every performance she did was labeled as 'an audition'.
Not everything is insidious and not everything is backroom politics.
She's not really a 'big timer'... =S She was in a TV show. James Harper is a live-action actor too.Quote:
But yeah, it's way too late now. You don't just fire a big timer like that chick for the sake of some fans.
My mom lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Hamshank
lolwutQuote:
Originally Posted by spychi
Dunno but it was funny and this thread failed to do so after the second page lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague
*spychi shows himselfs from the shadows* I wasn't pissed *hides again*Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser
P.S. I was cool with both the new Jim and the old Robie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldrius
She's a sci-fi icon. Unfortunately ( I hate saying that in regards to Tricia)it's very unlikely they will re-consider.
What especially bothers me about this whole thing is Blizzard goes to the trouble of bringing everyone back BUT Glynnis. It really comes off as nothing more than "we really wanted someone from BSG in this!"
Like I said, Tricia is a fantastic actress and would most definitely be an great choice for Kerrigan had Glynnis been unable to reprise the role. However, she was. I adore her performance and continuity is always a huge concern of mine so this whole thing is quite a punch to the gut.
It's impossible, I'd think, unfortunately, and even when we thought it was Karen Strassman I was really uncomfortable with arguing about bringing back Glynnis because I was basically arguing for someone to lose her job. >_<Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollo
So very uncomfortable. And I mean if she'd been brutal I wouldn't have felt bad, but she wasn't. Even in that really short clip.
But it's not like that at all... like I said, the only affect that BSG probably had was that they knew her voice from that, and they knew they liked her. That was probably the only affect it had on their casting choice. There was no "OMG NOW WE WILL SELL BILLIONS MORE COPIES THANK TO TRICIA HELFER!!"Quote:
What especially bothers me about this whole thing is Blizzard goes to the trouble of bringing everyone back BUT Glynnis. It really comes off as nothing more than "we really wanted someone from BSG in this!"
Oh I agree with this for the most part. I think Tricia is a great choice regardless, but yes I would have liked to have seen Glynnis return to reprise her role. (Though as far as recasting goes, we still don't have confirmation on Duran or Artanis. :P Though Duran is easy to recast I am assuming.)Quote:
Like I said, Tricia is a fantastic actress and would most definitely be an great choice for Kerrigan had Glynnis been unable to reprise the role. However, she was. I adore her performance and continuity is always a huge concern of mine so this whole thing is quite a punch to the gut.
Which is why I somewhat feel bad seeing Clotworthy back. In the case of Raynor, someoe did lose his job in order for him to return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldrius
...that's what I was trying to say. :pQuote:
But it's not like that at all... like I said, the only affect that BSG probably had was that they knew her voice from that, and they knew they liked her. That was probably the only affect it had on their casting choice.
I don't (mainly) think it was a financial move to boost sales as much as it was Metzen/Blizzard wanting someone from an amazing television show to be apart of their game.
Well I don't even think it was that. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Apollo
I think it was more like they liked her in that show, so she could be good here too. Not specifically because she was from BSG.
Sorry, I'm being a bit difficult. :b
Well, I think he got paid for what he did anyway, I'm pretty sure.Quote:
Which is why I somewhat feel bad seeing Clotworthy back. In the case of Raynor, someoe did lose his job in order for him to return.
But I don't know. I'm actually not sure how interactive fiction contracts work as far as SAG is concerned... =S