Well, pretty self explanatory stuff here. Let’s make a list(similar to Rachelcakes1985’s Pixar reference list) of every repeated actor, whether they be Pixar employed, or hired actors. I’ll start
Elissa Knight-Tia(Cars) and EVE(Wall-E)
Edie McClurg-Mini(Cars) and Dr. Flora(A Bug’s Life)
Andrew Stanton-TONS(you can list if you want)
John Lasseter-Ditto
Brad Bird- Edna Mode(The Incredibles) and Ambrister(Ratatouille)
Brad Garrett-Bloat(Finding Nemo), Dim(A Bug’s Life), Gusteau(Ratatouille), more?
I’ve noticed that Bonnie Hunt has been one of Pixar’s more favorable hired voices cause she’s one of the only ones outside of John Ratzenberger that’s been given parts the most. She was Rosie in A Bug’s Life, Flint in Monsters Inc. (if you don’t remember her, she’s that training supervisor talking to Bile at the beginning of the film), Sally in Cars, and now Dolly.
Jeff Garlin is getting there also cause he had just done Captain McCrea right before doing Buttercup.
I see only one other person said John Ratzenburger…the good luck token and in every movie . I wonder who will be when he retires/dies…as much of an unpleasant thought as it is.
And, as we know, he was Ham, P.T Flea, The Abominable Snow Monster, the School of Silverfish leader, The Underminer, Mac, Mustafa, John (lol) and the Foreman. I REALLY wonder what his character will be like in Brave…and how they encounter the Snow Monster in MI2.
Maybe it’ll be like a Celtic court jester or something
I think it would be safe to assume that they’d bring the Yeti back somehow. They’d have to if they want him to be in every film, cause they had already established that it was his character. I think it would be funny though if they used Bigfoot and he had the same voice as the Yeti.
I find it interesting that on The Incredibles commentary, Bird mentions that he initially didn’t intend to the honour the Pixar tradition to always include a part for Mr. Ratzenberger, but then decided that he’d be good as The Underminer.
It does make me wonder at what point it became an “official” tradition. Did they like him so much as Hamm that they decided then and there he’d be in every film? Was it when they brought him back to voice PT Flea? Obviously he was going to reprise the role of Hamm again in Toy Story 2. Certainly by Monsters, Inc, the tradition had become set in stone.
Well I know they think of him as their “good luck charm”, but I don’t know if they would have been thinking of him as one while still making the original Toy Story. It could be after the film was so successful or have something to do with people liking him as Hamm.
I noticed that PIxar likes to recycle a lot of their previously used actors (and who can blame them? They are talented, and to voice act for a character at Pixar should be considered an honor). I like it though when Pixar uses new actors in their movies though.
Oh, here’s another one, and from one of my personal favourites too - Wallace “Inconceivable!” Shawn is the voice of both Rex in the Toy Story films, and Gilbert Hugh (Bob Parr’s boss) in The Incredibles.
You make so many good points here! I don’t even want to think about a Pixar movie made after John Ratzenburger dies.
As for MI2, maybe Abominable will be allowed to return to the Monster world. Considring that Sulley is now in such a standing, and he and Mike both now Abominable is more “adorable” than his namesake lends, maybe he’ll be able to pull some strings and get Abominable a job on the laugh floor.
Do you think Abominable would make a good “laugher”? Haha. He sure would make me laugh if he came through my closet.
Another thought: wouldn’t it be interesting if John was one day given a really important character. I think it really depends on the film and the characters themselves, but I don’t think he’ll ever be the Woody, Flick, Marlin,or Remy of a Pixar movie, but I could see him voicing a character of such importance as Jessie, Dug, or Mater.
Thats why I dont care too much for Brad Bird! He’s got an EGO like that for no reason. He “came up” with the incredibles, but really all he did was open up some issues of Fantastic Four and some of the Watchmen steal some ideas.
I don’t know if I’d consider it “ego” myself. I just don’t think Bird saw any reason to shoehorn Ratzenberger into his film for the sake of it. If there wasn’t a part which naturally stood out as a “Ratzenberger role”, then why try to force him in anyway?
I actually like what Bird did with Ratzenberger in the end - he kept him in but made his presence a bit more subtle than it had previously been. A nice thing about Mustafa and the Underminer is that they weren’t as immediately recognisable as the overwhelming majority of his Pixar roles. It makes for a nice change of pace when you actually have to think about it now and then, instead of just thinking, “Oh hey, it’s Ratzenberger again.”
Sure both Fantastic Four and TI are about super hero families, and sure both Watchmen and TI are about world’s where superheroes have been outlawed and then returned to action, but did Brad Bird really steal from these pieces? I guess the general premise to TI and Watchmen is really similar… but I think they go about things in a different way and the reasoning for outlawing heroes is entirely different. You could even argue then that Marvel ripped off these two works with Civil War by attempting to make all costumed heroes register their secret identies (yes this is different, but it just proves that the government getting involved with super heroes is not an original/unique idea that Alan Moore owns the rights to). Perhaps Brad Bird is just trying to honor these works through TI, sort of like an extended but not so obvious easter egg.
Thinking back, five Pixar films were released before TI. As Mogwai
said, John Ratzenberger obiously was going to return for TS2. I agree that MI probably set the tradition in stone. However, as Disney’s Mulan suggests (particuarly in the stage production), nothing is written stone. Maybe this is the attitude Brad Bird felt. Maybe he just thought that if there isn’t a role suited to Ratzenberger, why should he just throw one in for the sake of tradition and sacrifice the integrity of the film?
What if Pixar one day makes a movie where no character is suited for Ratzenberger’s voice? We all know they cast according to the character and not just based off of big names coughShark Tale. However, I’m sure Pixar will always strive as much as possible to include him some how.
Also, perhaps at the time of TI’s production the tradition was only something for Lasseter, Docter, and Stanton. They were after all the first three animators hired at Pixar and of course created the initial Brain Trust years before Bird joined the studio. Perhaps he didn’t want to intrude on their special tradition or maybe he felt it wasn’t his place to use Ratzenberger.
Then again, maybe he just does have a huge ego like Tyler suggests. I haven’t felt that from watching his commentaries and interviews, but I don’t personally know him. He might be the most egotistic person in the world.
I hope that isn’t the case though. His two Pixar films are two of my favorites.
I’ll be honest here - I’ve enjoyed Ratzenberger’s work in just about every Pixar film, but there have been occasions when I’ve found him somewhat jarring. If his “John Ratzenbergerish-ness” is too overplayed, then it can kind of detract from the “reality” of the world you’re in, because you’re thinking, “oh, and here’s the obligatory John Ratzenberger cameo again”. That’s why I can understand why Bird may have been a bit hesitant to include him to begin with, and why, as I said in my last, I enjoyed the approach he eventually took.
Haha he’s one of my favorites, because those are my two favorite movies!! TylerHaslett, I disagree. However I’m glad he did fit. Bud Luckey adds to the list as Rick Dicker and Chuckles the clown
Wallace Shawn has been kind of a regular Disney voice actor as well. He played the school principal in A Goofy Movie (which was the same year he was in Toy Story) and the one in Chicken Little. That might be why he’s often available to do Rex.
. I wonder who will be when he retires/dies…as much of an unpleasant thought as it is.
