In thinking that the BBC...

[Elfina]

Shouldn't spend lots of money paying for very famous actors on Ceebies? Should they really pay for James Corden to do the voice of Charlie bear? Or the very well established actors in lots of their shows? Tiny children don't know who they are, and I can't help but think there's lots of equally talented people who could earn their stripes!

YABU The BBC don't select or pay James Corden. The programme is created & produced by a private company and the BBC just buy the screening rights. Same as a lot of other programmes, in fact.

Oh really? That's a bit depressing.

Um...who is James Corden? Wouldn't be on my list of "very famous actors".

What's depressing?

Oh, just that the capitalist market pervades everything. Should have expected, really.

James C is beloved of the Beeb, for some reason. He was in Gavin and Stacy, and other things.

Possibly the shortest AIBU ever, as I accept IABU!

Oh, just that the capitalist market pervades everything. Should have expected, really
Yes it does. Even when it shouldn't.

Well, James Corden has a little boy who I think is probably currently in the target audience, and the recordings probably only took a day or two. He may not have been paid the same rate as he'd get for other projects, but opted to do it as a nice job that makes a change.

Television is a business not a charity or social project. Programmes cost money to make and need to be sold for a profit. Like a lot of independently produced shows Charley Bear is screened in many countries, all who pay for the rights. Stop me if any of this comes as shock news to you.

Just be grateful the BBC are spending money on British produced shows and not buying in mountains of shitty Korean cartoons and US teen shows.

Corden is an actor not a celebrity. He has to earn a living. Why not him?

I don't think there's any need to be sarcastic, cognito. I said I was BU, and that's fine.

Elfina, I agree with you ( been if it is not the Bbc as such ! )

And by and large they're only paid scale for this sort of work, although they might get a nicer brand of mineral water while they're doing it.

So Corden's doing it for the same money that random person X would get, except he's probably able to do it faster (because he's more experienced) so it works out as more per hour, and keeping his name in the frame with production houses and the BBC itself is doing him no harm.

There's no particular point in a production house paying over the odds for a name who's only famous in the UK; the BBC won't pay enough to offset any extra costs, and outside the UK Corden isn't a name and children's programs are usually dubbed by local actors anyway. You can be pretty certain that, for example, those episodes of Doctor Who that feature Frank Skinner, James Cordon or whoever don't have a penny of extra budget.

I went to a talk by a woman who used to do work as an extra and now does voice over work, some for children's TV.

She says it's brilliant now she has her DS as it's fixed hours, no waiting for weather, delays, main characters to do retakes, scenery to be set up and far fewer technical things to go wrong.

You go, you do your bit, you get home in time for tea!

I've often thought that, same with adverts, why pay someone expensive when you could have anyone do it. However, when your hear "anyone" do it, it becomes apparent very quickly that it's not as easy as it looks/sounds

And PrivateJourney, given almost all advertising voice over is again done for scale, why pay £X to someone who may not be able to do it, when the same £X will get you someone who is reliably good?

Is that really true dugh? Stephen Fry etc gets the same rate as an "anyone"? That does surprise me. I can see why the producers would choose him ahead of someone less experienced/well known and that it would be worth paying him extra though.

Celebs must get more for voice overs surely? Why would they do it otherwise? I get the feeling it's because the money is too good to say no to.

Adverts I mean, rather than programmes. Why do them?

Celebs must get more for voice overs surely? Why would they do it otherwise?

If the celeb is lending their name and face to the campaign it's different. But very few actors are working with sufficient regularity that they would turn down five hundred quid for a day's work in a synch studio (or possibly from home, if they're doing it regularly) putting a voiceover on an advert, nor do they want the reputation of being "difficult" or "picky".

If you're meant to thik "that's so-and-so, wow, I'll buy that" (George Clooney on Nespresso) then the sky's the limit. If it's just that you vaguely recognise the voice, but mostly think "s/he's competent" then it's a few hundred quid.