Would Shrek be as successful without the high paid actors?
 

I realize that some ppl went to see the first shrek and will see the second because of the all star cast that did the voices. However anyone could do voices for movies....

Would the movie be just as big with just anyones doing the voices, and doing them well or does it really matter that Murphy, Myers, Diaz and Banderas are in it?

yes, well i haven't seen the 1st but they makes these for kids but have an adult overtone so the parents don't be bored....so kids get what they want and parents make it a 'blockbuster'

probably but im sure kids would have enjoyed it
no matter whos voices were used. It was a good family
movie and my kids loved it.
:thumbsup

I'm sure the big names really give it a boost, but I would've watched it anyways. Shrek is an awesome movie :thumbsup

It would make no difference for me whatsoever. In fact, the only voice I could recognize when I saw it first was Eddy Murphy's, the rest I didn't even figure out. The flick is awesome no matter who does voices.

What bothers me is that Cameron Diaz got paid $10M for one day's of work on Shrek 2. I have nothing against people making money that they deserve, but that falls into the category of stupidity on the part of Dreamworks.

I think the big names help... but it would have still been successful without them

Shrek successes at the theatres for it's good acting.

like it, but thought it was overrated

Just got back from Shrek 2....it was really good.:)

most definitely...the celeb voices is just extra bonus

They only needed Myers cool voice and Eddies crazy voice!

nice toon:thumbsup children like it a lot but they don`t recognise high paid or less actors :winkwink:

Its the cross marketing baby.

Mike is great at that shit.

Yes, the celebs are only an add-on.

i think it just added to the movie. the script it self is hilarous and the pple that did the voices brought that out even more.