a new whit?

Bennett · Post by **Bennett** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:46 pm

Trent DeWhite wrote:
Bennett wrote:What's the problem?
Besides the fact you have Charlize Theron as your avatar?

Oh, that's bad? It's about time someone should tell me. People started taking my infamous stop-signs. I'm sure she's more spiritual than Obama, however.

I wonder if this means we're in a new set of lineup of children that sound vaguely familiar!! Every Whit seems to have its new series of Children. You know, Paul is to Mandy, as Hal was to Lucy. And DeWhite became the new Lawrence. And maybe even Alex (taken from us way to soon) was the new Sam. And Trent was the new Isaac. Hmm. That's all I got. But they definitely need to find kids that have the 'everlasting' kid voice like Mandy and Lucy did.

Dallas R. · Post by **Dallas R.** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:05 pm

Hold on a minute. I agree with a lot of things we've all said so far. Changing actors always ruins a few seasons of the show in my opinion, but once the change is made we'll eventually except it. (pardoning the new voice of Bart who I'll probably never accept) To quote Wooton, "Change can help things change, and that can be a good thing."

But all that said, I still agree with Gandalf. We're jumping to a lot of conclusions. Are we even sure this is even going to happen? What proof do we have? Even Paul Mccuskcker took that post off of his website.

Finally, I really hope that they don't try and do something ridiculous by trying to make an explanation about why Whit's voice changed. When a show does any explaining, it just cheapens it and brings out the obvious point that the voice has changed. Just move on and go with the flow.

Post by **Bren** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:12 pm

Dallas R. wrote: Are we even sure this is even going to happen? What proof do we have?

From what I can get out of Nathan it is true

Baragon · Post by **Baragon** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:04 pm

A new Whit?! Surely the world is ending!

Laurie · Post by **Laurie** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:02 pm

Admiral wrote:A new Whit?! Surely the world is ending!

I don't think it's quite that bad, but it is cause for sadness, concern and lots of adjustment time.

Irwin · Post by **Irwin** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:08 pm

KODY 105 wrote:Humor alert.
Will Ryan will now voice Connie Kendall, and Katie Leigh will voice the new Whit! Paul Herlinger will now voice the deceased Tom Riley, who will come back as a ghost to teach lessons from the point of view of a dead man!

April Fools is over...Sorry

31899 · Post by **31899** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:23 pm

Irwin wrote:
KODY 105 wrote:Humor alert.
Will Ryan will now voice Connie Kendall, and Katie Leigh will voice the new Whit! Paul Herlinger will now voice the deceased Tom Riley, who will come back as a ghost to teach lessons from the point of view of a dead man!
April Fools is over...Sorry

It's still April. What are you talking about?

Whit could have an aging disorder that causes him to anti-age, or there could be something that happens where he needs voice box surgery which permanently changes his voice.

31899

Chandler · Post by **Chandler** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:30 pm

I doubt they're going to have a voice-change explanation on the show. They didn't have one for Bart Rathbone, did they? Or Whit, or Marvin, or Mary Barclay, or David Straussberg, or Tasha, or Katrina, or Aubrey, or Bethany, or Jason Whittaker, or Armitage Shanks, or... you get the point. We're going to just have to get used to it. And I'm sure we'll have threads were we evaluate every line by the new Whit and compare him to both Paul Herlinger and Hal Smith. All I can say is I hope he doesn't read these forums.

Admiral wrote:A new Whit?! Surely the world is ending!

April Fool's is over... sorry.

greencardigan · Post by **greencardigan** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:41 pm

What I've come away with from all of this is that the writers are really putting the NEW in new AiO episodes.

Bennett · Post by **Bennett** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:53 pm

Shawndlay wrote:I doubt they're going to have a voice-change explanation on the show. They didn't have one for Bart Rathbone, did they? Or Whit, or Marvin, or Mary Barclay, or David Straussberg, or Tasha, or Katrina, or Aubrey, or Bethany, or Jason Whittaker, or Armitage Shanks, or... you get the point. .

Well, some of those did. Even though there aren't given explanations, there are still the explanations we give ourselves. Why did Whit's voice change? Well, because he aged since we last heard him. Paul Herlinger sounded like a much older Whit, I thought. David Straussberg? He matured through puberty (mind you, a poor choice in interpreting the outcome of the guys voice). Marvin? They changed him during puberty as well (which I still believe was one of the best voice changes timing in the odyssey history) Bethany? She got older.

The advantage of Aubrey was how early the change was, same with Mary Barclay. I guess the same could be said for Jason Whittaker.

As for Armitage, the change was poor, but no one could argue because they were killing the character off, and the replacement was a voice change very necessary for gap-filling in the show.

When I think of Katrina's voice change, I think of the change of actor for Dumbledore in Harry potter. No one really complained about the voice change, because he brought about a new dimension to the character. The old Katrina lacked the sweetness and sympathy that the new Katrina brought to the role; crucial to many of the more recent Eugene storylines.

That said, Bart's new voice is purely terrible. I would gladly avoid any further Bart-centric episodes. In this case, it is more of a false imitation, then perhaps a re-envisioning of the character.

Whit is obviously a necessary voice change. And one I'll gladly listen to. We see how it works with Paul Herlinger's effort.
Sure, I would never vote for a voice change for either Connie, Eugene, Bart, Tom, or Bernard, if the time comes. There are some I think have been around for so long that they just shouldn't meddled with. Ever. Odyssey can afford to bring in new characters, instead of spoiling the memories of the past. Some, like Katrina and Whit, are unavoidable. And sometimes better.

Sorry, I was on a rant.

Chandler · Post by **Chandler** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:09 pm

That didn't sound like a rant to me.

Maybe you didn't quite catch my point.

Not one of them was explained on the show. That's my point. There's been three Marvins and four Mary Barclays and no explanation for either voice or personality change. And I'm not saying that there needed to be one. Just saying that's standard fare.

Regarding Katrina, I disagree.

To me the new Katrina has a tendency to sound "snippy" in everyday conversation. Because of that, I've been vocal in my desires that Pamela Hayden come back. Apparently that's not an option so I'm getting resigned to the fact that she's not returning.

Whereas knowing that Walker Edmiston is dead, I'm more willing to accommodate a new sound in Bart's voice. I understand what you're saying about re-envisioning the character but I don't think AIO has had time to do this yet.

Samitude · Post by **Samitude** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:33 pm

I like the new Katrina and I don't think the thing that everyone has a problem with is her voice. I think it's her script....period and full stop. She isn't given Katrina language. We don't hear large, dignified words coming from her mouth. All we hear are short, trite phrases that anybody out there would say. Katrina's speeches have no individuality like they used to have. I think the new Katrina would be accepted right away if she were given proper Katrina conversation. One other thing on the subject of Katrina. Why aren't she and Connie in any episodes together besides the wedding ones? She and Connie have been friends for years. It's always just Eugene and Katrina or just Eugene and Connie. I think it's time for Eugene and Connie to grow up. It was comical when they used to argue, but they've matured now and Eugene's married. It doesn't feel right for them to be quite so argumentative as they were previously and it's not very funny anymore. Let's bring back Billy McPherson for Connie to fall in love with. First off she can argue away with him if she is so inclined.

Chandler · Post by **Chandler** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:45 pm

Samitude wrote:One other thing on the subject of Katrina. Why aren't she and Connie in any episodes together besides the wedding ones? She and Connie have been friends for years. It's always just Eugene and Katrina or just Eugene and Connie. I think it's time for Eugene and Connie to grow up. It was comical when they used to argue, but they've matured now and Eugene's married. It doesn't feel right for them to be quite so argumentative as they were previously and it's not very funny anymore.

Hmm... you do have a point there, Samitude! Since Eugene came back it seemed like there was a lot of emphasis on Connie and Eugene's friendship... like trying to reference the old days but also justify the arguments by saying that deep down they really like each other. Katrina is relatively close to Connie in age so exploring their relationship might give Connie something else to do besides to talk to old men all the time.

Ingress Neverwhere · Post by **Ingress Neverwhere** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:01 am

Bennett wrote:The old Katrina lacked the sweetness and sympathy that the new Katrina brought to the role; crucial to many of the more recent Eugene storylines.

Samitude wrote:I like the new Katrina and I don't think the thing that everyone has a problem with is her voice. I think it's her script....period and full stop. She isn't given Katrina language.

Yes, thank you, yes! Maybe it was because I heard Audrey Wasilewski's Katrina before Pamela Hayden's (listen to episodes in chronological order; what are you, crazy?

), but I personally have no problem with the voice change and actually prefer Audrey over Pamela.

(now watch; I'll get smacked with a trout for going against the status quo)

I do agree with you, Samitude, that the writing for Katrina hasn't been where it should be. She's supposed to be Eugene's intellectual equal, so it stands that she should sound like it. Perhaps she wouldn't be as verbose as Eugene can be at times, but she should have her moments.

Shawndlay wrote:Katrina is relatively close to Connie in age so exploring their relationship might give Connie something else to do besides to talk to old men all the time.

Ooh, now there's an idea for an episode! A girls' day out for Connie and Katrina!

-Kim

KODY 105 · Post by **KODY 105** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:03 am

I missed the RSS feed to "Katrina gets new voice!"...

Mrs Jason Whittaker · Post by **Mrs Jason Whittaker** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:02 am

Samitude wrote:I like the new Katrina and I don't think the thing that everyone has a problem with is her voice. I think it's her script....period and full stop. She isn't given Katrina language. We don't hear large, dignified words coming from her mouth. All we hear are short, trite phrases that anybody out there would say. Katrina's speeches have no individuality like they used to have. I think the new Katrina would be accepted right away if she were given proper Katrina conversation.

EXACTLY!! As far as her voice, the new Katrina isn't that much different from the old Katrina, but I haven't really liked her since the change, and I think that's the reason, her script.

Now, back to the original subject. A new voice for Whit would not be the easiest thing to get used to, but I'm willing to give it a try.

Over the Rainbow · Post by **Over the Rainbow** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:19 am

Ingress Neverwhere wrote:
Bennett wrote:The old Katrina lacked the sweetness and sympathy that the new Katrina brought to the role; crucial to many of the more recent Eugene storylines.

Samitude wrote:I like the new Katrina and I don't think the thing that everyone has a problem with is her voice. I think it's her script....period and full stop. She isn't given Katrina language.

I agree with both of these quotes, 100%.

The old Katrina, got on my nerves many times. Sometimes she seemed to be rude, and, well, idk, she just annoyed me sometimes. The new Katrina seems a lot sweeter, which I prefer. However, I do must her intelligent conversations and dignified language.

Bennett · Post by **Bennett** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:57 pm

Shawndlay wrote: Not one of them was explained on the show. That's my point.

I understood the point, and understand you're saying it is usual that they don't. I suppose I was simply commenting that it works well when the audience can give a reason for themselves why there's a voice change. Proper Timing, and the appropriateness of the voice in the series can do a lot. For a character like Tasha, it was simply inexcusable why they should bring her back knowing she'd sound different. They could have simply brought about a different character. For Marvin, the voice change was both crucial because he was part of a new family where his absence would have gone noticed, his voice was changing--explaining any different voice, and the replacement turned out better than the previous. Worked well.

Jimmy Barclay Fan · Post by **Jimmy Barclay Fan** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:57 pm

I wonder if Paul Herlinger/ the show knew that would be his last episode when he taped it.

I just noticed this last night, so I never saw it on Paul McCusker's site. I am surprised, but do not wanna speculate. I am sure the AIO staff knows more, and its their business, and we will see what happens. They know what they are doing.

Stubborn · Post by **Stubborn** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:43 pm

Samitude wrote:... Let's bring back Billy McPherson for Connie to fall in love with...

Wait, wha...? Did I miss something, here?