Damn straight.

Yea!!!

And the world breathes a collective sigh of relief.

This should never have become an issue to begin with. You cannot cast a look-alike to replace someone in a non-animated role, so why is Fox allowed to cast sound-alikes to replace voice actors? Why do they not have the same protection over their craft as actor's we experience visually as well as aurally? I think this should galvanize the SAG to protect these people's rights better. I can only imagine how annoying and insulting it would be to hear someone imitating my voice on a show so that they wouldn't have to pay me what I deserve for the success of that show.

I get your point, but SAG is never going to tilt at that windmill anytime soon. Unless you're in serious power, when you sell your script, or series, you're probably going to have to sell the franchise, at the studio's option for pickup. This applies to casting for both voice and audiovisual actors. The role may "belong" to an actor in the public's mind, but as far as the studios are concerned, the actor's performance is as a "hired gun." If they feel the actor is a draw, and their demands aren't too great, they'll bring them back, but it's their option, for the most part.

I'm not defending the studios, but that's the lay of the land. Here's a nice rant on what it's like dealing with wealthy, out-of-touch studio execs:

"Bob Pitches a Movie."

I think Fox pulled this crap just to keep them out of Comic Con

I'm SOOOO glad you started the description with "GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!"

When the story originally broke I ignored it figuring that it was just a publicity stunt. This news doesn't prove it, but to me it reinforces it.