Not sure if I will want to actually see it since I’m a usually a sucker for that easy emotional manipulation.

Shit just the trailer alone made me feel a bit mopey inside..

Oh yea.. Phase IV creeped me out when I saw it as a kid. Those monoliths they made were cool.. the ending totally confused me and freaked me out. I have a lot of vague memories of weird 70’s movies like that and “Demonseed” and “Orca” in the dark recesses of my brain. I think I’ll netflix Phase IV.

If you will allow, there are some interesting things that came up in the back and forth. 1. how much needs to be kept from an original piece to retain its core. (esp. for personal works) and the ongoing debate of artistic license 2. the whole famous voice coming from inside a man-in-suit. This actually won’t be a problem because the CG face will lend the feel of an animated cartoon with the physicality of the entire body and environment. It could be very awesome.

Yes, and you’re writing off an entire movie because the two minute trailer didn’t include the appropriate vegetation. Whatever, it’s your opinion dude.

“The Wizard of Oz – not men in suits, face with make-up, try again. Maybe you meant monkey in suit.”

Try again? Try what? I’m not trying to prove you wrong. There’s nothing to be ‘wrong’ about. You’re at a point where you’re basically trying to argue that I don’t actually like the trailer. I really don’t understand what your point is here. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. I don’t care to change your mind and I’m certainly not going to change mine. You’ve given enough reasoning as to why you weren’t impressed and I’ve given enough as to why I WAS impressed. So be it.

You’re still wrong and and idiot though.

I’m joking. About the idiot part.

Trailer is the only vehicle for judging a work prior to release, what am I suppose to do with it? Its created to establish tone, texture and story – that was done in two minutes.

The Wizard of Oz – not men in suits, face with make-up, try again. Maybe you meant monkey in suit.

Just a reminder; you’re coming to this conclusion after having seen less than two minutes of footage. Might want to wait until you see the film. Either way, I don’t really care personally.

“My whole argument with the trailer is the fact that it appears Spike is forcing his “style” on the source material instead of allowing the source material define the direction of the structure, cinematography, casting, etc.”

If this is what you want, then why not just watch the animated version of the book? I know I’m not interested in a shot for shot recreation of it. I’m also not interested in restricting the creative possibilities when adapting major (or minor) works for the big screen. How boring is that?

“It’s a man-in-a-suit, am I to think James Gandolfini is in the suit when I hear his clean voice?!”

I’m reminded of The Wizard of Oz and the fact that the Tin Man, Scarecrow and Cowardly Lion utilized the original voices of the actors. The cowardly lion may have growled now and again, but that was the extent of it. It certainly worked for that film. Don’t see why it can’t work here. The tin man with a voice pushed through a vocoder for logistics sake would’ve been mighty lame.

“Just to be clear, all of the examples given above are examples of true “in camera” men-in-suits performances (no mash-up of different styles) and none of them use establish, recognizable actors for the voices.”

I wasn’t really trying to prove anything other than the fact that I’m a fan of man in suit, and I’m a fan of the enhancement of man in suit with cg. I don’t really care if they are consistent with it. Use it where it needs it.

Not sure what the relevance is of the famous voices behind the creatures in my examples. I already established that I don’t care if it’s a famous person or not.

I simply disagree with you. It’s nothing to do with giving in to any sort of hip trend or being fooled by anyone. I like the trailer. Simple as that.