›

Lorax Movie

supmandude85supmandude85
edited November 2011 in General Chat
What do you guys think of the new Lorax trailer? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adrlWJePbk8

Personally, I think it looks just like a Dr. Seuss book, but if you ever read the book it's alot darker and I don't think it should be portrayed this way. Plus, the new subplot seems pointless and showing the Once-ler is an abomination.

However, I don't think it could be as bad as The Cat in the Hat was:

aywvg8.png

Comments

  • mathman77mathman77
    edited November 2011
    It will probably be a decent kids movie, but it will no doubt ruin the book. Way too happy and colorful, and the message will be nowhere near as strong as it should be. On the plus side, the last line in the trailer was hysterical.
  • supmandude85supmandude85
    edited November 2011
    mathman77 wrote: »
    It will probably be a decent kids movie, but it will no doubt ruin the book. Way too happy and colorful, and the message will be nowhere near as strong as it should be. On the plus side, the last line in the trailer was hysterical.

    I agree. Plus, they already made a Lorax cartoon that's way more true to the source material. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5jnJdnQPr8
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited November 2011
    This trailer isn't new, I saw it back in Septemer.

    Anyway, ugly, ugly, ugly, obnoxious subplot, terrible choice for the Lorax's voice, and yet another gigantic shit on this poor man's work. The "joke" line at the end was so obnoxious and painful I wanted to rip my face off when I heard it. And I guess the Hollywood-mandated Romance Subplot is now being applied to entirely unrelated Seuess books, too. I don't think they even know why they include romance subplots anymore, they just do because they don't know how else to do shit.
  • Martin McFlyMartin McFly
    edited November 2011
    The Lorax was definitely one of my favorite books as a child but this movie really looks like it's catering to kids and ignoring the gloomier themes that were present in the book. The idea that the main kid's motivation is simply impressing his crush is extremely unnecessary and just conforming to the typical kids film formula.

    Seeing the Once-ler being portrayed as a human without any suspense about his species really disappoints me. In the book and the television special, you never really got a good look at the Once-ler and I thought that leaving it ambiguous was extremely effective. Maybe the producers felt there weren't enough human characters? Either way, I would've preferred the ambiguous nature of the Once-ler.

    I can't speak for anyone else but at first glance, I'm not looking forward to it.
  • AlcoremortisAlcoremortis
    edited November 2011
    Horton Hears a Who was the best movie that has come out of Dr. Seuss, in my opinion, with the possible exception of that Grinch animated film that came out forever and a day ago.

    While I do think animation is the best way to portray Dr. Seuss...this trailer really doesn't look like they've got quite the...feel of it. I don't really know why, because the character designs and scenery were pretty spot on. Maybe it was the music.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited November 2011
    Alcoremortis wrote: »
    Horton Hears a Who was the best movie that has come out of Dr. Seuss, in my opinion, with the possible exception of that Grinch animated film that came out forever and a day ago.

    While I do think animation is the best way to portray Dr. Seuss...this trailer really doesn't look like they've got quite the...feel of it. I don't really know why, because the character designs and scenery were pretty spot on. Maybe it was the music.
    For me, it's the movement. CG animation has an issue where the motion is so on-model that it doesn't have a chance to feel "alive" the way a drawing can. Look at the movement of the cars in this clip.. Notice how "dead" the objects are, relatively, in the CG trailer. The CG also looks "plastic", compared to the two-dimensional, hand-drawn animation that looks, well, hand-drawn, like the illustrations of the book...because it *was* hand-drawn.
  • supmandude85supmandude85
    edited November 2011
    Rather Dashing wrote: »
    For me, it's the movement. CG animation has an issue where the motion is so on-model that it doesn't have a chance to feel "alive" the way a drawing can. Look at the movement of the cars in this clip.. Notice how "dead" the objects are, relatively, in the CG trailer. The CG also looks "plastic", compared to the two-dimensional, hand-drawn animation that looks, well, hand-drawn, like the illustrations of the book...because it *was* hand-drawn.

    While we're on the topic:

    simpsonscompare.gif

    I fail to see how people consider this an improvement.
  • AlcoremortisAlcoremortis
    edited November 2011
    This is the reason I like Horton Hears a Who so much. Or one of the reasons. I thought the movie was pretty excellent overall, but this scene was really the one that made me want to watch it again and again. This and the mountain chase scene, but I couldn't find a clip of that on youtube.

    I just love how the drama is carried out, it really made me feel the sense of danger with the split view, the music played is probably my favorite from the film, there's all sorts of wacky gadgets like the music machine that really just give me that Seussian feel. And the bits of Dr. Seuss text woven through just really tie the whole thing together.

    The seventies version might be word for word more accurate and 2D and hand drawn, but in terms of making the world come alive with humor and drama and really having soul, I find this adaptation to be better. I didn't feel anything watching the thirty minute seventies feature. But watching this scene, even now when I was searching for it on youtube, made me feel the tension of the moment, the exhilaration. And when it comes down to it, the idea is for a film to evoke some sort of emotional response, and this one certainly did for me.
  • supmandude85supmandude85
    edited November 2011
    I'll agree the original Horton cartoon didn't trigger any real emotions, but that's the strong suit of The Lorax cartoon. Just watch this ending scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzYRkGIQpOs&list=PLBA145EDD98A2C843#t=7m7s

    It's so perfectly bitter sweet at the end and Hollywood will never pull it off. I can tell you how the movie will end right now: The boy will plant the tree and the Lorax will come back and everyone will be happy again. Then he'll use the forest to impress that girl and she'll fall in love with him and there will be some big romantic scene. *cut to credits*

    It works so much better where it ended in the original version, because it impacted the viewer/reader more. It also got the moral out better.
  • AlcoremortisAlcoremortis
    edited November 2011
    Well you can see that it's not going to follow the original storyline by the fact that the future world is a perfectly nice, clean happy place and not the smog-filled hellhole that it's supposed to be in the book. The only difference is trees. The could have still had the whole "impress the girl thing" as a side plot I think, if they had a drearier starting place and ended the story with something similar to the seventies short.

    I guess I'm saying that I would be perfectly happy with a CGI animation if it was an adaptation similar to the Horton Hears a Who one. Not the same way, of course, but with the same attitude to the source material.
  • supmandude85supmandude85
    edited November 2011
    Alcoremortis wrote: »
    Well you can see that it's not going to follow the original storyline by the fact that the future world is a perfectly nice, clean happy place and not the smog-filled hellhole that it's supposed to be in the book. The only difference is trees. The could have still had the whole "impress the girl thing" as a side plot I think, if they had a drearier starting place and ended the story with something similar to the seventies short.

    I guess I'm saying that I would be perfectly happy with a CGI animation if it was an adaptation similar to the Horton Hears a Who one. Not the same way, of course, but with the same attitude to the source material.

    I'd be OK with that to, but they are botching the moral with the perfect world they live in. And in order to have the love story resolve the need to RUIN the ending. Dr. Seuss knew what he was doing, by ending it bitter sweet it puts what happens to the reader. After reading the book the kids are obviously going to know that the boy should plant it, causing the moral to stick a lot more. Which was the only reason they had the boy at all.

    In short if you're going to see the new forest grow there is no point to having the boy subplot at all. (I know I haven't seen the movie, but I sill know for a fact it will happen.)
  • LuigiHannLuigiHann
    edited November 2011
    I feel like there needs to be like a 40-minute limit on children's book adaptations. That trailer is clearly resorting to Jumanji-like levels of just making crap up. It looks like it could be a decent movie in its own right but it's clearly just doing its own thing.
  • bobber56bobber56
    edited November 2011
    Jim Carrey and Mike Myers were hilarious in those movies. And Danny Devito is a comic genius.
  • supmandude85supmandude85
    edited November 2011
    bobber56 wrote: »
    Jim Carrey and Mike Myers were hilarious in those movies. And Danny Devito is a comic genius.

    But they have to be able to fit the character. I'll give Jim Carrey credit he fit the Grinch well, but Mike Myers was a horrible choice for the Cat in the Hat. Also, I always thought of the Lorax as like a hippie, but I'll still give Danny Devito a chance with this.
  • mangacxmangacx
    edited November 2011
    very right
  • DAISHIDAISHI
    edited November 2011
    This looks pretty good and mildly inspirational. I'll probably enjoy it.
  • PecanBluePecanBlue
    edited November 2011
    Rather Dashing wrote: »
    Anyway, ugly, ugly, ugly, obnoxious subplot, terrible choice for the Lorax's voice, and yet another gigantic shit on this poor man's work. The "joke" line at the end was so obnoxious and painful I wanted to rip my face off when I heard it. And I guess the Hollywood-mandated Romance Subplot is now being applied to entirely unrelated Seuess books, too. I don't think they even know why they include romance subplots anymore, they just do because they don't know how else to do shit.

    This is pretty much my opinion too. Modern Dr. Seuss movies are just pure garbage and miss the entire point and heart of the story in the mess of typical Hollywood tripe, and I mean to an offensive extent. Maybe the Grinch movie was a LITTLE, TINY BIT forgivable (and I have not seen Horton Hears a Who) since they were just starting out, and attempted to stretch it out as much as they could, but it just kept getting worse after that movie.

    Just stick to the cartoons because yeah, they get the point of the books across much better.
  • AlcoremortisAlcoremortis
    edited November 2011
    PecanBlue wrote: »
    This is pretty much my opinion too. Modern Dr. Seuss movies are just pure garbage and miss the entire point and heart of the story in the mess of typical Hollywood tripe, and I mean to an offensive extent. Maybe the Grinch movie was a LITTLE, TINY BIT forgivable (and I have not seen Horton Hears a Who) since they were just starting out, and attempted to stretch it out as much as they could, but it just kept getting worse after that movie.

    Just stick to the cartoons because yeah, they get the point of the books across much better.

    See my above link for Horton Hears a Who. It's, in my opinion, the best movie that's come out of Doctor Seuss books. No romance subplot at all.
  • DAISHIDAISHI
    edited November 2011
    I don't think the romance subplot is necessarily bad. The kid needs a motivation that's easily relatable. If it's simple greed then that makes him
    into a bogeyman with only the most meager morivation: profit. Ok, but why?
  • AlcoremortisAlcoremortis
    edited November 2011
    DAISHI wrote: »
    I don't think the romance subplot is necessarily bad. The kid needs a motivation that's easily relatable. If it's simple greed then that makes him
    into a bogeyman with only the most meager morivation: profit. Ok, but why?

    But it's not the tree-choppy guy that has the romance! It's the kid that gets the seed to plant that has the romance.
  • supmandude85supmandude85
    edited November 2011
    Alcoremortis wrote: »
    But it's not the tree-choppy guy that has the romance! It's the kid that gets the seed to plant that has the romance.

    This is right. I actually think that the Once-ler having a love interest that he tries to impress with the Thneed company would be a pretty good idea and a nice way to stretch the story out.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.