User Avatar Image

Lorax Movie

posted by supmandude85 on - last edited - Viewed by 257 users

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

21 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • 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.

  • @mathman77 said: 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • @Alcoremortis said: 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.

  • @Rather Dashing said: 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

Add Comment