How bad can the Lorax be?

[Sunken Valley]

I'm from the UK so we don't get Dr Seuss's The Lorax in cinemas til late July. But from what I hear it's getting mixed reviews. Some ridicuously praise other brutally attack. Even TGWTG are in on it. What I want to know is why is this film getting so much attention. It seems to be just an expanded adaption of Dr Seuss made by the "Despicable Me" crew. What is the fuss?

[Obrysii]

What is the fuss?

A big part is the mixed message. The Lorax was an anti-consumerism, pro-environment story ... and now it's being pushed with a ton of merchandise and random commercial spots.

[Sunken Valley]

A big part is the mixed message. The Lorax was an anti-consumerism, pro-environment story ... and now it's being pushed with a ton of merchandise and random commercial spots.

Same thing happened to Wall-E but it did not get this much news. Maybe the net was smaller in 2008.

Besides, the merchandise department and the film are two separate entities.

[Scowling Dragon]

Its a dumbing down of a smart story. Watch the N.chicks review of it.

It took a smart environmental story and turned it into everything else.

What once had a solem profit obsessed buisnessman who later regrets his actions now has that buisnessman a WACKY SPAZ!

With an antagonist who sings about how he loves pollution is introduced.

[Sunken Valley]

Its a dumbing down of a smart story. Watch the N.chicks review of it.

It took a smart environmental story and turned it into everything else.

What once had a solem profit obsessed buisnessman who later regrets his actions now has that buisnessman a WACKY SPAZ!

With an antagonist who sings about how he loves pollution is introduced.

I did watch that review. This film does nothing specifically which distinguishes it for all the hate its getting.

The bussiness man still regrets his actions.

And there is no antagonist "singing about his love for pollution". "let it die" is only line in a song. And the "villain" song is about profit.

Not a single detail of the book is changed for the film apart from the Oncelers face. All that happens is that it has been padded.

[Scowling Dragon]

Fine, if thats not enough for you then you will enjoy the movie. What I saw made me angry.

I don't want to get into an argument about this.

[Mauve Shirt]

The padding is bad enough to ruin it for me. The Lorax is a solemn story with a kind of depressing outcome and an environmental message. Adding more characters and making them WACKY!!!! is a terrible thing.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Same thing happened to Wall-E but it did not get this much news. Maybe the net was smaller in 2008.

Besides, the merchandise department and the film are two separate entities.

Wall-E was an accident of the setting something that can be seen watching it. The writers want to tell you a love story about two robots and do so, the rest is just so much window dressing. Any "green aesop" is accidental as the plant is a Macguffin thus by definition unimportant to the real story.

The Lorax is one of the original green aesops, and perhaps more to the point not a happy "Hollywood" story. Check out a bite from this review (http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147573582/the-lorax-a-campy-and-whimsical-seussical):


Early on, a character not in the book, Audrey, voiced by Taylor Swift, tells lovelorn 12-year-old Ted, voiced by Zac Efron, that once, nearby their now paved-over town, there were truffula trees: "The touch of their tufts was much softer than silk, and they had the sweet smell of fresh butterfly milk" — and Ted says, "Wow, what does that even mean?" and Audrey says, "I know, right?" So one of the only lines that is from the book, that does have Dr. Seuss' sublime whimsy, is basically made fun of, or at least dragged down to Earth.

If that's not a crime against poetry I don't know what is.

[KillianHawkeye]

I for one won't be able to get over the fact that the Lorax is voiced by Danny DeVito. Talk about terrible casting! :smallmad:

I used to watch the REAL Lorax movie when I was a kid, and the Lorax is supposed to sound like a tiny, tired old man--not a short, grumpy, old fat man.

[shadow_archmagi]

I liked it. It was cute, and it still delivered on the green message. Of course, it's been years since I looked at the original, so I don't have the attachments most people did. I can understand padding a book that's about ten pages long and intended for small children to finish quickly, though, so I wasn't really bothered.

[kpenguin]

I find the whole thing kinda wonderfully subversive. Like painting over a billboard with a corporate advertisement to reflect a green message. Only the green message is the one with the billboard and the corporation is the one painting it over. :smallbiggrin:

[Soras Teva Gee]

I find the whole thing kinda wonderfully subversive. Like painting over a billboard with a corporate advertisement to reflect a green message. Only the green message is the one with the billboard and the corporation is the one painting it over. :smallbiggrin:

I heard that it was originally going to be less environmental then it ended up... and that a bunch of school kids got wind of this and petitioned to change it. The studio did and is playing it up like a good thing.

So yeah you are about spot on oh modguin.

[MCerberus]

I find the whole thing kinda wonderfully subversive. Like painting over a billboard with a corporate advertisement to reflect a green message. Only the green message is the one with the billboard and the corporation is the one painting it over. :smallbiggrin:
Misread it, yah I agree. I got the feeling that this was focus-tested to oblivion.

[AtlanteanTroll]

I for one won't be able to get over the fact that the Lorax is voiced by Danny DeVito. Talk about terrible casting! :smallmad:

Funny. That's one of the things I don't actually mind and I loved the original cartoon as a small child.

[Yellow]

The songs are pretty catchy.

Other than that, it seemed weird to me that the Lorax is the title character but is barely in the movie. Instead they devote a lot of time to the Onceler being a dork, and the random kid who now has a name and a backstory.

I found it hard to care much about Ted because now instead of being a kid who actually cares and wants to know what happened to the world, he's just a kid with a crush trying to get laid by playing along with some chick's environmentalism.

[Mewtarthio]

The Lorax is one of the original green aesops, and perhaps more to the point not a happy "Hollywood" story. Check out a bite from this review (http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147573582/the-lorax-a-campy-and-whimsical-seussical):

[...]

If that's not a crime against poetry I don't know what is.

I-- But-- You--

...You could at least pretend to respect the source material, Hollywood! :smallfurious: I really don't care if the adaptation isn't 100% faithful, but overtly mocking the original work is really going a bit too far.

[Starwulf]

Me and my wife both want to see it. we wanted to take our daughters to it, but didn't have the money. Neither of us could care less about the "green theme" of it, we don't watch movies or read books to support someones political or environmental or other message, we watch movies for fun and entertainment, and to be honest, we both hold the strict opinion that people really shouldn't get so worked up over a movie. Don't like, don't watch it!

[thubby]

the lorax was an interesting, tragic story.

rather than try and retell or expand on that story, they took the names and looks and remade despicable me.

[grimbold]

I-- But-- You--

...You could at least pretend to respect the source material, Hollywood! :smallfurious: I really don't care if the adaptation isn't 100% faithful, but overtly mocking the original work is really going a bit too far.

this
i just might cry myself to sleep now

[turkishproverb]

*looks at thread title*

Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

[Ubiq]

What is the fuss?

"They Changed It Therefore It Sucks" syndrome. Nothing more than that and woefully unjustified if you ask me. Just watch the film as not just a commentary on the environment, but the impact of the actual book itself on the way we think about the environment.

[Dumbledore lives]

"They Changed It Therefore It Sucks" syndrome. Nothing more than that and woefully unjustified if you ask me. Just watch the film as not just a commentary on the environment, but the impact of the actual book itself on the way we think about the environment.

I really doubt it is just that, now I haven't seen the film but from what I've heard, and seen from the Nostalgia Chick's review it gets rid of a lot of the charm and language from the book and replaced it with a standard Hollywood story.

[KillianHawkeye]

*looks at thread title*

Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

Okay, that's bad. Thanks, turkishproverb. :smallamused:

[Lord Seth]

Personally, I think the original book is overrated anyway.

[shadow_archmagi]

I-- But-- You--

...You could at least pretend to respect the source material, Hollywood! :smallfurious: I really don't care if the adaptation isn't 100% faithful, but overtly mocking the original work is really going a bit too far.

I felt like it wasn't so much mocking it as a cameo with gentle lampshading.

"Wow, what does that even mean?" isn't delivered as an insult. The kid sounds genuinely impressed by the phrase (and indeed, it isn't just his tone of voice- there's also the fact that he spends the entire movie looking for trees with pretty much just that line to go on) and asks questions about it because that is what children do they ask questions. It's only later in life that we attach negative connotations to questioning things.

[t209]

I thought of the movie as expanding the story on what if the boy had taken the seed and planted it instead of an old man giving a seed book ending.
And people (especially the timber industry) hated the book. The real message is that if you chop down all the tree instead of conserving it, you just depleted your income (the man's main mistake).

[Lord Seth]

The real message is that if you chop down all the tree instead of conserving it, you just depleted your income (the man's main mistake).It's not really the "instead of conserving it" that's the issue. It's the fact that there was all the chopping but without replanting. If you just chop the trees, then you're out of luck when you've gotten them all. But if you chop them down and replant them, then when you run out you'll have new ones.

[zimmerwald1915]

It's not really the "instead of conserving it" that's the issue. It's the fact that there was all the chopping but without replanting. If you just chop the trees, then you're out of luck when you've gotten them all. But if you chop them down and replant them, then when you run out you'll have new ones.
Well, you'll have a tree farm anyway. You may or may not have an ecosystem.

[MLai]

The real message is that certain grass species make whiter, better, more durable, less polluting, and cheaper paper than trees. Why we still use trees for paper is beyond my comprehension.

[Mystic Muse]

Me and my wife both want to see it. we wanted to take our daughters to it, but didn't have the money. Neither of us could care less about the "green theme" of it, we don't watch movies or read books to support someones political or environmental or other message, we watch movies for fun and entertainment, and to be honest, we both hold the strict opinion that people really shouldn't get so worked up over a movie. Don't like, don't watch it!


I agree with this stance, but weren't you just getting worked up about the April Fools joke for this forum because it was about a TV show you don't like? I realize it's not exactly the same as what you're saying here, but it seems like the spirit is the same.

Personally, I'm under the impression that I won't like this movie, and it can be very bad, so I'm not going anywhere near it.

[pendell]

*looks at thread title*

Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

Ouch.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[t209]

It's not really the "instead of conserving it" that's the issue. It's the fact that there was all the chopping but without replanting. If you just chop the trees, then you're out of luck when you've gotten them all. But if you chop them down and replant them, then when you run out you'll have new ones.

Exactly my point.

The real message is that certain grass species make whiter, better, more durable, less polluting, and cheaper paper than trees. Why we still use trees for paper is beyond my comprehension.
I don't know but my dad (own a printing company) said that tree paper is better than Hemp papers.
That I will ask my dad about it.

[MLai]

I don't know but my dad (own a printing company) said that tree paper is better than Hemp papers.
That I will ask my dad about it.
I'm very curious as to his objective reasons for the above opinion.

[Psyren]

Me and my wife both want to see it. we wanted to take our daughters to it, but didn't have the money. Neither of us could care less about the "green theme" of it, we don't watch movies or read books to support someones political or environmental or other message, we watch movies for fun and entertainment, and to be honest, we both hold the strict opinion that people really shouldn't get so worked up over a movie. Don't like, don't watch it!

Merely not watching it isn't enough to convey the righteous outrage some people feel at watching the Lorax used to hawk SUVs.

Speaking of which, relevant comic is relevant:

http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/331054/1078ckSMALL-lorax.png

[Tengu_temp]

I liked the Lorax more when he was called Antropophagus.

(Kudos if you know what I'm referencing.)

[Starwulf]

I agree with this stance, but weren't you just getting worked up about the April Fools joke for this forum because it was about a TV show you don't like? I realize it's not exactly the same as what you're saying here, but it seems like the spirit is the same.

Personally, I'm under the impression that I won't like this movie, and it can be very bad, so I'm not going anywhere near it.

Completely different principle, since no-one is forcing people to go watch the Lorax. Having ponies shoved down your throat on your favorite forum, even if only for a day is a bit more legitimate to complain about, at least imo. Besides, I calmed down after my initial posts, and mostly just poked fun at myself and at GITP and Bethsoft for BOTH forums doing the same april fools day prank.

[razark]

Completely different principle, since no-one is forcing people to go watch the Lorax. Having ponies shoved down your throat on your favorite forum, even if only for a day is a bit more legitimate to complain about, at least imo.
Not that I'm supporting the pony thing, but no one is forcing you to visit the forum, either.

[kpenguin]

Personally, I dislike the "don't like it, don't watch it!" argument as made against complaining about a piece of media. Because it then leaves a Catch 22 about complaints: If you watch something and you complain about it, then you shouldn't have watched it. If you don't watch something and you complain about it, then your not watching removes any legitimacy of your complaint.

At what point does it become okay to be critical of a piece of media, then? When you reach a sort of magic medium between dislike and like where you dislike something enough to complain but like it enough that its legitimate for you to watch it?

The Modguin: In addition, please leave conflicts and external baggage from other threads at the door.

[TheLaughingMan]

Having The Lorax as a cookie-cutter children's film that completely misses the message to the point of giving excuses for the corrupt corporate execute is just sad-stupid. Having The Lorax shill the big name brands that the book held as the big bad guy is simply priceless.


At what point does it become okay to be critical of a piece of media, then?

When it doesn't have any fans. :smalltongue:

But yeah, I agree with you.

[Lord Seth]

Random note, but I suddenly remember what someone said, which was that they read The Lorax as a parable on the uselessness of whining. Heh.

Personally, though, I think it's ultimately more of an explanation of why poor understanding of economics will lead to you going out of business.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Personally, I dislike the "don't like it, don't watch it!" argument as made against complaining about a piece of media. Because it then leaves a Catch 22 about complaints: If you watch something and you complain about it, then you shouldn't have watched it. If you don't watch something and you complain about it, then your not watching removes any legitimacy of your complaint.

At what point does it become okay to be critical of a piece of media, then? When you reach a sort of magic medium between dislike and like where you dislike something enough to complain but like it enough that its legitimate for you to watch it?


Those that see it can let those that haven't know whether it is worth their time or not. Most importantly this is independent of the studio's own propaganda for a film.

At least for movies it is a complete delusion for you to be able to "watch it cold" or the like. Because broadly speaking you must know about a movie to see it in theaters, which means you must ingest marketing. Which means you form a preliminary impression and opinion on the film that motivates whether you select it out of the dozen or so options around. Directly derived from its marketing. Unless you habitually show up to a movie theater and say "give me what stats in 10 minutes" or something like that to ensure randomness.

For making that decision well its generally difficult where not impossible to actually hide the basic nature of a movie in its previews and certainly not in reviews. I've been doing this for years and consequently rarely come away unsatisfied from a movie.

Let's take the Lorax here. Now I'm at least passingly familiar with the original and Dr. Seuss's particular style. I am also familiar with how Hollywood generally makes movies. And from every single bit of marketing for this film I immediately got the now fairly standard "modern family movie" style spawned by Shrek/Dreamworks. And I immediately saw a mismatch between this and Seuss's whimsical style and concluded I would loathe this movie. The Lorax is a serious story about a serious matter that is also still something of a fairy tale. I would trust Ghibli or their American equivalent Pixar with something like this, as they have done they have an ability to be touching in a way the 'Shrek style' generally isn't. Or at least only is in moments widely dispersed.

Now subjectively speaking I can say that may not bother people it bothers me though. I can even say that being true to the book might not make a good movie, or at least one too inherently preachy/luddite to stand up well on its own message.

Now those who have seen it am I wide of the mark on any of my points?

This is why I always check reviews as they provide independent analysis that let's me generally pick up on this. And the reviews I have seen only suggest this is the sort of at best utterly standard kids movie if one forgives its liberties with its serious (even overly serious) source material.

Is it actually tremendously great? If not then I feel comfortable in my position that the movie is not worth seeing without needing to waste my funds on it.

[Starwulf]

Personally, I dislike the "don't like it, don't watch it!" argument as made against complaining about a piece of media. Because it then leaves a Catch 22 about complaints: If you watch something and you complain about it, then you shouldn't have watched it. If you don't watch something and you complain about it, then your not watching removes any legitimacy of your complaint.

At what point does it become okay to be critical of a piece of media, then? When you reach a sort of magic medium between dislike and like where you dislike something enough to complain but like it enough that its legitimate for you to watch it?

The Modguin: In addition, please leave conflicts and external baggage from other threads at the door.

I guess that is a good point to be honest, but still, some people take their cinematography waaaay to seriously, especially when it concerns ports from the book side to the movie side, I just don't get it sometimes. There naturally has to be a good deal of differences from book to movie, especially in this case, as has been said before, "The Lorax" was all of 10 pages. You can't turn a 10 page book into a movie without adding a LOOOOOTTT of content. Naturally some if it people aren't going to like, but what's the point in complaining about it? It's not like there is going to be a sequel to it, right? No sequel to the book? The movie is already made, correct? Can't go back and change it. You already voted with your wallet instead of waiting to hear reviews about it. The smart thing in this situation is to wait(like many people do with video games, including myself), until sufficient reviews on the movie have come out, instead of buying into the hype. Once you have enough of other peoples opinions, you can decide whether or not it would be worth it to go see the movie yourself. If you still don't like it, you really have no-one to blame but yourself, or the fact that you and the movie just didn't mesh well, which is fairly understandable. I still don't see the point in complaining about it though, as nothing can be done about it by that point. I try to only complain about things that can still be changed(for the most part, I'll admit I can be hypocrite at times), like the aforementioned ponyization of the forums, which I eventually got over :)

I think in the end, the bit that gets me kind of riled up, is people complaining over "The message" of the movie. I don't get why "messages" need to be laid upon every single movie nowadays. Movies don't always need messages, nor do they always have them. People talk about "The Lorax" having a "green" message. It was written in 1971, a point in time when "Green" meant weed more often then not. I don't believe it particularly had a message when it was written, other then to tell kids not to be greedy, which is less of a message and more of a moral. Complaining that a movie based on a 1971 book lost it's "message" seems a bit inane to me, as I don't see it as having a message to begin with. Just a moral.


On the last part, I didn't bring it into this thread, someone else did, I merely defended myself by stating that it was a different situation, and that I also ended up more or less poking fun at myself for my harsh initial reaction ^^. I have a bad tendency of being unable to let someone poke at me without reacting.

[Giegue]

With this film made, the only way they could do worse would be to make Truax into a family film. Actually, now that I think of it, Truax as a modern family film would probably be better then this due to "so bad it's good" syndrome.

[Dumbledore lives]

I think in the end, the bit that gets me kind of riled up, is people complaining over "The message" of the movie. I don't get why "messages" need to be laid upon every single movie nowadays. Movies don't always need messages, nor do they always have them. People talk about "The Lorax" having a "green" message. It was written in 1971, a point in time when "Green" meant weed more often then not. I don't believe it particularly had a message when it was written, other then to tell kids not to be greedy, which is less of a message and more of a moral. Complaining that a movie based on a 1971 book lost it's "message" seems a bit inane to me, as I don't see it as having a message to begin with. Just a moral.

It is true that not everything has a message, but the original Lorax was essentially made because of its green message, and that is what everyone talks about regarding it. It is about greed, and how corporations' greed can destroy nature, a fairly popular message even at the time. The environment has always been a contentious issue and I think that the message present in the book should not be dismissed as others over-analyzing. Incidentally, the book was 45 pages not 10, and the animated adaptation added very little while still retaining the core message, something this one apparently ceased to do.

[irenicObserver]

I for one won't be able to get over the fact that the Lorax is voiced by Danny DeVito. Talk about terrible casting! :smallmad:

I used to watch the REAL Lorax movie when I was a kid, and the Lorax is supposed to sound like a tiny, tired old man--not a short, grumpy, old fat man.

I associated DeVito with his narration of Matilda, so I absolutely disagree with that.

[Talya]

a standard Hollywood story.

You make it sound like that's a bad thing.

From the silver screen down to today, Hollywood has provided some of the best and worst stories humanity has ever told, in no less variety than they've been told on the printed page. I love Hollywood, but, as is the same with all other art, the majority of it is not appealing to any one person, and much of it can only be described as crap.

The Lorax isn't a book I ever cared about, though I did own quite a few Dr. Seuss books as a little girl. I don't find Seuss particularly well suited to film adaptation. When it's available on video, my kids will watch it streaming from some AVI file on our media player, and I'll know then if it was worth the production cost.