The Lorax

Was it really that bad?

>inb4 car sponsorship or once-ler shit

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=BpgUQYARIsw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

>Once-Ler wasn't bad, his family MADE him do it
>awful 'romantic' subplot
>fucking O'Hare
>The Lorax fucking came back

it was bad.

h b c h p b ? hs j h t e

It was long and paintfully extended

The original story had the soul besed on the moral, so it was a short story, the producers had no idead in what to put in the empty gaps afeter making a full movie on it, they could put more songs but the movie just has fukcing two between hours of Danny Devito being unfunny, cute aninals doind annoyng sounds and generic characters being generic

HOW

Yeah, it was that bad. The book was also fairly anti-logging, but it also brings up that if the Once-ler closed his factories, he would put thousands of people out of their jobs, which even the Lorax thinks is extreme. The movie doesn't have this sort of nuance, since it never shows WHY people might be driven to hurt the environment, aside from being a Captain Planet villain. It also falls into the worst trappings of modern-day CGI children's movies, like annoying songs, shoehorned romance subplots, one-dimensional villains, and so on. If the movie were just about the rise and fall of the Once-ler, it could have been great, but they felt the need to tack on all this extraneous bullshit.

BAD

Not only that, but the story was meant to end ambiguously. 'Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing's going to get better, it's not.'

Whether or not the Lorax came back, and the forests were restored, was supposed to be open ended. Not something solved with a happy feelgood song and a cheesy climax opposite a cardboard cutout villain.

I honestly quite liked it.

The onceler is a peculiar character, though. By all means he is the antagonist who got what he deserved, but the story doesn't reflect this.

I'd want to think at least it managed to send the message it was supposed to carry.. but I wouldn't say it did. Teaching children that it's never too late and the planet can still be saved as long as one seed is kept in a shoe somewhere doesn't quite hold very heavily.

But then again it is just a movie.

>plant a tree so this kid can get pussy
Yeah it's that bad

Only good thing about the movie was DeVito dubbing himself in various languages and obviously having no idea what the fuck he is saying

As someone who didn't grow up with Seuss's stories, I feel that it wouldn't have been seen as bad, had it been its own thing, and not based on a story that many people hold dear. Not that it would have made it good either, just sort of there, but quickly forgotten, I guess.
But that said, the book and the 60s (70s?) animation told the story better in many ways, which is where the movie falls short. The Onceler having someone pushing him to do what he does, makes him more of a specific character, where as in the original anyone could have been the Onceler. Now some people can't become the Onceler because they don't have that type of family, so the moral falls flat.

I SAY LET IT DIE

The Lorax is really interesting in an academic sense. It's not good, but it's not terrible technically. It does however completely dance around the moral of the source material out of fear, which in today's political climate is considered EXTREMELY controversial.

It simplifies the message of the original and creates scapegoats for its characters. In the Lorax film, the problem isn't unrestrained capitalism, but unrestrained capitalism that's mean.

I've been obsessed with this movie for five years and counting. I love the score. I love the design for the Once-Ler. I love the look of the Truffula Valley. The thing's mediocre overall, though, because they skip over the bulk of the story and leave it up to your imagination. And all of the Thneedville shit, aside from the look and the sound, is awful.

That's wrong, though. They didn't have to pad it out because they cut 90% of the fucking story out. Yes, they cut 90% of a children's picture book/animated short out.

>The onceler is a peculiar character, though. By all means he is the antagonist who got what he deserved, but the story doesn't reflect this.
The decision to make him more of a tragic figure was brilliant.

But by the end, he actually cares about bringing trees back. They even do the "Onceler refuses to teach him how to plant a tree til he visits 3 times" thing similar to how Rabbi handle conversion to Judaism.

>decision to make him more of a tragic figure was brilliant.
He was already a tragic figure you dumb fuck, the movie had ZERO redeeming qualities despite some character's design making your girlhood tremble.

>he actually cares about bringing trees back.
He doesn't come there three times because he gradually want to protect trees. He does it because that is what is needed for him to get some pussy. Sure he could have started to actually want to protect trees as a side thing, but getting that pussy was the main treasure to be obtained the whole time. It doesn't show his dedication to trees, it shows his dedication to getting laid.

I like the initial portayal of him as a self centered kid who didn't know any better. I kinda dislike that they went the "gave into family manipulation" angle. It doesn't particularly redeem him. If anything it makes his decisions and corruption worse.

What are they working on next? Grinch?

Also the old animations will never be topped. Didn't Geisel work on them himself?

Hero's Journey trope. Character starts out doing the right thing for the wrong reason and then gains knowledge and realizes the right reason to be doing it in the end.

Once-Ler was never bad. The moral of the original was "respect the environment or you'll regret it" not "corporations are evil."

The problem is he also gains what he actually set out to do in the first place. Had he visited the Onceler after he had realized that it wouldn't give him pussy, or if would some how conflict with his chances of gaining it, it would have shown his dedication. Now it's just a neat bonus to the real treasure.
Nothing proves that he does it because it's the right thing to do, but we have proof that he does it because the chick want it, and he wants to impress the chick, so he does it.

The issue is, as many people have brought up, that the movie has no nuance, and the characters are flat as cardboard.

The Once-ler originally came across as a guy who was remorseful for his actions, but was he responsible. Nobody pushed him to it, nobody forced him to do it, nobody even asked him to do it. He was the prime suspect in the logging, deforestation, waste, and general unpleasantness that followed. He wasn't a bad guy though, just someone who got in over their heads and became greedy.

Meanwhile, another user brought up that the Lorax wasn't some douchebag liberal spewer who was always right. He was ultimately vindicated in how the Once-ler's actions screwed over everyone, but he was trying to see it from the Once-ler's perspective. He didn't know if it was a good idea to shut down his factory and put thousands of people out of work. but this current route was no better, as his animals and home were slowly being destroyed.

It felt like an environmental cartoon without any of the heavy handed teachers spewing morals. Far more tact than Captain planet, that's for sure.

But the original Onceler had no one else to blame it on but himself, and what he had started. In the movie he was clearly pushed by his family into doing something that he was initially uncomfortable with and wouldn't have done if it wasn't for them.

I looked it up, he did.

Shorts are also just the better format for adapting his books. They are all short and very focused on their plot if you try to make a full length movie out of it you're basically forced to pad it with stuff like romance sub plots.

>tfw we'll never get to see pixar made shorts of Dr. Seuss books

I'm a straight man, but nice Hey Arnold! reference.

In the book and animated short, he is completely amoral. Not immoral, but amoral. He is incapable of actually seeing the extent of his actions until there's nothing left. To be a tragic figure, he'd have to be aware on some level, but cognitively dissonate it away. How Bad Can I Be hinted at that.

>I like the initial portayal of him as a self centered kid who didn't know any better. I kinda dislike that they went the "gave into family manipulation" angle.
This.

Overall, I think the cartoon and the book ultimately gave off the message of "moderation." Technology isn't evil, and tree hugging hippies aren't always right. But sometimes we progress too fast and don't think of our actions in the long run. this is something we see often in nature, how we build structures in an attempt to play God, only for them to come down horribly. Whether it's the titantic, the Hindenburg, or Skynet. All are precautionary tales in different flavors.

>To be a tragic figure, he'd have to be aware on some level, but cognitively dissonate it away.
but he does this in the cartoon. His specific reasoning was "if I didn't do it, someone else would".

That wasn't cognitive dissonance. That was a very good point, Mr. Once-Ler.

>He is incapable of actually seeing the extent of his actions until there's nothing left.
The animated version actually has him come very close to changing his mind multiple times, but something comes up and he decides to keep on doing what he's doing. Like the announcement of a million thneeds/figuring on biggering, 'If I didn't do it then someone else would" etc.

How bad it be

Every Doctor Seuss movie (And most illuminations movies when you think of it, with mandatory IHOP ad and everything) seemed to have dumb sponsorships, but with the Lorax it was more obvious thanks to the "Environmental" message of the movie, the "Corporations aren't really good" message and then current events (Occupy movement and all that). It tried to seem hip and all "lol, fight da power", when in the end, it was a blatant sell out, hell it really didn't try in the first place as everyone involved thought kids and blind parents would eat all of it up, only to face the fact that everyone could smell the bullshit.

Kinda a shame, Lorax was a pretty good story with a nice message, but it got sugar coated beyond belief, and got an extra layer of marketing bullshit to the point where the movie is literally meaningless, it's just a colorful CG flick that seemed to only exist to sell everything. Well, at least they were also selling the book.

Why wouldn't he just get the fluff from the trees?

>keep the score
>rewrite the script
>make it a musical
pls, Universal

>Inb4 Onceler shit

"Don't criticize the main character in the story, that's bullshit"

The Once-Ler was the movie's one good feature. And the attempt to make him NOT the main character is a big part of what killed it.

The Once-ler had one good scene, and it got cut out of the movie. Everything else was shit

youtube.com/watch?v=BpgUQYARIsw

He used all his money on an axe instead of a ladder.

>this has 1/10 the views of Heathers Candy Store
son of a bitch

>Overall, I think the cartoon and the book ultimately gave off the message of "moderation." Technology isn't evil, and tree hugging hippies aren't always right.

That's completely incorrect. What you just described is the message of the CGI movie. The message of the book is that you have to do the right thing by the environment, even if it takes hard choices and complex solutions for problems like unemployment. The watered down message to not appear anti-corporate is a large reason the movie is such a mess.

what went wrong?

Let it shrivel up and die! C'mon! Who's with me!?

He was almost going to be the guy that didn't like Green Eggs and Ham.

...

And at one point, some hairy Rayman Origins creature.

Why though? Were they going to make a feature length Green Eggs and Ham movie? How the fuck is that even possible? Just an extended chase or something?

The Once-ler's entire motivations were:
1. My family are lazy assholes, so I GUESS it's okay to cause deforestation
2. He goes from trying to justify his actions weakly in crappy song-form, then decides to just start being an asshole on purpose "How bad can I be? Let's find out!"
3. He only felt bad about destroying the Truffula trees once they were all gone & literally not a second sooner.

Just exploring ways to root the Onceler's design in stuff from Seuss's existing body of work without just making him into a Grinch clone.

>To be a tragic figure, he'd have to be aware on some level, but cognitively dissonate it away.

Like literally debating a mirror version of yourself where the problems are brought up but are reasoned away?

Yeah, it was brilliant that the CGI did that, if only the cartoon makers had thought of such a way to do something like that instead of "Family says it one mintue then he's literally singing that he's all for it." What a failure for that twenty minute short.

>He only felt bad about destroying the Truffula trees once they were all gone & literally not a second sooner.

At least the Onceler in the cartoon showed regret every time the next batch of animals left.

...

YOU

I forgot
did the kid get pussy in the end?