The Lorax

Post-Damage Invincibility

LET ME COME BACK TO THE 'SHROOM!
Banned User
Good movie? Bad movie? Discuss.
 

Smashgoom202

Dry Bowser
Retired Wiki Staff
Terrible movie:

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/team-nchick/nostalgia-chick/34545-the-lorax

Not because it's just stupid, like Horton Hears a Who, or even the two live-action Dr. Suess movies before that, but because it handles the message as stupidly and half-assedly as possible, AND is a complete hypocrite for over-simplifying their anti-corporate message and yet being a total whore when it comes to selling itself out to various adverts, specifically this:

 

Ultraluigi

doing whatever since 2011
Smashgoom just went into Rant Mode. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

In all seriousness though, I kinda agree.
 

Nabber

Artisanal Cheese Taster
I am so against anything related to Dr. Seuss not made by Dr. Seuss. I mean, they call it "Dr. Seuss's The Lorax" but he had nothing to do with the movie.

Anyway I didn't see this but I highly doubt that it's a good movie.
 

Smashgoom202

Dry Bowser
Retired Wiki Staff
I can just imagine Dr. Suess rolling in his grave...

At least with the animated TV specials, Dr. Suess had SOME involvement, whether he was a producer or wrote the songs or whatever, his presence was still FELT so you KNOW they were faithful to him and his work. Here... Ugh...

In fact, the cynic in me feel like they waited until he died to start doing whatever to his books.
 

Nabber

Artisanal Cheese Taster
I died a little inside when I read my brother's book about the Cat in the Hat in space.
It was so un-Seussical.
 

Toad85

MarioKartRPG
I saw it. It actually wasn't horrible . Granted, it's not all that it should have been, but it wasn't bad.

I'd give it a 6/10, or thereabouts.
 

Smashgoom202

Dry Bowser
Retired Wiki Staff
Augie Doggie said:
Propaganda!!!

Well, not really. An OK movie, but a movie with an agenda nonetheless.
It's agenda is so simplistic and uninvested, though. The original book was ten times as invested in it's moral, and the 1972 TV special at least acknowledged the opposing side. This, the bad guy is just Captain Planet villain, the Once-ler is WAY too sympathetic, while the Lorax WAY too pushy, and the animals way to annoying to care about. The "devastation" of losing their homes is sqished down into a 2-3 minute villain song montage, so we're not really given much to sympathize with them.

Not to mention, we're not given much motivation as to why the tree needs to be planted, aside from being able to experience real trees, and sticking it to the corporate asshole... Who, when he shuts down his corporation will end up having to fire all of his employers and the town will be abandoned... JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE ONCE-LER, except now we're rooting for it to happen.

But hey, it's for kids, and they're not going to give a shit about stuff like characters or plot or motivation or anything that makes a film actually GOOD! They want to see goofy cartoon antics and cute animals do... stuff... Ugh...
 

Puddin

eat the rich
Smashgoom, all you're doing is typing out exactly what the Nostalgia Chick said. What were your thoughts on the movie before seeing her review?

I'll be honest though, the movie does seem terrible, especially if you can't get past the idea that it's a re-imagining, not a remake.
 

Smashgoom202

Dry Bowser
Retired Wiki Staff
Mason said:
Um Smashgoom

did you just type out exactly what the Nostalgia Chick said in her review? No offense but think for yourself.
I am, what Lindsay said is pretty much true, what more do I have to say about it? Besides, even if I didn't see Lindsay's review, would that make what I said any less wrong?

Ranting over an adaption may seem petty, but when it comes to the subject of kids books and kids movies, things get especially touchy. The FACT that it's a Dr. Suess book makes it all the MORE reason to be outraged. The story was... bold, and kind of a downer. I can understand trying to lighten it up for today's audiences, but there HAD to be a less... stupid way of going about it. I don't like the idea of dumbing down movies for the sake of kids, because really, what does that say about kids and how we should raise them?

Edit: My thoughts on the movie BEFORE I saw her review are as follows:

"Oh great, another beloved classic of Dr. Suess getting raped by Hollywood, it will no doubt muddy/ruin the message completely in favor of cheap, confusing, random cartoony antics, like Horton Hears a Who."

My thoughts, after seeing the SUV commerical:

"OMG ARE YOU SERIOUS?! Did the people making this movie READ the book? Do they even CARE about the message the book had?"
 

Dr. Javelin

Nathan Latsk
Smashgoom202 said:
I don't like the idea of dumbing down movies for the sake of kids, because really, what does that say about kids and how we should raise them?
You have just come to the sad realization that America's kids are getting dumber by the minute.

[Cancel] [Allow]
 

Smashgoom202

Dry Bowser
Retired Wiki Staff
You know what REALLY frustrates me? Is that, with the money this movie is making, all I can really do is complain, usually to deaf ears... :-\
 

Puddin

eat the rich
I think she gave a lot of good points, and I already know I'd prefer the original if I saw the new one. I agreed with what she said about it being stupid for villains being one-dimensional, but actually I thought the idea of air being sold was pretty intriguing.

And the seal-of-approval car thing, I can agree was awful and actually sort of frightening.
 

Smashgoom202

Dry Bowser
Retired Wiki Staff
I have to admit, I hadn't even thought of the whole "selling air" thing, and the point Lidnsay made was... actually a really good one. Most people would, without thinking, agree with the message "air should be free", because it IS free now... It's kind of like the issue with selling drinking water. Shouldn't water also be free? Well, it can, unless it's in limited supply and hard to make/find, in which case, we need money and resources to produce it.

It's that kind of thing you don't think about when you watch the movie, but it's still a good point, and I'm glad she brought that up.
 

Ray Trace

You Can Tick Off Birds If You Follow My Advice
I find the movie all right. The thing that impressed me the most was the visuals but any 3D animated movie makes me appreciate the visuals
 

MnSG

Cosmic Beauty
The movie was good, and it did have its humorous moments, such as that Donkey Kong reference that the Once-ler made.

Oddly, one person stated that you're better off seeing WALL-E, even though both The Lorax, and WALL-E, give you a visual on what would happen if you don't respect nature.
 

Smashgoom202

Dry Bowser
Retired Wiki Staff
MnSG said:
Oddly, one person stated that you're better off seeing WALL-E, even though both The Lorax, and WALL-E, give you a visual on what would happen if you don't respect nature.
Well... Yeah, except WALL-E does it better. The corporation in that movie wasn't evil, the CEO was just too over-optimistic for his good, and greatly underestimated the problem he created, unlike the villain in The Lorax, who's just evil for the Hell of it.

And besides, in WALL-E, the humans have to return to Earth and plant the plant so they can learn to stand up for themselves and not be babied all the time, whereas in The Lorax... What happens if the tree ISN'T planted? Nothing, really, they just go back to their normal, daily lives.

Lastly, there's motivation. WHY to we want to see what happens until the end? Originally, that Ted kid just wants to get a tree to impress this girl he has a crush on, but so what? Why should we care about this one kid and his ability to get hooked up with this girl? WALL-E, by contrast, has us watch WALL-E, see what his daily life is like, and we grow to sympathize with him, and understand why he wants to be with EVE. In both movies, the plant is used in different ways. In The Lorax, the seed is just... well, the last seed of a particular tree in existence, and if it doesn't get planted, then there are no real trees ever... But they don't need trees to survive, they can just continue to pay to have the air delivered to them. There's a lot of moral ambiguity about that, but really, the story is so simplified that it gets more confusing and frustrating the more you think about it. In WALL-E, everything is carefully crafted and planned. The plant is the driving force behind what EVE wants to accomplish, and it's also an obstacle in the way of WALL-E and his relationship with her. The thing with the humans, while mostly a B-story compared to the main conflict with WALL-E trying to be with EVE and please her, is also carefully planned out. They've lived their lives having things done for them, so they're not really "living", and the plant is NOT necessary for them to survive, but survival's not the point.

"I don't WANT to survive, I want to LIVE!"

Also, the ending showed that there ARE other plants on Earth, so it's not like this is the last on in existence, so the planet will be fine on it's own either way, but the Captain realizes that since the original CEO just gave up on fixing the problem, and took the easy way out, the Captain decides that, instead of doing nothing for the remainder of humanity's existence, they should learn to fend for themselves and take care of the Earth properly.

You see, there's a lot more to WALL-E then just the environmental message, which is all The Lorax has, and even THEN it doesn't handle it very well and, like I said, is completely hypocritical with all the commercial tie-ins.
 

Guiliant

Shine Sprite
implying the movie wasn't destined to be bad the moment it went to the drawing board
 

Scarecrow von Steuben

I'm very friendly.
I liked Horton Hears a Who. I don't really have high hopes for the Lorax, though; it's so hard to adapt Suess books to film, and especially the Lorax: while it's probably got the most down-to-earth storyline of any Suess book, it'd be hard to adapt it without coming across as anvilicious about the environmental message.
 
Top