Anybody seen it? It's amazing. Probably one of the best movies I've seen in a really, really long time. I thought it was going to be terrible, but it was really good! Also, I hear that conservatives are getting mad at it for brainwashing our kids or something. I'm really glad I'm not conservative, so I can like movies like the Lorax. What did you think abou tit?
Also, I hear that conservatives are getting mad at it for brainwashing our kids or something. Oh lord, no. My hippie liberal teachers from elementary school brainwashed me into thinking environmentalism is a good thing. Whatever shall I do? I can't get this pro-environment sentiment out of my head....aahhhhhh!!
I haven't seen it yet, but I am strongly inclined to dislike it. In general, I think trying to flesh out the Seuss stories into broader narratives has been detrimental to quality. For instance, I want nothing to do with some ridiculous story about grandmothers and whatever else is in this version. It diminishes the awful power of the industrial ruin and the Onceler's melancholy. It all seems to cheapen and ruin the idea, though I suppose this is at least not so bad as the Grinch movie, which managed to directly contradict the point of the original story.
[image=http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17f7x3p4m9rk5jpg/original.jpg] This says everything about this movie...
The Lorax is my favoritest Dr Seuss book ever and I don't like the idea of them mucking around with it. So I am soooo skeptical about this movie. Even if they do a good job at it, I'll still get annoyed at their 'liberties.'
The Lorax is a hippie co-op in Eugene. I would be able to think of nothing else but vegetarians in a run-down house off campus, mocking me with their free love lifestyle...
Although the Lorax apparently has a high level of product endorsements-- some a bit ill-advised like a non-hybrid SUV-- that doesn't necessarily speak to the quality of the film itself. That said, I don't think I'd like it.
Is no one going to defend this film before the veritable of Goliath of criticism we are heaping on it?
Well, I loved it. The message was glaringly obvious but it was very well done. The voice cast was terrific and the music was great.
Yeah, I think you guys are trippin. First of all, I'd like to see somebody who has SEEN it and didn't like it. I'll take their criticism a little more highly than that of people who haven't seen it yet. Secondly, I agree with Kate. The voices were great, and it was a really great story. I haven't read the book, but in my mind however great the book is doesn't affect whether the movie is great or not.
WARNING: ECONOMICS AND POLITICALNESS Haven't seen it, probably won't, but I'm member reading it and watching the old cartoon version in economics and it has a political message. People are surprised by this? It already had one, they didn't add it, at least unless they added stuff that has nothing to do with the original story, most likely they added stuff, its Hollywood.. But again, to me the Lorax is indeed an econ lesson. You keep a supply, but you don't diminish it nor destroy it. For instance the trees, to make sure he has future profit and stuff he should of planted seeds for trees to grow back, and leave some forestation up to not be cut at all, so that way you can have a basis to start and compare the quality and etc from. And the pollution in the water is never a good idea, should of been cleaned because you poisoned your water supply and food supply because the fish left (actually would die in real life). So economically speaking this guy took a product, but because he wanted to increase so rapidly not thinking of future things, he screwed that whole area over. Water, trees, animals (food), and stuff. Not to mention, once all the trees were gone, the business shut down, demand couldn't be met, and people lost their jobs. So much for that business venture. This has been my view on the Lorax. Thank you for your time.
I want to see your views on other pieces of literature. I expect a Marxist critique, but... ya know, opposite of that.
LORAX Nope. THIS is The Lorax. Only minimal padding, no product placement, and, most importantly, no f'n Taylor Swift.
That sort of undermines your credibility, and I can't say I agree with your approach. One of the essential questions in any adaptation is how it compares to its original medium. If it is in most (or every) way inferior, or greatly distorts the themes of the original work, it's not really worth having made in the first place. This is especially the case when, as LeeKenobi points out, there has already been a cinematic version produced. Yes, you can say at some baseline that it still tells an acceptable story. But, being familiar with the story, we already knew that was going to be the case except in the most extreme of circumstances. The question it's whether it's worth taking the time, money, and effort to listen to this retelling of that story.
I get what you are saying, but I disagree. I think that any film adaptation of any book should be judged alone on its own merits. For example, the Bourne trilogy. Generally really liked by most people. I personally LOVED those movies. But they are COMPLETELY different from the books from which the film was adapted. They basically tell two different stories altogether. Does that mean the moves are bad? No. They are good. Are they bad adaptations? Sure. But are they bad movies? No. I'm not arguing that the Lorax movie is an excellent adaptation of the book. If I were, you would be correct. But I'm not, and you're not. I'm arguing that it's a good movie. Which you can't argue, since you haven't seen it (unless, of course, you have).
