Comment on The Lorax AGAIN! by ErikaRBarker
i wrote a whole thing as to why i hate this movie,
they got the world right, and i like there casting for The Lorax,
but the book was WAY better, as well as the 1971 movie.
basically why i hate this version:
the book taught us that we need to protect our resources and not become crazy consumers for it leads to loosing what's really important in life.
the 1971 movie taught us that the corporation needs to be cautious and conserve, yet there is a fine balance between Eco safety and good economics, both must find a happy middle.
this movie adaptation is being a huge consumer whore; drive to IHOP in your new car.
that's the complete opposite of the book and movie
but so long as this movie will encourage people to seek out the book,
i guess i'm ok with it.
they got the world right, and i like there casting for The Lorax,
but the book was WAY better, as well as the 1971 movie.
basically why i hate this version:
the book taught us that we need to protect our resources and not become crazy consumers for it leads to loosing what's really important in life.
the 1971 movie taught us that the corporation needs to be cautious and conserve, yet there is a fine balance between Eco safety and good economics, both must find a happy middle.
this movie adaptation is being a huge consumer whore; drive to IHOP in your new car.
that's the complete opposite of the book and movie
but so long as this movie will encourage people to seek out the book,
i guess i'm ok with it.
I made my brother read the book three times before he saw it. We're actually planting a tree in our yard because he liked it so much. I think the movie was great and you cannot blame the movie for what people outside of the movie have done with it. I don't condone what IHOP or the car commecials have done with it. However, I think that kids, and people for that matter, take what they see and take it to heart. I've thought about changing my ways as a consumer since I've seen the movie and I think it does a great job of imparting that to someone else.
That's just my opinion though.
That's just my opinion though.
yes, people can take something out of it,
but from what i've seen,
there's two WAY better options
i will give it a point for creating the world
and casting Danny DaVito as The Lorax,
his voice fits perfect imo
[oh, and Betty White
]
i think beyond the whole
loosing sight of the story,
and changing it to be a 'love story' in suburbia with ecological tones,
they could have fleshed out the middle with The Once-Ler and The Lorax
[
and not SHOWN The Once-Ler. it's far more poignant not seeing him!!!]
i came up with a way to have made it 90 minutes
[through padding mind]
and still sticking to the book.
but that's just me, i'm stuck in the past
since i'm not a huge fan of popular norms/culture today
but from what i've seen,
there's two WAY better options
i will give it a point for creating the world
and casting Danny DaVito as The Lorax,
his voice fits perfect imo
[oh, and Betty White
]i think beyond the whole
loosing sight of the story,
and changing it to be a 'love story' in suburbia with ecological tones,
they could have fleshed out the middle with The Once-Ler and The Lorax
[
and not SHOWN The Once-Ler. it's far more poignant not seeing him!!!]i came up with a way to have made it 90 minutes
[through padding mind]
and still sticking to the book.
but that's just me, i'm stuck in the past
since i'm not a huge fan of popular norms/culture today
See I thought that seeing the Once-ler helped to make him relatable and more understandable. I think that seeing him allowed the audience to understand that can ALL be us if we aren't careful. Seeing him allowed, me at least, to understand what we can all become if we listen to other people instead of our 'Jiminy Crickets' if you will.
I do agree though I thought they should have done more with Once-ler and the Lorax and left Ted and Audrey alone. So, there I do agree with you. However, I do not agree with the thought on the Once-ler.
I do agree though I thought they should have done more with Once-ler and the Lorax and left Ted and Audrey alone. So, there I do agree with you. However, I do not agree with the thought on the Once-ler.
that however was the point of NOT seeing the Once-ler.
by not seeing his face, it could be anyone,
heck, if you wanted to, you could even argue the gender,
all you saw was the green limbs and eyes.
and the fact he was green was also a symbol,
'green because of greed'
that's my view anyway.
lol who thought a debate would come from a childrens book?
by not seeing his face, it could be anyone,
heck, if you wanted to, you could even argue the gender,
all you saw was the green limbs and eyes.
and the fact he was green was also a symbol,
'green because of greed'
that's my view anyway.
lol who thought a debate would come from a childrens book?
Yeah. I don't know I guess I find it easier to relate to someone I can see but that's just me. I like people. I enjoy putting a face to things. I prefer faces to faceless but that's just the person I am.
I guess I liked the way the story was explained and how you didn't really see the Once-ler as the villian and how his actions were explained. That's just me though. I like having a face and an explination. That again though is just me. Everyone has their own opion about everything. Ya know?
I guess I liked the way the story was explained and how you didn't really see the Once-ler as the villian and how his actions were explained. That's just me though. I like having a face and an explination. That again though is just me. Everyone has their own opion about everything. Ya know?
lol, i understand.
i'm the opposite really,
and while making the Once-ler sympathetic was good,
i never saw him a the villain growing up.
he would say he really didn't mean any harm, he was doing his job,
even in the 71 movie there's a talk between the two
and the Once-ler asks the Lorax if the right thing to do
would be to shut down the factory,
while he'd stop cutting down trees and polluting,
he would put everyone out of work,
and turn the area into a ghost town.
this was, mind, before the days of Eco-consciousness being a big thing,
and to have such a deep conversation in a kids movie i really liked it.
when he started out he even said he wasn't doing any harm
he just chopped down one tree,
as the story goes on he feels really bad
as The Lorax turns each animal away,
but he has the business and the workers to think about remember,
that's what makes him human, not the villain of the piece.
which is why i don't get why they needed a super villain in this film.
the Once-ler cuts down every tree, everyone leaves but him,
and he thinks about what he's done and how to change.
instead of the bottled air in suburbia angle,
they could have had the two main's,
flesh them out a little,
Betty White explains about the far end of town where the grickle grass grows,
and he goes to see the Once-ler,
the story goes on, pad it with the bro-mance and jokes,
but stick to the main plot of he doesn't see himself doing bad,
and have EACH animal go SEPARATELY instead of all at once,
then have him throw down the last seed,
and it end with the two planting it in the yard.
instead of the epic must plant now for fresh free air thing.
[boy that was long lol]
i'm the opposite really,
and while making the Once-ler sympathetic was good,
i never saw him a the villain growing up.
he would say he really didn't mean any harm, he was doing his job,
even in the 71 movie there's a talk between the two
and the Once-ler asks the Lorax if the right thing to do
would be to shut down the factory,
while he'd stop cutting down trees and polluting,
he would put everyone out of work,
and turn the area into a ghost town.
this was, mind, before the days of Eco-consciousness being a big thing,
and to have such a deep conversation in a kids movie i really liked it.
when he started out he even said he wasn't doing any harm
he just chopped down one tree,
as the story goes on he feels really bad
as The Lorax turns each animal away,
but he has the business and the workers to think about remember,
that's what makes him human, not the villain of the piece.
which is why i don't get why they needed a super villain in this film.
the Once-ler cuts down every tree, everyone leaves but him,
and he thinks about what he's done and how to change.
instead of the bottled air in suburbia angle,
they could have had the two main's,
flesh them out a little,
Betty White explains about the far end of town where the grickle grass grows,
and he goes to see the Once-ler,
the story goes on, pad it with the bro-mance and jokes,
but stick to the main plot of he doesn't see himself doing bad,
and have EACH animal go SEPARATELY instead of all at once,
then have him throw down the last seed,
and it end with the two planting it in the yard.
instead of the epic must plant now for fresh free air thing.
[boy that was long lol]
I don't know though. I love to write contrasting characters and I personally love the contrast between O'Hare and the Once-ler. I'm certainly not a fan-girl of his, I simply enjoied the contrast between him and O'Hare as people and in the styles of their buisnesses. I thought though that showing, again a contrast
between his mother [who he went above and beyond the call of duty for] yells at him and the animals whom he most definately harmed leave passively. I love the contrast in that. It's like parallels one on one side one on the other but both completely different.
between his mother [who he went above and beyond the call of duty for] yells at him and the animals whom he most definately harmed leave passively. I love the contrast in that. It's like parallels one on one side one on the other but both completely different.
View all replies