This wasn't that good.

No shit

HOW

I don't recall seeing anyone claim otherwise.

how bad can movie be

>>92236796
>takes the villain of the book
>turns him into a teenage heart throb
>he ends up getting a huge female fanbase

fucking why

>>92236796

>movie that goes against every single thing the source material was, and stood for

You know OP I get the feeling most people agree with you.

I live in Russia and I went to see the movie and I never read the book or some shit and I saw the movie and it was actually quite hilarious. I don't give a shit about the book. It was funny for a kids movie, what more do you expect

>>92236984
>I live in Russia

stopped reading there

>That car ad that used the lombax in it to promote the car
I can't tell if it was brilliant irony or if it was just simple honest pandering to kids to try and get their kids to buy the car

>>92236984

>one of the most popular American childrens books when it came out

>still being read today

>"I don't give a shit about the book! What more did you expect! XD"

We expected a good fucking movie. You're speaking for literally no one except soccer moms and retarded children.

>>92237080
Do you even need to ask?

>>92236829
>>92236837
I'm sorry, I just rewatched in class and I couldn't believe how bland it was.
The Lorax (character) is turned into a joke, the designs are ugly, the music is forgettable, and it seems more like a shallow rehash of other animated movies (Wall-E, Hoodwinked, etc) than a Dr. Seuss adaptation.

File: 1492377281134.jpg (69KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x500px

>>92237080
>pandering to kids to try and get their kids to buy the car

lolwut

File: Fucking Samurai gets kicked in his fucking samurai dick.png (252KB, 373x402px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 373x402px

>>92236796
It's probably the most pertinent example of how evil and soulless Hollywood is.

>>92236909
I hate how Onceler's shitty family was treated like a joke and that his problem was that he was greedy, not that he wanted to accepted by his family.
Also, fuck that stupid ass.

>>92236942
How does it go against everything the source material was and stands for?

>>92237251
>story about being environmental friendly
>whored it out to advertise the biggest gas guzzling care
>whored it out to advertise new Sugary Sprinkle Mega Diabetes flavored Pancakes at IHOP even though the story is about avoiding excess
>whored it out to advertise diapers so your children can literally shit on the message of the book

>>92236796
If by "that good" you mean "good at all" I agree.

>>92237123
have you ever seen the animated 72 movie? It's pretty good

Reminder that we could have had a sweet rock opera number instead of that "How Bad Me Be" song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAvfgnbnGpc

>>92237796
advertisements have nothing to do with the content of the movie lol

>>92237919
Yeah, but only once, I want to rewatch it now.
I recall one of the songs being really catchy.

>>92238233
free on youtube whenever you want

>>92237147
you know man they were just pandering to kids, kidding around, trying to get their kids to buy a kid.

>>92237251
>>92238196
They fucked up the point.

In there book there really wasn't a villain. We never saw the Onceler because it represents that ANYONE could fuck things up like this and not realize it until it's too late.There was also no corrupt business man character.

We're not supposed to think "Oh okay, so only evil people can fuck up the world." we're supposed to think "Anyone could fuck up the world."

>>92237123
>for class
what? are you 10?

>>92237147
woah

>>92238560
It's near the end of the year so there's probably lots of free days, and schools often have strict rules about showing anything PG-13 and above.
Or he's too young to be here

>>92238501
>We're not supposed to think "Oh okay, so only evil people can fuck up the world."
Who could watch the movie and come to that conclusion? It'd be something more along the lines of "greedy people can fuck up the world".

Turning old childrens' books into 90-120 minute movies often turns out terribly, yes.

Like how "Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs", originally just a silly book about a world where weather is food, got turned into a drama-comedy about an inventor kid who keeps fucking up experiments and then finally invents a food-weather machine, and of course it goes wrong, and there's some dramatic connection between him and his dad...it's just full of shit that never happened in the original book. And yet they give it the exact same title as the original book.

>>92239408

It's not impossible to take a small childrens book and make a film out of it. The original Lorax 1970s TV movie was great, and Horton Hears A Who was average, but it at least got the job done.

This is just a shit movie.

File: 1400892504676.jpg (17KB, 204x211px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 204x211px

>>92237080
>The lombax

Excuse me?

File: mike-myers-the-cat-in-the-hat.jpg (158KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1024x768px

>>92237164
Are you sure about that?

>>92238560
>>92238653
It's a class for seniors that needed an extra science course.
Our teacher is a silly older guy, kind of like Uncle Grandpa, but obsessed with environmental issues.

We've also watched the 1972 Lorax, Soylent Green, Wall-E, and Harry and the Hendersons.

>>92239408
>Turning old childrens' books into 90-120 minute movies often turns out terribly, yes.

Jim Carrey Grinch is a masterpiece.
It's been a while since I saw Where The Wild Things Are, but I remember that being good.

>>92239339
The antagonists were quite cartoony compared to the book's Onceler.

>>92236796
In other news water is wet

>>92239505
The Cat in the Hat was very dumb, but it wasn't "THE LORAX APPROVES OF THIS SUV" dumb.

>>92238189
rock opera cartoon movie when?

I love Onceler's villain song. Literally everything else about the movie sucks.

>>92239505
Why do I feel the urge to punch this cat right in the face?

>>92236796
It was actually quite good, desu.
Not the best but still decent.
But it's still a masterpiece compared to the live-action Grinch and Cat in the Hat movies.

>>92239505
>You can actually see the outlines of his face

KEK!

>>92239505
>people dressed up like realistic cartoon animals
fucking hate this
They seem to do it for all Seuss characters too, theyre nightmare fuel

>>92245740
Not anymore. After Cat, Seuss' estate banned any live-action adaptations.

File: how on earth can you even mess up the message of this story anyway.jpg (19KB, 576x576px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 576x576px

So how badly do you guys think this can end up?

>>92236984
I am Russian too.

Everyone wanted more like this, since apparently you can't read.

https://youtu.be/8V06ZOQuo0k

>>92245903
They already made his eyes the wrong colors.

File: 1246315744224.jpg (50KB, 720x560px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 720x560px

I thought it was pretty good for an adaptation. Flashback stuck faithful to the book, the only thing dragging it down was the entire O'Hare/Audrey bs that got watered down even more because of executive intervention.

At least in the end Ted stopped giving a shit about redhead vag.

>>92239505
Implying this isn't kino

>>92239505
This movie is hot garbage but it's anything but by the numbers.

It was clearly made by someone with a vision. A horrible, disgusting vision, but a vision nonetheless.

>>92237216
Me too, god. It completely missed the point of how greed lurks in everyone's heart, and just made it seem like he did all that awful shit solely because his awful family made him do it.

>>92246970
That too. The Lorax was a huge missed opportunity, the bottled air thing was pretty clever.

>they even have the Lorax himself try to drown the guy

wat

>>92246970
> It completely missed the point of how greed lurks in everyone's heart

how was that even the point of the original book tho. seemed to me like it was a moral about greed overall

>>92245903
>unnerving CGI
ITS ALREADY FUCKING ANIMATED IN THE HIS STYLE

S T O P

Its the result of someone trying to make the original story into a feature length movie by heavily altering the source material. Way too much shit in this movie
>wide eyed kid is made into the main character
>bad guy is evil business man instead of the Onceler
>trying to make the Oncler sympathetic
>action chase scenes
>the Lorax is even less of a presence than in the original
Honestly though I wouldn't know how to make the Lorax into a movie that isn't the original animated version. His books are like 10 pages long.

Its like trying to make The Cat in the Hat into a movie.Oh wait

>>92239505
Nonono
The Cat is kino purely for the kitchen scene

>>92236796
One of the few times I'm absolutely certain that this board is in full agreement with a Nostalgia Critic review.

>>92236796
Treshman
>>92237796
Sure thing Doug, whatever helps you sleep at night.
>>92236909
We've seen more retarded fandom booms before, but this stood out for how absurd and quick it was.
>>92245903
HOP/10

>>92245903
I can already hear the pop culture references

sure wasn't. But that deleted song is okay

>>92237088
>one of the most popular American childrens books
>You're speaking for literally no one except soccer moms and retarded children.
Dr. Seuss doesn't enjoy that much fame outside English-speaking regions. His books haven't necessarily even been translated and released.

For an example, check out these pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lorax
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_Hears_a_Who!
Take a look at the bar on the left, where it lists languages. These two books are relevant enough to have their own wiki article in only a handful of countries.

I looked into a large library database that I use often. They have some Dr. Seuss books, but only in English (meaning that they're inaccessible to most small children around here). All the releases that are actually spoken in the local language are the DVDs based on Grinch, Horton, Lorax, etc. People know Dr. Seuss characters mainly from those recent movies, rather than the books.

I'm not dissing on Dr. Seuss btw, just saying that his stories aren't as iconic for people whose mother tongue is something other than English.

>>92236836
BAD

>>92239505
HIRTY HOE

>>92236796
It was liberal propaganda

>>92261741
kill yourself.

>>92245903

Was the Jim Carrey version really that bad? I quite enjoyed it...

>>92255000

To be honest, Dr Seuss isn't all that popular in the UK either

>>92263556
>Was the Jim Carrey version really that bad? I quite enjoyed it...
It's a masterpiece, don't let anybody tell you different.

>>92236909
>want to do a tragedy
>make tragic hero as likeable as possible
No problem with that. I understood the intent. Tey wanted to humanize the Once-Ler. Too bad they added in his family and the Thneedville shit that takes up half the film.

>>92237123
>the music is forgettable
I thought Thneedville was catchy. How Bad Can I Be was a lame song, but the visuals were memorable.

>>92238189
You can tell from the opening that it was set in a different part of the Once-Ler's journey, probably after he first started chopping down the trees. I'd love to read the screenplay draft that included this song.

>>92239505
That was so bad/bizarre it was enjoyable. The Lorax had actual potential to be a good movie, but fucked up.

>>92246306
>that got watered down even more because of executive intervention.
I only know that originally Ted just wanted to be the first kid on his block to have a tree, because he was part of a hyper consumerist culture. What else was there?

>>92237080
It's capitalism, what did you expect?

Corporates don't sense irony nor acknowledge its existence, if they sense easy marketing and money just by dancing over graves or watermarking a picture of someone dying of AIDS, they'll gladly do that.