VikingBoyBilly wrote:plz don't tell me that was supposed to justify the Japanese American camps after perl harbor. Dr. Seuss, for all your books teaching lessons agains prejudice and racism... why????
Different times, man. Don't judge the past on how we think today. I'm not saying any of that was justified, but I wasn't alive in the late 1940s, nor do I have any living family members who were alive then -- clearly they thought differently back then.
But to get back on topic, "The Lorax" was most definitely NOT a "poorly constructed" environmental propaganda message; as Paramultart pointed out, it's pretty clear-cut: Don't senselessly squander the Earth's resources without regard to future consequences
"I just drew this stupid little fish." -- Tom Hall
What's even more strange about it is the fact that, during the exact same period, he drew cartoons criticizing the marginalization of blacks in the war effort. I think he was generally opposed to racism and oppression, and his depiction of the Japanese especially in this context was something of an anomaly.
_mr_m_ wrote:But to get back on topic, "The Lorax" was most definitely NOT a "poorly constructed" environmental propaganda message; as Paramultart pointed out, it's pretty clear-cut: Don't senselessly squander the Earth's resources without regard to future consequences
Yeah, because nature will abandon anything you damage and leave it barren forever.
I understand the big and obvious message, but a lot of the symbolism is certainly questionable.
Other than some sugarcoating and simplifying of the original message, and the adding of a stock villain who wasn't necessary at all, I kinda liked it. I think the rightwing backlash is pretty dumb, though.
Other than some sugarcoating and simplifying of the original message, and the adding of a stock villain who wasn't necessary at all, I kinda liked it. I think the rightwing backlash is pretty dumb, though.
F*ck Fox News, but f*ck that CGI remake, and f*ck the "voice actors" they hired (aside from DeVito).
I'm not watching this filth.
Just watched that trailer. err... WHAT is all this EXTRA stuff? It's supposed to start with the kid meeting the onceler in that old house. That kid didn't have some big backstory before then. And why is the kid interacting with the lorax? It's supposed to be the onceler telling the story of the lorax, and ending there, but then all these new characters are crammed in and it's a mess.
Normal kids don't care about the environment (or at least that's how hollywood sees it), so they added a love interest to justify him acting un-kid-like. It was pretty messed up how he didn't seem surprised that the entire planet outside of his home was an empty lifeless wasteland, though.
They kinda seemed embarassed by the source material, almost entirely eliminating the rhymes and referring to the animals by regular names instead of Dr. Seuss' made up ones.
As a huge Dr. Seuss fan, and The Lorax being my favorite Dr. Seuss book and old 2D Dr. Seuss short, I cannot emphasize how much I detest this blatant art-rape.
It was bad enough watching The Grinch, The Cat In The Hat, and Horton get this kind of treatment, but now it's personal.
There is no purpose for these atrocious remakes other than to piss off the generations who grew up with the originals.
If they want to cater to this sh*tty young generation, don't take stuff from previous generations and amp it up with sh*tty pop culture references, sh*tty pop stars, and completely change the story to appeal to a sh*tty new batch of kids... Just make "new" franchises that are designed for the severely retarded, like Family Guy.
I'm surprised that any of you are even questioning why they added a completely unnecessary female character. The answer is obvious. To appeal to this spoiled generation of narrow minded females who can't appreciate anything that isn't all about "GIRL POWER".
It wouldn't surprise me one bit of the guy in the story is a good-for-nothing f*ck up who can't do anything right, and the oh-so-smart-and-witty-and-physically-stronger female comes to save the day.
Paramultart wrote:It wouldn't surprise me one bit of the guy in the story is a good-for-nothing f*ck up who can't do anything right, and the oh-so-smart-and-witty-and-physically-stronger female comes to save the day.
F*ck this generation.
In a way, the guy in the story (the Lorax himself) was a good for nothing f*ck up who sold his soul to oil companies, leaving the younger generation to "fix" what was left with a Michael Bay action sequence.
