Another Movie remake of the Grinch... really?

[Sgt Floyd]

But I mean, even though we never saw the Oncler's head or face, the rest of his appearanced appeared to be that of a smooth/clean-shaven Grinch; I guess I'm surprised they made him an actual human in the movie.

From IMDB

Executive producer Christopher Meledandri said of the change, "The minute you make the Once-ler a monster, you allow the audience to interpret that the problem is caused by somebody who is different from me, and it ceases to be a story that is about all of us. Then it's a story about, 'Oh I see, the person who led us into the predicament is not a person. It's somebody very, very different.' And so it takes you off the hook."

 

[D'Snowth]

Unfortunately, searching and looking at people's favorites is how I discover new (or, new to me) artists anymore... that, or when someone I already watch does a request, commission, or gift art of another person's original work, and I check them out out of curiosity.

 

[Drtooth]

too add to this...

Executive producer Christopher Meledandri said of the change, "The minute you make the Once-ler a monster, you allow the audience to interpret that the problem is caused by somebody who is different from me, and it ceases to be a story that is about all of us. Then it's a story about, 'Oh I see, the person who led us into the predicament is not a person. It's somebody very, very different.' And so it takes you off the hook."

Let's not forget... 22 page kid's book to 90 minute movie. And this is a Dr. Seuss book with a pretty intensive plot, such as it is. The TV special added only so much (musical numbers and cartoony gags with the demolition machines), and that barely made it a 22 minute special. Which is THE problem I have with making kid's books into movies. You need to tell a story that wasn't there to fill out a film's time. Often, you need more story than the book had in the first place, sometimes double that amount. Shrek managed to do it almost flawlessly, but not without making it its own story. Most of them aren't that successful. Some incredibly terrible to the point they're in name only.

I have yet to see this film, but Horton was padded out with a fleshed out storyline for the Whos, especially the "emo" kid who yelled the loudest "YOP!" They gave the Yop kid an entire backstory. Barely a sentence got an entire backstory. Not to mention Horton's completely random Doug/Arthur-esque fantasy cutscene.

Yet, movies based on huge novels get stuff cut out and condensed to the point where Harry Potter got flack for glazing over a lot of details. And now The Hobbit's getting flack for being stretched out to 3 movies (the other film trilogy got a movie per book and was heavily condensed) to be able to tell the entire book as a movie. It's kinda no win. And movies based on books are as old as movies.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

I have yet to see this film, but Horton was padded out with a fleshed out storyline for the Whos, especially the "emo" kid who yelled the loudest "YOP!" They gave the Yop kid an entire backstory. Barely a sentence got an entire backstory. Not to mention Horton's completely random Doug/Arthur-esque fantasy cutscene.

The lorax really focuses on why the Onceler fell into greed and his backstory. Honestly, they could have called the movie The Onceler. The lorax is more like his conscious personified.

 

[CensoredAlso]

From IMDB

Executive producer Christopher Meledandri said of the change, "The minute you make the Once-ler a monster, you allow the audience to interpret that the problem is caused by somebody who is different from me, and it ceases to be a story that is about all of us. Then it's a story about, 'Oh I see, the person who led us into the predicament is not a person. It's somebody very, very different.' And so it takes you off the hook."

That's funny because I never considered the original Once-ler a monster. In fact I was moved by his original characterization because you could tell he truly loved the Trufula trees despite his greed.

And this is why I will never be a fan of the newer Seuss movies, lol. The things that they dismiss about the originals is what I tend to miss the most. Every single time it seems, lol.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

(SPOILERS AHOY!)

Actually, The Onceler in the movie DOES love the trees. He's clearly upset about what he did and says it himself that he regrets ever chopping them down. In fact, he agreed with the Lorax that he wouldn't chop any trees down and started off by just pulling the tufts off the trees. It was his mom who didn't care and pressured him into doing it.

 

[CensoredAlso]

(SPOILERS AHOY!)

Actually, The Onceler in the movie DOES love the trees. He's clearly upset about what he did and says it himself that he regrets ever chopping them down. In fact, he agreed with the Lorax that he wouldn't chop any trees down and started off by just pulling the tufts off the trees. It was his mom who didn't care and pressured him into doing it.

Oh I'm not saying it wasn't like that in the new movie. I'm just saying that it annoys me when the creators of these newer films put down the originals and act like they had to "fix" things.

The original didn't need to spell the internal conflict out, or put the blame on a different character. Subtlety and guts in film are just lost nowadays, lol.

 

[Drtooth]

If there's one thing the animated TV special added was a nice little exchange between the Onceler and the Lorax. The Onceler asks the Lorax quite bluntly, paraphrasing Look. If I shut down the factory, all the jobs will be lost and businesses that rely on them will fail. The Lorax sadly answers, "I don't know the answer to that." That really adds a nice moral dilemma, taking the black and white out of it.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

That's actually the one issue I had with the movie. They couldn't decide what the moral issue is. The Onceler is obviously the protagonist of the movie. Not Ted, not the Lorax. But his business is only his family of 5 other people. However, you then have a tycoon who sells air because the environment is ruined because of the Onceler's actions and he actively works to keep the environment gross because if he didn't it would "threaten his business."

 

[CensoredAlso]

If there's one thing the animated TV special added was a nice little exchange between the Onceler and the Lorax. The Onceler asks the Lorax quite bluntly, paraphrasing Look. If I shut down the factory, all the jobs will be lost and businesses that rely on them will fail. The Lorax sadly answers, "I don't know the answer to that." That really adds a nice moral dilemma, taking the black and white out of it.

That was brilliant and it's something you almost never see in children's entertainment. A moral issue that's left up in the air with no clear resolution.

However, you then have a tycoon who sells air because the environment is ruined because of the Onceler's actions and he actively works to keep the environment gross because if he didn't it would "threaten his business."

In theory that was definitely a clever idea, attacking big business and advertising. The movie had good ideas, I just couldn't identify with the style of the story telling, as is the pattern with most of these newer Seuss films. They feel very mainstream and not rebellious and original the way Seuss' original books and cartoons were.