The Lorax Movie and the Art of Establishing Seuss

The children’s books of Doctor. Seuss are so beloved and revered that any feature-length film difference is going to be highly looked at and met with skepticism. The same can be said with any children’s literature classic taken to the silver screen, and for every successful attempt, like the Harry Potter series, there’s a stinker, like the Cat in the Hat. A computer-animated version of the Lorax hits theaters in 03 of 2012, and Seuss fans await with the usual mix of excitement and trepidation. Could it meet expectations? There is reason to be optimistic.Soap2day for Android - APK Download

First, though, let’s consider what elements would make for the ideal film difference of a Seuss book. Of course, as with just about any difference, you want our Seuss movies to be true to the source material. It soaptoday has to look like it sits with Seuss’s distinctive and unique artwork. It is not good enough to simply pay respect to the Seuss style; these films must have a traditional Seuss look. Main characters should not be drastically altered. No new plot points that Seuss himself would clearly not add. No contemporary pop/rock tracks or quips about present-day novelties like the ipad and Facebook. Seuss fans will quickly decline films that so tamper with the original. While the scripts understandably cannot are made up solely of clever Seuss rhymes, a significant amount of Seussian wordplay is required. You want our Seuss movies to be genuine Seuss.

I’d like to think The movies gets that, but of the three major Seuss films built to date, only one has obtained widespread approval from Seuss fans. Maybe the biggest problem in establishing these books is their short length, all less than 70 pages long, with many of the pages consisting of just a few sentences. Inevitably, new material must be added. Characters must be fleshed out, given back-stories and a sensible motivation. New characters might have to be added. Filmmakers must press carefully here.

Lead famous actors can also factor largely in a Seuss film’s reception. If the character’s tone is off, it’s all over. It’s tempting for many famous actors to want to put their stamps on a classic character, to give the portrayal a “freshness” and to make it their own. For example, in Bob Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Manufacturing plant, Arthur Depp turned the mysterious-yet-avuncular Willy Wonka into a goofy, effeminate weirdo. Great professional, odd choice.

Let’s take a look at the three existing Seuss films and how they get the dimensions of to your values:

How the Grinch Took Christmas (2000)

What it got right: The production design effectively captured the look and feel of Seuss’s Whoville in the first live-action Seuss difference ever made, although many times it felt too much like a sound stage set. The new material and Grinch back-story were acceptable.

What it got wrong: Jim Carrey’s performance as the Grinch was too loud and over-the-top, overpowering the charms of Whoville and the Christmas season. His model of the song “You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch, inch from the 1966 Boris Karloff-narrated TV special paled badly in comparison. Perhaps our expectations were way too high.

The Cat in the Hat (2003)

What it got right: Again, the production design was the highlight, widely acknowledged by critics.

What it got wrong: Devices. Mike Meyers’ Cat is not the magical playful visitor from the book, but an unnecessarily primitive and unlikable aggravation. Sadly, the children’s family is dysfunctional. It was all beyond the boundary taken off the book. We can only a cure for a proper rebuilding one day because this became a genuine failure, and the Cat deserves a proper big-screen treatment.

Horton Listens to a Who (2008)

What it got right: As the first computer-animated Seuss film, the look and feel was once again on target. There was a good nice nod to Seuss’s artwork when Horton imagines the occupants of the speck. The new material felt appropriate and changes to the original seemed logical. As Horton the elephant, Jim Carrey’s performance worked this time, as did Carrell’s Mayor of Whoville. We even got Carol Burnett as the sour Kangaroo.

What it got wrong: The pop song tacked on at the end was a horribly ill-conceived. Had the filmmakers not done so much else right, this ending would be unforgivable.

Early next year comes The Lorax, that sad tale of a carried away industrialist destroying the forest of truffula trees and shrubs to make thneeds, which nobody needs. There is good reason to consentrate this computer-animated movie will be a successful difference. The screenplay is by Cinco John and Ken Daurio, the same team that modified Horton Listens to a Who, and also the writers of last year’s Despicable Me, which was an enormous success. Suess’s widow, Audrey Giesel, is on board as executive producer, as she was with Horton, and is presumably accommodating preserve Seuss’s legacy. The talented cast boasts Ed Helms as the Once-ler, Danny DeVito as the Lorax, Zac Efron, Taylor Fast, Betty White, and Deceive Riggle. One cause for concern for some is the reported decision to show the Once-ler’s full body, as opposed to just showing his arms, which credited the smoothness an air of mystery in the book. Judging from their work on Horton, however, these filmmakers have earned the benefit of the doubt, and soon we’ll see the Lorax speaking for the trees and shrubs on the silver screen. Here’s hoping his voice is well-received.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *