Par for the course in blowout CGI adaptations, a great deal of detail and bustle is gained at the expense of charm-for all the miracles these armies of animators can achieve, they have yet to successfully reproduce a humble artist's line.
Sure, the movie wasn't anything special. But it's not fair to put down animators in such a way. We are artists too, and animation itself is simply another way to tell a story.
Mar 2 - 08:41 PM
I don't think you should feel insulted. I think you should feel challenged.
Mar 2 - 11:37 PM
Mar 5 - 10:50 AM
"they have yet to successfully reproduce a humble artist's line."
And you can? Give an example of a 'humble line' please, or your comment is just not true.
Mar 4 - 03:08 AM
Oh good lord.
Mar 4 - 11:11 AM
May 6 - 09:51 PM
That's one of the dumber things I've seen said today.
You don't have to know how to cook to be able to tell if a meal tastes like shit.
Mar 5 - 12:34 AM
Yes, because nothing Pixar has ever done can be compared to a humble artist's line. Of course, how foolish of me to ever think otherwise.
Mar 7 - 01:04 AM
it's always amusing to read the responses to other's opinions about films. i must ask, why is the default response always to be offended? especially when one doesn't understand the quote? just, truly, emotionally hurt, as it would seem. they're called critics for a reason. because they criticize. and it seems many people are ignorant of what it means to criticize any work of art. and the truly ignorant will no doubt call me names because i used the word 'ignorant'. not everything a critic says, including me, should be taken as the furthest negative possible. i read pinkerton's review, as you should as well, and while not a great review, it was simple and to the point, and if you have an open mind to criticism, you will understand what this small excerpt means.
in response to pinkerton's claim that these animators "do not reproduce a humble artist's line", i must say i see his point. 'the lorax' is pretty forgettable stuff, the computer animation just doesn't have the same love and heart behind suess' work. the glossy expensive look of 'the lorax' is nothing like dr suess' books, which though simple, were tremendously clever drawings, and obviously had a lasting impression on the collective conscious of americans, i'm not sure about the rest of the world, honestly .. the entire movie IS thneedville in my opinion, the irony of the pinnacle of computer animation applied to a moral story about consumerism is amusing for sure, but isn't as offensive as some suggest though .. i think spending money on escapism through cinema isn't quite on par with, say, tearing down a rainforest, but the 3D is just that, irony. and this isn't a negative pointed directly at animators! i thought the animation was excellent, but the script was mostly to blame. you can't bedazzle your way out of a mostly cliche and preachy script.
i think 'the lorax' is good, but not great. it sends the message, and sitting in the theatre i heard kids saying 'no, not the trees!" and "why is he cutting down all the trees?" and "why doesn't the lorax stop them?". it's not the best adaptation, but on it's own, i don't think we'll hear many children complaining about the problems we critics like to blow up and out of proportion. i think dr. suess would be proud that his message is being spread on an even larger scale. that's the whole point right? awareness? 70 mil opening weekend must mean a lot of eyes are seeing this, and i'm guessing many are children, who are the future, and hopefully they take this to heart, as i think i see them doing. "look mom, it's the lorax!" as they reach out to the screen, the 3D so believable they are trying to touch him.
Mar 7 - 11:59 AM
Don't blame the animators. Blame the producers.
Mar 23 - 10:12 AM
I couldn't be in more agreement. Flash, song and dance, and modern references do little for the original. And where's the gem of Suess? the language? All buried in modern slang. Not my cup of tea at all. Considerable fail.
May 6 - 09:50 PM