Unless
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Really Bob? The movie doesn't suck enough that you have to resort to that pretentious old chesnut? The Artist was understandable but c'mon now.MovieBob said:
I thought of them as suppository monsters.Swifteye said:
But honestly, that really is Despicable Me's biggest problem: the kids. If it had just been a comedic punch up between an old-school mad scientist and a "hip," smartass younger villain, it would have been excellent. Instead, we got this cliche ridden piece of tripe about a man who learns how much he really cares because some kids did the puppy-dog eye trick on him. They weren't interesting, the plot was not engaging on any level and in the end the only emotion I felt for them was the wish that every one of them would die for ruining what could have been an interesting movie.
This is pretty much exactly what I felt about Despicable Me. I started watching it with no context, thinking 'Hey, this looks kind of entertaining.' Then I saw the kids for the first time.RJ Dalton said:
'Man, these characters are frakking irritating. I hope they don't play a big....'
'Oh gods'
'They're the focus of the whole godsdamned movie, aren't they'
'FUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
You get the idea
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v206329006NgXc3xG?h1=Dr.+Seuss+The+Butter+Battle+Book
The butter battle book for those that don't know
The butter battle book for those that don't know
I actually think that the choice to make a continuation or sequel or sorts to the Lorax was actually a good one, compared to just doing a straight remake. The Lorax is probably one of Dr. Seuss' best known books to date, and was already made into an animated tv special in 1972. The TV special itself is actually fairly interesting, in that it expands upon the systemic problems and consequences with the business model that the Wuncler is using, even taking a quick look at the problem of the labor market itself.
The movie itself kept me entertained, thought I will readily admit that the protagonist's motivation is a bit trite. However, I liked that it didn't try to be like the original. For a little kid just starting to think about the world around them, this movie might be a welcome first start. I'm not saying Bob is wrong to criticize the softening up of the actual villain of the story, changing it from a shared culpability to a "few bad apples", but I don't think it ruins the inherent message of conservation and naturalism as a virtue.
When Bob says that "You cannot teach an audience a lesson if you're not willing to allow for the possibility of them feeling bad about giving the wrong answer." I think he's overlooking the idea that an audience may be smart enough to take away the message without being hit over the head with agit-prop.
Then again we are talking about the man that said:
"The difference between me and most libertarians is that they start from the position that humanity, when given freedom, will use it well. I see humanity too clearly to think that is the case. Most of us are PROFOUNDLY incapable of managing ourselves. What keeps me from being a "liberal" despite this knowledge is that, while I accept this about my species... I don't really CARE. Don't misunderstand - I'm not WHOLLY self-interested. I care more about my friends, family, many other associates more than I do myself
But "humanity?" Humanity can suck an egg."
His entire perspective on humanity in general comes from a default position of distrust in it's very nature. While at our base level of instinct there are certain traits more geared toward survival than anything else, such as our tendency to hoard resources and act super paranoid around the unknown, I think that on some level man is indeed greater than beast in our ability not only to make sense of our world, but also to reinterpret it in ways that be seen as ultimately altruistic or even otherworldly. I'm not saying I have total faith in every individual I meet nor am I saying that there aren't some very messed up things happening on the Earth right now, but overall I'd say humanity is this planet's most valuable resource.
The movie itself kept me entertained, thought I will readily admit that the protagonist's motivation is a bit trite. However, I liked that it didn't try to be like the original. For a little kid just starting to think about the world around them, this movie might be a welcome first start. I'm not saying Bob is wrong to criticize the softening up of the actual villain of the story, changing it from a shared culpability to a "few bad apples", but I don't think it ruins the inherent message of conservation and naturalism as a virtue.
When Bob says that "You cannot teach an audience a lesson if you're not willing to allow for the possibility of them feeling bad about giving the wrong answer." I think he's overlooking the idea that an audience may be smart enough to take away the message without being hit over the head with agit-prop.
Then again we are talking about the man that said:
"The difference between me and most libertarians is that they start from the position that humanity, when given freedom, will use it well. I see humanity too clearly to think that is the case. Most of us are PROFOUNDLY incapable of managing ourselves. What keeps me from being a "liberal" despite this knowledge is that, while I accept this about my species... I don't really CARE. Don't misunderstand - I'm not WHOLLY self-interested. I care more about my friends, family, many other associates more than I do myself
But "humanity?" Humanity can suck an egg."
His entire perspective on humanity in general comes from a default position of distrust in it's very nature. While at our base level of instinct there are certain traits more geared toward survival than anything else, such as our tendency to hoard resources and act super paranoid around the unknown, I think that on some level man is indeed greater than beast in our ability not only to make sense of our world, but also to reinterpret it in ways that be seen as ultimately altruistic or even otherworldly. I'm not saying I have total faith in every individual I meet nor am I saying that there aren't some very messed up things happening on the Earth right now, but overall I'd say humanity is this planet's most valuable resource.
Yeah, but Despicable Me was still not the movie promised to me by the trailer. I was hoping for a fun spy vs spy sort of thing, with a real bad guy protagonist. But no, I got a movie about Steve Carell with bad Russian accent trying to be a good dad.B Goy said:
If it wasn't for "It's so FLUFFY!" and the little yellow things there would be no value to that movie.
This is a good point (that the movie can be seen as a sequel to the book, rather than a straight-up remake of it), and it's certainly true that some, having read The Lorax already or having been introduced to it in some fashion already, can pick up the subtle messages just file.SadakoMoose said:
I'm still not a fan of the approach or the movie, personally, but...fair point.
Desire to form relationships and complex communities are also ingrained in our DNA (that was arguably the only reason humanity could survive for so long). And it's pretty hard to do either if everyone's wired to act like a prick to most other people. So yeah, there is something off about that kind of logic (I'm not going to say I trust everyone enoughto get rid of all laws ever, but it seems odd (not to mention contradictory) to state that laws are what keep irresponsible people in check.
Saying that "humanity is this planet's most valuable resource" is highly debatable, though.
I liked the Lorax, albeit they could've used more Lorax in my opinion. I don't buy that the movie was any less biting in its indictment of society's interaction with nature. In fact, I'd argue that, mandatory cinematic plot points aside, the movie offers an even bolder truth with the idea that people can do terrible things without understanding it. I don't get why Bob is so insistent that the society of Thneedville in this movie be portrayed as bad instead of just being led astray. The book doesn't talk about the town the boy is from at all so I'm not sure why it's so necessary that the place he's from is filled with really bad people. And as for the main character's motivation, it does seem kind of hokey on the surface, but honestly, what else would motivate a teenage boy? Hell the best line in the movie is the Once-ler commenting,
Let's see if I can get this to work right....
Since some people were saying they never read the book I present to you...
I remember the Lorax from when I was a child. The book was big compared to other children's books. It was really tall and I had a hard time holding it. The copy we had was old, I have no idea where it came from but the cover was torn something awful and if I remember correctly it was very plain and I think it had the picture of the Lurkim on it. I really didn't understand it (I was a like 4 years old when I read this the first time so yeah, I didn't get it) but I remember having this haunting feeling for a while afterwards.
It was dark, but not necessarily scary, just...sad. I felt so bad for the Lorax. I was so confused as I had never read a book before with anything but a happy ending. It was almost as if the book had betrayed me and I avoided it for a long time after that. I would find it from time to time as I got older and I understood it more. It was always sad...but for some reason it's one of my fondest memories of books.
So to find out that the Lorax movie betrays that makes me rather annoyed. I still think it'll be a good movie, but it won't be true to the source which is almost as sad as the Lorax being lifted away.
Since some people were saying they never read the book I present to you...
I remember the Lorax from when I was a child. The book was big compared to other children's books. It was really tall and I had a hard time holding it. The copy we had was old, I have no idea where it came from but the cover was torn something awful and if I remember correctly it was very plain and I think it had the picture of the Lurkim on it. I really didn't understand it (I was a like 4 years old when I read this the first time so yeah, I didn't get it) but I remember having this haunting feeling for a while afterwards.
It was dark, but not necessarily scary, just...sad. I felt so bad for the Lorax. I was so confused as I had never read a book before with anything but a happy ending. It was almost as if the book had betrayed me and I avoided it for a long time after that. I would find it from time to time as I got older and I understood it more. It was always sad...but for some reason it's one of my fondest memories of books.
So to find out that the Lorax movie betrays that makes me rather annoyed. I still think it'll be a good movie, but it won't be true to the source which is almost as sad as the Lorax being lifted away.
I read the rest of the article expecting it to rhyme the same way the intro did...ruined it for me.
So, essentially, Hollywood said:
"No, no, we can't have deep symbolism and logic in our Lorax movie. That might cause our audience to think, which is completely impossible after they've had their brains diluted by the Transformers and Twilight movies! Besides, we're not making an Oscar movie; we're making a Seuss movie. Everyone will watch that, regardless of what we put in. Hey, someone Google a couple of children movies in the past; we'll use them as the entire structure."
"No, no, we can't have deep symbolism and logic in our Lorax movie. That might cause our audience to think, which is completely impossible after they've had their brains diluted by the Transformers and Twilight movies! Besides, we're not making an Oscar movie; we're making a Seuss movie. Everyone will watch that, regardless of what we put in. Hey, someone Google a couple of children movies in the past; we'll use them as the entire structure."
Seuss was just a genius, in my opinion. Fully aware of what he was doing even as he made up some of the craziest words to ever be spoken. And he targeted the right audience, giving kids their first lesson in not being afraid of what's different, why racism is wrong, why pollution is wrong; hell most of us here will agree that it was the Grinch who taught us the true meaning of Christmas. I can barely remember my childhood but I remember all of the Seuss books, by spirit if not by word. He proved you're never too young to learn the important stuff.
I was looking through IMdb and I noticed this in the trivia section. "Unlike the original book, the Once-ler is shown fully in the story as a human. 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." But the problem with that is that it takes away the message of the book, and people wonder why I think this generation and the next is doomed with idiocy.
The thing is, the once-ler WAS just like that in the book/animated short, much more so, in fact.Roganzar said:
In the book, the once-ler wasn't EVIL. What he thought he was doing was right; he argues that Thneed is an extremely useful multi-purpose product, justifying its manufacture. He also argues that shutting down his empire wholesale would put thousands out of work (I believe the number was 100 000), and when he realises the consequences of his action, he punishes himself via self-imposed exile.
Movie!once-ler, by comparison, is painted as nothing more than a good person led astray, he isn't PERSONALLY responsible, it was society forcing him to act! The result is similar (an "evil" person believing that they are doing the right thing), but the book version is a much better character, being much more sympathetic: its much easier to see things from his point of view.