lorax1-icon lorax1-icon
Feature Film

“The Lorax” trailer #2

A newer, longer look at Illumination’s upcoming The Lorax.

  • *cringe* I don’t know what to say. This looks terrible.

    • Carmine

      Totally a travesty…

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6650219631867189375 <—this is perfect and didn't need re-doing. Everyone should be comparing to this.

      One of these days, studios should learn that they should make a 90 min movie containing 3 Dr Seuss stories in stead of making one book in to a feature. His books were not meant for that format. Although the visual style and animation were great in Horton, the movie was NOTHING like a Dr Seuss book.




      • victoria

        This hits it on the nose. No more discussion needed.

  • Me

    This doesn’t look terrible, what are you comparing it to? The original book? I think it looks good, they may have expanded the story a bit, but they had to as it is a feature film. Give it a chance.

  • Nothing like the original story.

    We watched the original special in Sociology class. They were defining what places the character would fit in the culture before and after.

  • Like it. If you *must* go pink, go pink all the way.

  • Someguy

    There are so many things wrong with the message and underlying assumptions that form this story, but for once, I’ll let everyone else point out what they are.


  • Old Man Father Time


    Time to stay way from CB for a while.

  • I don’t like the voice for the Onceler. It just doesn’t fit his character.

    And why is there a government group monitoring the town? That was never in the book.

    • Skeptical

      Because the heartland folks, the target audience, love them some guv’ment conspiracy theories.

  • Jen

    Who “directed” this mess? The movements aren’t bad for an Indian studio, but where’s the animation?

  • Peter Wassink

    It seems awfully “plastic” for telling us plastic is bad.
    Kids wanting to take its lesson to heart shouldn’t watch this but go play outside.

    But That’s my gripe with most kids(animation)movies.
    This one at least looks well made.

  • CB

    This looks really, really good. The visuals are amazing, and I love that you can kind of hear the spirit of Dr. Seuss’s poetry.

    I love it and I would like to know which studio(s) is behind this one ; is it all Illumination or is it an external studio like Despicable Me? IIRC, Illumination is more of a production company than an actual studio, right?

    • Old Man Father Time

      Illumination produced it, but the actual animation was made by the same studio who animated Despicable Me in Paris, France.

      Illumination IS NOT AN ANIMATION STUDIO. It is a FILM COMPANY. They outsource everything.

  • cbat628

    When I saw the first trailer, I thought that the kid and the ax-man were the same person. After seeing this one, I’m tempted to say the reason I thought this was due to same-y character design. However, I’m sure that me not paying close enough attention attributed to at least some of the confusion.

  • Ted

    Too much fake environmentalism, not enough Ted getting some…

  • You shouldn’t be so critical of a movie.

    That’s a movie?!

  • Sherrie

    It looks . . . ok. What’s really bothering me is the voice acting. Danny Devito as the Lorax just feels wrong.

    • To me, there could have not been any better choice for the Lorax than DeVito. Clearly this is a film that is already generating some very mixed opinions.

      • Funkybat

        Danny Devito is just not how I imagine the Lorax sounding. Sure, I’m biased based on the old animated special, but I believe even if I hadn’t seen it, I wouldn’t have pictured a voice like Danny’s. If you wanted to hew close to the original, and similar kind of “old guy” voice would be good. Just looking at the character alone, I would have pictured something much deeper than Devito or the original animated one, something more like Wilford Brimley or Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia.

  • Milfordcubicle

    Dr Seuss didn’t even like the 1972 adaption, who knows how much he would dislike this film.

    • BP

      Where did you hear Seuss disliked the 1972 version? I read that Suess liked all the Depatie-Freleng adaptations. It was the ones by Chuck Jones he hated.

      • Funkybat

        I had heard that it was the process of working with Chuck Jones that Seuss hated more than the end results, per se. They were both individualists and when two people used to doing things “their way” all the time try to collaborate, it’s not always pretty.

        I would be interested in reading any further quotes or writings by Geisel about his thoughts on the end results. I’ll admit that Chuck gave them “his look and feel,” but they also feel like a natural match for the illustrations in the original books. The De-Patie-Freling specials were by and large pretty good, but the animation style never seemed as dynamic as I would imagine it to be looking at a Dr. Seuss book. Not quite the perfect match that, say, Melendez Productions achieved with Schulz’s Peanuts.

  • Bob

    I think the wrong approach was taken for this adaptation. The film needs a hopeful ending, but not exactly a ‘feel-good’ one. It looks too cutesy. Given the cautionary source material, “The Lorax” should be more “Rango” than “Horton Hears a Who.”

  • Clint H.

    It looks OKAY. Not one I would see in theaters, though.

  • JMatte

    Seems a lot of the negativity stems from people who have read the book.
    I guess it helps I haven’t read the Lorax as a kid? I’m certainly not feeling biased or negative towards it.
    It looks like it will be a charming tale. Let’s not judge the full story or its message based on just a trailer (they sometimes love to jumble things together or even write lines that won’t be in the film). I feel like I’m saying that for every movie trailer posted here, ha ha!

    Just like cbat628 above, the first trailer had lead me to believe the kid and the Axe Man were the same person. Also fooled by the similar looking design.

    It’s colorful, looks fun and whimsical and I am looking forward to see more.

  • Why are so many people down on this film? It looks promising and the animation looks wonderful. Just because Disney or DreamWorks didn’t make it doesn’t mean it holds no value. I thought the first trailer had a bit more mystery to it but it was nice to see a bit more of the story. People wish there was more animation and here it is yet people bash on it, I don’t get it.

  • Appealing color, design, animation. The clip did a good job of exposing the entertainmnet value without totally giving away the story. My family should like it.

  • Chris

    Eh, I think it looks all right. Danny DeVito sounds pretty good as the Lorax, and Ed Helms sounds fine as the Once-ler (it always seems to me that comedians or character actors make better fits for voice-over), but Zac Efron (who I don’t particularly dislike, mind you) and Taylor Swift just sound like they’re reading.

    Animation-wise, I think it looks pretty nice and Seussian.

  • Taco Wiz

    I was pissed off when I saw the first trailer with a bright, happy future that just didn’t include trees.

    This trailer implies that this is the only town left on the planet.

    My main complaint against the film is no longer valid, so I will indeed see this.

  • I would have thought that Wall-E proved this could have been far more faithful to the orignal source material.

    • Skeptical

      They may have thought that by being more true to the book, and by opening with a devastated landscape, many people would assume that they just copied WALL-E. People make stupid assumptions like that all the time.

  • FigmentJedi

    I’d say the shell story expansion’s a better case of adaptation expansion then the crap they put in the live-action Grinch and Cat in the Hat.
    Extending the effects of the consumers dumb enough to buy the Thneed to letting corporate dickbags take control makes a slight bit of sense.

  • CJ

    If you know nothing about the original, then this isn’t bad. Similar to how if you knew nothing of the original Astro Boy comics or cartoon this doesn’t look bad. But seeing how I knew and loved both as a wee kid in the 90’s; this is disappointing. It’s not horrible, but could it be better? Yes.

    But the designs, animation, and visuals are spot on and awesome. I will give this film a go in theaters because I could just be biased, haha.

  • Emily

    Looks fun!

  • Like I said before. The 1972 TV special is far better than this.

  • Corey K.

    So… it looks like this is more of a sequel to the book than a reworking of it? =shrug= Sure, I guess I can go with that.

  • itworks

    shit’s gonna sells. the voice talent is pretty a-list, the colors are charming, the designs are pretty pleasing.

    The only thing that really annoys me are the acting choices. general audience doesn’t really care about such things too much, so…yeah it’s gonna sell well.

  • One can see the punchlines a mile away!

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    Looks fun though nothing like the book. I guess they had to put a love interest in. The Zac Efron voiced boy looks like a kid from a 60s/70s Toei animated movie/tv show. I will definetly see it.

    • Chris Sobieniak

      I was getting that sort of vibe out of the kid too (like Hayato from Flying Phantom Ship or Tetsuro Hoshino from Galaxy Express 999). I suppose if it’s one thing the film does that’s a little interesting to me is setting up what kind of world this kid lives in and the element of exploration that develops over the course of the story. I’m still going to try to hold my judgement on this one until it comes out. It’s certainly different from the story I knew as a boy (and I’m sure adapting many of Seuss’ tales have seen their share of highs and lows depending on the outcome).

  • joe

    That wasn’t bad, but extremely corny and safe. I can already predict a “everything will be okay now!” ending, which completely misses the point of the book.

    • CJ

      Well to be fair, it could be a message of it’s not always too late to try and fix past mistakes. Sure in reality that is the case in some situations. But if you’re in a hole with no ladder, you will still scramble and think of a way to get out.

      Depending on how the film handles this, it could be a good message still and not too corny.

      • Funkybat

        What made the original story poignant but not utterly depressing was that it showed the “lifecycle” of unchecked exploitation of natural resources, but gave you a “kernel” of hope in the form of the seed, and by extension, the kid, who represented new hope via a new generation. The main way that most people predict the story will differ is that it will avoid a “rough, but hopeful” ending and give us something more akin to the end of WALL-E, with the world still in a rough state, but everyone in a positive, can-do mood, poised on the start of a bright new era. I felt WALL-E would have been better if things seemed a little less happy at the end, and this film would do well to go for that bold (if not always crowd-pleasing) choice. I doubt it will actually happen, but I will make no solid predictions either way.

      • Chris Sobieniak

        Hey, it worked for Barefoot Gen!

  • James

    It looks like decent entertainment. I have a few problems with it so far.

    –Did this material really warrant a love subplot? It’s a kid-oriented film focusing on saving the world. Do they throw in these subplot just to squeeze in a few female patrons.

    –The environmental message is a bit phoney in this one. Apparently, the only downside to “no trees” is a purely aesthetic one. Also, we see a couple tree-like plants when the boy is held up by his toe.

    –DeVito as the Lorax, to me, cancels out any seriousness of his message.

    –Not a fan of the kid friendly 1984-style subplot so far, but hopefully that aspect is just pure dumb fun.

    Personally, I hope this dives completely into comic fun rather than trying to take it’s message seriously. We already get a strong hint that the environmental message will be an anemic one.

  • Mike Johnson

    Did anybody else notice that the one short, fat character with the bowl haircut looks almost exactly like Edna Mode from The Incredibles as a man? I mean, seriously, she HAS to be the inspiration for the design, right? It stuck out like a sore thumb for me. As to the trailer itself…meh.

    • Funkybat

      I didn’t really think Edna Mode, I was more reminded of the venal Mayor in “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs.” I’ll admit the whole “corrupt mayor hiding reality via a police state” thing is an unwelcome addition.

  • Zippythezippy

    I think it looks like a fun kids movie. Sure it’s not pixar, but every movie can’t be. I’ll probably go watch it just for the colorful ride.

  • Roberto

    I didn’t know the original Seuss story, so I just watched the Freleng-De Patie special. I liked it more than I was expecting, considering I’ve always been more of a Chuck Jones’ than Freleng’s fan.

    This new adaptation looks like the new Horton Hears a Who. It looks similar and has some similar characters and ideas but the message and tone is all wrong. It looks like every scene has to include a gag, even if it’s a very cheap one. I like comedy as much as the next guy, but this story is not a jokey one. It doesn’t have to be overly serious, but too much gags will probably make it unsincere.

    Changes in the plot could work or not, we’ll see. The fact that the town looks good even without the real trees is different, but not necessarily bad, it could be some kind of “Brave New World” situation. Love interest is not especially necessary, but it can get a pass. The part that will change the story the most is that here the protagonist will be the kid and the Lorax instead of the Once-Ler and the Lorax, and that will probably change the story too much.

  • Jack Ruttan

    I think it’s got only a tenuous connection to Dr. Seuss, which only a few kids might have heard of anyhow, and don’t care about fidelity, only an exciting movie. But most boomer parents and film producers know him, so that’s why it has the brand.

  • Ignatz the Brick Pitcher

    LOOL The original animated adaptation of The Lorax directed by Chuck Jones is head and shoulders above this drecky movie version! I doubt Giesel (Dr. Seuss) would approve of this new adaptation in regards to content and graphic style if he were alive today. Jones nailed it perfectly….40 years ago.

  • Justin

    I think this is gonna be a good movie. “The Lorax” is my second favorite Dr. Seuss book. I can’t wait to see the kid try to bring back the Lorax.