Man, this one just took me forever to finish!
Guess I brought it on myself though. Iím not that skilled with digital painting, the pic was supposed to be more of a practice sketch anyway, and the final photoshop file has at least 300 layers in it. Iím surprised I was even able to save the thing!
That said, Iím freakiní happy how this picture came out. As I said, Iím not really skilled with digital painting, but itís the first time Iím actually happy about the overall illustration (as opposed to the Rouge pic for example, where I was only satisfied with the ears and her lilí toupet).
So, this pic might be the first of a potential artbook project, collecting illustrations and short movie reviews. Already had another image in the making, possibly about Disneyís John Carter of Mars, but not too sure about the project itself. Anyway, you know me; any project I announce has a 50%/50% chance of happening anyway (like the Etta Hipster hentaiÖ sorry about that, but itís not never happening, just not right now.).
As for the subject of the drawing itselfÖ
I wonít go into a complete review of the Loraxís movie. In short, letís just say itís a bad movie and a horrible adaptation, but with some good elements. The animation is top-notch, the overall design is pretty appealing, and John Powellís soundtrack is, as usual, freaking fantastic. The film also definitively looks like it had a talented team of character and set designers, storyboard artists and animators behind it. Indeed, several scenes are amazing on their own, and deserved an all-around better movie than what we got.
As for the negative stuff, wellÖ pretty much every thing about the plot, characters and stakes is wrong. As I said, I wonít go into further details, but Iíll just say this: The script was horrible; the songs, for the most part, are forgettable, although Ed Helms is a pretty good signer and voice actor; Zack Effron isnít a bad voice-actor, even if he is a horrible overall actor and symbolises what is wrong with modern cinema and television; the choice of casting Taylor Swift as the completely useless love interest baffles me (I hate her music and the very concept of teen pop star anyway.)Ö But if you want an in-dept review of the movie, I recommend the Nostalgia Chickís review on Channel Awesome.
A number of plot holes hurts the tale of the Lorax (going by the movie here, not the book, which Iíve never read), but I think the most jarring one is how the Onceler produced the thneed.
Letís put this clearly. You created a product that is made of the ďwoolĒ of a rare tree, and you just found a valley entirely filled with those trees. Now, instead of simply using a ladder or another device to reach far heights, you decide the best and quickest possible way to reach the treeís wool is to chop it down. You know the number of trees is limited, and youíre not planning on planting more of them, since they seem to only produce seeds when itís convenient to the plot. This business plan is obviously flawed, because the production of your product is in direct relation with the material you need to make it, material that is finite since youíre not planning on making any effort to make sure the plant producing this material lives comfortably and in a controlled environment so you can harvest as much of its wool as possible, instead deciding to cut it down to waste less time.
The question is, why are you now surprised by the fact that there isnít a single tree left? How come the simple idea of ďIf I cut down my revenue source, I wonít make any money anymore.Ē didnít cross your mind? Ever heard of rubber, fruits, or tobacco harvesting? Why was cutting down the tree your first reflex? Why didnít anyone, especially the Lorax, suggest the idea of harvesting the wool without cutting down the tree?
I donít know what would be more inexcusable: Not thinking about this very simple solution, or giving us a very stupid non-justification as to why they cannot get the wool directly from the live trees (using tiny spring-mounted tweezers and saying it wastes too much time).
No one thought about harvesting the wool, or no one offered any legitimate justification against. Add to the fact that no one investigated about the tree extinction before a little horny 12 years-old who wanted to screw a vapid 16 years-old (perfect casting choice), that the Onceler waited for someone else who would care enough to plant and take care of new trees (I guess HE didnít care enough about his redemption and the return of the Lorax, his friend), that this movie is primarily an environmental flick and that, by definition, environmental movies fail, that this movie is a rip-off of Wall-E (which wasnít an environmental movie but a love story), and that the actual tale the movie is supposed to tell is reduced to a 2 and a half minute long musical number in a 1 and a half hour snore fest.
As I said, the movie has its good elements. There are even some scenes hat got me a little teary-eyed, like the scenes where the Lorax leaves and come back to the Onceler. The movie also had some complaints of parents not wanting Hollywood to shove environmental policies in their kidsí face, which is just hilarious. Yeah, telling kids itís not good to pollute is so 1972Ö
But overall, itís just a bad Dr. Seuss movie, like all modern Dr. Seuss movie. Itís far form being the worst (live-action anyone?), because decent animation team and awesome soundtrack make it bearable, but Iím pretty sure the book and the 2D animated version are much more entertaining.
Illustration is © me
The Onceler is © Dr. Seuss and Universal Pictures