Shop More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
June 9, 2012
Image Size
621 KB
Resolution
900×799
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,395
Favourites
56 (who?)
Comments
13
×
Business Proposition of the Year by ArsonDadko Business Proposition of the Year by ArsonDadko
Sorry, fangirlsÖ

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.

Anyway, enjoy!


Illustration is © me
The Onceler is © Dr. Seuss and Universal Pictures
Add a Comment:
 
:iconroxasandnaminelove:
roxasandnaminelove Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
While I do agree with you on some things, I can't help but ponder other points you've presented.

I don't know about others, but at least to me, it doesn't help your argument to say you've never read the book, and yes, watching the original cartoon from the 70s can justify it, but it only confuses things more. You say you don't understand why the first idea to come to the Once-ler's mind is to chop down the trees instead of harvesting the tufts, but if you truly did watch the cartoon or read the book, you'd notice that's exactly how it happened in the original (minus the singing and actual human form of course). If you'd really like to blame anyone on this plot hole, then it's Dr. Seuss you're after, not the writers for the film. I do agree that characters like Audrey weren't exactly needed, but without them (sadly) children wouldn't have been drawn in, thus explaining the casting of celebrities like Zac Efron and Taylor Swift. The idea was to get children to find this story appealing and realize that it can apply to real life, and while the execution was admittedly not the best because of children's recent standards for 'interesting' or 'cool', it did work. By showing young children that celebrities they love and obsess over were glad and proud to be part of The Lorax, it piques a genuine interest to see what exactly their favorite singer/guy they liked in those Disney Channel movies were trying to convey to them. It's sad that messages like these have to resort to these means of publicity but without them, kids these days just wouldn't give a crap.
Reply
:iconarsondadko:
ArsonDadko Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
The casting of young “celebrities” like Zac Effron and Taylor Swift has nothing to do with the movie’s message and morals. They were indeed hired because of their appeal, but their appeal is mainly profitable on a financial level, not on an actual artistic or social level. Dumb kids want to see/hear their teenage pop stars.
As for the flaws in the story’s logic, if my complains actually are in the original material, it doesn’t help the director’s case, weather he did see the story’s flaws or not, since he didn’t even try to justify or fix the story’s gaps in logic.
Reply
:iconroxasandnaminelove:
roxasandnaminelove Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It may be a flaw in logic but without it, there would be no driving force for the eventual chopping of all the truffula trees. The writers and director couldn't simply decide the Once-ler was going to keep to his promise and harvest instead of chopping because where would the conflict be? How would all the truffula trees die? If they didn't, then it doesn't relay the message that Dr. Seuss originally intended from the generation it was written in where awareness of the chopping down of trees was finally being brought to the public's attention, and finally being seen as a real problem.
Reply
:iconarsondadko:
ArsonDadko Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
In that case this is the writer(s)'s hiding a crappy story behind obvious symbolism. The moral of the story cannot be brought to our attention without bending the laws of logic and basic story-telling to its advantage. Symbolism is never a good excuse for lack of a logic story.
Reply
:iconroxasandnaminelove:
roxasandnaminelove Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It's Dr. Seuss' world, and he's never been identifiable by straight to the point logic. His stories are eccentric and not like the norm, but his writing is reflected off of real world problems, which throughout time, will always occur both with and without common logic :) It's how the world will always be.
Reply
:iconkidsapiens:
KidSapiens Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2012
What more could possibly be said?

More trees=more money!
Reply
:iconcyber-knight:
Cyber-Knight Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ouch... failed the Business management course...

Well... compare to the book, the late animation and this... The beginning is fine but they could leave the ending the same... ending it like in the animation or fast forward it in like a few years the boy successfully planted the tree and the Lorax returns. No more chase scene please.

Also... they shouldn't add O'Hare in... seriously, producing fresh and clean air in town while smog out the outside world? And then prevent trees ever existing? Have he even thought that the people in town will eventually get tired being coop-up in that place?

Plus I agree on the bad business management the Once-Ler did... but that's is what Dr. Seuss wrote in this book... Just cut down trees to satisfy customers...... Reaaalllllyyyyy?
Reply
:iconvernfeathers:
VernFeathers Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Wow, you really just put into words what I was thinking the whole movie. I was sitting there like . . . really . . . really? You can't just harvest the materials? I mean the Onceler wasn't a stupid man . . . why didn't he just invent something to harvest the Truffula fluff? I mean come on . . . he invented that horrid Axe Hacker. There are a lot of plot holes which really frustrates me. MUCH MORE thought should have went into this story line. I do like the Onceler and the Lorax though. I like the Onceler's character. He was far more 3-Dimentional than any of the other characters. The others were just plot devices pretty much . . . which is sad. I hate when that happens.

Any who, your picture is awesome and hilarious. My hats off to you!:nod:

:+fav:
Reply
:iconarsondadko:
ArsonDadko Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
I agree. I think they did a decent job in fleshing out the Onceler, which is why I think it's frustrating they decided to focu most of the movie on the originally "nameless boy". I really don't see why the actual story of the Lorax wasn't their main priority...

Anyway,. thanks a bunch!
Reply
:iconvernfeathers:
VernFeathers Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
No problem.

Yeah, well it is apparent they didn't really know what they wanted to do. In the end they ended up messing the story line up big time. I mean did they even take the time to watch the 1972 version? They could have learned a lot from it.:nod:
Reply
Add a Comment: