Talk:The Lorax (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Animation: American / Films / Computer Mid‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Computer animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Taylor Swift Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Imartins34, Jaimeneto17. Peer reviewers: Bluewildflowers, Ian F Whitman, LorraineRodz, Anniep256.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to the original short film The Lorax[edit]

It would be good if the article introduction acknowledged the original 1972 film adaption, albeit a short film, by director Hawley Pratt for CBS (see The Lorax at IMDb).

I'd suggest at least an additional paragraph following the 2nd of the two existing paragraphs, and perhaps also an opening note that indicates the book has been adapted to film twice. Suitable relevant notes in the subsequent sections would be nice for completeness, but not essential. Paulszym (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing[edit]

A Teaser Trailer of this film was attached with Puss in Boots on November 4, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.144.243 (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo for Illumination Entertainment[edit]

In the Logo of Illumination Entertainment, One Eyed Minion dressed as a Tree was chased around the logo by Two Eyed Minion dressed as a Lumberjack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.224.45 (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Characters' names[edit]

It can't possibly be a coincidence that Ted and Audrey share the names of Dr. Seuss (real name Theodor Seuss Geisel) and his widow Audrey Geisel! It just can't be! - Jasonbres (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cutted down?[edit]

Ed Helms as The Once-ler-The tritagonist. He is a tall woodsman that cutted down... Who added this? This is an encyclopedia, and the grammar in it needs to have a gooder standard, I mean a better standard. Someone please edit this. Rsercher (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

"The film received mixed reviews from critics" is correct, and expanding on that fact by listing every beat down from every angle on the movie and nothing else is a skewed summary. This needs to be evened out.71.162.2.215 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Edelstein is quoted as writing:

The touch of their tufts was much softer than silk and they had the sweet smell of fresh butterfly milk – and [in the movie] Ted says, "Wow, what does that even mean?" and Audrey says, "I know, right?" So one of the only lines that is from the book, that does have Dr. Seuss' sublime whimsy, is basically made fun of, or at least, dragged down to Earth.

I'm not sure why the Wikipedia article needs to quote critics at this length. In any case, this is only one critic's opinion. It could equally be argued that '"Wow, what does that even mean?"' is quite clearly a comment on the fact that the children have never seen a tree (let alone a butterfly or 'butterfly milk') and therefore do not even know what they are missing - yet they still miss it - rather than be Seuss being 'dragged down to earth'. We could expand the critical response section to include a more comprehensive selection of the views of critics, but as it is, the focus on David Edelstein's opinion seems excessive. 92.8.134.142 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated additions of "Cy The O'Hare Delivery Guy"[edit]

Someone, over the past days, tried to insert this cast, Fletcher Sheridan, as the singing voice of Cy The O'Hare Delivery Guy. It has been reverted probably due to the fact he wasn't even credited in the film (according to IMDb), not to mention that he's only the singing voice. Generally I think the cast should consist of the main and the involved characters only, and leave out the rest. If this keeps happening, I'm afraid I (or someone) will request semi-protection of this article (prevents editing by IPs and new accounts). theinstantmatrix (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 April 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no apparent consensus favoring this move; for the time being, the 1972 TV special has been moved back to The Lorax (TV special), so this can wait until any other change makes the proposed move here advisable. Dekimasuよ! 01:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lorax (film) → The Lorax (2012 film) – To differentiate from the 1972 film. None of the films are the primary topic, only the source novel is. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Move the other one back to The Lorax (TV special), where it was until recently, so both titles are recognizable to the average reader. Station1 (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Station1, there is a move discussion at The Lorax (1972 film) to move it back to The Lorax (TV special), but most users have voted against that decision, with justifiable reasons. Hence, this page must be moved to avoid confusion. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Since the other Lorax film cannot be moved back, might as well move this one. JaventheAldericky (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't the TV special be moved back? It's still under discussion there. Station1 (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Half-hour animated TV specials are a separate genre that has proliferated in the past 50 years and "(TV special)" has been the usual qualifier used for those with ambiguous titles (The Cat in the Hat (TV special), How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (TV special), Mowgli's Brothers (TV special), Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special), 'Twas the Night Before Christmas (1974 TV special), etc). If we decide that all such television productions need to be qualified as "(film)", then it can be submitted as a mass nomination. That said, we certainly should not have separate entries named The Lorax (1972 film) and The Lorax (film). Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I had read a long time ago about there being a sequel in the early 2010's but it has never happened and it is now 2020. — Arhpuppylove (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring[edit]

@50.100.168.93:, @Gouleg: Please stop reverting each other's edits repeatedly, you both have already broken the 3RR. This has clearly evolved into an edit war. 50.100.169.93, you either need to add a source, or please stop adding questionable information repeatedly. Gummycow ^moo _milk 20:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously warned the IP about this kind of additions to the plot in their talk page -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 20:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that the reverting of poorly sourced or unsourced information is an exemption to the 3RR. However, @50.100.168.93: does not have a reason to start an edit war. Looking at the IP's most recent edit summary, I am pretty sure that the IP's edits are not in good faith.Gummycow ^moo _milk 20:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of this article, this page might need semi- or pending changes protection soon.Gummycow ^moo _milk 20:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2023[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please make Thneedville a redirect to this page. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: article (redirect) creation requests should be made at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy!?[edit]

The first paragraph states that 'The Lorax' is a 'musical comedy film' ... Citation needed for the comedy claim? To be clear, I did find it unfunny, but aside from subjective opinions, there were very few lines that seemed like they were *intended* as jokes. Given that it's based on a children's story doesn't seem sufficient for concluding that it's a comedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:72B4:3A00:D878:C722:C3DE:66FD (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]