I think that every enduring story that has expressions over multiple periods, that role of being the keeper of the integrity of the vision is a very important role.

Being branded to some subset of your fans is important when it comes to creating films and characters they're not familiar with. It's enormously difficult to market to a global audience, and it's becoming more difficult. A brand matters to parents, whereas kids are largely driven by their urgent reaction to the product. In the future, where there are going to be choices that have to be made by parents because it will be prohibitively expensive to access everything, those will be driven partially by brand.

It's not fair to use movies that weren't creatively successful as a reason why something won't work.

We have a process that continually looks back to him for guidance, but it also combines that with a tremendous amount of discovery and invention, as well, because of the demands of the medium and the opportunities of the medium.

It is incredibly daunting to take on a live-action story. I think that it adds a level of complexity to the responsibility that goes beyond what I've experienced on these two films (The Lorax and Horton Hears a Who).

Why did Ted Geisel end up writing and illustrating for young minds? He has specific imagery in the book, and we never would have moved beyond the discussion phase, if we couldn't have found an expression for The Lorax, dimensionally, that was true to the soul of what comes through in his simple line drawings, on the page.

There are countless times where you're trying to channel somebody who's not there, but that's what you have to do. But Audrey Geisel, who has executive produced this film and Horton, and who works remarkably close with me, is a great source of information. (The Simpsons creator) Matt Groening once told me that one of the most important roles that he fulfills on The Simpsons is being the keeper of the integrity of the original vision.