PDA

View Full Version : Just watched "Up"



Starscream
2009-05-29, 01:29 AM
I just got back from a midnight showing of the new Pixar film, Up. I have to say, I loved it. Pixar has always done wonderful work, but the last few years (The Incredibles, Ratatouille, WallE and now this) have really cemented their place as the reigning kings of animation.

I'm sure many of you will go to see it in the next few days, and for those who are on the fence, I just want to say that you should really give Up a chance. It's very funny, very exciting, and very touching.

I'm an animation nut, so I go out to see basically every cartoon that comes out. Seeing a movie the instant its released often means midnight showings, so often the theater is pretty empty.

No so this time, the place was packed. Because it was so late at night there were no children, just adults and college kids like myself. It seems that every time a new great animated movie is released the newspapers harp on about how cartoons "aren't just for kids anymore! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnimationAgeGhetto)", as if we need to be told four or five times a year.

It's nice to see that audiences have finally caught on, and aren't afraid to have a great time watching great animation without a couple of howling brats in tow.

Highly recommended, go and see it.

RMS Oceanic
2009-05-29, 03:03 AM
I would, but it doesn't come out here until October. What am I supposed to do for five months? :smallfurious:

Starscream
2009-05-29, 12:02 PM
Five months?! Wow. I had no idea there were places that had to wait that long. I wouldn't be surprised if the thing is out on DVD by the time you get to see it.

Eldan
2009-05-29, 01:00 PM
I don't know how it is in Ireland, but at least around here, you'd have to import the DVD at a quite high extra cost, since they are delayed just as long as the movies.
Actually, we'll probably get it even later, since they have to translate it into three new languages first before they are allowed to show it in cinema.

hanzo66
2009-05-30, 11:20 PM
I've watched it as well. I can easily describe it as "Strange, funny and heartrending".

The characters are all charming and you really do feel a care for them. The intro with Carl and Ellie really tugged at what's left of my heart and almost squeezed my tearducts a bit. Russel, even as a potentially annoying character does end up being quite endearing.

It's deeply recommendable to anyone who likes Pixar movies (IE Movies in general) and an overall truly heartwarming film.

RTGoodman
2009-05-30, 11:29 PM
It's on my list of movies to go see (along with Drag Me to Hell and a couple others), but I don't know when I'll get the chance.

Also, one of my friends who works at a theater saw it early and described it as (and I quote) "sadder than 'Schindler's List'" and Nathan Fillion said, via Twitter (http://twitter.com/NathanFillion), "Robot test #12. Go see Pixar's UP. If your date doesn't cry, robot." I mean, is it really that sad?

Starscream
2009-05-30, 11:47 PM
Also, one of my friends who works at a theater saw it early and described it as (and I quote) "sadder than 'Schindler's List'" and Nathan Fillion said, via Twitter (http://twitter.com/NathanFillion), "Robot test #12. Go see Pixar's UP. If your date doesn't cry, robot." I mean, is it really that sad?

The first ten minutes can be a bit sniffle-inducing, but after that the operative word is Heartwarming.

One Skunk Todd
2009-06-01, 07:44 AM
Saw it yesterday. Unspoilered advice take tissues.

Up is a tragedy, and I don't mean that in any sarcastic way. It's about dreams unfullfilled, lives wasted, and evil winning. I can be more specific if people want.

pendell
2009-06-01, 09:19 AM
Think so?

I disagree. 'Up' is about dreams. Sometimes dreams don't come true. Or they don't come true the way we want them to. Or sometimes we can get so wrapped up in fulfilling a dream we ignore that there are very real people -- or cute animals -- that need our help.

'Fulfilling your dream' can be an exercise in selfishness, if you pursue it too exclusively.

With all that .. it's still good to pursue dreams. I think 'Up' is about letting go of one dream to pursue another.

'Up' is also about promises. The old man makes a couple of 'cross his heart' promises during the course of the movie, and most of the movie revolves around him finding ways to keep those pledges, no matter what the cost, no matter how long ago they were made. In one scene towards the end he literally steps up to fulfill the promise another man made .. and broke.

I saw this movie yesterday with my wife. And yes, for us it hit especially close to home, in too many ways. Very definitely worth seeing though.

ETA: What is this about evil winning? It's a PIXAR movie. Unspoilered, it isn't a sad ending.


The villain DOES break the world's high diving record off the dirigible. The old man and the kid go off to be a father-son pair with their own dirigible. The Doberman wears the Cone of Shame forever.


How is that a sad ending? But yes, the movie definitely has its share of sad moments.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

One Skunk Todd
2009-06-01, 10:00 AM
My take:

Ellie and Carl are heatbroken by their inability to have children. Their plans to travel are thwarted at every turn by mundane expenses. Then late in life, when they're finally able to afford to go, Ellie gets sick and dies.

Carl assaults (I'm undecided whether he was justified) an employee of the developer who wants to bulldoze Carl's house. The developer gets Carl's land without having to pay a cent. That's a win for evil in my book. Does his assault conviction have any further ramifications in his life? Does he wind up in the retirement home or does he somehow get to keep and live in the airship? It seems like he has the airship at the end of the movie which was most farfetched thing shown to me. (Ok Mr. Friedrickson, we were going to seize your land and put you in retirement home to die, but now we see you have an airship so all is forgiven?)

Carl's one dream, and his promise to Ellie, is to have the house planted where Paradise Falls spills over the edge of the plateau. The viewers see this happen but all Carl sees is the house drift down into the clouds. And now the pristine beauty of the falls is somewhat spoiled by a dilapidated, half burnt old house and piles of furniture, appliances, and miscellaneous household goods.

Muntz, wrongly accused of fraudulent science, spends 60 years trying to regain his reputation. He comes up with a wonderful, fantastic invention (translator collar) that should make him wealthy enough to mount a 10,000 man expedition to the plateau to gather proof of the bird's existence. Instead, he descends into evil and paranoia, murdering people he percieves as a threat (apparently just about anyone) to his eventual vindication. His fight with Carl and Russel causes the destruction of the choicest pieces of his life's work and apparently priceless scientific and historic artifacts to boot. Then, when his redemption is almost within his grasp, he falls to his death. I didn't want to see Kevin hurt or killed (or even on display stuffed in cage) but I really think Munz got raw deal (a fair bit of which was self-inflicted)

It seems like science comes across badly when the guys in white lab coats get it wrong and ruin Muntz.

And what's up with Russell? Are his parents alive or dead? Is that his mom at the end, or a guardian? Is his dad distant and neglectful? If his dad is alive it seems like he never shows up for Russell's badge ceremony.

A lot of beauty and some happiness at the end but a lot of heavy stuff too.

Starscream
2009-06-01, 12:26 PM
Carl assaults (I'm undecided whether he was justified) an employee of the developer who wants to bulldoze Carl's house. The developer gets Carl's land without having to pay a cent. That's a win for evil in my book. Does his assault conviction have any further ramifications in his life? Does he wind up in the retirement home or does he somehow get to keep and live in the airship? It seems like he has the airship at the end of the movie which was most farfetched thing shown to me. (Ok Mr. Friedrickson, we were going to seize your land and put you in retirement home to die, but now we see you have an airship so all is forgiven?)

I assumed that what had happened was that the construction company sued Fredrickson and either won his property outright, or won a large settlement that he was unable to pay, forcing him to give them his property instead.

Thus he was forced into the retirement community simply because he had nowhere else to go. Now that he has the airship, he can live in it as he pleases.

pendell
2009-06-01, 01:53 PM
I assumed that what had happened was that the construction company sued Fredrickson and either won his property outright, or won a large settlement that he was unable to pay, forcing him to give them his property instead.

Thus he was forced into the retirement community simply because he had nowhere else to go. Now that he has the airship, he can live in it as he pleases.


It is a plot hole, nonetheless. I heard the words 'public menace' as part of the reason
he was losing his house .. one doesn't stop being a 'public menace' simply because one
suddenly got a cool new airship.

And the villain doesn't have any other next of kin or other heirs which might have first claim on the airship?

And no one else asks any probing questions about what *exactly* happened to the previous owner? Given that Carl is already known as a 'public menace', the mysterious disappearance of the owner would raise questions in a suspicious mind.


But hey, it's a disney movie. We're not supposed to let the details get in the way of 'happily ever after'.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Rae Artemi
2009-06-01, 03:00 PM
Pixar has always done wonderful work, but the last few years (The Incredibles, Ratatouille, WallE and now this) have really cemented their place as the reigning kings of animation.

Off topic: unless you are talking only 3d animation, appealing to all audiences or how much money they make, I must disagree. Many anime movies have much deeper story and more complex characters than pixar movies. In my opinion Hayao Miyazaki is reigning king of animation. I'm not saying that pixar doesn't make good movies, or that all anime are better than pixar movies though.

chiasaur11
2009-06-01, 04:47 PM
Off topic: unless you are talking only 3d animation, appealing to all audiences or how much money they make, I must disagree. Many anime movies have much deeper story and more complex characters than pixar movies. In my opinion Hayao Miyazaki is reigning king of animation. I'm not saying that pixar doesn't make good movies, or that all anime are better than pixar movies though.

You lie good sir.

WALL-E is the best animated movie of all time, and I will prove it in a manner of your choosing.

(I prefer pistols at dawn, mind.)

Lord of Rapture
2009-06-01, 05:40 PM
You lie good sir.

WALL-E is the best animated movie of all time, and I will prove it in a manner of your choosing.

(I prefer pistols at dawn, mind.)

Seconded. Miyazaki films are good, but none of them can stand up to the glory that is Pixar.

Starscream
2009-06-01, 05:53 PM
In my opinion Hayao Miyazaki is reigning king of animation. I'm not saying that pixar doesn't make good movies, or that all anime are better than pixar movies though.

He's certainly done some great ones. I grew up watching Castle of Cagliostro, and to me it's a super-classic.

Maybe I'm biased because I can't draw but have done some CG animation myself (I'm a computer scientist), but I am constantly amazed by what is being done in the realm of 3D animation these days.

Believe me, I know what sort of brilliant craft goes into traditional animation (cartoons are my hobby and favorite topic). But some of the stuff I've had to do to make 3D toons has combined drawing, programming, sculpting, math and physics calculations, and engineering. And that's for one shot. The stuff Pixar does boggles my mind, because I can actually see the strings.

Crispy Dave
2009-06-01, 06:20 PM
I saw it opening day with my girlfriend for my birthday and it was great. Surprisingly to theater was basically empty there was only like 16 people in the whole theater.

I defiantly enjoyed it.

chiasaur11
2009-06-01, 06:24 PM
I saw it opening day with my girlfriend for my birthday and it was great. Surprisingly to theater was basically empty there was only like 16 people in the whole theater.

I defiantly enjoyed it.

Maybe they were waiting for the 3D.

My theater actually broke into applause. Minor, but real.

Partof1
2009-06-01, 07:47 PM
I liked it. Definitely not near as kiddy as some of Disney's non-Pixar movies. There was actually some decent humour, and relateable, three dimensional (no pun intended) characters. I can't get over Doug. "Point!":smalltongue:

doliest
2009-06-01, 10:16 PM
I liked it. Definitely not near as kiddy as some of Disney's non-Pixar movies. There was actually some decent humour, and relateable, three dimensional (no pun intended) characters. I can't get over Doug. "Point!":smalltongue:

Well there is a reason that disney's none-pixar movies are failing...

endoperez
2009-06-02, 06:15 AM
But hey, it's a disney movie. We're not supposed to let the details get in the way of 'happily ever after'.

*Gasp* Blasphemy! :smallwink: Pixar =/= Disney.


EDIT:
Or... not. I just tried watching the Wall-E DVD I bought, and it is very violently pushing forward the idea that Pixar is just a part of Disney, an inside studio that just happens to have its own name. I still thought of it as an independent company, at least in spirit, but at least in marketing that's not true. :smallannoyed: Not sure what to think about this. Perhaps I shouldn't care, since the movies are still excellent.

Partof1
2009-06-02, 06:18 PM
*Gasp* Blasphemy! :smallwink: Pixar =/= Disney.


EDIT:
Or... not. I just tried watching the Wall-E DVD I bought, and it is very violently pushing forward the idea that Pixar is just a part of Disney, an inside studio that just happens to have its own name. I still thought of it as an independent company, at least in spirit, but at least in marketing that's not true. :smallannoyed: Not sure what to think about this. Perhaps I shouldn't care, since the movies are still excellent.

Wall-e was okay, but, yeah, I too relly felt the Disney overtones.

endoperez
2009-06-03, 01:04 AM
Wall-e was okay, but, yeah, I too relly felt the Disney overtones.

If by overtones you mean happy end and such, Pixar has always had those.

I was talking more about the extras and trailers, especially the "Movies, magic and more: Disney!" thing with Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc and Cars mixed in with the real Disney movies.

chiasaur11
2009-06-03, 01:26 AM
Wall-e was okay, but, yeah, I too relly felt the Disney overtones.

Huh?

Didn't see anything in WALL-E that wasn't om some form or another in every Pixar film to tie it specifically to Disney.

Raz_Fox
2009-06-03, 05:15 PM
It's on my list of movies to go see (along with Drag Me to Hell and a couple others), but I don't know when I'll get the chance.

Also, one of my friends who works at a theater saw it early and described it as (and I quote) "sadder than 'Schindler's List'" and Nathan Fillion said, via Twitter (http://twitter.com/NathanFillion), "Robot test #12. Go see Pixar's UP. If your date doesn't cry, robot." I mean, is it really that sad?

Yes. A thousand times yes.

...Loved it. PIXAR shines through once again, showing that they are the high king of animation once more. And they performed the impossible, by making it their most heartwrenching movie yet.



...They were manly tears. Manly tears, I tell you!

Partof1
2009-06-03, 08:53 PM
Huh?

Didn't see anything in WALL-E that wasn't om some form or another in every Pixar film to tie it specifically to Disney.

I was mainly talking about the humour, and the intangibvles that just make Wall-e seem more geared towards kids than Up.

Neko Toast
2009-06-06, 04:50 PM
Jeez. What's all this hubub about Up being depressing? Don't you dare get me started on depressing movies, I watched Grave of the Fireflies.

Besides, how are you not used to this yet? Most Disney movies (Pixar included) usually have some sort of death and/or saddening factor in the mix of the story. It's been happening ever since Bambi.

I'm not saying that you're a wuss for getting teary-eyed at Up, but if you call it 'depressing', then you don't know the true meaning of the word.

raptor1056
2009-06-06, 05:01 PM
Jeez. What's all this hubub about Up being depressing? Don't you dare get me started on depressing movies, I watched Grave of the Fireflies.

Besides, how are you not used to this yet? Most Disney movies (Pixar included) usually have some sort of death and/or saddening factor in the mix of the story. It's been happening ever since Bambi.

I'm not saying that you're a wuss for getting teary-eyed at Up, but if you call it 'depressing', then you don't know the true meaning of the word.

Very agree. There is a significant difference between sadness and depression. I, having rather extensively experienced the latter, have the following summation. Sadness is the result of the loss of something that caused happiness. It may mark a worsening in life, but is representative of something good having been present.
Depression, alternately, is the removal of a coping mechanism. Rather than an increase in pain, or a decrease in mitigators thereof, it is a decrease in pain handling ability. Rather than effecting tears and melancholy, it tends to evoke sluggishness and apathy. Up definitely brings about, at points, sadness, but never depression.

GoC
2009-06-06, 05:23 PM
I will watch it. Whether by theater or torrent remains to be seen...

Starscream
2009-06-06, 06:00 PM
Besides, how are you not used to this yet? Most Disney movies (Pixar included) usually have some sort of death and/or saddening factor in the mix of the story. It's been happening ever since Bambi.

Earlier than that. Watch Dumbo with a date some time. If there are no sniffles during the "Baby Mine" sequence, she is a Skrull.

Neko Toast
2009-06-06, 06:32 PM
Earlier than that. Watch Dumbo with a date some time. If there are no sniffles during the "Baby Mine" sequence, she is a Skrull.

... I think you just implied that I'm lesbian there...

And yes, I suppose Dumbo was pretty sad, too. I get the dates of the earlier Disney movies mixed up a lot.

But if you think about it, the death of Bambi's mom is remembered and referenced the most.

Starscream
2009-06-06, 06:40 PM
... I think you just implied that I'm lesbian there...

Oops. Sorry. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I was more sort of speaking from my own perspective. All of my dates have been female, to my knowledge.

darkblust
2009-06-06, 06:42 PM
Wow!!!That movie was absolutely magnificent.It was the most heart filled and touching movie I have seen in severel years,and it made me cry.That has never happened before to me,except when i watched a really sad movie about peter pan.It was also quite funny,and it is deffinately something you should watch.

I also can't wait for toy-story 3,which is coming out in 2010 and will also be a great funny film,hopefully even for the older public,since we were the ones who watched the first one when it came out.I think.
:biggrin:

DraPrime
2009-06-06, 07:58 PM
I also can't wait for toy-story 3,which is coming out in 2010 and will also be a great funny film,hopefully even for the older public,since we were the ones who watched the first one when it came out.I think.
:biggrin:

There's a third Toy Story coming out? I think this may be the only time I actually want a third movie in a series to come out. Although if Pixar screws up, the child in me that watched the first movie in the nineties will demand that some people be burned at the stake.

Starscream
2009-06-06, 08:02 PM
Just found a pretty cool review (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/755-Up) of Up on The Escapist.

Like every critic ever this guy thinks it's awesome, but he goes into a lot more depth than most about just why it's awesome.

Neko Toast
2009-06-06, 10:54 PM
Just found a pretty cool review (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/755-Up) of Up on The Escapist.

Like every critic ever this guy thinks it's awesome, but he goes into a lot more depth than most about just why it's awesome.

Heheh. When you mentioned Escapist, my first thought was "Wait, I thought Zero Punctuation only did video games..."

Starscream
2009-06-06, 11:01 PM
Heheh. When you mentioned Escapist, my first thought was "Wait, I thought Zero Punctuation only did video games..."

Yeah, this is actually the first time I've ever gone to that site for anything other than Yahtzee. I stumbled across this while looking for some reviews on the new Punch-Out, which I must own so I can die happy.

Radical Raven
2009-06-07, 08:54 AM
I don't feel like typing it all again; here is my condensed review from another site:

Stuff I Didn't Like:

* You're all going to hate me for this, but I felt the opening sequence was a bit too sticky. I mean, they seemed to be relying on several cliches to show the characters feelings for each other (I think they thought that since a silent relationship worked well in Wall-E, it would work here). I actually think it would have worked better if it had had dialogue .

*Russel's situation and development is not really handled very well. He's probably the weakest character in the movie, which is bad, since he's also present in almost every scene.

* The human character designs are ugly. Carl looks like he has a huge LEGO jammed into his mouth. Russel looks like a beachball. Muntz is a little better, but he's still not a really good figure. Pixar had pretty good CGI humans in Ratatouille; what happened between then and now.

__________________________________________________ ________

Stuff I Did Like:

*Carl's development; the story's central thread, of course, is handled brilliantly. I don't wanna spoil too much, but he's basically a man who refuses to move on; he's bitter because his wife died before he could take her to Paradise Falls, and he's sure (this is how I saw it) that she died unhappily because of him not being able to take her. He spends most of the movie, not trying to fulfill his dreams, but to fulfill hers. That scene with the Adventure Book - and then at the end with the house - now, those got me a little misty-eyed.

*The villain is handled wonderfully as well; not just because of the small, already-noted way he contributes to the movies symbolism, but because he's genuinely menacing. I don't think he's as strong a character as, say, Hopper or Syndrome, but he's still pretty frightening.

*This movie is funny. It's two main Zany's (Kevin and Dug) are consistently hilarious (especially Dug) and the Alpha-Dog is just.... I wont talk about whether or not it's better than Wall-E, but it's definitley funnier.

*If the human designs are ugly, than everything else; including the animal designs and the backgrounds are beautiful.

All in all, I rate this movie A- (4 Stars).

skywalker
2009-06-07, 12:52 PM
EDIT:
Or... not. I just tried watching the Wall-E DVD I bought, and it is very violently pushing forward the idea that Pixar is just a part of Disney, an inside studio that just happens to have its own name. I still thought of it as an independent company, at least in spirit, but at least in marketing that's not true. :smallannoyed: Not sure what to think about this. Perhaps I shouldn't care, since the movies are still excellent.

I wouldn't fear if I were you.

Disney features used to be the be-all, end-all. They are very high-quality films, and Pixar should be grateful, in my opinion, to be included with them as such a young animation studio. However, as Disney faltered, Pixar became the "new Disney," IMO.

Regardless, Pixar is in charge at Pixar. In fact, Pixar is in charge at Disney Feature Animation as well. It is unclear whether Pixar will maintain its "individuality." I don't think you should worry too much about that because at this point, it looks more like Disney will turn into Pixar (but keep the Disney name) than the other way around. I just got back from a trip to Walt Disney World. The characters from "Up!" had lines out the door to see them. Buzz Lightyear was the most popular character I saw all day at the Magic Kingdom (yes, I'm pretty sure he's more popular than Mickey). More and more Pixar-themed rides, merchandise, and character encounters are being produced. Disney understands who the winning horse is in this race. As a fan of Disney and Pixar, I shout "Don't worry!" Notice how Bolt was much better than Chicken Little or Meet the Robinsons. This is a mark of Pixar management's involvement.


*Russel's situation and development is not really handled very well. He's probably the weakest character in the movie, which is bad, since he's also present in almost every scene.

+1


* The human character designs are ugly. Carl looks like he has a huge LEGO jammed into his mouth. Russel looks like a beachball. Muntz is a little better, but he's still not a really good figure. Pixar had pretty good CGI humans in Ratatouille; what happened between then and now.

I think this is a question of different styles. Pixar has always tried to explore different styles within their films. I think they were going for a less realistic style, honestly.


*Carl's development; the story's central thread, of course, is handled brilliantly. I don't wanna spoil too much, but he's basically a man who refuses to move on; he's bitter because his wife died before he could take her to Paradise Falls, and he's sure (this is how I saw it) that she died unhappily because of him not being able to take her. He spends most of the movie, not trying to fulfill his dreams, but to fulfill hers. That scene with the Adventure Book - and then at the end with the house - now, those got me a little misty-eyed.

*The villain is handled wonderfully as well; not just because of the small, already-noted way he contributes to the movies symbolism, but because he's genuinely menacing. I don't think he's as strong a character as, say, Hopper or Syndrome, but he's still pretty frightening.

*This movie is funny. It's two main Zany's (Kevin and Dug) are consistently hilarious (especially Dug) and the Alpha-Dog is just.... I wont talk about whether or not it's better than Wall-E, but it's definitley funnier.

*If the human designs are ugly, than everything else; including the animal designs and the backgrounds are beautiful.

All in all, I rate this movie A- (4 Stars).

+1 as well, I thought Dug was brilliant. "I have just met you and I love you." Wow. I know it seems so simple but the accurate translation of a dog's thoughts into human speech, I find amazing.

I personally didn't like Wall-E as much. I found it beautiful, but the environmental fable was a little contrived and weak for my taste. Still a really good film, but not "the best of all time." The farther and farther I get away from my first viewing, the more and more the film seems like being hit over the head with a very pretty, but still nevertheless solid, 2x4 engraved with "environment." (and I'm an environmentalist)

Innis Cabal
2009-06-07, 01:11 PM
The human character designs are ugly. Carl looks like he has a huge LEGO jammed into his mouth. Russel looks like a beachball. Muntz is a little better, but he's still not a really good figure. Pixar had pretty good CGI humans in Ratatouille; what happened between then and now.

Its not a....before and after or anything like that, its just the style. They even explain it in one of their little round table discussions on why they went the route they did.

Watched it friday. Never saw Wall-E and never intend to, the movie itself should stand on its own merits, not on how well another movie did anyway.

Biggest problem is....Muntz has to be like 100 something. Thats the only thing I found wrong with the movie

DraPrime
2009-06-07, 01:13 PM
I personally didn't like Wall-E as much. I found it beautiful, but the environmental fable was a little contrived and weak for my taste. Still a really good film, but not "the best of all time." The farther and farther I get away from my first viewing, the more and more the film seems like being hit over the head with a very pretty, but still nevertheless solid, 2x4 engraved with "environment." (and I'm an environmentalist)

I too thought this. It's the major flaw of the film, and it's what prevents it from being the masterpiece that everyone seems to think it is. Because of this flaw, Finding Nemo is still king of all Pixar movies in my mind.

Raz_Fox
2009-06-07, 01:20 PM
Its not a....before and after or anything like that, its just the style. They even explain it in one of their little round table discussions on why they went the route they did.

Watched it friday. Never saw Wall-E and never intend to, the movie itself should stand on its own merits, not on how well another movie did anyway.

Biggest problem is....Muntz has to be like 100 something. Thats the only thing I found wrong with the movie

Not necessarily. Let's assume that when we first see Carl, he's 10; Muntz looks to be in his late twenties. Let's further assume that throughout most of the movie, Carl is in his sixties or seventies. That would mean that Muntz is in his eighties or ninties. I personally assumed he was in his late eighties.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-07, 01:34 PM
I'd say he is at least in his 30's, and late at that. He owned a massive blimp, something that would be...rather expensive in those days. Not only that but he was a renowned explorer, not something you get in a meager 10 years. He wasn't showing signs of graying, so he was probably not close to 50 but I think it would be far safer to say he was around 30-40 range rather then late 20's.

chiasaur11
2009-06-07, 01:41 PM
I too thought this. It's the major flaw of the film, and it's what prevents it from being the masterpiece that everyone seems to think it is. Because of this flaw, Finding Nemo is still king of all Pixar movies in my mind.

Eh. If you listen to interviews, the whole environment bit was just so WALL-E could have a good, not too depressing reason to be alone. Not a fan of environmentalism at all, but WALL-E is my favorite movie of all time. So, yeah.

Radical Raven
2009-06-07, 03:36 PM
I too thought this. It's the major flaw of the film, and it's what prevents it from being the masterpiece that everyone seems to think it is. Because of this flaw, Finding Nemo is still king of all Pixar movies in my mind.

We're two people of very different tastes; I actually thought Finding Nemo was the weakest of the Pixar stable, while I'd give Wall-E Five stars:smallredface:. But, like someone else said, the movies should'nt be constantly compared to each other, but allowed to stand on their own merits.

@Whoever said they think Pixar was aiming for a less realistic style... yeah, I can kinda see that. I don't think it worked very well, though, and I think a lot of work still needs to be done before we can have really good-looking CGI humans (the leaked Rapunzel pics have me feeling optimistic, though)

So... whadda you guys think? Do we have Oscar Bait here?

DraPrime
2009-06-07, 03:37 PM
Eh. If you listen to interviews, the whole environment bit was just so WALL-E could have a good, not too depressing reason to be alone. Not a fan of environmentalism at all, but WALL-E is my favorite movie of all time. So, yeah.

Well, that's would the makers claim.

Neko Toast
2009-06-07, 06:42 PM
It's a little sad, because Up will be the last original story we'll see from Pixar for a while. Their 2010 film will be Toy Story 3 (I liked the first two, so I'll likely see this), and in 2011 we get Cars 2.

In my opinion, Cars was the worst of them all. It really says something, especially with Pixar, if I watch the first 20-30 minutes and turn it off because I didn't enjoy it.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-07, 06:49 PM
It's a little sad, because Up will be the last original story we'll see from Pixar for a while. Their 2010 film will be Toy Story 3 (I liked the first two, so I'll likely see this), and in 2011 we get Cars 2.

In my opinion, Cars was the worst of them all. It really says something, especially with Pixar, if I watch the first 20-30 minutes and turn it off because I didn't enjoy it.

Not true, the same year as Cars 2 we get The Boy and the Bear and the year after that we get Newt.

DraPrime
2009-06-07, 07:30 PM
It's a little sad, because Up will be the last original story we'll see from Pixar for a while. Their 2010 film will be Toy Story 3 (I liked the first two, so I'll likely see this), and in 2011 we get Cars 2.

In my opinion, Cars was the worst of them all. It really says something, especially with Pixar, if I watch the first 20-30 minutes and turn it off because I didn't enjoy it.

Indeed. Cars was quite weak.

Starscream
2009-06-07, 08:04 PM
It's a little sad, because Up will be the last original story we'll see from Pixar for a while. Their 2010 film will be Toy Story 3 (I liked the first two, so I'll likely see this), and in 2011 we get Cars 2.

Yeah, not really looking forward to those.

The only Pixar movie that I think might warrant a sequel is The Incredibles. It may not be their best film (though it's up there), but I think the superhero motif is one that can easily become a series. The other Pixar films were more self-contained.

Lord Seth
2009-06-07, 08:50 PM
Indeed. Cars was quite weak.I'm actually wondering if their motivation for Cars 2 is "let's do it right this time."

As for Up, which I just saw, here's my thoughts. I thought it was a good movie overall, but one thing that I didn't like was the villain. I didn't find him believable, and the "evil" aspects of him (him killing people who were getting in his way) made no sense to me whatsoever.

In fact, why would he oppose anyone who was trying to find the bird? His motivation is to prove he didn't lie and clear his name. Reasonable enough. But in that case, anyone finding the bird will do. He doesn't have to. And again, I don't see why he seems to resort to killing people so easily.

That's my big problem with it. I did not find the villain to be believable at all. Heck, he seemed downright sympathetic if not for the "kill anyone who gets in my way" bit. Said "kill anyone who gets in my way" seemed to be tacked on to the character just to make him a villain, rather than arising naturally from him.

GoC
2009-06-07, 10:27 PM
I'm actually wondering if their motivation for Cars 2 is "let's do it right this time."
It's about cars, that's not something you can really do right. That said when I saw it I was surprised at how good it was. This led me to rank it pretty highly (top 10%) among the films I've watched.

Also, rule #1 of enjoying a movie: DO NOT ANALYZE TEH FILMZ!!!!!!!

Dienekes
2009-06-07, 11:30 PM
Just saw it, and I rather enjoyed it. Very well done (don't get what people are complaining about with the animation, seemed alright to me. Not realistic, but then it doesn't seem like it's supposed to be.)

and GoC, I must modify your rule. Do not OVER analyze the movie. Many can be rather thought provoking and analytical. However, this is a medium that tries to pack everything in hour and a half chunks. You'll find flaws, rather easily, don't worry about it

Innis Cabal
2009-06-07, 11:33 PM
I'm actually wondering if their motivation for Cars 2 is "let's do it right this time."

As for Up, which I just saw, here's my thoughts. I thought it was a good movie overall, but one thing that I didn't like was the villain. I didn't find him believable, and the "evil" aspects of him (him killing people who were getting in his way) made no sense to me whatsoever.

In fact, why would he oppose anyone who was trying to find the bird? His motivation is to prove he didn't lie and clear his name. Reasonable enough. But in that case, anyone finding the bird will do. He doesn't have to. And again, I don't see why he seems to resort to killing people so easily.

That's my big problem with it. I did not find the villain to be believable at all. Heck, he seemed downright sympathetic if not for the "kill anyone who gets in my way" bit. Said "kill anyone who gets in my way" seemed to be tacked on to the character just to make him a villain, rather than arising naturally from him.


Have you ever been so obsessed with something you'd stay for....near 50 years in the jungle alone with dogs? No? Try it and see how sane you are...

Mewtarthio
2009-06-08, 12:00 AM
As for Up, which I just saw, here's my thoughts. I thought it was a good movie overall, but one thing that I didn't like was the villain. I didn't find him believable, and the "evil" aspects of him (him killing people who were getting in his way) made no sense to me whatsoever.

I found that perfectly reasonable. Muntz is not thinking rationally. He's spent fifty years exiled from society. That's fifty years of brooding, believing (rightly, in my opinion) that everyone else has betrayed him. His only companions in those fifty years have been talking dogs. Dogs bark and growl when they see strangers, particularly wild ones (which his dogs effectively are, given its been generations since they've seen humanity). After years of talking to no one but dogs, he's become a dog himself, obsessed with tracking down his quarry and viciously attacking anyone who intrudes in his territory.

Radical Raven
2009-06-08, 01:15 PM
I found that perfectly reasonable. Muntz is not thinking rationally. He's spent fifty years exiled from society. That's fifty years of brooding, believing (rightly, in my opinion) that everyone else has betrayed him. His only companions in those fifty years have been talking dogs. Dogs bark and growl when they see strangers, particularly wild ones (which his dogs effectively are, given its been generations since they've seen humanity). After years of talking to no one but dogs, he's become a dog himself, obsessed with tracking down his quarry and viciously attacking anyone who intrudes in his territory.

....You know, you're 100% right. I didn't even think of that...

Also, I liked Cars.:smallredface: It's not one of their strongest movies, but I thought it did O.K. with a terrible concept.

Ganurath
2009-06-08, 01:20 PM
When I walked out of the movie, I couldn't help but think that the only difference between Mr. Fredrickson and a fantasy dwarf was the lack of a beard.

BROCK22
2009-06-08, 03:37 PM
Saw it yesterday. Unspoilered advice take tissues.

Up is a tragedy, and I don't mean that in any sarcastic way. It's about dreams unfullfilled, lives wasted, and evil winning. I can be more specific if people want.


yup. i would be lying if i said i didnt get a bit emotional. Great job Pixar. O and go see it in 3-d if you have the opportunity...it made the experience that much better.

Starscream
2009-06-08, 06:16 PM
When I walked out of the movie, I couldn't help but think that the only difference between Mr. Fredrickson and a fantasy dwarf was the lack of a beard.

I now know who my next D&D character is. Thank you.

Mauve Shirt
2009-06-08, 10:19 PM
Oh my goodness, that movie. Really, Pixar has failed to disappoint me every time. Except Cars, but even that time, Pixar's poor is any other studio's good.
I almost cried in just the opening sequence, and again when he opens the adventure book. Not as adorable as Wall-E, but just as if not more heartwarming for me. :smallsmile:
Also, they pulled off talking dogs amazingly well for such an overused concept.

Destro_Yersul
2009-06-08, 10:36 PM
I almost cried in just the opening sequence, and again when he opens the adventure book. Not as adorable as Wall-E, but just as if not more heartwarming for me. :smallsmile:

This. It was a great movie, and I think I'll be buying it once it's released. The Adventure Book especially got to me.

Lord Seth
2009-06-09, 03:39 AM
It's about cars, that's not something you can really do right.I don't see how a film about cars is any less silly of a concept than a film about toys, a film about fish, a film about insects, or a film about a rat.

What I'm saying is that Cars is by far the lowest-rated of the Pixar films. It has a 75% on Rotten Tomatoes. Which is pretty good by normal movie standards, but even their second-lowest ranked, A Bug's Life, had a 91%. Cars is the only Pixar movie to fall below 90% on that site, and it isn't a case of just barely, it's down at 75%.

Now, I haven't seen Cars, to be honest, but the general consensus is that it's definitely the weakest Pixar film. So to clarify my position, I'm wondering if the motivation for Cars 2 isn't an attempt to make a better version of Cars that doesn't fall below the usual standard of Pixar films.


I found that perfectly reasonable. Muntz is not thinking rationally. He's spent fifty years exiled from society. That's fifty years of brooding, believing (rightly, in my opinion) that everyone else has betrayed him. His only companions in those fifty years have been talking dogs. Dogs bark and growl when they see strangers, particularly wild ones (which his dogs effectively are, given its been generations since they've seen humanity). After years of talking to no one but dogs, he's become a dog himself, obsessed with tracking down his quarry and viciously attacking anyone who intrudes in his territory.All this makes him an actually pretty sympathetic character, which is never really touched on in the movie. There's nothing about him gradually losing his sanity and how we should maybe feel some pity for him because of that. Instead, he's outright evil and at least an attempted murderer (it's never quite clear as to whether he killed the earlier people he talked about).

But no, Muntz is evil according to the film. No point in moral ambiguity, he's all-out evil because...well, because they needed someone to be evil in the film! I'm just saying, his motivation is perfectly understandable, and his attempts at killing the characters is completely over-the-top and just doesn't make sense. Unless he HAS been driven insane, in which case he really shouldn't be seen as evil either.

Would it have killed Pixar to maybe drop some hints early in the movie that he was overly prideful and maybe not that great of a guy? That really would've fixed things quite a bit.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-09, 03:46 AM
Who called Muntz evil? No one, not even in the film, used that word. He really is just a crazy person whose dream has died.

Neko Toast
2009-06-09, 04:11 AM
I wouldn't necessarily call Muntz 'evil'... he is the antagonist, though.

It's a kid's movie. Kids don't analyze every detail like us. They like it when there's a designated 'bad guy'.

JadedDM
2009-06-09, 04:36 AM
The whole movie is about dreams and knowing when to let go. Carl and Muntz are both old people who are absolutely obsessed with one single dream, to the exclusion of everything else life has to offer. Carl learned to let go, and realized the present is more important than the past. Muntz never figured that out.

Lord Seth
2009-06-09, 12:01 PM
Who called Muntz evil? No one, not even in the film, used that word. He really is just a crazy person whose dream has died.The fact he got killed pretty much shows the filmmakers expected us to see him as evil.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-09, 12:10 PM
The fact he got killed pretty much shows the filmmakers expected us to see him as evil.

Wait wait wait......are you saying....that only evil people in movies die? Because i'm not sure I agree with that.

Lord Seth
2009-06-09, 12:29 PM
Wait wait wait......are you saying....that only evil people in movies die? Because i'm not sure I agree with that.When the antagonist dies and the reaction of everyone in the film is "enh, whatever", that's almost always a sign that we were supposed to see them as very evil.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-09, 12:35 PM
When the antagonist dies and the reaction of everyone is "enh, whatever", that's almost always a sign that we were supposed to see them as very evil.

I think this is a gross generalization. I think alot of people could be sympathetic to him, he was after all a symapthetic antagonist but he wasn't evil. Not only that but i've not seen one person on any forum, or met anyone in person who just went "Eh" at his death.

Whats more, they -did- show signs he was overly prideful. Leaving civilization for some slight is the very definition of pride. To add on to this, they -do- show his slow descent into insanity. His whole bloody monolouge was about this. Just because they didn't shove it down our throats dosn't mean it wasn't there. Whats more, he isn't a main character, he's an -antagonist-. When even the support cast dosn't get a great big delve into their past why should the one person that most people won't root for get anything more then he did?

nothingclever
2009-06-09, 12:48 PM
I found "Up" to be seriously underwhelming. I wasn't expecting much from it but it still felt really bland and blah. Nothing about it seemed like a stroke of genius to me. None of the jokes were really that funny. I was actually kind of annoyed by a lot of it after watching the movie and walking home. During the movie it was alright but as I reflected on what I had seen it was all very poor quality in my opinion.

The movie is way too formulaic, there aren't enough characters or at least good ones and there isn't enough content in general.

The kid is just another stereotypical annoying stupid kid. Seen this a million times and this one wasn't anything special.

The bird and the dog are just stupid/retarded joke characters. Nothing special again. They do the same stupid things over and over again. "Oooh the dog is so funny! He talks like an idiot! Idiocy sure is funny! Oooh the bird is stupid too! Oh wow, it's soooo funny because it does stupid things! We've never seen stupid comedy before. Oh no, entirely new concept to us!"

The old man is just a cranky old man with some fond memories and his explorer idol is just a bland cranky old man that happens to be evil.

The rest of the cast is made up of a zillion dogs led by one alpha dog that is really bland like his master.

There's so little to the movie. The characters wander a jungle. They eventually find two stupid characters to wander with them. They encounter the villain and his dogs. They run away. They wander some more. The retard bird gets captured. They rescue retard bird. Wow, so interesting.

My post might sound like a troll or really poorly written but I simply don't have much to say since the movie has so little to it to comment on. The big supposedly clever change in this adventure movie is that the protagonist is an elderly man instead of a little kid and some depressing flashbacks that are used way too much are put in.

That's all the movie is. Painfully average adventure movie + some depressing stuff + child protagonist is replaced with an old man.

None of the characters really have any goals and there aren't any big obstacles or conflicts for them to overcome. It's just old man and kid with their two retarded animals on one side and an old man and his dogs on the other. There's nothing in between. The characters don't meet any other interesting animals or people and they don't discover anything special. All they do is pull a house to its destination and rescue a bird.

Monsters vs Aliens is infinitely better. This movie was just way too mundane and unspectacular. None of the effects in the movie wowed me. When everything is 100% computer animated, you have an adventure theme, you have a character going to some exotic largely uncharted land and your movies are known for amazing action scenes and special effects you should include some amazing imagery. I don't go out and pay money intending to watch grass grow but that's basically what I saw on screen. The humor and story were bland as well. I'm not saying extravagant animation scenes alone would save this movie. I'm saying it needed an overall improvement. Adding in depressing repetitive content doesn't suddenly make your movie a cut above the rest.

I think way too many people see a depressing beginning as some extremely clever innovation for a kid's movie when it really isn't.

almyki
2009-06-09, 12:59 PM
Yeah, that does sound pretty trollish.



I loved Up, and thought it was a great movie. It is very rare that I enjoy a movie wholeheartedly and feel the story-telling was well-handled. With movies, the biggest problem I find is the short length; it is very, very difficult for them to get their pacing, development, exposition, etc. all out properly, without being rushed or lacking. And a lot of times there's no strong central theme. This is true for chic flicks, action movies, etc.. A lot of times I just feel like "WTF why the hell did they fall in love again? Their feelings are so cheap!" or things along those lines. With Up, I felt that they properly displayed everything from Carl and Ellie's love to Carl's struggle with moving on with his life, etc.. The story-telling was good too, along with characterization.

I actually liked Cars. Any Pixar movies I generally find fun to watch, but Finding Nemo and The Incredibles are bit lower... they're fun enough that I'll prefer to watch them over most other stuff if on TV, but I wouldn't want to buy the DVDs or watch them in particular. I probably like Cars better than them. I thought Wall-E was really good, and that the environmental stuff didn't feel too contrived or anything... it wasn't the central plot, it was more a backdrop plot meant to display what was actually going on (Wall-E and EVE's relationship).

<3 ali

nothingclever
2009-06-09, 01:03 PM
You said you liked Cars so it's obvious to me why you'd find my post sounding like a troll. If you can like that you can like just about anything with a generic cutesy feel to it. That's all I saw in Up, a generic cutesy feel with some overplayed sentimentality tacked on.

Up is one of those movies that so obviously wants you to go "AWWWWWWW" every 5 minutes. "Awww he had a tragic past. Awwww the kid's dad isn't around. Awww the bird injured its leg and got caught. Awww the other dogs bully the extremely slow one. Awww, etc etc etc." It's so extremely contrived. It's like when a kid makes a stupid joke and says it such a way that it's obvious that it's intended to be funny even if it isn't so other kids laugh reflexively. Then the rest that didn't immediately feel the need to laugh reflexively do so because the others did. In the end the joke was terrible but everyone laughed and pretended it was good.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-09, 01:07 PM
Then obviously the movie wasn't for you, but you knew that going in with your low expectations...why did you spend the money to see it? I mean, I wouldn't spend money on a movie I don't expect to be great....I wait for the DVD.....its way cheaper just to rent it.

Not only that, but it almost got a 9 out of 10 on Rotten Tomato's and got an 88 out of 100 on metacritic. You are very clearly part of the minority on this.

nothingclever
2009-06-09, 01:19 PM
I don't care if I'm a minority. I watched the movie and I'm making on topic posts explaining my minority opinion. I watched it because my brother and I were looking for something to do and thought about seeing a movie. We had already seen the two we were somewhat interested in (Star Trek and Terminator Salvation) so the only one left that we thought might be watchable was Up. I didn't know or think it would be as bad as it was. I thought the characters might have been better than they were and there might be better visuals and comedy than what I ended up seeing. Unfortunately that wasn't the case. I didn't read an extensive spoiler review beforehand.

I can sometimes enjoy childlike 3D adventure movies and I thought maybe this would be one of those times. I heard some stuff about the movie being focused more towards adults in this thread and I thought "gee maybe it'll actually have some witty stuff that older people can enjoy." Instead this "adult" theme was overdone sentimentality garbage.

The OP post was extremely misleading to me. I'll tell you why so many "college kids" and "adults" seemed to enjoy the movie. It was extremely contrived and when they were told to laugh they laughed. When they were told to go "Awwww" like robots they went "Awwww." I'm not someone that is so easily fooled. I don't laugh at a joke if it is extremely unfunny just because someone stares expectantly at me as if demanding a reaction.

If I hear a million people declare jumping off a bridge is fun and painless and witness them doing it I'm not going to do the same regardless of how convincing they sounded unless I have a death wish. I'll chalk up what they did and said as mass hysteria, not fact. I don't care how many times I see a commercial saying "best comedy ever" when I know the movie clearly isn't. When someone says only people completely devoid of emotion will not laugh at something I don't feel the need to reassure myself of my inherent humanity by laughing.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-09, 01:31 PM
The OP post was extremely misleading to me. I'll tell you why so many "college kids" and "adults" seemed to enjoy the movie. It was extremely contrived and when they were told to laugh they laughed. When they were told to go "Awwww" like robots they went "Awwww." I'm not someone that is so easily fooled. I don't laugh at a joke if it is extremely unfunny just because someone stares expectantly at me as if demanding a reaction.

I mean...I guess if its how you feel no one can tell you otherwise but I don't think this is the case. I mean, I guess its impossible for people to like a movie you clearly felt was lacking based on its own merits...they have to be mindless drones to have a seperate view from you. Not every movie can be like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDOIi27AgFk&feature=popular) and be deeply thought provoking. How would it appeal to children as well?

Complaining about something you knew you weren't going to like just seems like senseless time wasting to me. I don't take the time to write up a negative review of a bad hamburger or film I see at the very least. Maybe i'm just some mindless drone though, and I wasn't told to write a neagtive review though. Who knows

Mewtarthio
2009-06-09, 01:41 PM
If I hear a million people declare jumping off a bridge is fun and painless and witness them doing it I'm not going to do the same regardless of how convincing they sounded unless I have a death wish. I'll chalk up what they did and said as mass hysteria, not fact. I don't care how many times I see a commercial saying "best comedy ever" when I know the movie clearly isn't. When someone says only people completely devoid of emotion will not laugh at something I don't feel the need to reassure myself of my inherent humanity by laughing.

You can't really expect anyone to take your opinion seriously if you accuse everyone else of being a mindless drone. I'll admit the movie had plenty of faults. The plot, for example, is extraordinarily formulaic, leaving the movie to be carried entirely by the characters. If you personally found no connection to the characters, then of course the movie had no value to you. That doesn't mean it shouldn't have held any value to anyone else.

Lord Seth
2009-06-09, 01:44 PM
I think this is a gross generalization. I think alot of people could be sympathetic to him, he was after all a symapthetic antagonist but he wasn't evil. Not only that but i've not seen one person on any forum, or met anyone in person who just went "Eh" at his death.Unfortunately, you happened to reply before I went back and edited my post to clarify, where I specified I was referring to people in the film.


Whats more, they -did- show signs he was overly prideful. Leaving civilization for some slight is the very definition of pride.Some slight? Didn't he get kicked out of important exploring expeditions and get publicly humiliated when he hadn't done anything wrong?

nothingclever
2009-06-09, 01:48 PM
I mean...I guess if its how you feel no one can tell you otherwise but I don't think this is the case. I mean, I guess its impossible for people to like a movie you clearly felt was lacking based on its own merits...they have to be mindless drones to have a seperate view from you. Not every movie can be like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDOIi27AgFk&feature=popular) and be deeply thought provoking. How would it appeal to children as well?

Complaining about something you knew you weren't going to like just seems like senseless time wasting to me. I don't take the time to write up a negative review of a bad hamburger or film I see at the very least. Maybe i'm just some mindless drone though, and I wasn't told to write a neagtive review though. Who knows


You can't really expect anyone to take your opinion seriously if you accuse everyone else of being a mindless drone. I'll admit the movie had plenty of faults. The plot, for example, is extraordinarily formulaic, leaving the movie to be carried entirely by the characters. If you personally found no connection to the characters, then of course the movie had no value to you. That doesn't mean it shouldn't have held any value to anyone else.

I never said everyone else had to be mindless drones. What I'm saying is that just because Metacritic gives a movie a high score and the majority of the people in this thread liked it that doesn't mean the movie is great.

Need proof? Metacritic gives Bourne Ultimatum an 85. LOL.

It was terrible. The camera shakes throughout the entire movie for no reason which ruined actions scenes. People sit peacefully in a coffee shop without any danger or super intense dialog and the camera still shakes. The fight scenes were ruined because the characters did enough moving around already that we didn't need the screen to shake making it even harder to appreciate the action. The storyline was terrible too. Jason is angry at the government/military for ruining his life yet we find out in flashbacks that he basically waved his rights to be part of a super secret soldier program by signing a contract. He was asking to be screwed making him undeserving of any pity. Even if you don't think it is a terrible movie I think there were enough flaws in the movie for people to seriously disagree with giving it a score of 85.

You're basically telling me not to comment on a movie because other people don't agree and I'm the narrow minded person? That's funny. I said "in my opinion" and "to me" multiple times.

And I already said I didn't expect the movie to suck so that's why I watched it. It did unfortunately end up sucking for me so I'm writing about it.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-09, 01:49 PM
Unfortunately, you happened to reply before I went back and edited my post to clarify, where I specified I was referring to people in the film.

Some slight? Didn't he get kicked out of important exploring expeditions and get publicly humiliated when he hadn't done anything wrong?

I don't think they simply wen't Eh in the film either....but you have to remember this used to be the guys childhood hero. If you found your childhood hero having gone completly bat %$## insane....you might have a similar reaction. I doubt for a second the characters would be so callous though. They were also hanging you know....pretty high up in the air with the risk of death. It might make you a little more inclined to book it.

And no, it was a slight. He knew he was right, even if the world didn't. He had clearly led a good life before this, even if he was disgraced by a simple finding, I bet you money if they wen't back and -did it again- they'd find out he wasn't wrong. But instead of just waiting and comming with a triumpant "SCREW YOU" he ran off like a mad man and refused to accept the simple mistake others made.

Joran
2009-06-09, 02:17 PM
I found "Up" to be seriously underwhelming. I wasn't expecting much from it but it still felt really bland and blah. Nothing about it seemed like a stroke of genius to me. None of the jokes were really that funny. I was actually kind of annoyed by a lot of it after watching the movie and walking home. During the movie it was alright but as I reflected on what I had seen it was all very poor quality in my opinion.

As viewers, we bring baggage in how we feel about a movie or a story. For instance, Finding Nemo didn't strike the chord in me that it does in other people because I'm not a parent. I'm sure I'll feel something different when I view it again when I'm a parent.

However, for Up, I haven't lost anyone recently to death, but I just got married a year ago. The montage in the beginning and the photo album in the middle struck something within me and touched me in a wistful way. I'm thinking about what dreams and ambitions my wife and I have, whether we'll fulfill them, how we'd react if one of us loses the other. I hope we'll have as many happy times as that couple did, even if they didn't achieve the dreams that they first thought they would achieve. The rest of the story was pretty formulaic, I think Dug is one of those characters that dog owners will love but will annoy anyone else. The rest of the movie was okay but that intro and the photo album were superb.

Here's another similar take: http://megatokyo.com/strip/1210#rant993

nothingclever
2009-06-09, 03:20 PM
When I think further on the movie the whole photo album thing was actually lousy in a way besides being used more than it needed to be.

The characters could've traveled the world if they really wanted to but he still feels sad about not going anywhere exciting. All they had to do was save up their money better and not procrastinate so much. Maybe the old man could've found a more profitable job than balloon salesman. His wife lived to be what, sixties? They had plenty of time to realistically plan a satisfying adventure. The tragic discovery that his wife can't have kids further supports this. They have no one to worry about besides themselves.

Willingly settling for what you feel is a life that doesn't meet your modest standards and then feeling sad about it is pretty lame. Traveling to other countries isn't ridiculously hard to do.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-09, 03:23 PM
I think the point was that life sometimes gets in the way of our dreams, and there isn't anything we can do about it. Because you know....everyone gets to exactly what they wanted to do when they grow up.

I think some of the things in the movie need a more....adult mindset and perspective. As said before, until you've experianced loss of a loved one, or gotten in a serious relationship where the death of that person causes you mental distress....you just won't get it.

nothingclever
2009-06-09, 03:27 PM
I think the point was that life sometimes gets in the way of our dreams, and there isn't anything we can do about it. Because you know....everyone gets to exactly what they wanted to do when they grow up.

I think some of the things in the movie need a more....adult mindset and perspective. As said before, until you've experianced loss of a loved one, or gotten in a serious relationship where the death of that person causes you mental distress....you just won't get it.
I'm not 5 and the movie isn't too deep for me but thanks for being condescending.

Traveling to another country and going on a little exploratory vacation does not equal getting to do everything you imagined yourself doing as a child.

How do you know I'm not a 72 year old man with more life experience than you? Maybe I'm just not stereotypically sentimental. Heck, maybe I'm an extremely sentimental elderly man and the reason I dislike this movie is that despite being so easily moved by other movies this one did not provoke anything from me even though it was obviously trying very hard to.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-09, 03:35 PM
I'm sorry you felt it was condescending, but I think its an honest opinion. Your comments don't take into consideration the even remote possibility that not everyone has the ability to jet across the world. This movie isn't based in the year 2009 from the start, and plenty of people can barely afford to go to another state let alone across the globe. I'd actually call it a little more then unrealistic to acuse them of just settling for a life and then being "lame".

Life's rough, they show alot of the problems they go though. Heck refurbishing the house in and of itself would take alot of time and money to do, and they did, i'm sure it put them back a whole lot for a long time, seeing as how the wife to our knowledge didn't work and the husband honestly didn't have a high income job.

But ignoring all of this? Its a movie. Its not something to get so serious and annoyed about


I know your not a 72 year old man, i'd guess....college age at the oldest, but your post said you walked with your brother to the movie theater so...probably highschool. Not really the point but there ya go :smallwink:

Mewtarthio
2009-06-09, 04:16 PM
Willingly settling for what you feel is a life that doesn't meet your modest standards and then feeling sad about it is pretty lame. Traveling to other countries isn't ridiculously hard to do.

Paradise Falls has no working airport, no established trails, and probably not even a major city within a good distance. It's a lot more work to get there than just spending a thousand dollars to book a flight.

Lord Seth
2009-06-09, 04:34 PM
I don't think they simply wen't Eh in the film either....but you have to remember this used to be the guys childhood hero. If you found your childhood hero having gone completly bat %$## insane....you might have a similar reaction. I doubt for a second the characters would be so callous though. They were also hanging you know....pretty high up in the air with the risk of death. It might make you a little more inclined to book it.After he dies, I don't believe anyone makes any comment on him whatsoever. No "even a good man can be driven insane" comment or anything.

And again, his actions don't fit with his motivations. Why would he care if someone else found the bird? Wouldn't it make sense for him to help them as it would prove himself right? Why does he need to capture it rather than take a few pictures? It doesn't fit, it doesn't make sense. And the movie never addresses it. It never bothers to explain how "I want to prove my innocence" somehow translates to "I'll go after anyone who's trying to find the bird, even if it would prove said innocence."


And no, it was a slight. He knew he was right, even if the world didn't. He had clearly led a good life before this, even if he was disgraced by a simple finding, I bet you money if they wen't back and -did it again- they'd find out he wasn't wrong.I'm not even sure what you're saying here. For the scientists to re-examine the thing? How do you know they didn't and came to the same faulty conclusion? Second opinions can be just as wrong as the first.


But instead of just waiting and comming with a triumpant "SCREW YOU" he ran off like a mad man and refused to accept the simple mistake others made.A simple mistake that seemed to have quite messed up his life. I'm not sure how him trying to find the bird makes him a mad man; I mean, he was an explorer, it fits with what he does.

Joran
2009-06-09, 04:41 PM
When I think further on the movie the whole photo album thing was actually lousy in a way besides being used more than it needed to be.

The characters could've traveled the world if they really wanted to but he still feels sad about not going anywhere exciting. All they had to do was save up their money better and not procrastinate so much. Maybe the old man could've found a more profitable job than balloon salesman. His wife lived to be what, sixties? They had plenty of time to realistically plan a satisfying adventure. The tragic discovery that his wife can't have kids further supports this. They have no one to worry about besides themselves.

Willingly settling for what you feel is a life that doesn't meet your modest standards and then feeling sad about it is pretty lame. Traveling to other countries isn't ridiculously hard to do.

It's a metaphor and I don't see it as particularly far-fetched. Travel in the 50's and 60's was pretty difficult, the couple don't appear to have particularly high paying jobs, and houses are very expensive. It's pretty easy for people to get caught up in mundane tasks and forget dreams. There is a reason why mid-life crises tend to be very common.

Raz_Fox
2009-06-09, 04:54 PM
I found "Up" to be seriously underwhelming. I wasn't expecting much from it but it still felt really bland and blah. Nothing about it seemed like a stroke of genius to me. None of the jokes were really that funny. I was actually kind of annoyed by a lot of it after watching the movie and walking home. During the movie it was alright but as I reflected on what I had seen it was all very poor quality in my opinion.

The movie is way too formulaic, there aren't enough characters or at least good ones and there isn't enough content in general.

The kid is just another stereotypical annoying stupid kid. Seen this a million times and this one wasn't anything special.

The bird and the dog are just stupid/retarded joke characters. Nothing special again. They do the same stupid things over and over again. "Oooh the dog is so funny! He talks like an idiot! Idiocy sure is funny! Oooh the bird is stupid too! Oh wow, it's soooo funny because it does stupid things! We've never seen stupid comedy before. Oh no, entirely new concept to us!"

The old man is just a cranky old man with some fond memories and his explorer idol is just a bland cranky old man that happens to be evil.

The rest of the cast is made up of a zillion dogs led by one alpha dog that is really bland like his master.

There's so little to the movie. The characters wander a jungle. They eventually find two stupid characters to wander with them. They encounter the villain and his dogs. They run away. They wander some more. The retard bird gets captured. They rescue retard bird. Wow, so interesting.

My post might sound like a troll or really poorly written but I simply don't have much to say since the movie has so little to it to comment on. The big supposedly clever change in this adventure movie is that the protagonist is an elderly man instead of a little kid and some depressing flashbacks that are used way too much are put in.

That's all the movie is. Painfully average adventure movie + some depressing stuff + child protagonist is replaced with an old man.

None of the characters really have any goals and there aren't any big obstacles or conflicts for them to overcome. It's just old man and kid with their two retarded animals on one side and an old man and his dogs on the other. There's nothing in between. The characters don't meet any other interesting animals or people and they don't discover anything special. All they do is pull a house to its destination and rescue a bird.

Monsters vs Aliens is infinitely better. This movie was just way too mundane and unspectacular. None of the effects in the movie wowed me. When everything is 100% computer animated, you have an adventure theme, you have a character going to some exotic largely uncharted land and your movies are known for amazing action scenes and special effects you should include some amazing imagery. I don't go out and pay money intending to watch grass grow but that's basically what I saw on screen. The humor and story were bland as well. I'm not saying extravagant animation scenes alone would save this movie. I'm saying it needed an overall improvement. Adding in depressing repetitive content doesn't suddenly make your movie a cut above the rest.

I think way too many people see a depressing beginning as some extremely clever innovation for a kid's movie when it really isn't.

YOU HAVE NO SOUL. THAT IS ALL.

:smalltongue:

Different strokes for different folks. I personally think that you're wrong like the sun rising in the west, but hey. I loved it because it wasn't vapid, because (like all Pixar movies) I couldn't guess exactly where the plot was going to go*, because it had heart and didn't settle for cheap, crude laughs like half the other kid's movies these days. It had identifiable characters that were fleshed-out and memorable.
You probably think everything in the last two sentences is wrong - but hey, that's your opinion, and I won't rake you over the coals for that.
Go see movies you like, and forget the bad ones.


*Alright, I did call the Tennis Ball maneuver; however, my guess on when it would happen was off. :smallredface:

almyki
2009-06-09, 05:29 PM
You said you liked Cars so it's obvious to me why you'd find my post sounding like a troll.

Cute.


If you can like that you can like just about anything with a generic cutesy feel to it. That's all I saw in Up, a generic cutesy feel with some overplayed sentimentality tacked on.

Making leaping assumptions on strangers is bad for your stomach. What's that about an "ass" again?


Up is one of those movies that so obviously wants you to go "AWWWWWWW" every 5 minutes. "Awww he had a tragic past. Awwww the kid's dad isn't around. Awww the bird injured its leg and got caught. Awww the other dogs bully the extremely slow one. Awww, etc etc etc." It's so extremely contrived. It's like when a kid makes a stupid joke and says it such a way that it's obvious that it's intended to be funny even if it isn't so other kids laugh reflexively. Then the rest that didn't immediately feel the need to laugh reflexively do so because the others did. In the end the joke was terrible but everyone laughed and pretended it was good.

I don't mind differing opinions, but antagonistic language that pisses over others' tastes is pretty annoying, yeah. So is making implied accusations such as how people only could have enjoyed a movie because they're tasteless drones. Or because their tastes are completely flat and shallow because they don't agree with your complaints. There are ways to voice a negative opinion that don't sound quite so... inconsiderate to those who feel differently.

ali

Radical Raven
2009-06-09, 08:27 PM
I don't care if you didn't like the movie, but I'm not a mindless robot because I did.

JadedDM
2009-06-10, 01:30 AM
You know, everything nothingclever said about Up is EXACTLY what I felt about Monsters vs. Aliens, which he actually liked.

Clearly, he is the bizzaro me.

I loved Up. I've never lost a loved one to death, been married, don't own a dog, and am not an old man (unless you think 27 is old, I don't). But I still related to the characters and was laughing or crying throughout the whole film.

I think Up was the best movie this year. Even better than Wall-E.

Ganurath
2009-06-10, 01:34 AM
When the antagonist dies and the reaction of everyone in the film is "enh, whatever", that's almost always a sign that we were supposed to see them as very evil.People in my audience gasped when he fell. Gasping and "whatever" are mutually exclusive, last I checked.

skywalker
2009-06-10, 12:02 PM
I'm not 5 and the movie isn't too deep for me but thanks for being condescending.

Hello Mr. Pot. How's your friend Kettle today?

I don't think this movie was "brilliant" on the whole. But the talking dog? That was genius. I've seen movies where the focal point was the talking dog, and they still didn't get the attitude right like they did in this movie.

I thought Kevin was underdeveloped. Plain and simple.

Last but not least, I think one reason why people (in the film) weren't too upset about Muntz' death is this:

1) Carl is an old man who has become very uncaring about a lot of people. He has recently discovered that his childhood idol is a murderous lunatic. Much easier to say "Ah, whatever." Having spent a lot of time around old people, it seems common for them to become accustomed to death. They only seem to get really torn up when the person was close to them, especially after a while. Carl has just realized that he meant nothing to Muntz, and Muntz meant nothing to him.

2) Kevin is extraordinarily slow, and may not understand what has just happened.

3) Dug is a dog. His allegiance has clearly changed already from Muntz to Carl. This turn actually confused me as well, since when we meet him Dug says "My master is good and smart... etc." Perhaps something finally made Dug understand that he had much better treatment opportunities with Carl.

Neko Toast
2009-06-10, 01:35 PM
Hello Mr. Pot. How's your friend Kettle today?

I don't think this movie was "brilliant" on the whole. But the talking dog? That was genius. I've seen movies where the focal point was the talking dog, and they still didn't get the attitude right like they did in this movie.

I thought Kevin was underdeveloped. Plain and simple.

Last but not least, I think one reason why people (in the film) weren't too upset about Muntz' death is this:

1) Carl is an old man who has become very uncaring about a lot of people. He has recently discovered that his childhood idol is a murderous lunatic. Much easier to say "Ah, whatever." Having spent a lot of time around old people, it seems common for them to become accustomed to death. They only seem to get really torn up when the person was close to them, especially after a while. Carl has just realized that he meant nothing to Muntz, and Muntz meant nothing to him.

2) Kevin is extraordinarily slow, and may not understand what has just happened.

3) Dug is a dog. His allegiance has clearly changed already from Muntz to Carl. This turn actually confused me as well, since when we meet him Dug says "My master is good and smart... etc." Perhaps something finally made Dug understand that he had much better treatment opportunities with Carl.

... Are you talking about the kid? His name wasn't Kevin, Kevin was the bird. The kid was Russell.

As for Dug, dogs are incredibly loyal to who they consider their masters, golden retrievers especially. He considered both Muntz and Carl his masters at first, so he helped both of them however he could. Despite how Carl treated him at first, he still seemed to be a better master to Dug than Muntz, as he was considered the 'runt' of the litter, among the other dogs anyway. That's just my take on it.

As for you, nothingclever, I will only respect opinions that don't blatantly insult others. Ergo, I will not respect your opinion unless you apologize for your previous words and restate them in a more polite and adult manor. That is all.

Starscream
2009-06-10, 06:49 PM
On a somewhat related note, I re-watched WallE yesterday. The film is a masterpiece, but reading this thread caused me to notice something that bugged me.

Where are the old people? All the people on the spaceship look to be no older than in their thirties. Are they so fat that they all die of heart attacks before hitting forty?

We saw babies on the ship, but no geezers. Come to think of it, we didn't see much of anyone between baby and adult either, but I'm willing to accept that some of those blob people could have been teenagers. It'd be hard to tell what with everyone dressing the same, having the same build, and never standing up until the end.

But not a wrinkle or a gray hair in sight. Either they have wonderful cosmetics in the future, or something was wrong beyond the obvious on that ship.

Llama231
2009-06-10, 06:54 PM
On a somewhat related note, I re-watched WallE yesterday. The film is a masterpiece, but reading this thread caused me to notice something that bugged me.

Where are the old people? All the people on the spaceship look to be no older than in their thirties. Are they so fat that they all die of heart attacks before hitting forty?

We saw babies on the ship, but no geezers. Come to think of it, we didn't see much of anyone between baby and adult either, but I'm willing to accept that some of those blob people could have been teenagers. It'd be hard to tell what with everyone dressing the same, having the same build, and never standing up until the end.

But not a wrinkle or a gray hair in sight. Either they have wonderful cosmetics in the future, or something was wrong beyond the obvious on that ship.

With technology potentially advanced enough, it could theoretically allow people to practically choose their age, etc. They may choose to remain a certain age around 30 or go peter pan style as a kid.

But if that was possible, they would also be able to alter themselves to be fit, non-blob people, but maybe the point is that they do not care.

The Glyphstone
2009-06-10, 06:56 PM
My problem watching WALL-E was wondering how they could expect to repopulate earth with such a small sample pool for genetic diversity. Apparently the amount needed isn't nearly as big as I thought it was, I found out later.

JadedDM
2009-06-10, 08:40 PM
That raises another question. How did they dispose of the dead?

Oh, god...the milkshakes!

*runs around overthrowing tables* It's people! It's made of people!

Starscream
2009-06-10, 09:56 PM
My problem watching WALL-E was wondering how they could expect to repopulate earth with such a small sample pool for genetic diversity. Apparently the amount needed isn't nearly as big as I thought it was, I found out later.

That anyway was sort of mentioned. The Axiom was the flagship of the BnL fleet, but not the only ship. They moved the entire population of earth, so the rest are out there somewhere.

Probably the Axiom was the nicest ship, and the people on it are descended from the wealthy who could afford deluxe accommodations. As a flagship that would also explain why it was the one that sent down probes to see when the earth could be repopulated. Presumably after they landed they sent out a signal to the other ships.

Lord Seth
2009-06-11, 12:54 PM
People in my audience gasped when he fell. Gasping and "whatever" are mutually exclusive, last I checked.I said in the film.

He dies, and nary a character makes a comment on it.

JadedDM
2009-06-11, 02:37 PM
Well, yeah. But he died while trying to kill the rest of them, so...

Besides, don't forget it is a PG movie. Hence the "Disney Death" (we never actually see him die) so I can see why they would try and call as little attention to it as possible.

Mauve Shirt
2009-06-11, 02:40 PM
Gaston falls in Beauty and the Beast, we never see him die but it's assumes. But none of the characters care at all, 'cause he's the bad guy. Same deal.

Lord Seth
2009-06-11, 04:48 PM
Gaston falls in Beauty and the Beast, we never see him die but it's assumes. But none of the characters care at all, 'cause he's the bad guy. Same deal.Except Gaston was evil, and his actions were consistent with his motivation. That's not true for Muntz at all. I was pointing out that the filmmakers didn't think we should feel empathy for the guy, so they tossed in his homicidal tendencies even though they didn't make any sense and weren't consistent with anything that was previously established about the character or his motivation.

They wanted him to be the villain and to look evil, so they basically tossed in evil stuff, even if it didn't make sense. They didn't even want us to see the guy as some kind of fallen hero or anything, or else someone would've said something after he died (e.g. after Two-Face's death in The Dark Knight) But no, they decided they didn't want moral ambiguity, even if it required flying in the face of common sense.

Pearl
2009-06-11, 05:12 PM
But no, they decided they didn't want moral ambiguity, even if it required flying in the face of common sense.

Which is a decision I completely support, since this is above all else a children movie.

Lord Seth
2009-06-11, 07:00 PM
Which is a decision I completely support, since this is above all else a children movie.None of which changes the fact that his actions do not fit with his motivations and he is a completely unbelievable villain, even for a kid's film. If you're going to have a character going around trying to kill people, at least have it be for a plausible reason. It wouldn't have been hard to change things a little to make it plausible, but they didn't.

It's not impossible to have moral ambiguity in something for kids (especially when said movie is also geared towards the older crowd as well). Batman: The Animated Series was practically MADE of it.

They should've either made him completely evil or made him sympathetic rather than having him be sympathetic but trying to make him seem completely evil anyway.

Rockphed
2009-06-11, 10:26 PM
That was a good movie. I especially liked the montage of Carl and Ellie's life together. I felt it was a better explanation of who Carl was than is told in most 1000 page novels. Sure, it relied on cliche, but life is built out of cliche.

There is one other thing I found especially thought provoking. When Russel was discussing his distant and neglectful father, he mentioned all the things that he and his father used to do. Then he said something profound: "It is the boring things that you remember, I guess."

almyki
2009-06-11, 11:56 PM
I actually thought the villain was perfectly believable. Zealous, obsessed old crone goes and exiles himself unnecessarily into the wilderness to catch some bird, surrounds himself with talking dogs, is way too prideful for his own good to go to these extents in the first place. Then, with every poor sap that comes along he kills them so that they won' take his precious bird. Not sympathetic to me in the least, not any of his personality or situation at all.

It may have been able to, a teensy bit... if it weren't for his freakin' museum of dead skeletons of rare (probably endangered) and fantastic beasts that he hunted, killed, and set up as trophies purely for the personal glory of it. Blah blah plenty of hunters put up deer heads blah blah it's not Evil I know that stuff. But it still really bothered me when I saw it, so that moment I did I didn't feel any sympathy for the guy at all. From the moment he set out he obviously knew what this bird he was searching for was (beautiful, harmless, rare), and soon after he found the bird he likely found out it was a mother, but obviously that didn't matter. He just never cared that much in the first place. There's not much evidence that he was actually that much of a stand-up guy when he first set off (still killed rare animals, wasn't crazy but could have still been a selfish zealot), so I was able to see him as a villain easily.

Well, 'Your Mileage May Vary', so they say. Just saying, not everybody saw it the same way you did, maybe the most of the crowd didn't think the villain was ambiguous or unsatisfying at all.

<3 ali

Lord Seth
2009-06-12, 12:24 AM
I actually thought the villain was perfectly believable. Zealous, obsessed old crone goes and exiles himself unnecessarily into the wilderness to catch some bird, surrounds himself with talking dogs, is way too prideful for his own good to go to these extents in the first place.How was it unnecessarily? How else was he going to prove he was telling the truth other than getting further proof? His entire job got screwed over because he, uh, told the truth and people didn't believe him. I don't see anything unreasonable about going to great lengths to prove he was telling the truth.


Then, with every poor sap that comes along he kills them so that they won' take his precious bird.Which is exactly my problem. Why would he kill them if they were trying to catch the bird? His entire motivation was to prove he was telling the truth. Anyone else finding it would have fulfilled that. There isn't any reason for him to have killed (assuming he did, it never exactly said that) or even hindered them. It would have made sense to help them. No explanation is given whatsoever about this.


Not sympathetic to me in the least, not any of his personality or situation at all.The killings weren't sympathetic, but that was my point. The only thing that prevents him from being sympathetic was that, and said killings made no sense.

What I've been saying is that in order to make him a villain, they threw in him being homicidal, never mind the fact it contradicts his entire motivation for being there and doing what he was doing. If they wanted to make him evil, they shouldn't have given him a sympathetic backstory (losing your job because you told the truth? Yeah, that's definitely not something anyone should suffer). If they wanted him to be sympathetic, they shouldn't have made him homicidal.


It may have been able to, a teensy bit... if it weren't for his freakin' museum of dead skeletons of rare (probably endangered) and fantastic beasts that he hunted, killed, and set up as trophies purely for the personal glory of it.Did it ever say he killed them? I was under the impression that it was just bones he found...


From the moment he set out he obviously knew what this bird he was searching for was (beautiful, harmless, rare), and soon after he found the bird he likely found out it was a mother, but obviously that didn't matter.It's also a bird. A bird. I don't recall it showing any level of sentience or anything close to that (yes, it had some intelligence, but so do deer and they get killed all the time).


There's not much evidence that he was actually that much of a stand-up guy when he first set off (still killed rare animals,Uh, when did it say that? Granted, I only saw the movie once, but I don't recall it ever saying he killed anything. It described him as an explorer, which certainly doesn't automatically include killing things or even rare things.


wasn't crazy but could have still been a selfish zealot),Complete speculation. If the movie had given us some hints that he was that way at the start, my complaints would've been greatly reduced, but they didn't.


so I was able to see him as a villain easily.I never said he wasn't a villain, I just said he wasn't a believable villain because the things that made him villainous contradict his entire motivation, which I felt was a reasonable enough motivation.

JadedDM
2009-06-12, 12:31 AM
Which is exactly my problem. Why would he kill them if they were trying to catch the bird? His entire motivation was to prove he was telling the truth. Anyone else finding it would have fulfilled that. There isn't any reason for him to have killed (assuming he did, it never exactly said that) or even hindered them. It would have made sense to help them. No explanation is given whatsoever about this.

He was obviously way too proud to let anyone else bring in the bird. He wanted more than to be proven right, he wanted the glory of being the one to bring the bird in at all.

Not to mention, while it never showed or said so specifically, I really got the impression that NOBODY was really after the bird. He was just so paranoid (no doubt from his decades of isolation) that he automatically suspected everyone who showed up as trying to steal HIS glory. (Maybe there really were thieves, and maybe they made up stories about being botanists and surveyors, though--I can't say for sure).

pendell
2009-06-12, 07:38 PM
He was obviously way too proud to let anyone else bring in the bird. He wanted more than to be proven right, he wanted the glory of being the one to bring the bird in at all.


This. It's the same reason Vaarsuvius touched the blue orb in OOTS. It's
not enough to be proved right -- he, and he alone, must do it. He will
not let any other person step in and take his achievement from him.

It's no longer about being proven right. If it was, he might encourage other
explorers to come in and lend their talents, in the hope that the more people
are working the problem, the faster a solution will come along. Instead, he kills the other explorers, not because he fears they will make him fail, but because he fears they will succeed.

He'd rather kill the other explorers and stay in that forsaken valley alone for
decades rather than let someone else just possibly get an ounce of credit
for the discovery. If it's vindication he wants, he's been sabotaging his own vindication for years.

Vindication is not his motive. Pride and vainglory is.

Am I the only one who was forcibly reminded of the Disney Movie 'The Black Hole', with the adventurer with the blimp as Reinhardt, Alpha as Maximilian, the Blimp as Cygnus? It even has the same plot where heroes find the long-lost ship, have dinner with the captain, then things go south and they have to escape from the madman, his homicidal robot, and legions of mooks?

Does anyone remember that movie? Can anyone believe it was a *Disney* movie?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Partof1
2009-06-12, 10:02 PM
I actually found Muntz quite believable. From the beginning, he was established as being very proud, bordering arrogant, based on body language and whatnot from the film Carl watched. He made the collars for the dogs, dogs who looked up to him as their master, the greatest, most important person in the world. They served him, and did everything for him. This of course would feed his ego. Through his work, he brought himself to believe he alone deserved all the credit for the bird, which, in a normal person in society, is reasonable. He put in his effort, and wanted credit. Rather, for him, he was around nobody who thought themselves his superior, or even equal. He convinced himself that anyone else who did anything, help or hinder him, would diminish his glory, either by taking a piece of it themselves, or stopping his goal altogether.

While I could not identify with Muntz, I understood him.

skywalker
2009-06-13, 11:07 AM
Which is exactly my problem. Why would he kill them if they were trying to catch the bird? His entire motivation was to prove he was telling the truth. Anyone else finding it would have fulfilled that. There isn't any reason for him to have killed (assuming he did, it never exactly said that) or even hindered them. It would have made sense to help them. No explanation is given whatsoever about this.

As has been said, it became "his bird." In his demented mind, he was the sole possessor of the bird. I think the film is partially a repudiation of the philosophy that we as humans can "own" animals.


The killings weren't sympathetic, but that was my point. The only thing that prevents him from being sympathetic was that, and said killings made no sense.

Crazy people do things that make no sense.


Did it ever say he killed them? I was under the impression that it was just bones he found...

It did not. I don't think there was anything to give the impression that he merely found them, either. I think this one is a toss-up. Muntz never showed any particular skill at hunting, tracking, or shooting throughout the film. In fact, he had to breed a massive number of dogs to help him find the bird.


It's also a bird. A bird. I don't recall it showing any level of sentience or anything close to that (yes, it had some intelligence, but so do deer and they get killed all the time).

Have you seen Bambi?


Uh, when did it say that? Granted, I only saw the movie once, but I don't recall it ever saying he killed anything. It described him as an explorer, which certainly doesn't automatically include killing things or even rare things.

This must spring from whether or not you believe he killed those rare skeletons in his air-ship. Impossible to know.


I never said he wasn't a villain, I just said he wasn't a believable villain because the things that made him villainous contradict his entire motivation, which I felt was a reasonable enough motivation.

Someone made a comparison between Muntz and Carl. Muntz become a lunatic chasing his dream, while Carl sees that and pulls back from his.

Did you see my previous post?

Rockphed
2009-06-13, 06:12 PM
Muntz did claim to have killed one of his skeletons on a safari with Teddy Roosevelt.

thegurullamen
2009-06-15, 12:24 AM
Just got back from Up and here's my take:

--I'm a Pixar fanboy through and through, so I've seen the majority of trailers for this movie. Sadly, this is a film where a couple of the comedic twists and plot points were ruined by Trailers Spoil Everything. It's not as bad as MIIB where literally every joke worth laughing at was shoved into the trailer, but there were times when I was like "Okay, hurry up and hit the punchline so we can get to a joke I haven't seen yet." Judging by the way the laughter was scattered at best in the theater, I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

--Muntz is one of the more interesting antagonists I've seen recently. He's not out and out evil, he's just paranoid and bat**** insane. Still, the moments when he went from "mysterious" figure to somewhat benevolent helper to outright villain really struck a chord with me. He didn't have as much screentime as the woefully underexplained Russel, but what little he did have he used.

--I did find one or two moments at the beginning a little schmultzy, but the rest of it hit the nail right on.

Overall, it's a middling Pixar film which places it at exemplary for most other film studios.

P.S.--I agree that Cars was the worst Pixar film, but it was more visually entertaining than Up. It might have been the 3-D (which as a trend, I hope dies a horrible death sometime soon) but I hope we can get back to Incred/Cars/WALL-E/Nemo color and style. Also, despite its faults, I still like Cars, proving that even when it fails, Pixar still produces something of quality.

Kris on a Stick
2009-06-19, 11:02 AM
@ Skywalker: He claims to have killed that triceratops looking thing with his shaving kit. I think that implies great skill with hunting. I don't think it's too much to assume the rest of his collection met similar fates.

Anyway, yeah. Watched the movie. Was great. Gonna go sleepy time now. Bai.

Rockphed
2009-06-19, 10:16 PM
P.S.--I agree that Cars was the worst Pixar film, but it was more visually entertaining than Up. It might have been the 3-D (which as a trend, I hope dies a horrible death sometime soon) but I hope we can get back to Incred/Cars/WALL-E/Nemo color and style. Also, despite its faults, I still like Cars, proving that even when it fails, Pixar still produces something of quality.

Personally, I thought the visuals of Up were good, except for the horrendously annoying 3d. It was never "Look, the thing is right in your face," but it did give both me and my girlfriend headaches.

Jahkaivah
2009-06-20, 10:41 AM
Step 1: Notice that Up is being discussed on the forums "ah, it must be out now, something to enjoy once I finish my exams".

Step 2: Finish exams, "hmm... I'm in the mood for Up"

Step 3: Notice that every UK cinema doesn't seem to realise the film even exists.

Step 4: Heart now sunk, looks at the release times on Wikipedia.

Step 5: I RAGE Also how the hell does firefox recognise Wikipedia as a spelling error?

Logalmier
2009-06-20, 11:05 AM
Step 1: Notice that Up is being discussed on the forums "ah, it must be out now, something to enjoy once I finish my exams".

Step 2: Finish exams, "hmm... I'm in the mood for Up"

Step 3: Notice that every UK cinema doesn't seem to realise the film even exists.

Step 4: Heart now sunk, looks at the release times on Wikipedia.

Step 5: ????????

Step 6: I RAGE Also how the hell does firefox recognise Wikipedia as a spelling error?

You can't make a how-to list without making the fifth step '????????'.

Rockphed
2009-06-20, 11:25 AM
You can't make a how-to list without making the fifth step '????????'.

But there is no question about what happens during any point of his list. Just because something is a meme does not mean it is worth destroying a good post over. Wikipedia, though renowned throughout the internet, is something new. As such it hasn't quite worked its way into whatever dictionary the makers of firefox's dictionary use.

Shatteredtower
2009-06-26, 04:33 PM
Got to admit, that Granny Goodness sure can do a good impression of a curmudgeonly old man.

I've seen it three times, the second while my right eye was in searing pain. Worth every minute.