Aspects of the movie that DIDN'T work

Pixar's Feature Films Up
#1

For my very first post on these boards, this could be controversial. Bear with me!

Absolutely magical movie, to be sure - But there are certainly enough threads going about that. Were there any moments in the movie that just didn’t work for you? For as wonderful as it was, I didn’t think it was without fault. The faults I found with it are generally minor, and certainly didn’t detract from my overall enjoyment of the movie, but perhaps they’re still worth listing anyway.

First, the big one: After the release of the theatrical trailer (and our first look at Dug), I wrote a thread on IMDb expressing concern over how they were going to handle his character, and how a “talking” dog would exactly fit into Up’s universe. Now that I’ve seen the film, I can honestly say I really, really liked Dug. They developed his character perfectly.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t a huge fan of most of the material concerning the other dogs. I liked the concept of a dog having a collar that translated its thoughts into the English language, while still remaining an average dog in every other way. Muntz’s dogs, however, were just too smart - they acted far too human at times.

There were genuine moments when they were just regular, run-of-the-mill canines ([spoil]the “treat” gag was especially cute, as was Carl driving all the dogs into the hallway with a tennis ball[/spoil]), but at other times, they were way more sophisticated than I thought they should be. My first indication of this was Alpha’s ability to operate the device on the other dogs’ collars. And the dogs [spoil]actually driving the planes[/spoil] at the end went way too far for me.

I also had a problem with the scene between Russell and Carl, in which they discuss [spoil]Russell’s father[/spoil] before falling asleep. I’m not sure I can quite put my finger on my issue with it. It just seemed a bit generic and tacked on. I didn’t feel Russell’s backstory was introduced in an organic manner, because the dialogue that established it didn’t quite ring true to me. It just felt like an afterthought. Like a very generic set-up to the later realization that [spoil]Russell need Carl as much as Carl needs Russell[/spoil]. I have to admit, though, the payoff in the final scenes of the movie worked perfectly - very touching.

And very, very minor: That joke where Dug [spoil]refers to the roof by barking mid-sentence instead of saying the word “roof”[/spoil] didn’t do anything for me. Felt a bit forced. It’s one of those rare Pixar jokes that just fell completely flat for me (it’s such a rare occurrence that I struggle to come up with an example of a similarly failed joke from a previous film). I also didn’t like the runner with Kevin swallowing everything, and thought the last one [spoil]with her babies coughing up the tennis balls[/spoil] could’ve been scrapped.

Well, how about everyone else? Anything not work for you? Doesn’t matter if it’s a major plot-point or one-line joke - list 'em here.

Edited for spoiler content. – Mitch

#2

I loved the movie, and it’s difficult for me to say much bad about it.

I have two things, though.

I think they went a little too far with the talking dogs. Them talking is crazy enough, but I think the thing with them [spoil]flying the airplanes[/spoil] was a bit far fetched. It doesn’t fit in the context of the film, which is supposed to take place in reality.

Also, the gag where Dug says [spoil]“on the ruff”[/spoil] is funny but it doesn’t make sense with the “policies” of the dog collar, because he wouldn’t just start barking in the middle of a sentence.

Edited for spoiler content. – Mitch

#3

Yes, that’s my precise problem with the gag as well.

It sacrificed the “reality” of Up’s world for a pretty cheap laugh. In the universe of this film, where this dog collar technology exists, there’s no reason why the collar would stop “talking” at that moment so the dog could bark in a manner that sounds a lot like [spoil]“roof”[/spoil]. A film can be as crazy and outlandish as it wants, and I’ll go there with it, as long as the movie follows its own rules. That was an example of a violation of the rules for a cheesy punchline (it’s a minor example, I’ll admit, but stuck out to me nonetheless).

Edited for spoiler content. – Mitch

#4

Really? That scene was probably my favorite, because it felt like something two people would talk about. [spoil]I liked that it all started with an offhand comment by Carl about Russell asking father to help him. Being a child that’s had to deal with divorce almost her entire life, his back story felt like something I could connect to. It would’ve felt generic to me if Russell hated his dad’s wife/girlfriend or something, or had issues with his father because his dad “abandoned him”. I liked that the conversation wasn’t about solving Russell’s problems…it was just about where Russell came from. I especially liked that Carl ducked out of it with a, “Why don’t you get some sleep?” comment. It made the scene feel very natural and very real. At least to me, anyhow.[/spoil]

#5

Russell being essentially [spoil]fatherless[/spoil] may have been explicitly mentioned first in the log scene, but it is certainly precedented; alluded to through earlier interactions. When finally revealed, I didn’t blink for a second. It felt like a natural extension of his character, and a brilliant move in legitimately connecting the two leads.

I will agree with the dog comment to a point: I was slightly confused as to the function of the collar. It translated their thoughts into English, but was it also an interpreter for them to understand human speach? Must have been.

Edited for spoiler content. – Mitch

#6

Yeah, I see what you’re saying, Castoro Chiaro, and I understand how it worked for you. But I don’t know. Like I said, my issue with it was something I just couldn’t quite put my finger on. It felt a little too cliché to me - a little like a conversation we’ve heard in the movies a thousand times before.

Maybe it’s because I knew Russell’s backstory before seeing the movie, that it was ruined for me. Because I already knew it, I immediately detected the set-up in Carl asking about Russell’s father, and thus perceived it as forced. If I hadn’t seen it coming ahead of time, I’ll admit, I might’ve felt differently.

Basically, I just need to go see it for a second (and third, and fourth) time, and take it all in again without my expectations getting in the way.

#7

Okay, you lost me their. I love that this film is so aesthetically exaggerated and expressionistic. The stylized look really fits the surreal content and structure of the story.

That being said, some of the Dog shtick may have gone too far … but not for need of a less realistic movie, that’s for sure.

#8

Yeah, to weigh in on this comment as well:

The intelligence of the dogs wasn’t really a matter of not being able to suspend my disbelief, I don’t think. It didn’t bother me that it was so unrealistic. I mean, if I could go with Carl to South America in a flying house, I could manage to go along with a dog [spoil]flying a plane[/spoil] (by the way, are the spoiler tags actually required? I only used them because I saw others using them, but if I don’t have to, I’d love to lose them).

No, my disappointment with it was merely that I thought it would’ve been a better choice to let the dogs remain average dogs. The way they did it wasn’t really bad, I just thought the alternative would’ve been superior. That there was nothing exceptional about the dogs beside their collars that translated their thoughts in the English language (and I think it would’ve been more clever if they had remained unable to understand the English spoken by the humans, as well).

Dug, for the most part, remained a dog. He was handled quite nicely, I thought. The rest - eh.

#9

[spoil]
I knew Russell’s father was busy a lot, but I didn’t know his parents were divorced, so maybe that’s why I didn’t see it as forced.

I dunno, I just liked that the lead-in to learning his parents were divorced was simply:

“What, you call your mother by her first name?”
“Phyllis (it was Phyllis, right?) isn’t my mother…”

It felt natural to me, like how a kid would talk about something like that.[/spoil]

#10

I’m going to only somewhat agree with the talking dogs, they’re a somewhat distracting element of the film, and maybe the film spends a minute or so too much on Alpha, Gamma, and Beta’s quest to capture Dug, but the real humor of the story comes from the fact that they are just dogs forced to do human things. [spoil]I absolutely cracked up at the dogs serving wine (or whatever it was) to Charles and Carl and the other dog dusting the skeletons, only to start chewing it as if it were a piece of fresh meat. Also, I think the conclusion of the dogs flying the planes and then exploding is perfect and exceptionally fitting to the story and what the filmmakers were trying to say. That is, dogs should be doing what they love to do, not what others believe that they should do (Reminds me a little bit of Ratatouille!)[/spoil]

I’ll also have to agree with Castoro Chiaro on Russell revealing his story. [spoil]Until that point of the film, we only know that Russell is a lonely boy trying to get his last Wilderness Explorer badge, and nothing else. We don’t know any of his other motives. And I think the dialogue between the two is as organic as Russell and Carl should be, nothing forced about it.[/spoil]

One thing that I kinda want to discuss on this thread is how you feel about some critics feeling that Pixar makes excellent starts of the film but then go into the “obligatory” comedy and action route. For example, some say that the beauty in the prologue is how it tells an entire life story of Ellie, but then the tone of the story changes a bit to comedy and action. I have my opinions, but I want to hear yours first!

#11

I think the point about the dogs is to show no matter how much tricks they know, they will always resort back to being a dog.
It doesn’t really matter if you could teach a dog how to fly a rocket ship to the moon or drive a car for you, they will always in a way be tricks, but those tricks will never take over their inner dog. So the times where the dogs… Became dogs, showed that their minds still think like one; because ultimately, they were always dogs that knew a few tricks.

I don’t really have much to say about the Carl and Russell moment, but I respectfully disagree with you about it seeming tacked on. That part actually had me chocked up because it made my feelings for Russell grow much stronger.

As for the part where Dug barks “Roof”, I actually got a big laugh out of that. I thought it was funny. Perhaps you heard his bark over the dog collar because his bark was louder than the collar?

#12

I agree, and I liked that line too. Yeah, I think the dialogue itself was fine (and at lines like the one you mentioned, great). I can’t think of any specific pieces of dialogue off the top of my head that bugged me.

Just the scene in general felt out of place.

That’s a good point, and I think that’s what they were going for. But you know, maybe those tricks didn’t have to be so spectacular. They could’ve made this point about the dogs without going quite so overboard with their abilities.

The moment that TheIncredible mentions in which the dog pours the wine was great, because the dog was kind of bad at it. It spilled wine all over the floor, and then just dropped the bottle when it was done. That was a perfect example of training a dog to do something that it - as a dog - could never quite grasp.

But their abilities were pretty inconsistent throughout. Because later on, they really were pretty great at[spoil] flying those planes[/spoil] (well, until the “squirrel” thing came back up). I couldn’t have come up with a more clever way to resolve that myself, but I don’t think the dogs should’ve ever been in those [spoil]planes[/spoil] in the first place.

I see where everyone else is coming from, and for the most part, I agree with the points being made. And I could tell where the filmmakers were coming from as well. It’s just a matter of personal taste, really, that I wish the dogs’ abilities weren’t quite so exaggerated.

#13

I can completely agree with everything you said in your first post, UniversalPolymath. I feel the same way…

#14

Thought I’d start a new reply for this, a new topic.

I think the critics who say that, both about this and WALL·E, really aren’t off the mark. It’s a fair criticism to make, I think.

I have to admit, I do most enjoy and remember the quiet moments - the “boring” moments, as they are - over the crazy, comedy/action material. Nothing could top the first act of WALL·E, as it was absolutely masterful in every imaginable way. And the opening of Up (not just the beautiful montage that gets so much attention, but all the subsequent scenes showing Carl’s isolation, up until his escape) was equally magical, and will stay with me for a very, very long time.

The rest of both of those movies, though - the comedy/action plots - aren’t really any “worse” to me; they’re just different. They don’t carry that same emotional punch, and when you think of your favorite sequences, they probably aren’t the first things that come to mind (though maybe they are). But they’re still wildly entertaining to watch, and I think Pixar does an exceptional job of balancing so many different moods. The transition from drama to comedy to action to mystery, and then back to any one of them again, is never jarring. The guys at Pixar are absolutely flawless at making even the most outlandish plotlines unfold in the most seemingly organic way.

So while I see where such critics come from, the changes in tone don’t bother me one bit. For me, Pixar’s as good at sustaining and ending a film as they are at starting it.

Alright, your turn, TheIncredible. What’s your opinion on all that?

And since this is the only thread I’ve posted in yet (haven’t even gotten around to writing anything in the review thread), I feel it necessary to say: I loved Up, I absolutely adored it. It’s hard to tell with all the complaining I’ve done (but this thread is for complaints, after all), but it really did immediately shoot a great deal of the way up my list of favorite Pixar films. The dogs, the feeling I got from the Carl/Russell conversation in question - despite all the words I’ve wasted on them here, they really are very minor grievances. They certainly don’t stop me from calling this the best movie I’ve seen this year, and they certainly won’t stop me from seeing this in the theater three or four more times. Just felt I needed to get that out; I haven’t given the film the praise it deserves, yet.

#15

Phew! Glad to know I’m not completely alone, here.

#16

Most of the nitpicks here I disagree with.

Russell’s backstory was essential to the story development, not surprising that his mother, not father, was present in the ending badge ceremony. Maybe that’s why he was a ‘stupid’ kid early on. (Many moviegoers are turned off by the ‘old man’ and the ‘stupid kid’)

I was relieved they found an ingenious solution to the talking animal problem. We saw the same thing in Wall-E, mechanical creatures who could believably talk. Did they go overboard in Up? Yeah, maybe a bit. As it was brought up, the idea that certain dogs were trained to do certain tasks would have worked better at the dinner aboard the airship, perhaps preceded by a ‘waiter’ dog’s collar saying “I am trained to serve you…” Then the airplane flying dogs would have seemed just a bit more believable because they had been trained to do just that. Perhaps showing a dog in the pack earlier in the movie with goggles, cap and scarf would have helped the gag.

The Big critical complaint: Some reviews of Wall-E, and Up too, were plagued by the complaint that act2+3 was “pedestrian” and “devolved into chase scenes” and such. These scenes are quite popular with the kiddies, who are usually bored with the build-up of the plot, the discovery sequences. I know, I’ve watched these films many times and see how the kids react. Mothers at free shows will pick up their kid and walk out after just half an hour of Wall-E, the remaining families will all stay as the action commences. There is a great wonder during the discovery process of these films, and it there is action such as a moving spaceship or house balloon, this can hold attention as the plot unfurls. But then in both films there is an arrival at the big ship. The true intentions of each contestant becomes known, and the chase is on! In almost all Pixar movies there is a journey early in the film, a road trip (you see it in Bolt too), even if the destination is across the street, a big feat for toys. Then there is action. People usually see animated features for the wonder and the action. Just look at the short collage put together by the Academy last February for most of the animated films: it was all action. Waltz with Bashir was blackballed. Wonder is good, but too much is for weaklings and becomes sentimental, artsy-fartsy!

The montage of the first 10-15 min is being called the best part of the movie by some. It’s mostly silent, just like in Wall-E, and it tells a powerful story without all the words. Pixar has increasingly learned how to do this, such as in the donation station scene in TS2. Wall-E and Up both have these extended quiet sequences.

#17

POSSIBLY THE SMALLEST NITPICK EVER! haha

[spoil]I think the last shot with the house on top of paradise falls should of had the balloons on the house or just something different about the house (possibly have it partly destroyed) that showed the new adventure carl went on as ellie told him to do so in the book.
It almost contradicted the idea that the house didn’t matter that much since ellie’s adventure was with carl. So basically what I’m trying to say is the last image of the house matched too perfectly with the painting. [/spoil]

idk haha, what do you think?

#18

The one (and probably only) thing that bothered me was the Dug “roof”/bark moment, for exactly the reasons that have already been discussed. I’m glad you brought that up.

#19

The “roof/woof” thing was basically the only thing for me. I THOUGHT I wouldn’t like the talking dogs, but I quickly changed my mind. They weren’t like any talking dogs I had seen previously!

#20

I hate to be the one that says this but you do all remember this is a cartoon right? Just wondering because I keep reading and I keep thinking that UP is a live action movie!! What movie was II watching?

Movies are made as a escape from reality especially cartoons. Unless it says at the beginning that its based on a true story I think all the critizium can be justified but this is a cartoon…you remember that one time when Bugs Bunny stuck his finger in a shotgun and it blow up and charred Elmer Fudd?? OH YEAH! Its not phsycially possible for this to happen! We don’t jump on internet forums and criticize it, we all get a kick out of it. Why?? Because it’s a cartoon and funny to watch something that would be very unlikely to happen in real life.

Let’s all just watch the movie and enjoy it for what it is because well…IT’S A CARTOON!!

WOOF!!!