Phew! Glad to know I’m not completely alone, here.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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!!!
Gr8PolarBear, I gotta say, I absolutely couldn’t disagree more with your insinuation that animation can’t be looked at critically, simply because “it’s a cartoon”. You’re right, cartoons can be an escape. And sometimes, it is best to just shut your mind off and enjoy the ride. But my desire to analyze and dissect Up is only a testament to how powerful and important I found the film to be.
I think we all know it’s a cartoon, and that the events of the movie aren’t actually possible. The realism or physical possibility of the events in the film aren’t even in question, here. None of my criticisms - or ones brought up by others - have anything to do with jumping on the internet and complaining because those things couldn’t possibly happen in real life. No, instead, they’re about discussing what could’ve made a better story, in my own humble opinion. What could have made Up’s delightfully quirky, outlandish world even better.
But when you say this thread reads as if it’s about a live-action movie is just plain silly. Why should the medium used be a deciding factor in whether or not we should discuss the merits/short-comings of a given story? Do you find all cartoons inherently less thought-provoking than live-action? If so, why do you think that is?
People, the collar didn’t stop translating just so that Dug could bark. The light on the collar stayed on until after his “woof” so he just cut it off, that’s all. (I checked 
)
The thing that I think absolutely didn’t work the most (least?) was mostly stuff concerning the dogs as well. Alpha’s broken collar was funny for a few seconds, but it should’ve been fixed immediately. The “dogs see a ball and go crazy” bit has also been done to death, most recently in Bolt. And worst of all, Dogs flying airplanes. The collars that made them talk was a stroke of genius and realy helped the dogs still be a part of Pixar’s reality…but once they started flying planes, it was all a bit whacky. Do these collars give them the ability to fly planes? Did Muntz invent some sort of planes that dogs have the sense and capability to fly? Either way it most certainly didn’t work.
I loved Up, but it’s for these and other reasons that it didn’t even approach the genius of WALL-E last year. It had plenty of moments that made it come close, though, such as the montage of Carl and Ellie’s marriage, and the house representing Ellie, as well as Carl carrying it on his shoulders, Atlas-like. But Docter damages the great things he created there by making much of the film entirely too jokey, so I agree, there were quite a few things that didn’t work.
I can understand what you all mean about the dogs flying the planes being a stretch. But the planes were most probably custom built for the dogs since they fire by biting onto a squeaky toy, and I’m sure the way they steer is equally simple.
Yeah, but the dogs were aware they were flying a plane. They “checked in” as real pilots would. A simply constructed plane or not, it was just way over-the-top.
The whole movie is just over the top. Up is one of the movies where you truly have to suspend disbelief.
Never would a house, even at the size of Carl’s house, would lift off the ground with that many balloons he used.
Kevin is a make-believe bird species. She is not something that really exists in this world. She fits perfectly in the category of mythical creatures, such as dragons and unicorns.
Dogs know a lot of tricks in this movie that is seemingly impossible for a dog to learn in real life, flying an airplane included.
So really, Up has a lot of unbelievable aspects to it, but it’s so easy to forgive it as long as you suspend your disbelief for such things.
Nitpicking aside, you all gotta admit Up is one of the best (If not, THE best) Pixar efforts to date.
I thought that was cool! It sounds like they snuck in a Star Wars reference when they “checked in”.
Interesting… I don’t know why, but I don’t see that as over-the-top. Dogs are smart enough to understand a mission like that, especially if they’re smart enough to hold a conversation with a human. Maybe I’m biased (dog-lover).
I see what you’re saying about Dug and the pack seeming too self-aware at times. But there is a spectrum of behavior in animated animals (in this case, specifically dogs) 
.
The More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Cartoon Canine Intelligence Spectrum, from least canine/most human to most canine/least human:
-
“Human in a dog suit”. The dog walks upright, can talk, and generally displays no particular canine behavior. Certain canine physical attributes (such as Droopy Dog’s droopy bloodhound face) or associations (Huckleberry Hound as a Southern hound dog) or a pun on the word “dog” (the original Underdog) might be utilized, but that’s about it.
-
The dog walks upright, has full human intelligence, can speak, and generally acts like a human, but has very definite canine behaviors, like Brian Griffin from “Family Guy”, and the “cano-sapiens” from the short-lived Warner Bros. series, “Road Rovers”.
-
Walks on all fours, has some degree of human intelligence, and can speak (though usually in a gruff, doggy sounding voice), such as Scooby-Doo, and Astro from “The Jetsons”.
-
Walks on all fours. Can speak to other dogs, and usually other animals, but not humans. Usually seem as intelligent as their human companions, but see the world from a very canine perspective, like the dogs from “Lady and the Tramp” and “101 Dalmatians”.
-
Walks on all fours, and cannot speak. Generally acts like a dog, but looks very cartoony and is prone to typical cartoon behavior and funnybusiness (such as wild takes when surprised, or falling into a daze with hearts flying around their head when in love) like Pluto, Dino (technically a dinosaur) from “The Flintstones” and Odie, from “Garfield and Friends”.
-
Generally looks and acts like a real dog, except for somewhat exaggerated facial expressions, like Max the sheepdog from “The Little Mermaid”.
-
Looks and acts pretty much totally like a real dog, like Ladybird from “King of the Hill”, or the hunting dogs from “Bambi”.
This list was just off the top of my head and could be tweaked and rearranged, of course.
Dug and the pack are closer to the base of this list than most cartoon dogs, but I think they’re somewhere between the second (Max) and third one up (Pluto, Dino, Odie).
That was a useful list animagusurreal. When coming up with the screenplay for this movie, should Pete Docter have aimed for one of those more realistic dogs on your list? I thought that the landscape in Venzuela was too ‘surreal’, but was surprised to find out they took pictures of this bizarre place and it was a faithful reproduction. Sure, ballooning a house there from mid-USA would be a tall feat, but wasn’t too far from reality. So maybe what we are saying in this discussion is that the level of disbelief was out of sync with the other parts of this movie when it came to the dogs.
I have to admit, the spell in this movie was broken when we came to Munitz’s cave and all the dogs poured out. The chase scenes didn’t seem very interesting to me. And lots of critics have compared this chase to the chasing around on the Axiom, another big, big ship. It’s when the critics began to feel that some magic was lost in both movies.
I was confused to as to why Munitz couldn’t go to the area where the bird lived and he had a nest with the little birds. Only seen the movie once and hope to catch it again this weekend and figure some things out.
I had to pop in to answer this: The reason Muntz can’t go get the bird where it lives: He explains to Carl and Russell that the bird lives in a labyrinth of rocks (Dug calls them the twisty rocks), where, once you go in, you can never find your way back out again. “I’ve lost so many dogs,” he says (with real regret) from tracking the bird into the labyrinth.
By the way, a somewhat big nitpick for me;
[spoil]I think they should have put the lyrical song (“The Spirit of Adventure”) as the first song in the credits. It’s much more upbeat than “Up With End Credits”, and to me it seems like a better song to sort of take the audience home like “If I Didn’t Have You”. Not to mention, to get a Best Original Song merit at the Oscars you have to have the song during the film or it be the first song in the end credits…I think, at least that’s what I read. Not 100% sure.[/spoil]
Ok, Karly05, I got that much from the movie and figured it was because
[spoil] the dogs couldn’t find their way out of the labyrinth, or their navigation system didn’t work in that area, like iron deposits or such, or that the shards of rock would puncture the airship.[/spoil]
It just seemed the area was not infinite, shows up fairly large on Muntz’s map, and it was mysterious that it was so impenetrable for a man of Muntz’s determination.
The only big problem I had with Up was how underdeveloped Muntz was. He’s very one dimensional, despite being one of the coolest, [spoil]baddest[/spoil] characters of all Pixar movies (in my opinion, anyway).
The saddest thing is that they would have included a scene that would have fixed it, as Ronnie Del Carmen mentions in the 4th paragraph of this blog: