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.
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:
The movie is about Carl, not Muntz, so there just isn’t enough time for him. Remember, he is given some due early on in the film, in the montage. In lots of ways, he and Carl are on a collision course. They have been their entire lives, sometimes terrifyingly close, sometimes a full continent apart. Each has a goal: on the same mesa. Carl’s wife gives her husband different goals, but after she dies, their first goal rises to the forefront in Carl’s mind. Interestingly, Carl eventually finds out that Elly did not forget about the scrapbook and their promise to each other, but had moved on and challenged him to find something else to do in his new found freedom.
Muntz just didn’t have the full life that Carl had. But when Carl’s life reaches its presumed end, he has but one thing left to do: Paradise Falls. And that’s where it would have ended, except for his new found friends. Both men were rejected by the world, but when people come to visit Muntz he apparently kills many of them. Carl is literally surrounded by people out to get rid of him. Muntz’s professional reputation was destroyed and his bitterness is dominant. He is now an old man, still robust, but an old curmudgeon. So I can see why he has become one-dimensional…
That Disney Blog articles was really good, cakeofages. The 4th paragraph doesn’t expressly say who it was about, but that’s a good guess. I feel that the wound to Muntz’s reputation was good enough for the story.
I was just bringing up a point in general, not directed at you. I realise my stupid use of the word ‘your’ is misleading.
This was just my general answer to all the points raised about the dogs. they would have been too stupid and ridiculous if the acted like real dogs, the movie then would have been filled with dog fart jokes and catch the ball jokes all over the place. Keeping them freakishly smart was a good move, it makes the part where they do go back to acting like regular dogs that more funnier.
)
.