Don't hate me but...

Pixar's Feature Films Up
#1

Is Up a memorable movie for you?

  • Yes- You’re insane MG,how could you even forget a Pixar movies existence?! Rawr! Blasphemy! Up rocks!
  • Yes- but I still see your point&/orCan understand why you’d feel that way&/or I get the same problem with another Pixar movie
  • No. I have some of or have similar problems with Up sometimes myself too actually.

0 voters

Does anyone ever get the impression this movie is kind of… easily forgettable to them and not that original?

See I was sort of on livejournal pixarstudios commenting about how much it seems Pixar has improved in human design in terms of what we’ve seen in TS3 so far… and I completely forgot to mention Up. I totally forgot its existence- which is odd, because the human designs weren’t great in Up either so it would have been a good esample at how big a jump they’ve made in a short time.

But in other ways, my attention has also been drawn to the fact that in a way Up is WAY too similar to my favourite Monsters Inc- Kevin is essentially BOO (since monsters viewed humans as animals, as was obvious from the M.I. movie) among other things. Muntz is like a bizarre mix of Waternoose and Randall in some ways too. He’s less redeemable than Randall, but he does have similarities (urge to prove himself etc etc. yadda yadda yadda).

It isn’t a complete copy (duh), but it shows… a lack of creativity on Pete’s part in some cases. And it’s by the same director. Now I didn’t hate this movie at all (aside from the completely unnecessary thing with making Dug a golden retriever and a ‘‘good’’ breed) and granted it wasn’t a complete copy (duh) but it does make me wonder. Then again, it could be said there are only ever so many storylines out there- and only a different way in spinning it, but the fact Pete directed very similar movies… bothers me. The ending was kind of better though. I mean Muntz did die but at least it wasn’t the heroes fault. But his change was also far more JARRING. Muntz was a weaker character than Randall all in all. And Waternoose too. Muntz is still a good character I supoosse in his own right though, though he pales in comparison to Carl really.

Up wasn’t an ‘unforgettable’ movie for me. I have been forgetting this movies VERY EXISTENCE until I come to PP and see it before I log in. It did have Carl though, a very grabbable character and all and I loved his bittersweet story with Ellie but… still.

Anyone else get where I’m coming from? Don’t mean to be a downer but… yeah. There were definite things I liked and didn’t like- but the fact I keep forgetting Up bothers me. Is it just because it’s more recent and has yet to stick? I don’t think so somehow.

I’ve never had this problem with remembering a Pixar movie’s existence before- ever. I mean Ratatouille, well I didn’t KNOW it existed until a friend told me about it and I saw it- but after seeing it, I didn’t ever forget its EXISTENCE like I sometimes do here in regards to Up, and considering it’s directed by the same person who had the movie that had my favourite characters, shouldn’t I? Or do I just need time for it to stick?

Edited to add poll and a few other editions.

Edited for shouting. – Mitch

#2

Um… wow.

First of all, I’m sorry, but basing these opinions on Monsters Inc. alone really doesn’t bring your argument across for me. :confused:

Secondly, in regards to the human designs, Up was created to be more cartoon-like in the human character designs, as opposed to TS3 where they’re trying to step up everything from the first two; especially humans since in the first 2 TS installments, the humans weren’t rendered as nicely as say, Ratatouille. (Which is obvious given the years and years of development involved.) Saying the human designs weren’t good AT ALL in Up is disregarding the cartoon quality it’s supposed to carry anyways.

This film was absolutely stunning, definitely one of Pixar’s more emotional films (which in my humble opinion, Monsters Inc is not - that emotional, that is). I found Muntz actually to be one of the darker of Pixar’s “villains”.

How in the world is Kevin “Boo”? Please explain that to me a little better so I can understand where you’re coming from with that.

Dug being a “good” breed makes him weaker of a character? What is with Monsters Inc fans and their view of “good” and “bad” species being used in a movie? I know this sounds really harsh, but I just don’t see this as being a great platform to base the argument.

I kinda understand what you’re saying - I’m the same way with The Incredibles, since it didn’t possess the same intriguing story, lovable and relatable characters, and emotional qualities that the other Pixar films have. As a result, I tend to mentally disregard the film. I guess it’s just something you tend to do with a movie that wasn’t really your favorite. It’s perfectly fine not to like Up - personally, I can’t see how that’s even possible - but hey, if it doesn’t suit your fancy, it’s not like you can MAKE yourself like it, you know? You’re free to have your preferences, as we all do.

little chef

#3

In relation to Dug- well making him a retriever was pretty pointless all in all really in the end. I mean, why? Why not make him a rottwiller? Why was he the only dog who has not ever been sterotyped in any shape and form? It seemed like a rather pointless difference to have. So why?It kind of baffled me that they made that decision at all when there were no retrievers other than Dug and the various breeds of the other dogs in context.

(Plus, I never mentioned M.I. in THAT context of negative species stereotyping in my orginal post :confused: , personally actually I’m on the fence as to whether a version of racism in the monster world exists or not myself. So that’s kind of off-topic eva.)

In relation to Kevin- Boo put it this way. Kevin was the innocent that Muntz was after in order to prove himself. To the characters he was more or less an animal at the end of the day (okay but Russell wanted to help ANYWAY), just like Boo was being chased in Monsters Inc- that was how monsters VIEWED humans (albeit dangerous) animals, which was an intriguing premise by itself but it seems like with Kevin Up was just the SAME IDEA only less interesting- because it literally WAS a non-sentient animal, unlike with Boo where the drama was that well she WAS- the monsters were wrong about humans in more than just toxicity. So not original and a less dramatic version in fact of the idea.

I kind of disagree with the premise that M.I. wasn’t an emotional film though- their characters were pretty real to me in some respects to me, though there was more slapstick humour. Granted, M.I. is far from perfect- but it does have many concepts which are intriguing especially in relation to the world created and it is certainly possible for it to have dark elements (which it does both upfront and some when you look closer whetehr intended or not) and has LOTS of fodder and a world to play around in. Not so much with Up really.

All in all while Ellie-Carl moments were great (which I DID mention) all in all it could have been better in some regards this film in general (but I loved how they showed Carl and Ellie plus the concept that a promise to the LIVING was more important than one to the DEAD, because that is very true.).

Perhaps you have a point in relation to the Pixar human Up designs but I didn’t really like them that much. I didn’t say they weren’t ANY good actually in fact, but the style was definitly found wanting IMO and probably didn’t suit the STYLE of an “emotional” Pixar version either, now that you mention it.

And I didn’t say that I hated the film either, but just that it wasn’t that original when we set it beside Pete’s other film and it just doesn’t seem to ‘stick’ for some reason in some respects. And I’m not really sure why. Perhaps it’s because it is newer, but I’m not sure.

Edit: I brought up M.I. really because it was Pete’s OTHER film- so it does have a basis for discussion- not really simply because it was my favourite too. Just the Boo-Kevin similarities in terms of situation were a little odd among other things. Plus Muntz was just a mix of Randall and Waternoose in the end.

As I HAVE mentioned however- there ARE only so many ways to tell a story so perhaps this criticism is harsh. In truth, nothing is completely original. Everything has been more or less done before, and there is really just a new way of presenting it. But the fact Pete is using a very similar plot point on the basis of his antagonists in terms of actions (going after what they believe to be an animal… only less dramatic because this time she IS a non-sentient animal). Which is kind of weird when you think about it.

Further edit: I suppose at the end of the day, I also kind of want to be reassurred that Pete didn’t simply deside to dress up bits of his old creation in new clothing, because it wouldn’t inspire confidence in me with regards Pete’s ability as a director. I don’t like thinking of Up as a less interesting ‘copy’ of M.I., and I kind of DO want that thought process blown apart at the end of the day as well.

#4

As has been stated many times, every individual carries with them their own viewpoints and opinions, so it’s inevitable that one person will see something in a completely different light from the next. Personally, I like the diversity. Life would be insanely boring if everyone felt the same way about the same things. So, in that respect, I understand where you’re coming from…

However, I will admit that there are quite a few things I don’t agree with here. I’ll split them all up into sections so as to avoid confusion…

Up vs. Monsters, Inc. - I think one thing that must be understood here is that, because both of these films were helmed by the same director, there are going to be some similarities between the films as far as style is concerned. Every director has their own, unique take on a film, and sometimes it’s easy to distinguish a particular director’s style of directing from another.

Regarding the relationships/similarities you’ve drawn between Kevin and Boo, if they’re there they are extremely minor. In fact, I don’t see much, if any, connection between the two at all. The only similarity I see in this is that, like Sully, it took Carl some time to accept Kevin, and even then… Sully developed a close bond with Boo fairly quickly – faster than Carl did with Kevin. Boo adored Sully right off the bat, whereas Kevin needed to be convinced by Russell that Carl was an ally, and even then Carl never really thought much of Kevin until the very end of the film, upon which their relationship was based on a low level – they remained on friendly terms and Carl helped Kevin out (basically due to the fact that he regretted his previous rash decisions), but that’s as far as it got. The real friend to Kevin was Russell, and if you were to compare those two to Sully and Boo then you’d have to swap their positions age-wise – Russell would be more like Sully as he was the one caring for Kevin.

Judging by your comparison, though, I understand what you mean, but I still think that Kevin is different enough from Boo to emit confusion.

In a nutshell, there might be a slight similarity between both Kevin and Boo, but if it’s there it’s only there in a relationship sense and not a personality context. Boo (much less Monsters, Inc.) never even came to mind until you mentioned it, actually.

The Designs - I must say that I disagree. Again, this is a matter of personal preference, but I absolutely adored the character designs and felt that they worked well in conjuction with each individual character’s personality. Carl’s square physique couples nicely with his hard shell and negative outlook on life (after Ellie passed), and Russell’s buoyant and energetic personality fits perfectly inside of his round (and, as was stated in the “Art of Up” book) “exclamation mark-shaped” body. Even Charles Muntz, with his skull-shaped profile and similar, “exclamation mark-shaped” figure defines both his devious side and his jubilant side.

Dug - There must have been a particular reason as to why Dug was a Golden Retriever instead of a breed that was similar to that of Alpha (a Doberman Pinscher), Beta (a Rottweiler), and the other burlier, more muscular dogs. One possible reason was to better distinguish him from the rest of the pack, namely in temper and personality.

I remember that there was a discussion here on Pixar Planet about why Dug was the only Golden Retriever in the group, and one plausible reason that a member here came up with was that Dug originally belonged to a different owner – it was revealed in the film that Muntz had eliminated trespassers in his area one by one, so it is possible that he “disposed” of Dug’s old master and ended up adopting Dug, as it where.

Originality - Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t there only something like… seven stories out there that can be told? Obviously, plot-lines are going to be recycled, and you did mention this, but as far as originality goes, I think that Up does a pretty bang up job of displaying that. The very premise of this film is altogether unique, colorful, and heartwarming, and the manner in which it is portrayed is tasteful. As far as the main animation studios in the United States go, Pixar Animation Studios is the only one of that lot that I can think of who would dare to even attempt to make a film like this. Geriatric figures don’t particularly draw in the crowds (or, the younger crowds, at least), so the fact that they took this premise and their central character and made a winner out of it says something: That as long as you have a solid story, people will admire the product.

All in all, although both films were directed by the same guy, I don’t see much of a relationship between the two. Story-wise, Monsters, Inc. is completely different from Up, but both productions are equally heartwarming.

Regarding little_chef_eva09’s comment:

Ha-ha. Yeah, see, that’s… kind of a contradiction to what you said prior to this comment. Personal opinion is a huge factor here. The Incredibles may not be one of my favorite Pixar films either, but I believe that it had a very intriguing story, along with relatable and memorable characters. As for the emotional qualities, perhaps they weren’t as pronounced as those in some of Pixar’s other films, but they were certainly there. Again, though, this is all a matter of opinion. :wink:

– Mitch

#5

I voted the second option. While Up is no doubt an excellent and fantastic film, I found I’ve forgotten much of the plot already after having not watched it for a few months (compared to Wall-E, which was much more indelible in my memory). And like Wall-E, it opens spectacularly, but falters towards the end with the standard action chase sequences. Not that I mind action sequences… I love them, in fact. Just that it seems like a prerequisite for Western animation nowadays.

Regarding Dug being a retriever, I think it was a good design choice. I understand what you mean about speciesism (yes, that’s an actual word), I get annoyed when certain animals are stereotyped into certain roles. It’s like you see a snake character, and you know it can’t be trusted. Or a hyena. Or a shark. There are exceptions to the rule of course (Louie from PATF is one example, or Balto). But these are few and far in between. I guess the reason why the scriptwriters went with labrador was because it makes it easier for audiences to identify he’s a ‘good guy’. It’s visual shorthand. The Alpha Pack were more ‘fiercer’ species because that’s what their characters called for (and according to The Art of Up, they were designed to look like missiles, so naturally it’s a doberman, pug, and a breed which I can’t identify). Granted, it would’ve been much more interesting if Dug was a fellow ‘fierce’ dog who just lacked guts, but it would’ve been much more difficult for the audience to ‘fall in love’ with him. It’s sad, but true.

I suppose you can see Kevin as a sort of Boo. Pixar directors have their own style and tend to deviate towards certain stories. JL is the ‘feel-good’ guy who has relatively ‘simple’ stories. BB has more complex and adult plots. AS has more emotionally-dramatic and ‘quest’ kind of tales. And PD is good at self-reflective stories with the strongest villains. Of course, I may be generalising here, but that’s why I feel. I don’t really think of Up as a Monsters Inc rehash, but I kind of see what you mean by it being same thematically and stylistically. Up probably had influences from other movies like Howl’s Moving Castle or Fitzcarraldo, so it’s not like it has set a precedent.

As for the human design, again, The Art of Up gave some pointers. They intentionally wanted it to have a ‘playhouse’/‘doll-like’ quality, and they even studied the Muppets and stop-motion films for inspiration. So the characters were much more caricutarised than say, The Incredibles or Ratatouille.

But yeah, some films are your favourites, some aren’t. I love Cars with a vengeance, and I can watch it over and over again cos’ I’m an automobile junkie, but I would never put it on the same pedestal as Wall-E or Up, which I admire but can’t bear to watch again because they’re just too amazing. And some like Toy Story and A Bug’s Life, although I enjoyed them as a kid, sort of fade into the recesses of my mind until I watch them again. So yeah, that’s what I have to say. :slight_smile:

#6

I voted #2. Let’s see if I can express my thoughts without rambling too much.

First off, I think it’s pretty clear that, even though we’re all Pixar fans here, we all have our favorite and less-favorite Pixar films - and I think a lot of it just comes down to what elicits a gut emotional reaction from each of us. I love Up because, for whatever reason, I find that I love and connect to the characters and story. I’ve been bold enough to say this once on the forums, but while I can admire and respect Wall-E, I didn’t make the same personal emotional connection with it - but I know many other people did.

The one big connection I see between MI and Up is the situation of an adult being “stuck” with a child he doesn’t really know how to deal with - then gradually forming a bond with that child. To me, the MI/Up parallel is Sully/Boo and Carl/Russell. (But, minus the “adult/child” dynamic, I could also see a connection to Woody being “stuck” with Buzz in Toy Story, and Marlin being “stuck” with Dory in Finding Nemo.)

I can see a minor MI/Up connection in Waternoose and Muntz, in the plot point of “Aww, what a nice old man- hey, wait, he’s the bad guy?!?!” (Stinky Pete has this same “twist” in TS2, though, so it’s not an exclusively Pete Docter thing.) Beyond those, I don’t really see a similarity between the two films. If I were going to draw a parallel between Kevin and another “character,” I think Kevin is really closer to the role of the plant in Wall-E - more of an external object that drives the plot (and don’t get me wrong, I love Kevin).

I don’t see a connection between Muntz and Randall - if I were to compare Muntz to another Pixar villain, it would probably be Syndrome, in the sense of someone who suffered a rejection in younger days that pushed him onto a path to prove himself at any cost (including flat-out murdering a bunch of people). This is nothing against Randall, whom I like, but I felt we never really got much of a backstory in the movie as to why he resents Sully so much, or why it’s so important to him to be #1.

On the character designs for Up, I really like the stylized look of the characters, and the way the shapes reflect the personalities, “boxed-in” Carl, and buoyant, balloon-like Russell. And I think the Dogs really are basic visual shorthand. I know they’ve talked about wanting to make Dug a dog that you immediately wanted to love and hug, as well as being a dog that obviously didn’t fit in with the rest of the pack. By making Alpha a Doberman, he gives the immediate impression of being not just “scary,” but “This is a serious dog that is all business.” If this were a movie about the dogs, I could see them delving into the whole issue of “good/bad” breed assumptions and standing those assumptions on their heads, but the dogs aren’t the core of the story, and we don’t want to spend too much time figuring them out. (May I say, though, that I love the image in the end credits of Alpha sitting with the sweet old lady, who is holding his paw. I think there is clearly a message by the end that “There Are No Bad Dogs - Just Paranoid Homicidal Masters.” :wink: )

Whew, well, I think those were the points I meant to make. I’ve never found any of the Pixar films “forgettable,” although, as said, I think we do all have our favorites that stick with us more deeply than others.

#7

While I love Up I respect your statement. I’ve seen enough people who loved it as well as people who didn’t but… oh man I can’t discuss this D: It’s just too much for my infantile 14-year-old brain. I just really liked Up because it was an animated movie without talking animals and flatulence humor for a change. Pixar never fails to amaze me…

About speciesism… yeah. I never liked it (mostly because I love all animals, especially those most people don’t like) because most of the time it turns people against the species D:

Like the Lion King. Amazing movie and all, but mostly due to that movie, everyone thinks hyenas are ‘slobbering, mangy poachers’ (sad thing, that’s actually said. D: ) while in reality, they prove to be even better predators than those high and mighty lions. OR SO I SAID. lol.

#8

Thanks for your replys guys! I feel a bit better about this movie, though I do still have some problems.

I guess the little smidge of RANDALL more so came from his urge to prove himself I always got from him- whereas Waternoose more so came from the fact that he PRETENDED to be all sweetness and rainbows, and he was actually to the protaganists… until they were believed to be in the way of what he wanted etc. So Muntz was more like Waternoose. Thing was though, we got a snapshot of Sulley and Co.s lives- and Waternoose was handled better than Muntz in my opinion, and unfortunatly, I did go into this movie knowing full well who the director was (the same person who did M.I.) so once again, perhaps this movie always had an unfair disadvantage.

When Muntz showed up, I had actually briefly forgotten about his existence so didn’t gain the full impact of his ‘turn’ either, not like with Waternoose- he was handled pretty well in that case IMO, we see Sulley sees him like a father which makes the betrayal far worse than a childhood hero turning on you (and I always got the impression somehow that while he was why the dreams of Paradise Falls STARTED, the dream kind of evolved into their own over time for Ellie and Carl and became more their own, so it wasn’t really ‘heart-wrenching’ or anything like for Sulley). Also we actually have Waternoose continually THERE in some regard, we see him when Boo bumps into him etc., so we never really exactly ‘forget’ him. At first though, we just think of him as some other secondary character- another person for Sulley to have a relationship of sorts with, like Celia with Mike perhaps, perhaps not a huge part of the plot over all, just a way of adding another dimension to the main character. You grow to like him perhaps in your own way as the movie continues, and he has more screen time than Muntz. He completely fools you in that regard. Heck, people STILL sometimes make the mistake of believeing Waternoose TURNED ‘bad’ at the last second, not realising it seems that Waternoose had always been in on the plan, was always the one in charge of Randall, plus the fact that he knew the banishment door code off pat adds another much potentially darker past for him as well.

While I wouldn’t like him if I met him in real life- Waternoose is rather fascinating, since he is pretty mysterious. How much exactly was his relationship to Sulley actually built on genuine affection?

Judging by the fact he only cared he’d banished his ‘top scarer’ rather than it being SULLEY, it’s not as much as Sulley has been lead to believe it seems, but he does make you wonder about him. Not to mention the fact Randall could not have been hired in the mental capacity he was in the movie… it speaks volumes.

Other Waternoose mysteries: Was the banishment door he owned even POSSIBLY legal? What of the Waternoose family? Was Waternoose simply the result of a long line of bad eggs or was he the first? It’s interesting to debate upon. M.I. shows you only bits and pieces- but being a whole new world, these small bits of information to accumulate into a lot. Heck, Mike PRAYING that the door must be there means they have some sort of belief in a deity. The whole trials thing etc etc-you’ve heard it all before. Heck, Mike himself is a mine of information from what he says regarding how the monster world works when you take the time to listen.Same woith other characters in some regards.

You don’t really get this with Up or in regards to Muntz though .

I guess you could say it irritated me to draw this conclusion as well- because the movies are directed by the same person. When you draw similarities between character actions by DIFFERENT people, it can sometimes be pretty funny- it’s why TV Tropes is so popular after all (and as much as I really like the site, sometimes I really think it should be taken with a pinch of salt and not used as ‘bible’ as it were).

When you see little similarities between characters within the same universe- say for example I can draw on similarities between Sulley and Waternoose, Sulley and Randall (in some cases), and heck, even Boo and Randall (on a lower level of course since Boo is only 2 and a half, but similarities DO exist), Mike and Randall too. it is sometimes entertaining as well, and your brain can run wild with the possibilities, of their relationships, how things could have been different, how they could still change in the future, of deeper themes you could take it to etc etc.

But when you see something which seems a BIT too similar by the same person only in a different ‘universe’… you feel a bit cheated sometimes.

But I feel a bit better about the whole Kevin-Boo thing, I still am a bit unhappy about the premise- I mean could Pete not try one of the other ‘7’ stories?

But I feel a bit better about it now myself now I’ve got a chance to read your comments, as well as simply by hashing out THIS comment myself to get it clearer in my head. Thanks guys!

Granted, I did love Carl anyway, and I felt he was a great protaganist, and I am definitly usually more of a protaganist fan usually anyway- usually the main character (Sulley in M.I for me edges out ahead of Randall). It’s just that I am also morbidly interested in the relationships the main protaganist and the antagonists, since they usually make the film what it is and this is what the film ultimately lacked. It lacked the intrigue of M.I. where we are simply seeing the snapshot of their lives taking a dramatic turn in a day to day setting (perhaps, unless sequel rumours are true) -a bit of such longterm/ work-related/see them almost every day relationships. You get the more fluid feel of the relationships and community and how one character’s actions can affect another pairs relationship, of direct and indirect effects of actions- and Muntz unfortunatly, felt almost tacked on rather than a real part of the story, a way of simply increasing drama to me rather than the great character in his own right that he deserves to be.

We can have many theories on what was going on before and discussions on what could happen next in M.I… With Up at first it (seemed) like it was trying to be the same thing at the exact same time with Muntz in terms of Waternoose only removing precisely what made it such a punch to the gut in the first place for the viewer (the long-term relationship which is inferred)- so it annoyed me to see what at first glance seems like they were trying the same thing- only less interesting in premise as it seemed to be upon first viewing the movie.

But thanks for your comments! They did help me in some cases.

However it DID have good and touching protaganist relationships did it not? Besides the heart wrenching bits were Carl and Ellie at the end of the day.

#9

mentalguru, you have some very interesting and thoughtful posts, particularly about Waternoose and Sulley and how Waternoose figures in MI. I don’t really think of W as a “bad egg” - I think he is one of these antagonists who really does think that, in the end, he’s doing the right thing. Whatever “iffy” actions he takes, he sees them as being for the greater good - keeping MI in business, dealing with the energy crisis, etc. I think he does like Sulley to some extent, but it’s the feeling of a corporate tycoon to a valued employee.

You make a very good point about Waternoose being present throughout the movie, so when we do find out what he’s doing, it is a bigger deal (for us, and for Sulley). I like Muntz, and his character and story arc work for me, but I know a lot of people were less than satisfied with him, and there has been discussion about how he is set up briefly at the beginning, then doesn’t show up until much later in the movie, which does make it easy to forget about him.

Obviously, there is a deeper relationship between Waternoose and Sulley - W presumably hired Sulley to begin with, saw his potential, promoted him up through the ranks, gave him encouragement and support, and in return, Sulley admired and trusted Waternoose and wanted to do his best for W and the company.

I’m going to toss out a little different take on the whole Russell/Carl/Muntz thing; I think there’s a story arc in here about trust, and disappointment, and people not always living up to the expectations you have of them. Young Carl saw Muntz as a hero and role-model, when he probably was never as golden as the image he put out to the public (I love how, when he finally meets Muntz, Carl instantly reverts to this starry-eyed kid). Russell looks up to his Dad, but has to come to terms with the fact that Dad isn’t golden, either, and has bailed out and broken promises to him and will probably continue to do so, no matter how hard Russell still wants to believe in him. I had a hard time at first with Russell going off on Carl after Muntz takes Kevin - it’s not as if Russell isn’t old enough to understand that, hey, the house was on fire! But then I realized what’s really bothering Russell: Carl made a promise that he wouldn’t leave Kevin, then broke it - just like Russell’s Dad has broken his promises. Russell has to feel like all the grown men he puts his trust in keep betraying him and letting him down. Of course, the punch line in the end is that Carl comes through for Russell when he needs him, and they do end up with that bond. Whew, that went off on a tangent! I know this is a big reason some people have such issues with him, but yeah, Muntz’s role in the plot is basically to further Carl’s story and growth. I just ended up really liking him anyway. :wink:

I love it when we get into these big in-depth discussions here.

#10

Thanks! Though personally I don’t view Waternoose in such a light precisely myself, I see him as pretty dark- I mean, Sulley called him a “father” so… yeah.

The fact he did that to someone who considered him as close as family well what can I say? Nothing but… “Oh, Boy.” As dear old Sulley would say himself.

I appreciate Waternoose’s role in the movie, and for a little while, I’ve been wondering about him. He gains SOME pity from me but not a lot, because he seems to me to be more self-serving personally than maybe for you, but there is some fascination surrounding him and just M.I I’ll admit- because when you look closer M.I. shows us so MUCH about these characters. Certain ‘rules’ and whatnot and things both similar and different to our own world, for instance- it’s my OWN theory that kids (heck humans in general) WERE toxic to monsters once- through not being used to our germs at the time when they met up with us again- so monsters did die (and maybe even some humans too, but monsters were not aware of this), but over time the good old immune system meant that the threat no longer exists in the events of the movie for either monster or human. It’s fun to think about stuff like that.

Plus, I kind of think for Waternoose it was more so to do with family pride then anything else, not to mention not wanting to lose power (the board would have voted him out, or cut his power by a lot, after all as an Inc., rather like our world it seems- along with the mentioning of a board, the company at least in the movie now belongs to shareholders). I more so saw his yells to Sulley being a last stab at him before he left- of getting at him. Waternoose has ego issues: “Don’t you know who I am?!”. Waternoose thinks he’s… better than other people in general. Plus the curious predicament of Randall in general is intersting to debate upon for me. But this is not the place to go into that.

I must mention though that Dug does kind of still bother me a little though- and I do kind of wish they’d made him some other breed more in keeping with the others myself.

But goodness! I also never thought about Russells predicament like that myself actually in relation to his father breaking promises before, but good point. I DID like the fact Carl went out after him- that he kept his promise in the end (albeit being a bit late), because yes, your place and promises belong to the living- while the dead remain in your memories and in the past and when you can perhaps you should fulfill such promises, there’s also the thing about living in the MOMENT and for those who are currently around you rather than remaining in the past and losing out as it were.

And yes- deep discussions are wonderful. :slight_smile:

…

Maybe this is what will help the movie stick more for me too. Heh.

#11

This is a very interesting discussion. I do get where you’re coming from, mentalguru, as although I did enjoy watching Up I’ve always felt it’s a strange mish-mash of different ideas and a constantly changing storyline that jumps from one theme to the next, and though this is partly very appealing as it is such a creative and imaginative film, it doesn’t have the conciseness of Finding Nemo or [/i]WALL-E[/i] which, in my opinion, are far superior. Up’s key strength was its characters rather than its storyline, I think.

I also had forgotten about Muntz by the second time we see him, and I think, going by the consensus on another thread on here, that a fair few people agree that his turn wasn’t handled particularly well- certainly not as well as Waternoose’s. Muntz is not well-rounded and is almost unbelievable at times; yes, years may have passed where he has lived in solitary, chasing after a big bird that no-one else believed existed, but do we really, as the audience, get a feel of that? I don’t think so, unfortunately. Not as much as we should’ve done, anyway.

Aside from Muntz though, the other characters are handled very well. Everyone loves Carl and Russell (though I’m not quite so keen on the latter), and Ellie is very likeable and rounded, despite having little screen time. I don’t find a whole lot of similarities between characters from Monsters, Inc. and those from Up really. I guess both Boo and Russell allow those they’re partnered with (Sulley and Carl respectively) to see something from a different point of view, but that happens in a lot of films outside of those directed by Docter. And yes, Muntz and Waternoose do turn halfway through the film, but I think that’s where the similarities end between them.

The speciesism is perhaps a little irritating but there’s a reason why they didn’t make Dug be the Doberman and Alpha be the Golden Retriever. Pixar has used stereotypes to their advantage, and for good reason- we don’t spend a whole lot of time watching the dogs in Up, we don’t get told their backstory aside from that Muntz has always had dogs, and so with the little time we have with them, we have to make quick judgements as to what they’re like.

As karly05 concluded, different films resonate with different people for different reasons. For me, Ratatouille was a particularly forgettable film, but it’s obvious that not everyone agrees with that statement here! The point is that if Up didn’t quite resonate with you, that’s fair enough and quite understandable.

#12

Brilliant! Seriously, that never crossed my mind, but that is a great and very believable idea.

#13

Well, theyr’e not supposed to look “real”. The emotions are supposed to be real, and besides, “real” animated humans are creepy. The Toy Story humans indeed look very real, but Pixar reps have often admitted to being embarrassed by this realism.I see these films for fantasy with realistic elements, not people. I do see how you could forget it, I guess. Especially if you’re like infactuated with action, b/c 2/3 of this movie have very little action. I thought the animation eas high quality, and I loved Up.

#14

We certainly don’t hate you or anything crazy like that, but I kind of thought that UP was a great movie. I cried a couple times. :smiley:

#15

Regarding Dug’s breed…I’m not fond of animal stereotyping myself, and I appreciate how Pixar have purposefully gone against it in the past, most notably with Ratatouille. In this case, however, I have to wonder if it was really such a big deal. It’s not like any of Muntz’s dogs are portrayed as being truly evil, after all. Most of them were just punch clock villains doing their job. Alpha seems to be the only one who’s particularly mean, and it’s implied that he became a lot more friendly after being dethroned by Dug.

#16

I clicked the middle one, i see where you’re coming from, but i don’t mind it’s only opinions :smiley:
And i love Up it’s probably my second favourite Pixar movie behind Toy Story.

#17

Well… I have to say Up was one of the most memorable Pixar films to me… it’s probably my second favorite. :sunglasses:

#18

Up and Monsters, Inc were probably the most memorable for me, so I voted the first one. Like everybody else has said, each movie has a different emotional impact on everyone. Up had that impact on me, plus it was what brought me and Pixar together :slight_smile: For some reason, The Incredibles and A Bug’s Life didn’t have much emotional impact for me at all. I love them both, but those two are the ones I forget easily, not Up.

I do see where you’re coming from, kind of. The first part of the movie, the Married Life montage, is definately the best part of Up. The end was absolutely perfect too, with Carl giving Russel the Ellie Badge, and the clouds revealing his house on Paradise Falls. It can’t get any better than that :slight_smile:

The middle section was hilarious; I was crying from laughing so hard at Alpha’s voice. The dogs were amazing. But still, I can see how that part can be forgotten. And that’s the bulk of the movie. When I think of Up, I think of Married Life, not Charles Muntz. So if that’s where you think it’s forgettable, I understand.

Still, the movie was probably my favorite movie of all time. I love crying during movies, and if it makes me cry, I love it. I’m weird like that. :slight_smile:

#19

Sorry but, you’re crazy…

#20

UP was a memorable movie for me. Occassionally I sort of mentally skip it when listing Pixar films in my mind, but I always do that with the most recent release. When UP came out I kept forgetting about WALL-E, and when WALL-E came out I used to forget to include Ratatouille (which I love). I think I tend to forget the most recent release as it isn’t ingrained into my mind as a Pixar film at that point, so I just remember the ones that have been around longer. They’re all memorable films for me.