I’ve read comments, both here and in reviews elsewhere, etc., from viewers who thought Muntz’s character wasn’t developed enough, or who didn’t like the resolution of his story arc. I’d love to hear some ideas of how they could have improved him, or his role in the story, or handled [spoil]his defeat/demise[/spoil] differently. Thoughts?
Yeah. Personally, the movie did not contrast Muntz much. But it is understandable that he’s an explorer back in the 50s. Pixar guys just made a great job with Muntz. Furthermore, we’re already decode some of Muntz’s personality. Especially with those age thingey…
Your limited english doesn’t make that post easy to read dude, I don’t understand what your position is,…
I think the reason Muntz is a weak character is because [spoil]1, he isn’t even mentioned for about an hour’s worth of movie, making it a bit sudden when he comes back in, and 2, his motives are presented too quickly, and vaguely. I understand them, very well in fact, but there weren’t any good qualities to his character later in the movie. He’s just mean, that’s it.[/spoil]
There wasn’t as much/enough development. He seemed like a nice guy and next we see him he’s insanely obsessed with the bird.
I think he was a well-handled character and I don’t know where else there would be room for development without slowing down the story. Maybe while Carl is watching T.V.? Listening to the radio?
Well, the thing about Muntz is [spoil]he’s more or less forgotten, so even if he did return, he’d be miserable. He just got so absorbed in capturing the bird that he lost all sense of reality, and I’m pretty sure no one would have cared as much as they would have back in the day. He just changes from friendly, to frighteningly sinister in 1 scene, and it’s kind of shallow. I understand why he does what he does, but he makes a lot of really low blows. Just seems too thrown together at some parts.[/spoil]
1986, I agree. I think he works well as a character, considering that this is really Carl’s story, and, as you say, there’s really not room to do much more with him without distracting from the main story.
I’m honestly curious, and not picking a fight with anyone who feels he’s underdeveloped, and I appreciate the responses.
ffdude, you are totally right about [spoil]Muntz having been forgotten - but I like the sort of Tragic Irony of that: the world he left behind has gone on without him, and he doesn’t even realize it. I’m trying to think of a comparable case of a villain who does the “nice guy - OOPS, BAD GUY!” transition (oddly enough, the one I think about is Waternoose in Monsters, Inc - is this a Pete Docter thing?) - I know what you’re talking about, but I guess that didn’t bother me.[/spoil]
Ok, well I don’t think he was underdeveloped, they cover his ground pretty well, but I don’t think it was done as effectively as possible. Maybe if he had begun to harbor a bigger relationship with Carl before ending up how he was, instead of just [spoil]instantly, you meet him, he talks, he’s a villain. He was just presented, and then immediately becomes a jerk, it makes him less appealing when you don’t know him that well before you dislike him. He probably would have been better if he had some sort of redeeming quality before he become the prominent antagonist.[/spoil]
If i can throw in my two cents here, I think the problem with Muntz was that he was important to the plot, but not as important to the story. The story deals with Carl, and his problems. Muntz isn’t instrumental in the change Carl has to go through, that role falls largely on Russel, and then a little lesser on Dug and Kevin. Muntz really seems to be of a “McGuffin” kind of thing. He furthers the plot of Kevin, and is an obstacle for Carl, but the relationship between these two characters doesn’t do much to change Carl, at all. You can say this makes Muntz a weak villain, character, or whatever you want, but I think he served his purpose in the film, which admittedly, is smaller than what we often expect from a main villain.
hmmm… Well, [spoil]I think at first, when he seems friendly towards Carl, we are seeing him as Carl is. He’s just met his idol, so the perception might be kind of different there. The thing about Muntz is, he is obsessed with getting the bird. Anyone who may get in his way, is automatically his enemy - it is as though he presumes that the whole world is against him, and he must prove them wrong. I actually wish that I hadn’t known about Muntz at all before I had seen the movie. For those who didn’t know going in, his turn would be as shocking to the viewer as it is to Carl. And we are following Carl in this movie.
My personal opinion on this is, over the years, Muntz could have become anyone. Had it been on Carl’s tv, or in any media Carl had access to, would he possibly have not gone on the adventure?
The difference between Carl and Muntz is that one could let go, and the other could not. Muntz seems to serve his purpose in driving this point home. Carl had to let go of everything in the past at the end. As the track on the (digital download only) soundtrack says in it’s title, “Memories Can Weigh You Down”. So, he must let go of his house, everything in it, and yes, even his childhood hero, Muntz. And by the end of the film, we clearly see that had Muntz been able to do the same - to let go of the past - he could have let the bird go, rather than have his obsession ultimately lead to his demise. [/spoil]
So, this being said, I found Muntz to be developed fine. It is Carl’s movie, as has already been said, so we can only expect to know more of him than Muntz.
- C-3PO
DocKenobi makes an excellent point, I had not thought about it that way, I think that’s the best way to put it.
Wow, great comments, everyone! I appreciate hearing all the takes on this.
I went for Trip #8 this afternoon (report in the appropriate thread), and I have to say, I don’t think I’d change a thing. 
Muntz [spoil]loses everything in this movie. His life’s work, his dignity, everything.[/spoil] The problem with his character is that this is only implied in the film, but never significantly stated, stressed, or developed like it should have been. His character is sort of [spoil]tragic[/spoil], but we only see the end result. [spoil]What’s even more tragic is that apparently, Pixar meant to develop him more but never got around to animating that scene, which I presume occurs near the dinner sequence. (Suggested by Ronnie Del Carmen in the Disney 23 blog, paragraph 4)[/spoil]
Oh, man…! Thanks, cakeofages - I read that a long time ago, and had forgotten all about it! Now I wish they had left that in (I guess I can’t say now that I “wouldn’t change anything,” ha ha). I wonder if that will be mentioned anywhere in the DVD/BluRay extras.
(Oh, and off the immediate topic, but yeah, I probably would still change one thing in the movie: [spoil]Dug’s “Get off his roof” line, which still bugs me a little.)[/spoil]
Why does that bug you? I think it’s funny! O.o
what i’m going to say is that the character is just fine. i mean there’s no need to change anything in the movie. & thank God the first sketch of Charles Muntz had not chosen for production. His face is so… [spoil]EVIL!!! (The Art Of Up)[/spoil]
&… what did you mean by limited english?? 
I wouldn’t change a thing about his character.
Could it have been developed better? Yeah.
But I feel they felt they had a much better story to tell with the other characters, and if they had to strip down the villain’s story a bit to tell that story? Fine by me.
ffdude - I’m not keen on the Dug [spoil]“roof”/bark[/spoil] thing because I think it goes against the “rules” of the collar and just feels like a “cheap laugh.” (The audiences I’ve been with generally seem to like it, however.) There’s an older thread on page 2 (which I’d kind of forgotten about), about things in the movie that didn’t work, where this was brought up by someone else and discussed. There’s also some discussion in that thread about Muntz’s development (or lack thereof), and it turns out THAT’S where cakeofages originally posted the link to Ronnie Del Carmen’s blog post (I knew I’d seen that before)!
wannabechef - I agree with you about the earlier Muntz sketches in the Art of Up book. He’s just creepy (young and old). I think the rugged/roguish Muntz they ended up with is much more appealing, and believable as someone little Ellie & Carl would admire and want to be like. [spoil]And his charming side makes him even scarier when his bad-guy side comes out.[/spoil]
Well, he still barks like a normal dog, the pack does it too, I guess I just don’t see eye to eye on it, no big deal. I enjoyed it.
The images for Muntz in the read-along story book are really really scary! I imagine those are the kind that you guys are talking about.
Hey, that’s cool. We all have our own takes on things, and that’s OK.
Assuming that Muntz in the storybook looks like he does in the movie, then, no, this is different. These are the earlier designs for the character that look completely different from the final version. I keep thinking of them as the “Howard Hughes” Muntz, since I think that was probably their inspiration. “Young Muntz” has a much shorter, squarer face, with black hair parted in the middle and slicked back. He is thinner, and looks much more like an oily, drawing-room melodrama cad. (He’s also holding a cigarette in one drawing.) The earlier sketches for Old Muntz are closer to his final design, but he’s really creepy and decrepit, and has a long beard (these are obviously from when the [spoil]“fountain of youth” plot was still in effect, because there are a couple where he’s wearing this glowing amulet-thingy around his neck).[/spoil] Even in the couple of Old Muntz sketches that are obviously based on his final design and plot line, he’s got this “scraggly old hermit” look. I’m glad they kept Old Muntz more dapper for the movie - hey, he’s got to [spoil]look good for his fans, since of course he will be going home, oh, just any day now…[/spoil]