Muntz - What would you change?

Pixar's Feature Films Up
#27

Yeah, I know how every scene plays out in order.

[spoil]The gang jumps out the window, Muntz gets caught by the strings on the house, and falls. Camera switches to Carl, who’s got a shocked look on his face for a moment, then pulls himself to the edge, waiting to see if the gang made it or not. They swing out (“THAT WAS COOL!” “Hahaha! Don’t jerk around so much kid!”) They climb up (“Easy Russell! chuckles” “Oh, I am ready to not be up high!” Dug pounces on Carl, Carl chuckles again), Russell goes and hugs Kevin, Carl pats Dug on the rear, and then notices the house.[/spoil]

#28

Haha, I love that if anyone on here ever needs to recall something about the film, then we can ask you, ffdude1906. Okay, that makes far more sense now. Thanks! :smiley:

#29

Well it turns out on the DVD that they actually went through many different versions of what happened to Muntz. [spoil]One of them was just him falling upward with the balloons, but they made him fall downward instead to symbolize that that attachment in Carl’s life had died out along with his house. There is also one where he chases Kevin into a foggy labyrinth and his obsession leaves him lost in there forever. [/spoil] So if his ending seems a little disappointing to some people, that’s why it is.

I guess Muntz is really more of a plot device to help inspire Carl to be driven to adventure so he can go out to Paradise Falls in the first place (and to reflect what Carl could have been if he had continued to let his unfulfilled goal make him lose sight of the importance of the people around him). It also becomes more obvious that the reason he’s so insane later is because he had been staying in same place for many years with no other people around and only one thing on his mind, which would cause anyone to go mad. If I could change anything I think maybe his short newsreel wasn’t enough to help you remember him later on. To me Hopper in A Bug’s Life and Syndrome in The Incredibles made such impacts very early in those movies that you wouldn’t forget them so much later on and their motives are easier to understand. I also think that if people did remember him that showing his dogs in the newsreel would give away that he’s the villain, cause as soon as you see the pack of dogs in Paradise Falls talking about their “master” some people might already know that it’s him. I always like it when Pixar would set up a nice character like Stinky Pete only to have him turn out to be a surprise villain, and I guess that’s what Muntz is too but the dogs almost take the surprise out of it.

#30

I really liked the [spoil]Many Endings of Muntz[/spoil] segment on the DVD/BR, and thought the filmmakers did a good job of explaining their choices regarding him. I liked Pete Docter’s comments about having a 'hierarchy" of characters, and always coming back to the fact that this was Carl’s story.

I don’t think they could have believably [spoil]“redeemed” Muntz - he’s just too far gone into madness by this point to listen to reason.[/spoil] The [spoil]labyrinth is creepy and interesting, but they’re probably right that it was getting too far away from Carl’s story.[/spoil] What bothered me most about him [spoil]going down with the house wasn’t the “ew, he’s with Ellie now?” issue they raised - although that was a good point - but the idea that a bunch of the dogs went down with him. Aw, no, they can’t hurt the poor doggies! And I agreed that sending him up with the balloons was too ambiguous, and they really did need to kill him off - not just for symbolic reasons, but because Kevin and her Babies would never be safe as long as he was still around.[/spoil]

I wonder what it would have been like to see the movie knowing absolutely nothing beforehand - at what point would I have made the connections [spoil]between Young Muntz and the dogs chasing the bird, and so forth.[/spoil] I’ll never forget how much I loved watching “Meet the Robinsons” for the first time, because I didn’t know too much going in, and [spoil]I actually figured out who the Bowler Hat Guy was going to turn out to be![/spoil]

#31

I was thinking of asking a question I’ve been pondering about Muntz’ motives and Carl’s reason for [spoil]saving Kevin[/spoil], and this looks like the closest thread to post it.

For convenience sake, and seeing that the DVD is already out, I’m not to spoiler-tag the following, but in case you haven’t seen it (I’m not sure if it’s already released in Japan), DO NOT READ FURTHER UNLESS YOU’VE WATCHED THE MOVIE. Thank you.

Now, I can see why Carl wanted to save Kevin, namely to reunite her with her babies. But I didn’t understand whether Muntz was intending to kill Kevin (as a “Dead or Alive” kinda thing) or to bring her back as a live specimen.

If he did intend to keep Kevin alive, I’d like him to have argued or to even appeal to Carl to let him redeem his reputation. If Pixar had gone that way instead of setting him out as a crazy serial killer bent on pursuing his goal at whatever costs, I think it would’ve been emotionally conflicting and Muntz would come out a more powerful villain. Carl would have to fight between restoring his idol’s good name, or ‘doing the right thing’ and returning Kevin to her brood. The conflict would be less clear-cut, instead of pitting the audience on Carl’s side against Muntz.

Again, the Monsters Inc fans would probably point out Randall as another example of Docter’s scriptwriting team missing out on an interesting story opportunity to portray the villain in a more ambiguous light, but yeah, again, that happened again with this film, and I’m slightly disappointed with the way they handled Muntz’ motivations. And as I’m sure a lot of the responders here would concur, his straightforward death. :frowning:

#32

Good post, tdit, and interesting thoughts. I like reading all the various takes on Muntz and how they dealt with him.

SPOILERS for DVD/BR commentary and featurettes (and the movie, of course):

Muntz’s original intent is to bring Kevin back alive, as he says in the newsreel, and when he finally gets her, he tells the dogs dragging her onto the ship, “Careful, I want her in good shape for my return.” By the time Carl has Kevin and they’re escaping, Muntz is so desperate, he’ll take Kevin “alive or dead.” (On the commentary track, Bob Peterson points out that, in trying to stop Carl and get Kevin, Muntz ends up destroying all these artifacts that were so important to him.) In the “Many Endings of Muntz” featurette, they talk about how they tried to find a way to redeem Muntz, but ended up with Muntz and Carl standing around talking, and it never really worked. They also point out that, ultimately, Muntz’s whole purpose in the film is to further Carl’s story, and they kept going back to that (which is basically why they ended him the way they did - I’m paraphrasing, here - because it was time to get him out of the way so they could get back to Carl’s story). Personally, even putting aside the fact that he’s gone nuts after 70 years holed up in the Lost World with a pack of dogs, I think Muntz was probably always a “Man of Action,” more inclined to just take what he wanted rather than stand around talking about it.

I thought the commentary and bonus features on the BR did a lot to explain why the filmmakers made the choices they made (not just regarding Muntz).

#33

Thank you for understanding the comparision between Randall and Muntz TDIT. That shows great understanding.

Indeed. Muntz was aiming to capture the Kevin alive. However…he was unaware of the babies. For instance…since Kevin IS an undiscovered species and a secluded one, Muntz was unaware Kevin would be a girl (unless he studied the bone’s anatomy and noticed), and even more so if there were babies.
But to understand this, you have to understand Muntz. In his prime he was a respected, kind (emphasised by his love for his dogs and I have no doubts many were strays or adopted), adventurer. And JUST because scientists claimed his find of the bird bones was fake, which is was not, his reputation and career was shattered.
So to reclaim his honor and to prove to himself, he set out to capture one of the birds alive. However, the seclusion of Kevin’s species, not to mention the mere speed that bird can go, along with her intelligence, proved to elusive. Muntz’s desire to reclaim his place for himself and in the eyes of everyone became an obsession that eventually consumed him.
When the main characters first meet Muntz, he is kind and a gracious host, even flattered that Carl was a fan. But the mention, the single mention of Kevin brought out that consuming obsession.

Muntz is basically a man who was once respected, and lost it. And in the years he wasted away, becoming fixated on Kevin at any cost. Muntz’s TRUE character is how he is when we first meet him. But that true personality is overshadowed by his obession.
Nobody knows what Muntz would have done if he was allowed to return Kevin. Perhaps he would gain respect again, and return Kevin to Paradise Falls. Perhaps that would have ended his darker personality and let him recover.
But…he didn’t get that chance.

Though I’ll just mention…
Muntz can also be compared with Buddy Pine (Syndrome). We SEE both of their pasts. See that in that past BOTH of them were good people. shrugs But we don’t see that with everyone.

#34

I don’t disregard Muntz’s motives regarding my practically genuine dislike of him (I don’t dislike his character, it’s good, but I just hate him, haha), I just hate the moves he makes in the film. I think his killing off was a bit thin, but like karly said, out of the choices presented in the features, I think the one they chose was for the best. If his fate was more ambiguous, debates like this would likely get much more heated, and I really wouldn’t like that honestly.

I absolutely love Muntz before he becomes consumed by the hunt for Kevin, it’s only afterward that I really hate him. Especially when he throws the lantern, that got me really mad. His character is really great at the beginning of the film, very heroic and spiffy :stuck_out_tongue:

But yeah, overall, he’s a mechanism used to help viewers get more out of Carl’s story, and emphasize his moving on, especially when paired with Carl losing his house.

#35

Actually Muntz’s fate…no…nevermind that heh he laughs

I recall that. When he set Carl’s house on fire. I agree that was perhaps the lowest thing (aside from nearly killing the kid) he did.
It’s an interesting comparision. Muntz “the adventurer” and Muntz “the obsessor”. Despite the same person, one can see they are both drastically different personalities.

Since this topic is about what one would change…
I would change that near the end, Muntz is found perhaps either nearly dead on the ground (This HAS happened in films before…characters surviving a long fall (such as the woman in Atlantis the Lost Empire), or perhaps arriving on the shore from swimming. Carl encounters him, as in a show of his change of character from the start of the film. Muntz realizes the folly of his obession. I kind of picture him on his back (in a death bed kind of way), and perhaps Kevin shows up, allowing Muntz to touch her beak or something (Kevin IS smart, so perhaps senses Muntz doesn’t have long). Muntz smiles as he touchs her beak, and perhaps a tear appears under his eye. Perhaps he says something like “the last adventure for Charles Muntz” and perhaps shows appreciation that Carl had been a fan of his for so long and remembers him. And perhaps a little comically when everyone thinks he’s dead, he adds “take care of my dogs”. And then we move on to Carl and the kid (I keep forgetting…oh right Russel), getting on his airship and then pretty much how the film went.

I actually found that rather redundant, Carl and Russel in event “stealing” Muntz’s airship. I mean with the above, Muntz would kinda indicated they could take it. I mean that would just fix that bit that makes the ending kinda uncomfortable.

#36

Nexas, that’s an interesting alternate ending for Muntz, and another way they might have redeemed him.

I have a question - honestly, somewhere in recent viewings, this occurred to me. Dug is the one who tells Carl & Russell that Kevin has Babies, and has been gathering food for them. How does Dug know this?

#37

^ Muntz probably told him that once.

#38

Thank you very much Karly ^^ I have a talent for making moving scenes. I honestly think it could have ended that way. I particularly like the beak thing…a sorta understanding the Muntz and Kevin had made peace with each other ^^

That’s a good question. I haven’t seen “Dug’s Special Mission” just yet, but it’s possible he might have learned it then.

#39

I’m really looking forward to getting the Up Blu-ray, as these alternative endings and explanations as to why Pixar chose to do what they did with Muntz make me really curious and probably explain a lot, by the sounds of things.

I completely understand what everyone is saying about Muntz basically being a tool to progress Carl’s storyline and character, but that’s EXACTLY what eats away at me when I watch him. I obviously adore Pixar films, and everyone has their own reasons for liking them- some love their stories, some love the way they look and sound, some love their characters, and some love all of the previous. For me, Pixar films do have great stories and they do look amazing, but the singular most important thing when it comes to my experience of watching them is the characters. Pixar have an almost uncanny ability of being able to bring to life certain characters, but only seem to apply this policy to their ‘chosen ones’, like Carl and Russell, whilst others are used just to propel their main, favourite characters forward. Pixar’s dislike of Muntz really comes across in the film, and I just hate that. I do understand that they probably didn’t have much of a choice with his character, and I also understand that protagonists are always going to be more liked than antagonists, etc., and I also realise that what I’d prefer is probably impossible, but when characters such as Muntz are thrown to one side it just…I don’t know. I really don’t like it. Even though what Pixar did really does make sense.

I also understand that there aren’t always happy endings. Analysing King Lear at the moment shows that writers for hundreds of years have done exactly what Pixar has done- created a character, perhaps slightly more two dimensional than the main character(s), (in King Lear’s case, Cordelia), used them to develop the main character(s), and then killed them off when they weren’t really needed any more. Both Up and King Lear follow this pattern perfectly, and that’s because both Pixar and Shakespeare didn’t expect (or want) people to connect with these other, minor, expendable characters. They’re just plot devices.

Mreh, I don’t know what my point is, I’m just blabbering now. But I still feel really bad for Muntz. It isn’t his fault he’s just a plot device. :laughing:

#40

Great post, lizardgirl. I really like your explanation of ‘characters as plot devices.’ From the commentary/extras, it’s obvious that’s exactly what Pixar did with Muntz (including killing him off as soon as he’s served his purpose). At some level, I think I’m just glad now that they had him in the movie at all.

#41

I don’t dislike Muntz’s implementation in the movie, although I do agree that it’s kinda obvious that he’s a plot device. Finding ways to eliminate that representation would have been good, and I agree that a way to redeem him would have been welcome, but I think Nexas’s scene is laying it on a bit thick (sorry, not that it’s a bad scene, it’d just be a bit dramatic). I think Muntz would have been a really great character if he wasn’t so darn nefarious about the whole thing, I would have liked him a lot more if he hadn’t taken such low blows (the lantern, the “alive or dead” approach, his desperation and willingness to do whatever it took, no matter how low kinda annoyed me is all), especially considering I thought he was a fantastic character before he made “the turn”. If he had ended up in a more positive state at the end of the movie, it would have made his character a lot better, but again, that creates a problem for Carl’s story. Without any sort of elimination of Muntz’s character, be it physically or metaphorically, it would detract from Carl’s plotline, and kind of making Muntz worthless as a result. I like his inclusion, but hate his actions.

#42

Thanks, karly05.

I dunno, ffdude1906, I quite like how crazy and extreme he goes in the latter half of the movie. There’s something very appealing about a guy who’s a few sandwiches short of a picnic, and Muntz is definitely one of those guys- no wonder, considering how long he’d been alone and the fact that he’s some sort of a genious. I think he probably had quite a temperamental, extreme personality anyway and then his whole experience of being rejected and hunting down Kevin just tipped him over. I do agree that his actions make him easier for the general audience to dislike him, but I guess it’s just a personal thing of mine that psychotic personalities appeal to me.

#43

I’ve come to think that Muntz is the kind of guy who can be very charming and charismatic and fun to be around, when everything is going his way and all is right with his world. But cross him or challenge him and look out! He’s obviously someone who never lets go of a slight - not just being booted from the Explorers Society, but the fact that he still gets mad about Roosevelt cheating at cards 70 years after the fact. For some reason, I tend to gravitate toward those kind of fictional characters, too (LOL, wouldn’t want to deal with one in real life).

#44

Yeah, I get what you guys are saying. I’d love to meet a guy like him personally, at least before he falls off his rocker. Then he just goes psychotic. That’s the thing, he’s a great guy, but has a short temper, and is incredibly persistent. It’s a complicated personality, sorta, but it works really well.

#45

Reminds me of somebody else I know chuckles

#46

It’s interesting to read your various responses to my previous thread, and I share your sentiments…

I really like your alternate ending, Nexas. That would’ve been so much ‘funnier’ and tie up Muntz’ character arc perfectly. I don’t really think it would make it any more dramatic, since there was one more gag before he expires for good (it reminded me of the way they handled Fiona’s father’s death in Shrek The Third). The fact they left Muntz’ conflict with Kevin and Carl unresolved just makes it all the more a waste of a storytelling opportunity.

lizardgirl - Wow, I never thought of comparing Pixar films to Shakespearean tales, but I get what you mean. I also share your disappointment at how some stories just use the villains to ‘prop’ the heroes up. The best tales are the ones where the bad guys are just as ‘good’ as the good guys. Some of my favourite movies like The Dark Knight, Heat, and Speed pit the villains as the heroes’ equals, and sometimes both are eerily alike in some ways. Or to use Pixar examples, A Bug’s Life, Toy Story 2 and The Incredibles had one of the strongest ‘baddies’ in the Pixar canon. Granted, they all got disposed off in equally nasty ways as the ‘weaker baddies’ in Monsters Inc, Wall-E and Up, but at least their motivations and ‘their side of the story’ were explored sufficiently enough.

ffdude: I totally agree on your point of Muntz being too nasty! I guess the Pixarians did their work in making you despise Muntz and rooting for Carl (isn’t that what great villains are, truly despicable and downright evil?), but I have to concur they could’ve redeemed him in the end without losing any of the narrative power he brings to the film. I’m not really sure why you say his elimination is necessary.

One interesting way the story could’ve ended was that Carl saves Muntz before his house plunges off the side of the blimp. He hold the sword to Muntz, but spares his life and forgives him because he can’t bear to kill his ‘hero’. Muntz is grateful and regretful of his actions, and agrees to ‘let his obsession go’ and return to civilisation with Carl. Kevin also forgives Muntz and gives him one of her eggs as proof of her existence, and they all return happily to a warm reception. It’s the typical ‘Disney happy ending’, but Carl’s arc of ‘letting his obsession go’ doesn’t suffer as a result, rather is reinforced by Muntz’ similar decision. :slight_smile: Well, at least that’s how I see it.

karly05 - Thanks for the illuminating detail of the commentary. Yeah, I kinda like psychotic bad guys too, it’s quite fascinating how it just takes one defining event, one singular obsession, or one mortal enemy to push them over the edge and into insanity. In a way, heroes are like that too, just that they use their manic passion in the pursuit of justice. I agree Muntz can be a fun guy to hang out with, it’s just a shame Pixar didn’t use his charisma to appeal to Carl’s respect of him as a childhood hero and instead made him the typical ‘serial killer’ stereotype.

Great points, everyone. :smiley: