Ahh, I didn’t realize that he had an entirely different look. I’ll just have to see it when I pick up the book (shoulda had it by now darn it). I think the current look for Muntz is good, I just don’t like his character, he’s just a guy I wouldn’t like (for the reasons he’s supposed to be disliked, not that he’s badly done). [spoil] I liked young Muntz though, he’s pretty neat, and not such a lowlife, from what he looks like anyway.[/spoil]
Muntz was such a big disappointment for me…There are a few moments during the movie that I really teared up, and one was definitely Muntz’s [spoil]sudden demise. I mean, the guy was clearly a bit insane- he’d spent his whole life searching for this bird, working towards this goal, only to be duped by this other guy and a kid who had found out the excrutiatingly simple key to Kevin; chocolate.
He shows other signs of insanity. Like the whole talking dogs thing- doesn’t it seem a bit random? We all know Muntz is an intelligent guy, but why would he choose to make his dogs be able to talk? Because he wants the company, and dogs are the closest things he can get to humans.
Muntz’s sudden death just didn’t seem right…I don’t think I mind too much about how he goes from being all nice to hating Carl and Russell, I think that’s reasonable to expect considering their involvement with Kevin. But the resolvement of the whole Muntz issue is just so sad. I remember that scene where Muntz gets killed, and for a moment or two there’s this sad look on Carl’s face, and I remember thinking, “wow, despite what Muntz was trying to do, Carl understands why he was doing it and actually feels sad that he’s died!” I was wrong- Carl was sad because his house was floating away.
And that’s where Pixar goes wrong, time and time again. It’s a shame, because otherwise I thought Muntz was a very interesting character (aside from the strange age thing, though I’m sure there’s another thread for that…)[/spoil]
lizardgirl: I have to agree with you. [spoil]Muntz’s character building in the story was just poor. How could’ve he went crazy within minutes? He offered them (Grandpa & Russell) the hospitality and then…poof, Muntz’s craziness. I’m quite disappointed at the beginning, but somehow, I must understand that the movie would gone weirder with those fountain of youth thingey.[/spoil]
Agree. But the love of Ellie was just strong for Grandpa instead the love of Muntz. Like myself and Lou Romano. I love-hate him, but I can’t love him more than my family.
Pardon my limited English. I really have to work it out. 
I honestly don’t have a problem with Muntz like a lot of people do. I thought he was a good character and I understood him well enough. Sure, there was some mystery behind him, but I think that only added to his character.
His [spoil]death[/spoil] could have been executed a little better, but even that I didn’t have a big problem with.
@Lizardgirl: I don’t think [spoil]Carl had that look on his face just because of his house, keep in mind, Russell, Kevin, Dug, and Muntz all fell to their possible demise, it’s enough to leave anyone shocked. I think he was more concerned with what happened to everyone that jumped out of the house, and he was just shocked for a moment. The film doesn’t point out the house falling away until after the gang climbs back up, and to be honest, I totally forgot about the house my first viewing. It’s still open to interpretation, but I think Carl was concerned with the 3, as well as Muntz, I mean coming to terms with watching the death of your own childhood hero would be quite a bit to swallow.[/spoil]
ffdude1906- Well, you know the film a lot better than I do, to say the least. 
So if the others [spoil]climb up after Carl looks sad, then that might make more sense. It just came across to me as Carl being sad to see his house go, though yes, I agree, it would make sense for him to also be sad about the death of his childhood hero. That was the one thing that was really nagging at me, because if Carl isn’t sad about that, then he suddenly seems strangely heartless. But I’ll definitely focus on that scene the next time I see the movie and see what I make of it.[/spoil]
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]
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! 
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.
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]
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.
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).
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.
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 
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.
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.
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?
^ Muntz probably told him that once.
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.
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.
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.