Up is a movie that should have been live-action, based on the plotline and even look. It has a bit of a Wizard of Oz feel to it in the going into the air in a house and landing in a strange place, and although I’m sure Disney could make Wizard of Oz a fantastic animated film, Up does not achieve this, because its groundwork and message are meant to be live-action, whereas Wizard of Oz is at least a little zany.
Up doesn’t fit the Pixar mold, either, and this being a live-action film disguised as an animated one is one of the reasons why.
In a book I read, which was either Disney related or animation-related, it said that you could try to nmake a live-action film about talking deer in the forest, or you could attempt an animated film about a woman living in the Reconstruction era, but you’d probably do better just to leave things where they thrive best–that is, a talking deer movie should be animated, and a movie about the Reconstruction era should be live-action.
Toy Story, Ratatouille, Cars, and Finding Nemo would have been weird had they been live-action. So should it not also be the case that something that was meant to be a live-action film would be less spectacular if animated? That is how I see it, anyway.
Flying houses and talking dogs (not to mention old people fighting intensely) look ridiculous in a contemporary live-action.
As an animated film, instead, it’s completely perfect.
“Meant”? Really? The film was intended to be animated from the beginning, so how it can me meant to be live action?
And there’s not such thing as a film with “message meant to be live-action or animated”. The medium serves other aspects, like the story line and the aesthetics, but not the message of the film.
The suspension of belief would NOT work well for this movie in live-action. Nor would the color/shape aesthetic figuring prominently in the movie (working to the point of symbolism in certain scenes). I don’t understand this argument, sorry.
I think Up could have worked as a live-action film, but it would have to be different aesthetically; you couldn’t get the colours or the beauty of the film, nor could you have talking dogs and wild birds without making it look cheesy. And a lot of the magic would’ve been lost I think. The film is fine as it is; if L_o_F doesn’t like it then he is entitled to his opinion.
Actually, guys, someone made a spoof trailer of Up as if Disney and Pixar were to have made it in the '60s (but the 60’s weren’t good to you, were they? - Sarge, Cars ). It’s called “Preamkes” Up! (1965). Here’s the link below:
Any story can be done in animation as long as the style is right. There are simply things one can do better in it, like setting a stylized mood or characters. That said, I see no way that Up could have been done better in live action. The sheer amount of CGI involved would practically make it an animated picture anyway, and it should be a general rule that the more active the animals are, the more likely it should be in animation. Animals have limited expression and unless the CGI is spot on they are going to look silly.
Just because a movie has to deal with humans and serious topics doesn’t make it a live action picture, and there is a lot more fantastical and physics-defying stylized action in Up than the Wizard of Oz. Carl would have looked silly doing half the things he does (such as carry his house on his back and fight Muntz) had he really been an old man. Plus, how can we have Carl without his square-shaped chin and giant nose?
You tell us it should have been live action, but why? Why do you think this? What in it would have worked better in live action?
I too am going with the consensus that UP is better as an animated movie. I just dont think it would have worked as live action. There probably would have been numerous special effects to achieve the same (or similar) look and feel so it would have had its share of computer animation anyway.
). It’s called “Preamkes” Up! (1965). Here’s the link below: