Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

I get--and concede--that my life experiences made me susceptible to the debated plot points. I do not, however, believe that my objectivity has been compromised, nor do I characterize my support of this story as a "problem." As I indicated, I know when this sort of thing is used as a gimmick to elicit a knee-jerk reaction. I am convinced that, in Up, it was used effectively for the purpose of telling a story.

Could you please re-phrase this? I don't know that I understand what you mean.

What if Pixar had isolated that opening montage and made it a short film? I could be wrong, but I think it would be nearly universally lauded among the most powerful short films ever produced. Consider, then, the "Carl & Ellie" montage as a sort of prequel to Up. In that context, does it not still connect to the rest of the film, both in continuity and for the development of Carl?

I got tense during the moment in which Russell, picking up on Carl's speaking to Ellie via the house, chose to have an imaginary conversation with her to get approval to keep the critter (I don't recall now which). Sharing something personal is one thing; having someone who knows nothing about it invite himself to it is quite another.

During the bit where Muntz sets fire to the base of the house, I found myself gripped with anxiety. How devastating it must be, to have your only connection to someone you loved that much attacked by someone else? I'm not a particularly materialistic person, but the idea of Ellie's framed picture going up in ashes was jarring.

And, of course, when Carl elects to empty the house--and later sacrifices it--those moments not only showed his progress as a character (which had begun during the debated montage), but they were an emotional payoff for that growth. This wasn't just dead weight he abandoned to get airborne again, this was all he had left of his wife that he left behind in order to go save Russell. It's not easy to let go of people, and sometimes harder to let go of things that connect you to those people. Without knowing what Carl and Ellie endured together, those moments are reduced to being simply practical decisions.

I'll make a deal with you, though. You don't give me any more of the "You're projecting too much" spiel to discredit me, and I'll refrain from the "Live a little more before you commit to being so unaffected by things" retort.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

How can an emotion be fabricated? If you feel something in response to a movie then isn't it a real emotion? Or aren't all emotions from any movie or other media fabricated?

People sometimes look down on movies that are "manipulative" but isn't that the point of movies? To engage the audience? I for one think that Pixar is the best studio at engaging their audience. As I said before they are really good at doing it in subtle ways so that you build a connection for the character. But the brilliant work is that oftentimes you reflect upon your own life for the source of the emotion rather then what is going on on screen. Like in Finding Nemo you empathize with Marlin's search for Nemo but at the same time look at your own father son relationship. Same with this movie. You see Carl and Ellie and you think of your life with your significant other. As a young person who is getting married I was already emotional about the opening montage. I can't imagine someone who has already gone through some of those events and how they would feel.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

This is why I really think this might be my favorite Pixar movie. The visual cues and subtle metaphors were absolutely amazing. This movie really did have a much deeper layer then what it appeared in the trailers. And you did a really good job explaining those metaphors.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

Good point about emotions not being fabricated. As for the notion of movies being "manipulative," it's an art. The premise, of course, of any story is only as meaningful as its ability to resonate with its audience. What is expected--and respected--of the art is to do it through subtlety and nuance. Somewhere around here is a thread dedicated to "The most shameless, manipulative movie" (or some such); I think if you read through that, you'd find examples of how a movie can botch this delicate balancing act.

Congratulations on your pending nuptials! God willing, you'll be spared most of "those events."

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

Thank you. I'm sure there's an English teacher from my youth who would be pleased to see the progress I've made with such things!

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

That's fine, and again I just didn't find other segments of the movie as effective as the beginning. And I personally think the first 10 minutes on their own would prove rather futile without something to follow it up with. At the very least, the opening of the picture book.

The comment I made on "standard humans" I mean it's like the little story you would read in a newspaper. "Childhood couple gets married, and unable to have kids, prepare for a new adventure. Circumstance caused them to push it off and with tickets in hand, the adventure simply came too late." It's heart-wrenching in its own right, but it would have been nice to know the people as they're going through this. Instead we're given some brief sketches of Carl and Ellie and basically don't get to know Carl until after the events occur and save for a few spots, he is largely cookie-cutter.

While I didn't feel the connection between Ellie and the house, it was definitely in the movie and character, it just didn't translate well for myself. The metaphors are all in place and well executed, but their impact will vary person to person. I connected with the loss of time/adventure and brutal disappointments life can bring, but didn't with the association of an object to a person or several other aspects. Who knows, maybe I will in a few years, but for now it wasn't effective for me.

Generally speaking, I would have liked more characterization in the movie and less of the standard-issue animated feature "adventure". But, then it would be a completely different movie and wouldn't necessarily be a family film.

As I said before, it really does feel like two movies uncomfortably merged into one.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

Okay, that's not where I thought you were trying to articulate earlier, so I'm glad I asked for clarification. So, what you're saying is that the emotional crux of Up was in its first 10 minutes, and because it happened so early to a character without a lot of actual screen time, it didn't feel like much of a payoff? I can see that, actually.

I would counter, though, that the message of Up, as I've already mentioned, is that "life goes on." Ergo, the story needed to begin with tragedy, in order to show how life can eventually resume for people.

It wasn't until my junior year of college that I really began to understand allegories. (I always had a grasp on similes like Paris Hilton on attention, though.) Maybe, armed with this perspective on the role the house plays in the story, you might re-visit the film?

Yeah, the dogs really were incongruous with the rest of the story. I think it might have helped me a little, had there only been a few of them. Seeing an entire army of them--complete with a chef, waiters and pilots doing literal dog-fighting in biplanes--was just too much.

I did, however, really like the idea that Muntz would be an adventurer obsessed with restoring his reputation and credibility by pursuing a rare specimen. He is easily one of the stronger villains I've seen on screen in a while, because I get why he's doing what he's doing.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

Haha, glad to clarify.

I understood the allegory with the house and everything it stood for just fine, I just didn't connect with it (it was all quite obvious). I'll revisit the film in a few years as I usually do with generally well made films and I'm sure I'll respond differently to it.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

There were really two messages in Up. The first being what you just mentioned, that life goes on no matter what, and the second is that if don't give up, and you try your best, you just may accomplish your goal. I watched Up the day before I watched Anvil, and they reminded me a great deal of each other, oddly enough.

Up is one of the more well paced films that I can remember in a good while. The opening montage just set the stage for everything else. He did get the house there, he got there for her. Then after not being able to bring himself to look past the page in her adventure book that said something along the lines of "stuff I want to do" throughout the movie, when he finally did get the house there and decided to finally turn that page, he saw that her life was truly complete afterall, with her little message to him, giving him the push to do what he had to do at that point, and finally move on to the next stage of his life.

It was only fitting that the house would land back to where it needed to be at the end of the film.

Maybe I'm a sap, but I thought all of that was just beautifully done.

I get emotional just thinking about it. :D

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

*whoops, double post*

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

Saw it for the third time (and the 2nd time in 3-D) last night.

By that same token is the breakfast table scene from Citizen Kane a cheap route since it zips by multiple years in a minute? If we can understand something and it just happens to be done quickly, I don't consider that cheap.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

I appreciate the thoughtful and articulate responses to my critical remarks. If you had a strong emotional reaction to UP's opening sequence, then I need to recognize and acknowledge that it had a power for many audience members that it didn't for me, for any number of reasons.

I'm wondering now if my own cynical attitude towards relationships, based on being a middle-aged divorcee who has not had luck in this area, colors my view of the character of Carl in UP and his situation. I often wonder what goes into making a long marriage a successful one and it's usually a series of compromises and negotiations that each member of a couple has to make with the other. Some people are better at making those compromises and negotiations than others. Sometimes it's better NOT to make them. How many of the long marriages I know of are truly happy and how many only seem that way on the surface? And how many are unhappy but they stayed together anyway? How often does codependence figure in a long marriage? Sometimes husbands become so dependent on their wives--for just about everything--that when they're widowed, they're lost, they don't know how to take care of themselves. Sometimes a wife who is widowed finds the fact of no longer having to take care of a high-maintenance spouse enormously liberating. My mother started a whole new life when my father died (something my ex-wife was quick to point out to me) and accomplished lots of things once freed from the demands of a difficult husband and seven kids. She outlived him by 23 years. (And, no, she didn't abandon us kids, we were all grown and moved out by then.)

How many people live to see their childhood dreams come true? It's usually the people who are so driven to do so that everything else in their life becomes secondary, including marriages and relationships. Some people have that drive and it's usually quite evident early in their lives. Others with the same dreams simply don't have the drive and give up on them because they'd rather be in a long marriage or they'd rather make sure their children live to achieve their dreams or they'd rather have a secure paycheck and a pension. They really have other priorities. And that's okay. Not everyone can be an explorer or build a house on a South American plateau, which strikes me as an utterly ridiculous dream to begin with. In real life, if Carl had attempted what he does in the movie, he would have keeled over from a heart attack five minutes into the journey.

All I'm saying is that the view of Carl and Ellie's marriage in the film is a young man's view of a long relationship and not an old man's view. Which is okay, too. But, as an older man with the experiences I've had, I just didn't buy it. I couldn't help but keep my distance.

I do know some evidently happy long marriages. I know an energetic old couple--in their 80s--who have spent their retirement years traveling around the world visiting all the spots they'd always wanted to visit. But I suspect they were probably highly motivated at a young age and were very clear in their goals and absolutely set on pursuing these travels as soon as they were able to. And they probably traveled a lot when they were younger and had the opportunities. So it's not like their retirement lifestyle was very different from pre-retirement. Carl and Ellie, on the other hand, never seem to have had much motivation in their adult lives, working concessions at a zoo or whatever that was, which can't have been very financially secure even in the best of times. Putting scrapbooks together is one kind of skill; getting off your ass to actually do something is another and it's usually obvious pretty early on in your life which one you're best at. So I can't say I felt a lot of sympathy for old Carl. Although I must say Ed Asner did a splendid job of voice-acting.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

Not sure if this was directed at me, but I'll say it anyway: You're welcome!

I have come to believe that part of the problem is the way our society perceives relationships. It's as though people are supposed to cast roles for their supporting cast in life. Ideally, you'd have the parents, a mentor, a sidekick, romantic interest and, later in your story, you'd bring in an offspring or so and possibly an apprentice to mentor yourself. So, we grow up looking for these things and most of them develop organically; parents are either built into your family life, or they aren't; really not much you can do about that either way it goes. You find another kid you get along with in your neighborhood, or your school and that's your sidekick, at least until and unless you're separated for some reason.

By the time most of us are coming out of our teens, we've pretty much cast everyone except the significant other. Approaching our mid-20s, we panic because we've finished shooting "The Early Years" and "The Teenage Years" and now we need an opposite sex lead for "The Adult Years," which is due to start shooting soon. So, to make sure the production can stay on schedule, we weaken our vetting process, increase the scouting, anything to ensure that by the time we're 25 we can at least say we're engaged.

The reason this fails so often, of course, is that relationships are not something to mark off a checklist. They must grow and be developed organically. For some reason, we can do this with all the others--that's why I Love You, Man was so brilliant in its premise. No one actually goes out trying to cast their sidekick. Those relationships develop naturally over time. There's give and take there, but people don't mind it in that context. For some reason, once romance/sex is introduced, someone's keeping score and watching the clock to make sure someone's not taking advantage of them.

I think that was the point of the scrapbook at the end. Carl thought what mattered was fulfilling Ellie's wish to love at Paradise Falls, and he discovered instead that her life with him meant far more to her than that childhood fantasy. We should dream big, at least as children, because it points us in a direction. Not ending up there later should not be a measuring stick for evaluating how determined or talented we were along the way, nor should realizing those dreams be mistaken as evidence of anything particular. Again, as with our society's views on relationships, there has come to be a restrictive view that does not allow for the natural, organic growth of people.

If you change your major in college and tell your parents, you're a shiftless kid who needs to grow up and join the "real world." Guess what? I don't personally know anyone who went to college who didn't change their major...and I don't know anyone who didn't go to college who, in that same time, didn't change jobs. It's part of life, finding out what does and does not work for us, and it's ludicrous to think that we should end up in life where we declared we wanted to be as children.

I've only been married for two and a half years, but we've been together for seven. In that amount of time, we've disagreed on plenty of things (for instance, she hated Up, feeling that it never recovered emotionally from the low of the marriage montage); we've only argued twice. Maybe three times, but I'd be hard pressed to recall it. It's not that either of us has become subservient to the other, it's that we genuinely feel mutual respect, trust and love.

Again, there's an idea that maybe we start with a certain quantity of each of those things; if we have a bad day, our levels drop; if we buy some flowers, they go back up. Real relationships aren't like The Sims; there is no way of quantifying them. Provided my marriage lasts--and I have every intention that it will--it will be the first that I could name on either side of my family tree. I'd like to think, though, that mine was founded differently, that I didn't just "cast" a woman in a role and hope that sporadic flowers would keep the "happy relationship" bar full enough to last us.

Finally, I would say that film, perhaps more than any other artistic medium, should emphasize the highlights of its characters and situations; that is what makes the medium so enchanting and inspiring. Sometimes, what we turn to fiction to find is a reminder of what we're trying to build in reality.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

so, seeing in both D's...is there a big difference seeing in 2-D vs. 3-D? is 2-D as engrossing and emotional?

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

The 3-D is subtle, not meant to have the balloons in your face or anything like that. If there's an over the shoulder shot of one character talking to another, they're both in separate planes, little things like that which add depth.

But 2-D is definitely as engrossing. Maybe it was because it was the second time around, but the first 10 minutes were a lot more emotional because I knew what was coming.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

I think it really says something of the movie when there is such a good conversation concerning life and relationships due to this movie.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

I agree, though I would add that it is also a testament to the civility and maturity of the DVD Talk community. On most other forums, any divergence from popular sentiment would have been met with pointless flames. I have found this thread to be far more rewarding because of the depth of analysis provoked by our debate. It's a shame that the average person hears the word "debate" and immediately starts trying to keep score instead of exploring a subject as we have done here.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

My suggestion? Don't bother seeing Ballast (which I thought was one of the best movies of 2008), because the tragedies happen before the movie even starts and, if I recall correctly, in the first 90 seconds.

There's not one approach that's best. That, and chris_sc77 notwithstanding, most movies need to be under two hours. What you're describing works better in a TV series.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

Plus, and it just dawned on me that I hadn't seen anyone actually state this in this thread...the movie is titled, "Up." Originally, I thought it was a reference to the balloon flight, but the truth is that it refers to the emotional story of Carl Fredrickson. He starts at a very low point, and circumstances conspire to nudge him upwards until he eventually makes peace with his life.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

Again, it didn't bother me that much, I was just being open minded about the complaint :lol:. That said, it's one of the reasons Mulholland Drive is one of my favorite movies, it really got into who the character was.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

Seen it tonight and really loved the movie. Though I think it was the pixar movie that was lightest on story it didnt hurt it, the main 2 characters and the dog and bird were great. I loved the style, the old man and the square shapes on his body. The colors and lighting were fantastic. I loved when the house was floating up and the colors of the baloons were lighting up the kids bedroom in the aparment building.

There were some parts that felt odd, like a scene was missing though, like when he took off in the ballons, I wish there was more of a setup of him testing it etc. Though I loved the movie theres not much action or hings that really happen to them it seems. But its a movie that makes you feel good when you leave the theater. I just wish I seen it in 2D, the 3D wasnt that great. there was a nice sense of depth but it felt like it took away in colors and smoothness.

Though I loved it I liked ratatouille and Cars more. I Think I liked this alittle more then WALL-e. Though I love every pixar movie, so they all are 9.5-10 on my list.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

I've had to avoid the thread for a while until I finally saw it tonight. Amazing film, and quite an impressive discussion going on.

That montage nearly had me in tears. What you are describing and want to see sounds a lot like Marley & Me. I don't quite get the gripes about the miscarriage being manipulative though. It's a normal issue that couples go through in the game of life. I thought it was great to see an animated film brush on such a heavy topic. It also served to setup Carl's relationship with Russell. It was almost too powerful since it is filmmaking perfection, nothing that followed could match it.

As for the rest of the discussion, I really agree on most points with MinLShaw, however I do have to agree with Rich about the movie really being two movies in one. I feel it's a near perfect film ruined by the talking dogs and dogfighting scenes. Dug was fine, I'll accept one talking dog, but an entire army? Why dogs anyway? Where did Muntz get all the dogs if he was cut off from society for 50 years? Why not train wild animals? How was he even alive when he was Carl's senior by a good 30 years at the beginning of the film? I seriously thought they were going to drag the Fountain of Youth into the plot at some point to explain it.

It was two films in one and unfortunately one dragged the other down. The film was hurt anytime Carl wasn't on screen.

Watching the credits, I had no idea Joe Ranft had family members working at Pixar. It was interesting seeing Brad Bird's name on the 'Pixar board' (I can't recall the exact heading they called it).

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

And welcome to said impressive discussion! By the way, being a Louisvillian, where'd you see it?

I don't claim to speak for anyone else, but my understanding was that the source of our debate was whether or not the events of the montage were effective. Most of us felt they were, and I think I may be directly responsible for setting us down the path of considering how "manipulative" it was. I believe that it broached an important subject tastefully and with sensitivity. From the very moment the montage shifted from painting the nursery to the doctor's office, I was entirely emotionally invested in the Fredricksons.

(and this is why I welcomed you to the impressive discussion!)

I'm too lazy to quote it, but somewhere you'll find a post of mine where I agreed entirely with this point. This is a movie where, if you missed five minutes in the middle, you would wonder what happened to the movie you had been watching.

All I can say in regards to these questions--which I, too, would like answered by the creators--is that Muntz evoked images of "Heart of Darkness" and "The Island of Dr. Moreau" for me. Perhaps they wanted to tinker with that kind of story and this was their way of doing it.

Re: Pixar Animation Studios Presents: Up! (5/29/09)
 

Thought I didnt think the other dogs were that funny, I thought the main dog was pretty funny. I laughed at most of the jokes.