Originally Posted By mawnck >>Because the flying house was in the previews, so we're already conditioned for it?<< I'd say "yep." It's on all the posters and in all the previews. It also occurs early enough in the movie to be considered an exposition rather than a violation of the movie's reality. I took the psychic dog collar as presented for the same reasons - until the other problems got me thinking about it. The dogs in the airplanes, on the other hand, follow much doggie-like incompetence on the part of Muntz's crew. The dogs we see prior to that are pretty impressive, but they're still essentially doing doggy tricks, not to mention doing other doggie things like getting distracted by thrown tennis balls and imaginary squirrels (which don't appear to exist in the rain forest in the first place) and stealing hot dogs (where'd they get the hot dogs?). Flying a plane - especially with nothing but a squeaky bone for control (where'd they get the squeaky bones?), would be waaay beyond the dogs we see prior to that moment, and from all other indications, way beyond the dogs allegedly doing the actual piloting as well. I'll suspend all the belief you want me to suspend, as long as you let me keep it suspent (?) through the whole movie, and not repeatedly ask me to re-suspend it after you've just gone all realistic on me.
Originally Posted By ni_teach I’m sorry that you did not enjoy the movie mawnck. I thought it was a great film and while I see your point I had no trouble suspending my disbelief for the movie UP any more than I did for Star Trek which to me had even bigger plot holes in it than UP. Do I think that UP is the best pixar film ever made? No, but I do think that it is one of the better movies that has come out this summer.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I’m sorry that you did not enjoy the movie mawnck.<< Like I said, the worst thing about trying to defend negative impressions of a movie to a "hostile" crowd is that it's certain to come across worse than it actually was. I *did* enjoy the movie, despite being disappointed in it. (Mo' big ol'spoilers a-comin' any second now.) The stuff with Carl and his wife was spot-on (yes, dang it, I teared up too), and it wasn't until the house and its occupants floated safely through the hurricane and just happened to wind up within sight of the waterfall that I started having a leetle bit of trouble buying what they were selling. Dug was hee-larious, and I loved the talking dog collars. Come to think of it, all the characters were great, except that I thought they didn't spend enough time with Muntz to establish him as a worthy villain. We went from "oh good there's Muntz" to "uh oh he's bad" in what? 4 minutes? That and the inexplicable invincibility of his opponents kept him from being all that he could be, villain-wise. Lovely art design, as always. Great score. Some nice old movie homages snuck in. And I did forget to look for the pizza truck, which is a good thing. As to it being better than Star Trek or any other movies, I can't speak to that because I haven't seen them, but it doesn't surprise me. Unfortunately, it is NOT better than two of the four animated features I've seen this year (Coraline and Battle for Terra). And Ponyo is coming up. But it still beats Monsters vs. Aliens.
Originally Posted By utahjosh The entire movie is quasi-fantasy once the house takes off. I liken the storm sequence to the Wizard of Oz - they aren't in Kansas anymore. They are in a world of imaginary birds, intelligent dogs, floating houses, and spry 110-yr-old men.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That's kind of how I took it, too. Which means they COULD have done the "it was all a dream" thing... no one I know of refuses to watch the Wizard of Oz or thinks it's a "cheat" because it was all a dream. Had they handled that idea well, it could have been very effective. Carl could have taken the "lessons" he learned from his dream and taken them to heart in real life. They didn't go that way, and I'm okay with that too. I took it all basically as one giant metaphor after the house took off and just went with it.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>except that I thought they didn't spend enough time with Muntz to establish him as a worthy villain. We went from "oh good there's Muntz" to "uh oh he's bad" in what? 4 minutes?<< I agree with most of your criticisms (though not in degree) except this one. I think they do a very nice job of establishing Muntz as a questionable, sinister character even before we meet him. It's clear he invented the dog collars, and it's clear Dug is an exception to how the dogs behave. The dogs are a product of a nasty person. Muntz from the first second he's on the screen is ready to pounce, then he learns Carl isn't there to steal his precious bird and warms right up. Oh, and the film established the dogs were much more than regular dogs during the dinner scene, when we learn they cook and serve the food. While that is a stretch from how they've been previously set up, the film does slowly prepare us that they are much more than just regular dogs. Perhaps the discomfort some of us felt (I include myself in this) at the flying scene is precisely because the dogs need collars to talk. That suggests they're regular dogs - but then they go against that type throughout the film.
Originally Posted By Socrates I agree with all the inconsistencies, probably more than usual. That's not a show-stopper for me; I really enjoyed the film, and I'm trying not to think about the holes. But having said that, I do have another one: deploying the balloons, then the house takes off. I've only seen it once, so I might have missed something, but if all the balloons were inside the house (waiting to be deployed), the house should've been flying as soon as they were all blown up. Socrates "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."
Originally Posted By utahjosh <a href="http://pixarplanet.com/blog/an-egg-that-never-hatched-ups-dropped-subplot" target="_blank">http://pixarplanet.com/blog/an...-subplot</a> The age thing with Muntz was originally solved with Kevin's eggs being "fountain of youth" type food, and Carl trying to protect Kevin's egg. They dropped the egg plot, but never fully resolved the age thing. And I don't really care, I LOVED the movie.
Originally Posted By utahjosh < but if all the balloons were inside the house (waiting to be deployed), the house should've been flying as soon as they were all blown up.> My guess is that the balloons were all in the backyard being held down by tarps or something. Did all of the balloons come out of the chimney?
Originally Posted By alexbook >>< but if all the balloons were inside the house (waiting to be deployed), the house should've been flying as soon as they were all blown up.> My guess is that the balloons were all in the backyard being held down by tarps or something. Did all of the balloons come out of the chimney?<< Yep, they came up the chimney. Socrates is right. Funny thing is that I didn't even think of it.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>My guess is that the balloons were all in the backyard being held down by tarps or something. Did all of the balloons come out of the chimney?<< Yep, tarp behind the house. I was paying attention to that, because I wondered the same thing. How he got the strings threaded through the chimney I guess we'll never know. Carl also has a flair for the dramatic, since it would've taken some extra ingenuity to have the whole thing deploy simultaneously like that. By the way ... <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2219775/" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/2219775/</a>
Originally Posted By crazycroc Btw, I was being serious about not liking it. I just didn't enjoy this one. I'll try it again on DVD and see if I was just having a bad day. I really found this one heartbreaking, not uplifting, so perhaps I should go to get some therapy. I didn't think it was too violent or unbelievable. Just sad.
Originally Posted By alexbook It's funny how different things bother different people: I just saw "The Rocketeer" for the first time this morning, and I glossed right over most of the scientific, engineering, and aviation goofs that other people complained about. OTOH, the political anachronisms bugged the heck out of me, especially the Nazi cartoon that showed how Germany was going to use the jetpacks conquer America. Anybody seeing that movie and not knowing their history would think that Germany had already conquered Europe in 1938, and was on the verge of war with the U.S. (Then there's the Nazi agent who speaks perfect English until he's unmasked, and has a silly German accent afterwards.)
Originally Posted By basil fan Right, croc. It's okay to not like it. (Is there a film that everybody on earth likes? Don't think so.) I don't like Nemo. I mean, really, really don't like it. But of course, if you give a reason for disliking it that doesn't fly with those who liked it, that is cause for rebuttal. >I can't imagine the kind of nitpicking that it takes to notice something like that I can tell you from experience that most nitpickers don't sit there looking for mistakes, they just see them. The same way some viewers see the backgrounds that others ignore. I am one of those people. I spot new mistakes on nearly every viewing of a film, and notice plot inconsistencies. But I'm always leery of someone who dislikes a movie because of a few mistakes. Usually there are just as many in the films they enjoy (Wall*E had some doozies). My brother didn't like Aladdin the first time he saw it because it had "too many impossible things in it." "Like what?" says I. "Like when Abu jumps off Aladdin's shoulder to confront the guards with a sword, then 2 seconds later, he's caught up to Al." "Uhhh..." Yes, I thought that was too nitpicky a reason to dislike the film. The same thing happened when Atlantis premiered. Those who hated it cited what I thought were absurd reasons: stuff like 'how did they fit all that equipment in one transport sub?' It's okay not to like the movie, like if you hate science-fantasy or comic books, but come on. P.S. That link to the dropped sub-plot explains a lot. There really was a fountain of youth for ol' Muntz. And now we know.
Originally Posted By basil fan >(Then there's the Nazi agent who speaks perfect English until he's unmasked, and has a silly German accent afterwards.) The same thing happened on an episode of Get Smart. Max asks him why he suddenly has an accent. The bad guy's reply: "Before, I had accent. Now I talk right." BTW, I'll tell you what bothered me about Up. I can't bear the fact that Carl lost all his possessions. I could bear losing a house, but he didn't even save one photo of his wife. Or that Mary Blair picture she painted. Or her Adventure album. Even his meds--do you know how much they cost? And when I saw him toss the Victrola out, I think I actually said "oh, no" out loud. I know, I know, the point of the film was for him to stop living in the past and clinging to all those things and becoming a hermit. But that radical of an amputation was too much for me.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>And when I saw him toss the Victrola out, I think I actually said "oh, no" out loud.<< See? We do agree on something.
Originally Posted By crazycroc Also, could someone clarify what the message of this film was supposed to be? If you have dreams, and don't accomplish them, it's okay, just hang out with a fat kid instead?
