Originally Posted By mawnck >>Also, could someone clarify what the message of this film was supposed to be?<< From the comments, I believe the message that most viewers took home with them was "Squirrel!" :-D
Originally Posted By hopemax >Also, could someone clarify what the message of this film was supposed to be? < IMO, Live a great life.** * #1: You're never too old to go after a dream. * #2: Just because life didn't turn out the way you had planned when you were young, doesn't mean you haven't lived a great life.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Also, could someone clarify what the message of this film was supposed to be?<< If it's a good movie, it has no message beyond entertaining and leaving people to think a little about their own lives. I like movies that explore the human condition and experience. For me, I left Up feeling like if I could live a good life with the people I loved, that's a pretty decent adventure. When we die, 99.99% of us will be totally forgotten in two or three generations. Life is short and you just get the one. Make it a good one - it's in your hands.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <If it's a good movie, it has no message beyond entertaining and leaving people to think a little about their own lives.> Really? I think good movies are written with a point to them. Otherwise -- why bother? <Life is short and you just get the one. Make it a good one - it's in your hands.> That was the same point Doc Brown passed along to Marty McFly at the end of the 'Back to the Future' series. Good advice!
Originally Posted By crazycroc Okay, hopemax, thank you. That makes sense. Here's something else I took out of it. His wife wanted to go to some exotic place. HE PLANNED TO TAKE HER THERE AS A BALLOON SALESMAN AT AT ZOO, ON THAT SALARY!?! No wonder every time life happened they couldn't do anything. Weak. In my book, you work 2-3 jobs, get your wife there no matter what the cost. He should have "manned up" a long time before he did. I'm not fond of bad providers.
Originally Posted By DAR <<(Is there a film that everybody on earth likes? Don't think so.)>> I have yet to run across someone who didn't at least enjoy Iron Man.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Weak. In my book, you work 2-3 jobs, get your wife there no matter what the cost. He should have "manned up" a long time before he did. I'm not fond of bad providers.> Okay, well now you're just cruel, crazycroc.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Really? I think good movies are written with a point to them. Otherwise -- why bother?<< I'm struggling with how to respond because, while I don't think movies should always be devoid of "messages," overall, I still disagree. Movies with really obvious messages usually fall flat. (Patch Adams, anyone?) And then, some movies are just great without any messages. What's the message in Alien, for example? The enduring human struggle to survive? Sorry, I just ain't buying it. That's just a heck of a movie and Ridley Scott manages to ratchet up the tension every step of the way. Great filmmaking and storytelling. I once asked a friend who's a filmmaker, who's been working on a biopic of a controversial historical figure for about 10 years, what he wants audiences to think about his subject. After all, I explained, he risks alienating people if he doesn't chart a careful course. I'll never forget his response: "I want them to be on the edge of their seats." Movies are there to entertain. Of course, some people are entertained by cars and helicopters that turn into talking robots. Me, not so much. I'm entertained by complex characters, the human condition, and compelling story lines. The two best films I've seen in the last five years are "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country for Old Men." Two movies that a lot of audiences left shaking their heads. "What was the point," many were asking. They were subtle enough to let people come up with their own message - if there eve was one. These movies had me entranced the whole time. If I take away a nice message afterwards, that's a bonus. But that's up to me; not the filmmaker.
Originally Posted By DAR <<The two best films I've seen in the last five years are "There Will Be Blood">> A little off topic but I thought that film just collapsed in the last 20 minutes. It just became too silly for me. I guess it's weird I can buy dogs flying a plane but I couldn't buy the ending of TWBB. But then Walt once taught me about the Plausible Impossible when it comes to animation.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Certainly, anyone can dislike a film. And anyone can like (or even love) a film. I do have a few observations on some of the objections being raised-- not on the film as entertainment, but on certain plot devices and motivations. From post #89: >>...the movie jumped the shark when the house got caught in the storm and started being knocked around so violently.<< Why, exactly? It was a short but decisive sequence, most of which was left to our imagination. Most of the "violence" affected the objects inside the house, not the house itself. If anything, the real mystery is how it traveled such a great distance. But we don't know how long Carl's "nap" lasted, so that point is kind of moot. >>We've already established that Carl can break his arm...<< As a child... >>...and that he can't climb stairs...<< Actually, just that he doesn't climb stairs. >>...and yet this seventy-something year old guy spends the rest of the movie getting bopped and bashed, dragging a floating house, running from vicious dogs, and just generally having a strenuous time of it. And he never breaks a sweat, let alone an arm.<< He actuallly does get fatigued and cranky, mostly early in the film. I saw this character growing-- regaining his strength and will as the adventure unfolded. Carl was never established as weak or frail. Indeed, he mocks the notion early on when he playfully gets rid of Russell by sending him on the snipe hunt. This was a flash that foreshadowed Carl's later blossoming. >>Kevin can get hurt badly. Dug and Muntz can not get hurt at all.<< Both Dug and Muntz did get hurt, but not with anything as debilitationg as Kevin's leg injury. >>Russell can get hurt once if a gag calls for it but heals up instantly.<< It was a little welt that went away. I will say that Russell certainly could get (and stay) dirty. >>Muntz in his 90's? Try 110's. He had lunch with Teddy Roosevelt, remember? Spry old geezer, huh.<< I don't recall Muntz having lunch with Teddy Roosevelt. TR was President before World War I. Muntz's era is clearly the 1930s (era of air travel, filmed newsreels, Carl's childhood). Franklin D. Roosevelt was President then. I'm only sayin'... >>And he builds electronic psychic talking dog collars in a rain forest (why?)...<< We don't know when he built them or where. We do know he has always pampered those dogs, and has created other devices for their aid nd comfort. And collars that translate their thouights into words would ease the loneliness of his existence. (Oh, and aid immeasureably in the exposition of the film!) >>...and has a 70-year-old zeppelin with a spotless museum in it that is in airworthy condition, complete with hydrogen, staffed entirely by dogs.<< Yes. >>By the time we got to that ridiculous dogs flying airplanes thing (where did they get the planes and why?)...<< The planes are seen in storage inside the airship. Naturally, Muntz has outfitted them to be flown by dogs. Why? See above. >>If a character takes a ridiculous beating and doesn't get the least bit hurt...<< But the characters did get hurt, and did get fatigued. There's even a major gag that works only because of this. From post #103: >>...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...<< What hurricane? Again, the scope of the storm was mostly left to the imagination. And I, too, was very skeptical that they just happened to end up in exactly the place they were seeking, until Russell pulled out his Wilderness Explorer GPS and explained he had learned how to steer the house. (This also leads one to believe that a pretty long stretch of time happened during Carl's "nap.") >>...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...<< Muntz was not as well drawn as I would have liked. But his motivation was always clear. He's just one in a long line of inexplicably obsessed villains whose attitudes change on a dime. From post #107: >>...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.<< This was covered by the fact that we don't really see exactly what is going on behind the house just before lift off. The balloons are, indeed, tethered in a giant tarp. How Carl got them all up the chimney, tethered to the ground , and then released so easily is a bit of a stretch. (It's like asking how Santa, as magical as he may be, can climb up and down all those chimneys in one night!) From post #110: >>I can't bear the fact that Carl lost all his possessions... 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 there's even more to it than that. Carl doesn't "lose" all his possessions; he let's them go. He has to in order to rescue Russell. He figures out how to get that house back in the air-- by divesting himself of stuff. (And, in point of fact, it's all still there, right where Ellie always wanted it to be!) 119: >>Also, could someone clarify what the message of this film was supposed to be?<< To me it was very clear: Life is the adventure. When Carl sees how Ellie has finished her adventure book, he realizes the "Stuff I'm Going to Do" isn't what you wait around for. It's what is happening here and now. This is what galvanizes him to get rid of stuff in order to do stuff. The adventure doesn't end with the house sitting by the Falls. The adventure continues. Every day is filled with The Stuff I'm Going to Do.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Great link in post #111. According to the press material from Pixar, Carl floats away on 360,000 balloons. So that, anyway, is in the realm of possibility. Troubling, though, is how he manages to blow them all up and tether them in a single night! I checked with a balloon vendor at Disneyland, who said that working at absolute top speed, a single person can inflate and tie off 1,000 ballons in an hour. So, 360,000 balloons would take 360 hours (or 15 straight days and nights), working non-stop at top speed. Clearly, this movie is ridiculous!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I really loved this movie, but all this talk about plausibility did bring one thing to mind that I hadn't thought of before: Why the different languages when you clicked the dial on the dog collars? It made for a nice gag, but why would Muntz have bothered with any language but English? Was he planning on international visitors?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I really loved this movie, but all this talk about plausibility did bring one thing to mind that I hadn't thought of before: Why the different languages when you clicked the dial on the dog collars? It made for a nice gag, but why would Muntz have bothered with any language but English? Was he planning on international visitors?
Originally Posted By Disney and beyond I thought that he might try to sell off the technology once he captures Kevin and returns to the real world. Having different languages would be helpful for international selling. Maybe I'm thinking this too thuroughly...
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Maybe I'm thinking this too thuroughly...>> Not really. Two things REALLY bothered me about the film, other than the ones already mentioned in the thread: 1) All of the dogs speaking were clearly male. Where were the female dogs (you know, the 'b' word) to create the puppies to replace the dogs lost in the labyrinth or to old age? And where were the puppies? All of the dogs were clearly adults. No way all of these dogs could be decades old like Muntz. 2) Muntz mentioned the 'labyrinth of rocks' that the dogs get lost in and never return from, where Kevin lives. Uh, Muntz? You have an airship. Why can't you hover over the labyrinth and guide your dogs? Or better yet, map the damned thing from the air. The guy can talk to dogs and teach them how to fly planes but cannot find a 20 foot multicolored bird for decades. Suspension of disbelief snapped for me like a twig.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I wondered where all the girl dogs were, too. Every time we saw the labyrinth of rocks, it seemed to have mist hovering over it. Also, it is safe to assume there were caves and pitfalls. Suspension of disbelief is in the eye of the beholder...
Originally Posted By DlandDug While we are at it, what about the staggering amount of waste produced by all those dogs? And there was no sign of a shoe scraper at the entrance to Muntz's airship. That's a deal breaker, as far as I'm concerned...
Originally Posted By DlandDug Nah, I'm just being snarky and provocative. But I must admit that when we first saw the open cave floor in front of Muntz's airship, I was scanning the 3D foreground and thinking, "That's one well trained pack of dogs!"
