Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

tyler1984 wrote:

: Link to an Up short called "George and A.J." I found it on the Pixar Facebook page today.

Oh, that's cruel. 'George and A.J.' is the short I referred to here, which is only available via iTunes (and now Facebook, I guess) and is NOT available on the DVD or Blu-Ray... but on the Facebook page, the caption underneath the video says: "In celebration of the Up Blu-ray & DVD release, you can now see "George & A.J.," the 4-minute, 2D animated short featuring characters from "Up"!" So they're "celebrating" the DVD and Blu-Ray release by posting a video online that was EXCLUDED from the DVD and Blu-Ray release. Brilliant. Or not.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(I also find it kind of distasteful how people go on and on about movies like Up coming in "epic four-disc sets" when half of those discs are just lower-resolution copies of the hi-res movie on the first disc.)

I haven't heard people talking about epic four disc sets...but I get what companies like Disney are trying to do. Blu-Ray has a harder road than DVD did-and DVD had to overcome a lot of silly bitterness from the public. I was working in a video store when DVDs were "new"...they had been around for three years, but video rental stores were just starting to carry them side by side. People complained. VHS was good enough? Why are they forcing me to re-buy movies I own, etc, as if improvemennts in technology were just a scam to force the public to re-buy movies. People were angry about the shift for years. Blu-Ray is seeing an even harsher response. So, Disney and others are trying to do everything they can to make it an easy transition and yet, every option is met with disdain. I do understand the complaint about releases hitting Blu-Ray earlier (Snow White coming out a full two months before the DVD). But I have just seen some real odd anger-especially towards Disney on the Blu-Ray front. They are including DVDs as incentive to get those people who think, "I will get a blu-ray player eventually..." to buy the Blu-Ray. And I got Up for $19.99...most special edition standard def DVDs cost more than that. Blu-Ray is getting well within the range of not being to expensive, far faster than DVD, and yet I see people hoping for it to go the way of Laser Disc (which is just weird...I get not caring about it. I do not get actually hating it enough to hope it fails).

I'm not anti-Blu Ray, per se, but I do question whether it's really THAT much of an improvement in audio and video quality unless you already own a top-of-the-line home theater system. It seems odd that everyone is jumping on the "hi def" bandwagon when, more and more, entertainment is all about portability. Unless you're watching on a big screen TV with surround sound, a Blu-Ray is rather pointless, isn't it? Don't a lot of people watch most of their movies on laptops or at least more moderately sized TVs?

I find this push for Blu Ray strange since the music business seems to be going in the opposite direction. One of the reasons Super-Audio CDs and other "hi quality" audio formats are becoming obsolete is because consumers are happy to give up sound quality in favor of lo-fi mp3s for their iPods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems odd that everyone is jumping on the "hi def" bandwagon

But IS everyone jumping on the bandwagon? This time last year reports were coming out that indicated Blu-Ray was not catching on at nearly the hoped for rate. Certain models were marked to move at $100 during holiday sales, but I don't know how many units were sold.

I find this push for Blu Ray strange since the music business seems to be going in the opposite direction. One of the reasons Super-Audio CDs and other "hi quality" audio formats are becoming obsolete is because consumers are happy to give up sound quality in favor of lo-fi mp3s for their iPods.

I've wondered about that trend. I find it kind of depressing that I hear so little about it, but my brother tells me that if I just haven't read the same publications he has. Apparently the laments have been rather loud among the audiophile crowd.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not anti-Blu Ray, per se, but I do question whether it's really THAT much of an improvement in audio and video quality unless you already own a top-of-the-line home theater system. It seems odd that everyone is jumping on the "hi def" bandwagon when, more and more, entertainment is all about portability. Unless you're watching on a big screen TV with surround sound, a Blu-Ray is rather pointless, isn't it? Don't a lot of people watch most of their movies on laptops or at least more moderately sized TVs?

It's not really the size of the TV, it is if your television is hi-def or not. A standard def TV? No difference. Because the TV can only display 480p/i. So it does not matter how high the resolution on the disc is, it won't look better or different. But a moderately sized hi-def TV it is a major improvement. So far, with my experience, every single person to come to my place and watch a blu-ray commented on how much better and clearer the image was that DVD within the first five minuets of the film. My mom was in awe of the vibrancy of the colors when the Disney logo appeared before the previews when she saw her first blu-ray. It's a big difference. Even on a moderately sized TV. DVD is better with surround sound as well. Doesn't make DVDs pointless if you don't have the surround sound system, does it? :)

I find this push for Blu Ray strange since the music business seems to be going in the opposite direction. One of the reasons Super-Audio CDs and other "hi quality" audio formats are becoming obsolete is because consumers are happy to give up sound quality in favor of lo-fi mp3s for their iPods.

Which blows my mind. Because I have movies on my iPod... I will turn them on for background, but watching a movie on that tiny, tiny screen? Not worth it. Plus, if you are downloading the movie legally? They cost the same as some blu-rays. Why pay more for less?

"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffrey Wells:

The Up themes are, of course, universally stirring. Perhaps too stirring or, put another way, too all-over-the-map. You're really working all corners of the room when your film is about warming your heart, the blooming of love, finding your dreams, making a family, dropping your guard, standing up for your friends, finding courage and fulfillment, nurturing the past (as well as letting go of it) and embracing the now. It's like Up is
a politician saying anything he thinks will strike a chord with voters
and thereby get himself elected.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was amused to see Wells slam Pixar for this:

"I really and truly think there's something ill-advised about a film creating a morbidly obese adolescent character, Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai), since the Up makers knew full well that this balloon-shaped kid represents a high percentage of American kids today, and that this would subliminally be seen as a kind of endorsement of obesity"

This, of course, is in the wake of all the abuse Pixar got for its negative portrayal of obesity in Wall-E. It seems that obesity is a subject where Pixar just can't win...

P.S. — I wonder, but am too lazy to look it up, what Wells thought of "Kung-Fu Panda", where the fat of its compulsive-eating morbidly-obese hero turned out to be his super-power? To be sure, the protagonist was a Panda, but a thoroughly anthropomorphized one (that wasn't bamboo he was eating, after all).

Edited by bowen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wells has a phobia of non-skinny people. It's amazing. Samantha Morton put on a little weight in recent years, and he devoted a whole post to that, as if something terrible was happening. The more he gripes about Russell, the more he's revealing about his own bizarre prejudice.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

bowen wrote:

: This, of course, is in the wake of all the abuse Pixar got for its negative portrayal of obesity in Wall-E.

Well, Wells did praise WALL-E for slamming obese Americans (and for its pro-environmental theme in general:

I understand the impulse on the part of director Andrew Stanton to call it a robot love story and leave it at that, but it's a lie, of course -- a disinforming of pig-trough moviegoers who might think twice about going to a "green" movie that satirizes their lie-around, fat-ass lifestyle.

So I don't think he's been inconsistent on this point.

: P.S. — I wonder, but am too lazy to look it up, what Wells thought of "Kung-Fu Panda" . . .

Good question, but the search engine at Wells's site is awful -- it searches all the comments (of which there are gazillions) in addition to the actual posts, so it's impossible to narrow the search to Wells's own remarks.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

FWIW, I got this film from Amazon.com a few days ago, along with Bolt, and my kids have glommed onto both of them; my daughter calls one "Balloons!" and and the other "Superdog!". And seeing them back-to-back as often as I have this past week, I have to say I appreciate the, um, patience, for lack of a better word, in the Pixar film. I like Bolt too in its own way, but it buys into the hyperactivity of modern action films just a wee bit much.

I am also impressed by the score for Up, and the way its key theme is adapted for everything from nostalgic flashbacks to the chase scenes. (And it was composed by the same guy who scored Star Trek, which I also picked up a few days ago...)

I still find the talking dogs kind of eye-rollingly annoying at times, but when the dogs AREN'T talking, they're actually quite enjoyable. I think particularly of the scene where the dogs serve drinks, from Muntz telling one of the pups to "surprise me" with his choice of wine to the, uh, imprecision with which the dogs pour the drink. Lots of fine details like that.

And I realized only yesterday that this film, and the opening montage in particular, may give me an opportunity to explain to my daughter (currently 3, but she turns 4 in two months) how children grow up to become adults and then, if they're lucky, old men and women. She knows that I'm her "father" and I've told her that Grandpa is, in turn, my own "father", but I don't know how much of that she really understands yet. And I really don't know if she believes me when I tell her that Daddy used to be a boy like her brothers and that Grandpa used to be a boy like them, too. But hopefully seeing Carl and Ellie Fredericksen go from boy/girl to man/woman to geezer/geezer will help her to "get" all that.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After a few more quasi-viewings, I have to say that I really, really like the way the "opening" montage begins with Karl and Ellie getting married in a relatively packed and cheering church (though the relatives on one side of the church are not so cheery -- what's THAT about? can we say with any confidence which side of the family that would be?) and ends with Karl alone, all by himself, at Ellie's funeral or memorial in that same church (or one very much like it, at any rate). The transition from bustling community to, well, nothing is quite striking, and I wonder what sort of forces brought Karl (and Ellie?) to this point. The fact that they don't have children is no doubt a factor, but can it be the only one? In any case, this is just one powerful element in a sequence full of them.

On the other hand, I repeatedly wonder why Muntz had to be such a villain. There are so many directions the filmmakers could have gone with this character -- a man who was believed to be a liar when, in fact, he had told the truth -- and to turn him into such an obvious black hat just feels kind of, I dunno, cheap. And it definitely doesn't help that the scene in which Muntz's villainy is "revealed" basically has its thunder stolen by our earlier exposure to those annoying dogs of his. Ah well.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, I repeatedly wonder why Muntz had to be such a villain. There are so many directions the filmmakers could have gone with this character -- a man who was believed to be a liar when, in fact, he had told the truth -- and to turn him into such an obvious black hat just feels kind of, I dunno, cheap. And it definitely doesn't help that the scene in which Muntz's villainy is "revealed" basically has its thunder stolen by our earlier exposure to those annoying dogs of his. Ah well.

Yes - I agree. This, for me, was the weakest part of the film. It could have been even better if he was a nuanced character.

Denny

Since 1995 we have authored a commentary on film, cinema in focus. Though we enjoy cinema as an art form, our interests lie not so much in reviewing a film as in beginning a conversation about the social and spiritual values presented. We, therefore, often rate a film higher or lower due to its message rather than its quality of acting or film-making.

Cinema In Focus Website

Free Methodist Church of Santa Barbara Website

Link to post
Share on other sites
And it definitely doesn't help that the scene in which Muntz's villainy is "revealed" basically has its thunder stolen by our earlier exposure to those annoying dogs of his. Ah well.

Oh! Thank you! You've put your finger on this scene doesn't work for me. Both viewings, I knew there was something wrong with this scene (this is where the movie seems to put on the brakes for me), but I never could quite place why. It's the spoiled reveal factor.

Love love love the film as a whole. But I do believe it falters here. Good thoughts.

"Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen."
Robert Bresson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great comments, Peter. Thanks.

BTW, the scene with the dog pouring the wine (champagne?) is just painful -- not that it's a bad scene at all, but to waste good wine like that ... ugh.

And it definitely doesn't help that the scene in which Muntz's villainy is "revealed" basically has its thunder stolen by our earlier exposure to those annoying dogs of his. Ah well.

Oh! Thank you! You've put your finger on this scene doesn't work for me. Both viewings, I knew there was something wrong with this scene (this is where the movie seems to put on the brakes for me), but I never could quite place why. It's the spoiled reveal factor.

I won't contest the point that Muntz didn't need to be the villain that he is. I do think Muntz's twistedness is an effective foil and counterpoint to Carl, but arguably this could have been done even better with a more nuanced character. IOW, I think the character works, which is not to say he couldn't work better.

FWIW, I don't find the revelation of Muntz's villainy to be a "spoiled reveal" -- on the contrary, I find that the initial "false reveal" in which the presumptively threatening figure turns out to be an apparently nice and harmless guy works well on its own, and effectively sets up the dropping of the other shoe.

Edited by SDG

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites

SDG wrote:

: FWIW, I don't find the revelation of Muntz's villainy to be a "spoiled reveal" -- on the contrary, I find that the initial "false reveal" in which the presumptively threatening figure turns out to be an apparently nice and harmless guy works well on its own, and effectively sets up the dropping of the other shoe.

It's hard to say, because the trailers did give away the fact that Muntz was a bad guy -- though they did not give away just HOW bad he was (deliberately trying to kill a child, etc.). So the "reveal" was already partly "spoiled" there.

But even so, the fact that all the dogs are basically bad, with the one exception of the most-cartoonish, least-realistic-looking, most-outcast dog of them all, pretty much tells you everything you need to know about their master.

And the scene where Muntz's villainy is finally "revealed" for good comes so, so soon after we meet him that it doesn't really feel "earned", to me. It's like the filmmakers couldn't wait to get back to creating their chase scenes, etc.

BTW, now that the iTunes short has revealed that the two senior-home workers SHOULD have been able to see Russell holding on to the bottom of the house when it took off, is it okay to gripe that the film itself DOESN'T show Russell holding on to the bottom of the house? (FWIW, I remember looking for this when I saw the film in the theatre, simply because the trailer let us all know that Russell would be standing on the porch once the house was airborne. And now that I've seen the film a few times, I'm not entirely sure why Russell would be clinging to the furthest edge of the porch, where he is at greatest risk of flying over the banister, when we know that he was able to make his way to the door and ring the buzzer. Hmmm. Maybe he felt too exposed, so close to the top of the stairs. But again, this feels like one of those things that was designed simply for the comic effect of watching other people's double-takes -- in this case, Karl's -- rather than for any inherently plausible reason.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, now that the iTunes short has revealed that the two senior-home workers SHOULD have been able to see Russell holding on to the bottom of the house when it took off, is it okay to gripe that the film itself DOESN'T show Russell holding on to the bottom of the house?

No.

Just kidding. It's okay to gripe. Can't imagine why one would feel inclined to gripe about this, though. The gripe makes no sense to me.

I'm not entirely sure why Russell would be clinging to the furthest edge of the porch, where he is at greatest risk of flying over the banister, when we know that he was able to make his way to the door and ring the buzzer.

The furthest corner of the porch from the stairs is obviously the safest possible point. The chief danger is not flying over the banister, but flying off the porch at the point where there is no banister, i.e., the stairs. A sudden jerk of the house could pitch Russell in any direction. Wedged in the back corner of the porch, he is in the one place where he is likeliest to fall against something solid, i.e., the wall of the house behind him, the banister to the right and in front of him, and the full width of the porch between him and the stairs on the left. Short of lying down, Russell is in the best possible position where he is.

Hmmm. Maybe he felt too exposed, so close to the top of the stairs. But again, this feels like one of those things that was designed simply for the comic effect of watching other people's double-takes -- in this case, Karl's -- rather than for any inherently plausible reason.

So what? It is funny, and it makes sense. What's to gripe about? I don't see the speed bump here that makes you even stop and think about it.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites

SDG wrote:

: Just kidding. It's okay to gripe. Can't imagine why one would feel inclined to gripe about this, though. The gripe makes no sense to me.

Well, I say "gripe" and not "complain" because this is a light objection, for me, and not a serious one. ("Gripe" doesn't sound all that serious a word, to me.) But it IS a "cheat" that the movie engages in early on, and it IS a "cheat" that I caught in the theatre, and so, y'know, it's one of those suspension-of-disbelief-as-I-now-condescend-to-the-story things of which Tolkien wrote.

: The furthest corner of the porch from the stairs is obviously the safest possible point. The chief danger is not flying over the banister, but flying off the porch at the point where there is no banister, i.e., the stairs.

Yeah, that's the conclusion I was working towards in the later part of my original post. Still, the fact remains, we see Russell's scarf (or something) fly over the banister even though he is in "the safest possible point", whereas when Dug shows up at Karl's door at the end (in an obvious reprise of the earlier door-buzzer scene), Dug does not appear to be in any danger even though he is basically sitting at the top of the stairs. So the movie doesn't exactly SELL us on the notion that Russell is in the safest possible spot -- his position there seems geared more towards setting up a physical distance between the two characters that mirrors their relational distance (whereas when DUG appears at Karl's door, the close physical proximity underscores that Karl has become more receptive to these outsiders; when Russell asks to be let in, Karl says no and shuts the door before relenting and saying yes, whereas when Dug asks to be let in, Karl immediately welcomes him and effectively adopts him right there on the spot).

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there no soundtrack album for this film? A huge part of what makes this movie work is the score by Michael Giacchino, and I assumed that there would be an album of some sort for that score, but I just searched Amazon.com and iTunes.com and couldn't find anything. Bizarre!

Anyway, I went searching for it because, yesterday, I got a "for your consideration" copy of the DVD, the soundtrack CD, and the screenplay, and I wanted to compare the CD that came in my packet with whatever other CD might be available to the public.

The CD that I got in the mail has 50 separate tracks (which would be unusual for a regular soundtrack album), and some of the titles are quite funny, e.g.:

  • 02. Up with Titles
    03. Ellie Mental
    08. Carl Goes Postal
    10. 9,999,999 Luftballoons (a.k.a. Carl Goes Up)
    13. Little House on the Prayer-rie
    14. The Housing Decline
    18. Russell Likes a Fine Whine
    21. Kevin Beak'n
    24. Scent on a Mission
    26. Ditch and Moan
    36. Giving Muntz the Bird
    49. Up with End Credits

If there IS a regular soundtrack album out there, I'd be interested to know how many of these titles survived. Some of the puns have just a hint of naughty about them.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen an official release of an album. But I got the soundtrack a few days ago through this link, so it was available to the public for one day only for free.

Here's the link to buy it on itunes.

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overstreet wrote:

: I haven't seen an official release of an album. But I got the soundtrack a few days ago through this link, so it was available to the public for one day only for free. Here's the link to buy it on itunes.

Ah, good. Thanks. Too bad I missed it, as there seem to be a few non-musical, sound-effects and voice-actor bits on the iTunes release that are not on my CD. Anyway, it does seem that the CD has quite a few more tracks than the iTunes album has. Here are the integrated track listings, with the numbers reflecting where they appear on the iTunes release:

  • --. Movietown Newsreel Source
    01. Up With Titles
    --. Ellie Mental
    02. We're In the Club Now
    --. The Adventures of a Lifetime
    03. Married Life
    --. Hustle and Russell
    --. Carl Goes Postal
    --. Resigned and Reminded
    04. Carl Goes Up (CD title: 9,999,999 Luftballoons aka Carl Goes Up) [1]
    --. Cumolonincompoop
    05. 52 Chachki Pickup
    --. Little House on the Prayer-ie
    --. The Housing Decline
    06. Paradise Found
    07. Walkin' the House
    08. Three Dog Dash
    --. Russell Likes a Fine Whine
    --. Snipe Tracks
    --. Giant Snipe
    09. Kevin Beak'n
    --. Approval from Above
    --. Dug the Birdie Hunter
    --. Scent on a Mission
    --. Dogged Determination
    --. Ditch and Moan
    --. Cross My Heart
    --. Kevin's a Girl!
    10. Canine Conundrum
    11. The Nickel Tour
    --. Spirit of Adventure Source
    --. Dining Room Source
    12. The Explorer Motel
    13. Escape from Muntz Mountain
    --. Can't We Help Her Get Home?
    14. Giving Muntz the Bird
    --. Welcome to Paradise
    --. Home Sweet Home
    15. Stuff We Did
    --. Russell to the Rescue
    16. Memories Can Weigh You Down
    17. The Small Mailman Returns [2]
    --. Going Back for Kevin
    18. He's Got the Bird
    --. Geriatric Dogfight
    19. Seizing the Spirit of Adventure [3]
    20. It's Just a House
    21. The Ellie Badge
    22. Up With End Credits [4]
    23. The Spirit of Adventure [5]

Of the 23 tracks that the CD and the iTunes album have in common, 18 have virtually identical running times (to within a second or so), while 5 are noticeably different -- though whether because the iTunes versions are simply longer, or because CD tracks have been merged for the iTunes album, I do not know:

  • [1] iTunes 3:33, CD 3:12
    [2] iTunes 3:11, CD 1:41
    [3] iTunes 5:19, CD 1:58
    [4] iTunes 7:38, CD 4:55
    [5] iTunes 2:29, CD 1:44

The iTunes album also has three Skywalker Sound clips in addition to the numbered music tracks, as well as a seven-minute video.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Funny. I put the soundtrack CD on, came to the computer to read and surf the Net, while the kids were watching "Ariel Returns" or some such direct-to-DVD disc on our newly inherited HDTV downstairs.

After several minutes, I picked up on the music that was playing and found myself struck by how excellent the soundtrack was. "What a great soundtrack for a direct-to-DVD movie," I thought to myself, forgetting that I'd put the "Up" CD in the player upstairs several minutes earlier, and assuming that the music was filtering up from our new TV downstairs, with its decent speakers.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the discussion of Muntz's death in this forum, it was interesting to see that Pixar included the short film "The Many Endings of Muntz" with the blu-ray disc. The question of what to do with Muntz was a problem to which Pixar devoted considerable time and attention. Multiple endings were considered, and even storyboarded, including having him reform, but the two overriding goals that ultimately drove them to the ending they chose were: (1) It had to be quick; the movie was Carl's story not Muntz's, and Muntz's ending couldn't drag on and take the viewer out of Carl's story. (2) Muntz represented Carl's own destructive obsessiveness made physical, and in terms of dramatic logic Carl's renunciation of his obsession had to be represented by Muntz's death.

Edited by bowen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try, but we all know those Pixar storytellers have hearts full of murder and hate.

Here, here! They obviously worship in the church of the Culture of Death!!!!

"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...