Comments on: What goes UP…

By: Daniel Araya

Daniel Araya — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:07:50 +0000

sorry, I meant to say that people expect complexity, depth, and subtlety when it comes to live action.

By: Daniel Araya

Daniel Araya — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:07:23 +0000

Animation definitely lets you get away with heavy handedness. People expect more complexity, depth, and subtlety when it comes to animation. A lack of these things is forgiven in animation, by most people. People got to the theater EXPECTING to have everything dumbed-down in animation, and that’s why they have such a strong positive reaction when they don’t get a sense of condescension.

By: Sunny

Sunny — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:46:51 +0000

Thanks for commenting, Danny! It’s good to hear differing opinions.

I think I’m getting old and cynical. Anyway, here’s a question for anyone who’s reading this:

Does the *medium* of storytelling affect the audience’s expectations from the story?

In other words, if UP had been a live-action film with the same exact script and storyboard, would your opinion of the story be any different?

By: Daniel Araya

Daniel Araya — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:11:04 +0000

I felt divided with this film. Most of your points are how I felt about the second half of the movie, but not the first half. Like most people, I DID connect with Ellie and Carl in the first half. I think we got enough of Ellie in the beginning to understand why Carl had such a connection with her, and I think that if the movie had focused anymore on who she was as a character, it would have derailed the film and the focus would have shifted too heavily on her. I thought (especially as a child) she was “fun” enough to where we GET it. Her outgoing and playful nature is immediately going to make us connect with her, and it worked on me. I very much disagree about the beginning sequences feeling forced.
I very much agree with how you feel toward Muntz and the dogs. I completely understand the need to have a source of gags, it’s what keeps the family-friendly atmosphere and it keeps people entertained. I think the problem with the dog-gags was that they were just corny and bland. The dogs and Muntz were really there to fill the “villain” role, and I didn’t care at all about them.
The beginning montage WAS a bit heavy handed, but I’m not sure I can fault them for it because…well….it WORKED on the majority of the people that saw it. I feel like if they watered it down with subtlety, a bigger percentage of the target audience wouldn’t have the sensitivity or patience to feel what they’re supposed to feel.

Anyway, just felt the need to respond. Hope I didn’t rant too much.

By: Sunny

Sunny — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:37:24 +0000

There seems to be an internal struggle at Pixar (and other feature animation studios) about how cartoony vs. realistic the film should be. Many of the issues with today’s features can be traced to the fact that no one has a clear idea of where to take this medium next.

By: samyuktha

samyuktha — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:18:29 +0000

I quite agree with most of these points. The movie did not grip me throughout since I barely connected with the main characters. The only character I really really liked was dug.. his actions were so adorable and dog-like in contrast to the other dogs that were flying planes, serving food and drinks and dusting statues. (I thought that part was overdone.)

Even some of the gags felt so expected like the big dog’s squeaky voice. Too many complaints about the dogs, but I felt put off with that. I was disappointed with the story and characters.

I definitely liked the visuals though – bright and colorful!

Most of the people I know who went to watch the movie loved it. I felt otherwise. I really hope Pixar doesn’t end up like other studios trying to come up with obvious gags and cliches, and losing out on a good story.