![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
At the moment the first paragraph seem to be written in future tense, as in "the film will be released on May 19 2009", as the film has already been released shouldn't it be changed to past tense? Shadoom100 ( talk) 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Do we have any confirmation/citation for Docter's involvement? The only thing that has been listed is in rumor and speculation on blogs, which are not valid WP sources. SpikeJones 18:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Time Magazine US Edition Vol. 169 No. 25 confirms Docter's involvement as well as Bob Peterson as Co-Director and gives a plot outline. ( 220.236.217.228 00:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC))
Where did that image come from? Is it official? Whats the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.32.99 ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 June 2007
Image:Up 1.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Any word yet if John Ratzenberger will be cast in this film? -- JeffBillman ( talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
see above-- Joshua H-Star-R ( talk) 23:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Joshua H-Star-R ( talk) 12:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add some things director Pete Docter said about the new movie. Sha-Sanio ( talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that in WALL-E, when the people just arrived on earth, they're standing in a line and i saw a really old dude standing in the line. possible incorperation of the early design of carl, the main character of up? i say yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.66.18 ( talk • contribs)
Baseless? I saw a base for that because in Finding Nemo, when the cars are passing by as the fish are escaping, a car passes by that is explained in a DVD extra as an early model of Luigi from Cars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.135.71 ( talk) 23:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
And in monsters Inc (released a year before Finding Nemo) there is a toy Nemo that Boo tries to give to Sully in one of the final scenes Shadoom100 ( talk) 23:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Should there be some information about these mini clips added to this article? SWatsi ( talk) 19:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone see the Jack Kirby references in Up? ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 17:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC))
I heard Up was going to be rated PG, I think that should be mentioned here. 74.33.174.133 ( talk) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It's against the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.64.48 ( talk) 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed a Simpsons reference in the opening paragraph and a changing of Kevin's name to "Kevina". I doubt this is proper, so I am reverting those two percieved errors. dogman15 ( talk) 02:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this article deserves an upgrade from "stub" to Category:B-Class_articles. dogman15 ( talk) 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's called Dug's Special Mission, and it will be on the Up DVD. http://pixarblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/up-dvdblu-ray-short-dugs-special.html http://scifiwire.com/2009/05/ups-companion-short-films.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogman15 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Should I add the Rotten Tomatoes link to the External Links? -- Joshua H-Star-R ( talk) 11:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention that Jordan Nagai and Russell are Asian American, and two removals of attempts to mention this, even with references from notable sources? Russell is Pixar's first Asian American character, their previous films have had black and hispanic characters, but no Asians. Bachcell ( talk) 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
here are some more sources
http://www.channelapa.com/2009/05/jordan-nagai-as-russell-in-up.html Russell is based on Animator Peter Sohn
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-05-21-pixar-main_N.htm As for Up, Pixar's 10th outing, which opens May 29, about a cranky codger and an overeager Asian kid who fly off to South America in a house hoisted by helium balloons, it will likely be the first film that all three — father, mother and child, who turns 2 today — enjoy together.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-jordanpete28-2009may28,0,7055067.story Russell was to be more hyper. In fact, the initial concept was based on the effusive personality of animator Peter Sohn, who was the voice of Emile in "Ratatouille" and is the director of the short "Partly Cloudy," which will be shown before "Up."
Asia Pacific Arts: May 22, 2009: News BitesMay 22, 2009 ... As for the Japanese American Jordan Nagai, this may be the first of hopefully many acting opportunities to come. --Timothy Natividad ... www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/090522/article.asp?parentID=108481
Why is this at (2009 film), and not just at (film)? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Should Up (film) be a disambiguation page? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 22:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
In the 6th paragraph it finally mentions the Muntz's dog pack, but it does not mention the entire pack earlier or the scouting team which Dug was a part of, which should be mentioned in the 4th paragraph, where the scouting team makes its first appearance. - 64.91.158.194 ( talk) 03:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Everyone calls him dug here, but it sounded like Doug to me in the movie. Perhaps I just missed something... Newmansan ( talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, just read some of hte promotional stuff.
Newmansan (
talk)
11:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/easter-eggs-in-pixars-up/ - Denimadept ( talk) 22:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have just spent like 20 minutes searching the net. In the movie, Russell is talking about how his dad used to do all these things with him, and now he doesn't. He says it's because "Phillis" says he doesn't like to. Then he states that Phillis isn't his mom. Who is Phillis? That's the first thing me and my dad asked each other when we got out of the theater and I heard the question a few times on the way out. Searching the internet, many other people are curious as well. Speculation is that she is either the Dad's girlfriend, and surprisingly, many people think she is the Mom's girlfriend (which would have been better supported by her sitting with a girl at the end. But, I think it's a strange question that is not answered in the movie, and the fact they did this is interesting and should be noted in the article (if they ever say who Phillis is). Chexmix53 ( talk) 17:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Good question I don't Know my guess is dads gf or sister.
I think that it is strongly hinted that she is his father's new lover. This is because Carl understood from his saying that that Russell's parents are divorced. It also calls to mind the theme of Russell's father abandoning him, and the cliched "father abandons family for new, cold stepmother" scenario. It is likely that, like Ellie's death, this is implied so that younger children will not be exposed to life's difficulties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.55.154 ( talk) 03:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone (not me) already reverted, but if you see the revisions, someone changed words to funny-looking look-alikes, like computer-animation to computer-awesomenation and links to stinks. Seemly two persons are fighting, undoing each other revisions, one vandalising and other fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.97.87 ( talk) 23:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
In the scene when Carl meets Russell, he is watching television with the sound clip of an infomercial playing. This sound clip was taken directly from an infamous moment on Shop At Home, when the host mistakes a picture of a butterfly for a horse. This was most likely an inside joke from Pixar.
Infomercial Blooper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3BPM0BXVNc
Clip from UP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDkt-LdwAkk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.123.117 ( talk) 07:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If Colby Curtin redirects here, why is there nothing about her? http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pixar-up-movie-2468059-home-show —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.10.13 ( talk) 16:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody think that the part in the "reception" section about Pixar showing the girl the film before her death should have it's own section because it really dosen't have anything to do with the reception of the film. Movieman72 ( talk) 21:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Where in this movie did it say that the mailbox tussle occurred in the year 1996? I believe the year the film takes place in is present day-2009 because Carl is 78 and he was born in the early 1930s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.238.20 ( talk) 22:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Just got around to seeing the movie for the first time today, which led me to this pretty good (if a bit press kit-tish) Wikipedia entry, which led me to this talk page. I have to say, skimming this discussion page is kinda disheartening, possibly since I'm reading it in such close proximity to seeing the film. Understandably, great passion for a work can possibly make one feel protective, even proprietary, toward it, perhaps at propriety's expense. And while I'm sure most here would say they've "seen the film," I'm not entirely certain how many of them have actually "seen the film" -- really "seen the film" -- if you follow my meaning. For instance, those who repeatedly find themselves buttressing their own POV by falling back on dazzling chapter-and-verse mastery of WP:(Whatever) to shut out or shoot down other contributors or commenters may want to take time out for a refresher on WP:ETIQ:Principles, which have equal if not greater... um... weight? When tempted to shoo others off with something akin to a brusque "Go away, boy," try to remember WP:Don'tBeACrankyPants and WP:ConsiderEatingMorePrunes. What's it hurt to let a comment float out there for a few months, to see if any folks in the broader community have some thoughts in reply? Not sure anyone else will agree with me on this, but I'd ju -- squirrel!
04:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.116.47 ( talk)
Who removed the release dates for other countries? 76.175.116.65 ( talk) 02:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I found the product page on Disney's online shopping site, which confirm the contents of the various packages to be made available this November, but I'm wondering how appropriate it would be to link to such a site from here ... it'd almost be free advertising. Opinions? -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 18:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
PS Yes I see the irony of including it here, but it can be deleted after the issue is resolved. :)
Still good ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.77.224.50 ( talk) 20:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
i think this is implied since the ending showed Carl & Russell's new adventures in Ellie's book. i think it's also possible that even if the house didn't land in the right place, Carl would have used the blimp to transfer it to Ellie's preferred location.
203.84.189.134 ( talk) 03:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Itto Ogami
Thats the biggest unsubstantiated leap in logic I've ever read. The whole point was that he let go of the past that was bogging him down. It's beautiful because the house was able to land in the right place after he moved on, rather than having to tug it the entire film. Carl clearly didn't fuggin go back for that shit just to toss out Ellie's pics and replace them with new ones. He made a new one with his new family. cakeofages ( talk) 0:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I think someone should mention, if it isnt in there already, in like a 'references to other work' section, that there is a shot thats like a parody of that famous painting with the dogs playing cards. IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 12:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Nah, many films have their little allusions from here and there. No need to mention all of them. cakeofages ( talk) 1:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this is the first ever Pixar animation movie to show blood on screen. There are a couple of instances, first one is when Carl accidentally hits the construction worker with his mailbox and second when Kevin gets hurt. Jatinkapadia ( talk) 13:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Jatin Kapadia
How is that even remotely important? And aren't you forgetting Finding Nemo? cakeofages ( talk) 0:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.147.81 ( talk)
Techradar has just released a story about the production info here.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 09:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It says that the film is scheduled for release in UK on October 9. It's worded like the film wasn't released over there yet, but it was released today. 12.73.212.98 ( talk) 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
In series 20 episode 21 of the Simpsons, "Coming to Homerica," when Carl and Lenny go into the sky, riding in chairs suspended from balloons, in the distance one can see a house identical to the one in Up. Should this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.19.182 ( talk) 20:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Paradise Falls is a transparent reference to Angel Falls in Venezuela. The tepui landforms depicted around Paradise Falls are also more or less authentic. The rocky dryness brings to mind Mount Roraima, which exceeds 9000 feet and includes the Brazil-Guyana-Venezuela tripoint (image here). 123.255.30.204 ( talk) 07:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a mis-leading reading of the article cited. It says of her design “His wife is more curves, almost balloon shapes” - i.e. rounded, where Carl is angular. To say that she is “shaped like a balloon”(singular) would make it seem to anyone who hasn’t seen her that she is fat, or blimp-shaped or some such. Jock123 ( talk) 20:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
any reason why this wasn't released as a 3D DVD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.45.136 ( talk) 00:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I heard Disney sent a stripped down, bare bones version of the movie to rental places. That way if you want any special features (including closed captioning and subtitles) you have to buy the DVD. Anybody know if there is any truth to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.202.76 ( talk) 19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This is in fact the case. I added it to the article, but someone removed it, saying that it is "unimportant." I would like a response about how making it so that the dead and hard of hearing cannot rent your movie is unimportant. Thanks. http://consumerist.com/5405145/disney-removes-closed-captioning-from-up-rental-release Pullarius1 ( talk) 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
how much money has this film made ? box office mojo says 507 million but the numbers say 660 million Upol007 ( talk) 05:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think it would be appropriate to edit the main article to include a link / explanation about Nail Houses? (so called as 'they stick out like nails in an otherwise modernized environment') I ran across this link a few months ago and came here to try and find it again and was surprised that it wasn't mentioned.
http://deputy-dog.com/2009/06/6-extraordinarily-stubborn-nail-houses.html
SirCasey ( talk) 15:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm missing the plot warning in this article, can someone add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPuddingUK ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Because this one is getting old: did Muntz fall into the sea, or on the ground? Here is a screenshot of Muntz falling to his death.
http://i50.tinypic.com/312d2c7.jpg
I say it's water, and other places say it's water, but some people here are bound and determined to say that Muntz feel to the ground. Consensus, please. LoomisSimmons ( talk) 06:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, whether he died in the fall or not, he will never get out of Paradise Falls alive, for his only chance of fame and fortune has escaped him, his only airship out of there now belongs to Carl and Russell, neither of them will ever tell anyone about where Muntz is, and none of the dogs work for Muntz anymore. Therefore, Muntz will be declared legally dead. WikiLubber ( talk) 15:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I dont know where to write this but i thought it was intresting that after carl lands in 32.09 they do a lot of walking and moving yet almost twenty minutes later in the fil at 49.21 it seems if they havent even moved. ps does any one know where i should post this imbd?? wiki? etc.
Someone is credited as the voice of Omega. I assume its a dog, but I do not remember seeing him while twice at the theaters. cakeofages ( talk) 1:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Near the end of the credits there is a mushroom cloud merit badge, the type worn by Russell on his sash. The badge is situated directly next to the words "Walt Disney Studios". Was this an intentional poke at Disney (the distributor) by Pixar (the producer) that reflected some back channel animosity, or was this just a bit of hyjinks by a low level animator who's deed had gone unnoticed until now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.129.37 ( talk) 14:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Pixar would bash a company they've been in business with for fifteen years. :) I think it may be something related to chemistry. 216.243.212.197 ( talk) 20:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
In this movie we have two characters with missions. The film opens showing Muntz assuming the mission of finding the bird. Later, Carl's mission becomes to seek adventure and settle in South America. Carl ultimately seeks to foil Muntz' mission, and although Muntz pursues Carl with violent intentions, we have to say that his purpose in doing this is to prevent Carl from getting in his way rather than stopping Carl from achieving his dreams.
Antagonist/protagonist and hero/villain are often confused, but they are not the same thing. In this film, Carl is clearly the hero and Muntz the villain. However, it would seem that Carl is the antagonist and Muntz the Protagonist. This might be further discussed if the page is to assign these labels to either character.
A similar issue in another popular film can be found in Die Hard. The Bruce Willis character is actually the antagonist because he is foiling the robbery, although he remains the hero in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey1107 ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Even so, Carl's character is trying to fulfill a goal, which is the central plotline of the story. Muntz's hunt for Kevin is what gets in Carl's way, (Muntz himself actually sets fire to the base of the house in the climax) so this means that Muntz is the antagonist. Even though he has his own goal, he wants to eliminate the main character in order to do so. 216.243.212.197 ( talk) 20:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This plot summary seems too long and overly detailed. Does anyone mind if I attempt to condense it? -- Gotophilk ( talk) 05:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a little edit war going on here, which seems kind of childish considering what is involved - from unnecessary details like the number of balloon strings Muntz gets caught on, to someone not liking the insinuation of Muntz's death (when it was clearly portrayed in the movie, and confirmed by the creators), to Carl's reaction when he loses the house. Not sure why such trivial things need to be argued over, because they only help to bloat the summary. Pale Autumn ( talk) 7:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
In the commentary of the DVD or Blu-Ray. But 6 balloons can't hold Muntz' weight. I've seen balloon sellers hold about 50 balloons, and they never fly up. The only reason the balloons were able to hold Carl's house is because there were over a million balloons. WikiLubber ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
They were only special, because they carried Carl's house. Plus, only 6 balloons (whether they are special or not) are too light to carry Muntz weight (not just his ordinary weight, but also his greed and corruption). And Muntz did not survive, according to the DVD/Blu-Ray commentary. WikiLubber ( talk) 15:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
are you really arguing about the level of specialness the balloons have? i can't belive this even comes up. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.130.160.74 (
talk)
01:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The article currently describes Carl and Ellie as being infertile during their life flashback, although the description is not sourced to anywhere. I however interpreted the relevent scene as their suffering of a miscarriage. Now obviously my own opinion counts for nothing for this content. Nonetheless as the scene can apparently be interpreted in two plausible but very discordant ways, I encourage the particular interpretation to be sourced, or the language changed to reflect the ambiguity. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 19:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I never even thought of it as a miscarriage...I thought it was pretty obvious that she was infertile. I agree; I think they were setting up the nursery because they were trying to get pregnant. You never see her as pregnant, and they probably went to the doctor to see what the problem was. I don't think one miscarriage would stop them from trying to have more kids...it indicates strongly that she was infertile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.160.74 ( talk) 01:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph about music says: “This type of compositional technique is called thematic transformation, a technique pioneered by Ludwig van Beethoven and Franz Liszt, and is commonly used among large-scaled classical music compositions, in which more than one theme is involved and related together in a single piece of music.” That's hardly noteworthy, since it is common in film score composition.-- Dvd-junkie ( talk) 06:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Disney produced a special rental edition of the DVD with no menus, no subtitles, no Closed captioning, a plain grey lable and a ton of advertising for other Disney products, all playing in an endless loop. The movie on this disc does retain the retail version's chapter marks but it's only possible to skip back and forth in linear fashion among them. The lack of subtitles and closed captioning was not appreciated at all by the deaf and hearing impaired. I looked on some forums for deaf and hearing impaired just out of curiosity after renting UP! from Redbox and finding how it was stripped of all that stuff. AFAIK, among similar "rental exclusives" UP! may be the only one to not include at least closed captioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 ( talk) 08:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The plot motif of turning a house into a balloon aircraft to escape eviction is also used in the short animated film Above Then Beyond by a group of French film students from 2005 (see http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=4031). I think this is an important and/or interesting thing for the article, but I'm not sure where to put it. Any suggestions? -- Martin de la Iglesia ( talk) 10:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
In episode 37 of Dexter's Lab, Dexter give's a golden retriever a device similar to Dug which allows him to speak. Their voices are almost identical. The characters are almost identical in their dog mannerisms and exuberance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.116.58.70 ( talk) 17:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that too. I don't think it needs to be mentioned in the article though Jnorm ( talk) 17:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone really say for sure whether Muntz dies after falling from the blimp with his four balloons? I mean, it's a pretty big drop, and Carl's balloons had to have quite a bit of helium in them to make them carry a huge house. I wouldn't count out Muntz as dead. He was able to survive in the jungles for at least 60 years with a pack of dogs at his side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.19.206 ( talk) 22:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Only 4 balloons (that have been full for many years and are long overdue to deflate) can't help someone who is very old, and very full of greed and corruption, and the drop was very deep, and Muntz could've fallen into the sea, where, at his age and attitude, he can never survive. So therefore, Muntz is declared history. WikiLubber ( talk) 19:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition, most Disney children's films have a villain portrayed as perfectly evil falling to their deaths, so it can be assumed this is in line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.55.154 ( talk) 03:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! Examples:
So it could've also happened to Muntz. WikiLubber ( talk) 16:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem with saying that he should be dead, is that it never showed his death. No matter how it's rationalized, his death was never shown, thus not in the movie. It's speculation to say what actually happened, unless an official interview says otherwise. It doesn't matter what other Disney movies have done, it matters what this one does. It doesn't matter what other children's movies have done, it matters what this one does. What this one does, does not show anything that confirms his death. However unlikely, he could have been saved before he hit the ground. However, it does not matter what could have happened, but what was shown. It was shown that he drifted through the clouds, not falling at the speed of gravity. ~ QuasiAbstract { talk/ contrib} 09:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You are the only one who thinks he survived. But someone very old and evil, and attached to only 4 very old balloons? There is no way that could break his fall! Besides, he could've hit the sea! There's more water than land at Paradise Falls. Besides, there are birds on that island that could've popped those balloons without even noticing Muntz! And nobody trusts him, after the way he treated Kevin. I'm afraid I have to agree with the majority until we get the film on DVD and hear what the producers say in the commentary. He is not proven dead or alive until then. Besides, not all Disney movies that have villains dying actually show them. WikiLubber ( talk) 12:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to make too much out of this, but these aren't real people. They are cartoon characters. The ONLY way Muntz can have survived is if there is a sequel to Up in which he appears. Now this is a world where a collar is enough to make a dog talk and where twenty thousand balloons, as opposed to twenty million, can make a house fly up. It is also a world where a couple dozen balloons can make a cart fly up in one of the early scenes. In that world, if required, it could be very believable that the balloons that Muntz was hanging on to saved him, or he fell on a very fluffy bush, or, in the words of Douglas Adams, he could have fallen onto the back of a very large passing bird. If we'd seen him sliced up into small pieces we could have learned in the sequel that this was just in fact his identical twin who happened to be passing by. It's a cartoon. More than that, it's a cartoon where a man living alone in the jungle can build an electronic collar that allows any dog to talk. Muntz is dead not because of physics or geography or anything like that. Muntz is dead because that's what the story of the movie is leading to. And he won't appear in a sequel because Pixar's standards are WAY higher than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eje211 ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The DVD extras clearly state that Muntz is dead. This version was chosen out of many possible ways for him to die, but they needed him dead to symbolize Carl's old self dying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.167.254 ( talk) 17:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I know that this is resolved, but...did you mean the Blu-ray extras? I couldn't find any commentary on mine, just subtitles. 173.28.115.207 ( talk) 11:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
A bit off the point, but if Muntz had been my grand father, I would totally kill the shit of that senile balloon salesman and his fat boy toy for fighting him to the death over some stupid bird. My point is that, as far as Disney movie morality is concerned, Muntz punishment doesn't fit the crime. To elaborate on this; the last person to fall to his death in a Disney movie was Frolo and he attempted nothing less than rape, infanticide and genocide while being in full possession of his mind. Muntz on the other hand merely attempted retaliatory homicide, after being driven mad by sixty years of frustration and humiliation. While physical logic would suggest he is dead, the logic of Disney morality would suggested he floated to happy non-violent resolution land. --
Jan-da-man (
talk)
16:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
2009 IMP Award for best blockbuster poster. Surprised it wasn't already included so I'm checking, and I'm asking here first. Please do include it or let me know if there is some reason why it shouldn't be added. -- Horkana ( talk) 03:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
remeber early in the movie, Fredricksen was watching the television and the tv sounds like steve jobs explaining the iphone 3GS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WCLL HK ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
When Carl is watching the TV before he meets Russell, the audio coming out of the TV is from the YouTube video "Look at that horse." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.2.107 ( talk) 02:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a source, I found it on my own. Although I'm sure someone else noticed it too. Here's the YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJQ6LeKwHNI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.221.62 ( talk) 00:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
put the "wikiquote" link
79.25.182.141 ( talk) 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand artistic license, but, what kept the house tethered to the ground? Was Carl such an expert that he knew a single rope was enough? And how did the house fly to just where he wanted it to go? Also, I think a great plot twist would be for the wife's picture to be facing the falls at the end... All in all, a great, great movie. I even wept at reading this Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.40.254 ( talk) 16:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can remember: the house is tethered with a firehouse. It is steered using curtains, which come out like sails from the windows. They fly it to Paradise Falls using Russell's GPS, but in his enthusiasm he soon loses it. 218.103.239.99 ( talk) 03:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
the balloons are kept under a giant tarp in his backyard, probably tied down with something. when released , they rise up from behind the house , the tarp falls off revealing the balloons. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.5.46.21 (
talk)
12:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, all. I'm going to suggest that this article might need semi-protecting? I'm sort of new to WP, but I see the "plot" section of this article being consistently bloated by an IP user who calls himself "Nate"; I'm sure someone else has noticed this, but it seems like every day or every few days he gets on here and adds long descriptions to the plot section, despite the fact that his edits are always undone - often with a link to WP:Plot included in the edit summary.
I've tried to read the policies on semi-protection, and it seems like this article needs it. Sleddog116 ( talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there a citation for them being infertile? I interpreted that scene as more that they were expecting a baby (hence preparing a nursery) but then miscarried and then stopped trying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.148.58 ( talk) 13:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I edited the initial description because it's grossly inaccurate. The movie is NOT about the adventure in South America. It about the relationship of Carl and Ellie, and it is about how people we admire may not be admirable after all. It is about the value of relationships. As to the infertility issue, many people who have miscarriages eventually have kids; the fact that they did not means she was infertile; that's a fact - so the previous comment is grossly incorrect; no one would stop trying.. And it is the story of my wife and I, so I know this story. Wh y someone would say they stopped trying is beyond me - that person must be an idiot to say that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kengross1 ( talk • contribs) 08:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC) You are confusing themes with plot. When a film is "about" something, then that word "about" could be referring to either; however, generally plot is a lot more useful in describing a film, since plot is far more specific to individual films, whereas themes are quite general (two films with wildly different plots can share similar themes) and not always agreed upon. So the themes come later, and in their own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.133.31 ( talk) 23:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to trim the plot section of this article to bring it in line with the
WP:FILMPLOT guidance which recommends that a plot section for a feature film be between 400 and 700 words. I removed the {{
plot}}
tag at 717 words, since the 700 limit is not a firm guideline. However, if it gets expanded significantly beyond 700 I will re-add the tag. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk
21:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Some of the plot elements and most of the setting for this movie are clearly taken directly from The Lost World by Arthur Conan Doyle. Why is there no mention of that in the article? It would be independent research for me to put it in, but has there seriously been no one else who has observed that fact and mentioned it elsewhere that we could site as a source and put it into the article? Even if they weren't inspired by the book, certainly the film makers must have been inspired by the 1925 film. Look at the setting for that film: http://galeon.com/matteart/mattepainters/lostworld.jpg
and compare it to UP's paradise falls: http://science4grownups.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/up-tepui-landing-paradise-falls.jpg
Furthermore, the character Charles Muntz in UP is clearly based on Professor Challenger in The Lost World. How is this not in the article anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidAnatomy ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I've added a reference to the fact that the relationship scene is intended by the filmmakers to portray an actual miscarriage, although I think a careful watching of the scene itself shows that. I think that should suffice for keeping it in the article. As for the objection of it being "unnecessary detail," I must disagree. It was added deliberately and is a brave subject for a movie to deal with and adds a degree of emotional depth distinct from infertility alone that affects the rest of the film. OrthodoxLinguist ( talk) 19:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Why was the reference to it being a miscarriage removed? I had cited a reference to it. If someone is going to remove it, it would be nice if they gave a reason. OrthodoxLinguist ( talk) 21:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Up (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Up (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
May be interesting - someone built a replica of the house in Salt Lake City ([ http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/07/13/house-of-the-day-builders-really-nail-pixars-up-home/ !@##kwm-(link)
The general consensus is that we do not designate "critical acclaim" without an independent reliable source saying exactly those words. If we have a source, we directly quote it.
"Up received unanimous acclaim from critics and audiences." is nonsense. "Unanimous" means everyone. "Acclaim" is "praise enthusiastically and publicly."
I saw the film, making me part of the audience. I distantly remember kinda liking it. I did not publicly praise it enthusiastically. The audience was not unanimous.
Yes, most critics gave positive reviews. Were they all "enthusiastic public praise"? Clearly not. For starters, most were not 100% scores. More damning, the 98% on RT means that even the sample of critics on RT had some negative reviews.
The film has good reviews. Citing the aggregator scores and the quotes from critics make that clear to anyone reading them. Individual editors adding their over-the-top interpretations of that reality do not improve the article. - SummerPhD v2.0 23:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
In my humble opinion (which means that I don't have much experience editing wikipedia), I don't think that the article addresses the montage in the beginning of the film as well as it should. literally every single person I talked o about up agreed that the scene at the beginning is heartbreaking at worst and a masterpiece from another dimension at best. I am sure that there's more to write other than the anecdote about the guy who wrote a book. I won't d it myself because English is far from my native language, but I just want you to know that it's worth writing about. Fr.dror ( talk) 22:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Up (2009 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change falls to his death to floats to the ground WokeHuke ( talk) 00:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Change “he gets caught on some balloon lines and falls to his death” to “he gets caught on balloon lines and floats to the ground” he is caught on balloons and would therefore float to the ground and not die, making this edit factually incorrect WokeHuke ( talk) 10:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Where in the movie does it show him die or say he dies? The whole movie is about a house floating and Russell literally floats on balloons in an earlier scene. He floats to the ground. WokeHuke ( talk) 18:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I see that User:Clarityfiend has changed it to "falls to the ground far, far below". Is that what you all had in mind? -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
At the moment the first paragraph seem to be written in future tense, as in "the film will be released on May 19 2009", as the film has already been released shouldn't it be changed to past tense? Shadoom100 ( talk) 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Do we have any confirmation/citation for Docter's involvement? The only thing that has been listed is in rumor and speculation on blogs, which are not valid WP sources. SpikeJones 18:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Time Magazine US Edition Vol. 169 No. 25 confirms Docter's involvement as well as Bob Peterson as Co-Director and gives a plot outline. ( 220.236.217.228 00:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC))
Where did that image come from? Is it official? Whats the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.32.99 ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 June 2007
Image:Up 1.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Any word yet if John Ratzenberger will be cast in this film? -- JeffBillman ( talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
see above-- Joshua H-Star-R ( talk) 23:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Joshua H-Star-R ( talk) 12:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add some things director Pete Docter said about the new movie. Sha-Sanio ( talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that in WALL-E, when the people just arrived on earth, they're standing in a line and i saw a really old dude standing in the line. possible incorperation of the early design of carl, the main character of up? i say yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.66.18 ( talk • contribs)
Baseless? I saw a base for that because in Finding Nemo, when the cars are passing by as the fish are escaping, a car passes by that is explained in a DVD extra as an early model of Luigi from Cars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.135.71 ( talk) 23:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
And in monsters Inc (released a year before Finding Nemo) there is a toy Nemo that Boo tries to give to Sully in one of the final scenes Shadoom100 ( talk) 23:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Should there be some information about these mini clips added to this article? SWatsi ( talk) 19:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone see the Jack Kirby references in Up? ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 17:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC))
I heard Up was going to be rated PG, I think that should be mentioned here. 74.33.174.133 ( talk) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It's against the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.64.48 ( talk) 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed a Simpsons reference in the opening paragraph and a changing of Kevin's name to "Kevina". I doubt this is proper, so I am reverting those two percieved errors. dogman15 ( talk) 02:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this article deserves an upgrade from "stub" to Category:B-Class_articles. dogman15 ( talk) 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's called Dug's Special Mission, and it will be on the Up DVD. http://pixarblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/up-dvdblu-ray-short-dugs-special.html http://scifiwire.com/2009/05/ups-companion-short-films.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogman15 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Should I add the Rotten Tomatoes link to the External Links? -- Joshua H-Star-R ( talk) 11:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention that Jordan Nagai and Russell are Asian American, and two removals of attempts to mention this, even with references from notable sources? Russell is Pixar's first Asian American character, their previous films have had black and hispanic characters, but no Asians. Bachcell ( talk) 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
here are some more sources
http://www.channelapa.com/2009/05/jordan-nagai-as-russell-in-up.html Russell is based on Animator Peter Sohn
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-05-21-pixar-main_N.htm As for Up, Pixar's 10th outing, which opens May 29, about a cranky codger and an overeager Asian kid who fly off to South America in a house hoisted by helium balloons, it will likely be the first film that all three — father, mother and child, who turns 2 today — enjoy together.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-jordanpete28-2009may28,0,7055067.story Russell was to be more hyper. In fact, the initial concept was based on the effusive personality of animator Peter Sohn, who was the voice of Emile in "Ratatouille" and is the director of the short "Partly Cloudy," which will be shown before "Up."
Asia Pacific Arts: May 22, 2009: News BitesMay 22, 2009 ... As for the Japanese American Jordan Nagai, this may be the first of hopefully many acting opportunities to come. --Timothy Natividad ... www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/090522/article.asp?parentID=108481
Why is this at (2009 film), and not just at (film)? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Should Up (film) be a disambiguation page? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 22:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
In the 6th paragraph it finally mentions the Muntz's dog pack, but it does not mention the entire pack earlier or the scouting team which Dug was a part of, which should be mentioned in the 4th paragraph, where the scouting team makes its first appearance. - 64.91.158.194 ( talk) 03:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Everyone calls him dug here, but it sounded like Doug to me in the movie. Perhaps I just missed something... Newmansan ( talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, just read some of hte promotional stuff.
Newmansan (
talk)
11:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/easter-eggs-in-pixars-up/ - Denimadept ( talk) 22:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have just spent like 20 minutes searching the net. In the movie, Russell is talking about how his dad used to do all these things with him, and now he doesn't. He says it's because "Phillis" says he doesn't like to. Then he states that Phillis isn't his mom. Who is Phillis? That's the first thing me and my dad asked each other when we got out of the theater and I heard the question a few times on the way out. Searching the internet, many other people are curious as well. Speculation is that she is either the Dad's girlfriend, and surprisingly, many people think she is the Mom's girlfriend (which would have been better supported by her sitting with a girl at the end. But, I think it's a strange question that is not answered in the movie, and the fact they did this is interesting and should be noted in the article (if they ever say who Phillis is). Chexmix53 ( talk) 17:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Good question I don't Know my guess is dads gf or sister.
I think that it is strongly hinted that she is his father's new lover. This is because Carl understood from his saying that that Russell's parents are divorced. It also calls to mind the theme of Russell's father abandoning him, and the cliched "father abandons family for new, cold stepmother" scenario. It is likely that, like Ellie's death, this is implied so that younger children will not be exposed to life's difficulties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.55.154 ( talk) 03:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone (not me) already reverted, but if you see the revisions, someone changed words to funny-looking look-alikes, like computer-animation to computer-awesomenation and links to stinks. Seemly two persons are fighting, undoing each other revisions, one vandalising and other fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.97.87 ( talk) 23:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
In the scene when Carl meets Russell, he is watching television with the sound clip of an infomercial playing. This sound clip was taken directly from an infamous moment on Shop At Home, when the host mistakes a picture of a butterfly for a horse. This was most likely an inside joke from Pixar.
Infomercial Blooper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3BPM0BXVNc
Clip from UP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDkt-LdwAkk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.123.117 ( talk) 07:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If Colby Curtin redirects here, why is there nothing about her? http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pixar-up-movie-2468059-home-show —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.10.13 ( talk) 16:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody think that the part in the "reception" section about Pixar showing the girl the film before her death should have it's own section because it really dosen't have anything to do with the reception of the film. Movieman72 ( talk) 21:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Where in this movie did it say that the mailbox tussle occurred in the year 1996? I believe the year the film takes place in is present day-2009 because Carl is 78 and he was born in the early 1930s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.238.20 ( talk) 22:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Just got around to seeing the movie for the first time today, which led me to this pretty good (if a bit press kit-tish) Wikipedia entry, which led me to this talk page. I have to say, skimming this discussion page is kinda disheartening, possibly since I'm reading it in such close proximity to seeing the film. Understandably, great passion for a work can possibly make one feel protective, even proprietary, toward it, perhaps at propriety's expense. And while I'm sure most here would say they've "seen the film," I'm not entirely certain how many of them have actually "seen the film" -- really "seen the film" -- if you follow my meaning. For instance, those who repeatedly find themselves buttressing their own POV by falling back on dazzling chapter-and-verse mastery of WP:(Whatever) to shut out or shoot down other contributors or commenters may want to take time out for a refresher on WP:ETIQ:Principles, which have equal if not greater... um... weight? When tempted to shoo others off with something akin to a brusque "Go away, boy," try to remember WP:Don'tBeACrankyPants and WP:ConsiderEatingMorePrunes. What's it hurt to let a comment float out there for a few months, to see if any folks in the broader community have some thoughts in reply? Not sure anyone else will agree with me on this, but I'd ju -- squirrel!
04:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.116.47 ( talk)
Who removed the release dates for other countries? 76.175.116.65 ( talk) 02:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I found the product page on Disney's online shopping site, which confirm the contents of the various packages to be made available this November, but I'm wondering how appropriate it would be to link to such a site from here ... it'd almost be free advertising. Opinions? -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 18:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
PS Yes I see the irony of including it here, but it can be deleted after the issue is resolved. :)
Still good ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.77.224.50 ( talk) 20:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
i think this is implied since the ending showed Carl & Russell's new adventures in Ellie's book. i think it's also possible that even if the house didn't land in the right place, Carl would have used the blimp to transfer it to Ellie's preferred location.
203.84.189.134 ( talk) 03:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Itto Ogami
Thats the biggest unsubstantiated leap in logic I've ever read. The whole point was that he let go of the past that was bogging him down. It's beautiful because the house was able to land in the right place after he moved on, rather than having to tug it the entire film. Carl clearly didn't fuggin go back for that shit just to toss out Ellie's pics and replace them with new ones. He made a new one with his new family. cakeofages ( talk) 0:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I think someone should mention, if it isnt in there already, in like a 'references to other work' section, that there is a shot thats like a parody of that famous painting with the dogs playing cards. IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 12:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Nah, many films have their little allusions from here and there. No need to mention all of them. cakeofages ( talk) 1:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this is the first ever Pixar animation movie to show blood on screen. There are a couple of instances, first one is when Carl accidentally hits the construction worker with his mailbox and second when Kevin gets hurt. Jatinkapadia ( talk) 13:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Jatin Kapadia
How is that even remotely important? And aren't you forgetting Finding Nemo? cakeofages ( talk) 0:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.147.81 ( talk)
Techradar has just released a story about the production info here.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 09:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It says that the film is scheduled for release in UK on October 9. It's worded like the film wasn't released over there yet, but it was released today. 12.73.212.98 ( talk) 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
In series 20 episode 21 of the Simpsons, "Coming to Homerica," when Carl and Lenny go into the sky, riding in chairs suspended from balloons, in the distance one can see a house identical to the one in Up. Should this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.19.182 ( talk) 20:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Paradise Falls is a transparent reference to Angel Falls in Venezuela. The tepui landforms depicted around Paradise Falls are also more or less authentic. The rocky dryness brings to mind Mount Roraima, which exceeds 9000 feet and includes the Brazil-Guyana-Venezuela tripoint (image here). 123.255.30.204 ( talk) 07:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a mis-leading reading of the article cited. It says of her design “His wife is more curves, almost balloon shapes” - i.e. rounded, where Carl is angular. To say that she is “shaped like a balloon”(singular) would make it seem to anyone who hasn’t seen her that she is fat, or blimp-shaped or some such. Jock123 ( talk) 20:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
any reason why this wasn't released as a 3D DVD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.45.136 ( talk) 00:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I heard Disney sent a stripped down, bare bones version of the movie to rental places. That way if you want any special features (including closed captioning and subtitles) you have to buy the DVD. Anybody know if there is any truth to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.202.76 ( talk) 19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This is in fact the case. I added it to the article, but someone removed it, saying that it is "unimportant." I would like a response about how making it so that the dead and hard of hearing cannot rent your movie is unimportant. Thanks. http://consumerist.com/5405145/disney-removes-closed-captioning-from-up-rental-release Pullarius1 ( talk) 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
how much money has this film made ? box office mojo says 507 million but the numbers say 660 million Upol007 ( talk) 05:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think it would be appropriate to edit the main article to include a link / explanation about Nail Houses? (so called as 'they stick out like nails in an otherwise modernized environment') I ran across this link a few months ago and came here to try and find it again and was surprised that it wasn't mentioned.
http://deputy-dog.com/2009/06/6-extraordinarily-stubborn-nail-houses.html
SirCasey ( talk) 15:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm missing the plot warning in this article, can someone add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPuddingUK ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Because this one is getting old: did Muntz fall into the sea, or on the ground? Here is a screenshot of Muntz falling to his death.
http://i50.tinypic.com/312d2c7.jpg
I say it's water, and other places say it's water, but some people here are bound and determined to say that Muntz feel to the ground. Consensus, please. LoomisSimmons ( talk) 06:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, whether he died in the fall or not, he will never get out of Paradise Falls alive, for his only chance of fame and fortune has escaped him, his only airship out of there now belongs to Carl and Russell, neither of them will ever tell anyone about where Muntz is, and none of the dogs work for Muntz anymore. Therefore, Muntz will be declared legally dead. WikiLubber ( talk) 15:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I dont know where to write this but i thought it was intresting that after carl lands in 32.09 they do a lot of walking and moving yet almost twenty minutes later in the fil at 49.21 it seems if they havent even moved. ps does any one know where i should post this imbd?? wiki? etc.
Someone is credited as the voice of Omega. I assume its a dog, but I do not remember seeing him while twice at the theaters. cakeofages ( talk) 1:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Near the end of the credits there is a mushroom cloud merit badge, the type worn by Russell on his sash. The badge is situated directly next to the words "Walt Disney Studios". Was this an intentional poke at Disney (the distributor) by Pixar (the producer) that reflected some back channel animosity, or was this just a bit of hyjinks by a low level animator who's deed had gone unnoticed until now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.129.37 ( talk) 14:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Pixar would bash a company they've been in business with for fifteen years. :) I think it may be something related to chemistry. 216.243.212.197 ( talk) 20:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
In this movie we have two characters with missions. The film opens showing Muntz assuming the mission of finding the bird. Later, Carl's mission becomes to seek adventure and settle in South America. Carl ultimately seeks to foil Muntz' mission, and although Muntz pursues Carl with violent intentions, we have to say that his purpose in doing this is to prevent Carl from getting in his way rather than stopping Carl from achieving his dreams.
Antagonist/protagonist and hero/villain are often confused, but they are not the same thing. In this film, Carl is clearly the hero and Muntz the villain. However, it would seem that Carl is the antagonist and Muntz the Protagonist. This might be further discussed if the page is to assign these labels to either character.
A similar issue in another popular film can be found in Die Hard. The Bruce Willis character is actually the antagonist because he is foiling the robbery, although he remains the hero in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey1107 ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Even so, Carl's character is trying to fulfill a goal, which is the central plotline of the story. Muntz's hunt for Kevin is what gets in Carl's way, (Muntz himself actually sets fire to the base of the house in the climax) so this means that Muntz is the antagonist. Even though he has his own goal, he wants to eliminate the main character in order to do so. 216.243.212.197 ( talk) 20:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This plot summary seems too long and overly detailed. Does anyone mind if I attempt to condense it? -- Gotophilk ( talk) 05:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a little edit war going on here, which seems kind of childish considering what is involved - from unnecessary details like the number of balloon strings Muntz gets caught on, to someone not liking the insinuation of Muntz's death (when it was clearly portrayed in the movie, and confirmed by the creators), to Carl's reaction when he loses the house. Not sure why such trivial things need to be argued over, because they only help to bloat the summary. Pale Autumn ( talk) 7:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
In the commentary of the DVD or Blu-Ray. But 6 balloons can't hold Muntz' weight. I've seen balloon sellers hold about 50 balloons, and they never fly up. The only reason the balloons were able to hold Carl's house is because there were over a million balloons. WikiLubber ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
They were only special, because they carried Carl's house. Plus, only 6 balloons (whether they are special or not) are too light to carry Muntz weight (not just his ordinary weight, but also his greed and corruption). And Muntz did not survive, according to the DVD/Blu-Ray commentary. WikiLubber ( talk) 15:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
are you really arguing about the level of specialness the balloons have? i can't belive this even comes up. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.130.160.74 (
talk)
01:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The article currently describes Carl and Ellie as being infertile during their life flashback, although the description is not sourced to anywhere. I however interpreted the relevent scene as their suffering of a miscarriage. Now obviously my own opinion counts for nothing for this content. Nonetheless as the scene can apparently be interpreted in two plausible but very discordant ways, I encourage the particular interpretation to be sourced, or the language changed to reflect the ambiguity. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 19:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I never even thought of it as a miscarriage...I thought it was pretty obvious that she was infertile. I agree; I think they were setting up the nursery because they were trying to get pregnant. You never see her as pregnant, and they probably went to the doctor to see what the problem was. I don't think one miscarriage would stop them from trying to have more kids...it indicates strongly that she was infertile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.160.74 ( talk) 01:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph about music says: “This type of compositional technique is called thematic transformation, a technique pioneered by Ludwig van Beethoven and Franz Liszt, and is commonly used among large-scaled classical music compositions, in which more than one theme is involved and related together in a single piece of music.” That's hardly noteworthy, since it is common in film score composition.-- Dvd-junkie ( talk) 06:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Disney produced a special rental edition of the DVD with no menus, no subtitles, no Closed captioning, a plain grey lable and a ton of advertising for other Disney products, all playing in an endless loop. The movie on this disc does retain the retail version's chapter marks but it's only possible to skip back and forth in linear fashion among them. The lack of subtitles and closed captioning was not appreciated at all by the deaf and hearing impaired. I looked on some forums for deaf and hearing impaired just out of curiosity after renting UP! from Redbox and finding how it was stripped of all that stuff. AFAIK, among similar "rental exclusives" UP! may be the only one to not include at least closed captioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 ( talk) 08:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The plot motif of turning a house into a balloon aircraft to escape eviction is also used in the short animated film Above Then Beyond by a group of French film students from 2005 (see http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=4031). I think this is an important and/or interesting thing for the article, but I'm not sure where to put it. Any suggestions? -- Martin de la Iglesia ( talk) 10:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
In episode 37 of Dexter's Lab, Dexter give's a golden retriever a device similar to Dug which allows him to speak. Their voices are almost identical. The characters are almost identical in their dog mannerisms and exuberance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.116.58.70 ( talk) 17:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that too. I don't think it needs to be mentioned in the article though Jnorm ( talk) 17:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone really say for sure whether Muntz dies after falling from the blimp with his four balloons? I mean, it's a pretty big drop, and Carl's balloons had to have quite a bit of helium in them to make them carry a huge house. I wouldn't count out Muntz as dead. He was able to survive in the jungles for at least 60 years with a pack of dogs at his side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.19.206 ( talk) 22:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Only 4 balloons (that have been full for many years and are long overdue to deflate) can't help someone who is very old, and very full of greed and corruption, and the drop was very deep, and Muntz could've fallen into the sea, where, at his age and attitude, he can never survive. So therefore, Muntz is declared history. WikiLubber ( talk) 19:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition, most Disney children's films have a villain portrayed as perfectly evil falling to their deaths, so it can be assumed this is in line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.55.154 ( talk) 03:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! Examples:
So it could've also happened to Muntz. WikiLubber ( talk) 16:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem with saying that he should be dead, is that it never showed his death. No matter how it's rationalized, his death was never shown, thus not in the movie. It's speculation to say what actually happened, unless an official interview says otherwise. It doesn't matter what other Disney movies have done, it matters what this one does. It doesn't matter what other children's movies have done, it matters what this one does. What this one does, does not show anything that confirms his death. However unlikely, he could have been saved before he hit the ground. However, it does not matter what could have happened, but what was shown. It was shown that he drifted through the clouds, not falling at the speed of gravity. ~ QuasiAbstract { talk/ contrib} 09:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You are the only one who thinks he survived. But someone very old and evil, and attached to only 4 very old balloons? There is no way that could break his fall! Besides, he could've hit the sea! There's more water than land at Paradise Falls. Besides, there are birds on that island that could've popped those balloons without even noticing Muntz! And nobody trusts him, after the way he treated Kevin. I'm afraid I have to agree with the majority until we get the film on DVD and hear what the producers say in the commentary. He is not proven dead or alive until then. Besides, not all Disney movies that have villains dying actually show them. WikiLubber ( talk) 12:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to make too much out of this, but these aren't real people. They are cartoon characters. The ONLY way Muntz can have survived is if there is a sequel to Up in which he appears. Now this is a world where a collar is enough to make a dog talk and where twenty thousand balloons, as opposed to twenty million, can make a house fly up. It is also a world where a couple dozen balloons can make a cart fly up in one of the early scenes. In that world, if required, it could be very believable that the balloons that Muntz was hanging on to saved him, or he fell on a very fluffy bush, or, in the words of Douglas Adams, he could have fallen onto the back of a very large passing bird. If we'd seen him sliced up into small pieces we could have learned in the sequel that this was just in fact his identical twin who happened to be passing by. It's a cartoon. More than that, it's a cartoon where a man living alone in the jungle can build an electronic collar that allows any dog to talk. Muntz is dead not because of physics or geography or anything like that. Muntz is dead because that's what the story of the movie is leading to. And he won't appear in a sequel because Pixar's standards are WAY higher than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eje211 ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The DVD extras clearly state that Muntz is dead. This version was chosen out of many possible ways for him to die, but they needed him dead to symbolize Carl's old self dying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.167.254 ( talk) 17:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I know that this is resolved, but...did you mean the Blu-ray extras? I couldn't find any commentary on mine, just subtitles. 173.28.115.207 ( talk) 11:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
A bit off the point, but if Muntz had been my grand father, I would totally kill the shit of that senile balloon salesman and his fat boy toy for fighting him to the death over some stupid bird. My point is that, as far as Disney movie morality is concerned, Muntz punishment doesn't fit the crime. To elaborate on this; the last person to fall to his death in a Disney movie was Frolo and he attempted nothing less than rape, infanticide and genocide while being in full possession of his mind. Muntz on the other hand merely attempted retaliatory homicide, after being driven mad by sixty years of frustration and humiliation. While physical logic would suggest he is dead, the logic of Disney morality would suggested he floated to happy non-violent resolution land. --
Jan-da-man (
talk)
16:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
2009 IMP Award for best blockbuster poster. Surprised it wasn't already included so I'm checking, and I'm asking here first. Please do include it or let me know if there is some reason why it shouldn't be added. -- Horkana ( talk) 03:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
remeber early in the movie, Fredricksen was watching the television and the tv sounds like steve jobs explaining the iphone 3GS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WCLL HK ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
When Carl is watching the TV before he meets Russell, the audio coming out of the TV is from the YouTube video "Look at that horse." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.2.107 ( talk) 02:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a source, I found it on my own. Although I'm sure someone else noticed it too. Here's the YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJQ6LeKwHNI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.221.62 ( talk) 00:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
put the "wikiquote" link
79.25.182.141 ( talk) 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand artistic license, but, what kept the house tethered to the ground? Was Carl such an expert that he knew a single rope was enough? And how did the house fly to just where he wanted it to go? Also, I think a great plot twist would be for the wife's picture to be facing the falls at the end... All in all, a great, great movie. I even wept at reading this Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.40.254 ( talk) 16:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can remember: the house is tethered with a firehouse. It is steered using curtains, which come out like sails from the windows. They fly it to Paradise Falls using Russell's GPS, but in his enthusiasm he soon loses it. 218.103.239.99 ( talk) 03:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
the balloons are kept under a giant tarp in his backyard, probably tied down with something. when released , they rise up from behind the house , the tarp falls off revealing the balloons. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.5.46.21 (
talk)
12:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, all. I'm going to suggest that this article might need semi-protecting? I'm sort of new to WP, but I see the "plot" section of this article being consistently bloated by an IP user who calls himself "Nate"; I'm sure someone else has noticed this, but it seems like every day or every few days he gets on here and adds long descriptions to the plot section, despite the fact that his edits are always undone - often with a link to WP:Plot included in the edit summary.
I've tried to read the policies on semi-protection, and it seems like this article needs it. Sleddog116 ( talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there a citation for them being infertile? I interpreted that scene as more that they were expecting a baby (hence preparing a nursery) but then miscarried and then stopped trying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.148.58 ( talk) 13:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I edited the initial description because it's grossly inaccurate. The movie is NOT about the adventure in South America. It about the relationship of Carl and Ellie, and it is about how people we admire may not be admirable after all. It is about the value of relationships. As to the infertility issue, many people who have miscarriages eventually have kids; the fact that they did not means she was infertile; that's a fact - so the previous comment is grossly incorrect; no one would stop trying.. And it is the story of my wife and I, so I know this story. Wh y someone would say they stopped trying is beyond me - that person must be an idiot to say that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kengross1 ( talk • contribs) 08:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC) You are confusing themes with plot. When a film is "about" something, then that word "about" could be referring to either; however, generally plot is a lot more useful in describing a film, since plot is far more specific to individual films, whereas themes are quite general (two films with wildly different plots can share similar themes) and not always agreed upon. So the themes come later, and in their own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.133.31 ( talk) 23:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to trim the plot section of this article to bring it in line with the
WP:FILMPLOT guidance which recommends that a plot section for a feature film be between 400 and 700 words. I removed the {{
plot}}
tag at 717 words, since the 700 limit is not a firm guideline. However, if it gets expanded significantly beyond 700 I will re-add the tag. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk
21:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Some of the plot elements and most of the setting for this movie are clearly taken directly from The Lost World by Arthur Conan Doyle. Why is there no mention of that in the article? It would be independent research for me to put it in, but has there seriously been no one else who has observed that fact and mentioned it elsewhere that we could site as a source and put it into the article? Even if they weren't inspired by the book, certainly the film makers must have been inspired by the 1925 film. Look at the setting for that film: http://galeon.com/matteart/mattepainters/lostworld.jpg
and compare it to UP's paradise falls: http://science4grownups.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/up-tepui-landing-paradise-falls.jpg
Furthermore, the character Charles Muntz in UP is clearly based on Professor Challenger in The Lost World. How is this not in the article anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidAnatomy ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I've added a reference to the fact that the relationship scene is intended by the filmmakers to portray an actual miscarriage, although I think a careful watching of the scene itself shows that. I think that should suffice for keeping it in the article. As for the objection of it being "unnecessary detail," I must disagree. It was added deliberately and is a brave subject for a movie to deal with and adds a degree of emotional depth distinct from infertility alone that affects the rest of the film. OrthodoxLinguist ( talk) 19:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Why was the reference to it being a miscarriage removed? I had cited a reference to it. If someone is going to remove it, it would be nice if they gave a reason. OrthodoxLinguist ( talk) 21:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Up (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Up (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
May be interesting - someone built a replica of the house in Salt Lake City ([ http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/07/13/house-of-the-day-builders-really-nail-pixars-up-home/ !@##kwm-(link)
The general consensus is that we do not designate "critical acclaim" without an independent reliable source saying exactly those words. If we have a source, we directly quote it.
"Up received unanimous acclaim from critics and audiences." is nonsense. "Unanimous" means everyone. "Acclaim" is "praise enthusiastically and publicly."
I saw the film, making me part of the audience. I distantly remember kinda liking it. I did not publicly praise it enthusiastically. The audience was not unanimous.
Yes, most critics gave positive reviews. Were they all "enthusiastic public praise"? Clearly not. For starters, most were not 100% scores. More damning, the 98% on RT means that even the sample of critics on RT had some negative reviews.
The film has good reviews. Citing the aggregator scores and the quotes from critics make that clear to anyone reading them. Individual editors adding their over-the-top interpretations of that reality do not improve the article. - SummerPhD v2.0 23:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
In my humble opinion (which means that I don't have much experience editing wikipedia), I don't think that the article addresses the montage in the beginning of the film as well as it should. literally every single person I talked o about up agreed that the scene at the beginning is heartbreaking at worst and a masterpiece from another dimension at best. I am sure that there's more to write other than the anecdote about the guy who wrote a book. I won't d it myself because English is far from my native language, but I just want you to know that it's worth writing about. Fr.dror ( talk) 22:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Up (2009 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change falls to his death to floats to the ground WokeHuke ( talk) 00:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Change “he gets caught on some balloon lines and falls to his death” to “he gets caught on balloon lines and floats to the ground” he is caught on balloons and would therefore float to the ground and not die, making this edit factually incorrect WokeHuke ( talk) 10:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Where in the movie does it show him die or say he dies? The whole movie is about a house floating and Russell literally floats on balloons in an earlier scene. He floats to the ground. WokeHuke ( talk) 18:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I see that User:Clarityfiend has changed it to "falls to the ground far, far below". Is that what you all had in mind? -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)