Jump to content

Talk:Up (2009 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Future Tense?

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)

Docter

Resolved

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))

Image?

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

Who are you? ANNAfoxlover 12:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
From the image page: "Source : TIME magazine, June 18, 2007, United States" Esn 09:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Up 1.PNG

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)

I've restored the image, and added the fair use rational to it. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

John Ratzenberger

Resolved

Any word yet if John Ratzenberger will be cast in this film? -- JeffBillman (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Please ask your question on any film-related websites where people may be more willing to discuss your question. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Er, yeah. I asked because I was editing Pixar-related articles, and wondered if reliable sources could be found to state this. Film-related website discussion forums aren't reliable sources that can be used to edit these articles. But thank you for your words of caution. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Since you're already familiar with WP's citation policy, then you should be aware that if Ratz is officially cast in the film, the proper citation for such added item will be included in the article. Unless there is a proper citation, that info will not be included here. If you're curious about how this works, then look at the history of the Ratatouille article to see how Ratz's involvement was handled before that announcement was made.SpikeJones (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, so it happens like magic? Wikipedia is editing itself now?? News to me... I kinda was under the impression that we were still being asked to contribute. -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the poster?

see above--Joshua H-Star-R (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I googled it and here's an example of where it can be located: [1] :) Alientraveller (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Joshua H-Star-R (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Background

I would like to add some things director Pete Docter said about the new movie.Sha-Sanio (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


subtle refrence...

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)

This is baseless and unsourced speculation inappropriate for the article. Alientraveller (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Upisodes

Resolved

Should there be some information about these mini clips added to this article? SWatsi (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No. There is no indication that they are anything more than re-edited clips from the film, similar to what was done with the WALL-E website clips that were also (mainly) repackaged versions of "a day at work" section of the finished film. SpikeJones (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
In that case this: Upisodes should be deleted too. Although Re: WALL-E I don't think all the vignettes were from the movie - for a start the hoover and the balls I don't remember. Not saying they should be there. SWatsi (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
They may have been unrealized outtakes. Regardless, Upisodes is way too premature/inappropriate at this time. SpikeJones (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Kirby?

Anyone see the Jack Kirby references in Up? (JoeLoeb (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

If you're asking whether to mention this in the article, then no, it appears to just be your opinion until Pixar say so in an interview. Alientraveller (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about how Carl; looks like something out of a Jack Kirby comic. You do know WHO King Kirby is? (JoeLoeb (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC))
The point is not whether he looks like a Kirby character, which is not appropriate to this page discussing how to improve the article, but that it should not be mentioned because it is currently your opinion. The article already notes which cartoonists inspired the film. Alientraveller (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

MPAA rating

Resolved

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)

Why? Ratings aren't important unless they're something controversial. Alientraveller (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, film ratings are not part of the FILM:MOS. As Alientraveller stated, unless there is an encyclopedic reason to mention it, a film's rating is unimportant and should not appear. SpikeJones (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It's the second Pixar film to get a PG rating. If that's not significant enough why the crap is it noted on the Harry Potter pages? 24.56.20.41 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
And WALL-E was the 8th film to get a G rating... in other words, so what? (a) it's not significant. (b) ratings are not part of the FILM:MOS. (c) MPAA ratings do not apply to non-US releases, so therefore inappropriate for an international encyclopedia. (d) just because the Harry Potter pages mention it does not mean that they are correct, per a/b/c above. SpikeJones (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, there was some kind of controversy with the new rating of Harry Potter. I haven't heard anything for this film, though. BOVINEBOY2008 02:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
"[The Goblet of Fire] was the first Harry Potter film to receive a PG-13 rating in the US, the preceding films have been rated PG or its international equivalents...."
Header, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film)
Thus why the heck aren't we allowed to have a rating significance. When I said 2nd Pixar PG, it's because that had a form of significance, as much significance as that crap there, we slap in somewhere "This was the second (the first being The Incredibles) to get a PG rating by the Motion Picture Association of America. 24.56.20.41 (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because something exists elsewhere in WP doesn't make that correct; therefore we will not use Harry Potter pages as a reference here. The flaw in your argument about listing that this is the 2nd PG film is what do we do when Pixar released a 3rd, 4th, or 10th? Red Dawn was the first PG-13 film, but we don't say that Terminator Salvation was the 250th PG-13 film to be released. Besides, the MPAA ratings system is meaningless on a worldwide stage (it's too US-centric), which is why its use in film articles is discouraged in WP. SpikeJones (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel it should be listed because the majority of the Pixar films have been rated G, and honestly, they're not going to have many PG films in the near future, 1904 might be (which I feel shouldn't be released) but, other than that they make *mostly* G movies. And the Salvation comment is just plain freakin' nonsense. 24.56.20.41 (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(←) A PG rating for a childrens movie is nothing special. You also have no idea if future Pixar movies will have a PG rating. The Potter movie having a PG-13 while the other are rated PG is notable and was covered in the press. I doubt any press coverage will come from this movie's rating. Therefor there is no point in mentioning it. — Edokter • Talk • 22:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's against the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.64.48 (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

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)

The simpsons reference is not vandalism. The season finale of the simpsons parodied the film showing a house floating with balloons in the sky. Nether the less this is more trivial than factual information and would be difficult to integrate into the article. But it is not vandalism. kevina was likely a typo, good job catching that :) Happy editingOttawa4ever (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

B-Class article

I think this article deserves an upgrade from "stub" to Category:B-Class_articles. dogman15 (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Information on DVD short film

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)

While highly likely to be true, do keep in mind that blog posts are not necessarily valid sources for WP usage. SpikeJones (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Scifiwire.com (which pixarblog is citing from) is reliable though. I see no problem here. In fact, I'm taking the challange :) — Edokter • Talk • 23:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Dude, that was me. I'm Jordan. :) Check out my userpage, and take my apologies for not signing my first post with the links. dogman15 (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Edokter, you rock. When is someone going to create the Jordan Nagai article? dogman15 (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As soon as he gets some notable press coverage. — Edokter • Talk • 11:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Resolved

Should I add the Rotten Tomatoes link to the External Links? --Joshua H-Star-R (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is already linked as a reference. — Edokter • Talk • 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Nagai

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

Although Russell looks Asian American, there is no reference to his ethnicity in the film. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no questioning the Asian ethnicity of the character. However, the description for Russell says that the character is an "Asian-American Wilderness Explorer". Can we confirm that the character was designed specifically to be an "Asian American Wilderness Explorer" or rather a "Wilderness Explorer" who just happened to be Asian American? It would be most helpful if the citation would prove that the character was ALWAYS intended to be Asian American per the filmmakers, or a citation that shows the character being redesigned to be Asian American after casting. As it stands, the character's race does not come into play in the film, so to call Russell an "Asian American Wilderness Explorer" is placing too much emphasis on the ethnicity rather than the Explorer portion of the role. SpikeJones (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
LA Times story says that Russell was based on animator Peter Sohn, who is also Asian American and resembles Russell. There is also a comment left on the Pixar Blog from a person who was told by Pixar people that they were seeking an Asian child for the part. Russell is Pixar's first Asian lead character, and his Asian ethnicity has been noted by a number of mainstream articles, and all over Asian press and internet outlets. There has been no mention of the ethnicity of any other characters in any press coverage. There is no requirement that ethnicity of a character must be supressed if it is not stated in the film script or not identified for every character. Not every presidential candidate was identified by ethnicity and gender if it was not notable either. Bachcell (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
A "comment left on a blog from a person who was told by Pixar people" is not a valid WP reference. But you knew that. Please note that it was the opening statement "Russell is an Asian American Wilderness Explorer" that was the issue, not that Russell is an Asian American character as discussed further in that section; the original phrasing implies that it is a requirement to be Asian American to be a Wilderness Explorer. It's a misplaced modifier. The way the Russell section reads currently, with the "The animators designed Russell as an Asian-American..." sentence, is the preferred way to present the character's ethnicity as purposefully designed rather than as a plot element. SpikeJones (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Title

Resolved

Why is this at (2009 film), and not just at (film)? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several other films with the name 'up' released in other years (1976 and 1984). hope that helps :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
But Up (film) redirects here, it should be the main title. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm didnt realize Up (film) redirects here, Probably due to it being the mainsream search since the other films are older. Quick read of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) explains that disambiguating films of the same name, the year of its first public release should follow in its article name. So long as there is no risk of ambiguity or confusion with another existing Wikipedia article the film could just take its name, but in this case theres two others in 76 and 84. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Should Up (film) be a disambiguation page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The other two "Up" films are much lesser works, and 99% of the time if people are searching for "up" and "film", they're looking for Pixar's film. Thus, the "Up (film)" as a redirect to here is fine. However, I do note that the top of the page hatnote needs to be changes; there's no confusion with the "2009 film" and "video game", but there is the potential for users, directed from "Up (film)" to confuse the other two movies. --MASEM (t) 06:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be worthwhile to simply move this page to Up (film)? Similarly, John Adams is not a disambiguation page, as this John Adams is much more well-known than the others. Up is probably the same, and would be useful, personally, if not having "2009" in it. Just my thoughts. American Eagle (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
If we were talking to moving this to "Up" (note, not "Up (film)"), that would be comparable to the John Adams case. However, because there's already a conflict on the key name, and that the other "Up"s are as recognizable as the Pixar Film, we have to disambiguate. Because we are doing that, we need to disamb all the way to the shortest possible distinguishing title - which by WP Films standards, is "2009 film". (In other words, if a user is going to seek out this page and they are unaware how WP disabmiguation works, they will have to type in the search box and then click a link, regardless if this was (film) or (2009 film), so its better to be exact.) It's a benefit that "Up (film)" redirects here because those users that are aware of WP's disamb and those editors that likely know "Up" is a non-unique term will be able get to this page easier, but it's inaccurate to name this page "Up (film)" since there's other "Up" films. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot

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)

Doug or Dug?

Resolved

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)

Easter eggs

Resolved

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/easter-eggs-in-pixars-up/ - Denimadept (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I scoured this earlier for the list of Pixar references article (see the Pixar Navbox for this - these are located there as opposed to in the movie article). --MASEM (t) 22:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Good. I figured someone might've. That's why I only posted the reference here. - Denimadept (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is Phillis?

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)

I expect the point is that she's his Dad's gf and the gf isn't much interested in dealing with Russell. She's not a nice person. - Denimadept (talk) 18:48, 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)

Vandalism again?

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)

Pop Culture Reference

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)


Colby Curtin

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)

There is information about that incident in the article already. WP has policy about not including specific names for people who are only notable for a singluar event (such as dying, as in this case). Please read Wikipedia:Blp#Presumption in favor of privacy for more info. SpikeJones (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
or better, WP:1E. SpikeJones (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Girls Death

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)

It probably deserves *less* mention in the article, since you bring it up. It will be placed into a proper section eventually. Do you have a better suggestion, as it shouldn't be in its own major section per FILM:MOS. SpikeJones (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it belongs in a "Triva" section or something along the lines of that.Movieman72 (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not a trivia fact about the film or film's production - and trivia sections are frowned upon. The question is whether it is encyclopedic or not. Think about it from the viewpoint of the film - does the telling of the story lead the reader to understanding anything additional about the film itself? About the company, perhaps, but Disney/Pixar has done any number of unreported charitable/make-a-wish type of events in the past. The question is how is this particular example more encyclopedic than the other untold versions making it worthy of being added to the article in the first place? SpikeJones (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I made some editorial changes to this paragraph so that it reads better and so that it reflects the facts of the events more accurately. For example, all of the sources on this issue site the girl being at the family home, not at a hospital etc. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pixar-up-movie-2468059-home-show Codymr (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

1996?

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)

You're correct, it can't take place in 1996 - the commercial Carl's watching mentions digital cameras and SD cards which weren't available until the early-2000s.--Whateverist (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you a "before Carl" or an "after Carl"?

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)

As WP:NOT a discussion forum to discuss the film in general, can you be more specific about your suggestions for what is missing from the article that you are looking for? If not, this entry will probably be deleted. SpikeJones (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Who removed it?

Who removed the release dates for other countries? 76.175.116.65 (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I did. Wikipedia is not IMDb. Please read WP:FILMRELEASE for which release dates should be included in the infobox. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BD/DVD release info

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. :)

Reference [10]

Still good ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.77.224.50 (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Carl went back for Ellie's Adventure Book

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)

Parody

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)

First Pixar Movie to show blood

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)

New production info

Techradar has just released a story about the production info here.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph needs an update.

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

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)

Ellie design - “his wife's body is shaped like a balloon”?

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)

3D

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)

DVD Controversy?

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)

It really depends on if this becomes a significant controversy. Right now, its an interesting curiosity noted by a blog. If it turns out to blow up in Disney's face in that there is significant civil action demanding the situation to be corrected , and reported in major sources, then sure. But currently it has little to do with the actual movie "Up", and more about Disney's marketing and sales departments. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't see it as an issue. The subtitles and whatnot are still available on the purchased disc, and as such it really doesn't merit mentioning in the article since the info you're looking for is available albeit not in the manner you're looking for it. It's like buying a car vs renting a car - the rentals are often stripped down compared to a car you get at the dealer. SpikeJones (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Gross ?

how much money has this film made ? box office mojo says 507 million but the numbers say 660 millionUpol007 (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what happened over at the Mojo but they corrected it to $680m+, which is the correct number. --Bentendo24 (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nail Houses

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)

Interesting, but insignificant for the plot. The situation is sufficiently alluded to. Alandeus (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Plot warning?

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)

Wikipedia does not include spoiler alerts. The header "Plot" should be enough for readers to know there will be "spoilers". You can read this for more information. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Earth or water?

Resolved

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)

That looks like a bunch of trees in the South American forest. If anything, I see what might be a river down there. That's all. dogman15 (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
He "fell to his death". Anything beyond that is mere speculation and should be removed from the article. SpikeJones (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Judging by the picture and its color, it is not easy to tell. WikiLubber (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I, too, believe that it was the ground, but just saying "fell to his death" is a simple solution. JamieS93 19:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. Falling "from the sky" would probably work as well. LoomisSimmons (talk) 20:02, 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)

Oh yes, Muntz would love that, to be pronounced "legally" dead without proof. That way, he can plan his revenge in secret and return in a sequel. Hehehe… (Hey, are we speculating here or not?) Alandeus (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
But if he survived the fall, how can he get out of Paradise Falls alive if his only mode of transportation is now in Carl's hands? He is too old to swim all the way home (that is, if he landed in the water), and the biggest amount of birds cannot hold his weight, and the whole place is deserted, so nobody will ever find him. WikiLubber (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Whoever said anything about Paradise Falls being on an island? Where did that come from? I'm pretty sure it's a forest in mainland Venezuela, South America. dogman15 (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

error

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.

Don't post it here. It such a triviality. Besides, they do move; towing a house the way they do is just very slow. of course. Alandeus (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Omega?

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)

Omega, voiced by Josh Cooley, says "Grey three, checking in." This is not supposed to be a discussion forum. Please go to IMDb. dogman15 (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
And it's not being turned into a discussion forum; certainly not by a question about the presence of a credited role. To anyone assuming good faith, a "should this be covered in the article?" thrown in at the end would have been implied. 70.109.127.163 (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I misspoke. What I said about Josh Cooley's role is still true, though. dogman15 (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for being a bit snippier than I needed to be. I can be touchy sometimes about Wikipedia rules I don't like. 70.109.127.163 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mushroom Cloud Badge in Credits

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)

Antagonist vs Protagonist

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)

Plot summary too long

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)

It is a little on the long side ... suggested guideline for a plot summary is around 400 words, give or take. My opinion? Be bold and see what you can do with it. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
True, it is longer than most other plots. I guess that is because it is a quite popular movie and many people want to participate in it somehow (mea culpa). By now, it has grown to include all the most interesting and pertinant details though and ought not grow any further. Trimming it however would make it look good for a while, but you can be sure it will start growing again as people start inserting their favorite passages. Let it be. Alandeus (talk) 08:17, 23 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)

As a rule, the plot should summarize what can be seen in the film by the general audience. If the creators state something deviant or additional, then that may need to be mentioned in an appropriate place. In any case, it is not true that Muntz's death "was clearly portrayed in the movie" - or did I miss a scene where he splatters onto the ground? Muntz is simply last seen descending by a half-dozen balloons towards the earth or sea, so he has at least technically a chance of survival, in particular since these balloons were amazingly able to carry that whole house to begin with. So anyway, where do the creators "confirm" Muntz's death? Alandeus (talk) 09:56, 30 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)

These are special balloons, remember? At the end of the Production section, it is stated that it was 10 to 20 thousand balloons instead of many millions floating that house. Therefore, just a half-dozen of those balloons may also buffer Muntz's fall. The magic of computer-generated imagery! Alandeus (talk) 15:39, 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)

Children reference in flashback

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 agree; it is kind of ambiguous. One really could interpret that scene either way, as there is evidence for both opinions. There is a remote chance that Pete Docter or someone at Pixar may have mentioned in passing what they had intended for that scene, or maybe a book related to the film would say. Currently, I believe "the language [should be] changed to reflect the ambiguity." dogman15 (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I see the wikilink to infertiity was just removed ("the language [was] changed to reflect the ambiguity."). That was a clear improvement. While perhaps the wording could still be made better, I'll defer for more feedback. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I recall an interview with Pixar staff that specifically said "miscarriage". I'll have to dig it up... here is one interview that seems to fit the bill. SpikeJones (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I am confused as well by the article saying "Ellie discovering that she was infertile". When I watched the movie it seemed pretty unambiguous to me that she had had a miscarriage. The two of them, in fact, are seen happily setting up a nursery at first. Then we see them in a doctor's office and we can easily infer they've just been given bad news as Ellie's crying. This seems to imply she was pregnant (they set up the nursery) but then had a miscarriage (the bad news). Would they have set up the nursery first, otherwise? ﻯναოթ€ռ (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Setting up a nursery is no proof of pregnancy. Many (newlywed) couples prepare for a baby even without (the wife) actually being pregnant; simply in hope or anticipation of a child coming some day. Infact, even if Elly had a miscarriage, that by no means does not rule out that she can have a baby at a later time (ask your gynecologist). The way she mourns at the doctor's however seems to indicate a more permanent problem: infertility. Alandeus (talk) 15:09, 9 February 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)

Just reiteratating that the above-linked interview with the filmmakers specifically says that Ellie had a miscarriage.SpikeJones (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Music

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)

Agreed. But I've added a link to thematic transformation. GDallimore (Talk) 22:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Special rental edition DVD

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)

Above Then Beyond

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)

Dexter's Lab similarity

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)

Muntz dead?

Resolved

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)

I'll assume that you'll use common sense here. The filmmakers did not need to display "SHE HAD A MISCARRIAGE" in big flashing letters on the screen for the audience to understand what happened with Carl and Ellie. Similarly, they don't need to show Muntz's mangled body lying on the jungle floor for the audience to know he's dead as well. As WP is not a discussion forum, I will now mark this item as "resolved". SpikeJones (talk) 12:45, 18 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:

Maleficent (Sleeping Beauty): Dead
Jafar (Aladdin and The Return of Jafar): Dead
Ursula(The Little Mermaid): Dead
Morgana ("The Little Mermaid"): Dead (Frozen actually)
Syndrome (The Incredibles (another Pixar film)): Dead (by his cape)
Scar (The Lion King): Dead
The Queen (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs): You know it.

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 NEVER said that I believed he lived. I also don't know what being evil has to do with survivability. Also, considering that everyone accepts that a house can be carried by balloons several days longer than it was explained or that it could be carried at all, I don't see how it's unreasonable to believe that someone could not be carried by four balloons.
In any case, my arguement is that his "death" is UNVERIFIABLE, not that his dying is believeable or unbelieveable. It is speculation to assume that ANYTHING happened to Muntz after he fell, just as it's speculation to assume what I believe based on my comments about verifiability. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 07:36, 15 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)

Look at the DVD extra, "The Many Endings of Muntz." It specifically says he dies, and also explains why the film developers made him die. MathMaven (talk) 17:25, 31 May 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)

Don't forget who had the gun in his hand and was shooting like crazy. That "balloon salesman and his fat boy" were acting in selfdefence. Alandeus (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Awards

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)

Neither IMP nor its award has an article, so what makes you think this is notable? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) IMP Awards is a great resource for film posters, but it is not considered a reliable source for information. That's why it shouldn't be added. It would be a different story if, say The New York Times or Time magazine gave it the award. - kollision (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

more apple products reference

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)

No, it's a home shopping network video, iirc. Nothing to see here, move along. SpikeJones (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at that horse reference

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)

source? (not the youtube viseo, a source that states your fact). TbhotchTalk C. 02:51, 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)

Edit request from 79.25.182.141, 14 June 2010

Green tickY put the "wikiquote" link

79.25.182.141 (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done TbhotchTalk C. 19:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What kept the house tethered until Carl was ready to fly?

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)

Semi-Protection Needed

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)

Carl and Ellie not having kids

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 wouldn't try to overinterpret that nursery preparation scene. Many couples hope and prepare for a baby that just doesn't come. The voiceless scene then at the doctor's only indicates that there will be no baby, for reasons that are not disclosed. Alandeus (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Basic Description of the movie

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)

Plot trim

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. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Lost World by Arthur Conan Doyle

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)

Miscarriage

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)

Just to check (as this can be severe inappopriate synthesis) the cited article does directly state from the filmmakers it is a miscarriage (and had considred even removing it). Thus there's no question to keep it in at this point. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Velarde, Robert (2010). "Love". The Wisdom of Pixar: An Animated Look at Virtue. IVP Books. pp. 125–134. ISBN 0830832971. isbn12=2009

Carl's house in the real world

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)

"Critical acclaim"

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. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The scene in the start

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)

I think its fairly covered under Critical Response, the paragraph of "The relationship between Carl and his wife Ellie has been praised in several media outlets...." I mean, it does not call out "those first 10 minutes of Up" which I know most people instantly know what we're talking about, but its sorta there. --Masem (t) 22:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It was a real tear jerker, beautifully portrayed. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

Change falls to his death to floats to the ground WokeHuke (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:59, 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)

Getting caught by six party balloons won't make a person "float". Mainly because he is speedily falling. However, "Falls to the ground/jungle" is more valid than "floating" to it. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 17:13, 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)

Russell floats because he has dozens of balloons plus a leaf blower. Muntz is literally falling with six stuck balloons on his leg. Muntz is not floating, stop with that. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 19:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Please see my talk page, where WokeHuke made the same argument to me. I showed them multiple Reliable Sources saying that he fell to his death. I think WokeHuke may be confused by the fact that he is shown alive in the video game. [[2]] But they haven't given up. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
He's been blocked. Let me know if he shows up here in another guise. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 7 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Up_(2009_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1187006078"