I watched Up recently

[lillie]

made me cry, just like the first time xD
Oh god, I guess that it was the music+the sap, during the first part ):

So, have you guys watched up? Comments and stuff?

[Leopardstream]

Up? UP?! UP?!?!
Yes, i have watched about 4 times. We watched it on the Charter Bus to Mighigan on Thursday, on our way back to Fort Wayne. We got to the part where the dogs had fallen into the water while trying to get the Paridise Falls Monster or whatnot. By then I was thinking abouot how unfair the movie was going--if the dogs fel into the water from THAT height, they could drown. That was the only unfair thing i could catch, cuz two ppl in front of me where being stupid, just cuz I read warriors and they where making fun of me. (Why cats! And all they do is kill each other, right?! You know that im right!)

[windsofchange13]

OMG I love that movie! I always, ALWAYS cry at the beginning when Ellie dies. I think it's the best Pixar film (along with Monsters, Inc. and Ratatouille)

[lillie]

Oct 10, 2010 11:13:30 GMT -5 windsofchange13 said:

OMG I love that movie! I always, ALWAYS cry at the beginning when Ellie dies. I think it's the best Pixar film (along with Monsters, Inc. and Ratatouille)

Oh that part, yes D: And the part when the house just falls down and Mr.F is like "it's just a house.."

[lillie]

Oct 10, 2010 6:46:49 GMT -5 Leopardstream said:

Up? UP?! UP?!?!
Yes, i have watched about 4 times. We watched it on the Charter Bus to Mighigan on Thursday, on our way back to Fort Wayne. We got to the part where the dogs had fallen into the water while trying to get the Paridise Falls Monster or whatnot. By then I was thinking abouot how unfair the movie was going--if the dogs fel into the water from THAT height, they could drown. That was the only unfair thing i could catch, cuz two ppl in front of me where being stupid, just cuz I read warriors and they where making fun of me. (Why cats! And all they do is kill each other, right?! You know that im right!)

D: We know you're right D:
/points to imaginary friend

[nrdno1]

Oh, I remember the time when I first saw it. Some scenes DID make me cry. I believe it's one of the best Pixar movies.

[pitbulllady]

I must be the only one here who didn't like Up. Yes, there were some good parts, and some emotional ones, BUT the cliche'd "mad scientist as villain" aspect bothered me, as did the fact that his dogs, which were all supposed to be bird-hunting dogs, were of breeds that already have a bad reputation thanks to the popular media, reputations which have resulted in very real dogs being taken away and killed just because of their breed! If Peter Docter had opted out for some generic type of dogs, or something made-up, for ALL of them, Dug included, it wouldn't be so bad, but having the "bad" dogs be Dobermans, Rottweilers, Bulldogs, etc. and the one "good" dog a Golden Retriever is a real problem for me, as I've spent the last 20 years of my life trying to combat "Breed-Specific Legislation", and I've heard so many horror stories, first-hand, of beloved pets being taken away and killed, or sometimes, killed right there in the family's home, by authories just because the dog happened to look a certain way. Peter Docter seems to rely way too much on negative stereotypes, in both this movie, and Monsters, Inc..
The other thing that bugs me about this movie might sound even sillier to those who aren't "in the know", but Up was officially endorsed by a national group I loathe with a deep, deep passion-the Humane Society of the United States(HSUS), a radical animal "rights" group which is actively trying to ban MY animals and have them taken away from ME, and the millions of other reptile keepers across this country. They even awarded the movie their "Genesis Award" for Best Motion Picture BECAUSE of its negative portrayal of both certain dog breeds(they DO support BSL, in spite of their claims, and actively call of the destruction of all "pit bulls" and similar dogs that are "rescued" in raids on real or alleged "dog-fighting" operations, including newborn puppies)and the negative portrayal of scientists who use animals in research, including those who study wild animals in their habitat, which HSUS does not believe should happen.

pitbulllady

[mentalguru]

Carl/Ellie was really the few things I liked about the movie. Dug was occasionally funny, but overall in retrospect the movie just bothers me.

Technically the guy was taking the bird, not just observing, but he wanted her alive too. Honestly I think he would have taken the chicks with them too.

-snickers- Doesn't surprise me that they don't even like biologists studying the subject at all, even when not in lab conditions and just in observation though. Perhaps they are bitter over failing the subject at school. (I mean what with the rediculous idea of getting rid of carnivores... or was that someone else? Bah.) Many people in ecology will tell you many natural predators are KEY-STONE species in many ecosystems, and pretty important in conservation- very useful indeed in various ways, and removing them can cause other extinctions. Basic logic- If Species A and B compete for the same resource, and A is better at exploiting the resource but is the more favoured prey of species C out of the two of them (or sinply not as good as evading), it means A and B can be in the same ecosystem in normal conditions at that point of time.

Remove the predator and B could possibly become extinct.

And that could result in further complications in variously more complicated systems.

The classical Otter effect on the kelp forests for instance. Remove the Otters- the Urchins took over and ate the kelp, and large numbers of species were in danger of going extinct.

I learnt something along those lines... in school... IN SCHOOL.

Granted, it's information which stuck with me probably because I went on to study it further... but STILL. They don't seem to care much for science at all. Then again, if they hate humans so much, they probably don't want our lives to improve in any shape or form.

[pitbulllady]

I can't help but laugh at the suggestion...probably very true...that many of the HSUS people flunked Biology! Many are, in fact, high school drop-outs, who were already involved with terrorist groups like ALF by the time they were in their teens, and were burning down buildings and blowing up cars while other kids their age were cramming for exams.

While it wasn't an official with HSUS who suggested, and recently published ANOTHER extensive editorial in the New York Times calling for the erradication of all predatory animals that can't be genetically altered to eat a vegan diet, I would bet that the guy IS a paying member of HSUS and PETA. He just takes it one step further than they do; they only want HUMANS to stop killing and eating other animals, but don't find any cruelty in the means of which animal predators gain their meals. To them, it's OK for a pack of wolves to eat a deer alive, slowly disemboweling it while it gasps and struggles, but if a hunter shoots a deer, killing it instantly with a high-powered rifle, that's cruel. It's also cruel for me to keep my dogs confined to kennels rather than letting them run free 24/7, and even more cruel that I keep SNAKES in cages...but it's fine and dandy to slaughter still-nursing Pit Bull Terrier puppies and healthy puppies and kittens that were entrusted to you by their owners who could no longer care for them, to whom you gave the promise of finding new, loving homes for their pets.

Yes, HSUS believes that ANY scientific research involving animals of any kind is cruel, and this especially goes for any that involves the capture and study of wild animals or birds, which is why they loved the notion of Charles Muntz being portrayed as a psychopath. This is how they view ALL Biologists! He obviously was also a dog breeder, which is just as bad, in their eyes, as a Biologist who studies live animals, or someone who keeps wild animals in captivity(yes, this DOES include zoos, since HSUS wants them abolished). The fact that Muntz was all of those things, AND the villain, and the Dobermans, Rottweilers, etc., were all BAD dogs for the most part, was simply of great delight to them, since it helped to get their messages across to more people: "Scientists who use animals in research are all bad. People who take wild animals and keep them in captivity are all bad. Dog breeders are all bad. Dobermans, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Bulldogs, etc. are BAD dogs and should be eliminated.

I bet that Peter Docter is a paying member of HSUS, too.

pitbulllady

[mistica0christina]

*looks at comments and wonders* Okay....nice to know that the topic got off topic....just because somebody gives a character a breed doesn't mean anything to me. One of my characters in my fic is a doberman and I do state it and the reasons why and so far, nobody on DA has attacked me on the reasons, they just accept it as being part of the story....but back to on topic, I have seen Up, it's a VERY good movie!

[nrdno1]

I have to agree that the movie is stereotypical in a number of ways but I guess we gotta be used to the fact that most of latest Pixar films have that kind of drawback. People want to enjoy themselves, not thinking of how cliche'd a movie/book/etc. is.

[pitbulllady]

Oct 15, 2010 12:02:19 GMT -5 nrdno1 said:

I have to agree that the movie is stereotypical in a number of ways but I guess we gotta be used to the fact that most of latest Pixar films have that kind of drawback. People want to enjoy themselves, not thinking of how cliche'd a movie/book/etc. is.

IF a movie is cliche'd, or shows in a negative light something/someone that is important to ME, I CAN'T enjoy it. I can't shut my brain off for entertainment purposes like so many people can.

pitbulllady

[Leopardstream]

I didn t really like Up either, it was just plain boring! And everytime when im talking to a certain guy in my class, in mid sentence he says "SQURRIEL!"

[lillie]

Oct 14, 2010 16:35:57 GMT -5 pitbulllady said:

I must be the only one here who didn't like Up. Yes, there were some good parts, and some emotional ones, BUT the cliche'd "mad scientist as villain" aspect bothered me, as did the fact that his dogs, which were all supposed to be bird-hunting dogs, were of breeds that already have a bad reputation thanks to the popular media, reputations which have resulted in very real dogs being taken away and killed just because of their breed! If Peter Docter had opted out for some generic type of dogs, or something made-up, for ALL of them, Dug included, it wouldn't be so bad, but having the "bad" dogs be Dobermans, Rottweilers, Bulldogs, etc. and the one "good" dog a Golden Retriever is a real problem for me, as I've spent the last 20 years of my life trying to combat "Breed-Specific Legislation", and I've heard so many horror stories, first-hand, of beloved pets being taken away and killed, or sometimes, killed right there in the family's home, by authories just because the dog happened to look a certain way. Peter Docter seems to rely way too much on negative stereotypes, in both this movie, and Monsters, Inc..
The other thing that bugs me about this movie might sound even sillier to those who aren't "in the know", but Up was officially endorsed by a national group I loathe with a deep, deep passion-the Humane Society of the United States(HSUS), a radical animal "rights" group which is actively trying to ban MY animals and have them taken away from ME, and the millions of other reptile keepers across this country. They even awarded the movie their "Genesis Award" for Best Motion Picture BECAUSE of its negative portrayal of both certain dog breeds(they DO support BSL, in spite of their claims, and actively call of the destruction of all "pit bulls" and similar dogs that are "rescued" in raids on real or alleged "dog-fighting" operations, including newborn puppies)and the negative portrayal of scientists who use animals in research, including those who study wild animals in their habitat, which HSUS does not believe should happen.

pitbulllady

Eh, what could you expect from PD besides negative stereotypes. I didn't know that until know
Those breeds are pretty normal, but then yeah the media tends to over-dramaticize things..
Oh. wow now that's wrong >: they're killing and they think that THAT'S right? wow.

[lillie]

Oct 15, 2010 19:39:19 GMT -5 pitbulllady said:

Oct 15, 2010 12:02:19 GMT -5 nrdno1 said:

I have to agree that the movie is stereotypical in a number of ways but I guess we gotta be used to the fact that most of latest Pixar films have that kind of drawback. People want to enjoy themselves, not thinking of how cliche'd a movie/book/etc. is.

IF a movie is cliche'd, or shows in a negative light something/someone that is important to ME, I CAN'T enjoy it. I can't shut my brain off for entertainment purposes like so many people can.

pitbulllady

Unfortunately, I'm part of generation Z, the bunch of kids who could shut off their brains as fast as the speed of light. But wait-- there's more. We could practically shut out a lot of things too >:

It could be annoying though, since I really found the movie cute and funny, but then the stereotypes.. and then when you mentioned that thing about that group.. hsus?