I have to say that while the 3D processes for Coraline and M vs. A both eventually gave me headaches during the film, I didn’t even notice it in Up. It was easily the most comfortable 3D experience I’d ever had in the cinema.
Very good film, and certainly in the top half of Pixar’s output, though I still liked Coraline better overall.
Not really. The experience of watching a 3D movie is pretty far from real life. In real life, your view of a scene, your sense of perspective, your relative scale, your distance from objects, etc., doesn’t radically change constantly. Movies force changes on you. This is no problem with a flat view because in the theater your distance from the image doesn’t change. You remain seated, and the screen doesn’t move. But a 3D movie forces your “distance” to change with each different scene.
I do OK in the real world, because it’s not constantly changing like a movie.
Oh Brynda, that must have been so hard for you! My heart goes out to you.
Wow- that’s very interesting! Ignorance fought, and all that.
Loved the movie.
I think, Barchetta, what you’re missing about Muntz is that he is the vital contrast to Carl in the movie. Both Carl and Muntz set out to fulfill a goal at Paradise Falls, with resolute minds - Muntz let his empathy and humanity be eroded in service of that goal, and by contrast, Carl realized that some things are more important. Muntz isn’t just a villain, he’s what Carl could have become had he allowed his obsession to continue.
Another stereoblind checking in. I do not see depth, so like a pigeon, I move my head around a bit and can judge what’s in front of what. For the most part, I’m right-eye dominant and my left eye just provides peripheral vision.
Also, another difference between movie-3D and real-life-3D is that in real life you can focus on things that are closer or farther at will. Movie-3D adds on a forced camera focus (sometimes). I know in Up there were definitely parts with a deliberate depth of field effect.
Don’t know that I’ll see it again in the theatres (probably just wait for the DVD), but otherwise I’ll second everything you wrote. We were late to the theatre so we missed the short film beforehand. The first ten minutes were great, though. I noticed that the U.S. and Ohio flags were in the courtroom when Carl goes for his hearing, so as an Ohioan of course that made me happy. My biggest belly laugh was seeing the dogs play poker. I caught the Star Wars ref when the dog-pilots were checking in, too. The geriatric battle between the explorer and Carl was hilarious. My wife, three boys (ages 12, 9 and 6) and I all loved this movie - I’d say it’s Pixar’s best since The Incredibles.
Russell was adorable. Were the filmmakers implying that his dad just worked too much and was neglectful, or was having an affair?
There’s some more I want to write, but… SQUIRREL!
My favorite Pixar movie, I think. The plot was predictable (but then that’s true for 99% of kids movies), but the concept and setting were very unique. Not very many movies with a geriatric hero.
Was also the Pixar movie with one of the weakest short-films IMHO, though.
I think we were supposed to infer that his parents had divorced and that his father was neglecting his son in favor of his new girlfriend/wife.
I did not see a short in front of the movie.
Oh, that’s too bad! It was a cute one about clouds, storks and babies…
John Lasseter has made a point of saying that while he likes the richness that Real3D provides, he doesn’t like the silly, gimmicky, “coming right out at you!” stuff that most people throw in because it’s 3D!!!. So you wont see that in 3D Pixar films.
Then you were cheated. Every Pixar offering since at least Toy Story 2 has had a short included with it, recycled old ones at first (including Luxo, Jr. so people would know where the hopping lamp in the bumper came from) and new ones later on. One oddity I’ve noticed is that they don’t have any dialogue.
Not sure if that’s always true. Certainly, at least one of them had narration (the one with the hopping jackalope).
I’m so sorry, Brynda. That must have been just unspeakably awful for you.
That’s a good point, though I guess from a production standpoint, it makes a certain amount of sense, because you don’t have to worry about a vocal performance or synching issues (and while Boundin’ did have the former, with the narration, the latter was still a non-issue). It also plays to what the shorts are supposed to emphasize–narrative economy and telling a story in a short amount of time. Relying on visuals and expressiveness over dialogue and exposition helps to that end. Red’s Dream, Tin Toy, Knick Knack, Geri’s Game, One Man Band, Lifted–they’re all models of this paradigm (even For the Birds, I suppose, though I’ve always found that short vastly overrated). I think Mike’s New Car has dialogue (since it involves already established Pixar characters), but that may be the outlier in this case.
And, the early Pixar shorts were, as I understand it, created mostly to display the possibilities of the technology as it existed at that time (which meant that dialogue wasn’t the point). It might be that, as Pixar moved into feature films, they kept the shorts without dialogue as a nod to their origins.
The shorts tend to feature a technology they’re working on for the next film, so…
Thanks, everyone. It was pretty weird. Sort of an “Ok, universe, do you really think this is funny?” moment. Now that it is over, it was probably good that I saw it. Moving on is hard, and anything that encourages me is good, you know?
We had the same “oh shit NO” moment with Marley & Me and Xmas day with our kids, less than two months after we had to put down both of our Newfoundlands in the same week.
The god damned money shot of the vet putting that dog to sleep was just… unnecessary.
My kids were hysterical, and so were we. 
My condolences. It can be hard when art follows life… especially when it’s too soon.