Talk:Up (2009 film)

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 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

External Links

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)

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

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 is 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 drifted through the clouds, just as it is speculation to assume what I believe based on my comments about verifiability. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 07:36, 15 July 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)

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)