The Up Subplot That Didn’t Make The Cut

pixar up egg

According to an interview at MTV, Pixar’s Up was originally an even more overt adventure movie, as a subplot featured Carl Fredricksen protecting a giant egg (laid by the bird Kevin) that is believed to be a sort of fountain of youth. The fact that a subplot was dropped from the film isn’t a big deal, as it happens all the time in many films of all types during development, but this detail provides an interesting glimpse into the film as it was originally conceived.

“That was early on,” director Pete Docter said of the subplot that had Carl constantly cradling a giant egg. “We had the bird [Kevin] give birth to this egg, and Carl then felt like he needed to take this baby — it needed tending to, and needed to get home.” That gives Carl additional motivation to evade the dogs which hound him through a section of the film. But the deeper point, and the one which would have altered the feel of the film more noticeably, is that the antagonist Charles Muntz was desperate to get his hands on the egg, which “had a larger picture involved with Muntz, [who] wanted the egg because it was this youth potion that made you grow young.” Carl didn’t know about that aspect of the egg — he didn’t want the thing’s youthful powers for himself — but knew he had to prevent Muntz from getting it. So what happened? “[Muntz] was after the bird and all that; it was really interesting,” Docter explained. “But it kind of got more bizarre… it was an element that we dropped out from the story.”

From a screenwriting perspective, adding a MacGuffin like the egg seems like an obvious move, especially within the context of a story that already has a huge adventure component. You get the tension of Carl not knowing what he’s got, wondering what he’ll do when/if he learns the truth. But the film is stronger without it. Having Muntz want to literally become young again is a bit too directly drawn from traditional pulp adventure. This way, he and Carl are both attempting to fulfill promises they made in their youth, but we get to concentrate on the divergent ways that their lives have affected their methods, rather than on an empty object of attention.

  • I wish they kept it.
  • but this subplot means that Hunter's take on Kevin and the LBGT movement isn't very far off...
  • SnarkSmarm
    I fail to see how...?
  • Michael_W
    This seems like an uncommonly mature move, a lesser filmmaker would have kept the emotionally limp plot point.

    /golfclap
  • DogDoctor
    That would have explained how the villain was already pretty old when Carl was a child. I was really expecting a fountain of youth subplot because there's no way he could have still been alive when Carl was at the age he was for the majority of the movie. It only got away with it because it was a cartoon.
  • Tom
    He's in his late 80s or 90s, and Cark is in his late sixties. Muntz the adventurer could have been in his twenties when Carl was, like, 8 or 10. I don't see a problem with this at all.
  • Tim
    Except that Carl is stated to be 78 years old, so yeah.
  • Gopher
    Sounds interesting at first, but it would have taken the focus away from the point of the movie and just make the whole thing less important.
  • PIXAR, Pete Docter, and everyone else involved with this film could have pulled off this plot point. I think this could have worked brilliantly and made an already brilliant film that much more special.
  • stanley
    Sounds like a plot for a Dreamworks animated movie. zing!
  • Alex
    Glad this was dropped. Organic part of the process. Cut the fat, etc.
  • Egger Buckland
    Glad they cut it. Makes less sense than a floating house.
  • That and the, you know, talking dogs right?

    I'm glad they dropped the subplot. Just sounds like excess weight. The fountain of youth idea would just detract from the movie's main theme.
  • It was good they cut it, I felt like that would of made the theme of the story more heavy handed then it already was. And the whole fountain of youth thing would have been predictable judgeing how old they are.
  • Renaissance_Man
    It's a shame that all of the subplot was cut because I think it presents a better motivation for the antagonist. I kinda like the idea of a young adventurer (Carl's hero) wanting to stay in his prime and locate an object that can keep him young. He ironically though spends the rest of his life (50+ years) trying to locate this object not realizing that he's wasted his life in the process. I think this motivation works a bit better than the "I need the bird to be famous" bit.
  • renaissance you've switched Carl with Muntz.

    I like the original plot far more, it's cliched to go, "look he wants to stay young forever" having Carl realize by clinging to his grief he isn't allowing himself to live is a more emotionally powerful ending.
blog comments powered by Disqus