|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Apr 16, 2009 20:28:03 GMT -5
I agree. This is probably what those at Pixar Planet doesn't understand. It's not just Ran being hurt here. It ticks me off when someone compares Pixar's films, or "Foster's Home", with Looney Tunes, as though the latter is the foundation on which everything animated must be judged. Animation is simply a medium for telling a story; the animators can choose to tell a story that is totally nonsense, and utterly unbelievable and silly, or one that is very heart-felt and as realistic as a story involving non-human characters can be. It all goes back to this Western notion, I guess, that if it's animated, it's made for children, and the fact that anyone over the age of ten can enjoy it is just a bonus. Therefore, people who think like that cannot comprehend how anyone can actually take an animated movie seriously at all. Awhile back on the Never Forgotten Forum, after Good Wilt Hunting first aired, we had this guy come on who CONSTANTLY tried to compare Foster's to the Looney Toons stuff, or to the movie, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, in which the whole running joke was that "Toons" were a lifeform that existed in their own world, and could only be killed or hurt by dropping them in acetone, since that dissolved the acetone sheets and inks with which animation was traditionally created. This guy kept trying to argue that Wilt's fractured arm wasn't really amputated, that it just "fell off" and healed immediately, "by magic", and that Wilt really didn't feel any pain from it(his facial expression sure indicated otherwise), or that he didn't wind up having to go seek medical help or anything because he was a "Toon"! Needless to say, his statements didn't receive a very warm reception, and he soon lost interest in the show and left. It is to the credit of animation writers like the folks at Pixar, and like Lauren Faust and the team that wrote for "Foster's", to bring these animated characters to life in a believable manner, so that we feel for them as we would for a live-action character, or one of our own kind. I would hate to see Disney/Pixar go with a silly, slapstick style of animation and generate characters that make us laugh, but evoke no other emotional response or bond. pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Apr 16, 2009 20:36:54 GMT -5
Most people just don't understand how it works -_-
I think I made referrance to this kind of thing in Characters, and so did...FONY I think in one of her stories about differences between Animated and Toon.
|
|
Bampot
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
<3
Posts: 1,204
|
Post by Bampot on Apr 29, 2009 19:32:03 GMT -5
Just because he's an antagonist doesn't mean he deserves to get steamrolled.
Poor Randall -.-
|
|
randomdrifter
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
Humility and Strength have never looked better.
Posts: 142
|
Post by randomdrifter on May 10, 2009 3:38:40 GMT -5
It's a sorta throwback to the shredder comment about Steve Buscemi in...a previous film...can't recall the name exactly... Putting much pushing Steve aside too now that I think about it 0_0 Fargo. Absolutely love that scene- it's so funny! But that's sort of Coen brothers humour, it's not meant to be, 'omg this character that we've been following through the film has just got killed!', it's more, 'haha, how ironic that this character was killed by his partner in a really gory way'. And I don't think Steve really gets pushed aside in that film (if that's what you were referring to)- his part is one of the most iconic within it. Anyway, I think this ride is meant to be more 'slapstick' than the film. I agree that in the movie, it's obvious that characters feel pain and are considered to be 'real' in terms of their own world and the limits within that world, but for whatever reason, Tokyo Disney decided to go for a more comical approach. On the plus side, in the bits where Randall isn't getting crushed, they've done really well in terms of creating those moving models and everything to look like him, and when he speaks in Japanese, the voice used rather suits him. It's just a shame that he had to bear the brunt of being the joke again. Japanese humor is just entirely different from our own, and I'm honestly not surprised or shocked to see that. They do love slapstick humor to the point where, to me, it seems numbingly stupid, if such a word exists. I can't even manage to feign a smile when a friend links me some youtube videos of the Japanese shows she loves (NOT anime), which do involve plenty of slapstick humor, including violence within characters. To them, this IS humor. I was disturbed by seeing it, but then again, most everything on this level does, including Looney Tunes and the wood chipper scene from Fargo! Violence in the form of gore or someone else's suffering as humor has just never appealed to me, personally. Although I don't understand Japanese humor (except for those funny Fanta and pocky stick commercials, among other snacks), I will beg to differ on viewing Japan negatively based on a ride alone! I love Japanese culture, just not necessarily its humor. It's a country that has more than just an amusement park; a foreign and completely American one at that. |
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on May 10, 2009 12:25:00 GMT -5
Fargo. Absolutely love that scene- it's so funny! But that's sort of Coen brothers humour, it's not meant to be, 'omg this character that we've been following through the film has just got killed!', it's more, 'haha, how ironic that this character was killed by his partner in a really gory way'. And I don't think Steve really gets pushed aside in that film (if that's what you were referring to)- his part is one of the most iconic within it. Anyway, I think this ride is meant to be more 'slapstick' than the film. I agree that in the movie, it's obvious that characters feel pain and are considered to be 'real' in terms of their own world and the limits within that world, but for whatever reason, Tokyo Disney decided to go for a more comical approach. On the plus side, in the bits where Randall isn't getting crushed, they've done really well in terms of creating those moving models and everything to look like him, and when he speaks in Japanese, the voice used rather suits him. It's just a shame that he had to bear the brunt of being the joke again. Japanese humor is just entirely different from our own, and I'm honestly not surprised or shocked to see that. They do love slapstick humor to the point where, to me, it seems numbingly stupid, if such a word exists. I can't even manage to feign a smile when a friend links me some youtube videos of the Japanese shows she loves (NOT anime), which do involve plenty of slapstick humor, including violence within characters. To them, this IS humor. I was disturbed by seeing it, but then again, most everything on this level does, including Looney Tunes and the wood chipper scene from Fargo! Violence in the form of gore or someone else's suffering as humor has just never appealed to me, personally. Although I don't understand Japanese humor (except for those funny Fanta and pocky stick commercials, among other snacks), I will beg to differ on viewing Japan negatively based on a ride alone! I love Japanese culture, just not necessarily its humor. It's a country that has more than just an amusement park; a foreign and completely American one at that. I've noticed that, even in their game shows. It just seems sorta odd that this culture which often, to us Westerners, seems rather obsessed with traditions and rules, has such a fascination with what, to ME, at least, seems to be purile humor, but I guess it does serve as a sort of release valve. While I appreciate the old Looney Tunes and the Three Stooges for their entertainment history, I can't really sit through and watch that anymore. I need something more character-and-story-driven, and even in something that is complete fiction, I need some "grounding" in reality. I cannot relate to entertainment wherein characters are seen one moment getting shot or blown up, and the very next moment, they're good as new, without anything worse than a Band-Aid! I don't hate the Japanese or their culture, but I still hate seeing Randall scape-goated for the sake of a laugh. pitbulllady |
|
tmazanec1
Randall's Head Servant (300-799)
Posts: 463
|
Post by tmazanec1 on May 10, 2009 13:18:28 GMT -5
Hey, Disney. Reptile. Look what they did to Kaa of Kipling's Jungle Book, turning him from a hero to an incompetent villain.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on May 10, 2009 14:03:39 GMT -5
Hey, Disney. Reptile. Look what they did to Kaa of Kipling's Jungle Book, turning him from a hero to an incompetent villain. Also, there's Joanna the Goana from The Rescuers Down Under and the two alligators from the original Rescuers, and Sir Hiss from Robin Hood. It's always been a very bothersome thing for me that whenever a "villain" is needed, whether animated or not, it's almost a foregone conclusion that the bad guy will be reptilian. In the old Saturday morning series, "Land of the Lost", the bad guys were the "Sleestak", a tribe of upright-walking scaley creatures, along with the carnivorous dinosaurs(although dinos were NOT reptiles at all, actually), and one of the most popular '80's tv series, "V", was about sentient lizards from outer space who masqueraded as humanoids in order to take full advantage of us as a food source, revealing their true identities when their human disguises were torn or burned off. What I find so ironic is that the other major animal "villain" of many a movie, cartoon or book-the wolf-is now considered a noble, heroic and brave creature to be held in near-reverence. It's rare to see wolves nowadays portrayed negatively, with the exception of Disney's The Chronicles of Narnia, which was based on a story written during the time era of WWII. The same goes for tigers and other large mammalian predators; it would create a stir if the "Jungle Book" were written and made into a movie for the first time ever nowadays, to feature a tiger as the main villain, given their plight as an Endangered Species now, something Rudyard Kipling never would have imagined. I just wish that this same awareness of the value of the mammalian carnivores and the subsequent reluctance of tv and filmmakers to portray them negatively nowadays would be extended to the reptilian predators, as well. I've often said that if everything about Randall were the same as what we saw in the movie-his voice, his attitude, his actions, everything-everything, that is, but his integuement-and he was covered in fur or feathers instead of scales, that the general perception of him by the public, and by Disney, would have been different. They would see him more like WE do, instead of as Evil Incarnate. pitbulllady |
|
GambleLover
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
I am still alive
Posts: 185
|
Post by GambleLover on May 10, 2009 14:29:21 GMT -5
Do not forget Conan the adventurer.
Main villains were Snakelikes and their
leader was giant Cobra.
Again you are right.Cartoons with animal characters ussualy have reptiles for villains.
|
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on May 10, 2009 18:58:41 GMT -5
I always thought wolfs were actually put into the villain role more than heroics or nobility 0_0
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on May 10, 2009 20:26:59 GMT -5
I always thought wolfs were actually put into the villain role more than heroics or nobility 0_0 They USED to be, but now the perception of wolves has changed. Three decades ago, no one would have cared if wolves were being gunned down from airplanes in Alaska...which they were. NOW, such a thing results in strong public outcry against it, as it should. From movies like Dances With Wolves, The Journey of Natty Gann and Balto, to kids' books like The First Dog, wolves are shown in a new light, that of the noble savage, not as wanton, bloodthirsty and evil killers. If only reptiles could hire the same PR person! pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on May 10, 2009 20:31:07 GMT -5
Maybe I should get Ran to do that ^0^ Then again he's not much for announcing infront of humans that nearly killed hin 0_0
|
|
NellyTheWitch
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
The shy and gentle witch
Posts: 60
|
Post by NellyTheWitch on Sept 21, 2009 13:39:10 GMT -5
Oh,my poor Sweetie!*cry* Oooh,Why,WHY THE WORLD hate him?WHYYYYY?!?I saw the Disneyland Tokyo's Monsters,Inc. ride....and there is a very bad final for Randall....I noticed Japanese people hate him soooooo much..... But I'm lucky because I found here the people like me...Thank you,Randall's fans!  |
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Nov 23, 2009 15:39:59 GMT -5
Update regarding this ride: I've been looking for pictures to use for my updated campaign video, this time adding in the Tokyo Ride and the Facebook reference. Evidently, this ride might be nothing new; this may have been taken from pixar.wikia.com, but it still is plausible to me:
"In 2006, "Monsters, Inc. Mike & Sulley to the Rescue!" opened at Disney's California Adventure at the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, California. The dark ride was developed to boost the theme park's lagging attendance, and was quite successful in doing so, at least for a period of time."
Then,
"In 2009, "Monsters, Inc: Ride And Go Seek" will open at Tokyo Disneyland at the Tokyo Disney Resort in Chiba, Japan. Following the format of the California dark ride, "Ride and Go Seek" will simply be an extended version with enhanced effects."
If I'm analyzing this correctly, "Ride and Go Seek" is merely a re-release in Japan of "Mike and Sulley to the Rescue".
Not to say that this is a good thing, though; I'm still shocked that a gruesome death would somehow be funny. It's just that, perhaps this was referring back to the past, when Eisner was still in rule of Disney (he retired that same year, 2006, meaning the bulk of construction, including the storyline, was beforehand).
|
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Nov 23, 2009 16:32:03 GMT -5
MMM. Interesting.
Yeah, I find MOST anime to be bad (granted you will get some 'gems' though there is usually some slapstick of some description). But there are some I like.
You're reposting your video with edits S?
Only other critique I'd have with the video before (I believe someone else already pointed this out before a while back), was that you stated some things as absolute fact when the truth is, they are simply the most realistic situation in light of the evidence we are given.
For instance, it is not technically a fact Randall does not have a family- this is never stated outright, however it is strongly SUGGESTED that he does not have a family, or at least not a family worth talking about- when we see no evidence of anyone looking for him after his exile which any loving supportive family who cared for him would be continually investigating. Also he has little evidnece of any form of a friendship.
Things like that.
Plus I wouldn't make out that Fungus is delibrately trying to make Randall mad- people smile even when nervous, and the thing is... Fungus as no incentive to be caught either- hence his loud talking is probably nerves.
Plus Fungus is not really stupid, though he has stupid moments of course like above. His mechanical abilities indicate intelligence at least, but for him to have been under the project for a good length of time he would have figured out it wasn't RANDALL'S "evil plot" but someone else's- since Randall would not have the funds/materials on his (minimum wage) salary. If he'd been involved longer he probably would have figured that out. Fungus feels generally 'newer' to the plan. And for Randall to say it was an 'evil plot' or 'victims' himself does not strike me as realistic. Point out that Pixar's characters are something which are supposed to be realisitic- and making people feel for the CHARACTERS is what really what drives their success, not just animation.
Though it seems that Fungus does indeed smell that something is 'off'. This seems to be his own conclusion. Plus it says more about Fungus when he, while still believeing the plan to be wrong, cheers when Randall says he has 'the kid'!
I'd also restate in your video some points surrounding training- although obviously the trainees are inexperienced- and there is fear surrounding children, both these things are things trainers HAVE to deal with- build experience and up confidence since of of course there is always uncertainity in any new job. But Randall would have been horredously unlikely to have got through training without being kicked out with the attitude he displayed throughout the movie (the extreme impatience he has for instance). Therefore at best, the chances of him ALWAYS having been like that, or on the day he was hired are incredibly small.
Also it might be an idea to inculde where you get some data from- a Source list. Randall was 24/25 during the time of the movie, but that is not from the movie itself, but from another source of material which is considered 'canon'.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Nov 23, 2009 16:41:15 GMT -5
It seems that most of your concerns are about the "Not Evil" video. I was actually talking about my campaign video, but I'll certainly put your thoughts into consideration.  Though, I did not intend to imply that Fungus is a jerk. Rather, I was just trying to point out that he's less scared of Randall than most people seem to think. |
|
