|
Post by mistica0christina on Dec 12, 2009 2:33:37 GMT -5
I'm going to be honest that after looking at the picture that was originally provided for this thread, I was actually curious as to the exact image that was used for Randall and the unfortunate circumstance in relation to this particular parade. I finally saw the parade on a vid online and saw the image that is used for the steam roller, here's the pic in case anybody was interested, if not then we can just ignore this post.
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Dec 12, 2009 22:48:28 GMT -5
Don't feel this should be ignored, Mistica. Interesting. I expected the picture used to be an original one of Randall giving a horrified look, like he did when he was compacted into a cube in "Ride and Go Seek".
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Dec 13, 2009 1:34:07 GMT -5
Don't feel this should be ignored, Mistica. Interesting. I expected the picture used to be an original one of Randall giving a horrified look, like he did when he was compacted into a cube in "Ride and Go Seek". Yeah, a weird pic for a steam roller, huh? When I saw the vid (took searching on Youtube awhile in order to find it actually), I wasn't sure of the image, I did think it looked kind of familiar and so I actually had to play back the part of the MI Float or truck or whatever it was technically considered in order to make sure (it's a good thing that the owner of the vid actually knew how to operate a camerah). After doing that, I recognized the pic instantly mainly because this pic is one of my favorite of Randall pics on the net out there, the one I provided is actually a pic I have on my labtop that I used for a shirt design in this one Sims game I have actually. I'm going to be honest that I do find it strange that this somehow is considered humourous but Japan does have a different sense of humor compared to America. Despite this, I hold nothing personal against the country or people that live there, if I were to point fingers at anyone, I would have to say Disney, after all it's one of their parks so it's technically under their jurisdiction. Well, guess I said that my post could be ignored cause I figured that since this thread is old news then nobody would notice anyway, guess I was wrong.
|
|
Fawfulize
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
I HAVE CHORTLES!
Posts: 11
|
Post by Fawfulize on Jul 9, 2010 16:38:51 GMT -5
Man... Even in the movie they have Randall being injured in ways that would injure people in real life. The scene I'm pointing out is when Mike slams the door on Randall's fronds. I know a person who got a door slammed on his finger. The bone stuck out of his finger after that. He got his finger bandaged up, but all Randall got was "I hope that hurt lizard-boy!"
Also, I hate that kind of slapstick. It's saying "oh, we can do whatever we want and hurt whatever we want and get away with it because we're the good guys!" Real life doesn't work that way! If someone does something wrong, they can't get away with it just because they're "good". There are no truly good or truly bad people in the world.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 10, 2010 11:39:44 GMT -5
Man... Even in the movie they have Randall being injured in ways that would injure people in real life. The scene I'm pointing out is when Mike slams the door on Randall's fronds. I know a person who got a door slammed on his finger. The bone stuck out of his finger after that. He got his finger bandaged up, but all Randall got was "I hope that hurt lizard-boy!" Also, I hate that kind of slapstick. It's saying "oh, we can do whatever we want and hurt whatever we want and get away with it because we're the good guys!" Real life doesn't work that way! If someone does something wrong, they can't get away with it just because they're "good". There are no truly good or truly bad people in the world. THAT sums up the biggest problem with Monsters, Inc.: the so-called "good guys" get by with murder, practically speaking, simply because they ARE the "good guys". It is as if that lable gives Mike and Sulley free reign to do whatever they want to and to WHOMEVER they want to, with no negative repercussions whatsoever for themselves. It's NOT "slapstick"; the "Three Stooges" and "Looney Toons" are slapstick. We see those characters doing what would in reality be awful things to each other, yet they never get hurt and we KNOW that they won't. The Pixar characters, in contrast, DO get hurt and even killed, and we are supposed to fear for them and their safety during the course of a movie. When there is a physical threat to a Pixar character, it's not like Wile E. Coyote falling over a 1,000-ft. cliff, making a coyote-shaped hole in the ground below, then crawling out of the hole, annoyed but unscathed, or Moe Howard bopping Curly over the head with a two-by-four or Daffy Duck getting shot in the face, point-blank, and just turning his bill back around to its proper place on his face(as opposed to the back of his head)and wiping gun powder off his face. We are led to believe that the Pixar characters would DIE if that happened to them, otherwise we could not relate to those characters the way that we do, and we would not find the movies themselves to be of such superior quality if they didn't have that realism factor, animated or not. We are NOT supposed to believe that Randall simply brushed off that beating he got in the movie like Daffy Duck brushing off gun powder after being "shot", but that Randall would have severely injured at the very least. The fact that the individuals who were responsible for that happening in the first place are rewarded for an act of revenge sends many bad messages. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by hfoded123 on Jul 10, 2010 13:18:06 GMT -5
The Monster inc blu-ray got delivered yesterday so we watched the Randall parts.
What is even worse about the shovel beating part is something that no one in this board (I think) seems to know about. The shovel first hits him with an upper cut which could have easily broken his jaw and knocked him senseless. Then while in midair he gets slammed in the head with the same shovel which knocks him to the floor, then he gets a HUGE uppercut on his AREADY broken jaw which forcefully throws him in midair then he gets hit again in the head, and then a final HUGE slam to the head, all the while the kid is cheering.
Lets say the woman stopped beating him right then and there, he would already be in a very deep coma with permanent brain damage or dead.
What is so evil and sad about all this is that the people who scripted this keenly wrote all of that part on purpose, just because he tried to hurt a child. It wasn't the woman who was beating him up, it was the SCRIPTERS beating him up, it wasn't the kid cheering or Sully and Mike cheering, it was the scripters and maybe the audience cheering.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 10, 2010 19:57:25 GMT -5
The Monster inc blu-ray got delivered yesterday so we watched the Randall parts. What is even worse about the shovel beating part is something that no one in this board (I think) seems to know about. The shovel first hits him with an upper cut which could have easily broken his jaw and knocked him senseless. Then while in midair he gets slammed in the head with the same shovel which knocks him to the floor, then he gets a HUGE uppercut on his AREADY broken jaw which forcefully throws him in midair then he gets hit again in the head, and then a final HUGE slam to the head, all the while the kid is cheering. Lets say the woman stopped beating him right then and there, he would already be in a very deep coma with permanent brain damage or dead. What is so evil and sad about all this is that the people who scripted this keenly wrote all of that part on purpose, just because he tried to hurt a child. It wasn't the woman who was beating him up, it was the SCRIPTERS beating him up, it wasn't the kid cheering or Sully and Mike cheering, it was the scripters and maybe the audience cheering. That's what I hate so much about this, the fact that Pixar CREATED Randall to be the subject of such abuse and hate, but at the same time, they made him this incredibly deep character that begs for a back-story and appeals to so many people. Did they intend for him to have so many fans? I don't know. I DO know that Randall's role changed drastically from just a rather ascerbic guy to the main antagonist that we're supposed to hate, but some of that earlier incarnation still shows in what we see on film. I've said before that in real life, there is no way that Randall is just going to shrug off a brutal assault like that and walk away, like Wile E. Coyote after falling over that 1,000-ft. cliff. He'd have some serious, life-threatening injuries that would require immediate medical intervention, at the very least. EDIT: Actually, Randall DIDN'T "try to hurt a child" at all, and in fact, he AVOIDED allowing Boo to come to physical harm in the Door Vault. He actually saves her, not once, but TWICE, catching her when she slips from Sulley's grasp and later pulling her up closer when she starts to slip from his own grasp. Many people erronously assume("makes an ASS of U and ME")that Randall built the Scream Extractor to harm or even kill human children, which would be totally illogical for many, many reasons. We don't know, and I doubt HE knew, just how children would fare after being in the machine, but one thing is certain: he would not have intentionally designed it to harm anyone. Also, people who hate Randall for wanting to use Boo as a "Guinea pig" for the Scream Extractor so willingly forget that Mike wanted to throw her over the city with a giant catapult, abandon her in the wild, turn her loose in the factory for the CDA to find and destroy(and let's not forget what THEY would have done to her had they actually found her)and shove her into a room full of drunken Germans. Mike wanted her GONE by any means necessary, and if that meant she died, so be it. The CDA wanted to absolutely obliterate her, and that DID mean harming her, since she would have been DEAD had they gotten to her, yet the CDA is seen as heroes and "good guys" by the end of the movie! Besides, we have to look at all of their viewpoints-Mike's, Randall's and the CDA's-from MONSTER perspective, and they would not have been expected to care whether or not a human child, something seen as a dangerous lower animal, not even recognized as a sapient creature at all, got killed or hurt. Randall's treatment of Boo was no worse than what she'd have experienced if Mike or the CDA had had THEIR way. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus Hatta on Jul 17, 2010 18:26:47 GMT -5
OT: Ok, I've been looking at this machine-steamroller-thing- I can't find it in action, so maybe it looks really different moving?- but... is it possible that Randall isn't being crushed here?
I know he's a sticker, but logically, he can't be a costumed Character and mechanics are expensive so how else are they going to get him on there? He's on the roller-bit- this gives me three ideas: one, poor Randall's getting beat up, MEAN Japan!!!!?! two, Randall's showing off his blending ability to the crowd, APPEARING and DISAPPEARING as the float rolls down the street while three, holding on to the wheel to cause mischief for the others!
His expression is a bit menacing but the tongue sticking out is a sign of humour... and he doesn't look very crushed...
OffT: As something shifts from medium to medium, it is often condensed and simplified for easier understanding. For example, look at The Hunchback of Notre-Dame. It was first a lengthy French novel, half architecture and half tragic romance with many, many characters. Then someone made a movie focusing on the romance side, cutting and combining characters. And then another and another and another, all basing and simplifying on the movie before... A good case of this character melding would be Archdeacon Claude Frollo, a deeply complex villain-slash-antagonist. Yes, Archdeacon. Did you know he had a one-dimensional layabout brother Jehan? No?- That's because in order to keep the Church-image good in film, all Archdeacon Frollo's bad qualities were given to Jehan Frollo who became the main villain; then nice!Archdeacon Frollo and Jehan now becomes an evil judge; then the Archdeacon becomes an original character; then Disney creates purely-evil-Judge Claude Frollo, kindly-old-guy-Archdeacon and there is no Jehan period (by this point, everyone else had been throughly whitewashed to 'hero standard' characters. Architecture- pah, what's that?). So, by the power of dilution, The Hunchback of Notre Dame becomes a (stillsomewhatdark) children's movie with an only overtone of the book's plot.
This is how Randall becomes 'for the evilz' on spinoff material. He was not the main villain in the movie, but gets 'promoted' to the role to keep the cast to a manageable three hero-sidekick-villain setup.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 17, 2010 21:07:22 GMT -5
OT: Ok, I've been looking at this machine-steamroller-thing- I can't find it in action, so maybe it looks really different moving?- but... is it possible that Randall isn't being crushed here? I know he's a sticker, but logically, he can't be a costumed Character and mechanics are expensive so how else are they going to get him on there? He's on the roller-bit- this gives me three ideas: one, poor Randall's getting beat up, MEAN Japan!!!!?! two, Randall's showing off his blending ability to the crowd, APPEARING and DISAPPEARING as the float rolls down the street while three, holding on to the wheel to cause mischief for the others! His expression is a bit menacing but the tongue sticking out is a sign of humour... and he doesn't look very crushed... OffT: As something shifts from medium to medium, it is often condensed and simplified for easier understanding. For example, look at The Hunchback of Notre-Dame. It was first a lengthy French novel, half architecture and half tragic romance with many, many characters. Then someone made a movie focusing on the romance side, cutting and combining characters. And then another and another and another, all basing and simplifying on the movie before... A good case of this character melding would be Archdeacon Claude Frollo, a deeply complex villain-slash-antagonist. Yes, Archdeacon. Did you know he had a one-dimensional layabout brother Jehan? No?- That's because in order to keep the Church-image good in film, all Archdeacon Frollo's bad qualities were given to Jehan Frollo who became the main villain; then nice!Archdeacon Frollo and Jehan now becomes an evil judge; then the Archdeacon becomes an original character; then Disney creates purely-evil-Judge Claude Frollo, kindly-old-guy-Archdeacon and there is no Jehan period (by this point, everyone else had been throughly whitewashed to 'hero standard' characters. Architecture- pah, what's that?). So, by the power of dilution, The Hunchback of Notre Dame becomes a (stillsomewhatdark) children's movie with an only overtone of the book's plot. This is how Randall becomes 'for the evilz' on spinoff material. He was not the main villain in the movie, but gets 'promoted' to the role to keep the cast to a manageable three hero-sidekick-villain setup. Even though Randall's image doesn't appear "crushed" by the wheel, it's still supposed to be an insult, showing that he's been run over in a cartoonish sort of way. As for the "three hero-sidekick-villain" setup, why not put the REAL villain, Waternoose, in there instead of Randall? That's my whole point-Randall always is the one who gets shafted when HE wasn't the main villain, or even a villain at all so much as a henchman/peon, yet in all the post-movie media, Randall is the one who is portrayed as Evil Incarnate, while Waternoose often isn't even mentioned at all, and if he is, his role is downplayed considerably. I can understand the whole Frollo thing, since the Hunchback of Notre Dame takes place in a religious setting and deals with the whole issue of a man of the Cloth being consumed by lust, and to avoid upsetting the Catholic church and to avoid making the sexual undertones TOO obvious, Disney had to do some switching characters from the Victor Hugo story, but Monsters, Inc. didn't take place in a cathedral and didn't involve religious figures at all, so I can't comprehend why Randall would have to basically take the place of Waternoose in the spinoff material and the public's mind. pitbulllady
|
|
Veg
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
Posts: 1,550
|
Post by Veg on Jul 17, 2010 22:07:22 GMT -5
The Monster inc blu-ray got delivered yesterday so we watched the Randall parts. What is even worse about the shovel beating part is something that no one in this board (I think) seems to know about. The shovel first hits him with an upper cut which could have easily broken his jaw and knocked him senseless. Then while in midair he gets slammed in the head with the same shovel which knocks him to the floor, then he gets a HUGE uppercut on his AREADY broken jaw which forcefully throws him in midair then he gets hit again in the head, and then a final HUGE slam to the head, all the while the kid is cheering. Lets say the woman stopped beating him right then and there, he would already be in a very deep coma with permanent brain damage or dead. What is so evil and sad about all this is that the people who scripted this keenly wrote all of that part on purpose, just because he tried to hurt a child. It wasn't the woman who was beating him up, it was the SCRIPTERS beating him up, it wasn't the kid cheering or Sully and Mike cheering, it was the scripters and maybe the audience cheering. I seriously doubt Pixar did it on purpose. I doubt that they wanted to purposely hurt Randall. The difference between Randall fans and other people is that other people view it as fictional while we are acting like Randall's a real person when he's not. He's a fictional character. Sure it's not Wile E. Coyote type, but it is really necessary making mountains out of molehills?
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Jul 17, 2010 22:08:25 GMT -5
OT: Ok, I've been looking at this machine-steamroller-thing- I can't find it in action, so maybe it looks really different moving?- but... is it possible that Randall isn't being crushed here? I know he's a sticker, but logically, he can't be a costumed Character and mechanics are expensive so how else are they going to get him on there? He's on the roller-bit- this gives me three ideas: one, poor Randall's getting beat up, MEAN Japan!!!!?! two, Randall's showing off his blending ability to the crowd, APPEARING and DISAPPEARING as the float rolls down the street while three, holding on to the wheel to cause mischief for the others! His expression is a bit menacing but the tongue sticking out is a sign of humour... and he doesn't look very crushed... OffT: As something shifts from medium to medium, it is often condensed and simplified for easier understanding. For example, look at The Hunchback of Notre-Dame. It was first a lengthy French novel, half architecture and half tragic romance with many, many characters. Then someone made a movie focusing on the romance side, cutting and combining characters. And then another and another and another, all basing and simplifying on the movie before... A good case of this character melding would be Archdeacon Claude Frollo, a deeply complex villain-slash-antagonist. Yes, Archdeacon. Did you know he had a one-dimensional layabout brother Jehan? No?- That's because in order to keep the Church-image good in film, all Archdeacon Frollo's bad qualities were given to Jehan Frollo who became the main villain; then nice!Archdeacon Frollo and Jehan now becomes an evil judge; then the Archdeacon becomes an original character; then Disney creates purely-evil-Judge Claude Frollo, kindly-old-guy-Archdeacon and there is no Jehan period (by this point, everyone else had been throughly whitewashed to 'hero standard' characters. Architecture- pah, what's that?). So, by the power of dilution, The Hunchback of Notre Dame becomes a (stillsomewhatdark) children's movie with an only overtone of the book's plot. This is how Randall becomes 'for the evilz' on spinoff material. He was not the main villain in the movie, but gets 'promoted' to the role to keep the cast to a manageable three hero-sidekick-villain setup. I went ahead and posted up the same Youtube vid that I had seen in relation to the image, Theophilus Hatta, so that way you can see exactly what the audience would see during this parade with this particular float. The MI float appears around 5:20 on the vid and in this particular vid, you will be able to see the parade quite clearly (once again, I'm grateful to know that some people on YT do know how to work a digital camera). I'll let you make the judgement for yourself. If the vid is still a little too small, you can click on it to see it directly on Youtube.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 18, 2010 8:00:59 GMT -5
The Monster inc blu-ray got delivered yesterday so we watched the Randall parts. What is even worse about the shovel beating part is something that no one in this board (I think) seems to know about. The shovel first hits him with an upper cut which could have easily broken his jaw and knocked him senseless. Then while in midair he gets slammed in the head with the same shovel which knocks him to the floor, then he gets a HUGE uppercut on his AREADY broken jaw which forcefully throws him in midair then he gets hit again in the head, and then a final HUGE slam to the head, all the while the kid is cheering. Lets say the woman stopped beating him right then and there, he would already be in a very deep coma with permanent brain damage or dead. What is so evil and sad about all this is that the people who scripted this keenly wrote all of that part on purpose, just because he tried to hurt a child. It wasn't the woman who was beating him up, it was the SCRIPTERS beating him up, it wasn't the kid cheering or Sully and Mike cheering, it was the scripters and maybe the audience cheering. I seriously doubt Pixar did it on purpose. I doubt that they wanted to purposely hurt Randall. The difference between Randall fans and other people is that other people view it as fictional while we are acting like Randall's a real person when he's not. He's a fictional character. Sure it's not Wile E. Coyote type, but it is really necessary making mountains out of molehills? No, we're NOT, Veg. We know that Randall is a fictional character, BUT we also think and see things from a moral/ethical viewpoint, regardless of whether we're watching a fictional character in a movie or reading of the exploits of one in a book. "Other people", as you call them, treat Mike and Sulley and Boo and the other characters as "real" when they go to the Disney parks or when they watch the movie, etc., so it DOES bring up the question as to WHY this one character, fictional or not, is constantly treated so badly, and why it IS obvious that Pixar DOES indeed want to hurt that character, or at least, what that character represents to various people. In the case of this particular movie and this particular character, there WAS another character who did things that were worse, in fact, many did some awful things, yet why were the others either treated as heroic or at worst, given a slap on the wrist? It sends a very wrong message, one which is not lost on everyone, and that is the message that what you can get by with depends on who you are and what you LOOK like, not what you actually did. To keep dragging this one particular character through the mud reinforces that. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus Hatta on Jul 22, 2010 13:40:28 GMT -5
Ta for the video, Mistica.
Hmm, the roller is going the other way than I imagined, but my "appear/disappear" theory still works. Also, WOW, that's a big Randall picture!
--
I agree with you, Veg, this seems to be getting out of hand.
Pixar is not out to "get" Randall, they don't hate him, they don't want to hurt Randall anymore than any other character in 'Monsters Inc'. The 'Monster World' is *not* our world. It is *cartoony* world. It is a bit slapstick whether you admit or not. Plenty of other characters get beat up a bit-- look at poor-23-19!-George, the Great Tripping on the Scare Floor, the guy who falls on the jumping-jacks-- why do you consider Randall has serious injury when no-one else has? At the very least *Mike* should have dislocated-if-not-broken jaw, a damaged eye, and maybe internal problems from the stereo crushing and pretty heavity limp from a certain incident... but he's fine. The shovel-thing was played for laughs, I doubt Randall's floating half-dead in the swamp.
Pittbulllady- I think you missed my point about HoDN. The main point was how a set of characters mutate over medium changes and how the story is vastly simplified.
The theme-park has to convey the whole of the movie for a sea of people, ranging from people who sorta-heard-of-it to deep fanatics. As why RANDALL is featured as the villain and NOT Waternoose, quite simply RANDALL is the in the film more. Visually, Randall *is* the main baddie. Randall is the one seen doing the most dirty work and Randall is the one actively chasing the heroes and Randall is the cooler, creepier-looking character.
The theme park version of anything is simple, simple, simple.
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Jul 22, 2010 14:06:38 GMT -5
For part of it, I'll agree with Theophilus Hatta. For one thing, while hfoded123 did indeed mention probable concussion with the very first shovel strike on Randall, he was still screaming right when we no longer see him, which obviously meant he was still alive and conscious.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Jul 22, 2010 15:00:38 GMT -5
You have a valid point with regards the slapstick nature of M.I. TH. Mmmm.
There's also the thing with 'Mikes New Car', I assume everyones seen that short. Basically Mike gets TRAPPED in the bonnet of the car with the engine running and it looks vastly complicated with many pointy wheel things wirring. (I am revealing my vast ignorance on how cars work, aren't I?)
...
He looks a bit bad but... no BLOOD and he seems to be functioning okay while still being helluv pissed!
I'd almost forgotten about that, which is odd, since in my fic I pretty much made monsters hardier than humans, making them a tempting and useful source for all kinds of uses for humans who wanted to take the opportunity as it were and I think it might have been because of all that.
In the sequel if they make references to the idea of Randall being dead... well I severly doubt that somehow in any case, as stated before that would mean at the very least as well as being guilty of manslaughter plus delibrate endangerment after all if not worse than that for Sulley (and Mike being an accessory to it if not encourager or the one who came up with the idea.).
I kind of doubt Pixar will go down that route.
At least I hope they wouldn't.
But even with the slapstick the idea of Randall being crushed into a cube and being alive is just.... silly to me (at best). I mean some slapstick and more than realistic hardiness of characters is okay after all, and happens in most animation. Animation gets away with more than live action after all.
(Technically in Avatar... from all those jumps and getting thrown violently against walls... both Aang and Zuko should be DEAD. VERY DEAD.)
Granted some things push it though and the making Randall into a cube and squishing him with a steam roller and expecting him to pop up like in those old cartoons would be a bit much. It would almost be like Aang melting into a puddle of goo from his crush on Katara. Or something. I mean there are LIMITS. And Avatar has its slapstick too.
While slapstick and increased hardiness of characters can be believable up to a point (or alternatively can be gotten away with) like what actually happened in the MOVIE, being crushed into a cube or rolled into a steamroller?
Yeah... that's too much of a jump for me.
|
|