|
Post by RandallBoggs on Oct 15, 2010 18:08:23 GMT -5
While the ride is for entertainment purposes.... If it HAD been the real Randall, he WOULD be dead. That's really what those people are saying. This one DID NOT die in the ride, but that's for humor purposes. If the incident had actually occured, he WOULD have died. It's essentially taking someone that can experience real pain and turn it into a cartoony version. Some people get iffed at it. It's not because this one died in the ride, but because it gives off that IF Randall got into that situation, he WOULD have, and people would be laughing at it. That's just what they mean.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Oct 15, 2010 18:36:08 GMT -5
While the ride is for entertainment purposes.... If it HAD been the real Randall, he WOULD be dead. That's really what those people are saying. This one DID NOT die in the ride, but that's for humor purposes. If the incident had actually occured, he WOULD have died. It's essentially taking someone that can experience real pain and turn it into a cartoony version. Some people get iffed at it. It's not because this one died in the ride, but because it gives off that IF Randall got into that situation, he WOULD have, and people would be laughing at it. That's just what they mean. Alright, no one ever said it like that, it makes more sense now. XD Thank you for explaining!
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Oct 15, 2010 18:41:38 GMT -5
No problem, it's kinda my thing heh.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Oct 15, 2010 18:46:08 GMT -5
No problem, it's kinda my thing heh. Well, thats a good thing!
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Oct 15, 2010 19:36:22 GMT -5
While the ride is for entertainment purposes.... If it HAD been the real Randall, he WOULD be dead. That's really what those people are saying. This one DID NOT die in the ride, but that's for humor purposes. If the incident had actually occured, he WOULD have died. It's essentially taking someone that can experience real pain and turn it into a cartoony version. Some people get iffed at it. It's not because this one died in the ride, but because it gives off that IF Randall got into that situation, he WOULD have, and people would be laughing at it. That's just what they mean. That is EXACTLY what I mean, and you put it perfectly! While the ride is supposed to funny, it's the whole point that they are trying to say that Randall's suffering is humorous, because he's such an awful monster, and we're all supposed to hate him, therefore any bad thing that happens to him should be funny to US. By the way, One Pistol, I don't know how many animals, or people for that matter, you've ever watched die, especially after they've been horribly injured. Death rarely comes quickly or painlessly in cases of lethal trauma, unless it's from a well-placed bullet. I have the image still burned into my brain of a dog, recently hit by a car, and nearly cut in half, still moaning and crying and trying to drag itself...or what was left of it...out of the road, literally leaving its hindquarters and all of its insides behind it. NOT a pretty sight. I've seen cats ground to hamburger inside the engine of a car still trying to breathe. And of course, anyone who has ever seen a real reptile, like a snake, killed, can tell you that they do not die easily or quickly. My point is, that just because the Randall in the ride was moaning and rolling his eyes, doesn't mean he was not dying, and riders are most likely supposed to believe that he WAS, in fact, dying in horrible agony, which was supposed to be very funny. I doubt that anyone who goes on that ride is supposed to believe that Randall just "un-cubes" himself and brushes himself off like Wile E. Coyote after one of his famous 1,000 falls over a cliff and goes on about his business, completely unharmed. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Oct 15, 2010 20:31:56 GMT -5
While the ride is for entertainment purposes.... If it HAD been the real Randall, he WOULD be dead. That's really what those people are saying. This one DID NOT die in the ride, but that's for humor purposes. If the incident had actually occured, he WOULD have died. It's essentially taking someone that can experience real pain and turn it into a cartoony version. Some people get iffed at it. It's not because this one died in the ride, but because it gives off that IF Randall got into that situation, he WOULD have, and people would be laughing at it. That's just what they mean. That is EXACTLY what I mean, and you put it perfectly! While the ride is supposed to funny, it's the whole point that they are trying to say that Randall's suffering is humorous, because he's such an awful monster, and we're all supposed to hate him, therefore any bad thing that happens to him should be funny to US. By the way, One Pistol, I don't know how many animals, or people for that matter, you've ever watched die, especially after they've been horribly injured. Death rarely comes quickly or painlessly in cases of lethal trauma, unless it's from a well-placed bullet. I have the image still burned into my brain of a dog, recently hit by a car, and nearly cut in half, still moaning and crying and trying to drag itself...or what was left of it...out of the road, literally leaving its hindquarters and all of its insides behind it. NOT a pretty sight. I've seen cats ground to hamburger inside the engine of a car still trying to breathe. And of course, anyone who has ever seen a real reptile, like a snake, killed, can tell you that they do not die easily or quickly. My point is, that just because the Randall in the ride was moaning and rolling his eyes, doesn't mean he was not dying, and riders are most likely supposed to believe that he WAS, in fact, dying in horrible agony, which was supposed to be very funny. I doubt that anyone who goes on that ride is supposed to believe that Randall just "un-cubes" himself and brushes himself off like Wile E. Coyote after one of his famous 1,000 falls over a cliff and goes on about his business, completely unharmed. pitbulllady Ok, RB, has already explained this to me. but I must say, while I agree with RB, that if this were to happen to the real Randall he WOULD probably be killed. But I disagree with what you said about Randall dieing in pain at the end. Although he was probably in some serious pain, I dont think he died, in the ride at least. Again, if it was the movie with the real Randall, yes that probably would have killed him. I think the makers of the ride, intended for Randall to pull a Wile E. Coyote. If they intended for Randall to die, they probably would have shown him die. But they didn't You cant say he was dieing, when there is no real proof that he died, I know in all logical and realisticness he would have died, but again if he did they would have shown it. You cant just assume it and that means it happened. And even though this dose sound like a harsh argument on my part, I mean this in the nicest way. Just giving my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Oct 15, 2010 20:56:55 GMT -5
In that case, we have a better understanding then, my apologies for lecturing you...it's just that too many members here are against the Japanese all because of this ride! Whether they want to admit it or not, the huge anti-japanese attitude this board seems to have does come off as racist and to many others is viewed in that way. While I'm not Japanese, I am Hispanic, basically a minority in the U.S. or at least that's what my race is considered and sadly racism is something that is part of this world we live in also not to mention those who are like that in Texas, I can't tell you how many times I keep hearing about people so pissed off about immigrants coming over from Mexico and there are a few towns near the border that I would NEVER visit because chances are due to my race, I would be mistaken for an immigrant and arrested. Racism is a pretty big issue for me along with a few other issues such as the nasty attitude against those who dress different aka goth, punk, etc since I have also been treated strangely due to my clothes...overall, when it comes to certain issues that I feel I have a fighting chance with, I will speak up but the issues that I know are a lost cause stay that way with me.
|
|
nrdno1
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
Posts: 23
|
Post by nrdno1 on Oct 16, 2010 9:57:59 GMT -5
In that case, we have a better understanding then, my apologies for lecturing you...it's just that too many members here are against the Japanese all because of this ride! Whether they want to admit it or not, the huge anti-japanese attitude this board seems to have does come off as racist and to many others is viewed in that way. While I'm not Japanese, I am Hispanic, basically a minority in the U.S. or at least that's what my race is considered and sadly racism is something that is part of this world we live in also not to mention those who are like that in Texas, I can't tell you how many times I keep hearing about people so pissed off about immigrants coming over from Mexico and there are a few towns near the border that I would NEVER visit because chances are due to my race, I would be mistaken for an immigrant and arrested. Racism is a pretty big issue for me along with a few other issues such as the nasty attitude against those who dress different aka goth, punk, etc since I have also been treated strangely due to my clothes...overall, when it comes to certain issues that I feel I have a fighting chance with, I will speak up but the issues that I know are a lost cause stay that way with me. I completely agree. Although I didn't experience a despise based on racism or nationalism but there actually are racists and skinheads in Russia. Sometimes I'm afraid to go out of the house because I can be mistaken for being a foreigner. The problem is that it's impossible to figure out whether you're Russian or someone else. We're all mixed up.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Oct 16, 2010 12:41:07 GMT -5
That is EXACTLY what I mean, and you put it perfectly! While the ride is supposed to funny, it's the whole point that they are trying to say that Randall's suffering is humorous, because he's such an awful monster, and we're all supposed to hate him, therefore any bad thing that happens to him should be funny to US. By the way, One Pistol, I don't know how many animals, or people for that matter, you've ever watched die, especially after they've been horribly injured. Death rarely comes quickly or painlessly in cases of lethal trauma, unless it's from a well-placed bullet. I have the image still burned into my brain of a dog, recently hit by a car, and nearly cut in half, still moaning and crying and trying to drag itself...or what was left of it...out of the road, literally leaving its hindquarters and all of its insides behind it. NOT a pretty sight. I've seen cats ground to hamburger inside the engine of a car still trying to breathe. And of course, anyone who has ever seen a real reptile, like a snake, killed, can tell you that they do not die easily or quickly. My point is, that just because the Randall in the ride was moaning and rolling his eyes, doesn't mean he was not dying, and riders are most likely supposed to believe that he WAS, in fact, dying in horrible agony, which was supposed to be very funny. I doubt that anyone who goes on that ride is supposed to believe that Randall just "un-cubes" himself and brushes himself off like Wile E. Coyote after one of his famous 1,000 falls over a cliff and goes on about his business, completely unharmed. pitbulllady Ok, RB, has already explained this to me. but I must say, while I agree with RB, that if this were to happen to the real Randall he WOULD probably be killed. But I disagree with what you said about Randall dieing in pain at the end. Although he was probably in some serious pain, I dont think he died, in the ride at least. Again, if it was the movie with the real Randall, yes that probably would have killed him. I think the makers of the ride, intended for Randall to pull a Wile E. Coyote. If they intended for Randall to die, they probably would have shown him die. But they didn't You cant say he was dieing, when there is no real proof that he died, I know in all logical and realisticness he would have died, but again if he did they would have shown it. You cant just assume it and that means it happened. And even though this dose sound like a harsh argument on my part, I mean this in the nicest way. Just giving my opinion. How many animated "villains", and Disney/Pixar "villains" in particular, have you ever actually seen DIE onscreen? We see something happen to them that logically we know would likely be fatal, but we never do actually see their dead and mangled bodies, do we? We see Syndrome sucked into the jet's engine, but we do not see the aftermath, so there's that little bit of doubt there that he might have used his Zero-Point Energy gloves at the last second and somehow survived. We do not actually see the birds dismember and eat Hopper, either. We see Scar fall over the cliff when attacked by the hyenas, but we never see the hyenas actually EATING him, or even see his corpse lying at the bottom of the cliff. I could go on and on, but MY point here is that just because we don't actually have "proof" that the Randall in the ride is supposed to have died, there is no logical reason to assume that he DIDN'T, either. We have no "proof" that Syndrome, Scar, Maleficent, Hopper, or any of the other Disney/Pixar "villains" who apparently met with a horrible demise survived OR died, but I don't think that the creators of their respective films intended for us to think that they escaped death. The only Pixar "villain" that we KNOW was alive and well, though not exactly happy, at the end of his movie was Skinner, in Ratatouille, because we actually see him. We don't have to see the others' dead, mutilated remains to logically assume that they died. pitbulllady
|
|
windsofchange13
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
Do you hear that? It's the winds of change *evil grin*
Posts: 51
|
Post by windsofchange13 on Oct 16, 2010 14:50:37 GMT -5
*gasp* HOW DARE THEY DO THAT TO RANDALL? That's just WRONG!
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Oct 16, 2010 15:19:17 GMT -5
Ok, RB, has already explained this to me. but I must say, while I agree with RB, that if this were to happen to the real Randall he WOULD probably be killed. But I disagree with what you said about Randall dieing in pain at the end. Although he was probably in some serious pain, I dont think he died, in the ride at least. Again, if it was the movie with the real Randall, yes that probably would have killed him. I think the makers of the ride, intended for Randall to pull a Wile E. Coyote. If they intended for Randall to die, they probably would have shown him die. But they didn't You cant say he was dieing, when there is no real proof that he died, I know in all logical and realisticness he would have died, but again if he did they would have shown it. You cant just assume it and that means it happened. And even though this dose sound like a harsh argument on my part, I mean this in the nicest way. Just giving my opinion. How many animated "villains", and Disney/Pixar "villains" in particular, have you ever actually seen DIE onscreen? We see something happen to them that logically we know would likely be fatal, but we never do actually see their dead and mangled bodies, do we? We see Syndrome sucked into the jet's engine, but we do not see the aftermath, so there's that little bit of doubt there that he might have used his Zero-Point Energy gloves at the last second and somehow survived. We do not actually see the birds dismember and eat Hopper, either. We see Scar fall over the cliff when attacked by the hyenas, but we never see the hyenas actually EATING him, or even see his corpse lying at the bottom of the cliff. I could go on and on, but MY point here is that just because we don't actually have "proof" that the Randall in the ride is supposed to have died, there is no logical reason to assume that he DIDN'T, either. We have no "proof" that Syndrome, Scar, Maleficent, Hopper, or any of the other Disney/Pixar "villains" who apparently met with a horrible demise survived OR died, but I don't think that the creators of their respective films intended for us to think that they escaped death. The only Pixar "villain" that we KNOW was alive and well, though not exactly happy, at the end of his movie was Skinner, in Ratatouille, because we actually see him. We don't have to see the others' dead, mutilated remains to logically assume that they died. pitbulllady Your taking my comments a little to literally, Pitbulllady. I never said that you have to actually see the death, but if he did die, they would have made it more, (well)...obvious that he died. Instead of just seeing him moaning and eyes spinning, and thats the last time you see him. Syndrome for example, he gets sucked into a jet engine and then it explodes, when you see that you think (whoa, that guys dead!), Scar, he gets attacked by hyenas and you see them attacking him in the shadow, "obviously he is dead". And Hopper, getting lowered by the bird into a nest of hungry birds, Then they don't show him the rest of the movie, "Again, he probably didn't make it." You understand what i'm saying? When Randall gets crushed in the trash thing, and he comes out a cube moaning and eyes spinning, because you think logically, he probably just slowly died after a while. But if the designers of the ride, wanted the riders to believe he died, they would have some how, made it more obvious without actually showing it, like the other Disney characters we talked about. Thats why I think "In the ride, at least", they meant for Randall to pull a Wile E. Coyote. But like i said, if this were to be the "Movie" they probably wouldn't have done that, and probably have him killed. And just like the others, not show it, but make it more obvious, then his eyes spinning and him moaning, because "just that" don't say much. And if Monsters Inc and other movies like it were made for Mature Adults, then YES i would most defiantly consider the fact that Randall probably died slowly. And heck, if it was an adult movie, they probably would have actually shown him die. But because the movie is rated "G" (Which means its for little kids and up) and the ride is based off of that movie, they would have made things more open and clear for the younger audience. They wouldn't make the (mostly) Children audience, think deep and logically, I have never seen a kids movie that dose. Usually in a "G" movie, when an event happens, they make it pretty clear of "what it is" that happened. And I don't dislike you in any way Pitbulllady, (Just in case you may have thought that) I'm just giving "My" facts just like you are.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Oct 16, 2010 19:14:42 GMT -5
How many animated "villains", and Disney/Pixar "villains" in particular, have you ever actually seen DIE onscreen? We see something happen to them that logically we know would likely be fatal, but we never do actually see their dead and mangled bodies, do we? We see Syndrome sucked into the jet's engine, but we do not see the aftermath, so there's that little bit of doubt there that he might have used his Zero-Point Energy gloves at the last second and somehow survived. We do not actually see the birds dismember and eat Hopper, either. We see Scar fall over the cliff when attacked by the hyenas, but we never see the hyenas actually EATING him, or even see his corpse lying at the bottom of the cliff. I could go on and on, but MY point here is that just because we don't actually have "proof" that the Randall in the ride is supposed to have died, there is no logical reason to assume that he DIDN'T, either. We have no "proof" that Syndrome, Scar, Maleficent, Hopper, or any of the other Disney/Pixar "villains" who apparently met with a horrible demise survived OR died, but I don't think that the creators of their respective films intended for us to think that they escaped death. The only Pixar "villain" that we KNOW was alive and well, though not exactly happy, at the end of his movie was Skinner, in Ratatouille, because we actually see him. We don't have to see the others' dead, mutilated remains to logically assume that they died. pitbulllady Your taking my comments a little to literally, Pitbulllady. I never said that you have to actually see the death, but if he did die, they would have made it more, (well)...obvious that he died. Instead of just seeing him moaning and eyes spinning, and thats the last time you see him. Syndrome for example, he gets sucked into a jet engine and then it explodes, when you see that you think (whoa, that guys dead!), Scar, he gets attacked by hyenas and you see them attacking him in the shadow, "obviously he is dead". And Hopper, getting lowered by the bird into a nest of hungry birds, Then they don't show him the rest of the movie, "Again, he probably didn't make it." You understand what i'm saying? When Randall gets crushed in the trash thing, and he comes out a cube moaning and eyes spinning, because you think logically, he probably just slowly died after a while. But if the designers of the ride, wanted the riders to believe he died, they would have some how, made it more obvious without actually showing it, like the other Disney characters we talked about. Thats why I think "In the ride, at least", they meant for Randall to pull a Wile E. Coyote. But like i said, if this were to be the "Movie" they probably wouldn't have done that, and probably have him killed. And just like the others, not show it, but make it more obvious, then his eyes spinning and him moaning, because "just that" don't say much. And if Monsters Inc and other movies like it were made for Mature Adults, then YES i would most defiantly consider the fact that Randall probably died slowly. And heck, if it was an adult movie, they probably would have actually shown him die. But because the movie is rated "G" (Which means its for little kids and up) and the ride is based off of that movie, they would have made things more open and clear for the younger audience. They wouldn't make the (mostly) Children audience, think deep and logically, I have never seen a kids movie that dose. Usually in a "G" movie, when an event happens, they make it pretty clear of "what it is" that happened. And I don't dislike you in any way Pitbulllady, (Just in case you may have thought that) I'm just giving "My" facts just like you are. BUT, you have to take into account that this ride is in JAPAN(and NO, Mistica, I'm not bashing the Japanese or their culture, just stating facts), and what is rated "G" in one country might not be the same as what WE consider "G-rated" in the USA. I know that blood, gore and violence is more accepted in much of Japanese entertainment media than it is here, even for things basically aimed at children. Being rated "G" in Japan is not the same as being rated "G" in the US. Also, IF the ride is even remotely true to Pixar, there is absolutely no reason to assume that Randall pulled a "Wile E. Coyote". Pixar characters are NOT like the WB characters, after all. When watching any Pixar movie, we easily forget that they are animated, and the same can't be said of Bugs Bunny and Co. We KNOW that they are "toons" and cannot really ever be in any sort of danger because they can never be hurt, let alone killed, but when a Pixar character is in danger, we strongly get the impression that he/she is in REAL danger, and can be hurt or killed. In any case, I still fail to see any humor at all in what is done to Randall in this ride. Whether it's death or just plain old run-of-the-mill torture, it's WRONG, and it would take a pretty sick mind to find it funny, no matter what the nationality. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Oct 16, 2010 19:27:39 GMT -5
Your taking my comments a little to literally, Pitbulllady. I never said that you have to actually see the death, but if he did die, they would have made it more, (well)...obvious that he died. Instead of just seeing him moaning and eyes spinning, and thats the last time you see him. Syndrome for example, he gets sucked into a jet engine and then it explodes, when you see that you think (whoa, that guys dead!), Scar, he gets attacked by hyenas and you see them attacking him in the shadow, "obviously he is dead". And Hopper, getting lowered by the bird into a nest of hungry birds, Then they don't show him the rest of the movie, "Again, he probably didn't make it." You understand what i'm saying? When Randall gets crushed in the trash thing, and he comes out a cube moaning and eyes spinning, because you think logically, he probably just slowly died after a while. But if the designers of the ride, wanted the riders to believe he died, they would have some how, made it more obvious without actually showing it, like the other Disney characters we talked about. Thats why I think "In the ride, at least", they meant for Randall to pull a Wile E. Coyote. But like i said, if this were to be the "Movie" they probably wouldn't have done that, and probably have him killed. And just like the others, not show it, but make it more obvious, then his eyes spinning and him moaning, because "just that" don't say much. And if Monsters Inc and other movies like it were made for Mature Adults, then YES i would most defiantly consider the fact that Randall probably died slowly. And heck, if it was an adult movie, they probably would have actually shown him die. But because the movie is rated "G" (Which means its for little kids and up) and the ride is based off of that movie, they would have made things more open and clear for the younger audience. They wouldn't make the (mostly) Children audience, think deep and logically, I have never seen a kids movie that dose. Usually in a "G" movie, when an event happens, they make it pretty clear of "what it is" that happened. And I don't dislike you in any way Pitbulllady, (Just in case you may have thought that) I'm just giving "My" facts just like you are. BUT, you have to take into account that this ride is in JAPAN(and NO, Mistica, I'm not bashing the Japanese or their culture, just stating facts), and what is rated "G" in one country might not be the same as what WE consider "G-rated" in the USA. I know that blood, gore and violence is more accepted in much of Japanese entertainment media than it is here, even for things basically aimed at children. Being rated "G" in Japan is not the same as being rated "G" in the US. Also, IF the ride is even remotely true to Pixar, there is absolutely no reason to assume that Randall pulled a "Wile E. Coyote". Pixar characters are NOT like the WB characters, after all. When watching any Pixar movie, we easily forget that they are animated, and the same can't be said of Bugs Bunny and Co. We KNOW that they are "toons" and cannot really ever be in any sort of danger because they can never be hurt, let alone killed, but when a Pixar character is in danger, we strongly get the impression that he/she is in REAL danger, and can be hurt or killed. In any case, I still fail to see any humor at all in what is done to Randall in this ride. Whether it's death or just plain old run-of-the-mill torture, it's WRONG, and it would take a pretty sick mind to find it funny, no matter what the nationality. pitbulllady Yeah, maby your right about the G rating thing, but i still stand by what i say, that i think they would have made it more obvious if he did die. and yeah, i think its sick to think that its funny to see someone in extreme pain. and well, because its in Japan Disney, maby the creators of the ride don't share Pixar's look on their characters, so maby to the creators of the Japan ride, they must think that he can pull a toon move. But i agree, a Pixar character dose give you the feeling of them being real and not toonish. But like i said, i guess the Ride and Go Seek creators didn't think that, they must have thought that Pixar characters and Loony Toons are the same. :/
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Oct 16, 2010 21:35:50 GMT -5
Normally, when other countries adapt american movies, they may change a few things in relation to characters but overall, they tend to stick to them most of the time. This is the same when their anime and characters are translated to English, some things get purposefully changed in hopes to not cause confusion for the country that they are trying to advertise to. Also, we don't know the views of the character Randall and how he is viewed in Japan, in fact this whole "looney tune" thing they did with him in the ride could actually be the way the character is viewed in their country! So until the day comes that we ever get a member here who is Japanese and can explain this to us, we will never truly know how the character is viewed there.
Also, at least one Disney villian (though I know I shouldn't be giving Disney this much credit anyway) did die on screen and that was Oogie Boogie from The Nightmare Before Christmas. We see Jack pull a loose thread on him and throw it into the spinning blades, stripping Oogie and basically destroying him. His bugs falling apart and him going on over and over "My Bugs!" And with the brain bug squished by Santa, that was that...or would have been but somehow he comes back in Oogies Revenge but that's a different story. He is at least the only Disney villian I can think of that we actually see die on screen, the others are more like subtle hints with either shadows or other effects as well to give the clue that they died.
|
|
|
Post by mintygreen on Oct 24, 2011 6:31:56 GMT -5
Wow they are running him over...that's so sad. You know even if Randall was extremely evil(which he isn't but even if he was) I don't condone treating someone that way. I just don't think it's right to do that no matter what someone did because if someone did something really horrible and you are just as horrible to them in return, you really aren't showing that you are any better.
|
|