|
Post by pitbulllady on Jun 8, 2009 21:39:26 GMT -5
....hmm...say...I know this may sound like a rookie question...but doesn't Disney own Pixar now? Can it be that Pixar, while albiet TRYING to hold onto it's morals, is too close to Disney that the "worn-out and predictable" storylines of Disney is rubbing off on them? I honestly hope people WILL read the next to last chapter of my Pixar Kingdom Hearts story for Wall-E...as I show Auto is NOT as bad as he seems. No, Disney does not own Pixar; they have a mutual partnership, and Disney actually has far less say than in the original partnership, in which they owned all the Pixar franchises and characters. Now, Pixar's Ed Catmull and John Lassetter are actually more or less in charge of DISNEY'S Feature Animation Dept., so PIXAR is calling the shots over what DISNEY makes, animated, anyway. I don't know, maybe it's a Peter Docter problem. He directed M.I., and he directed Up. Both seem to fit the same formula-"you need a villain, the nastier the better", "REVENGE IS GREAT-no matter what the Good Guys do to the Bad Guy, it's justified, so make sure the villain suffers a horrible death or injury in the end and the Good Guys aren't held accountable for anything", and "There's no such thing as a 'negative' stereotype-ALL stereotypes are GREAT! Need a Bad Guy? Make him REPTILIAN! Need the Bad Guy to have a pack of vicious dogs? Make 'em Rottweilers, Dobermans and Pit Bulls! People HATE those almost as bad as they hate snakes and lizards! EVERYBODY knows that reptiles, Pit Bulls, Dobermans and Rottweilers are EEE-VIL, so who cares what you do to 'em?" I have this image in my mind, of Peter Docter on a motorcycle, jumping over a large pool full of sharks, with an annoyed Blooregard Q. Kazoo standing poolside, whining, "HEY, no FAIR! WE never got to do that, so how come THAT guy gets to jump the shark?" pitbulllady
|
|
randomdrifter
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
Humility and Strength have never looked better.
Posts: 142
|
Post by randomdrifter on Jun 9, 2009 0:27:03 GMT -5
Remy- You’ve missed my point I think. I’m well aware that auto was a computer, but you and I know that “it” was portrayed as much more than that, and the “fight” between the Axiom’s captain and Auto was significant in that the audience was pretty much duped into thinking that this machine=bad, because it was refusing to let the humans return to earth and “live”. Hence, it had to be beaten. That is what I was referring to. Whether we do it subconsciously or not, as people, we tend to give human-like qualities and characteristics to non-living objects, which seems to also be a gift of Pixar’s. I’ll be willing to make a bet with you that “Auto” was viewed as much a “villain” or the opposing force, machine or not, among viewers as much as Randall or Syndrome were in their respective roles. Programmed or not, this computer was in the way of letting the good guys do their job and could even resort to physically restraining the heroes or causing damage, which in most aspects will certainly not be looked upon kindly by those rooting for the other team. I don’t see how Pixar hasn’t broken the rule of “no villains”, when we had a character like Muntz running around going trigger happy and genuinely trying to kill an elderly man and a boy, only to be killed off himself in a rather upsetting manner in the end. Randall has also been labeled as a villain poster boy, of course. If you want my personal opinion, dealing with conflict like this in a film is just a lazy way of getting to the happy ending with no questions asked. Yes, it’s pretty much a given that Muntz’s time spent in isolation did damage him greatly, and his ambition to find his specimen in order to regain his status as a glorified explorer and idol, at any cost, only contributed to his downfall. Now, this is what bothered me the most about how Pixar handled this situation: they opted to have Muntz fall to his death, disturbed as he was, because he was just a selfish, crazy, aged man who had no hope and was bound to die anyway. The psychologist in me wants to believe that behind every psychological and emotional problem lie plenty of unresolved issues, and there is certainly a way to have these individuals at the very least cope with their problems without resorting to the six-feet-under technique. Muntz HAD gone off the deep end, without a doubt, but again, I just saw how it easy it is to get rid of a mentally troubled individual. We’re seeing a repeated pattern here that has been used to DEATH (no pun intended) where individuals who seek to hurt others are being consistently killed off in the end. I don’t understand why the death of villains or “antagonists” keeps being portrayed in such a nonchalant manner; what’s worse, it seems to clear up the dark clouds and make everything better again. Please explain to me how that doesn’t qualify as breaking a “no villains” rule when clearly we have Pixar characters that some people just love to hate because of what they’ve done in a movie. Hasn’t that, after all, always been the burden of the “villain”?
I’ve seen the movie, and I can assure you that from what I saw, these dogs spent a greater portion of the film being portrayed as a vicious pack, and dumb at the very best. Yes, they were filling stereotypes by sticking to Rottweilers and Dobermans for minions, and sticking to yet another stereotype by making a Golden Retriever the “good” dog. It’s not like Pixar to jump onto the bandwagon, but they just seem to be doing it a lot lately, and Up topped the charts on it, from a personal view.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 9, 2009 0:35:41 GMT -5
Ok, just making sure about that.
Umm...to be honest...I think if we're going to use UP as comparision...we SHOULD see the film if we're going to make judgements on/with it....
As for Auto....ANTAGONIST...not villain. He was a robot. I mean come on...you give a robot rules to obey, and it does. Auto didn't seem to develop emotion, so he was follow his directive that was put into him by Shelby (which relatively KNEW about A113, so he probably developed it).
As for Muntz. I haven't seen the film, but have been informed intimently about his role...and I DO garner sympathy for him.... Don't know so much about his dogs....but given dogs in general...I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. (Oooh...no hounds of war...no hounds of war...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2009 0:37:21 GMT -5
Right, but what you just said by definition defines Auto as "antagonist" and not really villain as all it's doing is going against the protagonist. All a protagonist is is the main character. Antagonist is someone who impedes that but for all we know, a protagonist CAN in fact be a villain. I'd still consider Auto an antagonist and not a villain.
Hey, I agree with you about the death of Muntz. I wasn't sure I would have handled it that way. I felt it was borderline, and pushing boundaries. I wasn't sure HOW they were going to conclude it, and felt a little unsure whether or not that was a good way to end things. It seemed unlikely he'd reform, but at the same time I noticed that killing him seemed a bit extreme to me as I didn't feel true revulsion for him himself, just some of his actions, which were circumstantial to his past. He was dark alright, but he did have reasons at least for being there.
Though ultimately they are just dogs I think is what Pixar was trying to say, and can't really fall into "good" or "bad" as their loyalties changed dependent on their master's will. After Carl took them back they seemed alright from that montage at the end. It's a question of whether the end is justified by the means or whether the end result is what counts if the path getting there was rocky and not always the best.
Though once again, going to avoid my personal stance on Pixar as I don't feel it's important enough to voice and would have little bearing on this discussion. I see good and I see some questionable stuff too, multifaceted I guess you could call it.
|
|
randomdrifter
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
Humility and Strength have never looked better.
Posts: 142
|
Post by randomdrifter on Jun 9, 2009 0:45:25 GMT -5
It was an easy ending in regards to Muntz and even his dogs, that's all I can say. I still wonder if it would have killed them to add a different breed. It was just painfully predictable.
I like my Randall reptilian and scaly. I really don't think I would have loved him any other way. It's just the way he keeps being portrayed that is becoming bothersome and tired, even years after the movie. It certainly does seem like Pixar's originality in developing complex characters is dying out, and so is my admiration for their films. They still seem to be hitting the mark as far as the story is concerned, but the "bad guys" are becoming more vicious and killed off more easily.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 9, 2009 1:01:30 GMT -5
I think that's the main thing...the story itself great...but in terms of what they do to the "bad guys"...well...
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jun 9, 2009 10:48:14 GMT -5
It was an easy ending in regards to Muntz and even his dogs, that's all I can say. I still wonder if it would have killed them to add a different breed. It was just painfully predictable. I like my Randall reptilian and scaly. I really don't think I would have loved him any other way. It's just the way he keeps being portrayed that is becoming bothersome and tired, even years after the movie. It certainly does seem like Pixar's originality in developing complex characters is dying out, and so is my admiration for their films. They still seem to be hitting the mark as far as the story is concerned, but the "bad guys" are becoming more vicious and killed off more easily. Everything you've said in your posts earlier today, randomdrifter, supports MY argument that Pixar is in grave danger of "jumping the shark". Whether you choose to call Randall, Muntz, Auto, Hopper, Syndrome, etc., "villains" or "antogonists" is really splitting hairs at this point. They were all intended by Pixar's writers to be viewed by the general movie-going audiences as evil, twisted, obsessed, vicious and possessing no redeeming qualities at all. They were not just oppossing the "Good Guys", they were supposed to be hated and reviled. Only Syndrome, and possibly Auto, stand out here, in that we actually SAW that pivotal moment in Syndrome's past that "pushed him over the edge", and most movie-goers, even kids, will understand that Auto is a robot and has been PROGRAMMED to do what he/it did, rather than being able to make a concious, ethical choice as the humans still could. It's even more disturbing, as you said, that Pixar finds it easier to simply kill off these individuals, in gruesome ways, rather than to show that there ARE OTHER MEANS OF HANDLING CONFLICTS and dealing with these individuals' emotional and mental issues than simply killing them. Further more, Pixar is emphasising that if you're one of the "Good Guys", you pretty much have free reign to do ANYTHING you want to do to ANYONE who opposes you or has done YOU wrong, and no one will ever question you or hold you accountable for YOUR actions-the old "Once a Good Guy, Always a Good Guy" scenario. Mike and Sulley essentially tried to MURDER Randall; no one can tell me it was not their intent for harm to come to him once they threw him into that trailer, yet they got treated as heroes! THIS is the thing that bothers me; Pixar is relying more and more on this, and it's the exact same thing that has been the staple of cartoons aimed only at young children for electronic Saturday morning baby-sitting for decades. I honestly thought that Pixar was above that sort of thing. And yes, Remy, I'm aware that at the very end of Up, Charles Muntz's dogs are seen doing good things(although in reality, they'd be immediately killed in many cities due to BSL simply due to their breeds), BUT, as randomdrifter pointed out, throughout MOST Of the movie, they're depicted as dangerous and vicious, while the lone Golden Retriever, Dug, is always "good". Don't try to tell me THIS isn't negative stereotyping. If ALL of the dogs had been of the same breed, including Dug, I would not be so quick to say that, but this isn't the case here. Pixar could have had them all be of some "made-up" fictional breed, or all of them could have been Golden Retrievers, but instead they relied on the breed stereotypes of "Doberman or Rottweiler=BAD, Golden Retriever=GOOD." Muntz's dogs are like Fungus in M.I.; throughout the movie, he assists Randall in the Scream Extractor; he openly CHEERS when Randall finally brings in "the kid" for experimenting on, and helps him set up the machine to get Mike to confess. Forced or not, at no point does he ever go against Randall or oppose him and help the "Good Guys" in any way, yet at the end, we see him helping out and doing good things at the factory, just as we see Muntz's dogs. I guess that we're all supposed to come to the same conclusion-that the dogs and Fungus were so afraid of their "masters", Muntz and Randall, respectively, that they simply complied with their every wish but were really "good" all along, which means of course, that we're supposed to believe that Muntz and Randall had this pure evil, almost Satanic control over them while still alive or at least, while still around. It would have been a much more powerful movie, at least in Randall's case, to have HIM undergo a gradual change of heart and to show more than just that one side of him, than simply to show his assistant all of sudden as a wonderful person who has really done no wrong at all, after getting rid of Randall. The only two recent Pixar movies which have NOT fallen into this "Good Guys vs. Bad Guys, Bad Guy Threatens Good Guys, Good Guys kill Bad Guys, Good Guys Get All the Rewards-and-Never-Are-Held-Accountable" predictable plot were Cars and Finding Nemo. In those two movies, the "Good Guys" have plenty of issues, and Lightning McQueen is not a very likeable character himself at first. While Chick Hicks is arrogant, so is Lightning. While Chich HIcks loses the important big race and the points cup, he isn't "killed" or harmed in any way, other than his pride, and he really does not figure prominantly as an antogonist, other than at the race track, and most of that movie takes place far from the track. In Finding Nemo, the real threats are simply temporary, and not acting with deliberate menace, other than the Angler Fish, but everyone understands that this fish(which does not speak or otherwise act like anything other than a real fish)is simply doing what predators do. Even the sharks, seen as threatening at first, prove to stick with their "no fish" menu and are seen as old friends in the end. There is no one threatening individual throughout the movies that stands opposed to the "Good Guys", as is the case with Up, The Incredibles and Monsters, Inc.. What bothers me, of course, is that two of those movies are directed by the same guy, and now HE is going to be directing a sequel to Monsters, Inc.. Who wants to bet that it will follow that same pattern as the first, especially if Randalll DOES return? And yes, randomdrifter, I certainly prefer that Randall remain scaly and reptilian, too. I do not find that it detracts at all from his handsomeness, but actually ADDS to it. I just have a problem with the fact that out of all the various monster types in that movie, the ONE monster chosen to be the primary or overt "Villain" or "Bad Guy" or whatever was also the ONE monster in the entire movie that happened to be covered in scales, and had obvious characterstics that people associate with snakes and lizards. Why did they not just let Randall stick with his original role as one of the THREE heroes and have another monster play the role of "Bad Guy", or for that matter, why have a "Bad Guy" at all? Most of the original script ideas for that movie did NOT have a character whom we're all supposed to hate, that we're all supposed to think of as "mean", but rather, a perceived danger in the form of a human child, who turns out not to be so bad or dangerous after all, and who, in the process, gets the three main monster characters-Sulley, Mike AND Randall-to bury their differences while working together on a common goal, and getting them to learn a thing or two about judging others based on their appearances. I think that this could have been just as interesting and funny, with just as much emotion, but without haveing to fall back on a worn-out cartoon formula. It would have taught an important lesson about not only coming together and putting differences behind us, but also about how many of the preconceived stereotypes we have, as a society, are wrong. No one had to die, or get hurt, or get EVEN, for this to have worked, completely. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 9, 2009 18:19:53 GMT -5
To make a note about Hal...in the sequel to the film, Hal actually becomes a good guy and understands his role to help (Will I dream?). *nods* How they treat their "villains" IS indeed becoming more....inflexible. I mean with TY you can SAY it's Sid...but he doesn't die...he just becomes more reformed in treating toys better. Uhh....Bugs Life....well...I consider Hopper a sorta "victim of the food chain"....Ty 2...Pete (I think his name) wasn't broken or anything...Al....unsure about him, but not killed certainly. M.I....well we all know...Nemo.....I find Nemo to be an acception, showing NO true "Bad guy" at all really...and generally from there it started placing "villains" into more seemingly-inescapable "deaths" (Ran, as we all know, CAN get back to Monstropolis, and is certainly NOT dead. Buddy's is a .little harder, but given his Zero Point Energy, he could escape though, like Ran, not without a few scars. Auto? Well....shut down is sorta like a death....but anyway....then Muntz...I...can't cite that since I haven't seen the film.
I can understand the bulk of the movie bit. Heck, Ran's reputation was bludgeoned thanks to him being so much shown as the bad guy instead of the TRUE mastermind behind it, Waternoose. So the dogs, at heart, aren't bad, like Ran, though obeying their master at the time made them that way.
Always wondered what would have happened in that case....
|
|
tmazanec1
Randall's Head Servant (300-799)
Posts: 463
|
Post by tmazanec1 on Jun 14, 2009 13:02:35 GMT -5
pitbulllady: All I get at your link is a 404.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jun 14, 2009 15:57:19 GMT -5
pitbulllady: All I get at your link is a 404. I don't know why; I thought perhaps her superiors might have made her take down the artwork, since the comic won't officially be available until August, or maybe she had gotten a lot of concerned messages from Randall fans and got PO'd and deleted that particular comment, but I just checked, and both my post and her reply are still up. Here's the link again to the comic cover art design: mimi-na.deviantart.com/art/Monsters-Inc-1-cover-B-124038571You will have to scroll down a bit to see my post, and her response; if you look at the cover art, you'll see Randall's tail in the bottom right corner. If he was not going to be in the comic, I'm sure she would have said so. I'm equally sure that if Randall was going to undergo some sort of positive character arc, she would have hinted at that, too, or at least said something like "I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, so why don't you just check out the comic when it comes out?" Instead, she all but told me NOT to buy it. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 14, 2009 16:24:02 GMT -5
Okay, firstly, SPOILERS PEOPLE. Some of us aren't able to see Up until October and so are trying not to be spoilt- if you're going to say something spoiler-ish, please try and mention this at the beginning of your post.
I've skipped most of this thread mainly because of the references to Up that I don't want to read, but all I really wanted to say was that in a way I'm pleased Randall made an appearance in one of those comics. Admittedly it would be horrible if a sequel were to be made where he returns as a slapstick villain with no real motivation other than perhaps revenge, but at the same time, I can't see this happening simply because the original (though it sort of hammered away at the idea of Randall being the villain) did, in one or two moments, present his other side. If he was an out and out villain then we wouldn't be here defending him, would we? And I think the same would apply to a sequel, that Randall would mainly be presented in a negative light but not as a senseless evil-doer.
Well, I hope so at least.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jun 14, 2009 17:44:04 GMT -5
Okay, firstly, SPOILERS PEOPLE. Some of us aren't able to see Up until October and so are trying not to be spoilt- if you're going to say something spoiler-ish, please try and mention this at the beginning of your post. I've skipped most of this thread mainly because of the references to Up that I don't want to read, but all I really wanted to say was that in a way I'm pleased Randall made an appearance in one of those comics. Admittedly it would be horrible if a sequel were to be made where he returns as a slapstick villain with no real motivation other than perhaps revenge, but at the same time, I can't see this happening simply because the original (though it sort of hammered away at the idea of Randall being the villain) did, in one or two moments, present his other side. If he was an out and out villain then we wouldn't be here defending him, would we? And I think the same would apply to a sequel, that Randall would mainly be presented in a negative light but not as a senseless evil-doer. Well, I hope so at least. I guess whether nor not one perceives Randall as a "senseless evil-doer" depends on one's own perspective and intuitiveness. There are people like ourselves, who ARE able to see that "big picture", to mentally dig down deep, below the surface of a character, and who are able to read between those proverbial lines. There are many others-far more, in fact-who don't seem to be able to do that. They see and comprehend only what is presented at the very surface, and on the very surface of Monsters, Inc., what was presented was that Randall was evil to the core, Randall wanted to do horrible things to innocent little children, Randall tried to harm the Good Guys, Randall was "slimy" and reptilian, Randall was a "cheater". While WE realize that there's far more to the picture than meets the eye, and almost always is, what about the average Pixar fan? You've seen this yourself on many occasions; they DO see Randall as the epitome of evil. To them, he doesn't NEED any real reason or motivation to do evil things because he IS evil, and as such deserves no mercy or second chances. Even before he actually did anything, right after he first appeared, I can guarantee that subliminally, a lot of movie-goers had him pegged as the Bad Guy, for no other reason than his physical appearance. IF he is in the sequel, and is once again presented in a negative light, as you described it, what could possibly come of him in the end? Unless they're already planning a THIRD installment, or a tv spin-off, or in some way continuing the ongoing saga of Mike and Sulley Vs. Evil Randall, that can only mean one outcome: Randall dies. Not a "did he or didn't he get killed" ending like the original, but a "no doubt about it, that sucka is D-E-A-D" ending. The only way for Randall to avoid that fate, if he's in the sequel at all, is for him to undergo a character arc and find some degree of redemption, to do more than just hint as his other side, but to allow that other side to finally win out over the bad side, to show the audience, "hey, you know, we've ALL got these good and bad sides; what's important is to not let your bad side win out over the good side. When Randall let HIS bad side win out, it meant that HE lost, but when he put that behind him and let his GOOD side win, he got rewarded for it." Maybe it's the skeptic and pessimist in me-part of my own "bad side"-but I've got serious doubts of seeing anything like that happen, especially with Peter Docter at the helm. We've only see two feature films from him, but he really does seem hooked on that "Good Guys Vs. Bad Guys" formula. If the information I've seen so far had stated that Brad Bird, or John Lassetter, or anyone BUT Peter Docter was dicecting the sequel, I wouldn't be so worried. I hate to sound like I hate Peter Docter, since I don't, but I don't feel that he will have anything good in mind for Randall, either, if he bothers with him at all, and the up-coming comics don't help my frame of mind one bit. Either Randall will be killed at the end of the comic, or he'll die in the sequel...or a miracle will happen. Neither the comic artist nor Peter Docter's work so far has given me much hope in the latter, though. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 14, 2009 19:04:22 GMT -5
Think yours is on the last page Pitbulllady ^_^ --------------- Yes Ms. Admin ^_^
But he got himself unrightly hurt by NOT having those moments of his other side become apparent to people. And if they do that AGAIN.... ---------------------- And then WE get attacked by the concept of "looking too deep" or it's "just a film". Hm. T.V. spin off.... *folds arms* Was...Pete at all...involved in the comics? 0_-
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jun 14, 2009 20:11:31 GMT -5
Think yours is on the last page Pitbulllady ^_^ --------------- Yes Ms. Admin ^_^ But he got himself unrightly hurt by NOT having those moments of his other side become apparent to people. And if they do that AGAIN.... ---------------------- And then WE get attacked by the concept of "looking too deep" or it's "just a film". Hm. T.V. spin off.... *folds arms* Was...Pete at all...involved in the comics? 0_- My WHAT is on the last page? Last page of what-this thread, the forum?? I'm a bit confused, sorry. I don't know if Peter Docter has anything to do with the comic, but I don't think so, not directly, anyway. It's written and illustrated entirely by BOOM'S writers and artists, BUT it's endorsed by Pixar, which means that someone from Pixar had to have approved the content. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 14, 2009 20:15:36 GMT -5
OH! Sorry. Your comment for the Comic pages on deviant art.
*folds arms* Hmm...if Pete WAS involved the most with how Pixar would be for BOOM!'s compilation...then it's sort of an expression of an "extra idea" Pixar has. Because if I recall, that's what Pixar intended for the comics (including rides at theme parks) to be, a sorta "dump for sequel ideas" (I mean lets think...would the plots for the OTHER Pixar comics be movie-sequel worthy?)
|
|