|
Post by sgtyayap on Sept 8, 2009 13:53:20 GMT -5
Very good job, mentalguru! Certainly would have liked to know for certain whether Randall forgave Sullivan. Interesting idea to also write about Sullivan feeling remorse; if anyone reading this stuff hasn't written letters yet, perhaps it would be a good idea to include that detail as well. Indeed, even if Randall DOES redeem himself at the request of his fans, there still IS a chance the other characters will not act like themselves, either.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Sept 11, 2009 12:01:09 GMT -5
Thanks. It was kind of also partly to attract possible Sulley or Sulley and Mike fans- give them something to at least think about.
As I said in my author's note, even if people AREN'T fans of Randall, it would be great if they wrote in to express their concerns over the idea of Randall doing bad things... just for the sake of being evil. It wouldn't make for a good story no matter what they thought of him.
Look at Voldemort in Harry Potter- one of multiple reasons why so many people were disappointed in the last 2 books of the series, was that Lord Voldemort in the 6th book was protrayed as being BORN evil. He was just a sociopath. He never even CHOSE evil. The HP series did an excellent thing in injecting some 'greyness' in book 5- or so I thought, when two of the heroes, Harry and Hermione committed various disturbing acts (For instance, Hermione more or less got one of the female 'baddies'- a racist and admittaedly HORRIBLE person, raped. Seriously, the girl set another woman up like that delibrately. At least that is what is inferred when you assume traditional myths surrounding centaurs at any rate.... They run off with women all the time in the old greek myths if you get my drift). Harry also showed he lacked empathy and OOTP almost suggested that harry's black-and-white mentality would be shown as wrong. Or so I hoped.
Turned out however the author APPROVED of this. JK made a mistake in this way- she 'fell in love' with Harry and he could do 'no wrong' it seemed as the series went on. The idea of 'house unity' was demolished, and all of the 'slimy' snakes were unlikeable. Even if they were 'good'/'not evil' they were beaten down and made unprsentable- either ass kissers, cowards or those who did not care if a BABY was killed.
As I said before, just because you LIKE a character, doesn't mean you should view them as perfect. It kind of means you more like the IDEA of the character if you don't notice the flaws.
I like Sulley and hate that he banished Randall.
I like Randall but would not have been happy if he'd succeeded in his plans to experiment on Boo or killed someone.
Basically.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 11, 2009 15:46:12 GMT -5
Thanks. It was kind of also partly to attract possible Sulley or Sulley and Mike fans- give them something to at least think about. As I said in my author's note, even if people AREN'T fans of Randall, it would be great if they wrote in to express their concerns over the idea of Randall doing bad things... just for the sake of being evil. It wouldn't make for a good story no matter what they thought of him. Look at Voldemort in Harry Potter- one of multiple reasons why so many people were disappointed in the last 2 books of the series, was that Lord Voldemort in the 6th book was protrayed as being BORN evil. He was just a sociopath. He never even CHOSE evil. The HP series did an excellent thing in injecting some 'greyness' in book 5- or so I thought, when two of the heroes, Harry and Hermione committed various disturbing acts (For instance, Hermione more or less got one of the female 'baddies'- a racist and admittaedly HORRIBLE person, raped. Seriously, the girl set another woman up like that delibrately. At least that is what is inferred when you assume traditional myths surrounding centaurs at any rate.... They run off with women all the time in the old greek myths if you get my drift). Harry also showed he lacked empathy and OOTP almost suggested that harry's black-and-white mentality would be shown as wrong. Or so I hoped. Turned out however the author APPROVED of this. JK made a mistake in this way- she 'fell in love' with Harry and he could do 'no wrong' it seemed as the series went on. The idea of 'house unity' was demolished, and all of the 'slimy' snakes were unlikeable. Even if they were 'good'/'not evil' they were beaten down and made unprsentable- either ass kissers, cowards or those who did not care if a BABY was killed. As I said before, just because you LIKE a character, doesn't mean you should view them as perfect. It kind of means you more like the IDEA of the character if you don't notice the flaws. I like Sulley and hate that he banished Randall. I like Randall but would not have been happy if he'd succeeded in his plans to experiment on Boo or killed someone. Basically. My thoughts exactly. Randall appeals to me so much(beyond looks)because he's imperfect. He has the same flaws that I do, and the same potential to do good or bad that I do...that ALL of us do. I've stated before that I do NOT, in any way, shape or form, buy into this notion of Randall having been "born evil" or of him having been a "career criminal", as is suggested by the comics. They make it seem as though he's always lived a life of crime. If this were true, there's no way in Hell he could have gotten a job, let alone one considered high-risk and of such importance, like a Scarer. He'd have had to pass an extensive mental, physical and psychological exam to get that job, and if he'd been a sociopath or had some really severe mental/emotional illness at that time, it would have showed up. Any evaluator would have noticed the "red flags" immediately. It's also highly unlikely that if Randall had been the criminal type, that he'd have managed to avoid any run-ins with the law, and that, too, would have been part of the record that personel would have taken into account. By ignoring these basic facts of employment, both Pixar and the BOOM! Studio writers are simply turning Randall into a Saturday morning cartoon villain by implying that he has always been a criminal and always done bad things. By not showing that Sulley is capable of feeling guilt or remorse over HIS wrongdoing, they are also denigrating HIM, as well. While that would be forgivable in a comic aimed at young children, I can't forgive Pixar. For what it's worth, I hold them to a higher standard, and I've come to expect more intelligent things from them. I hate to think of them "dumbing down" their characters and plots in order to please that "lowest common denominator" of the not-so-bright and shallow-minded movie goers. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Sept 11, 2009 16:04:46 GMT -5
I will have to admit, however, that I once DID view Randall as evil, which actually made me not like him, considering my sensitivity to reptiles/reptilian things portrayed as evil (happy to have found his fans who were wiser than I once was, in other words). I was young, then, so maybe that's what Pixar had in mind with this whole change of storyline, without the resentment of reptile-vilifying from the audience.
The thing is, kid-friendly-only stuff as opposed to stuff enjoyable for all ages is actually not THAT new for Pixar. Last year, for instance (and if you keep up to date on Pixar Planet, you already read this), I came across a kid's book based on Wall-E's journey through space. In contrast, the REAL plot to the movie covers some fairly dark themes: theoretical apocalypses, abuse of the environment (both represented by the Earth throughout most of the movie), and obesity (the humans). These themes are clearly for the older of people.
The point I'm trying to make is this: there was evidence that Pixar did not often appeal to ALL ages for quite a while; this was just another nail in the coffin for those who don't like kids-only movies. What happened was somewhat realistic on Pixar's part, no matter how much criticism they may receive from people like us.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 11, 2009 20:08:10 GMT -5
I will have to admit, however, that I once DID view Randall as evil, which actually made me not like him, considering my sensitivity to reptiles/reptilian things portrayed as evil (happy to have found his fans who were wiser than I once was, in other words). I was young, then, so maybe that's what Pixar had in mind with this whole change of storyline, without the resentment of reptile-vilifying from the audience. The thing is, kid-friendly-only stuff as opposed to stuff enjoyable for all ages is actually not THAT new for Pixar. Last year, for instance (and if you keep up to date on Pixar Planet, you already read this), I came across a kid's book based on Wall-E's journey through space. In contrast, the REAL plot to the movie covers some fairly dark themes: theoretical apocalypses, abuse of the environment (both represented by the Earth throughout most of the movie), and obesity (the humans). These themes are clearly for the older of people. The point I'm trying to make is this: there was evidence that Pixar did not often appeal to ALL ages for quite a while; this was just another nail in the coffin for those who don't like kids-only movies. What happened was somewhat realistic on Pixar's part, no matter how much criticism they may receive from people like us. While the kiddie books based on Pixar movies DO feature Pixar characters, they are NOT written by Pixar writers, but by people hired by DISNEY, so they are not Pixar books as such. Pixar's MOVIES, on the other hand, have always been intended to appeal to all ages, not just to little kids. They have yet to make a movie that most adults would not enjoy, that did not have material in it that was probably "over the heads" of most young children. I'm not sure what "change of storyline" you're referring to, regarding Randall, that DOESN'T vilify reptiles or reptile-like characters. He is clearly portrayed as the embodiment of pure Evil, with a capital "E", in the BOOM! comics, even moreso than he was in the movie, where at least he had a motive and understandable reasons for doing the things he did. In the comics, he appears to have degenerated into the typical "I'm mean just because I can be and I love it" sort of villain, a "Curse you, Sullivan, and your little sidekick, too" sort of Bad Guy, who does awful things just because he can, who simply enjoys hurting others. He's got nothing to gain at all, really, and openly admits to wanting to cause trouble, even though he won't stand to benefit from it, unlike what he thought he would be gaining if he'd succeeded with the Scream Extractor. I can't see how this is in any way a positive portrayal of Randall, or of scaly creatures or characters in general, unless there's something in this thread that I've missed. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Sept 11, 2009 21:17:37 GMT -5
I never did catch the name of the author of the book I had mentioned, so it's probably true that it was a Disney writer. I don't see anything in these comics that doesn't vilify reptiles, either. When I wrote "without the resentment of reptile-vilifying from the audience", what I meant was that Pixar doesn't expect many (if anybody) to protest against Randall being evil. In other words, what I WAS trying to address was the potential popularity of these comics, considering how regular it is to portray reptilian things as pure evil. Sorry if I worded it badly, pitbulllady.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Sept 12, 2009 16:15:40 GMT -5
People's mind can change really. It's all about interpretation in the end. I might have NEVER have questioned Randall as a 'villain' if Sulley hadn't banished him. Before THAT scene I was pretty convinced of the black/white hats type of movie. I liked the first viewing based entirely on Sulley and Boo's father-daughter bond. The banishing seriously jolted me! I was 15 at the time when I first watched it actually.
Or perhaps on further viewings I WOULD have eventually sunk in monsters pretty much saw humans as lesser animals anyway even if that hadn't happened and Randall had instead been put in jail by the authorities. It may just have taken MORE viewings for that to sink in rather than just a few. It's hard to say.
It may sound silly now, but soon after I watched the DVD several times, I kind of EXPECTED a sequel because of what happened to Randall, perhaps this would even be the set up of a TRILOGY if you get me. (Since it seems story arcs are allergic to the number two sometimes... anyway).
Because honestly, the movie brought SOME (but not complete in the kid's case) closure on the relationships Sulley (the main character) had with Mike, Waternoose and Boo...
But not Randall. I never assumed he was dead and the fact that the hero of the story did this wrong to him was actually what I THOUGHT would be the set up for something spectacular. Like an epic trilogy or movie duo. In my mind I thought perhaps Randall might try to get revenge, or want it, but as the story went on some reconciliation would eventually happen. Not to mention it would also be possible to have a side story on Randall and BOO's relationship at the same time. It wasn't really resolved completely either in the first movie, IMO.
Plus there is the whole potential related drama due to Boo's parents, and her 24 hour disapperance. Plus on a more personal note, I also wanted to know more about the monster world- is it merely an alternative universe of earth the monsters stumbled upon (on that island somehow?), which although was JUST like earth (had the same species- or similar ones, to get sushi etc.), didn't have any sentient beings at the time? What about other monsters in the human world? Have there been ones who actually become FRIENDS with humans?
People said M.I was complete, but I never really saw it as complete myself. There were lose ends. Most of them related to Randall.
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Sept 12, 2009 16:53:48 GMT -5
People's mind can change really. It's all about interpretation in the end. I might have NEVER have questioned Randall as a 'villain' if Sulley hadn't banished him. Before THAT scene I was pretty convinced of the black/white hats type of movie. I liked the first viewing based entirely on Sulley and Boo's father-daughter bond. The banishing seriously jolted me! I was 15 at the time when I first watched it actually. Or perhaps on further viewings I WOULD have eventually sunk in monsters pretty much saw humans as lesser animals anyway even if that hadn't happened and Randall had instead been put in jail by the authorities. It may just have taken MORE viewings for that to sink in rather than just a few. It's hard to say. It may sound silly now, but soon after I watched the DVD several times, I kind of EXPECTED a sequel because of what happened to Randall, perhaps this would even be the set up of a TRILOGY if you get me. (Since it seems story arcs are allergic to the number two sometimes... anyway). Because honestly, the movie brought SOME (but not complete in the kid's case) closure on the relationships Sulley (the main character) had with Mike, Waternoose and Boo... But not Randall. I never assumed he was dead and the fact that the hero of the story did this wrong to him was actually what I THOUGHT would be the set up for something spectacular. Like an epic trilogy or movie duo. In my mind I thought perhaps Randall might try to get revenge, or want it, but as the story went on some reconciliation would eventually happen. Not to mention it would also be possible to have a side story on Randall and BOO's relationship at the same time. It wasn't really resolved completely either in the first movie, IMO. Plus there is the whole potential related drama due to Boo's parents, and her 24 hour disapperance. Plus on a more personal note, I also wanted to know more about the monster world- is it merely an alternative universe of earth the monsters stumbled upon (on that island somehow?), which although was JUST like earth (had the same species- or similar ones, to get sushi etc.), didn't have any sentient beings at the time? What about other monsters in the human world? Have there been ones who actually become FRIENDS with humans? People said M.I was complete, but I never really saw it as complete myself. There were lose ends. Most of them related to Randall. You raise valid points about interpretation, and I must admit I never really thought too much about your questions that didn't relate to Randall. I eventually started to think the same way, thank goodness, and so have many, so I guess we may not have expected this surprise, especially in regards to Sullivan's emotions and Randall. As previously said, Pixar tends to sometimes cover themes for older people, even if they do add a kiddy flavor to it, such as Wall-E. I guess it WAS logical to assume that Pixar thought a similar way about the M.I. franchise. I do not mean to sound like an overly-cheery optimist (which I never was), nor do I mean to suggest refraining from writing letters to be on the safe side, but let's not forget that it was not actually Pixar who wrote this; rather, it was an independent company that got the licenses to use their stuff. To be honest, something tells me that the details of this failure for a M.I. comic are not limited to that particular franchise; I admit that I did not read any of them, but it's very easy for me to assume that the Incredibles comic, for instance, is very young kiddy-themed as well. Not only do the comics seem to not be marketed well (at least for now, thank goodness), as I have not seen any of Boom!'s comics in any book stores, but also, it's hard for me to assume the depth of at LEAST the villains would exceed Spiderman (an example being Venom), if it even gets close to THAT. Just before I posted this, I also came across actual proof for poor marketing: I looked on Amazon, and the first issue will not be available on what is probably the largest and most popular online store until April 6th next year, even despite it's already released! The date might change, but, at least for now, I feel it proves my point. EDIT: I'm also fully aware that this is "extended canon", but, even if it remains that way, SO many more people will have known about the sequel in the future than this.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Sept 12, 2009 19:05:14 GMT -5
*chuckles* Come now Mentalguru. I thought you would be the one to question "was Waternoose connected to someone else?" hm hm hm. ------------- Of course the word "canon" is flimsy in itself sometimes, even more so when multiple "official" media comes into play. Full of contradictions and puzzlements. Take Boom for instance. What IS Boom? A comic producing and writing company at the core. And what does it supply? Well from some briefness, comics with action and suspense. And it is these core properties that emulate onto the story. Now the film...that was a multiude of properties that emulated well with each other and did not overtake one or the other. And it's these properties that can also affect the "Faithfulness" of what is later shown.
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Sept 12, 2009 19:20:08 GMT -5
Yes, I have read a little bit about Boom! Comics' history; they apparently used to stick exclusively to horror! And it is these broad uses of "canon" you describe, RandallBoggs, that might prove us wrong about Pixar. I admit that the story is not faithful, but the field is very limited, being categorized under "Kids" as well as the aforementioned poor marketing. Some details I remember were actually "funny", and NOT in a good way (i.e. Randall is claimed to have pursued a life of crime all his life, yet he once worked for a major company? And we never find out how he got back! And how is a mere type of punch in itself a crime?), and if Pixar really DID think this through, then the wise, mind-opening themes covered in their movies (and even in some of the Disney-based Pixar stuff) were complete coincidences. I seriously doubt this is the case with the makers of the M.I. franchise, as it clearly is not for several of the others. Heck, the only proof we have, insofar as other movies, that Randall will be killed off was the fate of Muntz in Up, which is the ONLY other film Peter Docter has directed so far.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Sept 12, 2009 19:36:23 GMT -5
And horror is something they'd use to emulate Randall.
*rubs temple* Muntz...is not actually in the death total right now. I've only seen the film once, but that was enough, and I remember the event well. Muntz had his leg caught by a few balloons, which proceeded to drag him off the ship. He fell, yes, but death for him is only one possibility. The balloons could have slowed his descent. And by recall they were currently over the water that Paradise Falls surrounds. So he would have a slow, albiet harsh, hit to the water. Now Muntz is indeed an old man, spranging his back and what not (and I find it curious that Carl looked MUCH older despite that he was a kid when Muntz was some-what an adult)...however, the man is an adventurer, and the use of swimming is probably in his list of skills. Muntz could very well be alive.
*looks up* The fact that they completely ignored the events of Randall's exile (remember. "Banishment" is an albiet harsh ruling in a court), is indeed interesting. I have little doubts that they'll make a referrance in some text in the future comics...but the fact remains it was completely ignored as a basis for the events, and may simple be just that, a referrance. That leaves a missing, but useful, gap in the complete story. If these comics ARE a "lead into a sequel" it will prove to be a fault on Pixar's part, because in essence, it's not original. I would be a carbon copy of events already told, and in fact told imporperly. And it's not just Randall's story. It's completely bizzare that Waternoose ACTUALLY got landed in jail. Honestly people...how many criminal CEOs are in jail right now that didn't have a highly trained team of lawyers on their side? (Anybody see The Rainmaker? 0_-)
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Sept 12, 2009 20:04:45 GMT -5
*looks up* The fact that they completely ignored the events of Randall's exile (remember. "Banishment" is an albiet harsh ruling in a court), is indeed interesting. I have little doubts that they'll make a referrance in some text in the future comics...but the fact remains it was completely ignored as a basis for the events, and may simple be just that, a referrance. That leaves a missing, but useful, gap in the complete story. If these comics ARE a "lead into a sequel" it will prove to be a fault on Pixar's part, because in essence, it's not original. Which is exactly why I'm hoping that the situation is not as dire as we think it is: there are just too many plot-holes. Heck, another example of how unfaithful it is to the movie is Boo: whatever age she was in the movie, she would definitely act different in the comics if they had good writers, considering it's been at least a year. My conclusion, which I hope will be proven correct, is that this is not what Pixar intended; its just not LIKE Pixar to change their franchises so drastically, or allow another company to do it, for that matter. The comics clearly are meant to gear towards the young and/or naive instead of the whole family, and, combined with the fact that there were hints in the movie AT ALL that Randall was not PURE evil, at the very least, something tells me that there was some sort of lack of communication between Pixar and Boom! Comics, even if miniscule. Something is going to happen, and, hopefully, if there's a battle, Boom! Comics is going to lose.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Sept 12, 2009 20:09:23 GMT -5
I didn't think it dire before-hand. Which is why I took the time to anaylze the first comic. And that's something else to tail on Boo. The end of the film takes place a year after the events, and so far, everything well. And we KNOW that Sullivan had NO contact with Boo because the door was shattered, repaired by Wazowski. Now physically she wouldn't be COMPLETELY different. Now from how Wazowski handles Boo, it's safe to say Sullivan visits her and hardly (or never) has brought her into the Factory, despite him being CEO. At least one good point is the fact that this Randall NEVER mentioned Boo at all. Which is drastically strange. If Pixar intended for him to be shown that way, SURELY the way to do is for him not to focus on the heroes, but the "little girl".
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Sept 12, 2009 20:22:22 GMT -5
At least one good point is the fact that this Randall NEVER mentioned Boo at all. Which is drastically strange. If Pixar intended for him to be shown that way, SURELY the way to do is for him not to focus on the heroes, but the "little girl". On the other hand, Randall did not know all along that Boo was in Mike and Sullivan's hands in the movie, and that may have been the one detail the writer DID note about Randall. Not to say that it's a bad thing entirely, though; most people who hated Randall in the movie seemed to hate him mostly for what he had to do to Boo. In any case, I'm starting to think that we should do something regarding the comics as well as the upcoming movie sequel. At the very least, we should demand that the comics should not be considered "canon" and have no relation to the sequel. Not fully behind it, though, so anything anyone says about this "grassroots" idea will probably be fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Sept 12, 2009 20:25:56 GMT -5
He didn't untill he saw it on the paper. And from there he patched things together.
*shakes head* We have no option in demanding anything. And even if we did, the comics are essentially finished, only awaiting their release.
|
|