Post by sgtyayap on Oct 16, 2009 5:47:20 GMT -5
Just got a comment on my "Not Evil" video, which, for some reason, was posted as a comment for one of my dA works:
"Hello. I saw your Randall videos on YouTube, and since I am not a registered member of YouTube and am unable to leave critique for them there, I am posting it here. Please bear with me; nothing I say is intended to be personal.
I am a Randall fan (I’m always drawn to the villains), I desperately hope for a sequel to the movie, and I enjoyed your “Why Randall isn’t evil” video very much; it was well made, showed a good attention to detail, and I liked the music you put to it, but I must address some things that bothered me about its systematic writing-off of Randall’s acts the film.
First off, calling his scaring of Mike “nothing but a practical joke.” Sure, it’s far from his most villainous actions, but it was still a malicious act, intended to humiliate without thought to the other’s feelings. A “ractical joke,” even when carried out without true intent to harm, still has the power to hurt, and the consequences can be life-scarring. Recently here in my home state, a couple of high school football players were prosecuted for sodomizing at least one classmate with a broomstick. Ha ha, funny joke, huh?
Randall is a BULLY (even the creators confirmed this in the audio commentary, saying that they viewed Randall as one of those people in middle school who would push you without a reason).
I don’t think that Randall was forced into an (insert Marlon Brando-voice here) “offer he couldn’t refuse” with Waternoose. I’m pretty sure it was all Randall’s idea, (after all, Waternoose clearly says, “I never should have trusted you with this,”, pitched to a desperate Waternoose at just the right time, as he certainly showed no hesitation or remorse while hunting Boo and carrying out her appointment with the Scream Extractor and crowing about all the glory he’s going to achieve along the way. Randall’s actions seemed to me to be more to benefit himself than any concern for the energy crisis. And when did Waternoose say that it was his idea? What I heard was “I should never have trusted you with this,” sounding more to me like “I should never have gone through with YOUR idea” than “I should never have trusted YOU with MY idea.”
I doubt that Randall was up all night hunting for Boo out of real concern for her. More likely he was hoping to find her before someone else did and traced her back to him, or before she caused too much chaos and Waternoose retracted his offer at seeing Randall’s failure.
Yes, Randall declares that he wants Sullivan working for him rather than killing him; Randall isn’t a murderer at this point, but besides, isn’t having your greatest rival working under you far greater than killing him, seeing him every day and knowing that you’ve won?
No, Randall didn’t hate Boo. She was just a pawn. And yes, humans were viewed by monsters the way dumb people view animals, as things without feelings, but WE know that Boo is sentient, and WE know that whatever the machine does to her will not be good. That machine had probably never been fully tested before, and maybe he would have modified it afterword had things gone badly, but he was more than willing to risk the dangerous effects it might have on Boo. Everything Randall does, from kidnapping a little girl from attempting to murder Mike and Sully, is out of desire for his own glory, with little to no thought about who gets crushed in the way. Steve Buscemi himself calls Randall “No morals, no scruples, basically evil at heart.”
(On a side note, I didn’t understand what you meant about Boo’s attack on Randall as NOT overcoming her fears. How was it not? She was finally fighting the person who scared her to save the life of someone she cared about, rather than cowering while murder was committed.)
I do agree with you on some things, however. It did seem odd that no matter what Randall did, he kept falling short of Sullivan on the scare floor. You’d think a scream is a scream, right? (Unless maybe it’s measured by intensity, thus is Sully is the more frightening monster and able to get louder screams then it does make sense.) Yes, Waternoose clearly favored Sullivan, but it seemed to me he favored him mostly BECAUSE he was the top scarer and it doesn’t make sense to me that Waternoose would rig it like that. So the question is, who? That sounds like it could be a fanfic, an investigation into a conspiracy at Monsters Inc.
My favorite part of your video was the catch of Randall putting his hand briefly on Boo’s arm as he’s strapping her into the Scream Extractor chair. It’s possible that it was a fluke on the animation’s part, as right before he does, we see him strapping down both of her arms, in the next shot (cut to Waternoose saying “because of you I had to banish my top scarer, back to Randall) her left arm is still free; more likely he was just taking her arm to strap it down. But, the possibility of a moment of remorse on his part, however brief and scant it may have been, is an interesting thing to note. (There was actually a wonderful fanfic showing the events of the film from Randall’s point of view, in which Randall did have a moment of sympathy for Boo in that scene.)
I do think your theory about Randall being an orphan is probably correct, and would explain some of his nature. I suspect his bullying behavior arises from a defense mechanism that compels him to hurt others before they can hurt him, such as in the scene when Sully attempts to soothe the troubled waters between them a bit and even offers a handshake, which Randall immediately brushes off. So, yes, Randall is a sleep-deprived, stressed guy with a troubled past, but does this excuse his actions? No way.
(A man gets abused as a child by his mother, does that excuse the dozens of rapes and murders he grows up to commit as a result?)
One last thing worth mentioning is that the heroes themselves did commit some acts of startling cruelty in the film, banishing Randall, but also hooking Fungus up the machine despite that they had no idea what it would do to him, and it might have killed him had Randall not turned it off. These things were intended to be funny (in the commentary, the creators talk about how they decided on Fungus’ puffy lips as comic material), but they didn’t exactly come off that way, did they?
As I end this, I apologize for the long ranting, but something about the video made me angry, and so I wrote this to exorcise the demons. At the same time, it scared me a bit, just the idea that anyone, even if it’s only a fictional movie, would try to justify the actions of those who commit heinous acts such as kidnapping and (even if only attempted) murder. When stars do terrible things, such as Roman Polanski’s rape of that girl, and people try to brush it off because the person is famous, I get sick to my stomach. No one, no matter if they have beauty, riches, or fame, should be exempt from the consequences of their actions, but sadly it doesn’t always work that way.
P.S. Best of luck with the cause."
Here's my response:
"Let me start by organizing my response by what you said. Don't take this as personal, yourself:
1. You used a very weird analogy for the scaring of Wazowski. What does getting a broom in the butt (which can be considered a crime) have to do with just startling someone? While I acknowledge that Pixar described him as such, there seems to be little (if any) evidence of that particular description.
2. Actually, Waternoose's "I never should have trusted you with this" was exactly what I was basing that detail on. Apparently it can be interpreted different ways, but the most realistic would be that Waternoose meant that he shouldn't have trusted him to take care of his plan. Think about it: if you were doing something illegal and your boss knew about it, don't you think your boss would fire you?
3. I'm open-ended on this one; I said myself that there were TWO possibilities.
4. Again, I'm open-ended on this one.
5. For Randall being willing to test the potentially dangerous effects on Boo, you seem to forget something you yourself said: humans were not viewed as sentient. What Randall did in that particular case, virtually any monster would. I acknowledge that Buscemi described him as "basically evil", but that was in the Disney-associated interviews. Have you tried looking elsewhere?
6. The side note: fighting something one fears is EXACTLY what the KKK do. Need I say anything else?
Your not "excusing" Randall's actions: You seem to have forgotten the effects of sleep-deprivation. It's normal for one under such a condition to act edgily and, in some cases, think irrationally. As for the general sense, I am NOT "excusing" Randall's actions. I admit they were wrong. All I'm doing is trying to interpret WHY he did those actions. NOT promoting them, just interpreting the reason."
"Hello. I saw your Randall videos on YouTube, and since I am not a registered member of YouTube and am unable to leave critique for them there, I am posting it here. Please bear with me; nothing I say is intended to be personal.
I am a Randall fan (I’m always drawn to the villains), I desperately hope for a sequel to the movie, and I enjoyed your “Why Randall isn’t evil” video very much; it was well made, showed a good attention to detail, and I liked the music you put to it, but I must address some things that bothered me about its systematic writing-off of Randall’s acts the film.
First off, calling his scaring of Mike “nothing but a practical joke.” Sure, it’s far from his most villainous actions, but it was still a malicious act, intended to humiliate without thought to the other’s feelings. A “ractical joke,” even when carried out without true intent to harm, still has the power to hurt, and the consequences can be life-scarring. Recently here in my home state, a couple of high school football players were prosecuted for sodomizing at least one classmate with a broomstick. Ha ha, funny joke, huh?
Randall is a BULLY (even the creators confirmed this in the audio commentary, saying that they viewed Randall as one of those people in middle school who would push you without a reason).
I don’t think that Randall was forced into an (insert Marlon Brando-voice here) “offer he couldn’t refuse” with Waternoose. I’m pretty sure it was all Randall’s idea, (after all, Waternoose clearly says, “I never should have trusted you with this,”, pitched to a desperate Waternoose at just the right time, as he certainly showed no hesitation or remorse while hunting Boo and carrying out her appointment with the Scream Extractor and crowing about all the glory he’s going to achieve along the way. Randall’s actions seemed to me to be more to benefit himself than any concern for the energy crisis. And when did Waternoose say that it was his idea? What I heard was “I should never have trusted you with this,” sounding more to me like “I should never have gone through with YOUR idea” than “I should never have trusted YOU with MY idea.”
I doubt that Randall was up all night hunting for Boo out of real concern for her. More likely he was hoping to find her before someone else did and traced her back to him, or before she caused too much chaos and Waternoose retracted his offer at seeing Randall’s failure.
Yes, Randall declares that he wants Sullivan working for him rather than killing him; Randall isn’t a murderer at this point, but besides, isn’t having your greatest rival working under you far greater than killing him, seeing him every day and knowing that you’ve won?
No, Randall didn’t hate Boo. She was just a pawn. And yes, humans were viewed by monsters the way dumb people view animals, as things without feelings, but WE know that Boo is sentient, and WE know that whatever the machine does to her will not be good. That machine had probably never been fully tested before, and maybe he would have modified it afterword had things gone badly, but he was more than willing to risk the dangerous effects it might have on Boo. Everything Randall does, from kidnapping a little girl from attempting to murder Mike and Sully, is out of desire for his own glory, with little to no thought about who gets crushed in the way. Steve Buscemi himself calls Randall “No morals, no scruples, basically evil at heart.”
(On a side note, I didn’t understand what you meant about Boo’s attack on Randall as NOT overcoming her fears. How was it not? She was finally fighting the person who scared her to save the life of someone she cared about, rather than cowering while murder was committed.)
I do agree with you on some things, however. It did seem odd that no matter what Randall did, he kept falling short of Sullivan on the scare floor. You’d think a scream is a scream, right? (Unless maybe it’s measured by intensity, thus is Sully is the more frightening monster and able to get louder screams then it does make sense.) Yes, Waternoose clearly favored Sullivan, but it seemed to me he favored him mostly BECAUSE he was the top scarer and it doesn’t make sense to me that Waternoose would rig it like that. So the question is, who? That sounds like it could be a fanfic, an investigation into a conspiracy at Monsters Inc.
My favorite part of your video was the catch of Randall putting his hand briefly on Boo’s arm as he’s strapping her into the Scream Extractor chair. It’s possible that it was a fluke on the animation’s part, as right before he does, we see him strapping down both of her arms, in the next shot (cut to Waternoose saying “because of you I had to banish my top scarer, back to Randall) her left arm is still free; more likely he was just taking her arm to strap it down. But, the possibility of a moment of remorse on his part, however brief and scant it may have been, is an interesting thing to note. (There was actually a wonderful fanfic showing the events of the film from Randall’s point of view, in which Randall did have a moment of sympathy for Boo in that scene.)
I do think your theory about Randall being an orphan is probably correct, and would explain some of his nature. I suspect his bullying behavior arises from a defense mechanism that compels him to hurt others before they can hurt him, such as in the scene when Sully attempts to soothe the troubled waters between them a bit and even offers a handshake, which Randall immediately brushes off. So, yes, Randall is a sleep-deprived, stressed guy with a troubled past, but does this excuse his actions? No way.
(A man gets abused as a child by his mother, does that excuse the dozens of rapes and murders he grows up to commit as a result?)
One last thing worth mentioning is that the heroes themselves did commit some acts of startling cruelty in the film, banishing Randall, but also hooking Fungus up the machine despite that they had no idea what it would do to him, and it might have killed him had Randall not turned it off. These things were intended to be funny (in the commentary, the creators talk about how they decided on Fungus’ puffy lips as comic material), but they didn’t exactly come off that way, did they?
As I end this, I apologize for the long ranting, but something about the video made me angry, and so I wrote this to exorcise the demons. At the same time, it scared me a bit, just the idea that anyone, even if it’s only a fictional movie, would try to justify the actions of those who commit heinous acts such as kidnapping and (even if only attempted) murder. When stars do terrible things, such as Roman Polanski’s rape of that girl, and people try to brush it off because the person is famous, I get sick to my stomach. No one, no matter if they have beauty, riches, or fame, should be exempt from the consequences of their actions, but sadly it doesn’t always work that way.
P.S. Best of luck with the cause."
Here's my response:
"Let me start by organizing my response by what you said. Don't take this as personal, yourself:
1. You used a very weird analogy for the scaring of Wazowski. What does getting a broom in the butt (which can be considered a crime) have to do with just startling someone? While I acknowledge that Pixar described him as such, there seems to be little (if any) evidence of that particular description.
2. Actually, Waternoose's "I never should have trusted you with this" was exactly what I was basing that detail on. Apparently it can be interpreted different ways, but the most realistic would be that Waternoose meant that he shouldn't have trusted him to take care of his plan. Think about it: if you were doing something illegal and your boss knew about it, don't you think your boss would fire you?
3. I'm open-ended on this one; I said myself that there were TWO possibilities.
4. Again, I'm open-ended on this one.
5. For Randall being willing to test the potentially dangerous effects on Boo, you seem to forget something you yourself said: humans were not viewed as sentient. What Randall did in that particular case, virtually any monster would. I acknowledge that Buscemi described him as "basically evil", but that was in the Disney-associated interviews. Have you tried looking elsewhere?
6. The side note: fighting something one fears is EXACTLY what the KKK do. Need I say anything else?
Your not "excusing" Randall's actions: You seem to have forgotten the effects of sleep-deprivation. It's normal for one under such a condition to act edgily and, in some cases, think irrationally. As for the general sense, I am NOT "excusing" Randall's actions. I admit they were wrong. All I'm doing is trying to interpret WHY he did those actions. NOT promoting them, just interpreting the reason."
