|
Post by pitbulllady on Apr 24, 2010 22:00:53 GMT -5
Mary Gibbs...an actress?! Somehow, I think no, since MI, I haven't heard anything about any other movies she's been in so more than likely, she isn't an actress but if they did bring Boo back in this film, while it would be nice to see her casted again, I would think that decision would solely lie on her parents to decide. If they had to replace her, chances are Disney would use their "it" girl Selena Gomez since so many dumb preteens actually thinks she's younger than Cyrus (she isn't). As for the rest of the cast, if they aren't recasted for whatever strange reason, the answer could be as simple as the issue of money. It's that same issue why Catherine O'hara didn't reprise her role as Sally and Shock in Oogie's Revenge, it's like they say, money talks. Although, some voices would be hard to replace like Tilly's voice (love her as Tiffany, hate her as Celia), her voice would be very hard for another actress to copy. I think that the main consideration whether or not to have Mary Gibbs voice a character wouldn't so much depend on her parents(after all, one of them, at least, works for Pixar, or at least used to if he's not still there) decision so much as her ability to ACT. Now, she's a teenager, and she'd have to convincingly act her part, vocally at least, plus have the right-sounding voice for her character. For a toddler to run around and play, giggle, laugh, shrief and squeal isn't acting; that's just normal little kid behavior, but for a 14-16 year-old to play a role-well, THAT would require actual talent, and since she's never actually done that, we have no indication that she can pull it off. If I was going to put money on it, I'd have to say that Mary Gibbs the daughter of the Pixar employee won't be voicing any characters, although Mary Gibbs the movie character, aka "Boo", might still return, just voiced by someone else. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Apr 24, 2010 23:29:42 GMT -5
Well, yeah, acting is definitely required for any voice role but it also depends on what they do with the character of Boo. If Boo is made to be older in this movie and depending on how old she is portrayed then they don't necessarily need Mary to do her voice. Since Boo was two years old in the movie and if she's then aged to be around early pre teens to teens age, naturally her voice would change some as well. There's always a possibility that they could hire a professional voice actress, I believe some of the old voice actors for shows like the rugrats did a pretty good job doing kids voices considering that they were adults. Right now though, it's still a little early to know exactly who will be returning for this film and who won't be.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on May 14, 2010 4:19:16 GMT -5
So.... has Pixar announced this movie directly themselves yet?
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on May 14, 2010 5:07:33 GMT -5
So.... has Pixar announced this movie directly themselves yet? No one from Pixar has said anything yet, but Disney has...just very little. It has been officially confirmed, just no details at all. Since that original press release from Disney, there's been nothing at all other than speculation. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on May 15, 2010 9:03:05 GMT -5
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I mean it's an 11 year gap when you think about it though. (That's... pretty big... but then again the gap between TS2 and 3 is pretty large itself).
I'm not about to say any sequel is better than none of course. And given the fact TS3 trailer is... okay but not all that impressive (I kind of agree with RD on that score about it feeling like some of Dreamworks less than brilliant productions), it leaves me apprenhensive in more ways than one.
They BETTER have been rewatching M.I. over and over again and not just rely on their memories of it.
And you know also thinking things through about whether the WORLD they've created and continue to present in the sequel makes sense.
Granted, a part of me is interested to see M.I. itself in the cinemas (which, probably they'll do like they did for TS and TS2). I only saw M.I. first on DVD in 2004 (Ithink, it was a christmas though) so it might be an experience to have. Plus to see audience reactions and new people whole movie and what they think of it.
Granted this isn't something you always get (there were few people when I went to see Dreamworks latest but Up had many people... but I didn't get the impression many were 'blown away' by it. You got laughs yes from Carl and Ellie as kids as well as Russell and Dug the odd time, but for the most part I didn't get the impression people were as impressed compared to HTTYD (and THAT movie had a smaller audience as mentioned when I went).
-Shrugs- But maybe I'm biased.
Sometimes going for the audience can be part of the experience itself though.
So... I wonder if next year they'll be showing M.I. in cinema in 3D or something too.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on May 15, 2010 12:09:15 GMT -5
Guess we'll just have to wait and see. I mean it's an 11 year gap when you think about it though. (That's... pretty big... but then again the gap between TS2 and 3 is pretty large itself). I'm not about to say any sequel is better than none of course. And given the fact TS3 trailer is... okay but not all that impressive (I kind of agree with RD on that score about it feeling like some of Dreamworks less than brilliant productions), it leaves me apprenhensive in more ways than one. They BETTER have been rewatching M.I. over and over again and not just rely on their memories of it. And you know also thinking things through about whether the WORLD they've created and continue to present in the sequel makes sense. Granted, a part of me is interested to see M.I. itself in the cinemas (which, probably they'll do like they did for TS and TS2). I only saw M.I. first on DVD in 2004 (Ithink, it was a christmas though) so it might be an experience to have. Plus to see audience reactions and new people whole movie and what they think of it. Granted this isn't something you always get (there were few people when I went to see Dreamworks latest but Up had many people... but I didn't get the impression many were 'blown away' by it. You got laughs yes from Carl and Ellie as kids as well as Russell and Dug the odd time, but for the most part I didn't get the impression people were as impressed compared to HTTYD (and THAT movie had a smaller audience as mentioned when I went). -Shrugs- But maybe I'm biased. Sometimes going for the audience can be part of the experience itself though. So... I wonder if next year they'll be showing M.I. in cinema in 3D or something too. Some of the reports I've read do claim that MI2 will be released in 3-D, but I haven't read any quote from Disney to that effect, so it could be just supposition at this point, much like the casting is. I never got to see the original in theaters, either, just on DVD, so this will be interesting...IF it turns out to be worth going to see in theaters, that is. Like I said, if Randall is not in it, or if he's once more treated as a common criminal who is rotten to the core, always was and always will be, I have no intentions of parting with my hard-earned and scarce money to watch more of the "Wild and Wacky Adventures of Mike and Sulley". That said, though, I have learned that you can't judge a Pixar movie by its trailers. MOST of the Pixar trailers I've seen on tv did not impress me and some were downright misleading, including the ones for the original M.I. I really thought it was just a CGI version of the the Nicktoon, "AHHHH! Real Monsters!" I don't even recall seeing Randall in one of the trailers at all, so until I read about him in, of all places, a Lilo and Stitch fanfic on FF.net, I had no clue as to his existance. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on May 15, 2010 18:17:01 GMT -5
You know, I found something rather strange. It seems the gap between Toy Story 2 and 3, and the gap between M.I. and M.I. 2 are BOTH 11 years.
If the sequel is anything like the BOOM!Comics (aside from Sullivan's exhaust being CEO), then they will be making pure garbage.
*rubs temple* Does anybody know Andy's age in Toy Story 2 and his in Toy Story 3? Or even blantly his age in Toy Story and in Toy Story 2? Just wondering if Pixar will literally be sticking to a strict timeline (in general they DON'T HAVE TO...but just in question) or not. ------------- Some animation company did state that they would be releasing all their films in 3-D from now on, though I'm pretty sure it was Dreamworks. Though in general, I think paying extra for a 3-D movie and not getting ENOUGH 3-D from it is a scam. I mean personally I just like seeing the films as they have been before 3-D came in.
Some trailers generally take the "best parts" of a film to show, but when you get down to it, it kinda takes the best parts away and you just don't get interested in it heh.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on May 15, 2010 20:06:42 GMT -5
Andy's age in "TS3", according to official press releases, is supposed to be 18, since the plot involves him going off to college for the first time. I'd have to assume that IF the timeline of the TS movies follows real time, he would have been 7 at the time of the second TS installment.
I've read a few rumored accounts that in the MI sequel, Boo is supposed to be 20, but that would NOT be following the timeline of the original. In 2001, Boo was just 2, and we can see by the newspapers in Monstropolis that the year was indeed 2001, the same year as the movie's release, so if it follows "real time" progression for the sequel, she'd be just 13. For her to be 20 would mean that the sequel is set 18 years after the original. One poster on IMDb(again, not the most reliable source of information)stated that the plot had Boo being 20, making and selling dolls that looked like Mike and Sulley, which would almost be as lame and unoriginal as the "Randall returns and tries to get revenge on our heroes and kidnaps Boo, yada yada yada" theme.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on May 15, 2010 20:13:48 GMT -5
Figured 18... So if you think from 1995 (TY) to 1999 (TY2)...Andy would have been THREE in the original. So Pixar is not strict in the time sense.
Actually I had seen something like that that I found while looking around: "I have the plot for Monsters, inc. 2! My uncle who is a sound producer at Pixar let me off on the plot of the movie. The story picks up 20 years later. Boo is all grown up and has a family of her own. She runs a toy company that makes stuffed animals. One night, one of the monsters who works at Monsters, inc. comes into Boo's daughters' roomt to do their normal comedy routine to power up Monstropolis. He sees a stuffed toy of Sullivan the owner of Monsters, inc. (which Boo made from her childhood dreams). He reports back to Sully about what he found, and Sully goesthrough the door to see for himself. When he enters the room, grown up Boo is sleepimg on her daughter's bed, and groggily awakes just long enough to see Sully. Sully jumps back into the closet, and runs off the laughing floor, leaving the door open. Boo follows him in, only to find herself in the plant. She looks around thinking,"This place looks familiar"! Sorry that's all I my uncle told me. Anyone else got anything on this?"
In some honesty, I like the idea of Boo growing up and using her faint memories to make stuffed "monsters".... BUT...That would be for like a third or fourth film...but I mean the SECOND? No no no. And to be honest...Randall surviving 18 years alone HERE? *waves hand* Nah uh. Not even 15 or 12. If this was the plot and they brought Randall in like you said it would be even more pathedic than those BOOM!Comics.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on May 16, 2010 6:37:35 GMT -5
Real subtle RB -- I don't really know what to think about that plot idea and Boo making plushies, BUT it seems unlikely anyone really has been told that. So called 'Uncle' would have his job on the line possibly if so in any case. I think they would have told a kid THAT when keeping it under wraps (if they even told at all... if they even exist which I doubt). If it's true this kid/guy is not bright or is rather naive and is not thinking about that. It might be one of those movies which ended up 'better than it sounds' IF it was true liked Finding Nemo and the Incredibles did in my case in some ways. (And other non-Pixar movies), it happens. If the 'plushies' are just a very small part in any case. But I'll admit for a sequel it's one hell of a jump in time. But we have to remember- MAYBE Randall IS dead in this already. We all like to think he got away from the trailer f course. Even after I found out people eat 'gators' I didn't think he was dead, given the fact I view Randall as a survivor more or less even if the average monster in a similar situation of being mistaken for food might not. It's partially a reason I can see him surviving for a long time. But it's too much for a movie for them to make that time jump IMO. It comes with complications the longer the time gap. NOT just because of Randall necessarily either. Plus it could have missed opportunities. Granted, this could be an excuse if they did to skate over the parents issue... again in the sequel like in the original...by making her old enough to be emancipated perhaps and having her own income in this case, so she really IS on her own. Which is pretty bad since the parents issues is fascinating all on its own and would be something good for Sulleys arc in the story too. Removing the parents from the picture completely as an issue makes things too easy when we know its probably more complicated than that given the fact she was missing for 24 hours. I'd actually be REALLY annoyed if they never saw the parents or they never made them had even the tinest of issues in all this.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on May 16, 2010 12:04:12 GMT -5
Knowing where the original notion of Boo being a grown-up in the sequel and making plush toys came from, actually puts my mind at ease. I do recall seeing that post, made by some kid who claimed his "uncle" worked for Pixar, over a year ago. I wish I had a nickle for every such claim I've seen made by some kid who wants attention, who claims that he/she has a relative or a friend who works for Pixar or Disney and who had provided them with top-secret information on some big project the studio is working on. We had many such posts show up on the Never Forgotten board, made by kids who claimed that they had a uncle/cousin/friend/parent who worked with Craig and Lauren and had revealed the plot of some upcoming episode or movie of "FHFIF" to them and them alone. These reports always were utterly false, and since the actual creators of that tv series were members of the forum, they were always quick to let us know that. Still, it didn't stop kids from assuming that all us adults were stupid and would fall for their attempts at looking important. Their "top-secret plots" as revealed by those "cousins/aunts/uncles/friends/dads, etc." were nothing more than fanfiction ideas that never got off the ground or were actual "plots" they'd mailed in to Cartoon Network, thinking that the studio would actually buy them and have them made into episodes of their favorite shows. They failed to grasp that the shows were written by people hired specifically to do that, who were on union wages and contracts, so it would have actually been illegal to accept and make a script based on one submitted by an outsider. Very often, these fake episode scripts in full detail would show up on Wikipedia, mirroring the "plots" revealed on the board, or in some cases, actual fanfics on FF.net. I was convinced the moment that I first saw that kid's post about his "uncle" working at Pixar that this was exactly the same phenomenon taking shape. It was simply that kid's idea of how the sequel should go, and rather than just state that, he/she had to make the absurd claim of having "inside information" not revealed to anyone else, in order to make himself/herself seem more important and to get attention. Remember that guy who came on Pixar Planet and claimed to have seen and read, first-hand, the wonderful script for MI2 that was written by Circle 7 Studios? As soon as someone called him out on it and asked for more information, including names of those involved, he disappeared. He realized that we weren't buying it, so his attempt to gain that glory of being "The ONE" who had that amazing insider connection to Pixar was falling flat. Unfortunately, on many boards, the users are either too young or too naive to question those ludicrous claims, so they just give the poster what they want-attention.
As for Randall's survival in our world, I honestly believe that this would be contingent upon one factor, that of him receiving immediate help from some human following his attack by the redneck with the shovel, intervention on someone's part to either stop the attack and/or administer proper medical treatment. I've seen first-hand the damage that a shovel can do to flesh and bone, not just to small animals like snakes, but to a dog, a Pit Bull Terrier to be exact, that was the subject of an animal cruely investigation by our local humane society. The dog would not stop barking, so its owner beat it to death with a shovel. It was a very disturbing sight. Pit Bulls are tough and can take a lot of abuse; they have been selectively bred for fighting, after all, and these dogs can fight for hours without really showing much damage. For something to really tear one up indicates just how damaging such a weapon can be. I want Randall to have survived as much as anyone, but from a medical perspective, without having someone there to give proper first aid, which would involve a lot more than simply applying bandages, his chances of not becoming that family's next protein source would have been slim, and even the intervention of someone at that point would have been nothing short of miraculous. True, his dying in that trailer would mean that Mike and Sulley, and Sulley especially, are guilty of murder, but you know there are a lot of people who still believe that them killing Randall(or at least being directly responsible for his death)is justified because of what he'd tried to do to them and to Boo, and to be sure there is a lot of that old reptile hate/fear playing a part in it, too-they believe he should have been killed for that reason alone. You can bet that if you put up a poll on many of the forums frequented by young people, asking them if they thought that killing another person in revenge was justified, the majority will say, "YES". They aren't taught values like forgiveness anymore, unless THEY are the ones who are the target of revenge, but most don't think that they are capable of doing something wrong. Everything they do is right and justified, since that's what they are taught from the moment they are born. That is part of the culture of "self-esteem".
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on May 16, 2010 12:52:47 GMT -5
True, I like to think he got away somehow, but it doesn't mean that he necessarily did. And it probably WOULD need someones intervention for them to stop. But the only person in the vincinity was the kid and the mother. Perhaps if the kid had been brighter or the mother had had better eye sight... maybe the kid figured it out eventually. Maybe the kid said 'Wait up' after he actually looked and thought (but as mentioned elsewhere he doesn't sound too bright) and perhaps Randall managed to get out, but the third hit would mean he was possibly in a bad state.
If I remember correctly, he got hit three times (four?), and the third (fourth?) one was pretty much a very bad one given his yelp at that one (the first/first and second one took him by surprise, second/third one got him down to the ground, the THIRD/FOURTH is what he was hit with when he was knocked down... wowch o_0)
It also depends however also on the force she could wield. Granted she's hardly frail it seems, and while even with little force it could present damage I'm not sure she could weild as much as the pitbull owner (depending on his age and what not, and I'm guessing it was repeated many many times though I'd have to see the article). But as you said pitbulls are hardy.
ANYTHING can technically be a weapon, though admiatedly shovels have more obvious and easier uses in that department than others.
Also that's an interesting take though (about forgiveness and all) which makes sense- because kids in some cases are taught they have to BE the best and in some cases taught they ARE the best, this can result in less than adequate empathy levels for people who fail to meet perfection. After all, they believe they can and perhaps ARE meeting perfection themselves so why should they feel sorry for people who in their eyes are less than perfect?
Granted its not true for everyone- there can be various reasons why people find it less than easy to forgive, and it usually isn't in any case, but I never really see there was much of a 'golden age' of forgiveness myself. Everyone was out to get someone or thinks they're better than someone else it seems in history. Always happened, always will be people who think like that. But I believe just as a random example WW1 works as an example of why revenge FAILS. Germany was made to 'pay' for ww1 when they lost which through various circumstances caused Hitlers rise to power and well... I don't have to say what happened there.
For me though I personally found it harder to GENUINELY forgive when I was much younger but that was more of a case of finding it hard to forgive myself a lot of the time as well as forcing myself to let go before I was ready to do so (because I felt I had a metophorical gun to my head as a kid if I didn't, not that my parents meant for me to feel that way, but it was there). Plus a [part of me finding it easier to do so now might be growing the f*** up a little bit but eh.
Personally I see forgiveness as something which should be taught to be valuable but it shouldn't be forced all the time or at least taught the way I took it to mean. It should be presented that when is all is said and done as a good thing but it shouldn't be heavy handed with the 'You MUST forgive or you'll BURN' mentality that I unfortunatly had. Because that just makes it more difficult to do so in reality and results in the harbouring of resentment. It however should be presented as a very healthy and good option to have, to tell people that what is best is usually reflect on the issues involved (is it important or not?), what they can put right now or in the future, what still has to be done, and the let go when possible in your own time. Because it can often be for your own good, as well as the people who care about you even regardless of the person who did it. And that you should promise yourself to try but not beat yourself up if you find it hard to do so. It doesn't make you a bad person, just human, and you're still angry, well you maybe have a right to be, it's however simply a fact that anger is not always a good thing to base all your ACTIONS on that's all. But you should never apologise for your feelings, because you can't really control them. Only with time, thinking and/or logical debate can feelings change, but what you immediately feel isn't something you should apologise for. (Of course if you voice the opinion, it should be expected that people will disagree and at times vocally and you have to account for that). And that the things which involve 'putting things right' in the process of being 'wronged' do not involve revenge. Revenge does not come into the equation. The desire for it is natural in certain circumstances, carrying out should not be encouraged and demonstrated as a bad thing.
Granted someone I discussed this with before (when I said I found forgiveness easier somehow now) said he more or less said 'letting go' or him only happened when the other person wasn't 'throwing punches'. I more or less see myself defending yourself in that case (forgiveness does not necessarily mean you are a doormat all the time who lets people walk all over you) with reasonable force. But there's a reason why there is a distinction between accidentally hurting someone in defence compared to shooting them in the face after you have them tied up in a chair in your living room. Obviously.
Things like that which are utterly motivated in revenge and only revenge end in tears.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on May 16, 2010 18:28:33 GMT -5
OH! Sorry Mental ^_^; Actually I was just picking random times at that. And I'm being honest ^_^; Though even so I mean...Randall surviving HERE...ALONE for that long? I mean honestly I find it amazing that he would have that much devotion to live...
I didn't believe it too much either. Only I HAVE been hearing it here and there. It's not confirmed, but figured we should all be informed JIC.
*nods* At least in Toy Story 3, it's part of the plot and actually IS a good way to handle it. Andy's going off to college, so does he leave the toys behind for this final time? I mean I think they said TY3 would be the last one, at least when it comes to Buzz and Woody since at the end they find happiness.
*shrugs* Well if he is then Wazowski and Sullivan are guilty of murder, and there's nothing to disbute that because it wasn't self-defense. And I'm sure the fans THEY have won't be happy if that's made true.
*nods* Missed opportunities indeed. I mean think about it. THAT long? Celia and Wazowski are probably already married so we'd miss THAT...and Sullivan? Can he actually survive that long in the business world he is not accustomed to? Sheesh...M.I. is either under somebody else or closed down because he couldn't hold it up.
Boo's parents are also something else that should come up. I mean their daughter would be having residual memory of her time in that world. And even after, that time Sullivan came back...for YEARS...I mean that's a whole OTHER relationship that we DON'T see grow. I mean think about it, that's a kick to everybody. "wait they know each other THIS WELL? When THAT come about?" -------------------- A little unintended, but ironic that I put your mind at ease with that heh.
*raise hand about the help thing*....Of course unfortunately at the time me and Vee weren't uhh...proper medical treatees heh ^_^;
*spreads arms* And thus is the true face of humanity. *folds arms* Anybody ever see Untraceable? It's a good example. A person dies (or rather, dies faster) with the more people who tune into the site. They could even comment on what was going on. A good percentage wanted to see a person die, even if they weren't a bad person. --------------------- Four if I recall...and actually the first or second was an upward infliction. So I think it was upward, downward, downward, downward. But...*shakes head* I'm not watching the scene and I'm certainly NOT going to ask Randall about it.
I'm sure that if these people are "familiar" with gators, then the woman has quite an arm on her.
*chuckles* Or "be who you want to be", talk about a lie heh heh.
There is always an enemy that is presented to people. There will never be a peace, and people will just have to realize that.
Teh..."Forgive or you'll BURN"?....hope your reply to that was "give me a stick and some hotdogs" heh.
*rubs temple* I guess sometimes some people actually want the tears that come with revenge. Maybe that's a bit of a testament to how they hate themselves...
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on May 18, 2010 15:21:04 GMT -5
I think the thing for me with Randall is, that in the event he got out of the trailer and survived his injuries he would survive for a long time. I don't see Randall as being someone who gives up very easily. He can in a bitter way acknowledge he is in a 'less than adequate' (understatement) situation, like he was when he was under Waternooses thumb and then in exile in a different way, but I just see him as a survivor more or less, who wouldn't want to give in to that. It would seem like the 'others would win' which would happen if he completely gave up. And Randall is exceedingly competitive to a fault. Granted it IS an extremely long time(*)
Plus, no matter how 'low' Randall went, he would always in around about way be a monster of his word.
Randall's as stubborn as a mule to me. That can be both an advantage or disadvantage in various ways.
I think the thing with revenge I mean is- yes of course they want tears from the person in question they are targetting but what I mean to say is, actions are not exactly always a closed off system which only affects the person recieving or the person giving. In an INDIRECT way actions can have effects on other people, even disregarding the potential effect it can have on you.
For instance. In a good way, simply doing I don't know... your job or doing well at school might put parents/boss/teachers in a very good mood. In said good mood, parents etc. are more pleasent to their own co-workers. Perhaps in said good mood they do better at THEIR own thing too. This could have benefical consequences in some respects later even if its only small.
The same can be said sometimes in a negative way about pure spite or misdirected anger. (In things only done in the intent to hit back hard with no other motive involved). To be purely spiteful or selfish to someone can result in them either 'returning the favour', or worse taking it out on someone else. Or even simply put them in a BAD mood and thus having a slight effect on other people on edge at their attitude.
Thankfully for the most part our social evolution tends to favour altruism. There is indeed selfishness involved in our world, but when you see someone upset and you are in a good position yourself/not wrapped up in your own problems isn't it the natural inclination that you want them to stop? Usually to want to comfort them? (Okay not everyone, but that's my experience and sometimes/ even especially when you're having problems yourself). Even if they are a stranger.
A part of this (it is believed) comes from the fact we USED to be in small tribes, so repayment or them being a relative was of a high chance. No longer like that now, but for many people we still have an inclination to help in a better position and we still have that urge, either through guilt or to be corny that slight feeling of self pride and worth that can come from it (of course there are always exceptions to this since we are hardly of the borg mind).
How other people feel, even if it's just subtle and they don't say anything can affect others even. Merely EXISTING has an effect. An attitude as well as an idea can change the world (albeit it, sometimes a lot more slowly).
Riots for instance- I read a book once (by Terry Pratchett), who more or less had the main character saying (in light of an allegory about racial tension and how they had to prevent trolls and dwarves from killing each other in their city due to an old war fought between their races.) That it only took a few sour/stupid people pushing and shoving and getting in a bad mood to eventually turn other people into them, and quickly people were "drawn into a majority which did not in fact exist".
In my opinion it doesn't even have to be in the mob. Actions both good and bad can affect people not even involved. Who maybe weren't even a witness to it. Down the line however, it can affect someone else. Revenge, or things only motivated solely and only by revenge can have an affect on other people- even if it wasn't our intention for it to do so. It can be as simple as either setting a bad example, causing someone to make a bad choice themselves and it causing some unforetold tragedy down the line or... anything really.
This causing tears perhaps to people who aren't the target. Perhaps yourself or even someone you care about or to whom you are a complete stranger. Or all of them. You might not even KNOW in some cases.
Granted, a part of me would find it interesting if the person Sulley affected indirectly was Boo. In a tragic sense as it were.
(*) and I acknowledge that, personally it's one of a couple of plot holes in connections one of nthe things where there is sometimes a suspension of disbelief. For instance I've also pondered that in a round about way there IS a way Sulley could (maybe, not definitly since its only a theory) drastically narrow his search quite quickly even if he has little idea where exactly they tossed him.
Since it seems that the doors were arranged rather randomly geographically speaking, it's hard to know for sure (I have pondered the possibility door reports... what doors have been recorded as missing/shredded...)but that's only IF they keep records that is of the doors they get rid of, also it depends in how the possible records are stored if they are not destroyed- every day? Every week? Plus how long would they store those papers? Forever Ten years? A year? Plus it seems likely there would be with so many floors at least several destroyed, or the odd accident where a door swings off the track for whatever reason and goes into splinters when it falls off.
Plus as mentioned, we don't know if they DO keep a record of doors which are destroyed/missing/whatever. Could do though. I could also imagine however there being a HUGE backload of files and cards of the dead doors and whatever and perhaps someone trawling through the lot of them (unless they stamp the exact 'dead or not in use' date on it as well to help narrow the search). Lots of companies have seemingly useless paperwork at least until something utterly random comes up. So I don't know.. it's just a day I had recently surrounding it in the possibility where Sulley and Mike have no/little clue as to the exact location even if they had knowledge at all it was in America or which part of it.
Long post is long.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on May 18, 2010 19:02:50 GMT -5
Oh I'm not saying Randall isn't a survivor and can't handle things on his own...I mean he might know how to suture or such...but when you think of the injuries and more he got building up over a decade well...
*chuckles* Of course Randall doesn't always mean what he says, mostly this would apply to threats heh...he'd never put anybody in a shredder for real heh ^_^
*looks down* Actually Mental...I wasn't refering to the "target's" tears....
*folds arms behind head* Actually Mental, there is a rather easy way for Sullivan to find out. All shredded doors are kept on paper...and so are newely created doors. And needless to say...I doubt there have been many doors to have fallen off in the Door Vault, more or less be one that wasn't record....
|
|