The TV tropes page

[tmazanec1]

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitleyrbneddd?from=Main.MonstersInc

[pitbulllady]

I've seen it, actually. It's too stupid to even reply to, the suggestion that the only reason we like Randall is because we can't see him for the evil that he is, that we have this misguided belief that we can change him somehow, turn a "bad boy" into a "good boy", which of course relies on the false and childish notion that people are just inately and completely either good or bad, period, and CAN'T change. I believe the site characterizes Randall as "Draco in Leather Pants", due to the fact that many female fans DO find him physically attractive and refuse to accept that he is "evil". To compare Randall to a spoiled, rich bratty kid is stupid enough in the first place, as is the suggestion that we are blind to his "evilness".
The only trope that DOES makes sense is the use of Randall in the "Reptiles are Abhorrant" category, typecasting and negatively stereotyping HIM as the "Big Bad", even though he's not technically a reptile at all(he's still scaly and serpentine in appearance).

pitbulllady

[mistica0christina]

Okay...I have one little question. WHO WRITES THIS STUFF?! Seriously, it sounds like a weird set of definitions you would find on somebody's fansite or something! There isn't too much of these "tropes" that I agree with nor even get how they see all that in the movie (and they say that we overanalyze sometimes). The only thing I can partially agree with is that one about moral event horizon in relation to MI, they have quoted:

"Waternoose was in partnership with Randall. The main difference between the two is motive. Waternoose is a LOT more sympathetic than Randall (who's only out for himself). In some ways, that makes Waternoose even worse, considering what his plan is and how far he'd go to keep his company afloat.
To be fair, Waternoose is, at least in his own mind, just looking out for everyone. Monstropolis was facing an ever-worsening power shortage, and Waternoose was unaware that laughter was more powerful, and the common conception is that children are poisonous to touch, much less entertain certainly contributes. Imagine if you went before a nuclear power plant operator and said that instead of treating uranium like a dangerous element, you should cuddle it every night and put it in your bed — and if you do that, you'll get ten times the power.
Actually, judging by Waternoose and Randall's interactions with Boo, it would seem that they had figured out by now that humans weren't toxic, and just didn't feel the need to tell everyone else. Especially considering the CDA's treatment of anyone who makes contact with kids.
"I'll kidnap a thousand children before I let this company die!"? Sympathy isn't as warrantable when you fully admit to doing that."

I don't agree to the whole statement but part of it at least, they state that in Waternoose's mind he was doing it for the good of Monstropolis and in my opinion, I don't think so. Waternoose to me is no different then the higherups we deal with here and the ones that I knew whom my Dad works with and under. If there's one thing that would matter most to him and you could tell by how he acted, it was his COMPANY because fact is, rich family or not, if your business doesn't do well then you go out of business and dealing with messes such as for example employee injuries, machinery breaking down, getting your a$$ sued for negligence is some of the stuff that they don't want to deal with period. Waternoose constantly saying stuff such as "for the good of the company" doesn't sound sympathetic to me, it sounds more like the worrying mind of a business man. Now, I'm not saying that all of those in that type of position are a$$holes but some of the ones I have known and know now pretty much are. They are right about how all that sympathy goes out the window when that whole "I'll kidnap a thousand children" bit was said, for me it sure was and MI was in theaters around when, 01', I was a freshman around that time, I understood maybe a little of Waternoose's company talk due to my Dad always saying that no matter what he tried saying, some people where he works just don't listen! As I got older and started working where my Dad works now, I understood it even more, I start working here at Goodwill, it's just like the same thing all over again!

Now that Draco pants bit...okay?! Now that's an even weirder one, don't get me wrong, you've got some crazy fangirls out there but the fangirls that I've seen Randall have are mild compared to fangirls of other characters. Especially since I actually haven't seen any form of Randall hentai...and personally wouldn't want to...it's bad enough that I see it in some of the fandoms that I'm into...but getting back on topic. For me, while I am a fan, I do view him as a villian but only because I know that role was given to him by Pixar, not because he's evil incarnate! And yes, it's true that some fans feel sympathies for characters but I see nothing wrong with that especially if you have felt that way or understand what the character has or had gone through...that's why for me if they are characters who are prone to jealousy, have been bullied or picked on, or heck even lost someone close to them to another whether through natural causes of death or not, yeah sure I sympathatize with them because I understand how they feel and if I have never been in that type of situation, I try to put myself in their shoes, sometimes I can understand and sometimes I can't....but I don't consider myself obsessive for doing so....okay, I better stop cause now I'm just starting to rant a little but yeah...I find this a little stupid.

[pitbulllady]

I have to disagree with th "trope" that Waternoose is more sympathetic than Randall because HE was doing what he did for EVERYONE'S good, whereas Randall "was only in it for himself". Both are UNTRUE claims, and here's why.

First of all Waternoose did NOT own Monsters, Inc.; he COULDN'T have, not with the title, "INC" at the end of the business's name. Those three little letters stand for "Incorporated", which means that the company was actually owned by multiple STOCK HOLDERS, not any one individual. Waternoose's family may have founded the company and actually DID own it way back in the day, but as the company grew and times changed that ownership has passed from his hands into the hands of the stock holders, of which there would be thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands. Anyone who had over a certain amount of money invested in that company in the national utilities stock market owned a portion, or share, of it. Waternoose was only the CEO, or Chief Executive Officer. As such, he was not even the company President, although in some large corporations(like the wretched Humane Society of the United States), those two titles are held by one person(in the case of the HSUS, someone even more vile and sleazy and crooked than Henry J. Waternoose, with the same sort of shady family background). He would have likely been head of the Board of Directors, whose joint decisions ultimately controlled the company, but being only one vote out of who-knows-how-many people who sat on the BOD, he still would not have been able to make decisions without a majority approval, and the BOD itself would have basically represented the stock holders and THEIR desires for the company. Stock holders elect members to the BOD and basically dictate to them how to vote on issues; the BOD appoints one of their own to be CEO or hires someone from outside to fill that position. Even in the worst-case scenario, in which the company had to file for bankruptcy or was dissolved by a court or a decision on the part of the BOD, the company would have been "absorbed" by some other utilities company and power to the customers would have still continued. In fact, this latter situation goes on all the time, when one company buys up enough stock in another company that they just take it over, and no doubt Monsters Inc, which had already been bought out by the larger Scare Co., had done just that to many other smaller companies to become the giant it had.
Waternoose's attachment, then, was purely sentimental in that his family had once owned the small utilies company that Monsters, Inc. USED to be, but that had all changed long ago. His concern was purely personal and financial, in that he'd probably invested a large amount of stock in the present-day company himself, and was at risk of losing it all in the markets, especially since he'd almost certainly broken the law with regards to insider trading and pyramid schemes, and knew that if stocks dropped below a certain level, people that he had bilked out of their money would be looking to HIM for answers. He was trying to save his own financial future while at the same time was also in almost all certainly trying to line a future political nest.

Now, to Randall's involvement. I would bet that the TV Tropes site is still going on the premise that Randall was "cheating" by using the Scream Extractor to collect more Scream than Sulley so he could beat him to the All-Time Scare Record, even though Randall himself CLEARLY states in the movie that this is NOT the case. Randall ALSO clearly states, "I am about to revolutionize the Scaring Industry". Now, an "industry" is a LOT of people, not just HIM. He obviously believed that what he was doing was going to benefit that industry-and all the people involved directly or indirectly-as a whole, by making Scream easier and more reliable to obtain, and therefore CHEAPER to afford, so it was NOT just himself who would have been the beneficiary of his endeavors. Yes, Randall DID envision great personal rewards, both financial and most of all, by gaining respect and personal recognition, which were important to him as they are to many people. He'd have been a fool NOT to have taken such an enormous risk, whether it was his idea or someone else's, and NOT expect to reap at least some personal benefits of it. Sites like TV Tropes either choose to ignore or simply can't comprehend the enormous personal sacrifices that Randall had put into that project, like loss of sleep, loss of all social contacts, physical and emotional stress, etc. We can see the toll that doing so has taken on him in the movie; it just takes some common sense, something sorely lacking these days in many people, to put the two together.

pitbulllady

[mistica0christina]

Actually, I took the time to read through all their little tropes under Monsters Inc. From what I can tell there is no mention at all about Randall cheating, from what I can tell it's not brought up. Also, I guess I better point out that as far as agreeing with that particular trope, the small part I agree with is that they state that Waternoose's plan could be considered far worse depending on how far he was willing to go for the company...along with that lose the sympathy bit.

[pitbulllady]

Jul 1, 2010 22:49:41 GMT -5 @mistica0christina said:

Actually, I took the time to read through all their little tropes under Monsters Inc. From what I can tell there is no mention at all about Randall cheating, from what I can tell it's not brought up. Also, I guess I better point out that as far as agreeing with that particular trope, the small part I agree with is that they state that Waternoose's plan could be considered far worse depending on how far he was willing to go for the company...along with that lose the sympathy bit.

I know that they do not specifically mention Randall's "cheating", BUT it is insinuated that his actions were not intended to benefit anyone but HIM, and virtually every site where anti-Randall sentiment is expressed makes the claim that he was "cheating" in order to beat Sulley, and if that were the case, his motives would have been strictly to benefit himself and himself alone. TV Tropes does not give any evidence to back up their claims for Randall only being involved for himself, though, none at all. They are just making an assumption based on shallow observations and most likely, claims they have read somewhere else, just like they also do not back up their claims that Waternoose's actions were intended to benefit everyone or the company as a whole.

pitbulllady

[Veg]

TV tropes isn't bad.
I for one am a fan of it. It's just for fun, not something to get butt-hurt over.
I for one agree with some of the stuff they say.

[mentalguru]

I think the problem comes when tv tropes is treated as the be all and end all bible. It's not. It's simply interpretations.

For instance I think the idea of having Draco in leatherpants and Ron the death eater as seperate things is silly. Whether the character is antagonistic or protaganist, either raising or degrading them to obscene levels is terrifically annoying.

It has to be said that there ARE Randall fans which do make him out to be innocent. He isn't and I don't like seeing people do that to him. He does have faults after all, and perfect characters in general are boring anyway.

TV Tropes is unfortunatly treated sometimes as if its word is law. I enjoy the site myself for the MOST part, but I think that's taking it too far. Plus I disagree with the interpreation of the CDA in other parts. I do believe they are working for the 'greater good' in their own minds, or most of them anyway not JUST for the power (or perhaps as tools to power by someone else), but it has NOTHING to do with the safety of humans (I believe that is not on its main page but elsewhere on the site. No, it's for the monster worlds safety. The human world is dangerous for a reason other than so called 'toxicity'. I don't really think they give a damn about HUMAN safety. They wouldn't be SADISTIC about humans and take joy in hurting them, but I don't think they'd think much on it if it was part of the bigger aim. They wouldn't go out of their way to be cruel to humans, but... they are pretty mucyh of the mind set the aims justofy the means it seems to me.

They'd have no interest in SAVING a human unless it came to monster world security.

[pitbulllady]

Jul 2, 2010 17:21:48 GMT -5 mentalguru said:

I think the problem comes when tv tropes is treated as the be all and end all bible. It's not. It's simply interpretations.

For instance I think the idea of having Draco in leatherpants and Ron the death eater as seperate things is silly. Whether the character is antagonistic or protaganist, either raising or degrading them to obscene levels is terrifically annoying.

It has to be said that there ARE Randall fans which do make him out to be innocent. He isn't and I don't like seeing people do that to him. He does have faults after all, and perfect characters in general are boring anyway.

TV Tropes is unfortunatly treated sometimes as if its word is law. I enjoy the site myself for the MOST part, but I think that's taking it too far. Plus I disagree with the interpreation of the CDA in other parts. I do believe they are working for the 'greater good' in their own minds, or most of them anyway not JUST for the power (or perhaps as tools to power by someone else), but it has NOTHING to do with the safety of humans (I believe that is not on its main page but elsewhere on the site. No, it's for the monster worlds safety. The human world is dangerous for a reason other than so called 'toxicity'. I don't really think they give a damn about HUMAN safety. They wouldn't be SADISTIC about humans and take joy in hurting them, but I don't think they'd think much on it if it was part of the bigger aim. They wouldn't go out of their way to be cruel to humans, but... they are pretty mucyh of the mind set the aims justofy the means it seems to me.

They'd have no interest in SAVING a human unless it came to monster world security.

Well, you beat me to it, MG. I was going to respond to Veg's comment about agreeing with the TV Tropes page, but you pretty much summed up one of the main reasons why I DON'T like it-people treat it as though it was the final word on Randall and his fans, when it's not. Many of the Randall haters that I specifically mentioned in other post actually quote that very page as reason that Randall is evil and beyond all redemption. TV Tropes SAYS he is! Other than the part about Randall being an example of the "Reptiles are Abhorrant" negative stereotype, I do not agree with ANYTHING that the page says about Randall.

pitbulllady

[Theophilus Hatta]

I dunno, the page seems pretty OK to me. Maybe needs some clean-up/refinment, but fair enough. No-one's really bashing anyone character and they keep a good spoiler filter...

I see Randall's name mentioned in "The Dragon" (which *is* true), "Smug Snake", "Master Of Illusion" (his power), "Invisibility" (ditto), "Kick the Dog" (Randall does do that to Fungus, though he seems to get kicked a bit himself, maybe someone can add to that..?), "Fridge Horror/Nightmare Fuel" (ALL Monsters all scary, but ultimate creeping powers give me the willies), "Draco In Leather Pants" (I've seen some tendancy to Pants-ing, but this happens to all good villains), "Reptiles Are Abhorrent" (He's scaley and a villain, what else would we call him?), "Not Afraid Of You Anymore" (quoted in-movie). Also in "Scooby Dooby Doors" but that's not a character thing XD.

In-all, fairly innocent stuff for the minor villain. Wherealas Waternoose gets tropes such as:
•Engineered Public Confession:
•The Man Behind The Man
The Mole
•Nightmare Fuel:
Powered By A Forsaken Child
•Treacherous Advisor:
•Villainous Breakdown
Complete Monster.
•Well Intentioned Extremist:

ALL of these are much, much darker tropes.

know that they do not specifically mention Randall's "cheating", BUT it is insinuated that his actions were not intended to benefit anyone but HIM, and virtually every site where anti-Randall sentiment is expressed makes the claim that he was "cheating" in order to beat Sulley, and if that were the case, his motives would have been strictly to benefit himself and himself alone. TV Tropes does not give any evidence to back up their claims for Randall only being involved for himself, though, none at all. They are just making an assumption based on shallow observations and most likely, claims they have read somewhere else, just like they also do not back up their claims that Waternoose's actions were intended to benefit everyone or the company as a whole.

pitbulllady

As for the "Moral Event Horizon", it looks like there's a debate going on amongst Tropers- one side saying Randall is worse because he's only doing it for himself, the other saying Waternoose is worse because he's trying to keep his company afloat, dashed be the consquences.
The lastest post is, "I'll kidnap a thousand children before I let this company die!"? Sympathy isn't as warrantable when you fully admit to doing that." so the Randall-side is ahead...

As for people who treat tvtropes as the say-all-end-all, well, there's no shortage of morons in the world. And tvtropes is a frequently changing, addable site so it may shift thourgh several different sympathies as it ages. Who knows, tomorrow we might be the ones leading.

[mentalguru]

Yeah, TV Tropes can be interesting, even useful at times, but the idea of using it as some sort of 'bible' for every single DETAIL is not a good idea. Anyone can change it, and it has less checks than wikipedia for instance against it so it's less reliable even than wikipedia. (But more reliable than something like conservapedia of course... )

Like wikipedia however TV Tropes can sometimes be good for getting the general IDEA of a show or something (sometimes) and it more or less is a good showing of how there are only new WAYS of telling the same story in reality.

But should it be taken as the full and last word as if it has more authority than people who disagree with it? No. Instead i'ts important to make our own opinions when watching a show or movie and have open discussion about it. And argue points civilly of course things can get heated all the same unfortunatly, but we should try against that, I sometimes see people forget that everyone might have at first approached a movie differently and not THOUGHT of something before. Doesn't mean they're stupid or we should continually degrade them or anything after all.

I can enjoy TV Tropes, but some things are silly as said for me, like the whole Draco in Leatherpants and Ron the Death Eater thing, I repeat: it doesn't MATTER whether the character is the protaganist or antagonist raising up a character to be 100% perfect or be 100% awful when they're not is bad and annoying. And the thing is both things DO happen to Randall. Absolutely. There are people who make him out to be without flaws at all and then with nothing but them. I even get annoyed when it happens to characters I DON'T like but it's worse when it's characters I like, even when it's the 'raising to be perfect' thing. those characters interested me as they WERE as well as possibly their potential in the future. If you make them perfect, well that's not them at all. It's just some gary stu with the same name. I'm wondering what happened to my favourite character and who this pod person is.

When people degarde a character I don't like, I have to surpress the urge to defend the character from it sometimes, though sometimes I just go out and say it, it kind of puts me in a bad mood. I mean, how the character actually was was enough for me not to be keen on them... why do people feel the need to make them out to be worse? It's unnecessary. I'm not keen on Mike but even he has redeemable features. The CDA are probably not just for power but for Monster world security too. Don't view them as a 'good' organisation just not wholly evil power grabbers. Well intentioned extremists who only look at the 'big picture'.

Sometimes there's no darker path you're willing to stay longer on than the one, seemingly at first, guided and lead by the lamp of good intentions.

Variation of the road to hell saying of course. But it makes sense. Think you're on the right path and then the lamp goes out. And sometimes you barely notice as it was dimming and getting darker ever so GRADUALLY that your eyes have more or less adjusted to the darkness by that stage.

Maybe, just maybe you'll notice. And maybe, just maybe by that stage you'll actually care or feel you can go back and retrace your steps.

The CDA is pretty fascinating all in all. I mean like Waternoose, I couldn't be FRIENDS with them, but you have to admit they're pretty interesting.

Granted back on topic: I do remember a funny comic which had this character say "Excuse me, I have to go onto TV Tropes instead of forming my own opinion..."

So yeah, I'd have fun on TV tropes, and even learn their lingo but it's not a good idea to let it do your entire thinking for you. If you disagree with something on it, it doesn't mean YOU'RE wrong and TV Tropes is automatically right. I don't think that's really people being stupid and a lot of them are young anyway or perhaps new to fandom (or both)... it's just a bit lazy really when they do it. Taking a copy-paste of TV Tropes mass of opinion as their's even when it sometimes seems to change. Simply following what seems to be the crowds opinion. But unless it's a field of EXPERTS in SCIENCE, numbers don't have huge weight on what's true or false. And heck fictional interpretations? Technically it's really hard. Not a hard science after all. We can use science in our crazyily indepth analyses as well as a host of other fields though. If we think abotu it and form our own opinions and bump actual ideas off instead of swallowing them.

Granted in a debate, if one person can state why the exile of Randall is extremely doubtful in legality by EXPLAINING IN DETAIL and using sociological, legal and cultural ideas and actual in canon quotes I have more confidence in that side then the side which goes "TV Tropes said..." just saying. I babble online too much as you can see but I like to see people SHOWING their thought process as it progresses. Like a maths problem only more complicated. How did you get to that answer? You shouldn't simply state an idea something to someone new as if it's, OBVIOUS and they are somehow 'stupid' for not agreeing immediately when you don't explain yourself in an undegrading manner. (Please. Since when did your opinion suddenly become law? Why in the name of hell should they agree with you? Because you're right? Well they think they're right too. And you have as much authority as them and it would be a bad idea if they blindly swallowed your own version, not just blindly swallowing TV Tropes. It's a question of: Okay you believe it, but can you tell me WHY? Oh someone you know said so? That doesn't really inspire too much confidence. Don't be a SHEEP! Not even when the opinion you're swallowing actually IS mine! At least ask that person who told you how they came up with it. And if someone asks that it shouldn't be taken like an insult. It should be expected. Even desired because it can show they're thinking about it and give opportunity***). Instead calmly telling them how that thought process came about without patronising them and getting too angry is a good way to go probably.

I envisage a lot of people on both sides often going "Agggh! Why can't they see it?! Are they blind?!" On the internet and real life regardless of how they form opinions.

We've all been guilty of this on occasion, myself included.Fandom is crazy people and we often get carried away in the ride. It's important when we can to try and catch ourselves when possible. Losing ourselves is what happened to our favourite characters after all.

Once again a giant post filled with too much text... << >>

***Aware of the irony (hypocrisy?) of saying all this in this tone after saying not to be too degrading. I didn't want to come off that way in any case, but it does sound a bit too sharp doesn't it? But I feel it has to be said on some level. It's not enough just to be 'right' after all. And expecting people to automatically agree with you and take your word for it without question is just silly. Of course we're all struck by this particular brand of silliness once in a while.

[Fawfulize]

The problem is, TVtropes is biased.

That is, it's written from the "good guy's" point of view.

I mean, they listed Mary beating up Randall as awesome, probably cause the "good guy" is winning against the "bad guy".

I looked at other articles on TVtropes, and some of them are also written from the "ooh the good guys are so good and awesome and the bad guys are BAAAAD" point of view.

And even on the draco pants thing, they put "somehow" on Randall, which means whoever wrote that thinks its mind-blowing that someone could consider Randall as not evil.

[pitbulllady]

Jul 30, 2010 14:38:38 GMT -5 Fawfulize said:

The problem is, TVtropes is biased.

That is, it's written from the "good guy's" point of view.

I mean, they listed Mary beating up Randall as awesome, probably cause the "good guy" is winning against the "bad guy".

I looked at other articles on TVtropes, and some of them are also written from the "ooh the good guys are so good and awesome and the bad guys are BAAAAD" point of view.

And even on the draco pants thing, they put "somehow" on Randall, which means whoever wrote that thinks its mind-blowing that someone could consider Randall as not evil.

Yes, they have a VERY patronizing tone when it comes to their statement on Randall's fans, especially those who actually DO find him attractive, and make the incorrect assumption that it's due to us believing that we can change him, make him "not evil" anymore, which of course, relies on the core belief that all people are either inately good or inately evil from the start, and can't change or overlap.

pitbulllady

[Theophilus Hatta]

Really? I thought the whole 'ew' factor on the liking Randall in the leather-pants way was because he's a giant eight-limbed camaleon with rows of sharp, pointy teeth... unless you like that sorta thing, ah? ;p

[pitbulllady]

Aug 17, 2010 18:53:35 GMT -5 Theophilus Hatta said:

Really? I thought the whole 'ew' factor on the liking Randall in the leather-pants way was because he's a giant eight-limbed camaleon with rows of sharp, pointy teeth... unless you like that sorta thing, ah? ;p

Well, no, he's NOT a Chameleon, or any other kind of lizard, or even a reptile for that matter. People who say he is have a very, very limited knowledge base of reptiles. Calling Randall a "Chameleon" is pretty much analogous to calling a man a "monkey", not even going as high up on the evolutionary ladder as to call him an "ape" or "chimp"! I don't see Randall as a lower animal at all, but rather, a person, albeit a different kind of person. I am not sure, though, if the whole TVTropes "ewww" factor is due to him not being human(I mean come on, how many other non-human sentient characters, especially in Anime, have a fangirl following?), or being due to how he is perceived, behavior-wise.

pitbulllady

pitbulllady