|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 9, 2010 21:47:45 GMT -5
Now i thought id give my opinion about why i disagree with Randall not being evil in MI. While I "AM" all for Randall redeeming himself and becoming a good guy in the sequell, cuz that would just be AWSOME! But i have to say i dissagree with the idea of randall not being evil, if pixar wanted us to think he was not evil they would have made it more clear, i think pixar ment for randall to be the evil villan in the MI. But that dose not mean he can't change! And i know u all say "well randall was forced, or it was all Waternooses idea", ...............Well actually i do believe it was waternooses idea, they made that pritty clear. But Randall did try to kill Sully twice! in the movie, he tried strangling him and he tryed stomping on his hands to make him fall to his death, now if Boo had'nt stoped him by grabbing his fronds, he would have KILLED sully. And i do think Sully still shouldnt have banished him, cuz although it didnt say, im pritty sure that was eligal. And that is why i think Randall was evil in MI, becuse u dont try to kill somone twice in the same day and still be the victum. BUT, i do 100% hope that Pixar gives Randall another chance, and have him come back to Monstopolis as a new monster, and that would make a perfict sequeil. Now please dont hate me for this, because i still am a huge randall fan and i hope he becomes a good guy in the sequil, i just didnt agree with the people that were saying he was not evil.
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Aug 9, 2010 21:59:25 GMT -5
Well, I personally won't argue as strongly against you as others will. However, I've noticed that he was the furthest from black, if I'm even thinking straight, in the film, as opposed to most of the media after the film.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 9, 2010 22:05:19 GMT -5
Now thats cool man, im just giving MY opinion and i dont expect everyone to agree with me, you know? Now i think i should have been more spasific, While i think he was ment to be the evil character in the movie, The facts you show in your YouTube vid, didnt really show me that he was not evil, but showed me that he had good in him. Which is why i hope for him in the sequil.
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Aug 9, 2010 22:11:03 GMT -5
Alas, even I'm starting to think most of what I pointed out within the film was mere coincidences and interpretations. Pixar's giving people who think that way the finger, proven by the Boom! Comics as well as Tokyo Disney.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 9, 2010 22:11:57 GMT -5
And that is also why, when i picture the sequil and how it might go.
I dont see Randall coming back all nice and apologizing to sully and what not.
I see him coming back wanting revenge, but somthing happens during the movie and makes him change his mind and ends up helping Sully and Mike with whatever is going on.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 9, 2010 22:15:11 GMT -5
yah i understand, i just hope everyone just dosnt hate me or kick me from the site for this,
cuz like i said, i WANT randall to be the good guy, im a randall fan, i just dont think he was all that inocent in the first film.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 9, 2010 22:18:36 GMT -5
Also, the Boom comics were not created by Pixar, they just gave the writer for the comics permision to use their characters and settings. That dose not mean that that is the road Pixar is going to take.
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Aug 9, 2010 22:20:24 GMT -5
Also, the Boom comics were not created by Pixar, they just gave the writer for the comics permision to use their characters and settings. That dose not mean that that is the road Pixar is going to take. ...I guess....
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 9, 2010 22:23:51 GMT -5
i do sure hope that ture though, lol.
cuz i agree, if pixar did us that comics stroyline for the sequil, that would just flat out stink. lol
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 9, 2010 22:36:57 GMT -5
Also to everyone who reads this,
I am not afraid to be wrong, so dont feel like im going to argue with you no matter what.
if somone dissagrees with what i say, and they have facts, i will look into those facts,
and if i discover that IM the one thats wrong, then i wont afraid to admit it.
so just to get that sraight, in a dissagreement of opinion, im a fair guy thats all about the facts.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 10, 2010 2:19:49 GMT -5
Well... to be honest there are points which you say which have merit, but overall I think it's a bit clumsy to label him as 'evil' as bluntly as that.
Most people in the world in my opinion have a good and bad side, sure there are exceptions in terms of extreme psycological disorders, which I don't feel Randall has but even then 'evil' is perhaps not the right term for them in any case. For me, ACTIONS can be 'evil' at best sometimes, but even then it's not always as clear cut, motivations and all that after all.
That being said, I do not consider Randall to be a saint or entirely innocent. Sure he was under difficult conditions, but it was indeed pretty clear that killing Sulley wasn't something he seemed all that cut up over. At all. It's more or less in my opinion because Sulley represented everything HE wanted and so hated. He saw Sulley as having popularity with the possibility of the Scare record nipping at his heels. It's possible also in addition to the LATTER being believed to be unfair, that he also felt after his experience with Waternoose who also seemed nice, that SULLEY'S nice guy thing wasn't truthful and perhaps even his popularity wasn't deserved in his eyes. Sulle was what he wanted minus the major cash and higher company position probably. Resentment and a feeling that he had all the luck and things without deserving them. He also given the time he'd been working on the machine, been perhaps stewing over this for a while.
And the exile in retrospect is thus almost in Randall's view something he could be bitterly triumphant over, he'll feel he was right about Sulley in that respect rather than revenge simply being Sulley's big weakness, and probably in relation to Boo more so than himself.
You also bring an interesting point about not being 'forced', truthfully I more think the consensuality was 'blurred' so to speak. That Waternoose either seduced him on some level or made it seem like a great idea. Risky but necessary and the possibility of great things for him if it worked.
Waternoose WAS probably even nice even in the beginning, but then time constraints would probably mean the nicities would evaporate eventually due to his own patience wearing thin. In the BEGINNING it could have been Randall shook his hand with a big smile on his face. But eventually as time went on and if he wanted out, that wasn't an EASY option at all to take.
He probably knew this, but he held on to the slight chance if he succeeded Waternoose would deliver.
Overall, while he's no saint and he still has things to answer for regardless of his position, for me his position wasn't exactly stellar and from his position I can understand why he was angry.
Randall is looking after number one in the movie, but I think that's partially because for a while no-one else was going to and his suspicions over apparent 'nice guys' was large. Plus he probably assumes people who don't know what he knows to be an idiot. He ausumes people who don't have suspicions over the Scare scores are probably hate him, and in all honesty it wouldn't be a stretch if one day after blowing up at Sulley he'd have lost a lot of casual friends, the idea that those who don't realise what Waternoose really is are just stupid would be something he'd possibly think too. His own problems woul take priority, he possibly neg;ected other people and because his problems were probably larger and his top priority he found it difficult to muster sympathy for other seemingly little things. He probably forgets that he was taken in too by Watrnoose that n the end his problems before he agreed were things many possibly faced and that was partially why he maybe agreed to it in the first place. Waternoose has charm. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch if he used it at first to motivate Randall into helping him. His experiences with Waternoose means he possibly suspects Sulley and his own kinder behaviours as not being honest or being self-serving in some way.
While I kind of hope I'd have the strength to say no in THAT situation of people it can be hard to say. It can be easy to judge in the end. Harder to show compassion or sympathy. Sulley has a RIGHT to be angry with him it can't be denied too. And overall while his actions were also wrong, I do suspect that those who claim they would not at least be -tempted- to take revenge over someone who has been trying to kill you and your best friend, helped exile you with a smile and take away something you care about a lot, maybe as much as a child are well... liars? Plus its possible they felt they WOULD go to prison and Waternoose would cover for Randall somehow. In for a penny in for a pound...
But I've said this before- empathy or trying to understand to me doesn't mean agreeing with the actions taken. Understanding why and how tempting it would be if you were in that position doesn't mean hand waving or saying it's fine and good and dandy. Just because Randall got 'punished' so to speak doesn't mean he doesn't have things to answer for, to redeem for. Being exiled and beaned by the shovel does not clear away what he did. It doesn't clear him of attempted murdereven given the position he had. He still has things to answer for it and explain regardless of what happened or his position at the time. But of course as pointed out Sulley shouldn't have done this to begin with even if anyone and their mother would be tempted by revenge too. It still doesn't make the action of exiling Randall right. It's if they feel sorry for the actions that redemption can perhaps start. But even if Sulley's life goes down the toilet or Randall's position is terrible in the human world... they're not redeemed until they make that step themselves. Bad things happening to you either during or AFTER it happens doesn't clear you of your own bad actions. Bad circumstances can't redeem you. Only you can in the very end. Other people can both make this harder or easier but in the end it's really you who makes that decision to take the first step.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 10, 2010 9:03:34 GMT -5
I have to go to work, but you can bet I'll be back later today to take up this issue.
I for one do not believe that PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS, with rare exceptions(those being people who have deep, strong brain disorders which show up from an early age), are "evil", per se. DEEDS or ACTIONS can be evil, not people.
As for why Randall would do something as heinous as trying to kill a co-worker, please make sure you read all my threads regarding sleep deprivation, exposure to electromagets, and the effects of prolonged stress on one's ability to make decisions/choices that we would consider of moral or ethical status, including going against what that individual has believed for much of their life. There are some really, really compelling arguements with scientific and medical research to support my strong belief that Randall simply "snapped". I know from first-hand experience, having come SO close to doing that same thing myself due to what I was experiencing, that no matter how "good" you think you are, how "righteous" and of such fine upstanding moral fiber, you have a limit. You have a "trigger", that once reached, can override your own and society's morals. You have a part of your brain which is primal and is only concerned with surviving, at any cost and by any means. I've experienced first-hand the effects of the sort of stress Randall would HAVE to have been under, and that's something that most of you haven't gone through, and hopefully, you never will, but you must be aware that you have the same potential to do what he did, possibly under far less trying circumstances. Does that make you evil?
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 10, 2010 11:05:41 GMT -5
you see putbullady MI is a cartoon, a movie for Kids, pixar is not going to go into that much detail, on what happens when you dont get sleep. If MI was that in detail it wouldnt be considered a kids movie. also even though the facts show randall didnt get sleep, they never really said that he was up every night working on the machine. Kids movies are supposed to be simple, and pixar mad randall the villan of the movie, if randall was not suppoed to be the villan, pixar would have made it very clear about it, they wouldnt hide it. Im sure that if MI was not rated G and made for the older audence, then maby these in detail facts you give me would make more sense, im mean even in the behind the scenes they say randall was the villan, are you going to argue with the people who created him?
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 10, 2010 12:46:48 GMT -5
While Pixar is a U/G film, it was intended for a wide range of ages in the end, thougn I do get your point. I think the thing is, that while simple, it's supposed to make sense, and in retrospect a Randall who had always been like that and had been hired does not make sense. Neither does Sulley banishing Randall being considered legal.
True, they probably INTENDED in their own way for Randall to be seen as 'pure evil' and that there to be no discernable problem with what Sulley did...
The problem is this doesn't work in context very wel when we look at their worldl. And yes interpretations of the creator CAN be very interesting... but in this case it kind of just showed me a good example of how what you INTENDED is not always what comes ACROSS. Creator interpretations even are not considered the be all and end all in discerning a piece of work among professionals or academics even. If you give an english professor in essays and just copy and paste the creators interpretation with no showing of your own workings, you will fail. True creator intrepretations are intersting in the sense you can see their work process (and can be a springboard occasionally for said imaginary essay) but sometimes they just don't actually work or fit very well with what's actually there. This could be because of bad memories on the creator's part or something else entirely (personal bias? I kind of doubt they had the EXACT same experience, but say if someone was kind of like Sulley once or maybe a Mike and yet never had that whole reconciliation thing unlike me, and perhaps were still bitter, having a Randall getting that would be a way of living vicaciously or something. WATENOOSE kind of was in his own way, wasn't he?). The only canon is the movie in the end.
Regardless of legality, what Sulley did wasn't, as Goliath from Disney's Gargoyles said when he saw his mate wanting to drop two humans they'd knocked out, a case of 'killing in the heat of battle'. Goliath, a mythical creature who lived a thousand years ago in Scotland before going into the 90s New York had only ever killed in the heat of battle before. Fallen warriors or enemies were a big no no to kill for him. But he even had his lust for revenge moment too (very near the beginning). But eventually much later in the series he was able to let this whole thing GO and let the spirits of those who betrayed him go free.
(By the way guys I HIGHLY recommend Gargoyles. It is the best American animated cartoon ever if you like Fantasy or whatever. Magic. Plus Shakespeare. Lots and lots of Shakespeare. And it is horrendously deep. Though the first two season are the true canon. You'll both pity Demona and loath her actions.).
The thing is regardless of our world building and everything Randall's own falldown was rather different to those of what we have seen elsewhere for certain films of the same genre. It wasn't a case of the hero using force during the fight and the opposition getting 'iced' as it were. Nor was it a case of said opposition having a 'woops' moment and got himself in that mess (very common in kids movies). It was after the fight was over. Which is rather troubling.
While I was in my earlier teens, I didn't get it exactly then when I first saw it, but I wasn't happy with that. I wasn't sure WHY at the time but it was just a feeling that left me rather deflated. It was only years later that I contemplated it again on a random rewatch and eventually came to think a bit more on why (legality as well as the moral issues and twinges).
But even when I disliked Randall I pretty much saw Waternoose as the guy in charge and what not. I kind of always took it for granted, until I went on the net more that that was more or less what everyone thought. Truthfully I'd always been more afraid of him when I was younger (yup, even when I didn't see Randall's potential and thought he had nothing going for him in the moral department), to me Waternoose was the guy you didn't know where you stood with which was pretty scary, not even counting that chase scene to get to Sulley. So yeah he wasn't someone I'd want to work for. I was actually pretty surprised when I heard of people who felt that Waternoose and Randall were equals or that Randall could somehow 'force' it to happen. Even when I didn't like him, that idea never really crossed my mind that that would be possible.
I think it's just a case of overall from this rambling post of mine that what was probably INTENDED was what you said, but it didn't come off that way when you use that TV tropes term 'fridge logic'.
However overall- it probably does have to be made clearer for YOUNGER audiences in a sequel, but honestly it wouldn't take much. I could definitly see Randall doing a complete and utter rant at Sulley over how much he hated and hates him AND why. Past jealousy, resentment and anger at what he's actually done to him too as well as suspicions over Sulley in general.
It's kind of what I want to write eventually actually but that won't be for a while.
So basically in this rambling post- while no doubt that's what was INTENDED, it just doesn't really work when you break it down a bit more, it would need to be made clearer in a sequel for the little kids, but regardless of original intent, they can't really change what is actually there in the movie.
Regardless of their original intentions, the plot holes exist.
Heck, BECAUSE of their original intentions plot holes exist.
The Sulley exiling Randall thing and not get punished is a plot hole and so the idea that Randall would be hired like that just doesn't relly work very well. Doesn't mean it can't be fun trying to fill it though (the CDA have strange or even twisted intentions etc etc.). Even if it would be better if they were filled with canon.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 10, 2010 12:56:48 GMT -5
i agree with the plot hole thing, but for ex. i see randall as........ darth vadar, and waternoose as the empire, randall is evil but is also confused, and just like vadar has good in him, and hopfully in the sequil, realizes that and becomes a good guy.
|
|