|
Post by RandallBoggs on Aug 10, 2010 18:26:26 GMT -5
Did everybody forget the fact that Randall never intended to kill anybody or the fact that he gave the two a geniue way out of all the mess beforehand?
|
|
Leopardstream
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
No one wants cake? OKAY! *shoves cake in mouth*
Posts: 261
|
Post by Leopardstream on Aug 10, 2010 18:39:34 GMT -5
Did everybody forget the fact that Randall never intended to kill anybody or the fact that he gave the two a geniue way out of all the mess beforehand? Hmm... you do have a point Sean. Everyone did forget that, even moi myself.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Aug 10, 2010 18:42:03 GMT -5
*nods* Indeed. If anybody needs reminding.... "The GREAT James P. Sullivan will be working for ME". Dead person ain't usually a productive worker. And though the offer was made to Wazowski, it was still geniue and went to Sullivan, naturally. Randall could have easily called the C.D.A. to "expect the people who brought in the human child", but he didn't. This is also a sign that he was in deep himself. But regardless, he gave them a way out. They just, well Sullivan, chose not to take it.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Aug 10, 2010 20:48:04 GMT -5
First off theonepistol, allow me to let you know that your difference in opinion and having it doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with you. We all have opinions and have the rights to them so don't let anyone else tell you different. In regards to what you say, I personally do not see Randall as evil but if this means that he has no faults or flaws? I personally don't think so, you see if there is something about Randall that I can understand without a shadow of a doubt is the feeling of jealousy. I've been a person with a tendecy to be jealous, heck, I've even been jealous here or there of another member of this board who I am glad to say that I resolved my issue with her in relation to her role within the MI fandom. If there is one thing I can understand about Randall is that jealousy is an ugly and crude emotion, it can bring out the worst in a person and sometimes make you do some pretty messed up sh*t! It can push you to your limits and even mess you up inside and out. I believe that what has such a strong influence upon Randall, his acitons, and what he did was jealousy! If you think about it, makes sense, after all when you always come second place to someone who will beat you at everything no matter how hard you try, then sometimes your mind may always do some wondering here or there at how to best him, how to get better. Now, in my opinion in the beginning, it does seem that a little of that hope of getting a higher position and the thought of someone working under you does seem like eternal bliss...it would be considered a pretty sweet package if you think about it. I do believe that originally that was part of what Randall wanted but when the plan started falling apart and when we got to the points that you have mentioned in relation to Sulley nearly being murdered, in my opinion, Randall's thought process switched more to a "Screw what I wanted before and just get the job done" sort of thinking. I will admit that the fight scene is more of a little bit of personal revenge considering how Randall did state that "You have no idea how long I wanted to do that Sullivan." The fight starts off as a simple beat him up as a way of sweet revenge but it does get dangerous very quick probably due to adrenaline getting to Randall and before you know it, he just ends up going with the flow. In fact, Sulley's punch to the face probably was what snapped him out of it. Then we get to the door scene in where Randall does appear a little more calm and once again, his thought process switches and so he just goes with it. His adrenaline along with all the craziness does play a part within all of this but even though that does play a part, he did have a choice and he did show an attempt to enact that choice. I won't deny that Randall did attempt at least twice attempted murder, that is what we do see and like all people he did have a choice as far as what he could do and such but like every choice that we make, there is a consequence whether it's good or bad. If he chose to get out of the plan, there are three possible scenarios. 1. He gets lucky and high tails it 2. At best, he gets fired. 3. At worst, he gets killed. I'm sure that there are probably even more scenarios that one could derive if he chose to backout but these in my opinion are the main three. As far as what's considered evil...or could be considered evil...here is a definition of the word according to the dictionary... Evil Immoral, wicked, harmful disatrious, bad, ill reputed, violation of moral principles, improper conduct, injury, misfortune, a cause of injury or mischief, a malady. That according to the dictionary are all of the terms that are what the word "evil" means....now in keeping to these terms, if you think about it, any one person is possible of being evil so if you go by this then you may be correct but then again, like I said, any of these words can be used to describe any one person... Not saying that your opinion is wrong, after all, we all have opinions and the right to them, nothing wrong with that. ;D
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 10, 2010 22:30:01 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? Yes, I WILL argue with them, because if they actually believe that people cannot change, that we are all either "evil" or "good" and no in between, I can and will debate them to my last breath or theirs, whichever comes first, because to believe that would be illogical. Furthermore, I resent it tremendously when people say things like, "Pixar's movies are just for kids, since they are cartoons and only kids watch cartoons". That's BS. It is demeaning to the people who create animated entertainment and to the many ADULT fans who pay to watch it. Pixar prides themselves in making movies for ALL ages, NOT just "for kids", and since theater statistical data shows that over 60% of the audience of most Pixar movies in theaters is over the age of 16, that really blows the theory of these beings "kids' movies" out of the water, doesn't it? Mentalguru has stated repeated that just because you want kids to be able to enjoy something does NOT mean it has to be stupid, or illogical, or avoid deeper concepts like the FACT that everyone of us(YOU included, whether or not you want to admit it) has the capacity to do both good and evil things. You just have to be creative enough to simplify it enough that children can "get it", but having worked with kids on a professional level for many decades now, I can tell you that kids understand and "get" far more than what Hollywood gives them credit for. Consider this: IF Pixar wanted MI to be simple, with clear-cut delineation between who is "good" and who is "bad", then WHY did they have the "good guys"-Mike and Sulley-do something that is VERY bad? In OUR world, in our justice system(and that in the Monster World seems to mirror ours, as evidenced by Mike referring to "jury duty" early on in the movie), what they did to Randall would be an act of revenge, of vigilantism, and in legal terms, would be considered a lynching. WE consider these acts to be "evil", and certainly morally reprehensible, so why are THEY not "evil"? The fact that they want people to overlook the bad things that Mike and Sulley did and still think of them as inherently "good", while Randall is supposed to be inherently "evil", is a prime example of the wrongness in that movie, in the use of negative stereotyping, which DOES, like it or not, set a bad example for those impressionable youngsters. It is basically saying that it's not so much what you DO that makes you "good" or "evil", but how you LOOK. It also sends the very wrong message that revenge is a a good an acceptible means of handling problems; if someone hits you, hit 'em back HARDER. And yeah, if the people at Pixar are willing to step up and try to defend that position, you're &^%$ed RIGHT I'll take 'em on! The arguement that "Pixar created Randall and they want us to believe he's evil, so he's EVIL" doesn't hold any more credence with me than the similar arguement I've heard all my life, "the Bible says that snakes are evil and the Bible is the Word of God, and God made snakes, so therefore snakes are evil because God says so."Now, let me point out THIS fact of the plot: Waternoose was in charge; it was HIS idea all along, HE was the CEO and HE was the one calling the shots, NOT Randall. Randall pretty much had to follow his orders. Waternoose also proved just how ruthless he was in dealing with those who got in his way, and Randall got to see this first-hand. Considering that Waternoose was willing to "banish" someone he actually throught rather highly of(or at least, had pretended to) and who'd certainly thought very highly of him, what do you suppose he'd have done to someone that he held in much lower regard, contempt, even? It was clear from the way that he spoke to Randall that Randall Boggs was NOT his favorite person and never had been, and again, I can speak from personal experience as to what it is like to work for someone who despises you and makes no effort to conceal that fact, but who is also willing to use you for their own gains, under the pretense that if you do their will, they will like you somewhat better, and that if you want to succeed, you'd BETTER get on their good side. Like Mistica said, being fired probably would have been the far lesser of the punishments that Randall would have received if he'd refused to follow Waternoose's orders(let's not forget that key bit of evidence-Waternoose DID directly order Randall to kill Mike, Sulley AND Boo), and given how Waternoose dealt with Sulley and Mike earlier himself, it's not at all unreasonable to conclude that far, far worse would have been in store for Randall, whom he didn't like to begin with. Now, if that were YOU in Randall's position, understanding that failure to carry out those directives would likely mean YOUR death, probably by very painful means, what would YOU do? Given a choice between taking the life of someone else, and being killed yourself, which choice would YOU make? Take some time to think about that one before you blurt out, please. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Aug 11, 2010 0:30:33 GMT -5
Geez! I get that he brought up an iffy subject here but seriously, I don't think that certain tones are helping much here. He has the right to his own opinion, you know. Sorry theonepistol, looks like you kind of screwed yourself over with this thread.
|
|
Kassy
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
Posts: 32
|
Post by Kassy on Aug 11, 2010 3:10:28 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. oh.my.gosh. finally.! someone who actually just goes along with the movie. someone who finally doesnt go all day trying to find evidence && try to read between the lines to say that randalls innocent. i mean no offence. i was just really suprised at this.(:
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 11, 2010 4:54:21 GMT -5
Oh KayyCee honey, none of really said Randall was INNOCENT at any point, where did you read that? No-one said that at any point. In fact most of the time my post are usually about the fact he ISN'T innocent. I'll sum it up EMPATHY does not mean supossed INNOCENCE. His position means I could get how people would be tempted into that sort of thing, and while it still makes it very wrong, it doesn't make him pure evil for me.
Fact is only innocent person in the movie is Boo in my opinion, because well she's only 2/2 anda half so her actions aren't really her fault.
He still has things to answer for in the end but it's just simply that he isn't completely evil or could have been hired like that if the rules of the world are to work. Not being pure evil does not equal complete innocence at the same time. It never did. And that was never even implied in this topic, and I don't believe by most people elsewhere.
Not saying that there aren't fans who DO make him out to be completely innocent with no faults (and that protrayal is also dishonest) but it doesn't seem to be happening on this board, or at least not now if it did in the past.
It just doesn't fit when you really think about it for him to be pure evil or for Sulley's actions to be legal, because as said while the creator's almost definitly intended this, it just doesn't work in the context at all. While they intended for it to make sense no doubt, it just really doesn't in the end. Which is fine, I mean the only reason it kind of bugs me more now is because of a sequel on the way, so it might not fit well if they maintain this position.
And as for reading between the lines, you're perhaps newer to fandom than I expected, this tends to be what a lot of people DO. Because it's interesting to try to make sense of the world created etc etc. Because when you care about the characters you often care about where they're living and how it affects them or other people. Or their ancestors. Or descendents. I'm part of the Avatar: TLA fandom and trust me, when a setting is not earth and they like something about it enough, people often try and work out how it all works. Because it's fun, interesting and you often learn things along the way.
A note to other people: please don't dog pile her, she probably doesn't mean offence I think she hasn't read the posts a lot.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Aug 11, 2010 9:43:17 GMT -5
oh.my.gosh. finally.! someone who actually just goes along with the movie. someone who finally doesnt go all day trying to find evidence && try to read between the lines to say that randalls innocent. i mean no offence. i was just really suprised at this.(: *waves hands* Dude, I have never used any evidence BUT the movie for this fandom! I never use the books, videogames, heck even toy information due to the fact that most of this stuff released was released as way to promote the movie ONLY! Spin off titles are practically NEVER CANON! I already knew this to began with!!!! MG, she's referring to PBL's research into other stuff, that is what she means. Techinically since none of what she has found has actually been shown and proven by the film and Pixar to be fact, it's only theories and techinically theories remain theories until proven. That is exactly what she means...besides, I know exactly what she's talking about all too well, basically hit the nail on the head.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 11, 2010 10:56:06 GMT -5
No disrespect Mistica but she didn't exactly hit the nail on the head, her own post implies that such posts (of the theories etc) are also made simply to make him completely 'innocent'.
So no, she wasn't exactly right there I'm afraid I feel. Doing bad things in a bad situation doesn't completely clear you of responsibility after all anyway. It makes it more understandable etc. but it doesn't completely clear you. She seems to imply that- seen as not pure evil= seeing as completely innocent. But that doesn't seem to be true. At least it isn't in my case.
Not all, but most of the stuff does of course really simply seem to have a very high likelihood to it. Though I will concede that many are (layman's) theories. The only things we can REALLY say with absolute certainty is that Sulley's exile of Randall was a bad move given the relative positions (it was after the fight and Randall was in his power) and that unless the CDA have special powers to override such a law or at least bend things to suit the situation, it couldn't have been taken as legally an accepted thing- else there would be far more monsters exiled to begin with.
While the creators didn't mean for people to take it that way, it's kind of hard not to and even if the whole legal questions are thrown out, revenge is revenge in the end. It's an understandable desire too, and everyone has felt it, but it's not really all that admirable either. But revenge is well, what Sulley did in the end. No getting round it. It's what's there.
Also another fully with canon fact is that Waternoose was very clearly the one in charge of the whole operation in the end, as well as the fact his relationship with Randall was not a caring one. (Willing to sell him out etc. without realising Randall could be the one who had Boo among other things. But then W looks after nuber 1, and even kicked out someone he technically was supossed to like, he's not someone you should trust in any case). As for the 'lack of sleep' thing we do have the night where he was looking for Boo, but other than that the ideas of LONG-TERM lack of sleep probably from the fact he was working a full time job on top of the mechanical project which does not exactly free up a lot of free time at all especially given what Waternoose was like. So it's hardly a huge stretch to think that.
Of course once again some of the things discussed are just more or less a logical progression of what could have happened (in terms of the lack of sleep thing), and yes that is just a theory, and whether or not the creators intended all this stuff to come across etc including the stuff we know to be true.... well the answer is probably not! Once again as I've stated before, they didn't WANT Sulley's move to be seen as bad. I think that's a good example of what I mean. What they wanted to infer is mute. Sulley committed an act of revenge and got away with it and there is really no changing what happened. They don't want it to seem that Sulley did something wrong or questionable. The movie was supposed to be complete after all. Any future sequel in their eyes at the time would just be an additional exploration to perfectly finished story which didn't have problems with it and that didn't leave threads hanging.
But it seems that it doesn't exactly work in context of the movie, what they wanted to come across in terms of Sulley's arc.
Some of the theories presented here are also more likely than others. (For instance general sleep deprivation would obviously be something more likely to be eventually back by canon than say the drugs or what not, I mean this is Pixar after all).
Plus some of these ideas come from their personalities. Like the fact Randall is extremely bull-headed and unreasonable, not even just in relation to other people but also himself. Expecting to be top scarer and to do a full on large project which would take at least many months is just asking for a crash.
Some of the things said here are pretty much what can be directly inferred from canon (Sulley's dodgy move, the glimpses of the Waternoose-Randall relationship, the fact Randall spent the whole night looking for Boo)
Other's are very likely theories given personalities and situations (sleep deprivation over a LONG period of time etc. which given said W-R relationship and Randall's personality means it seems very very probable and it makes sense given how long the project would be and the fact W would not let Randall spend forever on it anyway. And heck, even Randall himself wouldn't want to anyway.)
Other theories are possibilites but not necessarily with evidence for it inferred at all. I mean they're still POSSIBLE on some level and an interesting 'perhaps' as it were but not necessarily something which is there. I guess the drugs thing could account for an example of this, because even with the behaviour and everything else, that could be more or less due to mostly the long term sleep deprivation- an idea which is much more likely. It's still in the realm of POSSIBLE though, but not really canoniically backed very well. (Because there could be other explantions which do not need drugs at all to work as mentioned). It's not something which would 'NEVER' happen of course, but it's less likely than some of the other ideas. which could substitute for it. It could be an addition even to said explanations, but not necessarily.
Then there are outlandish claims. Outlandish claims would be making out that anyone but Boo is completely and utterly innocent and skipping with rainbows and sparkles that they are not responsible for anything they do EVER. I mean to say that while killing Sulley wasn't an original aim from Randall, after that day on top of everything else, Randall was SO not cut up or reluctant or sad about killing him when Waternoose ordered him to (another canon thing which we can't really doubt much at all actually). Innocent he is not. Understandable on some level to me but not innocent.
I think that's what made me raise an eyebrow at her post really. I don't think there are that many people here which make out Randall to be innocent, hence I contest the idea that in its entirety it hit the nail on the head about what goes on here. The theories are made to get what was possibly going on but not to make out he was completely innocent.
If that's true, I'd be pretty disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Aug 11, 2010 11:39:20 GMT -5
When you put it that way, it actually makes alot more sense but I will admit that there are Randall fans on the net who do see everything Randall did as nothing wrong at all and actually only view the faults of the other characters...I have read and seen posts upon other sites that do talk about him in that context and I will agree with you that we can not say that every character in this movie is innocent. The way I see it, you lose your innocence once you reach a certain age in where you understand the difference between right and wrong and realize this pretty well but you can't call a person evil due to that. It is fans like this that I feel kind of aren't doing well in contributing to the view of the character and actually make the Randall fan base come off as more annoying than anything else but this is my own opinion. Another thing, some things that are MI property and related can't be used as sources such as MI's Pinball Panic, this game is really a spin off title, it actually has nothing to do with the film with the exception that Randall is in it and it has the MI logo on it but otherwise than that, you really can't call it canon. More than likely, this game was created more to promote the film more than anything else and I will admit that this game has been used as examples in showing another side to the character but since technically it's a spin off title, it really doesn't count. Very few spin off titles actually contribute to the main story line of a franchise.
In that case, then yeah she might be a little off but like I said in a much earlier post of mine, if you go by Webster's definition of the term evil, any one person could be considered evil because who at one point hasn't shown or felt or even hinted feeling or doing any of what is defined there? No person can say that they are so perfect and such, nobody is perfect, we all have faults and flaws and if a person actually claims that they don't then they better be related to Christ somehow because I won't believe that!
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 11, 2010 11:55:20 GMT -5
No one has EVER tried to claim that Randall was "innocent", KayyCee, but being GUILTY of wrong-doing and being EVIL are two completely different things! There is not one person on this board, YOU included, darling, who has not done some pretty rotten things, but does that make you evil? NO, it doesn't. IF a person is genuinely evil, that means that they CANNOT change, they cannot have the capacity to be good in any way. It also means that they essentially lack a conscience altogether and cannot distinguish between right and wrong, ever.
Like MG pointed out, much of the arguments here as to WHY Randall did what he did are inferred directly from canon and from plain old-fashioned common sense(ever heard of that?), plus experience. Like it or not, the older you get, the more experiences you have, good and bad, your perception of people and of "good" and "bad" changes. When I was a teen and even in college, I pretty much thought of people in terms of either "good" or "evil", no in-betweens. There were good people and there were bad people, period. The older I got, and the more of the world I experienced out from under my parents' protection, the more I realized that this was a horribly immature and narrow way of seeing things, not an accurate way at all. It took me well into my 30's and dragged me through some really, really rough personal times to get me to realize that, though. I found out, among other things, that some of the people I was very close to and considered to be absolutely good had done some bad, bad things in their past. I learned that when it comes to individuals, it's really not accurate to simply say, "they are good" or "they are evil", and leave it at that.
No, Randall is not innocent. He DID do some awful things, but as I've explained, there are logical reasons for him doing so that for the most part, were beyond his control, and like it or not, even you have a "breaking point" beyond which YOU have no ability to make decisions based on your own sense of right or wrong. All of those reasons, where Randall is concerned, can be inferred directly from the movie itself, if logic is applied.
BUT, let's briefly accept for a moment your argument and TheOnePistol's that if a person does one or two really bad things, they are evil by default now. Consider THIS: Mike and Sulley knowingly broke the law of the land(well, Mike perhaps a bit more reluctantly)when they harbored what was considered by law to be a dangerous threat to their own people, a human child. They knowingly shielded her from their law enforcement agency. Even worse, in throwing Randall into the Human World, they obviously broke ANOTHER law. We CAN directly infer that there IS a legal system in place in Monstropolis, in which monsters who have been charged with crimes are given a trial of their peers, because Mike specifically mentions jury duty to another monster, so that would mean that banishment is NOT a sentence that can simply be imposed on one monster by another, but is a legal form of punishment upon a guilty sentence by a judge and in some cases, by a judge and jury. LOGIC dictates that it would no more be legal for one monster to punish another for real or perceived crimes than it is for one of US to do that to another human. So, let me lay it out for you: 1. Sulley and Mike broke the law in harboring Boo, no matter how much WE might understand them doing that. 2. Sulley and Mike broke ANOTHER law in throwing Randall into the Human World, an act of revenge for him earlier having tried to harm them. 3. IF Sulley and Mike KNEW that there were people in the trailer at the time, they would have also reasonably understood that Randall would have likely been harmed by those people. 4.IF Sulley and Mike also KNEW that this particular trailer was in a part of the Human World where humans EAT creatures similar to Randall, then they reasonably would have expected him to not only be harmed, but to be KILLED, which would constitute what legal-speak refers to as "INTENT". They intended for him to be killed when they threw him in the trailer, or at least, there was a reasonable assumption on their parts that he'd be harmed in some way. 5. The decision to throw Randall into that particular trailer, or into ANY door, for that matter, was probably not a snap decision, but required at least several minutes of planning between Mike and Sulley, plus time to actually snag a door, which in legal-speak constitutes "pre-meditation", or planning, rather than a quick reaction. Again, based on the inference that Monstropolis DOES have a legal system very much like ours, "getting even" or getting revenge on someone else for whatever past wrong they have done to you is NOT acceptable as an excuse for doing that person harm and is still considered both legally and morally wrong by the judiciary system. This would be especially exacerbated if Sulley and Mike's real intent WAS for Randall to be killed, which legally would also make THEM guilty of attempted murder, and if he actually WAS killed, would up the charge to pre-meditated or First Degree murder. Remember, to be found guilty of murder you do NOT have to be the one who actually weilded the weapon that takes someone's life; you just have to CAUSE it to happen through your direct and intentional actions.
Based on that, would you consider Mike and Sulley to be evil? Why or why not?
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 11, 2010 13:03:58 GMT -5
Well I wouldn't imply that KayC lacks common sense PBL, but as mentioned people do have a lot of different experiences. What we experience in real life can sometimes affect how we approach fiction, whether creating it or dissecting. It doesn't mean she lacks common sense, but she's approaching the movie differently. And this is pretty much probably what the creators intended anyway, that Randall is evil not to be sypmathsised with or liked. (I'm not implying the latter with her though).
I do find copy and pasting the creator's opinion to be a little lazy and all (but then she might not have been doing that anyway).
'Write what you know' isn't something people necessarily follow to the letter (after all Tolkein didn't know elves or hobbits) but it can affect it in some untold way (he was a buff in languages and lingusitics, and thus created the whole elven language).
So the same can be said with themes etc.
I mean, my experiences are different, as are yours. Although no story is completely unique and no doubt someone has experienced things similar to mine not every person is the same and approaches things the same way. We have to realise sometimes that people can approach something differently, view things differently because of it. Real life can affect fiction. Heck sometimes the lessons we learn in fiction can affect real life too.
The whole idea of 'inheriting' or being blamed for ancestors mistakes for instance was always probably going to be distasteful to me, but it's particulary distasteful given where I grew up. I've had people say who I should be friends with, who I shouldn't be merely based on what a relative might have done. Even an ancestor in the past. Not platonic romeo and juilet drama or anything of course, but it was an undercurrent of something people I knew often had to deal with and even myself on some level. Disapproval. Sometimes outspoken. But what wasn't said sometimes was worse than what was if that makes any sense. So in the end that means fictions which say make an entire fictional race or creed of people in fantasy evil or terrible and there never is an exception... not really enjoyable. I mean many people probably wouldn't like it anyway when they think a bit on it. But it probably annoys me more. I mean EVERYONE has probably been judged, but this is society wide. My generation isn't perfect but it is better than the last one (in my opinion) and apparently there has been quite a leap despite recent upheavals. This has resulted in tensions.
I also adore the concept of former enemies putting past their differences and becoming friends because, while perhaps school drama is perhaps silly, it feels serious at the time and she was the closest thing I had to one at the time. Plus I had other self inflicted crises, and she had ones inflicted on her by other people. But we thought the other had it easy and didn't look beyond our persepctives. It was only when something I wished bad to happen to her, which I wished and LITERALLY prayed for with all my heart and then something bad happened that I realise that it WASN'T what I wanted. And despite not being involved, it did result in a lot of guilt, and eventually a friendship. Which ended up perhaps saving my life.
Most people don't realise this about who they went to school with until long after they're finished apparently- about the slice of life we only have access to and can see. We don't know what goes on the rest of the time sometimes. Expecting perfection is meaningless because it doesn't exist. And everyone no matter how smart can act like an idiot or be unreasonable, including me. And you. And everyone. The world doesn't center around us.
I just got this lesson... earlier than planned perhaps. And it's kind of strange when you meet the other people who perhaps did not have a stellar impression on your life in school. Things change. People do. It tends to happen with time. Sometimes in front of you and alsowithout you being around. People are individuals and the world isn't all about you and you have to remember there are other people in it, that you can act well like a 'douche' sometimes and so can others. Sometimes we have reasons for it. It doesn't mean it's an excuse but there you go.
In the end though I think I was my own worst enemy at school, but hindsight as I know it is 20-20 in any case.
Revenge in the end for me is an understandable emotion, but also a potentially destructive one. While I didn't enact it, the fact I wished for it, and something terribel HAPPENED to her was more than I could bear.
So acts of revenge when carried out while I can understand them and the desire for them, yes even when it takes time (a few minutes isn't long anyway) is understandable. It;s why when you hear of people targeting people in one-off vigilante attacks, all planned and pre-mediated, that I can understand while I can't really agree. I've felt that rage. I've also felt it against someone who did something terrible to said former 'enemy'. You don't want to KNOW how many times I wished for something bad to happen to them. And I didn't even really have a face for them. Revenge and the desire for it, though if it takes over your life, can kill you.
There are some characters we relate to more, some we can still sympathsise with or whatever even when we're not. I'm more like Sulley on some level, I'm the parental one who wasn't always quick as a kid, so I kind of really have my suspicions over the idea he'd never feel guilt. I KNOW what it is to lie to yourself day in and day out, and the most dangerous lie and self-destructive ones are the ones you tell yourself. Is it possible I would have done the same thing once upon a time? Certainly. But I think it would have killed me.
But the thing is, rather like in biology, we're not in a closed system anyway between two individuals. It's not even a case of me fearing to lose a piece of myself if I did do it. But it's also a case it would have ungoing represcussions and consequences for people I didn't even MEAN to affect.
What would it mean for the people I care about? People I didn't even know?
As well as real life, discussion of fiction has also lead me to these questions.
But people do apprach this in different ways and we all have different experiences. I'm not sure it is best we should immediately assume everything is obvious. Some things are clear in the movie for me- like the fact the act of revenge was wrong, the fact Waternoose was in charge etc. But that doesn't really mean we should say people who can't see these things lack common sense. We're fans and we still have the movie fresh in our memories, some people haven't seen the movie in YEARS. Memories are hazy sometimes anyway. We discuss and dissect it and try to make theories which can be logically extrapolated, but we've been thinking on it a bit longer.
Discussion is a good thing really, and while I think people who call Randall 'evil' as being clumbsy (because actions are more likely to be evil than people among other things), it doesn't mean they completely lack common sense. People can be pretty logical in many things in life but not in some things. And once again we've been thinking some of these things out (like the sleep deprivation etc.) Sometimes people don't know how something comes across or what could be implied. And that's actually really the major fault with the movie. What they WANT to say isn't what I took from it simply when I thought a bit more on it. I wasn't immediately sure why Sulley's actions bothered me, it was only later I realised why for both personal and story related reasons- hindsight is a b**** isn't it?
I do think that the creators did originally intend for Sulley's actions not to be questionable but I just don't think it really works regardless. I think as I've mentioned before the reason is because people do indeed mix thesmselves up by thinking that understanding means it can't be wrong, whether that's for themselves or other people. They feel they would want to do the same as Sulley (the act of revenge) so they might think that means he's right, but it doesn't work like that. Same with Randall.
I'd more call that mis-information and mis-understanding rather than lacking common sense.
And as Mistica and I have pointed out, Randall fans do exist who seem to treat Randall like that. Same with Sulley though in my opinion. And Mike. And probably almost every character.
But really the only innocent person to me is Boo because of her age.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 11, 2010 13:31:29 GMT -5
no he didnt plan on killing anyone, but when one thing led to another, it STILL almost happened.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 11, 2010 13:37:22 GMT -5
Your missing the point of this Pitbullady
although all of these fact you show, to back up you opinion that randall is not evil, you forget the fact that PIXAR created randall for the villan roll in the movie, if pixar did not want randall to be the villan they wouldnt have had him do all those bad things.
|
|