|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 11, 2010 13:41:58 GMT -5
its no problem Mistica, i expected it
so far pitbullady is the only one who is actually slaming me.
she misses the fact that im not saying Randall is pure twisted evil and always will be, all im trying to say is that he played the evil villan role in the first film, i made it very clear that i think randall has good in him and hope pixar shows that in the sequil. cuz i do believe that people can change.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 11, 2010 13:43:50 GMT -5
and to be honest Pitbullady
i WOULD rather be killed myself then to take someone elses life.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 11, 2010 13:55:29 GMT -5
pitbullady!!!!
there is not ONE shred of evidence from that movie that says that Waternoose was going to kill Randall if he failed. and befor you bring this up id like to say that,
for the people that said that waternoose was going to double cross randall, becuse he said that the "CDA will have the CRIMINAL responsable for this" he was not refering to randall becuse i watch that part over and over again and listened closly and Waternoose said CRIMINALS, as in Sully and Mike.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 11, 2010 16:07:00 GMT -5
pitbullady!!!! there is not ONE shred of evidence from that movie that says that Waternoose was going to kill Randall if he failed. and befor you bring this up id like to say that, for the people that said that waternoose was going to double cross randall, becuse he said that the "CDA will have the CRIMINAL responsable for this" he was not refering to randall becuse i watch that part over and over again and listened closly and Waternoose said CRIMINALS, as in Sully and Mike. Oh, yes, there IS. What did Waternoose do to Mike and Sulley when they found out about his plot? Do you honestly think he was just sending them into the Himalayas to have a nice little ski vacation? He intended for them both to DIE, to freeze to death or starve, since the Himalayas aren't exactly known for having a balmy climate. Now, early on the movie, it was established that there was a close relationship between Sulley and Waternoose, closer than your usual employee/employer relationship, that's for certain. Waternoose confides in Sulley as one would to a friend about his concerns over the economy and his own financial future and his disagreements with the BOD. Sulley states that Waternoose was his own personal mentor in scaring, and tells him, "you've been just like a father to me", hardly what most workers would tell their BOSS, for crying out loud. So, we have a close friendship established there between Sulley and Waternoose. We also see in the movie that Waternoose views Randall with obvious contempt, as shown by how he talks to HIM vs. how he interacts with Sulley, and even how he looks at him, the way someone would look at something loathsome or disgusting. He even goes so far as to put Randall down by comparing him unfavorably with Sulley as a Scarer, something he knows is a "sore spot" with Randall, a way to hurt him, emotionally. Now, given how Waternoose dealt with a FRIEND who got in his way, someone he valued far more than he did Randall, how do you suppose he would have dealt with RANDALL if Randall chose to deliberately go against him? I still have yet to see your response to that. As for your claims that you'd rather be killed than to harm someone else, research has proven again and again that such claims are false, and that when people really DO think that they are being put in such a situation, even when they aren't(yet only the researchers conducting the experiment know that it's not), they will choose to harm another person over themselves, every single time! There have been countless, well-documented experiments in which people were told shown two buttons, one which would result in a painful electrical shock to another, unseen person if pressed, and the other which would cause the same sort of painful shock to the person DOING the pressing, i.e., the experimental subject. Without exception, ALL of the subjects, including those who swore they would NEVER do anything to harm someoene else, and would allow harm to come to themselves before they hurt another person, pressed the button causing a "shock" to be delivered to sometone else, someone they couldn't see(actually people paid by the experimentors to act like they were being tortured, out-of-sight behind a barrier), rather than do something that would bring on an electric shock to themselves. Even when they were told that the electricity was being turned up the level at which the shock they administered to the other person could cause serious bodily harm or even death, all of the subjects still chose to press that button, especially after being told that refusing to press either button would still result in themselves receiving an electric shock. They pressed the button to shock the other person every time, even though they could hear the screams and moans of the person supposedly receiving all those excruciating shocks. Anyone who says that they'd choose death/torture over hurting someone else is just being self-righteous and is fooling no one but themselves. I'd wager that probably close to 100% of the soldiers who find themselves taking the lives of others in battle have all said, at one time or another, that they'd rather be killed than to kill someone else, yet when their life is REALLY on the line, as opposed to another person's, they will readily take that other person's life. I'm not "slaming"(which is really "slamming"-two 'm's)you, but I WILL present evidence to back up what I'm saying. I do not believe that Randall was "evil", anymore than I would call myself "evil", or YOU evil. He did THINGS that were evil, but so did Mike and Sulley, yet I don't hear anyone saying that THEY were evil. That's because you, and many other people, only see the movie's events from Mike and Sulley's perspective, and feel that THEY were justified in doing the things that they did, whereas Randall was not. Mike and Sulley actually DID have choices over what to do with Randall once he was under their control, and they were NOT acting under orders from anyone else in doing what they did, so they did not have to fear any negative repercussions should they have chosen to do something other than throw him into that trailer. They would not have been punished if they'd chosen, for instance, to bring him to the CDA and turn him over to the proper authorities, whereas Randall would have been dealth with very harshly if he'd chosen not to follow Waternoose's directives. I'm always skeptical and wary of anyone who claims that they are above and beyond doing "evil" deeds themselves, and always put others before themselves, and who try to come off as some sort of saint. The higher that horse they are sitting on, the more it's gonna hurt when they inevitably get thrown off. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 11, 2010 17:01:44 GMT -5
Like i said it is a KIDS MOVIE, pixar would not go into that much detail were you have to look beyond to get answers. im sure if we as the audience were supposed to think Waternoose was forcing randall to do this or was going to kill him if not, they would have mentioned it or somthing. If this was a normal non kids movie i would agree with you.
and you dont know me, i would rather die myself than to kill someone instead!! its against my religion and i strongly believe in it!
and please keep your comments a little shorter, i dont like to read a novel every time i get a reply.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 11, 2010 17:24:09 GMT -5
Your missing my point again pitbullady, im not using the literal term of evil here, im saying PIXAR created him to play the evil villan in Monsters Inc. and even though you believe that he was not evil that dose not change the fact that, that is the role pixar created him for! like i said are u going to argue with the people who created Randall Boggs!
and again i think there is good in Randall, pixar just needs to bring that out in the sequiel!
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 11, 2010 17:29:08 GMT -5
But it did seem pretty clear that Waternoose was the one in charge really in the end, and exiling a friend doesn't really say much hope for someone you don't like, though they probably should have made this clear for the smaller kids. But of course if that wasn't their original intention...
Well that's another thing they messed up on in terms of the 'not wanted to be implied but was'. Waternoose always scared me more though, even when I did think Randall has nothing going for him as I said. Something about the thought to be nice guy turning on you is fairly terrifying.
Honestly, Waternoose is pretty interesting and one of those people with the power to make you feel like a million dollars or like a worm it seems. Even Sulley seems to get this a bit when Waternoose yells at him in the end. Just a bit.
I think the thing is theonepistol you're not that sure until you perhaps have experienced that yourself. You can't know that unless you've actually been involved in the same thing. Have you? After all we don't know you, and who knows, but it seems very doubtful. It can be easy to say it now really when we're in our homes, but not so much if it happens. And it's sometimes even instinctual.
There are exceptions of course,life is filled with heroes, of teachers who shield their students from gunmen, of mothers who will do anything for their kids, putting their own lives on the line, things like that. Not everyone is always, even when their lives are on the line are always about number one. But of course these situations are different. The protection of innocents of those you care for. In terms of policemen, firemen etc. it's also part of their job to put themselves at risk, and you do get acts of heroism even for criminals, but not all the time, and policemen can do dirty things too in panic or anger. And these guys are trained. But given the choice between your own life and that of someone you despise and all... I can see why Randall would not be that cut up about it. I'd hope that with the knowledge however of my own past and even from the fandom discussions as I contemplate this idea, I'd make the difficult but right choice regardless, but I've never actually been out in that position. So how can I really know?
I'd like to think that given what I've learned etc. I WOULD be able to say no, but I can't say for certain. Emotions can be incredibly blinding. And the urge for survival is incredibly strong. All I can say is I hope to hell I wouldn't and try to keep that in mind. But to say you'd definitly wouldn't ever... I don't think that's very truthful, sorry. You have to acknowledge the possibility theonepistol at least a little bit, because being SO sure is pretty much meaning you don't prepare yourself or think too much on the subject so if it actually happens... it's alot more likely you'll fail to pass that test. While PBL was a little harsh, the fact is not acknowledgeing that you have weaknesses too is a danger really and it means it's so much harder to take it when you find it isn't true the hard way. We all have weaknesses.
People who say they wouldn't be tempted in Sulley's position to take revenge. Or wouldn't ever consider doing what Randall did even for a moment... I don't really get that. And I find it a stretch to believe it.
Plus religion does not really magically cause people to become perfect or good people either. Not even when they believe it. Statistics can pretty much show that in many ways. Plus sorry but I personally find that idea a bit insulting. Don't worry, I know you didn't mean it like that so I'm not terrifically insulted. Just be careful.
Sorry this post is long too, but there you go. XD
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 11, 2010 17:34:11 GMT -5
I agree with you, i also think waternoose was the one incharge, but i dont thing he was forcing Randall to help him by threatening his life. Randall seems like the kind of guy that likes attention, ill bet waternoose bribed him or somthing instead of threatening him. but even if that was the case i would expect in a kids movie at least, to have a clear mentioning of it.
and im not saying im perfict, cuz im sure none of us have been put in that kind of situation, and who know maby im wrong, but untill im put in that situation, i will still stand by the fact that i would never murder somone to save i own skin.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 11, 2010 17:49:49 GMT -5
Oh! I don't think he did that in the BEGINNING myself. (Threatening).
In fact given Waternooses personality I'd suspect he was quite nice to Randall... in the beginning of the plan. You know tempted him and such. Lay in the charm. Waternoose certainly has that! It's why his turn was so shocking for the audience, and why it was almost heart breaking for many people too to contemplate how Sulley might have felt for many viewers at his betrayal. There's more of an emotional punch to the gut. Waternoose fooled everyone, even me and I suspect you (unless you got spoilers) when it happened. I kind of suspect he fooled Randall too.
But then gradually... well we got what we saw. And I think the thing is having a banishment door Sulley was put through isn't really something anyone could own, and Watrenoose is pretty powerful.
So personally in the beginning it was all niceities. Odd bribe and money (yup).
Then time went on.
Patience wore thin. Perhaps at first it was simply guilt tripping at not paying attention to the solution of the energy crisis if he was taking too long.
Perhaps Randall got too relaxed with him and even 'talked back' at Waternoose sharply. That sounds dumb, but after all emotions can run high. In the movie he CAN'T snap at Waternoose though.
Then eventually Waternoose showed his true colours then, and what we saw in the movie (blaming Randall for things and insulting him etc, playing on his jealousy of Sulley?.) Perhaps however it simply descended graually.
I don't think Waternoose forced him in the beginning of the plan either, but later after Randall accepted if he tried to get out he probably couldn't or realised he couldn't more or less.
You want to control someone? Best way is to make them feel like they made the choice in the first place. That they have no other choice after they have. The light in the tunnel is maybe in front of them, but it could be an oncoming train.
I don't know, guess I see him being nice at first and then losing patience really.
--
Re Weakness:-shrugs- you just have to keep it in mind and remember that you're not invulnerable. And understanding the emotions people can go through at such points can perhaps make it a bit easier to make the more heroic choice eventually if necessary. Because knowing or hearing about how it feels from others or drawing from other experiences where you've done wrong things and been bad to people can react can maybe help prepare yourself on some level. Over-confidence in your own ideals just isn't a good idea. I say this really because I don't want you to find out the hard way with no warning at all.
I am fully convinced that I would have the urge for survival and will probably at the very least be rediculousy close to not making the right choice in my mind and due to survival urges. But realising this... might make it easier to make the better choice if it happens. Even if it costs me a lot.
Of course I'm just guessing here. And once more I can't say it in all certainty. Being aware of your own failings and weaknesses, and those of which are pretty much in all of us can be good probably in dealing with them though.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 11, 2010 17:53:21 GMT -5
I understand, waternoose seems like the kind of guy that would threaten somones life to get what he wants, but my point was if that was the case, with this being a kids film and all, pixar would of had it mentioned somwhere in the movie. cuz you know kids that watch the film arnt going to be looking for in depted detail like that to get answers, there going to make the answers pop out so the kid will notice them.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 11, 2010 18:02:47 GMT -5
I don't know, some kids can pick up on it, some can't, so it's hard to say really sometimes it depends on the kid. But it just seems that... Waternoose is a fake nice guy. He's mean to Randall, so why does he put up with that? Threats? Waternoose holds the cards really. But how did he get there in the beginning? So...Perhaps he also fooled Randall by being nice at first. It just seems he fooled a lot of people, including the audience. I have heard kids be more scared of Waternoose than Randall though when asked really, even if they don't like the latter and I can see why. Something about a father figure turning on you is quite frankly terrifying. Once again it is quite likely they didn't want this inferred, and if they want to hit us with the anvil of it, once again, I'd like to see Randall run his mouth off at Sulley. I just could see Randall not trusting Sulley because Sulley is a 'nice guy' and WATERNOOSE seemed to be 'nice' before the truth emerged. Of course in Sulley's case he is genuinely nice and made a HUGE mistake, feeding his desire for revenge. (Once again, not what Pixar wanted to show us, but what's there) I could see Randall saying Sulley was 'just like Waternoose' for instance and not trusting him at all even if Sulley started to try to help him, and I wouldn't blame him for not trusting him either, given his perspective. Or for Waternoose even to infer that if he ever visited him in prison. In fact, I'd love to see that. The amount of angst and potential storyline and arc for Sulley would be amazing. Not like how it was handled in the comics though.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 11, 2010 18:29:57 GMT -5
yah and iv already mentioned the comics, they werent really created by pixar, pixar just gave the comic writer permision to use the characters and setting, i told sgtyayap that it dose not mean thats the road they will take for the sequil, hopfully im right about that.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Aug 11, 2010 19:59:55 GMT -5
yah and iv already mentioned the comics, they werent really created by pixar, pixar just gave the comic writer permision to use the characters and setting, i told sgtyayap that it dose not mean thats the road they will take for the sequil, hopfully im right about that. I agree with you on that, the comics started out okay but by issue 3 and 4, they got all screwed up. I see the comics being similiar to Archie's Sonic comics in where they lie within their own boundaries and guidelines and not entirely canon.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 11, 2010 21:27:27 GMT -5
I will second everything that Mentalguru has already said, AND add that MY stance IS based on experience with someone who was just like Waternoose, and a situation that was quite similar to Randall's, right down to my own "James P. Sullivan", a person who, due to her affiliation with my boss, got a lot of perks and was widely regarded as a perfect, wonderful person, while I, being the outsider, was largely unable to catch a break. Again, as MG states, until you experience it, you cannot comprehend it.
BUT, no one has answered this question: Are Mike and Sulley, who also attempted to murder a fellow monster in an act of revenge, evil, or not?
Further, has it ever occurred to anyone that just because Pixar says this or that, or wants us to believe this or that, that we therefore should let them dictate to us what WE think? I don't. I've openly issued a challenge for anyone from Pixar to come and defend why Randall is evil but Sulley and Mike are supposed to be perfect saintly angels, when they basically did the same things. Of course, Pixar considers themselves too good to speak to us common people, unlike people from many other studios who are more than willing to show up on message boards and ingage in discussions with fans of their work, and to actually pay attention to what those fans say. I don't consider Pixar to be beyond reproach or infallible just because they are Pixar, and I do reserve that right to question their Almighty Authority. Why is it that so much emphasis has been put on RANDALL as the epitome of all evil, while Waternoose has more or less been glossed over and HIS actions swept under the proverbial carpet? Why is it that Mike and Sulley can committ a terrible act, yet they are supposed to be seen as heroes? That's how I think-I don't just blindly accept that explanation of "well, Pixar made those characters, and if that's how they want us to see them, then it's right to see them that way and wrong to question them because they are the Almighty and Great Pixar and they can do no wrong". I'm not buying that, anymore than I buy into the notion that people are either evil, or good.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 12, 2010 2:37:15 GMT -5
Well personaly I don't view Sulley or Mike was evil even if death was the aim (which is still debateable, very possible though, and they did want him hurt). Oh what they did was very wrong of course, and it's kind of what makes this movie stand out more from others because of it. (Because for most the downfall on the other side is during the fight or because something the antagonist did to get themselves in that situation). But I've felt the same desire. There would have been a time I would have probably carried out revenge quite easily. (Pre-mediated too.). You hear people do this also in one off occurances doing he sme thing, and while I disagree with it on principle, they aren't completely judged much by me. I'm not the person who would go 'Yeah, good on them.', instead I can more or less understand why they'd do it. Doesn't mean I agree with they did of course. There is no doubt in my mind that once upon a time, given the opportunity, I would have done something similar, and yes pre-mediated too, and not pre-mediated even in just a few minutes either. It would still be wrong, and as much as I feel I'm better now than I was then I don't think my past self was EVIL or anything. Just you know... blind. And even today while I'm far less likely to do it, the idea I wouldn't be even tempted or seriously want to is just ludicrious in my opinion as well as a dangerous stance to take. Everyone probably WOULD feel that urge. I'd have to acknowledge that desire too because if I really was served the opportunity on a silver platter then well... I'd be far more likely to FAIL that test. But given Sulley's personality I can't really see him not eventually doubting it eventually. Sure you can lie to yourself a while, but not forever. And think he would feel guilty. It might take something to admit that or get to that stage (after all he does have a right to be angry, and I'm thinking it might have taken me a little while if I'd done it.) And re: creator interpretations, well I've already stated my position. While creator interpretations can be very interesting and sometimes show the work process, if it doesn't fit with canon... well it doesn't fit with canon and that's really it for me. And I don't consider interviews etc. canon and haven't for a while. I dislike the TV Tropes idea of 'word of god' on principle, because it isn't official canon. A part of this comes from hanging out with english students, another is because J.K. Rowling is a very good example of when a creator goes over board with the extra information, completely contradicts herself (both between interviews and with the canon material itself... like sayin that ALL Slytherins came back to help when they never did) and doesn't really seem to be thinking things through. So I'm definitly more skeptical of the idea from that. . Once again a creators ideas which are not official canon CAN be good, CAN be interesting and CAN fit well, but not all the time and even when they do fit you don't have to take it as canon as you don't want to anyway. If they fit, it's an interesting idea which works really. But only when it's actually made into a movie I'll consider it 'canon' and even then I don't have to like it or think it fits with the original movie. There are many who consider that the last two books of Harry Potter don't really fit or were a great disappointment. They are canon, they acknowledge that, and nothing will change that short of a retcon and re-write, but many people say they don't fit with the original books, which over time matured and seemed to be eventually going down the route of 'prejudice is bad no matter who does it'- they failed that theme though in the end which was very disappointing for many.
|
|