|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 12, 2010 5:49:26 GMT -5
Later! I feel I should also say that more or less the idea I have of 'preparing' yourself and thinking more on your own weaknesses... well is because it can help prepare you. As said over-confidence in your own abilities to resist temptation is not an ideal stance. And I'd term over-confidence as being sure you'd never be tempted even a little bit at all. Or that temptation is always easy to say no to. I mean not only with the whole revenge thing (which I'm sure once upon a time I would have gone for immediately) but also in general the stories you hear from other people. For instance. The guys or girls in school who were 'saving himself' as it were. I'm sure they were there. Maybe you're one of them. Now that's not for me (I'm not for one-night stand type but I'm not the wait until ring on finger and not a second before type either), but hey if you want to save yourself, that's your business. They usually came in two brands though, those who recognised however that in the end they could be 'tempted' as it were and it really wasn't a good idea or very realistic to think that they could never be lead down that road not even in their thoughts. Some of them DID change their mind regardless on this issue, people do change stances of course, but usually WITHOUT slipping up before hand, but some stuck with it because it was important to them. They recognised that they however had feelings and what not which could make them fail that aim if they weren't careful. I'm not saying of course we're all lacking in control, but they recognised things are more complicated, not clean cute or cut and dry as that. You can't control how you FEEL. Just what you DO. But what you feel can affect your actions on a very high level. They realised this. Then there were the others who thought they would never be tempted like at all. Guess which group ended up getting pregnant/getting girls pregnant? Of course, that could also because their confidence meant they also were less likely to keep protection on hand in the first place as well. Abstinence is fine and all but it's not something that's always going to work out (unless you're asexual in orientation but then that's different from abstinence of course) but especially if you don't consider that uh... certain things can make your brain melt and forget/not care in certain moments. -coughs- IfyouknowwhatImean- Of course this issue is much more of a grey area rather than a clear moral boundary (though I must add I am really against abstinence only education, it should be a choice and it really si the top way of preventing STDs and pregnancy, but should not be the only one presented). But I'm guessing it works as an analogy, if you think more on the idea before the situation happens you might be more likely to make the 'right choice' (whatever that is). I mean survival and uh, procreation or the act of it are natural urges and all and a lot of people have them. It's a natural thing to feel and all, and being aware of them might mean you're more likely your able to deal with them and hopefully make the right choice whatever that is for you. I mean it's not for SURE or anything, and you still might make the 'wrong' choice or less desirable one for you personally in the long term, but I guess you might have more of a shot at going the way you want now when you're aware of the fact you could be tempted. So in certain personal things I guess, whether it is a clear cut right and wrong thing or a personal choice you'd prefer to keep to, aim to meet your targets but be aware of the things which might get in the way. Namely yourself sometimes. Yeah. Sorry if that doesn't make sense. But not thinking enough of the potential situation before it happens to you probably does mean more risk of failing to do the right thing. Not recognising own emotions, urges, weaknesses as well as strengths can be dicey. So aim for the best you can be theonepistol even in difficult situations just... be aware there is potential for you not to be and that it's really tempting. Because who knows? Being aware of this might make it more likely you'll actually be able to meet that aim to begin with. Once again, it's not for sure, things are still hard sometimes and 'failure' is uh still possible, but it probably gives you more of a chance to 'pass'. -shrugs- Of course once again this isn't clear cut, when it comes to orientation for instance, there are people who'd 'prefer' to be straight but keeping to that would make them miserable and it isn't even wrong to begin with. And if abstinence makes someone utterly miserable it's something they should consider thinking about as well as whether it's good for them. But those are definitly different things I think than compared to say taking revenge or hurting people. I just think the abstinence-confident anology kind of works in its own way since it's fairly common and something perhaps a wider scope of people (though not everyone) can relate to or has heard about, even if it isn't perfect or exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Aug 12, 2010 10:23:36 GMT -5
Okay....that's an....interesting analogy.....but I will agree with mentalguru a little on being overconfident. If you say that if you were in the same situation as Randall and that you wouldn't make the same moves he did, I'm willing to respect that opinion but just in case all of this sounds confusing....here's another example for you....now, I'm sure you were taught all throughout school and all that of how dangerous and bad abusing a drug or substance is, right? I'm sure that you, like most raised through the public school system are taught all the dangers of it, you are told over and over and over the consequences and all that mess and of course you understand it all and tell yourself of what to do when you get to that point, what to do if someone offers you to take a hit, what to say to them, I'm sure that when going through all of that during school, you would reherse it in your head of what you would do to avoid that kind of crap.....but rehersing it and telling yourself over and over that you would never do this kind of sh*t is WAY different then when you're faced with either being given an offer or more so, your own curiousity.
If my little kid self years ago were to confront my adult self now, to see what I had done and see how my life did become, I'm sure that my kid self would be shocked to know that despite all of that rehersing, being told how bad doing this sort of crap is, yet that it didn't seem to do any good when my own curiousity got involved. Since I've already made this public through DA, I feel no harm in telling you here. In my sophomoore year was the first time I had decided to try something for the first time, I had tried sniffing nail polish for the first time but on that day, I took it more like a "got it out of my system and that's it sort of thing." I told myself that since I tried it once then that was it, my first would be my last....but that didn't happen...and considering the type of stress that I endured in high school just like other teenagers, I continued the little habit on and off. I think the only time I was able to truly stop was during the two years that I had my pet guinea pig, out of fear of what the smell could do to him, I was able to stop but a little time after he died, there was nothing to hold me back and I started up again. From the age you are now to the age I am currently, I have been doing this habit on and off for the past....how long has it been....six years I think? I believe that my habit is something I did as a stress reliever although I understood fully well that doing this wouldn't make the problems go away but I think in my mind, I preferred the high over the emotional pain and stress. I also think that for the longest time, what I was dealing with was my problem and mine alone....I even remember sometimes how I would get angry at arguements here and sometimes it led to me turning to the stuff as my excuse to calm down....I've only receantly decided that it was best to get help for myself, it took me looking at a list of names of people who have died to realize that this stuff can honestly kill me someday if I'm not too careful...it took me actually hurting those closest to me to realize that I was really f*cked up and I needed to be willing to take the first step....I've barely started doing what I need to in order to drop this habit for good, glad to know that my closest friends are there for me if I honestly need someone to spill my guts to if the stress and my emotions get the better of me....
I admire your confidence actually cause I was never a very confident person growing up, heck even now I'm still not but take it from someone who's had an experience like I have, thinking it and doing it are two different things, if you can without a doubt in your mind do what your mind says that you should then you'll be fine...
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 12, 2010 10:52:17 GMT -5
Yeah my analogy is just something I've seen happen a lot really, I know it's uh 'interesting' but it's pretty common really from what I've seen.
It's good to hear you're getting through it Mistica, good luck.
Granted I was a bit luckier with my friends, I've never even smoked a cigarette (I had my first alcohol at 17 but I never really felt pressured and I was just a month shy of legality anyway), and when I said "No thanks." to cigarettes they didn't push, although they did offer once or twice again later on they didn't really make me feel pressure of anything. (And that was more of a case of them forgetting.) I don't know, I just didn't feel interested myself and by the time they were offering it to me I was getting a little more confidence in myself to say that. But before that... I might not have.
If they'd offered or started two years earlier?
Yeah I could have either seen me doing it or alternatively on the other end going all 'preachy' and twitchy about it. They know the risks, and they've quit now anyway. I'm not really sure which way I'd go if I'd been younger at the time. I was pretty judgemental (but also to myself as well as other people), I was also pretty much lacking in confidence. Thinking you're being judged as a worm and everyone you care about or don't even know is also judged that way for years can do that to you though. It's weird actually looking back. I thought that intellectually speaking (I use those words VERY loosely) we were really all worms even though in my heart (sorry to be sappy), or in the back of my mind I didn't think that was very fair in reality. It just didn't seem fair, but that was what I'd more or less intrepreted the man in the sky viewed us as. Worms, lucky to be given the time of day let alone LOVED by him. More or less it seemed like someone was yelling at me on the inside to myself when I slipped into that idea that that mentality was unfair "Be grateful about what you have damn it! You don't DESERVE to be loved AT ALL because you're WORTHLESS, but you're damn lucky you ARE loved anyway! You're worthless, like all humans are next to him!" Ugh. Talk about mental gymnastics. I was the person who thought about the 'saved a wretch like me' thing too much in the Amazing Grace song. Among other things. It wasn't a fair situation maybe but... I wasn't allowed to QUESTION that! I'm not sure how I got to that. Possibly partly 'his ways are not our ways'. Part the odd preacher part my own interpretations of readings... but for some reason I'd been thinking of that for a while, but it mostly all bubbled over in secondary school.
(Not to make people uncomfortable sorry, I know most of you are christians here, that was just how I felt and it wasn't very healthy for me to be like that obviously.).
I think quite a few people can feel pressured into what you were, due to situations such as stress or many things and while we do make our own decisions too, the people and situations around us can also make those decisions harder or easier to make. Things which make sense or were a big deal once in the past maybe even make you want to face palm. Or just generally the mistakes you made then even if the problems still really were important. Hindsight after all as stated is 20-20.
I'll just state that my worst age bracket was 12-14 and even before that I wasn't always so happy either. And directly afterwards I still had a way to go before reaching now. (And heck I'm still not perfect but who is?) And although a part of me wouldn't want to be that age again, sometimes I even WANT to because I know half the stuff I was thinking about didn't matter has much as I thought. Or was wrong. Very wrong.
I kind of would be torn between really shaking or hugging my past self for being an idiot. But then I'm guessing a lot of people get that sometimes.
Anyway, once again I hope things work out Mistica and I'm glad to hear you're thinking you might be able to have the strength to move on. I wasn't aware of it beforehand of course but improvement or determination for it to stop is good no matter what! Starting is perhaps the hardest part and I hope it goes okay.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Aug 12, 2010 21:31:33 GMT -5
I thought you did have a pretty good analogy, it just took me a little into reading it to actually get what you were talking about and wasn't sure if theonepistol would have got it right away, that's why I used a different analogy, given his age and gender, I thought it would be something to relate to a little better, that's all.
Thanks MG, I'm going to give it my best shot so that I can stop this for good, in fact I am starting to look into getting another snake, I think that maybe if I have a living thing sharing my room with me and also something else to focus my love and attention towards, it will help me easier...in fact that is part of the reason why I had gotten my snake Alice, I would be her caretaker and she would hopefully be my cure but considering the unfortunate circumstances, that kind of didn't happen. I think that since it did help when I had Patches (he was my guinea pig), it's worth a shot again. I was actually never pressured by my friends, they knew me well enough that I would probably tell them no although most of them were just basic smokers and since I've lost members in my family due to lung cancer, smoking cigarettes is something I would prefer never to try.
As for me posting it on DA, I felt that maybe if I came clean with my friends and watchers, it could give me another reason to decide to quit...I'm actually still surprised now that I did choose to tell someone. Considering that I do know what it's like to be the one trying to help someone with a problem, I do know the feeling of trying to help and be there and in some cases, the ones you try to help just don't want it. It was like that with my best friend, around Jr. high she was diagnosed with clinical depression and boy, did that turn our world upside down! I remember pretty well the times she would call, crying, telling me that she was going to end her life, me trying to calm her down which either led to her being suddenly quiet which scared me or her cussing me out about how would I know, my life was so perfect according to her. After dealing with that, I had promised myself after she was finally able to get help that I would never do that to someone, there was no way I would become someone else's burden. I think now when I do truly think back on it, by doing that the only one burdened with it was just me, probably doing more to me than it should have but one of my friends on DA did say something that is true. She told me once that if you bottle it all up inside, all it does is cause all the bad stuff to get all sticky and squishy in you and that doesn't feel good anyway. Lol, it does sound pretty funny coming from a teenager but she does have a point, nobody likes squishy stuff unless it's something nice like jello or something like that. ;D Well anyway, thanks MG, I'll do my best.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 13, 2010 3:41:39 GMT -5
It could be an idea, telling others is entirely your own choice in the end, but I did find the internet a good help too at points. My real life friends helped me, but people I talked to on the net also helped me hash things out with my own issues. (And just typing/writing things out can be therapeutic, or it was for me, I guess since I can't really draw it's the one way I can get close to that sort of thing!) Writing things out can help you think more on the issue too in general really. You can also of course gain access and talk to people you might not have ever met otherwise.
(I mean come on, we certainly wouldn't have met before if it wasn't for the net). There's quite a few help sites probably too, once again just googling some things and my issues and hearing what others go through as well as responses and everything to my own things did help. Even a simple acknowledgement they've felt the same before can help. Because you don't really feel alone or like you're the 'only one' to have ever felt like that. You can find people who feel or have felt similar things etc. I found I wan't the only person to ever think like I have! There are quite a few people who have ended up in my case 'Being my own worst enemy' because of various reasons. Sure my friends irl did help me as mentioned, and there were certain thing we could draw upon but experiences and problems were different, meeting people who had gone through what my friends and gone through too online also helped in some ways. Also it can help when it comes to friends problems.
It can be strange looking back sometimes, since you can at times see how you got to that place you used to be at. Not exactly really but you can see the general occurence of events of what odd event could have pushed you in a certain direction or something which was there for a long time that you didn't notice until it was gone.
So once again good luck!
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 13, 2010 8:42:18 GMT -5
I think, in the notion of getting back to the original topic too (or close to it anyway), it might be interesting to look at the parts Pixar or the writers perhaps tried to make Randall maybe look pure evil but in the end didn't really work in context. I mean it's kind of alesson as I said, of how what you might want to convey isn't necessarily what works.
I think examples include the fact Randall had an intense dislike at Sulley for one even in the beginning before the plan was revealed. Perhaps this was an attempt for them to make Randall to look more petty than many here perhaps took him as. Though as mentioned, that could be taken as distrust over general people who on the outside seem nice, due to experiences with Waternoose etc.
Other examples could even be the whole 'Scarer of the month' thing, in real life it would be particulary suspicious and it wouldn't be too out there to suspect Randall would suspect foul play, and even that Sulley was DIRECTLY involved in it in his eyes (if he was chewing on his own theory that Sulley was not what he appeared). But it's very possible the original writers just simply MADE it that way and it's not supposed to look supicious at all that someone gets Scarer of the month every month, and any number weirdness are them not paying attention to detail. To them, it was fair and not strange at all. Randall even says Sulley has been number one too long, but rather than implying any hints like there could be something fishy, they probably just want him to look jealous and that's it. But potentially here could be something more at work.
Regardless however, Sulley in the end as the audience knows is not involved in that sort of thing himself, but this is perhaps once again that major mistake many viewers (or writers) can make, you can't assume characters have meta knowledge and know that another character isn't doing anything wrong at the time. We see more as audience members and assuming that a character should automatically trust the other is sometimes unfair from their viewpoint. That's not how it works in real life either! Basically: You see someone doing or acting X, you're assume they're Y, but they're really Z.
I've already given this example before on other topics, but it's like in Avatar: TLA, Katara had a RIGHT to be distrustful and angry at Zuko when he first joined the group. She'd seen someone she deeply cared about, Aang almost literally die in front of her before she brought him back, but he was also unconscious for weeks afterwards, and in her view, while he didn't produce the killing shot, Zuko had played her for a fool and that had resulted in Aang ending up like that. She blamed herself and probably thought herself stupid for trusting him. And she wasn't going to let THAT happen again. The AUDIENCE knew that his sister had changed Zuko's mind and that was the real reason he attacked them, but as far as Katara could see, he'd played her for a sucker and had planned that from the beginning. So trusting him again was obviously not going to come easily. She assumed Zuko was just like his sister, a master liar and what not. Even though Zuko really sucks at it! And we know that! XD But still, Katara got a lot of fandom hate, and even I on occasion lost patience with her on this and other things, but overall looking back, it's not hard to see why she'd threaten him. It was in character for her. She trusts but break that trust and you're on her s*** list. Jet was also shown this earlier. She can be quite judgemental sometimes if she doesn't know you that well and you've wronged her before. A natural reaction in general.
Other things could include Randall smiling when Boo was about to get tested on by his invention, perhaps they were trying to imply Randall would also just generally enjoy seeing Boo in pain not just for the fact his hard work may be paid off. You know, the sadist who gets off on animals getting hurt or something.
But they kind of shot themselves in the foot if that was so given how Randall treats her the rest of the time and all, he's not really even that rough with her. So... I don't see him getting 'off' on that sort of thing really. Plus hurting her would be just severely detrimental to his interets.
But did the writers think about that idea? Was that why that smile was thrown in there? But if so once again, it doesn't really work.
Other things include just yelling at Fungus when he gets his face sucked off and when he's talking to Mike, but overall, while those were bad things, he more seemed REALLY frustrated and in a hurry than anything in the end. Still BAD of course to do that but all the same...
Then getting back, perhaps they didn't realise the implications of making it seem like humans were viewed like animals, I mean yeah it allowed for some silliness, weird things Mike said and Sulley putting paper in the corner like a puppy. But we also of course have Mike and Randall calling Boo 'it'.
But perhaps they didn't get the implications of that? That it would mean it would be like testing on an ANIMAL to them which in the end is pretty different to say a human here kidnapping a human kid to do the same thing, at least in their eyes. This could be a contradiction they didn't realise or think over really, since of course almost everyone who tests on animals in our world could not be considered 'evil' at all.
Other things include of course, other times he was smiling when he sees Mike and Sulley in trouble, like when Mike was in the chair of the scream extractor, just before their own exile (and in retrospect I don't think it was really much due to relief myself anymore), and when he dropped them in the doorvault area and also when he was crushing Sulley's hand to make him fall. But the latter was more of a spill of bitterness and blindness and idiocy on Randall's part to me (doesn't matter how smart you are, you can be an idiot sometimes especially when you think you know it all from your actually pretty limited perspective). And while that plus the others are still horrendously wrong, given what he must have been feeling more or less about them and his own situation I can get why he'd be less than cut up over it. I mean between you and someone you HATED day in day out and what not, thinking their life is perfect and all with bitterness, resentment and your own fears building up over time, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for many people not to be cut up over it and even take a bit of bitter joy in it. It's still hideousl;y wrong though. I mean, even if the killing wasn't his original aim and he did what he was ordered, once again he wasn't upset in the slightest over that from what we saw. But really, given what he was in and his relationship with them or how he felt, I can see why.
Plus Sulley and Mike were pretty happy to see him get his ending too. Though of course as mentioned, when someone has been trying to hurt (and been trying to kill you too in the end) all day or take away someone important to you. Wanting them hurt isn't exactly a huge stretch. The writers acknowledged THIS anyway and of course as mentioned, most of the audience see Sulley and Mike's perspective, and they'd understand that they'd want to do the same. Of course once again this is mistaking understanding= complete and utter justification of actions.
Still, it's pretty possible the writers wanted to paint him as nothing more than a pure evil, sadistic psycopath without a conscience ever. And some people do buy that.
The problem is that not only does how the world structured seems to make that very difficult to work, even things we see in the movie can contradict things and what not, and what they were trying to convey. Just because you create a world or characters doesn't mean it has to go exactly the way you want all the time. There are certain rules that if even the creator breaks, it makes the thing fall apart.
And once again I don't MIND that my and the creator's interpretation conflicts, since it makes the movie more fun and interesting in general in my own view of things, it's just simply with the sequel of course it means this is probably not going to end well and I'm apprehensive over what's going to go down.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 13, 2010 20:11:57 GMT -5
Good points, MG, and IF the writers did indeed intend for everyone to simply buy into the notion that Randall was this evil psychopath, who'd been born and conceived in evil and would die in evil and burn in Hell for all eternity, that picture completely flies in the face of LOGIC. That would require Pixar counting on each and every person who watches that movie being either extremely naive, or mentally challenged, having no real-life experiences whatsoever, and being unable to think logically, only react, emotionally. Pixar does NOT, contrary to what some have claimed here, make "children's movies". They make movies that APPEAL to children, and should more or less be understandable by children, but those movies also appeal greatly to adults. They are INTENDED to be seen and enjoyed by all ages, not just children. I resent the notion that just because a story is presented in animated form, or has characters which are fantasy beings or exist in a make-believe world, that it automatically is meant for children, primarily, unless of course, it was made in Japan. There is still that ridiculous notion that Western animation, at least, is just for kids, while animation from Japan is for adults. That's why the argument that "MI was made just for little kids, and little kids can only understand conflicts in terms of "he's good" and "he's bad", so therefore Randall was meant to be evil because only little kids were supposed to watch him in the first place" does not "fly" with me, at all. It is NOT a "child's movie" or a "kiddie movie"!
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 14, 2010 4:00:04 GMT -5
The first thing which really threw me out of the movie was when Sulley did the exile thing really not the other things, then by pondering his own reasons for it I grew more curious about other characters. Seemed like a fair enough thing to do really when I got round to it. I did it first for Sulley because he was my favourite and then tried it with other characters. And Randall got more interesting.
I think overall, while I can see perhaps effort put in that direction, (of Randall being evil, though the points I mentioned which they may have thrown in for that reason) it's inconsistent, and it seems like they put things in there without thinking of the consequences. Like yes, making it seem that monsters view humans with animals. It makes for some hilarity but it also really affects persepectives on A LOT of the characters and their motives too. It instantly lowers Randall's 'evil index' (is that even a term?! I think I just made it up.), and if they didn't want to do that, that was a mistake.
Have another monster win SotM, have Randall be mean to them or I don't know make it so Sulley as perhaps 4-5 of the months shown but not all of them which makes it clear he is the main competitor in it. Also fix the number weirdness.
Have Randall be rougher or more malicious with Boo I guess.
Really have Randall drop a brick on Mike's head in the locker scene (you mentioned this idea somewhere earlier right?)
Though I'm not sure how once again that sort of behaviour would make much sense given the environment they're in. It's easier to make say the dark overlord of a fantasy world like in Lord of the Rings pure evil. It's kind of harder in a world with pay checks.
Because I'd suck as a teacher and would probably only fail people if they didn't give two s****, I'd probably give them a C- for trying to make Randall pure evil. I can see some points they might try to throw in there for it and all and some effort, but the rest of the work doesn't fit consistently with it. The other things they put in there, perhaps without thinking of the consequences sort of is detrimental to their aimed protrayal of Randall if so.
I think unfortunatly this was also the thing with Up to, throwing certain things in without thinking much on whether it makes sense in context. Like the flying dogs.... words cannot describe how much I loathe that scene. It was just put in to look cute or funny but it was neither to me and completely threw me out of the movie. It didn't make SENSE to me. Dogs talking fine... staging complicated aerial attacks? Please no.
I think Docter is a decent writer probably, and he has good 'plot bunnies' as it were, he has talent, but I'm not sure he always thinks it through to the end. In other words, I think he'd work better as simply one of the writers and someone else directing him maybe. Or an editor or something. It's nothing to be ashamed of. After all, a lot of people sometimes need editors or people in that sort of area and not EVERYONE can be a director. And being a writer is a very important job. But he really, I think, needs someone in there who would tell him 'I get what you're driving at and what you want but it doesn't seem to work perhaps there's a way to work with this though'. Sometimes even in my ownoriginal stuff people come off with different things like I intended, but sometimes those ideas are actually more interesting than what I was thinking of.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Aug 14, 2010 9:24:56 GMT -5
I believe that this is a good example to show that just because it's Pixar doesn't mean that all of their employees think the same. If they did, man would all of their films suck in my opinion because if they all had the same ideas from one person to another, you would get the same story in each film, just different settings and characters. I personally think that Doctor doesn't do half bad as a director, he is no Tim Burton but still holds his own pretty well. We can't assume that just because he works for Pixar that every idea or concept he comes up with will be the same as his fellow employees. People aren't built that way and if we think that just because one employee's writing style is one way doesn't mean that another will be the same. Also, I'm sure that working at a company, despite the field, they have a deadline to meet and you can do only so much checking back for mistakes or stuff that didn't match up or whatever for only so long until you can finally decide that you've caught all you could and need to move on. Another thing to keep in mind is that Monsters Inc is his story, it's basically his creation and while allowing little changes would be no big deal, he still calls shots on what would happen in it or at least for being it's creator, you think he would. Since I also come up with stuff myself for my own characters and fiction, I can understand that. Taking little advice, I can handle, but if someone were to suggest to me to have a character do or say something that I know they wouldn't, they would have to kill me dead first if they wanted to see that change. When it comes to changes in stuff that you come up with, you always have to wonder if making certain changes is good or not and eventually, if you do notice that changes are being demanded left and right, you then have to look back and wonder if what you created compared to what you have now, is it still yours anymore...how many changes can be allowed before you realize that what you created is no longer yours and now is dead to you as far as a story or concept goes. If you end up regretting all of those changes when you look back on it after it's finished, then there's a good chance that maybe what happened or what you allowed to happen was a huge mistake and if you have that regret, then it would probably have never been worth it for you in the end.
As far as the sequel is concerned, we still don't know who is the one behind it. It could be another member of Pixar who maybe didn't like how MI turned out or even Doctor himself who seems bothered by the film after looking back at it for so long...that we won't know until we get closer to its release date.
While I don't see Randall as an evil character, I do believe that Pixar's intent with his character was to make him a villian. I believe this due to how he is portrayed here or there, I believe this due to what they stated in their commentary and special features on the dvd, I do believe that Randall was meant to be portrayed as their villian in the film but since not all people think the same, it's obvious that not everyone views him in that way....but I do believe that was the original intent with him in my opinion.
|
|
V
Randall's Head Servant (300-799)
Personal Lover of Randall
Posts: 361
|
Post by V on Aug 14, 2010 9:25:25 GMT -5
They make movies that APPEAL to children, and should more or less be understandable by children, but those movies also appeal greatly to adults. They are INTENDED to be seen and enjoyed by all ages, not just children. I resent the notion that just because a story is presented in animated form, or has characters which are fantasy beings or exist in a make-believe world, that it automatically is meant for children, primarily, unless of course, it was made in Japan. There is still that ridiculous notion that Western animation, at least, is just for kids, while animation from Japan is for adults. That's why the argument that "MI was made just for little kids, and little kids can only understand conflicts in terms of "he's good" and "he's bad", so therefore Randall was meant to be evil because only little kids were supposed to watch him in the first place" does not "fly" with me, at all. It is NOT a "child's movie" or a "kiddie movie"! pitbulllady I completely agree with the film thing... about children and adults.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 14, 2010 12:27:54 GMT -5
I believe that this is a good example to show that just because it's Pixar doesn't mean that all of their employees think the same. If they did, man would all of their films suck in my opinion because if they all had the same ideas from one person to another, you would get the same story in each film, just different settings and characters. I personally think that Doctor doesn't do half bad as a director, he is no Tim Burton but still holds his own pretty well. We can't assume that just because he works for Pixar that every idea or concept he comes up with will be the same as his fellow employees. People aren't built that way and if we think that just because one employee's writing style is one way doesn't mean that another will be the same. Also, I'm sure that working at a company, despite the field, they have a deadline to meet and you can do only so much checking back for mistakes or stuff that didn't match up or whatever for only so long until you can finally decide that you've caught all you could and need to move on. Another thing to keep in mind is that Monsters Inc is his story, it's basically his creation and while allowing little changes would be no big deal, he still calls shots on what would happen in it or at least for being it's creator, you think he would. Since I also come up with stuff myself for my own characters and fiction, I can understand that. Taking little advice, I can handle, but if someone were to suggest to me to have a character do or say something that I know they wouldn't, they would have to kill me dead first if they wanted to see that change. When it comes to changes in stuff that you come up with, you always have to wonder if making certain changes is good or not and eventually, if you do notice that changes are being demanded left and right, you then have to look back and wonder if what you created compared to what you have now, is it still yours anymore...how many changes can be allowed before you realize that what you created is no longer yours and now is dead to you as far as a story or concept goes. If you end up regretting all of those changes when you look back on it after it's finished, then there's a good chance that maybe what happened or what you allowed to happen was a huge mistake and if you have that regret, then it would probably have never been worth it for you in the end. As far as the sequel is concerned, we still don't know who is the one behind it. It could be another member of Pixar who maybe didn't like how MI turned out or even Doctor himself who seems bothered by the film after looking back at it for so long...that we won't know until we get closer to its release date. While I don't see Randall as an evil character, I do believe that Pixar's intent with his character was to make him a villian. I believe this due to how he is portrayed here or there, I believe this due to what they stated in their commentary and special features on the dvd, I do believe that Randall was meant to be portrayed as their villian in the film but since not all people think the same, it's obvious that not everyone views him in that way....but I do believe that was the original intent with him in my opinion. I will agree that it probably WAS the intent on Pixar's part to make Randall their primary villain, at least, that is, until we learn of Waternoose's true colors. Randall was there, both literally AND in terms of the plot, to draw attention away from Waternoose, a "red herring", if you will. BUT, here's the "rub", so to speak: a LOT of people, not just those of us here, but many others, believe that there is something more to Randall than just a shallow, one-sided Disney-esque bad guy, that there is another side to him that we get a few tantalizing glimpses in the movie. Even people who have not personally experienced what the effects of prolonged intense stress will do to someone, behavior-wise, or who don't even grasp just what would have HAD to be involved with the Scream Extractor, from a stress/time perspective, realize that Randall's behavior in the movie was most likely NOT the norm for him. Even though Pixar created this character, if they do not keep their collective ears and eyes open to monitor FANS' perceptions, they have failed as a creative force. I'm not talking about professional critics, but ordinary fans, since we are, after all, the ones who buy tickets and purchase DVD's. When the fans are saying that they see something in a character other than what the creators might have intended, it's time to pay attention to the fans, and consider their perspective, and if it seems to be something they want, develop that option further if given the opportunity. Look at DA, look at FF.net's MI section, and WHO is the focus of most of the fan art of fanfiction? Randall, of course, and while there are anti-Randall fanfics and pics, they are the minority, because many people just do not see him that way, as unredeemably evil incarnate, or even as just plain old run-of-the-mill bad. MOST people, if they actually stop and think about it, can at least acknowledge that he wasn't nearly as bad as he could have been. Now, if Pixar fails to take this perspective into account in the sequel, then to me it proves that they are completely out-of-touch with their fans and have lost the ability to tell an original, refreshing story. They are just using the same basic script, substituting different names for the roles of Good Guys and Bad Guys and substituting different reasons for their conflict, but basically telling the same story over and over again, with a few little side embellishments to make people think that they're watching something new, when they aren't. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Aug 14, 2010 13:25:27 GMT -5
All I can remember from my first viewing of Monsters Inc ever was I think random things. I did pick up on some stuff but I was mostly laughoing at the Sulley-Boo antics and thinking other things like:
Wow, Mike's kind of a jerk to Boo.
Waternooses big reveal was a literal OMGWTF?! moment.
The scene with the scream extractor afterwards, rather scary, but also 'Wow. Waternoose is kind of a richard'. (Plus I always kind of took it for granted he was in charge and all because he was CEO and all and kind of the fact Randall wasn't yelling at him. I think that was more or less it for me there.)
Then the exile moment. Which kind of surprised me, and then came the kind of stupid wait around I had for a sequel.
I guess even though I disliked Randall then, I just didn't like that scene especially when I found there was no sequel.
Things like the scare record and SotM thing didn't jump out for me at all at first.
Mainly because we don't have that sort of thing over here or in many places in Britain or Ireland at all. I have never seen the concept of 'Employee of the Month' in any where BUT America. (And perhaps Canada, but I can't remember, it was over a decade ago.) --
M: While I get where you're coming from the problem is I think Docter demonstrates that he lacks discipline sometimes in this area in writing. He both wrote and directed, which can be dicey. He has GOOD ideas but can't stitch them together very well or seems to forget things. I know there are more writers, but he's sort of the head, meant to make it come all together in the end. That's his job.
For instance, while we can provide explanations for why the magazine Roz had seemed to make weight gain desirable and yet jokes on Sulley seem to suggest otherwise (weight gain desirable on females only?), I don't think the writers/director themselves were thinking about this at all. It was probably literally a mistake for them they forgot to correct. He kind of throws in scenes and jokes and things without thinking of the consequences for them. That; not the best idea.
This is especially important when you're building a whole new world too which is not set on earth. Because even if you are the creator, you become limited with every single thing a character says or does which can say something about that world. It doesn't necessarily go the way you want it just because you say it does. Mike's 'Jury duty' line was probably simply thrown in there for something to say. They needed Mike to SAY something to someone randomly (in this case, Marge) simply for the atmosphere of two guys on their way to work. But the line was perhaps a lot more significant than realised.
So while I think Docter would be valuable in a writing team, I really don't think he should be in charge. He should be looking out for that sort of thing in the first place. I could perhaps forgive the odd thing missed, but in accumulation and in total the number of things which has been missed meant his view doesn't work very easily. It makes things WAY more interesting but it doesn't go the way he wanted it. It doesn't matter if he was the creator. He still has limitations in what he is working with and how he can push a story and characters in terms of belivability etc.
Slip ups do happen and no story is perfect. But yes, it's also kind of like with Up and the flying dogs scene which I hate. You can't simply do whatever you want and expect it your viewpoint to be immediately the one people go for, not even when you are the creator. It has to make sense in the end so people can suspend disbelief. If he can't 'murder his darlings' (and this is often referred in writing to scenes or concepts you want but might not fit with the main thing) or change his mind when someone has a point (or even argue AGAINST someone when they're wrong? Who knows, maybe the criticism even is something in the other direction completely which we haven't contemplated.), he's not really got what's needed to be a director. Most writers do have editors. And when editors don't do the job for you (of telling you when things don't make sense or don't fit well) you get things like how the Harry Potter series of JK Rowling ended.
He's got talent. He's just not got discipline at the same time. It's just the throwaway scenes, concepts and lines he should have been looking out for which he didn't catch. I mean I didn't get all of them on my first viewing at all, but I did get some of them or at least the inkling of them. It's why I hung arounf for the sequel idea when I was younger not realising at first how much time had passed since its release. It was rather disappointing. I'd not really heard the idea of the 'Heroes journey' but most heroes made mistakes in the stories I liked before setting things right, so I kind of assumed that was what would happen with Sulley. Disappointment when I found it wasn't true. Ah, the naivity of uh... not so long ago youth.
I think I can be fine with tiny goofs here and there, but some of these goofs both small and big meant big consequences in the end.
--
PBL: I think the mistake is however PBL, that assuming we're a majority. Fandom and especially internet fandom is only a small proportion of the total fans of this movie. Most have possibly taken it for granted that Randall is completely evil. More casual fans will probably more take the creators viewpoint. Most fans will never read or view a single fanfic or fanart much less create one. They saw it, enjoyed it and that was more or less it for them.
The thing is though I wouldn't want them to change a view just because it's POPULAR anyway. I'd want them to do it because they genuinely think it's a great idea, perhaps not something they were originally going for but still possible and even kind of cool as it were. Acknowledgement that a point has been made etc. about it. Because while it's not the only interpretation I think it makes sense and is more interesting. I'd like to have them agree.
It might be a GOOD surprise for casual fans too. It's kind of like with Waternooses reveal maybe, where you weren't EXPECTING it maybe, but it still makes sense in context and looking back, you didn't THINK perhaps on first viewing that Randall and Fungus were unlikely to have gotten the resources themselves.
But having someone high up on the corporate ladder? Someone who was subtly there in some way so we never forgot him? Sort of almost 'tricked' us into thinking he was merely someone else for Sulley to have a relationship with? That's what makes a good surprise in movies. Waternoose is a marvelous antagonist in this way. It makes sense when you look back at it that he'd be or someone like him would be in charge or involved, but still it was probably a shock for many when it happened because you weren't counting on that. You were caught up in other things maybe distracting you, but it is amazing and a real punch to the gut when it happens for both the viewer and Sulley.
But damn, it makes sense looking back.
I am so for more Waternoose-like-shocking-but-makes-sense-in-retrospect moments. Only maybe the other way this time.
I'd want to be next to a casual fan if Randall did rant about what had happened to him to Sulley, if he kind of broke the audiences hearts in some way from sympathy as well as perhaps feeling sorry for a Sulley who was trying to make things right again. It would be tempting almost to see what their reaction to be, the utter surprise but the 'wow' factor which could be possible from a turn around as well. Like with Waternoose only as I said in the other direction.
(Oh yeah MG, that's real subtle).
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Aug 14, 2010 22:00:53 GMT -5
*reads post, nodding* Okay, I'll be willing to give you that, you may have a point as far as his writing and directing skills are concerned but it's like they say, sink or swim. If he can ever learn how to improve as a director then maybe he'll be made for it, if not then he could learn that maybe it's not his thing either by the easy way or the hard way...I prefer the easy way personally. I remember in my art class in high school that the few times we worked with clay, I hated it cause I'm not good with the stuff, I don't have the patience for it, I hate working with it using long nails cause it hurts like HELL!!! I just don't like working with it but as far as concepts for it, I can come up with concepts or designs for clay related stuff. Heck, I remember once that my teacher gave a piece of stone to this one kid and told him to make something, all he could see was just a big rock but when I looked at it, it's shape to me resembled a turtle but if you were to give me a chisel, I guarantee you that despite what my brain sees, that stone would probably look nothing like a turtle! If he does end up directing the sequel then he may need some people helping him out in that area...of course that's assuming if directing is his thing or not.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Sept 3, 2010 12:13:44 GMT -5
After reading all these comments, i realized that i may have miss typed, i should have not said evil i should have said villain, cuz not all villans are EVIL but they are still the bad guy and thats what i think about Randall, and thats what i should have said.
I guess it dosnt even matter anymore, now im just hoping he gets the second chance we all want him to get int he sequel.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Sept 3, 2010 13:59:39 GMT -5
Well some may contest the 'villian' thing but it's probably what Pixar were going for.
In all honesty there is a chance Randall won't come back at all, because Pixar take the stance that the story is complete in the first movie in of itself, that the sequel is something which probably could be added on but wasn't 'necessary' at all. I happen to disagree with that, but it's probably their stance as of right now too. And they didn't bring back anatagonists for the Toy Story sequels unless you count a very brief shot of Sid.
I think in the end though what seperates some of the Toy Story antagonists is the actions of the protaganists though. In the end a sequel perhaps should be seen as necessary not because Randall HAS to be redeemed (he doesn't really, it would be GREAT though and a good story) but because the impression that the PROTAGANISTS arc isn't finished yet, and in the end the story is usually about the protaganists after all. At the end of the day.
Regardless of whether the idea of Randall being redeemable is taken, it's just a fact that the whole exile thing didn't reflect very WELL on the protaganists and their own story and in a way renders it incomplete for them.
And in the end protaganists aren't supposed to be perfect but it still makes things decidedly iffy in my own interpretation with ragrds how things went down.
If Randall had simply been sent to jail instead and that had never happened... well that could be considered a complete story I guess. In a way. And people could go with fanfiction all the same. Have Sulley Randall friendship up the wazoo and other things, Randall wouldn't be the first antagonist for this to happen to, and it would be a shame regarding HIS story, but in the end pixar stories tend to be about the protaganists, and in that sense I could see them being able to say the story is complete more readily in some ways.
I've had people admit that while not caring for Randall at all and questioning the idea whether him being redeemable is believable, it still doesn't negate Sulley and Mike's own responsibility and actions. What went down was at the very least very morally questionable on the protaganistic end.
At the very least it was overkill (well understatement there). They had to remove Randall's threat in some way, and it wasn't as if Sulley could simply let him go and he would leave them alone with a harsh word like some kid being told off. I mean Randall would hardly slink off with his tail between his legs and not bother them if they did that, but it's rather like a certain Professor which used a highly questionable magical spell to tie up a bad guy when another spell of less questionable nature would have done in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. At its worst it could be seen like Harry having tortured a wizard too, when there was no means to an end. In reality it's possibly a bit of both. There is a mixture of simple revenge desires and overkill which just doesn't reflect WELL in the end on the overall arc.
Wasn't there some other way to make sure he didn't get in the way while they got Boo home?
In the end, unlike the flying dogs in Up which are a logical problem, the whole Randall exile thing more becomes a moral problem. It CAN be explained logically speaking without rendering the world hard to believe in. The feelings of those who committed the action, as well as how they got away with it legally being down to CDA powers in action makes sense.
But it becomes a problem with the overall arcs and rather renders the protaganists story (Pixar's TOP priority) rather incomplete.
And if they brought Randall back and show him as simple pure evi and that making it ENTIRELY okayl it would be kind of a cheap way of dealing with it.
Beacsue to me that is not how morality works. It's not entirely on the basis of what the person on the recieveing end has done but to do with yourself which defines whether it is the right action to take. Sometimes things can be seen as a necessary evil (but they are not without its consequences), but in terms of things which are overkill/spite the right thing to do is NOT to do it. This can be difficult, but nit's the right thing to do, regardless of who is on the recieveing end. In the end that person who broke into your home and endagered you probably could be seen as bad and what they did is wrong. But if you hurt them as a person tied up in the chair or after the threat is over, guess what? You're still guilty of assault. You're still an attacker and you still have things to answer for. Your actions are more understandable perhaps than your random faceless maniac you attacks people since of course you have a right to be angry, but you still have to answer for that.
The truth is, an interesting idea for Sulley (and heck maybe even Mike and other protaganists of the first movie) could be 'What defines a hero?' The idea of double standards, the idea that heroes have to sometimes save those and fix what they've done wrong even IF they don't think they're redeemable, taking responsibility for your own actions and so forth. That what's right isn't necessarily what's easy or even simply what you desire to do or is the most tempting option.
I think in the end what renders the first movie incomplete might not have to do with Randall having another side at all, it may simply be because of what the hell went down with the protaganistic side of the story and their actions and the message it sends.
Don't get me wrong I DO see Randall as redeemable and all, but RANDALL'S side isn't exactly which probably renders this movie incomplete in the end if we're talking formulas and the bare bones of movies and story telling in general. It's in the end what happned and the actions of the protaganists which have not been answered for, which can hurt the message of the general movie or at the very least its outlook which probably at the end of the day truely render this movie incomplete to me.
|
|