|
Post by TheOnePistol on Sept 3, 2010 14:20:38 GMT -5
Hopefully if Pixar listens to their fans, there is a good chance that Randall will comeback, but there are people who liked him as a bad guy and there is us who want him a good guy, so all together thats alot of Randall fans, its just a question of witch one Pixar will go with, i can see why pixar didnt bring back other Pixar movie villains, cuz nobody really liked them, alot of people like Randall.
So im hopeing sooo much that pixar listens to their fans, and that maby they will side with our opinion of Randall. If they do that then that would be awsome.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Sept 3, 2010 14:25:04 GMT -5
My point is if they didnt bring Randall back, then they might as well take out Boo, or Mike or somthing, cuz i dont thinks its Monster Inc without Randall. It would be a bad idea not to bring him back. i guess will just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 3, 2010 16:17:58 GMT -5
Hopefully if Pixar listens to their fans, there is a good chance that Randall will comeback, but there are people who liked him as a bad guy and there is us who want him a good guy, so all together thats alot of Randall fans, its just a question of witch one Pixar will go with, i can see why pixar didnt bring back other Pixar movie villains, cuz nobody really liked them, alot of people like Randall. So im hopeing sooo much that pixar listens to their fans, and that maby they will side with our opinion of Randall. If they do that then that would be awsome. "...if Pixar listens to their fans..."[/i] THAT is the key, right there. THAT is what it will all boil down to, Pixar paying attention to the fans, being intune with us, so to speak, rather than simply believing in their own perfection and having their collective heads swell so large that they no longer regard the people who put them where they are now, their FANS. You made a valid point about Randall's popularity. With the exception of Syndrome, I have not seen any other Pixar "villain" who has so many, and such devoted, fans as Randall does. Further more, no other Pixar "bad guy" has so many people who are NOT fans BECAUSE they are bad, but because we see something in Randall that simply isn't there in the others, not even in Syndrome, for whom we SEE the reason for his turning to the "dark side" and whom we can actually feel some sympathy for when he is spurned by his childhood hero. The thing is, though, is PIXAR aware that we exist? None of them really communicate with their fans at all, other than simply posting news blurbs on their Facebook or Twitter pages. They do not answer questions, so it's impossible to know. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Sept 3, 2010 17:08:35 GMT -5
While fans or those involved in fandom on the internet are relatively small compared to the overall numbers irl, Randall's popularity if they know it but don't understand it or look into it may be strange in some sense to them. I mean you can understand why if so, if they don't look into it, it might simply put it down to 'bad boy syndrome' to them (I mean come on a fair few ARE female... and those fans certainly exist.)
Granted I don't normally go for that. I am not 'OMG! Bad boy. He's sucha reeebel.' I get the urge exists, but don't really think I have it.
Actually I've a bit more leeway for bad GIRLS for some reason. But yeah that's off topic.
I mean Syndrome is probably popular because while what he's doing his awful he's also meant to be funny, he provides comic relief, also there are people who do feel sorry for him, but then they meant for that to happen.
Though for me while I do feel sorry for him (and probably think he is compensating for a lot and not in the silly Shrek-joke way but for various things), I do indeed feel less sorry for him than Randall in the end (since he's the BOSS and all that, and I feel those in charge have more responsibility than say minions. Plus his literal and first aim is killing people.)
We also don't see Randall BEFORE this whole thing, yet somehow he got a rather larger share of fans compared to many Pixar antagonists, many of which DO and don't get nearly as much attention (Syndrome being an exception). And others tend to get a bit more of a back story (including Syndrome).
Perhaps that's part of Randall's appeal too? He's kind of a question mark at times. There are things which can be extrapolated. His relationship with Waternoose being NOT one built on mutual respect and trust. Feelings towards Sulley and Mike. The fact he saw humans as animals. But there's also a TON of things which can be added and fitted without anything much backing it up at all. (Like Boo's costume looking like him providing memories of a young family member lost or something he didn't have. No real basis. Whatsoever. And you could also say he took it as a mockery from his enemies or... anything really. But it's not exactly IMPOSSIBLE either... I mean nothing exactly conflicting either. All we seem to be able to extrapolate pretty well is that he most probably has no family, or one which just isn't worth talking about or cares. But even THAT could be completely thrown out in the sequel. I think there's some people are yelling: "WHAT'S THIS GUY'S MOTIVATION?! WHY IS HE DOING THESE THINGS?! WHERE DID HE COME FROM?! WHERE IS HIS FAMILY?!" And for some I mean you see him acting this way in, minus the monsters, a realitively normal work environment and you can wonder things like how the heck he could have been hired at all... and the idea comes he wasn't always exactly like that...talent means little if you disrupt the work environment for bring too much 'baggage' to the work place.).
But Randall has questions regarding him in the end in any case.
Granted I'm certainly willing to lookover the fact they didn't catch the whole thing with the exile being iffy overall, because as I've discovered it's probably more DIFFICULT to spot mistakes in your own work than others.
(This is especially the case with my attempts in original fiction so far).
But then they were part of a TEAM... and that's kind of the directors job. To look out for that sort of thing. His primary motivation was the protaganists story and telling IT, but the exile thing messed it around more than a little.
Of course, the thing is I'd want them to run with it more so because it's a good idea rather than popularity. And like I said, since Pixar's tend to concentrate on their protaganists they have to concentrate on what the whole thing with the exile does to THEM and their protaganists' story arc at the very least. Because that tend to be the story Pixar follows in its movies, and at the very least they've prevented that from being complete in that sense.
Also at best it would be a wasted opportunity. I mean, yeah it wasn't intended but it could be fantastic if they decided to run with it. It's a good plot bunny at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Sept 3, 2010 19:22:51 GMT -5
Yah i forgot about Syndrome, he was awesome, Im sure if Pixar had not kill him off, if they were to make a sequel he would probably be in it. Another reason why i think Randall who was not killed off has a good chance of returning in the sequel.
|
|
|
Post by mintygreen on Feb 14, 2012 22:48:09 GMT -5
I have to go to work, but you can bet I'll be back later today to take up this issue. I for one do not believe that PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS, with rare exceptions(those being people who have deep, strong brain disorders which show up from an early age), are "evil", per se. DEEDS or ACTIONS can be evil, not people. As for why Randall would do something as heinous as trying to kill a co-worker, please make sure you read all my threads regarding sleep deprivation, exposure to electromagets, and the effects of prolonged stress on one's ability to make decisions/choices that we would consider of moral or ethical status, including going against what that individual has believed for much of their life. There are some really, really compelling arguements with scientific and medical research to support my strong belief that Randall simply "snapped". I know from first-hand experience, having come SO close to doing that same thing myself due to what I was experiencing, that no matter how "good" you think you are, how "righteous" and of such fine upstanding moral fiber, you have a limit. You have a "trigger", that once reached, can override your own and society's morals. You have a part of your brain which is primal and is only concerned with surviving, at any cost and by any means. I've experienced first-hand the effects of the sort of stress Randall would HAVE to have been under, and that's something that most of you haven't gone through, and hopefully, you never will, but you must be aware that you have the same potential to do what he did, possibly under far less trying circumstances. Does that make you evil? pitbulllady I have to say that I also rarely see people as evil.....I don't think anyone is pure evil or pure good, but all a shade of gray inbetween. The world isn't black and white. Even for people who are actual psychopaths to the extent that they have no emotion and kill people, a lot of those people were born with something wrong with their brain, it's wired differently. I've seen programs about it. However, they still know that you shouldn't kill people....but it's true they have no emotion about it, which is why they do it more easily than other people would. I don't think Randall is a psychopath or anything though, he just has some issues he's trying to get through.
|
|
|
Post by lightberry on Sept 30, 2015 14:07:19 GMT -5
Yes it probably is silly to revive a dead board, but I was interested in the experiment Pitbulllady referenced on page 3: Is it the Stanley Milgram experiment? Because that one only had one person being forced to feel the shocks (although not really), it was never a choice to shock yourself. I will provide a link here for anyone interested in reading about the experiment. www.physics.utah.edu/~detar/phys4910/readings/ethics/PerilsofObedience.html(And here is someone breaking down the experiment for ‘easier’ understanding. Also provides audio clips. www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html) If that isn’t the experiment, then could you provide a link for yours, because that one sounds interesting too and I would like to read it. As for the Milgram experiment, I find it interesting that they recorded one person laughing as he gave the ‘learner’ the shocks—Mr. Braverman. As quoted in the text: “Almost breaking up now each time give shock. Rubbing face to hide laughter. Squinting, trying to hide face with hand, still laughing Cannot control his laughter at this point no matter what he does Clenching fist, pushing it onto table.” Later when questioned about how he was feeling, Mr. Braverman states that his laughter isn’t how he usually is that it was “a sheer reaction to a totally impossible situation . . . and being totally helpless and caught up in a set of circumstances where I just couldn’t deviate and couldn’t try to help.” And later when questions said he was still shocked that he was willing to obey someone even at the expense of hurting someone else (both values—obedience and kindness-- taught to us as children, but he was forced to decide which one he valued more, as did everyone else in the experiment). It is interesting to consider that even if someone looked like they were enjoying harming someone else, they were really torn up inside. That they hated every minute of it. So that might be one reason why Randall grinned throughout all his harm he caused to others.
|
|