|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Oct 20, 2010 19:55:53 GMT -5
While he fits that role in the game, and while I do think his training position inclines to it, I do still think he was also loaned because of his scareing abilities, so it also contributed. Training in the way of fitness he probably did, but it was also part of the general training.
Actually, at least in this world, grunts in the military get SCREWED out of their money and education. And doubt the military would aim keep a reptilian monster in line with dicipline. That, and doubt monster military teaches forms of kong-fu.
Exactly. One COULD argue that the "potency" of the scream has an effect. However, since monsters are matched with specific children, this shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Oct 20, 2010 20:44:13 GMT -5
While he fits that role in the game, and while I do think his training position inclines to it, I do still think he was also loaned because of his scareing abilities, so it also contributed. Training in the way of fitness he probably did, but it was also part of the general training. Actually, at least in this world, grunts in the military get SCREWED out of their money and education. And doubt the military would aim keep a reptilian monster in line with dicipline. That, and doubt monster military teaches forms of kong-fu. Exactly. One COULD argue that the "potency" of the scream has an effect. However, since monsters are matched with specific children, this shouldn't be a problem. OUR military most certainly DOES teach various forms of martial arts and hand-to-hand combat, so why wouldn't the military in the Monster World? All too often, the military is the last source of decent income for minorities who aren't able to afford college, as well, and gives them that "let up" in place of a degree that allows them to get decent jobs afterwards. Many of my former students have gone straight into some branch of the Armed Services after leaving high school, and came out the better for it. The military succeded where us teachers couldn't. If my theory that reptilian monsters were a minority in their world, it would probably be the same. Why wouldn't the military "aim to keep a reptilian monster in line with discipline"? Is it because they are more prone to be violent and anti-authority than other monsters, and therefore not succeptible to military discipline regimen? That sure isn't saying much about reptilian monsters, there; sounds a lot like what racists here say about Blacks and Hispanics, which I don't agree with. That right there would explain the anti-Randall sentiment that he COULDN'T, and NEVER could, control his behavior simply because of his race/type, and I don't see Randall as anti-authority at all. He had to have had a LOT of discipline, self and otherwise, to last as long as he did under the immense pressures he was under. Most monsters or humans would have "cracked" long before he did. On the topic of "Scream potency", yeah, I thought monsters were supposed to be matched with children that would yield the maximum amount/potency/whatever for THAT monster. But, what if whoever did the matching deliberately matched Randall to children that produced inferior screams? Again, it would indicate that there was something amiss, something fishy and an intentional effort to make sure that he got behind and STAYED behind on the Scare Board, rather than a reflection of either his or Sulley's Scaring skills. pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Oct 20, 2010 20:55:34 GMT -5
While that's true, the type Randall was using...well just didn't looke militaristic to me.
As for the dicipline bit, you yourself have said Randall can be quite immature. A period of military training would have straightened that out.
*nods* That is true. There are countless children they could match to and MANY who are afraid of reptiles, for varying reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Oct 21, 2010 5:26:50 GMT -5
While that's true, the type Randall was using...well just didn't looke militaristic to me. As for the dicipline bit, you yourself have said Randall can be quite immature. A period of military training would have straightened that out. *nods* That is true. There are countless children they could match to and MANY who are afraid of reptiles, for varying reasons. OK, I get your point now about Randall's immaturity being inconsistent with military training. Some guys can still get a bit silly and childish, though, when the moment calls for it. Still, Randall's lack of restraint does seem rather contrary to what I'd expect from someone who'd served in the military, unless the immense stress and frustration he was under pushed him to "regress" to more immature behavior. From some of the videos being sent back from our own troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, not all soldiers can "keep a stiff upper lip" all the time, and sometimes do silly or even stupid things to break that stress. pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Oct 21, 2010 18:06:44 GMT -5
*chuckles* Some of the best can. Randall seems to be able to get himself like that, which isn't a bad thing, and be able to control himself for something serious.
No they can't...of course for them they have no idea what they're fighting for anymore. And I know that personally as a fact....
|
|
|
|
Post by mintygreen on Oct 27, 2011 0:03:20 GMT -5
It's just crazy to begin with anyway since don't most businesses, even if there is an employee who is good each month, don't they generally revolve it around more than that?
I mean surely no business has only one awesome employee....how can any business really function that way? You need more than one good employee working for you.
I'd actually get pissed off if it was me getting employee of the month each month because I'd just feel like it's unfair to other people who clearly work just as hard and are also great employees overall. And I'd hate to ever be a center of resentment among other colleagues. It's just not RIGHT to consistently give it to the same person so often.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Oct 28, 2011 17:54:36 GMT -5
It's just crazy to begin with anyway since don't most businesses, even if there is an employee who is good each month, don't they generally revolve it around more than that? I mean surely no business has only one awesome employee....how can any business really function that way? You need more than one good employee working for you. I'd actually get pissed off if it was me getting employee of the month each month because I'd just feel like it's unfair to other people who clearly work just as hard and are also great employees overall. And I'd hate to ever be a center of resentment among other colleagues. It's just not RIGHT to consistently give it to the same person so often. Most businesses do "rotate" or change "Employee of the Month" each month, and unless you really suck at your job, you should get that award at least once out of the calendar year. For someone to get that EVERY month, though, out of thousands of employees, lets you know that something is very, very wrong and that something extremely unethical is going on. I'd be upset, too, if it was ME who kept getting that award, because I'd know that everyone else would be suspecting ME of wrong-doing and wonder what I was up to to get that award each month. I don't care how likeable someone is, other employees just aren't going to stand for that, and you can understand why. That's what made Sulley's "success" so suspicious from the perspective of anyone who has actually had a job. I can't blame Randall one bit for being angry. pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by mintygreen on Oct 29, 2011 22:54:13 GMT -5
It's just crazy to begin with anyway since don't most businesses, even if there is an employee who is good each month, don't they generally revolve it around more than that? I mean surely no business has only one awesome employee....how can any business really function that way? You need more than one good employee working for you. I'd actually get pissed off if it was me getting employee of the month each month because I'd just feel like it's unfair to other people who clearly work just as hard and are also great employees overall. And I'd hate to ever be a center of resentment among other colleagues. It's just not RIGHT to consistently give it to the same person so often. Most businesses do "rotate" or change "Employee of the Month" each month, and unless you really suck at your job, you should get that award at least once out of the calendar year. For someone to get that EVERY month, though, out of thousands of employees, lets you know that something is very, very wrong and that something extremely unethical is going on. I'd be upset, too, if it was ME who kept getting that award, because I'd know that everyone else would be suspecting ME of wrong-doing and wonder what I was up to to get that award each month. I don't care how likeable someone is, other employees just aren't going to stand for that, and you can understand why. That's what made Sulley's "success" so suspicious from the perspective of anyone who has actually had a job. I can't blame Randall one bit for being angry. pitbulllady Yep, people would start to suspect a lot....like you were being extra friendly with someone in charge or sleeping with them or something like that. Gossip would run rampant and would not create for a very good work environment. Infact I'm honestly surprised that Randall was the only one who seemed bothered by it....because in reality I think a LOT of the other workers would be annoyed by something like that going on but they made it look like everyone else was happy go lucky about it and so accepting of it. It would make sense for Mike to be okay with it, being Sulley's best friend and all....but in most places the way Randall acted about it would actually be common if someone was getting the special treatment that Sulley is. I feel like by making everyone else seem so okay with it and friendly to Sulley despite how he was getting treated better than everyone else....it's like they were trying to make Randall look like a total ass(which he wasn't, because it's a good reason to be upset) when in reality a LOT of people would act like Randall if someone was getting all that special treatment. It's almost like the movie made it look like if someone is getting special treatment you actually aren't suppose to stand up against it and you're an ass/bad person if you do.  What kind of message does that send? |
|
What kind of message does that send?