|
Post by pitbulllady on Nov 26, 2010 11:04:07 GMT -5
If it was just for the evening sure ? But 24 hours? Please tell me there aren't teenagers who are that dense- even I wasn't dense enough to not check on a kid that age if I was left in charge. Plus wouldn't there be an older neighbour who would check in once in a sibling situation if they couldn't be trusted with that responsibility? Believe it or not, I CAN see an older sibling, left with her little sister and later discovering her missing, failing to contact the authorities and trying to find the kid herself to keep from getting into trouble later with the parents. This would be especially true if the younger child had already shown a propensity for "disappearing" in her little games of hide-and-go-seek, and we actually see that Boo DOES have that tendency. The house they live in is almost certainly a large, old, multi-story dwelling, with lots of little nooks and crannies where a toddler can hide, maybe even a "secret passageway*" or two. Remember that what seems logical and sensible to US might not be what seems logical and sensible to a young teenager, and seeing no way that the toddler could have gotten out the house, to the babysitter, the smart thing to do would have been to look for her first, THEN call the police when all else failed. *Many of the old homes I've visited and toured in Georgetown and Charleston and Beaufort(all in SC) and in New Orleans have such passageways, which were either installed pre-Civil War as part of the "Underground Railroad" and/or a place to hide family valuables, or installed during the Prohibition era as a place to hide and smuggle whiskey. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Nov 27, 2010 16:32:01 GMT -5
Gah. That person certainly doesn't deserve to be an older sibling in that case though if they wouldn't tell ANYONE after the amount of time which has passed though. I can see a bit of time, but not the full time she was gone a teen doing doing that. Granted perhaps I feel this way because I'm an older sibling, even if it's only by a very small margin, and most of my friends at school either had much younger siblings or in other cases- neices/nephews they looked after as teens? I even hung out of them when they were doing so on occasion.)
I think the thing is of course, it was night time when Boo was taken, so they couldn't be blamed for that at all. I wouldn't blame anyone for that sort of thing- it's happened. It's nightmarish but the one place you think kids should be safe (their own beds) aren't always in exceptionally rare cases, and parents or siblings or other people in charge can't be held responsible in that senario whiule they're asleep. I could also see a teen sleeping in or whatever too, but if at breakfast they're not biting into the toast and going "Oh sh- Mary!" they'd not be someone I'd trust with a kid at all, or are clearly far too young.
Someone who doesn't give two S**** isn't someone I'd trust with a kid regardless of blood. At the very least I'd be getting a neighbour as back up. I wouldn't care if my (IDK, potential, future) twelve year old whined about not needing a baby sitter or whatever. If they're not going to act responsible, they don't deserve the responsibility.
In such a house yes, at first I guess they'd panic and start searching for an hour or two, maybe a bit longer, but if by lunch time (or just after, at LEAST way before dinner) they're not at the very least asking a trusted neighbour to help them they really shouldn't have been trusted to begin with by their parents. I know many parents can be pretty clueless about their 'little darlings' in some respects, but I'd doubt all or many parents would leave a kid with a teen like that- even if it was their own kid. Many parents are blind sure but not all of them- of course it doesn't help that we don't even see the parents to judge how clueless they really are. But they obviously can't be neglectful themselves (or.. the nanny or Au pair isn't neglectful, I mean they're probably affluent enough to have one... which would however just beggar the question of why they wouldn't be used though...)
Maybe a neice or nephew as a baby sitter..? Maybe.
But honestly, now I'll just be seething wondering about an imaginary brother/sister/cousin if Boo's family doesn't appear at all and wondering if Boo still has that softball bat...
(I'm joking of course. But still, I really want to know went down in Boo's household while she was gone).
I guess I could see them looking for a little while at least, but if they don't contact help of some description eventually (even if it's just said trusted older neighbour to help search the house... the back-up for said teen most parents would have) I would be pretty gobsmacked at their selfishness- and if they got found out in that regard instead of admitting it or soliciting some help I would be fully behind them being grounded for luntil they're in college/uni. And that's being lenient.
It's not that it HAPPENED that it would be their fault (because it isn't, even if it hadn't been to the monster world it wouldn't- it happened at night while they were probably asleep)- it's what they'd do AFTERWARDS which would mean they'd either deserve or not deserve punishment themselves. If say... she'd been delivered back when it had just past lunch time, then it's more understandable and less irksome on said mythical sibling/relatives part that they were still seraching and hadn't told anyone JUST yet but otherwise it just bugs me if it's much longer than that.
That's very interesting about the various houses in the prohibition era though (though I knew about the underground railroad and that the houses were big and old, as well as about speakeasy's I didn't know all the details there. Thanks!
|
|
NellyTheWitch
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
The shy and gentle witch
Posts: 60
|
Post by NellyTheWitch on Nov 28, 2010 2:06:44 GMT -5
Monsters,Inc. 2 without Randall or Randall as a villain again for me.....it means nothing good. Randall is the ONLY reason because I watch or buy something of the first movie.And I don't want to see him die,or to be a villain again.If Pixar doesn't understand that he's REALLY good after all,that was all Waternoose's fault....oh,I believe we have not hope to say this to Pixar...because so many famous people hate fans or,DON'T LISTEN TO THEM.Yes,the Vip is important,we are only normal.Anyway,I will not go to theater if Randall is treated again like a piece of paper.I don't want to see our Hero die.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Nov 28, 2010 12:15:31 GMT -5
Monsters,Inc. 2 without Randall or Randall as a villain again for me.....it means nothing good. Randall is the ONLY reason because I watch or buy something of the first movie.And I don't want to see him die,or to be a villain again.If Pixar doesn't understand that he's REALLY good after all,that was all Waternoose's fault....oh,I believe we have not hope to say this to Pixar...because so many famous people hate fans or,DON'T LISTEN TO THEM.Yes,the Vip is important,we are only normal.Anyway,I will not go to theater if Randall is treated again like a piece of paper.I don't want to see our Hero die. Exactly! I never saw this movie in theaters, due to some terrible personal circumstances at the time, so I had to buy the DVD. The ONLY reason I bought it was because I had gotten intrigued by some Lilo and Stitch fanfics which mentioned this character, "Randall Boggs", from MI, and he seemed like someone I'd like to get to know better. I did not find either Mike or Sulley to be that interesting, as characters, and really didn't even know that much about the plot, other than it involved monsters scaring humans(like THAT is original) from the monsters' perspective. I honestly thought that Pixar had ripped off the premise of a Nicktoon, "AHHH! Real Monsters!", which basically was the same thing. Needless to say, when I watched it, I immediately connected to Randall and his predicament, having been through something similar. I completely understood his desperation, his anger, his resentment and saw how utterly ridiculous it was that this one monster, Sulley, could be that successful by pure chance or by talent. I also knew that because of what Randall looked like, he would be singled out as the "bad guy", and kept hoping that before the movie ended, he would wind up on the side of the others. No such luck. His fate left me with a very bitter aftertaste from the start, probably with me more than most, because I'd recently returned from a trip to Louisiana, and I KNEW the ultimate fate of any "gator" that winds up inside the home of a south Louisiana resident because I'd seen that first-hand, so I knew that the woman in the trailer wasn't just wanting to get him out of her "house". I'd seen Cajuns beat alligators over the head with a club or shovel to stun them, then use a hatchet or a big knife to sever their spinal cord behind their heads, then hang them upside down by their hind legs and slit their carotid arteries to bleed them out prior to skinning and buthering them like pigs, and I realized that barring what would have to amount to Divine Intervention, whether or not you choose to believe in such a thing, THIS was to be Randall's fate, as well. Over the years, the absolute WRONGNESS of that has festered inside me, to the point that I have to seriously question Pixar's values and their supposed superiority in the world of animation. And yes, MG, back to something you said-Randall IS the only really scaly character in the movie, at least, the only REPTILE-LIKE character, that is complete with scales. Ted doesn't count, since everyone knows birds have scaly legs. People do not react negatively to birds the same way they do to snakes and lizards and crocodilians. Very few people hate birds or fear them, and those that do are considered whackos, while many people hate reptiles and want to kill them at every opportunity, and this is considered "normal"! I don't count Celia Mae's "hair", either, since they are still just part of her and aren't really chactacters so much as throw-away jokes. NO other monster in that movie is covered with scales all over, or has been designed to look so much like real animals that are despised widely in the Human World. Having Randall play the "bad guy" isn't the same as having a Black guy as a criminal as a JOKE, indeed. It IS the same as having the only Black guy in the movie be a criminal on a serious note, though, when the point made is "ALL Black people are criminals, and cannot be trusted, and this one is just a case-in-point". There's a big difference in that and treating the role as a joke, and I do not believe that the decision to make Randall into the overt "bad guy", the main threat, was done as a "joke", either, but was deliverately taking into account the negative feelings that so many people have towards real reptiles. It was point-blank stating, "he is scaly and reptilian, so he HAS to be bad". pitbulllady
|
|
sw64
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
Posts: 11
|
Post by sw64 on Nov 29, 2010 22:49:25 GMT -5
I will still watch it. Hey, who knows, Pixar could pull off something epic. But regardless, you have to watch it to be able to criticize it, so ... Redundancy FTW.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Nov 30, 2010 5:08:54 GMT -5
I personally see Ted has being mostly scaly rather than a bird, despite the chicken noises because I thought it was supposed to be a joke regarding godzilla like monsters not having a huge 'roar'- plus Rex was used in the out takes as a 'failed casting'.
I would hesitate to say it's precisely the same as having the only black guy cast though. Plus, as I stated there also for this reason it wouldn't be as obvious to the average person. After all prejudice against a type of human (whether race or sexuality)> type of animal (scaled/reptilian) any day in terms of how serious and important it is and how recognised it is by people in our own media (since while Randall is a person, it is partially born from the preconceptions of a certain type of animal). They're both still wrong. And they certainly can come from very similar sources- fears and ignorance (though the sources are not perhaps exactly the same albeit similar). But it's certainly not as obvious to the average person, and I wonder of even half the people on staff would even realise the implications. Reptiles as the bad guy is a staple for a lot of films, namely related to western culture. Mythology is quite interesting in this area regarding the different ways different people treat certain animals. (Currently, when not bogged down in work and distracted by other things, am reading some Norse mythology- which had a snake or something as a bad guy.) I suspect Docter or someone else on the team is scared of reptiles, so when he thought of a very scary monster as the 'bad guy' they eventually came to Randall's final design. Yet I'd bet they'd be entirely unaware of where those fears may eventually be from etc.. Fears of snakes, spiders, the dark are more traditional fears people often attribute (if they think on it) to how things used to be and they're more common (in the dark, some giant predator would get you in the cave- a bear or something. A caveman would be scared of both Randall and Sulley in some ways) and it's seen as more 'rational' (even though phbias aren't) since some species are dangerous in those area- the thing is not all of them are dangerous, and even killing/attacking the dangerous ones is pretty stupid even ignoring the cruelty aspect... since snakes generally attack when THEY feel scared like a lot of animals. The best course of action is to simply leave it alone and call someone more used to dealing with them if you don't know how to yourself if they have to be dealt with! People feel more attached and empathetic to mammals generally. Since we're mammals.
There are a lot of behaviours which are partially linked to our old traditional fears. Like media, mythology both reflected and perpetuated certain fears in society then and today- the perceptions of certain people on animals fueled certain myths and made them more believable to people, but also media and myth themselves also helped spread these ideas around subconciously speaking. It's a two way relationship, and adding own personal viewpoints can muddy things further in these myths and medias cases.
Even KIN selection, a part of our behaviour is kind of creepy when you think about it- we're more likely to help people who LOOK like us or give the indication of sharing something genetically apparently, if we're looking into other old and distasteful behaviours. If someone or something is too different... well. Especially in the past. But also today.
Being dictated by the caveman mentality in a way. The dark, reptiles, big predators or even people who simply look different.
The thing is being more aware of things means we don't have to be controlled by them- though many people may be unaware of what is driving them, heck even when we know these things it can be hard for some people to work pst some things. Plus society is both a feeder and feeds off these things. Figuring ourselves out is hard enough. But we're further a long than other speicies would be. True being a DEATH aware species for instance has had its drawbacks but it also means we can work past what is simply a part of old behaviours ingrained by society and other areas. (Though of course I wouldn't advise walking dark alleys by yourself anytime soon anyway.)
But now Western society sees and spreads the truth that racism is unacceptable, and while it still exists, it is unacceptable. Society is learning and being used to spread this truth, though it still has a way to go in various areas invluding this one. Society can shape us and other people in either good or bad ways and as mentioned is sort of a two way street really in terms of influence.
People have the weirdest of phobias too though. I have a flatmate who admits to being scared of Lizards. (She doesn't hurt them or anything like that and intellectually knows its silly, she just leaves them alone and has to get out of the way and get a family member take it outside- she's FINE with snakes I believe... it's just lizards. IDK why.). However she also has a friend back in Pakistan (that's where she's from) who is afraid of... bananas. It is REALLY hard to take seriously and they even once when they were younger dropped a banana in her lap in the car to see how she reacted. It didn't end well.
Personally I'm weird with flying insects- used to have a huge phobia with them and the idea of them getting stuck behind my glasses. I don't have it anymore or at least not the level that I did, though I'm still a bit edgy around bees and wasps and even butterflies.
(Fine and even really like rats, reptiles and bats and the things I'm 'supposed' to be scared of but suddenly stick me in a butterfly house and while I didn't run screaming and never killed them, sticking me in a butterfly house made me incredibly paranoid and while I'm MUCH better now, I'm still not really than keen. It's kind of hilarious in its own way I'll admit. Butterflies. WTF. )
I more refer to 'the joke' being how he exited the movie. It was played up for laughs for the audience it seems. Though I personally didn't find it funny even when I didn't like Randall. It remains to be said what they'll do in the sequel, though something good with regards him seems unlikely. Doesn't mean it's completely unsalvageable for him either- still I'd rather a happy ending of sorts for him in CANON.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Nov 30, 2010 11:45:14 GMT -5
I will still watch it. Hey, who knows, Pixar could pull off something epic. But regardless, you have to watch it to be able to criticize it, so ... Redundancy FTW. As with all of Pixar's movies, we will know, before it is ever officially released anywhere, whether Randall does return and in what capacity he returns, if any. There won't be a need to buy a ticket just to find that out, but rather, only to see IF they carry off the alleged character arc well, and THAT is making the assumption that they will even go that route. If there is the slightest indication, from early reviews/press releases, that Randall is going to get screwed again, I will find something more worthwhile to spend my money on than Pixar. I really have no curiosity whatsoever regarding Mike and Sulley's futures. pitbulllady
|
|