Awesome: "It gets better"

[mentalguru]

community.livejournal.com/ontd_pixar/93621.html

[pitbulllady]

So, if all of these Pixar employees can relate to what it's like to be perceived as "different", or "inferior", and to be looked down upon and ostracized by others because of how they see you, WHY do they do just THAT to some of their characters? WHY can't they look at Randall from the perspective of someone who's Been There, Done That, in terms of becoming angry and bitter and feeling the need to prove yourself because others see you as inferior to them? Why can't they realize that he is the ONLY monster like him in the entire movie, both in terms of being scaly and reptile-like AND in having a unique ability, and instead of pegging him as the "bully", figure out that he, like themselves, was most likely a victim of bullying because he didn't "fit in"?

pitbulllady

[mentalguru]

We don't really see which parts these people are involved in really- whether they're involved in writing at all or even involved in M.I. at all. They could be anywhere.

Plus generally, we have to admit that while the establishment of Randall's character certainly makes sense, it wasn't really intentional on behalf of the creators at all.

I really suspect the whole Waternoose line at Randall for instance regarding Sulley probably wasn't taken from their end as showing how uncomfortable, unrespectful and unequal the relationship was but just to show Randall as a 'jerk' for not caring for a co-worker and to bring him down a notch or two. That's the problem really with the movie- they throw in certain aspects and ideas and don't realise the wider ramifications in-universe in relation to certain characters and how things can look.

Plus if he's previously been established as a bully, they might not be as sympathetic. Just because it makes more sense given the world in certain aspects and certain aspects of behaviour doesn't mean it's been thought on in that way. Since they've been the victims of bullying themselves they might not be as sympathetic to someone pegged as simply a jealous bully in his as of yet-not canon-but 'official' back story. Of course the thing is even in that case you have to ask why he was jealous- and the lengths he goes too are too much to simply just be about scream scores even simply in the name of jealousy. He'd have to be extremely stupid on an unrealistic level otherwise.

And he's not really the only one with scales in any case- such as 'Ted'.

Overall, Pete Docter relies too much on stereotypes, but it's more subtle really things that could be termed 'fantastical racism' (if we can really call it that) or about certain types of animals (dogs) which are things people are not necessarily aware of in media on a more meta-level. Most people aren't and just accept it. If- sure, he'd cast the only black man or the only gay person in certain roles he'd be called out on that sort of thing, or at the very least more people would feel uncomfortable- but the way the characters and things go are not as obvious as that to the average person. You know these things more because you're a lover of snakes and those dogs which are badly portrayed in media and experiences with said animals not matching up in general, among other things.

I like reptiles and am growing to be fascinated by mythology and how people view certain species in that respect, and speaking here also helped show me things I wasn't aware of.

But basically Randall wouldn't be as obvious as the casting of a black man or a gay man in that role and being protrayed badly/ exit protrayed as a joke.

Incidentatly of course, given the size of the company it's still very likely that homophobic people exist there or at least the patronising 'love the sinner hate the sin' brand (whether religious or not, simply viewing it as 'wrong'.) But this short film is easily still their best if it goes some way to help teens and other people who are thinking of going that far.

[corvigryph]

Nov 25, 2010 12:18:33 GMT -5 pitbulllady said:

So, if all of these Pixar employees can relate to what it's like to be perceived as "different", or "inferior", and to be looked down upon and ostracized by others because of how they see you, WHY do they do just THAT to some of their characters? WHY can't they look at Randall from the perspective of someone who's Been There, Done That, in terms of becoming angry and bitter and feeling the need to prove yourself because others see you as inferior to them? Why can't they realize that he is the ONLY monster like him in the entire movie, both in terms of being scaly and reptile-like AND in having a unique ability, and instead of pegging him as the "bully", figure out that he, like themselves, was most likely a victim of bullying because he didn't "fit in"?

pitbulllady

Longtime lurker here.

And did you seriously just equate the hypothetical (if it's his back story or childhood you are refering to here) suffering of a fictional character to a CHILD being bullied to the point of being suicidally depessed? Really? Just checking.

WHY can't they look at Randall from the perspective of someone who's Been There, Done That, in terms of becoming angry and bitter and feeling the need to prove yourself because others see you as inferior to them?

Randall, in this film, was created to be one of the main antagonists ("The Dragon" is a neat term actually). This story is not about him. The plot did not call for a redemtion on his part, and sometimes, a heel face turn just doesn't happen. I personally love Randall and I hope to see the folks at Pixar do great things with his character because even if they didn't intend for it to happen, Randall turned out to be a interesting and sympathetic character. But again... the story is NOT ABOUT HIM. And for all we know about his back story, Randall could have been a bully! Even if being bullied is the main reason a person may become a bully themselves it does not in any way mean they should not be held accountable for their actions.

And this situation, the reason Pixar employees made this video in the first place, does not call for sympathizing with bullies it calls for speaking up and making the victims realize that "Hey there is life beyond this! Suicide is not worth it and I can overcome it!".

Why can't they realize that he is the ONLY monster like him in the entire movie, both in terms of being scaly and reptile-like AND in having a unique ability, and instead of pegging him as the "bully", figure out that he, like themselves, was most likely a victim of bullying because he didn't "fit in"?

Why can't you look at a It Gets Better video Pixar made without making it all about Randall? Once again. Children getting bullied and killing themselves =/= employee struggling to reach the top of his field and getting exiled by civilians instead. Do not even TRY to equate the two. One is an adult (a fictional one) fully capable of seeing the consequences of his actions and emotionally strong enough to have made it to adulthood if we assume he WAS bullied as a kid. The other involves kids who would rather cease to exist (worse, resign themselves to an eternity of tourture and suffering if they happen to be religious and belive that suicide is a hell sentance) then face another day getting bullied.

[corvigryph]

Also arn't you a teacher? Surely you've seen bullys and victims first hand and thus, see what damage it can do! I thought you of all people would be more sympathetic.

[Veg]

corvigryph: You madame, are pure win!

[pitbulllady]

Feb 4, 2011 19:30:29 GMT -5 corvigryph said:

Also arn't you a teacher? Surely you've seen bullys and victims first hand and thus, see what damage it can do! I thought you of all people would be more sympathetic.

Why, yes, Ms. Thang, I am a teacher, and I see bullies and victims of bullies every day, but unlike those who only see ONE side, I get to see BOTH. I also have to deal with a legal system which protects the ones doing the bullying, because nine times out of ten those kids have diagnosed mental/emotional issues, so you can't touch 'em. You can do anything to them at all, without bringing down the whole Federal government on your ass. Most of the time, those kids are also victims, more often than not of their own damn parents or foster parents, and again, there is little that can or will be done about it. And yes, I DO hold Pixar accountable for their double standard; Randall may be a fictional character but you have to take into account that one of the reasons people claim to love Pixar's movies so much is that they feature characters which are realistic to a large degree. Those characters remind us of ourselves and of people we know, so when a studio can lay claim to having a certain amount of realism in their characters, they are also accountable for what they do with said characters. Pixar in one instant wants us to empathize/sympathize with people who have experienced being singled out because of their differences and have been hurt because of it, yet in another instant has a character, real or not, who is also different, who is also clearly outcast, and wants us to hate that character for THAT. Two different messages about essentially the same thing. Instead of their shallow and insipid, "Randall is evil, Randall was always a bully and he's that way because he's this scaly, snaky, lizardy reptile thing", why not take into consideration HOW he got to be that way, what he might have been through, and apply some real-life considerations to THAT? They speak out against what is essentially negative stereotyping in one instant, and glorify it in another, when it's not good in any situation. When you show it as OK in a movie, fictional or not, it still sends the message that it is OK to condemn people who are different and treat them badly because of it, that people who are of this or that ethnic group or whatever are BAD and therefore SHOULD be treated accordingly.

pitbulllady

[Veg]

corvigryph was only stating her opinion.
I don't see the reason to call her "Ms. Thang".

[sgtyayap]

Feb 4, 2011 20:37:33 GMT -5 Veg said:

corvigryph was only stating her opinion.
I don't see the reason to call her "Ms. Thang".

Says a person who only posts to make a fight, nowadays?

[Veg]

OK, fine.
I'll just drop out of this then.

[corvigryph]

but unlike those who only see ONE side, I get to see BOTH.
Why thank you for insinuating that I i only see one side. I never ONCE said that there isn't two sides to every story. I said that the whole point of It Gets Better is to send out a positive message to THE VICTIM. And just for the record, two people very dear to me have been in dire need of something like It Gets Better. In fact, not 20 minutes after I posted my response, I get the news that someone I love tried to kill himself. He's only 17. So pardon me if I'm a bit less sympathetic towards the bully then I am towards the victim these days.

And yes, I DO hold Pixar accountable for their double standard; Randall may be a fictional character but you have to take into account that one of the reasons people claim to love Pixar's movies so much is that they feature characters which are realistic to a large degree. Those characters remind us of ourselves and of people we know, so when a studio can lay claim to having a certain amount of realism in their characters, they are also accountable for what they do with said characters. Pixar in one instant wants us to empathize/sympathize with people who have experienced being singled out because of their differences and have been hurt because of it, yet in another instant has a character, real or not, who is also different, who is also clearly outcast, and wants us to hate that character for THAT. Two different messages about essentially the same thing. Instead of their shallow and insipid, "Randall is evil, Randall was always a bully and he's that way because he's this scaly, snaky, lizardy reptile thing", why not take into consideration HOW he got to be that way, what he might have been through, and apply some real-life considerations to THAT? They speak out against what is essentially negative stereotyping in one instant, and glorify it in another, when it's not good in any situation. When you show it as OK in a movie, fictional or not, it still sends the message that it is OK to condemn people who are different and treat them badly because of it, that people who are of this or that ethnic group or whatever are BAD and therefore SHOULD be treated accordingly.


See the thing about fiction is that is isn't always about sending the right message, it's about telling a story, even if some things about it are kind of ugly. Not everything turns out right for everyone and it sucks. But it still happens :/
Randall did get a raw end. The tragic thing about his character is that he tries so hard to get noticed and appreciated for his efforts, but he still does unethical things to achieve them. He is still an adult, still accountable for his own actions. And for all we know about his back story he could have been a bully just as easily as he could have been bullied. But the story wasn't about him or his redemption. And just because Pixar didn't manage to work in a better ending for EVERYONE it doesn't make their message of the It Gets Better video hypocritical. Are you really willing to write off someone else's experiences just because your favorite character didn't get the best end?

Once again...this isn't about Pixar, this isn't about their characters, It's about the kids (young adults, what have you) this video is directed at. Period. I'm not annoyed at you for empathizing with Randall I am annoyed at you for making this situation all about him. He is obviously very real to you and others (myself included) but the people in this video, and the audience it is directed at actually can, and DO get hurt for real.

[afterall]

Hey, also a longtime lurker here.

Something I've noticed in a lot of Pixar's movies is that somebody's backstory never excuses their actions, and that nobody's guaranteed a redemption arc. Take Lotso for example. (TS3 spoilers here, yo). He'd been through a lot of pain in the past. If you want to get all meta about it, he'd been hurt by a system where one type of sentient creature had total power over another type of sentient creature, and where his very personhood and individuality was erased by being part of that system. Even after rejecting that system and finding his own way to live, he was still obviously emotionally scarred by his experiences, and the pain hadn't gone away.

But what Lotso did caused pain to other people. He was a dictator, he sacrificed the well being (and possibly the lives) of the other toys for the well being of himself and his supporters, he tried to send people who opposed him to certain death, and even after those people had saved his life, he willingly let them die because he didn't agree with the way they chose to live. That's pretty horrible. And it would have been horrible whether he was a sympathetic victim of a unjust system, or just a jerk with no suffering in his past who chose to manipulate the others only because he could. Lotso's pain doesn't take away or change the pain he inflicted. There's a lot of complexity with assigning blame for who hurt him, but the fact of the matter is that he shouldn't have been hurt- still, the people he hurt shouldn't have been hurt either.

I wanted Lotso to press the button and save everybody and hopefully get something of his goodness back. I think everybody in the theater wanted that. Woody and the other characters wanted that, and they gave him everything they could at the time (their help, their trust) in order to make that possible. But, gut wrenching as it was, Lotso, in that moment, chose to give into his worst instincts instead of to do the right thing. And I'm not very old, but that felt so true to me with what I know of people. Nobody can be redeemed by another person- it's something you have to do yourself. Someone who chooses again and again not to do the right thing doesn't "deserve" to be treated like a good guy.

What does this have to do with Randall and It Gets Better? Well, the argument for doubting Pixar's sincerity for making this video seems to be "Randall was created as an outsider (and the assumption is that he is an outsider because of parts of his identity beyond his control, not that he alienated the others for some reason), but he was treated as a villain by the protagonists and by the story itself. Pixar is making a video supporting children who are outsiders and encouraging them to accept themselves. On one hand, Pixar is supporting outsiders and on the other hand they're portraying outsiders as monsters (ha ha pun intended.) Pixar is therefore talking out both sides of its mouth and should be called out on it. I get that.

But the question is, is Randall demonized by the other characters because he is an outsider, or for other reasons? I think answering that question will say whether there's a discrepancy between what Pixar said with MI and what Pixar said with its It Gets Better. It's possible for someone who's unjustly suffered to commit legitimately bad actions despite being wronged themselves, like with the case for Lotso. I've been an outsider in my own life a lot- I was bullied, and I've experienced a lot of homophobia. But if I were to go out and mug somebody, for example, it wouldn't be okay just because I've suffered too.

I'm not here to troll other Randall fans, I am one myself. I like him a lot. He's snarky and awesome and when he's bad, he does it so well. But when someone you like does something bad, it's wrong to ignore that just because you like them. Even when it's somebody you love. You can think somebody's awesome and still think they've done bad things. You don't have to write them off, but loving someone doesn't excuse their behavior. And in MI, Randall did some morally questionable things. He kidnapped a small child, tried to experiment on her in order to create something that would use small children for power at the cost of severely hurting them, and tried to kill some of his coworkers. The protagonists were aware of all of those things, and knew they were bad. Randall was also trying to harm them. I believe that is why they judged Randall. If they judged him for being an outsider too, well, I can't say that. But they had enough reason to judge his actions alone.

Now, it's possible Randall didn't fully understand his actions- for one thing, he might not have known Boo was a sentient creature and could have thought she was kind of like a cow. That would be a sad misunderstanding, but even if Randall only knew he was kidnapping an animal, hurting animals to use for power, and trying to kill his coworkers, that's still not a morally correct thing to do. And I'm not saying there's no room for Randall to decide to change- just, he didn't change at this point, even though he could have stopped whenever he wanted to and questioned what he was doing. I can relate to people who make mistakes, and that's part of why I like Randall. I hope he does get his chance to change. There's another movie coming out soon, and I don't feel like Randall's story is over quite yet- his last scene didn't feel like a death to me, although if it turns out to be one I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong. But whether or not Randall was an outsider, his actions would have had hurtful consequences if they were not stopped, and that's a reason to judge.

I hope it's not a huge faux pas to bring up a Dreamworks movie in a Pixar related forum, but as Roxanne Ritchi says, you shouldn't judge someone based on how they look... but judging them based on their actions is still reasonable. If Randall had experienced racism in the past, then he was wronged. That doesn't mean he couldn't wrong others, and I believe his treatment in the movie comes from him doing things that are wrong, not that he's an outsider (although I admit that pairing the two together can create unfortunate implications.) If Pixar treated Randall as a villain because of what he did, not because he was an outsider, then there's no hypocrisy here- and that's what I think is going on.

The It Gets Better project really is important. Children are killing themselves because of homophobic bullying- Corvigryph did a very accurate job of explaining why this is so horrible. How anyone feels about gay people isn't the issue here. Whatever your religious views are, I'm sure you'd prefer these kids to be supported and alive rather than dead. I'm a gay person myself and if I'd had something like this around a few years ago when I was a teenager, I probably would have not been so suicidally depressed.

Please don't minimize it because you have issues with a character you love being treated badly.

[corvigryph]

corvigryph was only stating her opinion.
I don't see the reason to call her "Ms. Thang".

Lol no worries "Ms Thang" kind of loses its impact when all I can think about upon seeing it is the Song "Baby Got Back" ("For the ladies in the magazine... you aint it ms Thang")

But I'm shopping at Off Topic here ;D

And @ Afterall; Yes I pretty much agree with everything here. Also I love you for bringing up Megamind, not only does it drive the point home beautifully, I just plain adore Megamind and Roxanne as characters! It seems that Dreamworks puts more focus on character while Pixar puts more emphasis on the story as a whole and neither of those approaches are necessarily a bad thing. I really don't get the arms race between fans of either studio, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Also kudos to you for being so eloquent with your response, I missed a lot of points I wanted to make, but it seems that you covered them very well. There is so much I want to say to you. "I agree" doesn't even BEGIN to cover it!

The It Gets Better project really is important. Children are killing themselves because of homophobic bullying- Corvigryph did a very accurate job of explaining why this is so horrible. How anyone feels about gay people isn't the issue here. Whatever your religious views are, I'm sure you'd prefer these kids to be supported and alive rather than dead. I'm a gay person myself and if I'd had something like this around a few years ago when I was a teenager, I probably would have not been so suicidally depressed.

Please don't minimize it because you have issues with a character you love being treated badly. Especially this part right here.

[mentalguru]

In the end it's not up to the victim to have to try and look for reasons to forgive a bully as they are the ones generally being wronged for a fault not their own. True, often a bully themselves is not having a good life or cop of it either, but of course that still doesn't excuse the actions. Both issues of course have to be dealt with, but the bully themselves should not feel that because they're having a rough time of it that it's okay to lash out at other people. The bully still recieves some sympathy if they have a rough time but that still doesn't change the fact their actions are unacceptable and they need to be shown this. Unfortunatly the red tape it seems can mean that both solving the victim's (and where it exists the bully's) problems all the more difficult.

In general I still consider this to be Pixar's best film ever, better than all their fictional films put together if it prevents just one person from taking their life.

That's also a point about Roxanne and 'contents' and the 'cover'. In the end Randall has not been redeemed in any form and Pixar rarely redeems antagonists. Randall's own situation doesn't sound fun at all of course (being under someone like Waternoose who could exile or kill him at any point probably), true he could have been the better person in this, but generally there have been antagonists people have felt sorry for and NEVER have been redeemed. This also includes dreamworks in fact with Tai Lung in Kung Fu Panda. I think the problem in M.I. is mostly that he ended up exiled without a trial, and even people who do horrible things deserve justice. I think the major (though at the same time, interesting) issue with M.I. is the path the protaganists took in a way. Most Disney films have methods of keeping the protaganists hands from getting dirty- usually luck or chance. Instead here, the protaganists actively do something to get rid of him. It's understandable that Sulley and Mike would want revenge of course though it's still not right that they commited the action. Of course this isn't what the creators intended- Randall's exile is simply NOT supposed to be morally questionable, it's supposed to be funny, but it kind of means for instance that Woody is a better person- since he saved Lotso, even if later Lotso didn't return the favour (I wish he had though, and honestly I felt there was absolutely no point to Lotso not pushing the button to save them since his life was over if the day care otherwise- it would have even have been to his benefit in the end.)

I'd really love if the whole exile thing was brought into question and Randall was shown more sympathetically, though I doubt it will ever happen now. :/

In any case, these people still deserve to be sympathsised with. I also had points where I wanted to commit suicide, not on the basis of sexuality really at the time but other reasons which were related to religion. Thinking you're basically worthless or horrible or disgusting does a lot to a person. And even if one of them produced a piece in which Randall becomes a moutsach twirler with no depth- I may criticise such writing as boring and rediculous but that still wouldn't stop me from wanting to hug and comfort such a person who was so perfectly miserable if I saw them and they admitted they felt that way about themselves at any point.

I do wish Pixar would be a bit more creative with their antagonists sometimes- Lotso is pretty much very similar to Waternoose, Stinkey Pete and Muntz in some way (though Muntz was still the weakest of them all with Waternoose being the most impressive in my book). Dreamworks is more creative with antagonist/villian 'ends' it seems- either they die yes (like in Shrek) or they change. Pixar has a few antagonists which make it out okay I suppose like Lotso's lackey's and also Mirage but there's always someone who has to fall- reconciliation would be something I'd like to see more of though. I love both Sulley and Randall and feel their story has been rendered incomplete.

I personally would want Randall to be redeemed because I think it would be an EXCELLENT story to have as well as questioning what Sulley did too. But I'm 99.9% sure it won't happen.

But in any case, this 'It gets better' film is still fantastic- my major beef is that people won't see it as much as the other films. It would be great if say they showed this instead of a normal short before a major film for isntance- even the less popular Cars sequel would be great for it- in fact given the number of younger kids who'd be there it might be utterly fantastic and nip some of that sort of thing in the bud.