Warning: Long post ahead!
A part of the interest comes if that was their partial aim or what they were going for in the end. Sure the outcome is pretty darn similar to their mother company but what they’re going for (the aim) could be considered different. In Disney- it’s just killing off the ‘bad guy’. But Pixar might be going with the same outcome but for slightly different reasons... the thing is though it almost makes it a bit worse (we’ll get to that later). But let us take the idea that the antagonist is a mere extension of the protagonist and consider it- if that is what they’re going for. Docter himself is a devout Christian too, and this actually partially fits certain parts (and probably sects since there seems to be so many), such as cutting of the hand or plucking out the eye etc if they cause you to ‘sin’. Which is actually in the bible and I do remember learning it. Of course there were also verses such as a little thing referring to logs in your eye and speck of dust in your brother’s, though people tend to ignore that one.
But let’s get back on topic: see, the problem is that ultimately that the antagonists are, in the story, people. They are NOT merely ‘extensions’ of the protagonists at the end of the day or something which can merely considered a metaphorical hand/eye etc or a bad part of them to get rid of, someone they don’t have to think about beyond that.
In reality of course, these characters do not exist outside the bounds of the movie- but that’s not the sign of a good movie, if we believe that while we’re watching. In effect we’re supposed to believe these characters existed before hand. We’re just watching a small portion and section of their lives. A part of us believes in watching that Randall, Sulley and others existed prior to the events of the movie we merely are able to see- and try to extrapolate possible pasts and futures based on the events of the ‘present’ presented to us in the form of the movie. The characters are supposed to have pasts, desires, wants and needs all on their own. They are affected by the world and affect the world in their own small way. And while the –story- is centred around the main protagonist, it does not make for a good conclusion if the very rules of the universe bend in favour of him or her ‘just because’. The world in reality does not exist to make just one person happy. It never did. The world is more than just an extension of one person, of either you or me or anyone.
It’s kind of the problem with hero and protagonist centred morality- which is actually a ‘trope’ in of itself. It’s actually something I want to poke the hell at in my own original stories- I have a technical traitor in mine who then goes back, as well as a turn coat from the antagonists. The thing is that while the main protagonists can forgive this past enemy and traitor of the things he’s and she’s done to –them-, that doesn’t mean they can in effect forgive them of the other things they’ve done- to other people that is. They’ve hurt –other- people both directly and indirectly including let’s just say ‘random farmer number 3’. But Random farmer number 3 who decides to join the army on their side is still a person in effect, and still has a right to be angry at them- just because he’s not a main character doesn’t mean he and his feelings don’t matter, especially to him! He may be a soldier as well- but he’s not of the borg hive mind and his feelings are not a mere whim of his commander- and many feel like him anyway about them- that they haven’t changed, they can’t be trusted, and even if they can, it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t change the past- some minds like this will change- some won’t.
In effect the ‘turn-coat’ and the ‘former traitor’ have to learn that what they’ve started is a difficult road- and there are no quick fixes here or fast way of getting a clean slate, but ultimately they must follow the right path even if it’s difficult, no matter what others may think. The world does not bend to their whims, or even the whims of the protagonists who didn’t turn away. It is pure selfishness to assume otherwise.
See that’s the thing sometimes. (And something I’ve seen use as an example elsewhere). But the thing is people sometimes have to also realise this in real life and yet they forget this. The world is not your Stepford. Stepford in effect was a movie about the suburbs... where something wasn’t quite right. All of the wives in the movie were effectively merely what their husbands wanted them to be. They were their desires, their wants- they weren’t their own people at all, merely there to fill their husbands pitiful egos. It’s the same with imaginary friends as a kid- that ‘friend’ is merely an extension of a child and exists on the basis of their whims. But the truth is reality doesn’t work like that. It SHOULDN’T work like that. It would be vastly DISTURBING if it worked like that. A potential partner or real friend isn’t a mere extension of myself or anybody else. They are also their own individuals. They have their own issues, their own desires and wants and needs too. It’s not only a question of whether they’re a good partner or friend to me, but am I also good for –them-? It does of course go both ways in effect- it can’t be all take and no give on one side. My own relationships are not merely centred on me- but also depend on the other person and vice-versa. The world as said doesn’t even in general exist ‘just for me’ or merely the people I even know and care about. The people I have trouble getting on with matter too. But also the people I shall never, -ever- meet.
And this makes it a problem therefore when the antagonists are supposed to be merely a part of the protagonists they’re supposed to ‘get rid of’. Because a good story means we believe these are real people for at least a little while. The protagonists certainly shouldn’t be the only characters who ‘matter’ or ‘count’. Certainly the story focuses on them... but effectively the antagonists are still people in the story and the universe of the story too. Symbolism is all well and good but this can’t really be forgotten either. They’re not mere passive puppets driving the plot, merely fitting roles just ‘because’- otherwise it’s not a good story.
And effectively getting back to the idea of the antagonist representing a side of the protagonists- in a sort of interesting way it kind of makes it –worse- in retrospect, what happened in M.I. at least, because... well. Take Randall. What is his view when it comes to what a human child is during the course of the movie? While he doesn’t seem to care much for the idea of deliberately hurting them for no reason, they are ultimately just an energy source. That’s all they really are to him.
–And once upon a time the same could have been said for Sulley.- That’s all humans were to Sulley once, at best. Things changed. Situations changed. He was able to view Boo in a slightly different way because of certain circumstances. In effect he was eventually willing to risk his life to save her. Randall could indeed in some round about way represent that side of Sulley which scared children, which sees humans as simply mere animals which are only useful in terms of being an energy source. But –then- it effectively means redemption is all about -timing-. Which is just plain bizarre. It makes it so that Randall’s problem was that he really couldn’t get his act together before the credits rolled in. With the same talents and situations, it’s quite possible Sulley might have done the same thing as Randall. Almost DEFINITLY with Mike I feel.
I think the problem is perhaps Docter and his team forgot- we’re supposed to believe these characters and world existed beyond their source material- beyond the events we see, and this means ALL the characters.
Sulley and Randall worked on the same floor for a while prior to this. The scream extractor did not simply magically appear one day almost fully complete- Randall has been working on this for months if not several years on top of a normal job. There’s old work rivalries at play with Mike and Randall. Mike and Sulley have indeed known each other since grade school- and live together! Celia and Mike... well they’ve possibly been dating for a little while. Sulley views Waternoose like a father- which is something you can only say to someone you –deeply- trust, especially in Sulley’s case. Sulley has a mother. So does Mike. The monster world has a justice system. The CDA have an extraordinary amount of power. Details, details. All pointing to a past, possible influences, possible futures perhaps.
Perhaps that in effect is the problem. When they finished the movie- they forgot about the histories, past and desires that can be taken from the characters, that while symbolically it may work (to get rid of an antagonist ins osme form)- on the basis of what’s going on in the story it might not be the best idea. Because we’re supposed to see characters as people during the story- and people in effect can never be simply the extension of one other person. And that means all the characters- Mike and Fungus may not be my favourite characters, but that doesn’t prevent them in some sense being ‘people’ too in the story. Mike is more than just ‘Sulley’s friend’. He is a sum of the various relationships he has as well as himself alone. He is also Celia’s boyfriend, Randall’s real work rival etc etc. And also, just simply Mike in essence.
And in effect even symbolically here- there can also be a good thing in talking things out. We can’t merely get ‘rid’ of the ‘bad side’ of us in any case. Life doesn’t work like that. But accept the reality of the situation and even work with it and become better in some form. Anger can be useful sometimes too, but if misdirected, that’s all it is.
