|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 17, 2006 15:38:41 GMT -5
BTW, has ANY Disney villain ever died? And hasn't the movie Frankenstein monster "died" several times? Yeah, a LOT of Disney villains have died, though Randall isn't a Disney character(not anymore at least), but a Pixar character. I don't think that there's much doubt as to what happened to Hopper in A Bug's Life, though there's a bit more controversy as to whether either Randall or Syndrome died in their movies. Given Buddy Pine's inventions, I like to cling to the idea that he used the Zero Point Energy or perhaps something we didn't even know about to save himself, or has an automatic system in effect in the even of an "accident", though in his case, there's no doubt that he WAS a real villain. Randall was more of a henchman, who had little choice in what he did, as he was being manipulated and controlled by someone else more powerful than he was. Randall also had no weapons or things on him with which to defend himself, and we DID see him knocked unconcious, which would put him completely at the mercy of the redneck with the shovel. Randall would pretty much need a whole lot of luck, and a Creator with a soft spot for erring lizard monsters, to get out of that, like Daniel from the proverbial lions' den. pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Sept 17, 2006 15:43:01 GMT -5
Syndrome probably did survive...though...if there's a "how much" I don't know heh.
As for Ran well...
|
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Sept 18, 2006 13:30:46 GMT -5
I think, out of the two, Randall surviving is quite likely, but with Syndrome, it really does finish as though he is killed, although if he were needed for a sequel, they could easily explain his escape from death.
|
|
|
|
Post by screwyolddame on Oct 5, 2006 22:46:44 GMT -5
Am I the only one on here that wouldn't mind Randall coming back? I actually don't mind him in the villain role. One of the first things I liked about him was that he was portrayed to be creepy and a little scary. (The scariest at M.I - the rest? who are they kidding? Thay're dang cuddily.) The ideal sequel for me would largely include Ran in the "villain" role, but in a way we can be on the fence as to whether his actions were right or wrong. Have him remain a very deep and strong character and an little bit of an enigma. If I were to write one, it would be a horror story. I think a sort of fictionalized madly evil Ran would be fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Oct 6, 2006 5:44:45 GMT -5
Am I the only one on here that wouldn't mind Randall coming back? I actually don't mind him in the villain role. One of the first things I liked about him was that he was portrayed to be creepy and a little scary. (The scariest at M.I - the rest? who are they kidding? Thay're dang cuddily.) The ideal sequel for me would largely include Ran in the "villain" role, but in a way we can be on the fence as to whether his actions were right or wrong. Have him remain a very deep and strong character and an little bit of an enigma. If I were to write one, it would be a horror story. I think a sort of fictionalized madly evil Ran would be fascinating. I guess I have to respect others' opinions, but I can also disagree with them. I would, as I've stated, MUCH, MUCH rather have a Randall-less sequel, than one in which he is the villain, and the primary villain at that. I didn't find to Randall to be "creepy" in the first one, and I would guess that one's personal perspective of real reptiles will sway you one way or the other there. To most people, scaly automatically equals creepy. I'm not "on the fence" as to whether Randall's actions in the first were right or wrong; I KNOW that they were wrong, but I also can totally relate as to WHY he would do those things, and what motivated him, having Been There, Done That. However, the concept of "Evil Randall" coming back for the sole purpose of getting revenge on Mike and Sulley, and not changing one bit as a person, does not sit well with me AT ALL. IF this were to be the scenario, you KNOW it's only going to end one way-with Randall being defeated...again. He will made made a fool of, he will be hurt, he will be made to be more hated than ever, and probably they will make sure that he gets killed, and that we are left with no doubts that he's dead this time, in the end, and Sulley and Mike will once more be portrayed as blameless innocents who triumph over Evil, which is B.S. The whole notion of this insane, murderous Randall, who this time cannot even claim being under control of another individual(Waternoose), but is only out for revenge(hey, isn't that what Mike and Sulley were doing?), especially in light of recent violent tragedies like the Pennsylvania Amish school shootings, in which a deranged individual took lives allegedly in "revenge", absolutely does not sit well with me. Besides, it's so friggin' cliche'd, or as I like to put it, "so Saturday Morning Kiddie Show". I do not want to pay 8 bucks to see what I can watch on any given Saturday morning on network television for free! I'm not a villain fan. Most of the time, especially if the villain in a movie DOES just seem to be this madman(or woman), I can't find myself liking them. I can't sympathize with them. That aforementioned cliche' of Saturday morning cartoons is always some nasty Bad Guy out to hurt the hero, and being defeated and made a fool of in the end, and who never learns anything from his/her repeated defeats. I would like to give Randall credit for having more intelligence than that. If he's shown NOT to be any smarter than a Saturday morning cartoon villain, then I've been made a fool of myself for believing in him, and thinking that he had the capacity to learn, change, and grow up. Knowing the usual fate of movie and/or cartoon villains, why would I want Randall to go through that AGAIN? That's like saying, "Oh, man-this is my favorite character! I really like him a lot! I hope that they bring him back so he can get beaten again, made to look stupid and horrible, made a laughing stock after scaring everyone half to death, and I hope he dies this awful, violent death at the end of the movie, and his opponents come out smelling like roses and being adored by the audience once again!" Sorry, but as a logic-and-intellect-driven person, I totally fail to grasp any logic or intellect behind that reasoning! I don't mind some "darkness" within a movie's plot, but I want the thing to end on a positive note; I want to walk out of that theater feeling GOOD, feeling HAPPY, and seeing Randall subjected to pain and misery yet AGAIN, and especially seeing him killed or badly hurt or locked away for the rest of his life in some nut-house, is not going to accomplish that for me. I'll go watch a Monsters, Inc. 2 without Randall in it, though it won't be the same, but I will refuse to spend one penny to see Randall portrayed as a stupid(and he'd have to be an idiot not to learn something from his past mistakes), insane, evil reptile who's all about hurting poor Mike and Sulley and Boo(if she comes back), who cannot see anything wrong with the things HE'S done, who is once-more foiled in his attempts to hurt our dear heroes and winds up paying the ultimate price for it. I can think of many much-better uses for my eight dollars, like buying two twelve-packs of toilet paper at Sam's. or treating myself to a fat-filled heart attack-in-a-bag at McDonald's. pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Oct 6, 2006 13:16:29 GMT -5
Am I the only one on here that wouldn't mind Randall coming back? I actually don't mind him in the villain role. One of the first things I liked about him was that he was portrayed to be creepy and a little scary. (The scariest at M.I - the rest? who are they kidding? Thay're dang cuddily.) The ideal sequel for me would largely include Ran in the "villain" role, but in a way we can be on the fence as to whether his actions were right or wrong. Have him remain a very deep and strong character and an little bit of an enigma. If I were to write one, it would be a horror story. I think a sort of fictionalized madly evil Ran would be fascinating. I do understand where you're coming from, really, I do. I, personally, would rather see Randall in a sequel as a villain, than not in a sequel at all, because to see Randall just there, on the screen, moving about and doing new things, would just be incredible. But, then again, I'd prefer him to be reformed (or, rather, reforming) than to be evil. So, in order of preferences- 1. Randall back, and changed. 2. Randall back, but villainous. 3. Randall not back at all. If Randall wasn't a 'villain' in the original MI, I doubt I'd like him as much, if at all, simply because if he wasn't a villain, that would mean that he hadn't gone through all the stuff he did, and guys like Mike and Sulley just aren't attractive to me at all. I prefer a guy who's got a bit of history, who's seen both the good and bad sides of life, and all of the personality traits that come with it- the sarcasm, short temper, and so on. Even if Randall hadn't done all of the things that ended up with him becoming the villain, such as building the SE, but still retained his personality, it seems that he would still be direly unpopular, so it was kind of inevtiable for him to be the villain. There is, I admit, something swish about 'villains' like Randall, who have done bad things but have had reasoning rather than 'just being evil'. I'd be sad to see him return as a villain again, but at the same time, I'd just be so happy to see him in the film at all that it would kind of make up for it. |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Oct 6, 2006 15:52:43 GMT -5
Hahaha! ^_^ And they say some women are attracted to bad boys ^_^
"HA!"
|
|
|
|
Post by invaderbecky on Jul 25, 2009 16:05:28 GMT -5
I'm a big fan of bad boy cartoons, as for Ran coming back as a villian, not sure how I feel about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 25, 2009 21:44:14 GMT -5
I'm a big fan of bad boy cartoons, as for Ran coming back as a villian, not sure how I feel about that. Well, let me ask you this: do you want to see Randall badly hurt, probably KILLED, for real, no doubt about it, this time? That's what's going to happen if he comes back as a villain, you know. NO way they're gonna let him survive TWICE, since it's VERY unlikely there will be a Monsters, Inc. trilogy. If Randall comes back as the "bad guy" and does NOT undergo a character arc and change, he WILL be killed off, no if's and's or but's. I know how I[/i] feel about that! pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by invaderbecky on Jul 26, 2009 16:15:18 GMT -5
Well, I know I liked Randall when I first saw it and wouldn't want him dead, that would be horrible. If they gave him a character change like Disneys Iago charcter, still keeping him tempermental that would be good.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 26, 2009 19:01:44 GMT -5
Well, I know I liked Randall when I first saw it and wouldn't want him dead, that would be horrible. If they gave him a character change like Disneys Iago charcter, still keeping him tempermental that would be good. That' what I mean, like Iago or Stitch-THEY didn't have to become these total angels for people to accept their changes. They still had their personalities that they had before, but because their circumstances changed, their behavior changed as well. pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jul 26, 2009 20:49:44 GMT -5
I used Iago a few times as a prime example of something Disney actually did surprisingly. Had the Aladdin sequel center around someone who was just secondary in the first, on the opposite side, who later turned out. Sure, still himself, but changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 26, 2009 21:13:40 GMT -5
I used Iago a few times as a prime example of something Disney actually did surprisingly. Had the Aladdin sequel center around someone who was just secondary in the first, on the opposite side, who later turned out. Sure, still himself, but changed. One of the reasons that Iago was largely ignored is, I'm afraid, that Aladdin 2 was one of those notorious straight-to-DVD Disney "cheap-quels", a hallmark of the Eisner Era. Most people just tend to brush those off, fair or not, insofar as being canon. I know that some of them might actually be good, but they had that reputation, one that nearly ruined Disney Animation. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people who saw the original Aladdin never saw the dtDVD follow-up, so they aren't aware of Iago's character arc. pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jul 26, 2009 21:17:46 GMT -5
In some aspects, I think the second started the animated series, as one of the pawns in Aladdin 2 was Abis Maul I think and he appeared more in the animated series (in which Iago was not with Jafar and with Aladdin so it happened afterward).
Still, he's a good example. And actually him and Randall have some similarities, and thankfully Iago has some saving gracies that make him a better candidate of friendship than Wazowskil.
|
|
