CrazyDiamond
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
I'm shining!
Posts: 270
|
Post by CrazyDiamond on May 2, 2013 17:47:10 GMT -5
Other than the "balls of steel" moment, I can't really think o anything horrible happening to mike. Sulley got a good blow to the head when Randall hit him with the canister, and the result was obvious: concussion. Same goes for Randall being hit by Sulley - unconsciousness... So yeah, there are Looney Tunes moments, but they IMHO still don't justify the trailer scene. Being hit by a shovel is the worst thing happening in the movie, hence the shadow only depiction...
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on May 2, 2013 17:58:35 GMT -5
Oh jeez, haven't seen the films for years, but I remember THAT.
Though in Randall's case, he was already tired out (maybe sick) and full of adrenaline rage....but then again Sullivan can throw one heck of a haymaker..
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on May 2, 2013 18:24:07 GMT -5
Oh jeez, haven't seen the films for years, but I remember THAT. Though in Randall's case, he was already tired out (maybe sick) and full of adrenaline rage....but then again Sullivan can throw one heck of a haymaker.. The only reason Sullivan did not do more damage, beyond a short knock-out(which is, as CD said, indicative of a mild concussion itself), is because he had only a relatively short punch-radius, and he was oxygen-depleted himself. Had he been able to throw a full punch, Randall most likely would not have regained consciousness. But yeah, Mike takes some lumps, like when all those books fall on him in their apartment and wind up in his big mouth, but he really does not have anything happen that would result in a significant injury IRL. We do not never feel, watching a "Loony Toons" episode, that any of the characters are ever in any danger at all. It's all just slap-stick. In MI, you DO get that impression that these characters can be hurt or killed. They FEAR being killed or hurt. You don't ever get the impression that they are immortal or invulnerable. What happened to Randall was not funny, not even in a "slap-stick" way, unless you're a pretty sick individual or very cold-hearted. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by goldenponcho on May 2, 2013 23:15:02 GMT -5
I don't know, I'm just not convinced that they intended Randall to have gotten seriously hurt. It just doesn't fit into the tone of the scene. The thing is that that scene was clearly meant to be funny. I just don't see the people at Pixar writing a scene where a character is permanently injured/killed that they want the audience to laugh at. Their stuff is never THAT mean spirited.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on May 2, 2013 23:23:53 GMT -5
Considering the death toll in Incredibles..... No, Randall seriously got hurt. The scene was meant to be funny...but for those who think about it....it's not.
I mean that yelling of his...that was over-the-top pain...
|
|
|
Post by goldenponcho on May 2, 2013 23:36:50 GMT -5
Here's the thing, though, deaths in the Incredibles weren't meant to be funny. When Syndrome died, it was a serious scene. Plus what Syndrome did was leaps and bounds worse than anything Randall did. Not to mention, the Incredibles had a much more adult feel to it. It just doesn't make sense that they would kill off a main character, villain or not, and expect the audience to laugh about it. Not in such a light-hearted film. And, sure it hurt; I'm not arguing whether it hurt. But from a film-making standpoint, it just doesn't make sense to actually kill/seriously injure a character in that way.
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on May 3, 2013 0:40:17 GMT -5
Here's the thing, though, deaths in the Incredibles weren't meant to be funny. When Syndrome died, it was a serious scene. Plus what Syndrome did was leaps and bounds worse than anything Randall did. Not to mention, the Incredibles had a much more adult feel to it. It just doesn't make sense that they would kill off a main character, villain or not, and expect the audience to laugh about it. Not in such a light-hearted film. And, sure it hurt; I'm not arguing whether it hurt. But from a film-making standpoint, it just doesn't make sense to actually kill/seriously injure a character in that way. I can never really figure out exactly what Pixar wanted with Randall's banishment scene. On the one hand, like you said, it is a bit of an odd idea for a character to be killed like that in an otherwise relatively light-hearted film. On the other hand, it's pretty clear Randall never comes back, and that the intention was to get rid of him for a long time, if not permanently. It's strange because earlier in the film, we see Mike and Sulley return from banishment without much difficulty, with the only explanation of the Abominable Snowman not doing the same being that he, in fact, loves his new home so has no motivation for figuring out a way to get back (which seems a bit weird the more I think about it- I mean, what about his friends and family? He doesn't seem too much like the loner type...) I mean, maybe Mike and Sulley's intention was for Randall to be thrown somewhere he'd struggle to return from, but if Randall hadn't been beaten up I think he probably would have managed to get back without much difficulty even starting off in the middle of the swamp- I mean, the guy can turn invisible. So, in my mind, Pixar added the scene with Randall getting hurt to emphasise to the audience that it wouldn't be quite so easy for Randall to come back, either because he's seriously injured or, well, dead, since otherwise he does have a motivation to return. There's an air of finality about the scene that says to me that that was supposed to be that for Randall. Getting the audience to laugh at his demise isn't nice, but it's been done before in movies aimed at kids and I think Pixar view the scene as them getting rid of a guy no-one, the audience included, likes anyway. We'll obviously never know for certain, though. I always figured Randall got pretty badly hurt because that's my interpretation of the scene, and that's why I've written it as so, but at the end of the day it's an open-ended scene.
|
|
CrazyDiamond
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
I'm shining!
Posts: 270
|
Post by CrazyDiamond on May 3, 2013 4:30:55 GMT -5
[...]Not to mention, the Incredibles had a much more adult feel to it. It just doesn't make sense that they would kill off a main character, villain or not, and expect the audience to laugh about it. Not in such a light-hearted film. [...] But from a film-making standpoint, it just doesn't make sense to actually kill/seriously injure a character in that way. Let's put it this way: Randall's banishment scene is, at best, distasteful. The only thing funny about the scene are the Cajuns mistaking him for an alligator, which, as pitbulllady rightfully points out, isn't actually funny considering the possible consequences. A Bug's Life was a light-hearted movie, too. And yet, Hopper was eaten in it, and we got to see it from HIS perspective. The only reason I have less issues with this scene is because at the time of his death, he still posed a mortal danger to Flik and Atta, making his demise an act of self-defense, perhaps - given the protagonists' reaction - an unintended one (maybe they just meant to scare him off?) I mean, come on! Remember the Wizard of Oz? Even when Dorothy accidentally sprays water on the Witch, she is honestly remorseful and sorry for what happens. But Mike and Sulley? "Oh, you can't move 'cause I'm already holding you under the neck? Well, screaming for mercy won't do you any good. No mercy for you. Goodbye. Now, let there be much rejoicing." - Even from a filmmaking standpoint, the whole underlying concept of the scene is wrong (unless you're Quentin Tarantino). Sloppy screenwriting/filmmaking at its best.
|
|
|
Post by goldenponcho on May 3, 2013 9:53:43 GMT -5
See, I always saw the scene as being there for closure but mostly for laughs. It never really seemed to me that they had intended for Randall to be seriously hurt or killed. If anything, it just seemed to say he would hate it there. That's the worst I got from it. Of course, I never got the vibe that Pixar thought everyone would hate Randall, either. He had the coolest design out of any of the monsters, and I think they knew that. Surely they'd think he would have some fans.
And like I said, in A Bug's Life, the scene where Hopper gets eaten is again a very serious scene.
To be completely honest, though, I never saw Randall's banishment scene as THAT problematic. Sure, Mike and Sulley had better options, but it worked well with the flow of the story. Randall got them banished; they banished Randall. It balances well. I don't mean it's fair punishment; I mean it fits in well with the rest of the story.
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on May 3, 2013 10:13:28 GMT -5
Hmm, I agree, I think the scene was for laughs- I know lots of people who found it amusing- but I don't think that necessarily means it wasn't intended for Randall to be hurt or killed. I think that's related to a second point- I really do think Randall was intended to be hated as a person, despite his design, especially as we spend so much of the film thinking of him as the main villain. Even the Pixarians themselves don't have any love lost for Randall- for example, if you listen to the commentary, although they talk about him having a cool schtick (being able to turn invisible) they really don't like his personality and are glad to see the back of him when he's banished. Literally the only point of him as a character was to be disliked, to be the obvious villain, so that the audience is thrown off the scent- it's one of the reasons why Randall is so overtly nasty to Mike and Sulley (from a film-maker's perspective, anyway). That's why I think Pixar were probably rather shocked at the fanbase Randall has, and one of the reasons why (thankfully) they went down a different route with him in MU.
So when Randall does get banished, the audience doesn't empathise with him and so although it's not nice to laugh at someone getting hurt (or possibly killed), we're not supposed to care- he's the villain, he's a meanie, and so he deserves it.
I agree that it goes well with the flow of the story, though. It does have that sense of closure, the villain has his comeuppance, and, most importantly, Boo has developed as a character and has overcome her fear (the other reason for Randall's existence). As you said, it might not be a fair punishment but it has a strong impact, more so than Randall just being carted off by the CDA or something.
|
|
|
Post by goldenponcho on May 3, 2013 11:31:20 GMT -5
All the same, it still doesn't make sense to me that they would treat it that way if he were supposed to have died/had a lasting physical injury. I think they're smarter than that. It might happen in a darker movie, but here, it just doesn't fit. So either he wasn't meant to have been permanently hurt, or the people at Pixar don't understand the tone of their own film. The former seems more likely to me.
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on May 3, 2013 11:48:16 GMT -5
Just because the tone of a film is generally light-hearted doesn't mean that dark things can't happen in them- it just means that those darker things tends to be sugar-coated or made humorous in order to fit with the tone of the film.
But I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
CrazyDiamond
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
I'm shining!
Posts: 270
|
Post by CrazyDiamond on May 3, 2013 12:04:44 GMT -5
*Disclaimer* I don't want to woobify Randall (he's already wooby, lol) or prove anyone wrong, so please, take this as an "academic" critical discussion [...] Randall got them banished; they banished Randall. It balances well. I don't mean it's fair punishment; I mean it fits in well with the rest of the story. I have two issues with this statement: First, I don't think it fits Mike and Sulley's personalities as depicted earlier in the story. They are the good guys, monsters of "higher morals" (at least in MI). This is an act of vengeance that doesn't suit them very well, IMHO. As Michael Forbes famously said: "The true measure of an individual is how he treats a person who can do him absolutely no good."Second, - and this is personal - as someone who deals with the results of crimes from vengeance quite often, I find presenting this kind of logic in any movie aimed at kids pretty abhorrent. Let the villain take a bad step and let him fall to his death, but don't let the protagonists punish him on their own! All the same, it still doesn't make sense to me that they would treat it that way if he were supposed to have died/had a lasting physical injury. I think they're smarter than that. It might happen in a darker movie, but here, it just doesn't fit. So either he wasn't meant to have been permanently hurt, or the people at Pixar don't understand the tone of their own film. The former seems more likely to me. People at Pixar are, after all, just people. Misunderstanding the tone of a movie is something that happens quite often. It happened to Lasseter, it happened to Spielberg, it happened to Tarantino, to Haneke, Kubrick, Bergman, Ridley Scott, Tony Scott... The list goes on; it just happens. The Pixarians are not gods to be immune to these fallacies. We are, after all, discussing this on a forum dedicated to someone they intended to be "menacing" and who, as it turns out, ended up looking sad and depressed rather than menacing. ;D
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on May 3, 2013 17:02:49 GMT -5
*Disclaimer* I don't want to woobify Randall (he's already wooby, lol) or prove anyone wrong, so please, take this as an "academic" critical discussion [...] Randall got them banished; they banished Randall. It balances well. I don't mean it's fair punishment; I mean it fits in well with the rest of the story. I have two issues with this statement: First, I don't think it fits Mike and Sulley's personalities as depicted earlier in the story. They are the good guys, monsters of "higher morals" (at least in MI). This is an act of vengeance that doesn't suit them very well, IMHO. As Michael Forbes famously said: "The true measure of an individual is how he treats a person who can do him absolutely no good."Second, - and this is personal - as someone who deals with the results of crimes from vengeance quite often, I find presenting this kind of logic in any movie aimed at kids pretty abhorrent. Let the villain take a bad step and let him fall to his death, but don't let the protagonists punish him on their own! All the same, it still doesn't make sense to me that they would treat it that way if he were supposed to have died/had a lasting physical injury. I think they're smarter than that. It might happen in a darker movie, but here, it just doesn't fit. So either he wasn't meant to have been permanently hurt, or the people at Pixar don't understand the tone of their own film. The former seems more likely to me. People at Pixar are, after all, just people. Misunderstanding the tone of a movie is something that happens quite often. It happened to Lasseter, it happened to Spielberg, it happened to Tarantino, to Haneke, Kubrick, Bergman, Ridley Scott, Tony Scott... The list goes on; it just happens. The Pixarians are not gods to be immune to these fallacies. We are, after all, discussing this on a forum dedicated to someone they intended to be "menacing" and who, as it turns out, ended up looking sad and depressed rather than menacing. ;D I will reiterate what CD already said about that whole "banishment-as-revenge" thing; it does NOT fit anyone who is supposed to be a hero! I've said multiple times-two wrongs do NOT make a right! It does NOT "balance out" for Mike and Sulley to "banish" Randall because he did that to them because it sends a clear message that "hitting back" is not only acceptable as a means of solving conflicts, but desirable behavior, which is why our society has degenerated into such a violent hot mess as it is. Condoning it will only make it worse. The fact that Sulley and Mike did that, and not only got away with it but got REWARDED, sends a message that it is acceptable and a good thing to take justice into your own hands. And there is a definite difference in Randall's "banishment" of Mike and Sulley and what they did to him; Randall was NOT acting on his own accord, but under the direction and control of someone else. Mike and Sulley, on the other hand, WERE acting on their own, under their own decisions. No one will convince me that Mike did not know that trailer was occupied or that he didn't at least have a pretty good idea what would happen once Randall showed up. A lot of the people who found humor in that scene are bound by ignorance of various American dialects and culture and were laughing the notion of the "hillbillies" mistaking Randall for an alligator. Many assumed, incorrectly, that the humans just wanted him out the trailer and were trying to drive him out with the shovel. That is NOT the case AT ALL, and that is what made the scene so disturbing to me. The people are NOT "hillbillies". They do NOT speak with a "hillbilly" accent, nor do they live in the Appalachian Mountains, which is where the few remaining hillbillies live. A "hillbilly" is someone of predominantly Scotch-Irish ancestry who has grown up in many generations isolated from the rest of the country in the remote Appalachians of North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, northern Georgia, or West Virginia. Hillbillies do not have Southern accents. Their accents still reflect a slight Scottish "brogue" with a bit of German/Swiss accent thrown in. They live in the MOUNTAINS, where there are no swamps, no alligators. Randall was thrown into a swamp in LOUISIANA, on the Gulf Coast of the US, far, far from the mountains. The people in the trailer were CAJUNS, and Cajuns EAT ALLIGATORS. Alligator meat is a staple of the diet down there. Anyone finding a 'gator in their home would be quite delighted at the prospect of all that free meat! Also, as someone who has lived in the South all my life, I do know for a fact that a shovel is the preferred means of killing reptiles of all sorts down here. Those people did not want Randall gone; they wanted him DEAD. They wanted to EAT HIM. This means that once he was unconscious or otherwise rendered unable to move or fight back, they would have used that bloody knife on the wall(and there is no denying that it IS blood) to either cut his throat, severing his jugular and carotid arteries, or used it to stab into his chest cavity, through his lungs, until it sliced through his heart or aorta, allowing him to bleed to death. They would have skinned him, gutted him, cut the flesh from his bones, and cooked and eaten him. That would have been his fate in a Cajun hunt/fish camp trailer unless he managed to escape. I have no doubt that Pixar intended for us to believe that he died, otherwise they would not have gone to the extent of having those people, or the kid in any case, speak with a Cajun accent, nor would they have shown that the backdrop for that trailer was obviously a Louisiana bayou swamp! IF they did not want anyone to believe that the knife on the wall had dried blood on it, there would have been no point in putting that reddish-brown coloration on the blade, or for that matter, in putting that knife and meat cleaver there in the first place. Those things aren't for slicing up apples, folks. I live in the South. I have used those very types of instruments myself to butcher wild hogs and deer that I intended to eat, so I am familiar with knives and meat cleavers. There is no point in showing them there in that scene unless Pixar wanted us to understand that they were going to be used on Randall! And, anywhere else, with people speaking in another dialect, and that finality of the scene would not have been so absolute. Real hillbilles probably would have been scared of him, possibly would have shot him, or tried to chase him out the trailer, perhaps would have taken off running and left the trailer to him, but for a Cajun family, that would have been a blessing for a large scaly creature to show up in their home. Now, something else I'll mention: Boo's "losing her fear" of Randall when she jumped on him and started hitting him with the bat. Again, anyone who is fairly knowledgeable about behavior understands that fear basically causes two reactions- flight, which is to distance one's self from the cause of the fear, and fight, which is to strike back at the cause of the fear, responding with violence. Boo went from a flight reaction, trying to avoid Randall and get away from him, to a fight response, attacking HIM, but the thing to keep in mind is BOTH RESPONSES were still caused by FEAR, so she did NOT get over her fear of him at all! She just shifted from one response to another. A person who kills a snake when finding it in their yard is just as scared of snakes as the person who screams and runs away from the snake, two different reactions, same emotion. Boo learned a valuable lesson, though. If you are scared of someone or something, beat the living crap out of it, hurt it if you can; this is acceptable behavior. pitbulllady
|
|
CrazyDiamond
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
I'm shining!
Posts: 270
|
Post by CrazyDiamond on May 3, 2013 17:37:40 GMT -5
Oh, back to the topic (fanfic): I forgot to mention how much do I appreciate the way lizardgirl saved him from being eaten. Good job!
|
|