|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 5, 2013 13:26:36 GMT -5
Logically, you'd think that Pixar would give Randall a second chance by having shown that he was once a sweet kid, but then there's this problem: Lotso.
Pixar even specifically showed Lotso's past in TS3, showed that he was once the cherished toy of a little girl, and how having his heart broken when he was replaced turned him so bitter and "evil". They had a great opportunity there for a redemption, a chance to let Lotso, though friendship and having someone else care about him, turn himself around, but instead they chose to go with that "once evil, ALWAYS evil" thought process, emphasizing that once someone "turns to the Dark Side", there's never any going back, that there's no good left in them. I do not personally agree with that AT ALL, but a lot of fans DO. There are a lot of fans who do NOT believe that Randall WAS ever sweet and kind, but that all that was an act designed to "get in good with the cool kids", and the the "real" Randall was the one who grinned with "evil" glee as he dumped stuffed toys on his former roommate and Mike's friends, and blamed Sulley for losing the Scare Competition and getting him kicked out of ROR. Their perception is, of course, tainted by what they know Randall does in MI, but Pixar would have to really pull off something extraordinary to convince most fans that Randall still has good left in him or even that he WAS ever good in the first place, that it WASN'T just an act designed to garner favor with groups like ROR.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOnePistol on Aug 6, 2013 5:26:01 GMT -5
Logically, you'd think that Pixar would give Randall a second chance by having shown that he was once a sweet kid, but then there's this problem: Lotso. Pixar even specifically showed Lotso's past in TS3, showed that he was once the cherished toy of a little girl, and how having his heart broken when he was replaced turned him so bitter and "evil". They had a great opportunity there for a redemption, a chance to let Lotso, though friendship and having someone else care about him, turn himself around, but instead they chose to go with that "once evil, ALWAYS evil" thought process, emphasizing that once someone "turns to the Dark Side", there's never any going back, that there's no good left in them. I do not personally agree with that AT ALL, but a lot of fans DO. There are a lot of fans who do NOT believe that Randall WAS ever sweet and kind, but that all that was an act designed to "get in good with the cool kids", and the the "real" Randall was the one who grinned with "evil" glee as he dumped stuffed toys on his former roommate and Mike's friends, and blamed Sulley for losing the Scare Competition and getting him kicked out of ROR. Their perception is, of course, tainted by what they know Randall does in MI, but Pixar would have to really pull off something extraordinary to convince most fans that Randall still has good left in him or even that he WAS ever good in the first place, that it WASN'T just an act designed to garner favor with groups like ROR. pitbulllady Well the difference is that Lotso wasn't featured in two movies, he wasn't brought back due to fan popularity. Randall was brought back do to how many fans he had and he was brought back and portrayed as a good guy. It wasn't like Latso's plot where it was planned all along during the one movie he was in that he would have a sad past. What I'm saying is that Pixar did not know how fans would react to Latso because he was only in one movie. Pixar knew about the Randall fans thats why they brought him back. And lets be honest, Lotso was not as bad as Randall was as the antagonist. So for them to STILL portray Randall as a nice kid is good. |
|
CrazyDiamond
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
I'm shining!
Posts: 270
|
Post by CrazyDiamond on Aug 6, 2013 14:29:35 GMT -5
Either way, we just have to do one thing: endure. Perhaps Pixar will make another movie in five years in time to give hope to all those dissappointed kids who will inevitably end up being more like Randall than Mike or Sulley, and our presence will only make the case for Randall stronger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus Hatta on Aug 6, 2013 23:14:33 GMT -5
Logically, you'd think that Pixar would give Randall a second chance by having shown that he was once a sweet kid, but then there's this problem: Lotso. Pixar even specifically showed Lotso's past in TS3, showed that he was once the cherished toy of a little girl, and how having his heart broken when he was replaced turned him so bitter and "evil". They had a great opportunity there for a redemption, a chance to let Lotso, though friendship and having someone else care about him, turn himself around, but instead they chose to go with that "once evil, ALWAYS evil" thought process, emphasizing that once someone "turns to the Dark Side", there's never any going back, that there's no good left in them. I do not personally agree with that AT ALL, but a lot of fans DO. There are a lot of fans who do NOT believe that Randall WAS ever sweet and kind, but that all that was an act designed to "get in good with the cool kids", and the the "real" Randall was the one who grinned with "evil" glee as he dumped stuffed toys on his former roommate and Mike's friends, and blamed Sulley for losing the Scare Competition and getting him kicked out of ROR. Their perception is, of course, tainted by what they know Randall does in MI, but Pixar would have to really pull off something extraordinary to convince most fans that Randall still has good left in him or even that he WAS ever good in the first place, that it WASN'T just an act designed to garner favor with groups like ROR. pitbulllady Not that this has anything to do with Randal but.... The tragedy of Lotso was that he chose NOT to change his ways and STAY as he was, bitter and angry. Woody offered Lotso a chance to change, but Lotso choose to reject it. Lotso could not let go of his past and therefore, he stayed a villain. That's not a "turns to the Dark Side, always evil" path or "there's no good left in them". The point of Lotso's character IS there is still good in him, but he deliberately rejected the offer of friendship and redemption. Disney has had characters change from the "dark side" to the good side before. Iago from Aladdin, for example, got redeemed in "Return of Jafar". Now that's a very bitter bird, and he stayed grumpy, but friendship with Aladdin and friends (and massive disillusion with Jafar) helped Iago change sides and start a new, better life. It's harder to find a clear example for Pixar, because they have less movies overall and less villains in this situation, but Anton Ego could be somewhat considered a redeemed villain, given that through friendship (and fine dining) with the "heroes", he became a happier and less lonely person. |
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 6, 2013 23:52:16 GMT -5
I wouldn't really consider Anton Ego to be a villain, an antagonist, yes, but a villain, no. He simply had adopted that typical mindset of critics that he was SUPPOSED to "diss" every restaurant he visited, and he'd become jaded with his job. I certainly would not call him "evil" in any way, shape or form. In fact, he closely resembles Dean Hardscrabble in MU; both had a job that they knew would involve being harsh at times, but they had to do it. A lot of people have attached HER for kicking Mike and Sulley out of the Scare Program, but she was a realist. She knew that Mike simply did not have what it took to be Scary, and Sulley had actually put everyone in that classroom in danger when that Scream canister went off and became a ballistic missile. Indeed, her first words after that happened were to express relief that no one did get hurt, although there were some very close calls, since the thing misses both Randall's and Johnny's head by just a couple of inches.
I'm sure that there are many people who will make the exact same argument for Randall "staying evil", though, that you just made for Lotso, that he will have become so bitter and angry and unable to let go of HIS past that he will reject any offers of friendship and redemption and "choose" to "stay a villain". Lotso only experienced that ONE painful, negative thing, but look at what Randall has been through! It's definitely not going to be easy for HIM to let go of his past, is it? Throughout MU, he experiences failure after rejection; the only group whom he THINKS wants to be friends with him turns out to only be using him and they reject him the moment he fails. He is used and manipulated AGAIN in MI, by Waternoose this time, and there's no point in even trying to describe what effect Mike and Sulley did to him would have. Randall's got WAY more in the way of emotional baggage than Lotso could have imagined, and to be sure it will not be easy even for Pixar to come up with a plausible redemption story for him that won't seem forced or cheesy. I have no doubt that they CAN pull it off, but the question is, would they WANT to? Randall is undoubtedly the most polarizing character that Pixar has ever created, bar none, and Pixar must know that they're going to be angering a big chunk of their fanbase no matter which way they go with him, but SO many people, after seeing MU, hate him now who really had not even paid attention to him in MI or even SEEN MI! Their reasons for hating Randall now are much more disturbing and more difficult to comprehend than the reasons people gave for hating him in MI.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus Hatta on Aug 7, 2013 9:24:26 GMT -5
Anton had a somewhat villainous, ominous role in the movie. My point is, he looks scary and mean, but was revealed to be not so bad.
I really like Dean Hardscrabble. Her reasons were solid, she wished them luck at the end after they were expelled from MU, and even let the OK guys bad into the scare program. She’s a really decent character. (And again, one that looks scary and mean)
The hater mindset is difficult to understand.Most of them just want to hate something... It's like the huge hatedom for Barney the Dinosaur a few years ago.
I’m just pointing out that Disney has pulled off this kind of change of heart before, so it’s within the realm of thought that as a studio, they could do it again.
Would they? Depends if they do another sequel. And from the sound of the news releases from Pixar, they want to focus more on original work, with maybe a sequel every so often. I’m really excited to see NEW movies from them, even if it means no more MI movies for a very long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 7, 2013 16:19:19 GMT -5
Pixar does have an "unknown" sequel slated for a 2017 release, and Dan Scanlon DID say that they were continuing the "Monsters" franchise, and that there WOULD be more "Monsters" movies, or a MOVIE, at least. Of the three main characters from MI who have appeared in both MI and MU, only one-Randall-has yet to have HIS movie, his story, from HIS POV. Sulley got his movie(MI), and MU was totally Mike's movie. I just don't know if they will give Randall his due or not now, especially after all the negativity towards him since MU came out, which really surprised me given that I, like you, never got a "bad vibe" from Randall in MU at all. I really don't think that Pixar expected that, not really. They portrayed Randall as realistically and sympathetically as possible, but still the hate for him has been astonishing. Will that have an effect on Pixar's decision on whether to tell Randall's story in the future? Who knows, but it does take some of the wind out of MY sails in hoping for a movie that lets Randall redeem himself.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus Hatta on Aug 7, 2013 20:43:36 GMT -5
Pixar does have an "unknown" sequel slated for a 2017 release, and Dan Scanlon DID say that they were continuing the "Monsters" franchise, and that there WOULD be more "Monsters" movies, or a MOVIE, at least. Of the three main characters from MI who have appeared in both MI and MU, only one-Randall-has yet to have HIS movie, his story, from HIS POV. Sulley got his movie(MI), and MU was totally Mike's movie. I just don't know if they will give Randall his due or not now, especially after all the negativity towards him since MU came out, which really surprised me given that I, like you, never got a "bad vibe" from Randall in MU at all. I really don't think that Pixar expected that, not really. They portrayed Randall as realistically and sympathetically as possible, but still the hate for him has been astonishing. Will that have an effect on Pixar's decision on whether to tell Randall's story in the future? Who knows, but it does take some of the wind out of MY sails in hoping for a movie that lets Randall redeem himself. pitbulllady Ooo, Pixar has a Monster movie in the pipes? Neat! It's exciting just to have the possibility of more, isn't it? I believe the original concept for MI had Mike, Sulley and Randall as a trio (and as imaginary friends) so a movie focusing on Randall might happen? I dunno. Monsters so far has been about the Mike-&-Sulley team, so it makes sense to stick with that duo. And now that the past has been explored, time to check out post-MI timeline. A Laugh-Factory Monster World would be really interesting. I bet there's loads of conflict between new Laugh energy vs good old fashioned Scaring. Add a grown-up (well, more grown up) Boo to the mix, it could be a fun movie, even without Randall. Randall's haters... haters are always the minority. The majority of what I've seen, people liked Randall. ((On a side-note, have you seen this comic? johnny-worthington.tumblr.com/image/55535800580Just because you shoved him through a door, doesn't mean he stayed there.)) |
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 7, 2013 21:18:25 GMT -5
Yes, I've seen it, although when I saw the Tumblr URL for a moment there I went, "Oh, God...NO", because I though it was going to be a link to those wretched BOOM! Comics "Laugh Factory" comics, which are being blogged and reblogged all over Tumblr and beyond, by kids who are just now discovering them, who think that they're canon, that they were actually written by or made by Pixar, fans who, for the most part, aren't old enough to remember the Eisner days at Disney. They don't realize that at that time, Pixar didn't even OWN the characters that THEY created; Disney did, and that Michael Eisner would have sold the rights to use Pixar characters to anyone with enough cash. What bothers me, though, is that even after reading them, it does not occur to these kids just how "off", to say the least, the storyline is from what IS established as canon in the Pixar movies! Every single time I mention the possibility of Randall having died in that horrible trailer, some kid chimes in, "but he didn't die because the comics that 'they' made show that he came back and wasn't even hurt and tried to frame Mike and got caught and put in jail". In the comics, actually, Randall was never thrown into the Human World in the first place but just went on the run from the law in the Monster World, so there's no way he could have "come back", and I won't even get into those things' portrayal of Sid Phillips! Finding his way back to the Monster World wouldn't be the big problem for Randall-surviving that attack by people who WANT TO EAT HIM would!
pitbulllady
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus Hatta on Aug 8, 2013 17:58:46 GMT -5
I haven't read the BOOM comics. In fact, it's pretty hard to find them without really searching for them, so for how many actually read them... ech, I'd say a limited number at best. From what I can tell, canon usually breaks down : movie > sequels to the movie > licensed sequels > video games > comics. Maybe reversing the last two if the comic is written by the writer of the movie or something. Crossovers? Usually out of canon material. Unless really, really well-done.
And sometimes you can take an element of a bad comic and work it in in a kind of sidestepping, yes this happened but we are ignoring it or using this idea, but it happened differently. Like in the Disney Gargoyles comics. Greg Weisman, who created the show and wrote the comics, said third season except for the first two episodes, didn't happen. In the comics he wrote, he recapped those two episodes and went off in a different direction than the show. Both are canon, but one is more canon to some people than the other.
Randall's still a giant purple lizard monster with multiple arms and a tail. I think he wins in the end, even if he takes a bit of a beating.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 8, 2013 18:55:02 GMT -5
I haven't read the BOOM comics. In fact, it's pretty hard to find them without really searching for them, so for how many actually read them... ech, I'd say a limited number at best. From what I can tell, canon usually breaks down : movie > sequels to the movie > licensed sequels > video games > comics. Maybe reversing the last two if the comic is written by the writer of the movie or something. Crossovers? Usually out of canon material. Unless really, really well-done. And sometimes you can take an element of a bad comic and work it in in a kind of sidestepping, yes this happened but we are ignoring it or using this idea, but it happened differently. Like in the Disney Gargoyles comics. Greg Weisman, who created the show and wrote the comics, said third season except for the first two episodes, didn't happen. In the comics he wrote, he recapped those two episodes and went off in a different direction than the show. Both are canon, but one is more canon to some people than the other. Randall's still a giant purple lizard monster with multiple arms and a tail. I think he wins in the end, even if he takes a bit of a beating. Keep in mind that this was in Louisiana, where people kill and eat large reptilian creatures and consider them just another menu item. People in Louisiana are used to dispatching alligators much larger than Randall. We SAW Randall knocked unconscious and fall to the floor as the woman continued to beat him with the shovel. Now, I've SEEN, first-hand, what a shovel does to flesh and bone. I used to do artistic renderings of often violent crime scenes for prosecutors to present to juries in court cases, and this would involve me actually having to be escorted to the crime scene by sheriff's deputies and viewing the results, up close and personal, since at that time photographs were not allowed in most court cases and digital presentations like PowerPoint did not yet exist. One of these involved a murder committed with a shovel. I've also seen the results of a dog having been beaten to death with a shovel for simply being a Pit Bull. Being attacked with a shovel does NOT result in "a bit of a beating". It will, at the very least, result in severe lacerations and blunt-force trauma and usually broken bones. Since Randall was knocked unconscious, that really rules out him being able to fight back or escape, and since the woman was continuing to beat him, she obviously meant to ensure that he didn't do either. That's why I stand by my belief that for Randall to have survived that would have taken a miracle, someone to show up before he was actually killed who would stop the attack, and obtain medical help for what would no doubt be terrible injuries by that point. Those people didn't want him out of the trailer. They wanted to EAT him. They were glad that he turned up for the same reason I'd be happy if someone left a fresh side of beef in MY kitchen-it's FREE FOOD! pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus Hatta on Aug 8, 2013 20:03:14 GMT -5
Alright, PBL, we have a whole thread devoted to the "did Randall get eaten" topic, so I reeeeeally don't want to rehash the whole argument here again, so I'm just going to say that a) it's a cartoon movie-- Mikey's slam into the groin like that? No way that boy's walking around a scene later; spraying himself in the eye like that? hospital; all those things smashing Mike in the head? he should be dead-- so the violence is less when it's slapstick. And yes, that scene was for slapstick, whether you found it funny or not. B) Randall is a MONSTER, not a human, not a dog; I'm not saying he wasn't hurt, I'm saying he's huge, got a big tail he can hit with, arms enough to cover his head while grabbing at the lady, is intelligent and will be fighting back HARD. C) Randall DYING doesn't fit the tone of the film.
Unconscious? Oooook, didn't him hit unconscious. Subdued him, yes.
-
But the main point of my post was talking about BOOM's continuity issues...
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus Hatta on Aug 8, 2013 20:04:34 GMT -5
Doubled post Erased
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 9, 2013 14:13:27 GMT -5
Doesn't fit the tone of the movie? Did Muntz falling over a cliff to his certain death fit the tone of "Up"? Or Hopper being eaten by birds in "A Bug's Life"? Pixar has no problem killing off characters; they just don't show everything in gory detail. Quinten Tarentino has yet to direct a Pixar movie, after all. They didn't NEED to show Hopper actually being swallowed because people know that birds eat grasshoppers, just like knowledgeable people KNOW that Cajuns eat alligators. They didn't need to show Muntz's remains splattered on the rocks below for us to understand that he was deader than a doornail. Even using Disney as a reference, they've killed many a "bad guy", but you don't actually SEE the forensic evidence. We know, without actually seeing the hyenas ripping apart Scar's bloody carcass and devouring it that this is what happened, because hyenas will kill lions and eat them(and the opposite is also true)if they get a chance. You talk about ME having no evidence in MU of Randall getting kicked out of ROR because we don't actually SEE it, but where do we SEE in MI that Randall fights back and escapes, that he wasn't knocked out at all? Randall would still be a flesh-and-blood creature, like a dog or human, with the same type of tissues. He's big, but he not THAT big. His weight is given as 220 pounds, which is within human weight range easily. He's far smaller than a typical alligator, and I know people who have used shovels to knock alligators out so they could finish them off by jabbing a knife into the base of the skull. I can guarantee Randall's skull isn't harder and thicker than an alligator's!
pitbulllady
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus Hatta on Aug 9, 2013 15:48:44 GMT -5
Yes.
Those deaths worked for the tone of the movie. 'Up' was pretty dark and intense and sad.
Muntz's fall was built up to, as was Hopper's. We know Scar died by hyena because we heard it and saw him by ripped up by hyneas in shadowplay. And all three of these characters were flatout villains, unlike Randall who is more of a hench. Henches usually have better survival rates than villains, unless the henches are numerous or don't have names.
All *I* know about Cajuns is they have a lot of spicy food. Most of what I know about hyenas came from watching 'Lion King' and later looking up facts about them. The sort of argument that starts with "But EVERYONE KNOWS-" is a poor argument because it starts off with an assumption.
'Monsters Inc' was a comedy and filled with slapstick. You completely ignored the evidence of MIKE, the recipient of most of the film's slapstick, being totally unharmed by any of that. Hitting someone in the head with a shovel in real life is horrible; hitting someone in the head with a shovel in a CARTOON MOVIE is slapstick. WHY would Pixar make real-life violence ensue when Randall is hit by a shovel, but NOT ensue in any of Mike's slapstick-caused injuries? Again, no consequences to: getting sprayed directly in the eye with an aresol spray, cramming at least nine books in his mouth to the extent of dislodging his jaw, a heavy stereo slamming onto his head while mouth was filled with said books and stereo crushing him into the wastebasket like putty, slamming down into a metal post crotch-first, slamming his head in a doorway swallowing a microphone and belching it back up. Mike was unhurt. Therefore, Randall must have been unhurt.
In a REAL-LIFE case, we still have no idea what monsters are made of. They are MONSTERS from an alternate Earth. They are essentially aliens to us. How can you "guarantee" anything about monster biology?
Yes. All things need evidence. I provided evidence for my theory in my thread about MU, you provide evidence for your theory, and then we see who the evidence supports the most. This is how it works in science, this is how it works in debate.
|
|
