|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 16, 2013 15:56:51 GMT -5
Really? Cool! I'd LOVE to know what he had in mind for the sequel if he said it was better than the original. Jim Hill is a well-known Disney blogger, who gets a lot of inside information about what's going on with Disney Feature Animation. He was referring to the Lost in Scaradise Circle 7 script when he said that it was "better than the original(MI Pixar movie)", in terms of the story, and the right balance between humor and adventure and heart-felt emotional moments. He did not go into any detail as to which moments were which, other than what has already been shown of the storyboards online. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 16, 2013 17:39:50 GMT -5
Jim Hill is a well-known Disney blogger, who gets a lot of inside information about what's going on with Disney Feature Animation. He was referring to the Lost in Scaradise Circle 7 script when he said that it was "better than the original(MI Pixar movie)", in terms of the story, and the right balance between humor and adventure and heart-felt emotional moments. He did not go into any detail as to which moments were which, other than what has already been shown of the storyboards online. pitbulllady Wow. "Heart-felt and emotional moments"? Huh? Lemme guess... When Sulley finally reunites with Boo right? Also if that storyline about Mike teaming up with Randall is anything to be believed then that would probably put Mike and Sulley's friendship to test and they'd have some big pointless argument and forgive eachother in the end. If Randall making a "Heel FaceTurn" is to be believed then, something emotional or potentially Heart Warming would have had to take place in order for that to happen... As for hilarious stuff...Well that Old Lady in Boo's bed for one thing. Mike and Randall's alleged team up would have those two hilariously bickering. And Mike in general would just hilariously complain about being stuck in the human world. So yeah...Ask Jim Hill about Lost In Scaradise. Too bad he doesnt like MU though.... As much as I LOVE MU, I would have really liked a sequel for MI before they went with a prequel. I have searched extensively all over the web, using Google and Bing and using all configurations of search prompts, and I can find absolutely NO mention of Randall in Lost in Scaradise whatsoever, beyond an extremely stupid fanmade Wiki in which it was claimed that Osmosis Jones would have a major role and that Randall would be played by Tom Kenny...uh, yeah. I really have to take that TvTropes.org entry with an even bigger grain of salt, now, since I can't find any possible source for that information. Either it was directly entered by one of the writers or someone who has seen the entire script but has not posted anything else, anywhere else, about it, OR it's a fan fabrication just like the whole thing with Randall being played by Tom Kenny(can you imagine Randall sounding like Spongebob? Or Eduardo?). At least Wikipedia does require citations and warns you if there are none, when entering information about films and such. The only question you had above that CAN be answered via the searching I've done is that yes, Mike and Sulley DO split up in the script for Lost In Scaradise[i/], apparently after a big argument, with Mike wanting only to get back home and Sulley only wanting to find Boo. There is even a storyboard illustration that shows this here: animatedviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/monsters-inc-2-lost-in-scaradise-2.jpg .
I'm not sure how much Jim Hill would be able to tell me, given that it's not his property and he might not have permission to give away any more details than he already did. In fact, I'm not sure how much information either of the writers would be able to provide, either, since they don't own the script. Disney does.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 16, 2013 21:28:06 GMT -5
I have searched extensively all over the web, using Google and Bing and using all configurations of search prompts, and I can find absolutely NO mention of Randall in Lost in Scaradise whatsoever, beyond an extremely stupid fanmade Wiki in which it was claimed that Osmosis Jones would have a major role and that Randall would be played by Tom Kenny...uh, yeah. I really have to take that TvTropes.org entry with an even bigger grain of salt, now, since I can't find any possible source for that information. Either it was directly entered by one of the writers or someone who has seen the entire script but has not posted anything else, anywhere else, about it, OR it's a fan fabrication just like the whole thing with Randall being played by Tom Kenny(can you imagine Randall sounding like Spongebob? Or Eduardo?). At least Wikipedia does require citations and warns you if there are none, when entering information about films and such. The only question you had above that CAN be answered via the searching I've done is that yes, Mike and Sulley DO split up in the script for Lost In Scaradise[i/], apparently after a big argument, with Mike wanting only to get back home and Sulley only wanting to find Boo. There is even a storyboard illustration that shows this here: animatedviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/monsters-inc-2-lost-in-scaradise-2.jpg .
I'm not sure how much Jim Hill would be able to tell me, given that it's not his property and he might not have permission to give away any more details than he already did. In fact, I'm not sure how much information either of the writers would be able to provide, either, since they don't own the script. Disney does.
pitbulllady
OMFG! I almost DIED when the thought of Randall with Spongebob's voice came to my mind! :lmao: Well...That sucks. Although considering that Mike and Sulley DO split up. It would be kinda hard imagining little Mikey surviving the human world, trying to find his way home, all by himself. He'd most definitely need some help. XD Who'd better to help him than a certain purple monster who was ALSO trapped in the human world? I can't think of anyone else! Unless they added some new characters like other monsters who were banished like Lochness or something...But that would really suck imo... Considering that Randall would have been stuck in the human world for over a year, I'd figure that he'd probably know his way around a few places and knowing how desperate Mike can be during tough times. And you know what they say: "Desparate times call for desparate measures!" I think it would make an interesting team up. I just wish we had proof. I like to hear as much as you can from Jim Hill. Even if he doesn't say anything about Randall having a role, I'd like to know about how old Boo was going to be and what happened to Mike and Sulley after they went their separate ways. Also, didn't you tell me earlier that a former writer of Disney, on the Lilo and Stitch forums was also working on the script? And didn't you tell that he said that the Fans of Mike, Sulley, Boo, AND Randall would have been pleased with the results? Yes, he did, but was not able to go into any detail, and at that time no one even knew the title of the planned MI sequel, only that it was to be direct-to-DVD. This was at a time when Disney earned a horrid reputation for cranking out those direct-to-DVD/video "cheap-quels", as many folks called them, those often poorly-made "sequels" that really were aimed at the kiddie market. Eisner really held great stock in those as the future of Disney Animation and created several divisions just to make direct-to-DVD knock-offs of popular Disney titles. He was also the one who tried to "kill" all 2-D or traditional animation, saying that it was outdated and unnecessary. He really turned out to be a very unpopular guy who nearly destroyed Disney's reputation as a leader among animation studios, and losing Pixar was the last straw for the BOD. I'd read some statements from some then-Pixar employees who said that Eisner was the real inspiration behind how the character of Henry J. Waternoose III was portrayed, lol, and that he was the one largely responsible for that decision to make Randall into the "overt villain" of MI, because he'd started to micromanage the Pixar production and insisted that MI HAD to have a villain in a classic Disney Villain sense. He also wanted it to be a MUSICAL, with songs and dance numbers, which might be how that whole running joke with Mike claiming to be working on a "company play...it's a musical", came about! Eisner was a real piece of work, alright. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 16, 2013 23:28:20 GMT -5
Wow...Eisner sounds like a REAL stand up guy.... -____-' It was HIS decision to make Randall a "villain"? He's lucky he got fired otherwise I would've had to hunt him down. Is he also responsible for the crap-fest known as "Cinderella 2: Dreams Come True" or "Mulan 2" or "The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2"? Cause if he is then I might just need to have a few words with him. *Pulls out a Baseball Bat* And LMFAO! He inspired Waternoose? Well that makes sense given Randall's reaction to him. When Randall growled at Waternoose for being "Half the Scarer Sullivun is" (Which is complete BS btw considering he was only a few points away from being right to Sulley) It's basically Disney/Pixar growling at Eisner! XD Ew...A musical??? LOL So THAT explain's Mike's running gag joke! I didn't get it at first. Thank You! rofl! Yes, Eisner was responsible for all of the uh, "movies" you mentioned! If he hadn't been fired, there would have been like, "Cinderella 5: Where the Hell is Maleficent to Come Put Us Out of Our Misery When We Need It", seriously. According to Eisner, feature films in theaters lost too much money, and direct-to-DVD was where the money was to be made. I can't say for sure that Waternoose's character in MI was based on Eisner; I just know that a LOT of the Pixar folks who were working on MI at the time didn't appreciate him micromanaging THEIR movie, telling them how it should be, and that prior to that final script, Waternoose either had no role, or a very minor one, and was a neutral character in the version where he DID show up, and then in that last version, he's the REAL Bad Guy...and he also just happens to be the CEO of a major company. I do know that he is at least ONE of the people responsible for making Randall the "overt villain", because he insisted that MI HAD to have a villain that everyone would hate, who would get some awful comeuppance in the end. And you're right-there is probably a whole lot more symbolic references to Eisner in that movie that aren't quite as obvious, though I'm not sure that Peter Docter was that opposed to turning Randall into a "bad guy", himself. Had he not had a villain in Up, and disposed of HIM in a rather nasty manner, too, I'd have put the blame totally on Eisner for Randall's role changing from stick-n-the-mud-turned-hero into the one everyone THINKS is the villain. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 17, 2013 14:01:23 GMT -5
I've never seen "UP" so I dont really know what to say there. Who was the villain and what did he do? How did he get killed? Oh. God...Cinderella 5. I'd probably would have to kill myself if they made anymore Disney Princess sequels. But that title you mentioned was pure GOLD! Rofl The villain of Up is a once-famous zoologist-adventurer named Charles Muntz, who had been the childhood hero of one of the protagonists, octogenarian Karl. Mr. Muntz himself is over 100 years in the story, and lost credibility as a scientist many decades ago when he insisted that a primitive bird, long believed extinct, still existed in the remote Venezuelan Amazon. After being shamed and ridiculed by his fellow scientists, he left civilization to live in that remote area, determined to find a specimen of this bird and bring it back as proof of its existence, and to have his reputation restored. Long story short, Karl sells balloons for a living, and when he was about to lose his house to the state, he hooked a whole lot of balloons to the house to simply float it way, but unknowingly wound up with a hitchhiker, a young Boy Scout named Russell who was trying to earn a badge by doing a good deed for an elderly person. The house floats across the Atlantic and lands on top of one of the strange rock formations, called "tepuis", in the Venezuelan rain forest, one that just happens to be the home base of Karl Muntz, who had been believed to be dead all this time. Russell actually finds one of the rare birds that Muntz is looking for, which he names "Kevin"(it's a female, though). Muntz at first welcomes them, but when he finds out that they've seen the bird and assumes that THEY have come to find it and take it back to civilization and get credit for its discovery, he is determined to stop them...by any means necessary. There is a very strong "animal rights" message in the movie that scientists to capture animals for study are BAD. Muntz has bred a pack of dogs to help search for the bird, and invented collars which translate dog barks and noises into English. The dogs are super-intelligent and can do things like cook, drive, and even fly planes. Most of the dogs are mean and vicious, and they just happen to be of breeds like Rottweilers and Dobermans, that many people perceive of as "vicious" or "bad" breeds, while the one good dog is a Golden Retriever...yeah, no stereotyping THERE! Just how Muntz would have even come across purebred dogs in the remote Amazon, or why he chose breeds that are NOT hunting dogs for the purpose of hunting a BIRD, rather than dogs like Pointers or even Standard Poodles, is a mystery, but then I guess Peter Docter figured that Muntz had to have some vicious killer dogs and that most bird dog breeds don't fit people's image of vicious dogs, so Rottweilers, Bulldogs and Dobermans it was. Anyway, there's a big climactic battle between Karl and Muntz, and Muntz falls over a huge cliff to his death. Peter Docter has admitted that he killed that character because he didn't know of anything else to do with him or how to resolve this conflict between the two old men without having one of them die! Really. He was like, "I don't know what else to do with him, so why not just kill him?" That's why I was happy that he didn't direct MU and why I hope he won't direct any upcoming sequels, either. I would bet that his handling of Randall's fate was very much along those same lines. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 17, 2013 17:47:57 GMT -5
Actually, in some ways, Randall and Muntz's stories ARE similar, because both have been ignored and ridiculed by their peers and are trying to earn credibility. With Muntz, he's trying to regain what credibility he's lost, and with Randall, he's just trying to get credibility, period. Both are portrayed as obsessed with that goal to the point of being willing to do anything to attain it.
I found absolutely NOTHING "silly" about what happened to Randall, anymore than Scar's death-being torn apart and eaten by hyenas-was "silly" in "The Lion King". To people who, out of their own ignorance of different American cultures, thought that the people in the trailer were just dumb "hillbillies", it was silly; stupid hicks thinking that was a "gator" and wanting it gone. HOWEVER, that was not actually the case. Those were NOT "hillbillies". Hillbillies do NOT talk like that, and they DO NOT live in swamps! They're called "HILLbillies" for a reason-they live in the MOUNTAINS, i.e., back in the hills, as in the Appalachians. Those people were Cajuns, who live in Louisiana on the bayous, and Cajuns EAT alligators like most of us eat hamburger or chicken. Here in the South, the favorite tool for dispatching reptiles of any kind at close range is a SHOVEL, btw. I know, and have seen first-hand, what a shovel can do to flesh and bone, too many times, and logically there's no way that Randall would have gotten out of that encounter without at least some very traumatic injuries. We see him go down, apparently unconscious, meaning that at that point he cannot fight back or run away or "blend", and we see the woman continue to rain down blows upon him with both the flat side and the more-lethal edge of the shovel before the scene cuts away, and there's no way in my mind that I can simply think, "oh, he's like Wile E. Coyote, he'll just walk it off like nothing happened". Pixar doesn't portray their characters as living in that "Loony Toons" universe, where no one can really be hurt, let alone die. We're made to feel that Mike, Sulley and Boo are all in real danger of something bad happening to them. There's nothing to indicate that they are immortal, otherwise the whole Door Vault chase scene would have been rather pointless. If Randall cannot be hurt, neither could they, but if we're supposed to believe that THEY are in any danger, the same would apply to HIM in his situation. The people in that trailer did not want that "gator" out of their home; they wanted to butcher and EAT him! Now, people who are familiar with Louisiana and that culture in particular know this, and recognize that accent. I do not believe that there would have been any point in having that scene take place on a Louisiana bayou, or having that kid, especially, speak with a Cajun accent, UNLESS it was to drop that hint to the people who recognized the setting and the accent that Randall was going to be eaten, just as Scar was eaten by the hyenas. We don't SEE him ripped apart, just the shadow of him battling the hyenas, and I suppose that there would be people who would say, "Oh, Scar beat the hyenas and got away", but people who know wild animals and understand that relationship that really exists between lions and spotted hyenas know that a lion that's attacked by a large clan of hyenas is as good as dead. Again, if MI had been treated in a very Loony Toons way, and it had already been indicated, "hey, these characters can't be hurt or killed or even feel pain for very long", it would be different, but there's no reason to give one character the Daffy Duck/Wile E. Coyote treatment if you aren't going to do that for the rest. We NEVER really see ANY of the Disney or Pixar villains actually DIE, except for Maleficent in dragon form, but she's a Dark Fae, one of the Unseely Court, essentially a demon, so she's not really a mortal being at all. With all the others, those scenes simply cut or fade out before we see their actual demise, or else it's shown as "shadow play", as is the case with Randall, so we're spared the gory details. We never see Muntz's remains splattered all over the rocks below in "Up". We don't NEED to, because logically we should know what would happen once he fell. We don't see the birds actually tearing Hopper apart or swallowing him, but we don't need to see THAT, either, because we know that birds EAT insects. We don't see Syndrome's body parts go flying everywhere once he's sucked into that jet engine, and if ANY Pixar villain might have actually managed to escape what would seem to be a really gruesome fate, it would be HIM, not Randall, because he has access to that Zero Point Energy thing which could generate a force field around him. Randall had nothing like that, and once unconscious, he would have been at the absolute mercy of people who thought of him only in terms of meat for the freezer and a hide to tan and turn into something useful. BTW, in theaters, a LOT of people laughed hysterically when Syndrome got sucked into that jet engine and found THAT scene very funny and silly, especially in light of what Edna had warned of about capes. I really do believe that Docter wanted us to believe that Randall was butchered and eaten, just like he wanted us to believe that Muntz got splattered on the rocks, and Brad Byrd wanted us to believe that Syndrome was ground up like a frog in a blender. We don't need to actually see the gory details for those things to be inferred.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 20, 2013 13:15:15 GMT -5
Really? I hadn't heard about that! Is Scanlon one of the directors who is leaving, or has anyone said? I hope not, since I really feel like he's one of the best bets to continue Randall's story and give him that "heel-face turn" that the Circle 7 writers allegedly had in mind for him. I really would love to see that script made into a movie, though, because it sounds like exactly what most of us here want to see happen, for Randall, Mike, Sulley and Boo, and I would love for the two main script writers, Bob Hilgenberg and Rob Muir, get credit for it, and not see their work simply languish, although I know that sort of thing happens all the time in world of tv and film. If the script is as good as those who've seen it say it is, it deserves a new life. pitbulllady Just wondering Pitbullady, but what makes you feel Dan Scanlon is one of the best bets to give Randall a "Heel Face Turn"? All I know is that he directed the first "Cars" movie. And in that, there was technically no villain. Unless you count that Green Car whose name I've forgotten... XD Also Lightning McQueen kind of DID start off as an arrogant punk who was obsessed with winning and got lost in a different area and became a better person from it, I guess. Did he work on any other movies though? Well, there's the Pixar record you just mentioned. There was no villain in either Cars or MU, although Scanlon didn't direct Cars. John Lasseter did and the late Joe Ranft did. Scanlon just wrote part of the screenplay. He also wrote a little-known Indie film called Tracy, which I have not seen, which Crazy Diamond can tell you more about, but I believe it does also feature a "heel-face turn" of a major character. Scanlon does not seem hung up on the jaded concept from Western animation that individuals are either "good" or "evil" and that an "evil" character can't change for the better, nor is he hung up on that notion that a movie MUST have a "villain", a Bad Guy. Peter Docter, on the other hand, DOES seem to believe that having a villain, one who is very unlikeable, is a prerequisite for an animated movie, AND that the only way to deal with that individual is to kill them, not change them for the better. Based on what I've seen in Up and MI, it would be hard for me to believe that Docter would bother giving Randall a chance at a "heel-face turn", and if he did direct a real sequel to MI that showed Randall to be still alive, he'd most likely depict him as the classic two-dimensional cartoon villain who is now just evil for evil's sake, hell-bent on revenge, who has to be killed for certain this time. Scanlon's track record indicates that he'd be less likely to go that route, and he's already got a "feel" for the characters, having directed MU. His treatment of Randall's story in MU flew directly in the face of Docter's commentary on the MI DVD, that said that Randall was "probably one of those guys who was a bully since high school" and just never stopped being a bully, in other words, that Randall has always been evil and mean from the start, just a bad person from the moment he was born. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 20, 2013 16:35:24 GMT -5
Docter was one of the writers on MU, though I don't know how much influence he actually had. I haven't read any interviews with him since it was announced, and I really just think that in terms of him being given credit as a writer, it was mostly because he created the returning characters. It doesn't seem that he had a whole of "say" in the script since it does not follow the "formula" of his two previous movies. Scanlon seems to have been the main one deciding on the portrayal of the characters.
pitbulllady
|
|