What would WALT DISNEY think about a redeemed Randall?

[randallsnape7]

I would like to say that yesterday, I saw my DVD movie of "Saving Mr. Banks" 2 times in a row (I and my Mom absolutely LOVE this movie, as we saw it once in the theater). As I was watching the climax of the film, where Walt Disney says to P.L. Travers that moviegoers everywhere will see George Banks saved... I was really moved - almost as if I was hearing myself speak.

The profound quote Walt says is:

"I swear, every time a person walks into a movie house, from Leicester Square to Kansas City, the will see George Banks being saved. They will love him and his kids. They will weep for his cares. They will wring their hands when he loses his job. And when he flies that kite . . .  oh, Mrs. Travers, they will rejoice. They will sing. In movie houses all over the world, in the minds and hearts of my kids and other kids, and mothers and fathers for generations to come . . .  George Banks will be honored. George Banks will be redeemed. George Banks and all that he stands for will be saved. Now, maybe not in life, but in imagination . . .  because that's what we storytellers do. We restore order with imagination. We instill hope again and again and again."

Now, I personally loved this quote so much, I typed it up on a private computer file and printed the words to have in my house for future reference and encouragement. I can't help but wonder how Walt Disney himself would feel about our desire to see redemption for Randall Boggs. I actually think redemption itself has been a key missing ingredient in many recent Disney films for the past decade. . .  and I think that if audiences around the world could see Randall being redeemed, it would touch many people's hearts and lives. I think that Walt Disney would dearly love a movie like that.

I don't know how you, personally, will take this quote from Disney, but I loved it and wanted it to be on here.

[pitbulllady]

It's really hard to say what Walt Disney himself would think of the notion of a character that most people considered a "villain" being redeemed. It certainly never happened in any of the movies made while HE himself-Disney, that is-was still alive. Indeed, the term "Disney Villain" has come to mean a character who is nasty to the core, who comes across as totally beyond any redemption, and who gets some notable comeuppance near the end of the movie, usually at the hands of a hero, and often involving the villain's demise. In Disney's movies, there were no "blurred lines" between who was good and who was bad, you KNEW, right away, who was who. There was only clear-cut "black and white", never any "gray" characters. Mr. Banks was never a "villain", a "bad guy", so in Walt Disney's order of the universe, he didn't need "redeeming" so much as simply having his eyes opened to the things in life that really mattered most, his wife and children, as opposed to his job. He starts out, in Mary Poppins, as a very stressed-out guy who is obsessed with finances and that obsession blinds him to what his real treasures are, but I never got the impression that anyone was supposed to feel that he was just plain BAD, and hope for him to be punished, preferably in some horrific fashion, whereas the Disney under the rule of Michael Eisner did seem to make it pretty clear that they wanted everyone to literally HATE Randall Boggs and not feel any sympathy for him at all, and to find delight and humor in what was his alluded death because he was so vile and reprehensible. I do understand that in the movie, Saving Mr. Banks, there was emphasis on a conflict between the writer of the Mary Poppins books, and Walt Disney Studios, over their initial of Mr. Banks as a very cold individual who remained aloof to his family due to money and work taking precedence over everything else, and Mrs. Travers had a strong emotional view of that character because she'd based him on her own father, but I'm still not sure if I'd call him a "villain" or even much of an antagonist, since he largely was simply AWOL in his children's lives. It is easier for an audience to connect with someone who is a jerk becoming much less of a jerk, than with taking someone that we've been told is just a completely horrible person and turning them into someone audiences can now believe is a good person. Does that make any sense?

pitbulllady

[randallsnape7]

Yes, of course. I was never implying that I, Disney, or ANYONE thought of George Banks as a villain, bad guy, antagonist, etc. at all. I was simply emphasizing what I heard in the movie as proof that Walt Disney works differently from other writers and storytellers.

You MUST keep in mind (yeah, I know, most people would shake their heads in misery) that, um... basically from the time Monsters, Inc. was released to when 'Monsters University' came out last year - from 2001 to 2013, I had been tragically ignorant that Randall was ever INTENDED by Disney to be seen as a villain. I didn't really do any research on the film after its release, I never read any Monsters, Inc. Storybooks or Guidebooks, or anything like that, therefore I really hadn't a CLUE what other people had already said about Randall.


Yes, I went into the movie theater ALL THE WAY back in 2001 to see Monsters, Inc., I went in NOT expecting Randall to end up being used as a villain. In fact, I was SO convinced even then that my first innocent impression of Randall was true, that it did not really surprise me for Waternoose to emerge as the main villain responsible for it all by the end. I was expecting even back then for Randall to become friends with Mike and Sulley before the end, and was dismayed that this didn't happen. I guess compared to the majority of the world, my mind and general reactions/interpretations were completely off in left field.

I understand that all those villain facts you included at the end of your paragraph are supposed to make sense, but the truth is, I didn't actually buy a whole lot of 'Monsters, Inc.' merchandise while the movie was out, it wasn't any kind of vendetta against the movie for not showing Randall as a good guy - nor was I even CONSCIOUSLY thinking along those lines. I'm just saying that I didn't buy much other than 2-Disc Collector's Edition, and the Junior Novelization of 'Monsters, Inc., which I bought the same time as 'Star Wars: Jedi Apprentice #17 - The Only Witness'.

I remained 100% ignorant of the world's primary view of Randall being a jerk, because I simply didn't do a whole lot of online research on the film, and I regret to say that amongst my many DK Essential Guides, the Monsters, Inc., guide is not one I ever bought or looked at.

If Disney was wanting audiences to unanimously see Randall as a villain upon the very first showing of Monsters, Inc., I regret to say that I simply missed that boat entirely. Analogy: Imagine getting on a beautiful white cruise ship and going on a splendid cruise, with nothing but your own thoughts, thinking you're the only ship out at sea, but then.... 10 minutes after the ship docks and you get off, some person comes up and says "Sir... did you know there were actually 2 cruise ships out at sea during your voyage? The other was a hot magenta color, you couldn't have missed it. Everyone was looking at it... it made newspaper headlines!". I mean, what do you say to that, anyway?

Sorry... but Eisner failed miserably in wanting everyone to hate Randall. The path I walked was simply not the one trodden on by the majority.

[pitbulllady]

Mar 24, 2014 16:59:14 GMT -5 randallsnape7 said:

Yes, of course. I was never implying that I, Disney, or ANYONE thought of George Banks as a villain, bad guy, antagonist, etc. at all. I was simply emphasizing what I heard in the movie as proof that Walt Disney works differently from other writers and storytellers.

You MUST keep in mind (yeah, I know, most people would shake their heads in misery) that, um... basically from the time Monsters, Inc. was released to when 'Monsters University' came out last year - from 2001 to 2013, I had been tragically ignorant that Randall was ever INTENDED by Disney to be seen as a villain. I didn't really do any research on the film after its release, I never read any Monsters, Inc. Storybooks or Guidebooks, or anything like that, therefore I really hadn't a CLUE what other people had already said about Randall.


Yes, I went into the movie theater ALL THE WAY back in 2001 to see Monsters, Inc., I went in NOT expecting Randall to end up being used as a villain. In fact, I was SO convinced even then that my first innocent impression of Randall was true, that it did not really surprise me for Waternoose to emerge as the main villain responsible for it all by the end. I was expecting even back then for Randall to become friends with Mike and Sulley before the end, and was dismayed that this didn't happen. I guess compared to the majority of the world, my mind and general reactions/interpretations were completely off in left field.

I understand that all those villain facts you included at the end of your paragraph are supposed to make sense, but the truth is, I didn't actually buy a whole lot of 'Monsters, Inc.' merchandise while the movie was out, it wasn't any kind of vendetta against the movie for not showing Randall as a good guy - nor was I even CONSCIOUSLY thinking along those lines. I'm just saying that I didn't buy much other than 2-Disc Collector's Edition, and the Junior Novelization of 'Monsters, Inc., which I bought the same time as 'Star Wars: Jedi Apprentice #17 - The Only Witness'.

I remained 100% ignorant of the world's primary view of Randall being a jerk, because I simply didn't do a whole lot of online research on the film, and I regret to say that amongst my many DK Essential Guides, the Monsters, Inc., guide is not one I ever bought or looked at.

If Disney was wanting audiences to unanimously see Randall as a villain upon the very first showing of Monsters, Inc., I regret to say that I simply missed that boat entirely. Analogy: Imagine getting on a beautiful white cruise ship and going on a splendid cruise, with nothing but your own thoughts, thinking you're the only ship out at sea, but then.... 10 minutes after the ship docks and you get off, some person comes up and says "Sir... did you know there were actually 2 cruise ships out at sea during your voyage? The other was a hot magenta color, you couldn't have missed it. Everyone was looking at it... it made newspaper headlines!". I mean, what do you say to that, anyway?

Sorry... but Eisner failed miserably in wanting everyone to hate Randall. The path I walked was simply not the one trodden on by the majority.

I think the fact that you "missed the boat" regarding Randall supposedly being the "villain" of MI is a good indicator that he was NOT originally supposed to have been the "bad guy" at all, and enough of his original personality and PIXAR'S intentions for him showed through that it made it difficult, if not impossible, for really intuitive people to "buy" that whole "villain" spiel. All the books, etc., seemed like Disney was trying too hard to push that notion down everyone's throat because they realized that a lot of people weren't seeing Randall that way at all.

I already knew about Randall before I ever saw MI. I never did, in fact, see MI in theaters, as I had too much going on to take time to go see a movie. I had just lost my grandfather and now had to keep my invalid grandmother when I wasn't at work. I fell and broke my foot in October, a month before MI came out, and had to go through physical therapy for that. I also, to be honest, was not impressed with the tv trailers for MI that I'd seen, which made it look like a CGI rip-off of a Nicktoon I'd really loved, "Ahhhh! Real Monsters". It was only after it had long left theaters, and I'd become part of the Lilo and Stitch fandom, that I discovered Randall, in a manner of speaking, through fanfiction.net. I was reading a really funny L&S story involving Experiment 625, the lazy, sandwich-obsessive, snarky guy who preceded Stitch(this was before the tv series, btw, and that character has appeared in the "Disney Adventures" comics), who was accidentally kidnapped by Randall and taken to the Monster World. Mike, it seemed, was assigned to be Lilo's Comedian, and while Mike came in her room, Randall, while "invisible", sneaked back into the factory but had nabbed 626, thinking HE was a monster(which technically he was)and wanting to use him as a "shield" in case the authorities tried to nab Randall, and things got crazy from there. The story was really funny and everyone was in perfect character, but the author lost interest and never finished it. It was enough to pique my interest in this "Randall Boggs" character, though, whom I only knew was a monster and a character in MI, who had an attitude, and had somehow gotten in trouble and wound up in the Human World...oh, and by the way, Mike's night doesn't go well in that story, either. One of the Disney books revealed that Mike has a severe phobia of dogs, so who does he run into? Stitch, an alien blue dog with way more attitude that Randall ever had! Jumba mistakes Mike for one of Hamsterviel's minions sent to find him, and they tie Mike up, while he's threatening to sue the whole family. But anyway, I had to get the MI DVD to watch it and see what this "Randall Boggs" was all about, and I was really surprised at what happened to him. I knew he'd wound up in the Human World, but the fanfic didn't indicate that he was BAD, or that he'd been thrown into the Human World by anyone. For me, that scene was probably much worse than for a lot of people because most people heard a vaguely Southern accent and though, "ah, bunch of stupid hillbillies", which diminished the knowledge of what that scene really entailed. I have traveled extensively throughout the southern US, and I knew that those people were NOT "hillbillies", but were Cajuns, living in a camp trailer on a Louisiana bayou, and having JUST returned from Louisiana, I KNEW what being mistaken for a "gator" meant down there. Most people just figured that those folks wanted Randall out of their home, but fail to notice that the woman actually says, "Come HERE" to Randall, because she welcomes his presence, so she can EAT HIM! Even though I knew Randall had done some bad things by this point, I did not think he deserved THAT, especially when, just a few minutes later, I see Waternoose get taken to jail, even though HE had masterminded the whole thing!

pitbulllady

[randallsnape7]

ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: Being "mistaken" for someone or something else by some crackpot nobody from other-world is a bad, bad, BAD way to end a character's role in a movie. Like I said, it REEKS of those D- end tropes that clutter TV Cartoons. Our time and emotional investment is in RANDALL, not these Cajuns, so what they actually THINK about him in the story doesn't amount to anything. I might even go so far as to argue that it's the most poorly written scene in the entire series. The movie goes from being this epic journey to this freaky sitcom-style setting of 'HARDEE-HAR-HAR'... Randall gets MISTAKEN for a gator. (Neon sign lights up: Laughter and applause) I mean, COME ON! Do the filmmakers really expect me to stoop to such a level?

I've seen enough cartoons to know that being mistaken for someone or something else is nothing more than an excuse to make a beloved character suffer sadistic humiliation. Even when it's supposed to be in the context of punishment for a character's bad actions, that doesn't make it right. It's a stupid trope to use.

The ONLY way that stupid stunt can make sense in my mind is if Randall's actions in the third 'Monsters' film are pivotal, and they can only be pivotal if they are in doubt. Once Snape killed Dumbledore at the end of 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince', his role kind of goes on hiatus while Harry, Ron, and Hermione are on the run all over London and the English countryside in a cat-and-mouse chase against the Death Eaters to destroy Voldemort's Horcruxes, which last through almost ALL of Part 1, and the beginning of Part 2, and Snape REMAINS in the sidelines until Harry, Ron, and Hermione return to Hogwarts, where the final battle ensues, Voldemort kills Snape, and Harry views Snape's memories. Once this happens, the story becomes his. Snape suddenly takes center stage.

I hope and pray that Randall's role is simply on hiatus, so he can return full-force in the climax of 'Monsters 3', and rise as a hero, as well as a friend to Mike and Sulley.

[pitbulllady]

I have no emotional investment in those particular Cajuns, but my point is that this scene was meant to indicate that Randall DIED. A lot of people didn't "get" that, because they did not recognize the accent of the people in the trailer as a Cajun accent, nor did they pay attention to the backdrop, with the live oaks and cypress trees draped in Spanish moss and the reeds and cattails, indicating that this was a swamp on either the Gulf Coast or southeastern Coastal Plain. Most people hear an accent that sounds even vaguely Southern and they think, "HILLBILLY", because Hollywood and the mainstream media has indoctrinated the populace to believe that all people in the South ARE "hillbillies", when that word means something very, very specific, in terms of locale and ethnic origins. Hillbillies would have simply wanted to get rid of an "alligator", get it out of the house(as if there were alligators where hillbillies live, which there aren't), while Cajuns and people living along the Louisiana bayous would see an alligator getting into their home as free FOOD, an opportunity too good to pass up, and that makes all the difference in the world regarding what Peter Docter probably wanted everyone to think about Randall's fate. I KNEW that the people were NOT "hillbillies" at all, but again, the average person hearing that accent simply knows that people somewhere in the South talk like that, and to them, Southern=hillbilly. That is why they found it funny, because they just assumed that Randall would get what they considered a well-deserved beat-down, then be hauled outside and turned loose, that he'd just walk it off like a Loony Toons character and be none the worse for wear. It did not occur to most of the viewers that we were supposed to think that Randall was killed, but I cannot think of any reasoning behind having people with a Cajun accent mistake him for an alligator, an animal that they EAT, and to even show the background as a coastal swamp, typical of Louisiana.

Now I definitely hope that turns out to be untrue, that he DID NOT die, even though those people WERE trying to kill him, that somehow he escaped and survived, as slim as those chances are. The fact that Dan Scanlon, who directed MU, showed Randall in a completely different light from how he was depicted in MI is a very good sign. Scanlon did not have to do that. In fact, he didn't have to put Randall in that movie at all, let alone give him speaking lines and some degree of character development. MU's central story would not have been affected one way or the other. That, along with the fact that now even DISNEY seems to be back-peddling on their previous descriptions of Randall and that they are even showing him in a more positive light than MU is a very good thing. It might not be proof that they have future, and good, plans for Randall, but it is a step in that direction.

pitbulllady

[randallsnape7]

Uh-huh... uh-huh... Hector Barbossa also DIED at the end of "Pirates of the Carribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl", as well. I SAW it happen... and look what happened to HIM at the end of "Dead Man's Chest"? LOL

TIA DALMA: "If you are to brave de weird... and HAUNTED shores... at World's End... den... you will need a Captain... who KNOWS dose waters." (Broad grin)

Step!..... Step!..... Step!..... (music builds)

BARBOSSA: "So tell me... what's become of my ship?" (Grins broadly as he cheerfully takes a bite out of an apple. Pirates theme starts to play as the end credits roll.)

DIRECTED BY

GORE VERBINSKI

It was because he was NEEDED in the plot of "At World's End"! Ta-da!!!!!

[pitbulllady]

Mar 24, 2014 22:19:43 GMT -5 randallsnape7 said:

Uh-huh... uh-huh... Hector Barbossa also DIED at the end of "Pirates of the Carribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl", as well. I SAW it happen... and look what happened to HIM at the end of "Dead Man's Chest"? LOL

TIA DALMA: "If you are to brave de weird... and HAUNTED shores... at World's End... den... you will need a Captain... who KNOWS dose waters." (Broad grin)

Step!..... Step!..... Step!..... (music builds)

BARBOSSA: "So tell me... what's become of my ship?" (Grins broadly as he cheerfully takes a bite out of an apple. Pirates theme starts to play as the end credits roll.)

DIRECTED BY

GORE VERBINSKI

It was because he was NEEDED in the plot of "At World's End"! Ta-da!!!!!

Wasn't Barbarosa brought back from the dead by magic, though?

I want deeply and strongly to believe that Randall is alive. I had doubts, to be honest, at some points, but MU has renewed that hope. It would actually seem a vile and mean-spirited thing for Pixar to show us that shy, eager, helpful little guy in MU and then just kill him off, not give him a chance to even regain any of that person he was in MU.

pitbulllady