|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 10, 2014 20:31:21 GMT -5
Let me ask, Marsh-how old are you? How much real-life experience in the work-place, how much experience have you actually HAD, first-hand, with superiors like Waternoose? And without resorting to your pal Wikipedia, how much do you understand of the Milgram Experiment? Next question, do you support the concept of lynching and vigilantism, do you believe that all people should have the right to punish anyone they consider to have done wrong, in any way that they see fit? pitbulllady My age is irrelevant. What does it matter? My argument was "Even if he's only doing it because he's being ordered, he's clearly getting a high amount of sick enjoyment out of the bad things he's doing". Wikipedia was one of three sites I looked up, it being for the purpose of being a brief overview, the other two being specifically because I knew I couldn't trust Wikipedia. So no, I did not "resort" to my "pal Wikipedia". Enough to understand it doesn't work for a defense in the situation, for reasons I already explained and reiterated above. I think when someone tries to kill another person three to four times and the alternate option is to be a complete moron and let him go free so he can try and kill them again they're justified to get him out of the picture. NO, your age is NOT "irrelevant", actually. Your age and experience say a lot about you, what you know, first-hand, and what you have yet to experience. I used to think, or rather, FEEL, exactly as you do know when I was a stupid, naive kid. My views of how things work, of human nature, of workplace dynamics and my own fallibilities were just like yours. I was incapable of doing something horribly wrong(or so my ignorant self believed), was immune to the influences of people like Waternoose because I was such a perfect individual, with my little halo and all, and I deeply believed that people who did bad things should be punished by anyone who got their hands on them. I supported vigilante "justice" wholehearted, just like YOU do now. If someone did wrong, get 'em back. If that meant that anyone should be allowed to kill someone that they don't like, fine. Kill 'em. Just like you're advocating for now. Get them "out of the picture", just like you said. Now, I'm more than half a century in age. I've experienced things that taught me more about human nature and MY own nature than I ever thought I'd learn, and it totally changed that perspective. Justice is one thing. What Mike and Sulley was an act of revenge, plain and simple. It would be considered MURDER in our own legal system. You do understand that revenge IS the most common motive in murder, right? But you're OK with that, you're fine with lynching people, which is exactly what Mike and Sulley did to Randall. That says far more about your character than it does about Randall's, that you are completely in favor of a lawless society in which anyone can do whatever they please to get even with someone else. It is NOT self-defense, so do not even try that argument with me! I have a valid CWP in two different states, have taken extensive courses on self-defense and on the legalities of using lethal force to defend oneself or ones property of the life of another person, and I know for a FACT that the actions of Mike and Sulley were NOT "self-defense". But you say you're OK with lynching people, which is exactly what they did. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by randallsnape7 on Aug 10, 2014 23:11:13 GMT -5
I'm saying point-blank that Randall is NOT by nature a killer, nor a kidnapper. He NEVER was. He was a victim of circumstance - a long, horrible chain of bad circumstances.
Randall's actions are, psychologically, the DIRECT result of TONS of stress, sleep deprivation, and almost CERTAINLY, death threats. Yes, genius... WATERNOOSE WANTED RANDALL DEAD. HE DID NOT CARE ABOUT HIM... AT ALL.
The ONLY reason Randall wanted Sulley gone was because HE NEVER GOT THE CHANCE TO KNOW HIM. Not the way MIKE did. Wouldn't you call that a problem? These guys are on a different page, and if Randall knew what Sulley REALLY thought out at the lake, he wouldn't have been such a patsy for Waternoose all those years back, especially once he learned that Waternoose wanted Sulley dead too.
Sick enjoyment? You do NOT have proof of that, and what makes you think he would try to kill Sulley again? Do you not remember Randall's inspirational poster in his college dorm? "THE WINDS OF CHANGE: Can you hear them?", followed by his line "Do you hear that? It's the winds of change...". Randall is insinuating and expressing NOT just his desire to become the number one scarer (which, by the way, Sulley will have to give to him in 'Monsters 3' to complete that plotpoint), but he is expressing his heart's DEEPEST yearning for his life's entire fortune and direction to change from bad to good - which means, someone who will be a friend to him and embrace him unconditionally. He wanted that to happen in college, and he genuinely wanted that friend to be Mike. Once Mike fetches Randall in the next film, it would be for Randall to divulge his heart's deepest emotions to Mike, so the two will reconcile and forgive one another, and then return to Monsters, Inc. to save every monster from certain doom.
To cap it all off, there is evidence in MI that Randall was secretly protecting Boo all along. (The main one being that he saves Boo from falling to her death in the Door Vault.) Give the guy the benefit of the doubt, for heaven's sake! He weeps intensely in private... he keeps his true self shut from the rest of the world so far, because he genuinely feels he can't trust anyone. Johnny betrays him, Waternoose betrays him, and Mike ignores him. SOMEONE is going to have to reach out to him and show that they genuinely care... ONLY then will Randall finally be able to reveal his most naked feelings and emotions to that person (and I STILL say it's Mike).
I hate to break it to you, but I can clearly understand the conclusions Randall came to, and the deep-seated emotions he's sitting on. He shows ALL the signs of someone who is hurting deeply inside, but cannot find a single soul to tell. That doesn't make Randall a bad person... it makes him human.
|
|
|
Post by randallsnape7 on Aug 14, 2014 21:43:06 GMT -5
HOLD ON...
I just picked up a statement you made back there, Marsh. You think exterior ENTHUSIASM is the determining factor in who is the bigger baddie? Randall is 25 years old... he's a KID who should be living a life free of controlling manipulators, for crying out loud! You prove time and time again - REPEATEDLY - at just what an EXPERT Waternoose is at being a master manipulator, remaining all calm and composed while fanning the flames of Sulley and Randall's little rivalry. The BOTTOM LINE is that Waternoose needed a fall guy. If for some reason, he couldn't frame Randall, he'd frame Sulley. If he couldn't frame Sulley, he'd frame Randall. AGAIN, this is how megalomaniacs work: They ANTICIPATE the authorities finding out 7-10 steps ahead before it actually happens, and so they play their cards right, and plan their words carefully when dealing with people so they won't seem suspicious. They may go round and round and sidestep 30+ times or more to KEEP themselves out of the line of fire (and, according to your comments on Randall, it is clear to me he's done a VERY good job), and THAT is the red flag that lets you know there's more going on than meets the eyes. There almost always is...
The true villain is hardly EVER the one that talks the loudest or moves the fastest or the one with the human struggle (like Randall)... it's the calm, composed one who treats everything like it's just another chess piece on the board to be moved at will that's the real evil.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 14, 2014 22:10:25 GMT -5
Let us not forget that Mike and Sulley BOTH joked around and laughed as they were intentionally sending Randall to his possible death, but they're "good guys", right? And just because Mike and Sulley both have demonstrated a tendency to steal whatever they want(Mike steals door key cards in both movies, and he and Sulley stole, and boasted about stealing, an entire DOOR STATION in "Party Central"), breaking and entering(not to mention vandalism on that same property), they're still great, wonderful, perfect guys, right? But I guess, Marsh, if lynching people and murdering people in revenge is fine with you, what's a bit of theft and vandalism and breaking and entering?
pitbulllady
|
|
marsh
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
Posts: 28
|
Post by marsh on Aug 15, 2014 1:58:48 GMT -5
If a police chief tells a cop to kill a civilian, and the cop chases the civilian for miles, then stabs him so he'll bleed out rather than shooting him, all the while cracking one liners and laughing, "he was following orders" is not a proper defense against the accusation that the person is insane and horrible.
If you're trying to argue an "Everyone makes mistakes" angle, exactly why should Randall's four (five...six...) mistakes be dismissed but not Mike and Sulley's supposed one?
"Kill someone they don't like" That is never implied by my post and is not what happened in the film.
As opposed to Randall, who makes it clear through pre-killing and pre-torture monologue that he's doing what he's doing because Sulley had the audacity to do slightly better at his job than him. Which is...still revenge, I'm pretty sure. Ridiculously petty revenge for an imagined wrong, but still.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If it's that it's murder in our's therefore it's murder in there's, own legal system also doesn't throw people into harsh enviorments in another dimension/section of the world for punishments, and therefore the monster legal system is extremely unlikely to be identical to ours. If it's that that automatically makes it something to be frowned upon, our own legal system also doesn't recognize "I was following orders" as a get out of repercussions free card a nice chunk of the time.
Until either Pixar releases a statement, or a sequel confirms something, "lynching" is the wrong word to use.
I specified for a reason. I did not say I was okay with "lynching"; I said, in the circumstances, where Randall had proven himself to be very desperate to kill them (again: FOUR TIMES. Three times were within the span of fifteen minutes), and they did not have another practical option, I found it okay. Don't act like Randall was a completely extinguished threat, him getting out of Sulley's hands effectively means they're screwed again. They don't have anything to restrain the guy with, they need both hands to get out of there and they need to get out of there, and letting go of him would be a moronic decision that would bring them back to square one. Plus, it's a movie: We know for a fact that Mike and Sulley have done nothing, and we know for a fact Randall has done four horrible things at this point.
Tons of people around the world deal with lack of sleep (he pulled one all nighter) and a lot of stress. They don't become psychos. Hell, looking at supplementary materials shows that prominent Pixar members themselves have had to deal with massive amounts of stress and sleepless nights, and they haven't killed anyone.
Citation needed on death threats. To him, I mean. We already know he dishes them out at the drop of a hat.
Please point me to the part of my posts where I said or implied Waternoose cared about Randall.
They've been working together (right next to each other) long enough to be close to be breaking an all time record. He got the chance. And he shouldn't need to know the guy's inner thoughts and worries to know that killing him is wrong.
How on Earth are screen shots, actions, and dialogue directly from the movie not proof? Everything about the murder scenes just screams "enjoying this".
The fact that he tries four times, shows no remorse after any of them, and absolutely nothing has changed is a pretty good indicator he'd try again.
Yes, I remember the background detail. It has absolutely no effect on his willingness to kill people and laugh while doing it, but I remember it.
And again: Monsters is not a planned franchise, they did not plan any throughout themes. And, really, if it was that important, they'd actually mention it or something. The thing's a background detail on the level with the Pizza Planet truck; I didn't even notice it was there when I watched it. Seriously, that is not how you do arc words.
Protip for Randall: Killing people is a bad way to make friends. When people openly try to better their standing with you, turning them away is not a good way to make friends. When the guy who you did one bad thing to ten years ago and the guy you've never met before in your life start to work next to you, mocking them is a bad way to patch the gap. When you get assigned someone to work with and everyone else in your work place seems to have no problem making friends with the people they were assigned to work with, death threats and screaming are not a good way to make friends. These are not complicated things you must know the difficult inner workings of friendship to be aware of.
Monsters 3: Not confirmed, not hinted, and if it did happen would need to be at least five years after U, heavily implying more making up stuff as they go along.
Boo's just pulled down immediately, it looks absolutely nothing close to slipping or Sulley losing his grip, his arm doesn't move the slightest bit until she's gone and it would make absolutely no sense for her to just fall the way she does if his arm's in the same position that was perfectly fine two seconds ago. She's very clearly jerked out of his arm, then Randall shows up with a very smug smile on his face; it pretty clear it's implying he pulled her. She didn't "fall".
Of course, either way, even if she did fall by accident (which she didn't), that doesn't mean jack. Mike and Sulley were already heading to her room, why in the hell would he feel the need to circumvent that, murdering them in the process? Especially considering, if it hadn't been for him making them run, they could have just called the door down like any normal day at work instead of needing all this death defying door chase nonsense. And he's heading towards the exit to the door vault once he gets her, instead of her door like Mike and Sulley were.
To give him the "benefit of the doubt" would imply there was doubt to begin with. There was none.
Again, you need proof. I could also say he has a Sulley and Mike dartboard, which he plays every time he's alone until he bullseyes whatever their most sensitive area is, and it'd have just as much credibility as what you're saying right now. Except, mine'd actually have a bit more, since it actually follows his actual personality in the film.
Johnny was like ten years ago, he never sees it happen for Waternoose and it happens after all the murder attempts and general horrible attitude (second time mentioning this), and Mike was, also, ten years ago. If he's so desperate for their friendship back, why doesn't he try starting it up instead of waiting for Mike? And no, scaring him then mocking him is not trying to start their friendship back up.
So many signs that never happen and are never implied to happen.
I think it's a determining factor in who's a bad person and who thinks the plan will work, yes.
No, I prove that Randall is enjoying doing horrible things. Waternoose manipulating him is an angle completely made up and not supported by the film at all. You still haven't brought out anything to support it other than insisting scenes be viewed from an angle despite no prompting from the movie. And no, don't say him "betraying" him is proof of his: the guy had already screwed up on getting Boo, and the scream extractor was broken. The plan was in shambles at that point. And selling someone out does not equal manipulation to begin with.
Proof. Please. Any proof Pixar actually wants me to look at the film from this angle. Actually, I watched the movie's commentary, and there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of Waternoose manipulating Randall. A good amount of talk of Randall being a jerk, and dangerous, though. And specifically talking about Randall's "comeuppance", which is pretty much the last word that would ever be used in the situation you're describing.
What human stuggle? The one where the guy next to him does the terrible crime of being better than him?
Also, Hopper, Syndrome, Chick, Pixar has made plenty of villains that "talk the loudest" and "move the fastest".
Calm? Waternoose spends pretty much the whole movie either disappointed, resigned, vaguely ticked, or full on ticked.
Again, as does Randall. The script outright specifies "evil chuckle" at one point. He just does it more, after worse things, for ridiculously petty reasons.
Please point to me the part of my posts where I said Mike and Sulley were perfect. Actually, please point to me how this is at all relevant to the point of the argument, the point being that Randall's a bad person. The good guys doing something vaguely bad (like ten years ago) does not negate the villain doing things that are horrible. This whole argument is like saying Chick Hicks isn't a bad person because Lightning didn't like the rusted cars. Muntz isn't bad because Carl saved his house instead of Kevin. Hopper isn't bad because Flik lied to the colony. Sid wasn't bad because Woody tried to knock Buzz behind the desk. That is, they're completely disconnected, and a logical fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Aug 15, 2014 15:26:21 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, Marsh, anyone who actually believes that vigilantism is great, that it's fine to lynch people because they did something wrong, who does not believe that people should have due process, THAT is a bad person! Your attitude towards Randall actually does reflect how you view real people, real situations, whether or not you realize it. Sadly, your attitude is very typical of young people, who have yet to really experience the harsh realities of life and carry around this "get even with 'em" mentality; if someone does you wrong, hit them back, harder, punish them yourself, however you see fit, screw any justice system. For someone like that to call anyone else "bad" is like the pot calling the kettle black.
pitbulllady
|
|
marsh
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
Posts: 28
|
Post by marsh on Aug 15, 2014 18:03:05 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, Marsh, anyone who actually believes that vigilantism is great, Which I never said. Which I never said. And lynch is still the wrong word. Which I never said. I guess this must just tally up more horrible person points for Randall, cause I highly doubt he consulted a court before those four to six attempted murders. Even if everything you accused me of was true, it would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on Randall being a bad person, and there would be no reason I couldn't recognize him as such and point it out. And no, this is not the pot calling the kettle black as I have never tried to murder someone for doing better than me at something, have never kidnapped anyone, and have never tried to torture information out of someone, unlike Randall, who's supposed to be the subject of this argument to begin with. Even with the untrue accusations the worst I'm guilty of is thinking something.
|
|
|
Post by randallsnape7 on Aug 16, 2014 4:18:40 GMT -5
This is ridiculous, Marsh. You're a complete dolt. Your every Randall-bashing comment yells it. 'No doubt', you say? I NEVER took Randall's actions at face value, so yes, there IS doubt.... loads of it! RANDALL IS NOT A MURDERER, I tell you! HE IS NOT EVIL! You are SOOOO convinced that Randall is guilty of murder 4+ times or 6+ times, or whatever, you REFUSE to entertain the possibility that ALL of the audience's perceptions of Randall COULD be altered drastically with just the right storyline. He can be redeemed! Mike, Sulley, and Randall CAN become friends! Lifelong friends!
I'm afraid you've given me no choice but to pull out the motherload of plot twists and confusion and decoding and deciphering I and BILLIONS of other Harry Potter fans were subjected to for the past decade. Read it and weep.
FYI: Severus Snape ALSO got physical with Harry throughout the course of the 'Harry Potter' series. From books 1-6, he, TOO, acted like a jerk... but JUST like Randall, it's only skin deep. Here's some examples from the books/movies:
Sorcerer's Stone: Granted, Snape as a Potions teacher has almost zero social skills, and zero compassion. He bullies the other students regularly and sneers in a deadpan manner at anything he considers to be dim-witted or stupid. He genuinely frightens Harry and Ron, and especially Neville Longbottom. He ignores Hermione's eagerness to answer a question, and just says curtly "Put your hand down, you silly, girl.", RIGHT before he then gives CRUCIAL information to Harry. Just like 'Monsters, Inc.', there was NO evidence of Snape being a good guy here... THAT didn't come until 5 books later, at approximately TWO-THIRDS through Year 6: 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince'. So, don't even TRY to convince me that a connection can't be made in the 'Monsters' films.
Also, there's a scene where someone is trying to use a spell to knock Harry off of his Quidditch broom... approximately 1000+ feet in the air, which means certain death if he falls. The oh, so smart Hermione Granger uses her binoculars and sees Snape staring DIRECTLY at Harry, muttering a long, silent spell under his breath. He TOO gave a smile at one point... but GUESS WHAT? At the end of the film, Harry finds his Defense Against the Dark Arts Teacher, Quirinus Quirrell, standing in front of the Mirror of Erised.
HARRY: "YOU?!"
Quirrell turns and glares grimly at Harry.
Harry: "But... I don't understand. SNAPE! He--he was the one..."
QUIRRELL: "Ah, yes... DOES seem the type doesn't it? Next to him, who would suspect... p-p-p--poor, st-t-t-tuttering Professor Quirrell?"
HARRY: "But that day! During the Quidditch match... Snape tried to kill me!"
QUIRRELL: (triumphant smile) "Mmm, no, dear boy... I tried to kill you. And trust me, if Snape's cloak hadn't caught fire and broken my eye contact, I would have SUCCEEDED... even with Snape... MUTTERING his little countercurse!"
HARRY: (in disbelief) "Snape was... trying to SAVE me?!"
Oh! Oh! OH! Does THAT clear everything between Snape and Harry? No. Because Harry STILL hates Snape for 6 more books.
Chamber of Secrets: In THIS book, Snape is every bit like Randall. There's even a point where his concern is laced with mockery, but UNDERNEATH that... is another layer of GENUINE concern, and the rabbit hole goes even deeper than that. There's a scene where Harry (the HERO) is accused (like RANDALL), by the Hogwarts caretaker, Argus Filch, of murdering his cat, Mrs. Norris.
SNAPE: "If I might, headmaster... perhaps Potter and his friends were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time....." (Harry, Ron, and Hermione look at each other DUMBSTRUCK, thinking 'Snape... is taking up for US? NO WAY...') "HOWEVER.... the circumstances are suspicious. I, for one, don't recall seeing Potter... at dinner.". Just like Randall, Snape is not allowed to be himself and show his true heart of compassion.
Prisoner of Azkaban: Snape becomes a temporary subsititute teacher for Defense Against the Dark Arts, much to COUNTLESS groans and scuttlebutt from all the wonderful students who think he's Satan incarnate. Snape DELIBERATELY scares the hell out of everybody in the room as he walks in... giving the APPEARANCE of a total jerk. He does that regularly... but in actuality, HE is the only one who knows one blessed thing about what's going on... it just doesn't LOOK that way.
SNAPE: (CUTTING one-liner) "Turn to page 394."
HARRY: "Excuse me, sir? Where's professor Lupin?" (Their usual teacher for that year.)
SNAPE: (evil smirk) "That's not really your concern, is it, Potter? Suffice it to say that your professor finds himself INCAPABLE of teaching... at... the present time. Turn to page 394."
(None of the students turn, so he rudely whips out his wand and makes the books turn to page 394 himself.)
RON: "WEREWOLVES?!"
HERMIONE: "But sir, we've just begun learning about redcaps and hinkypunks! We've all worked hard on this for weeks!"
SNAPE: "QUIET..... Now, which of you can tell me the difference between an animagus... and... a werewolf?" (dead silence) "No one? How disappointing..." (sarcastically)
HERMIONE: "Please, sir! A animagus is someone who elects to turn into an animal... a werewolf has no choice. When he transforms, he no longer remembers who he is. He'd kill his best friend if he crossed his path. Furthermore, the werewolf very well responds to the call of its' own kind."
DRACO MALFOY: (howls obnoxiously)
SNAPE: (with calm affection) "Thank you... Mr. Malfoy." (reprimands Hermione) "That is the second time you have spoken out of term, Miss Granger. ARE you incapable of restraining yourself, or DO YOU TAKE PRIDE IN BEING AN INSUFFERABLE KNNNNNOW-IT-ALL?"
RON: "He's got a point, you know!"
SNAPE: (coldly) "5 points from Gryffinor." (addresses the class) "As an antidote... to your IGNORANCE... and on my desk by Monday morning, 2 rolls of parchment on the werewolf, with particular emphasis on RECOGNIZING it."
HARRY: (blurts out [similar to Mike]) "But sir, it's Quidditch tomorrow!"
SNAPE: (swoops down in front of Harry's face and hisses) "Then I suggest you take extra care, Mr. Potter.... loss of limb.... will NOT excuse you. Page three... hundred-and-ninety... four." (Leaves forcefully as he walks back to his desk to begin the class.)
Later on... Harry is up out of bed after hours. Snape shines his wand on Harry in the middle of the dark.
SNAPE: "Potter... what are YOU doing wandering the corridors at night?"
HARRY: (lying) "I was sleepwalking."
SNAPE: (sneeringly) "How extraordinarily like your father you are, Potter. He too was exceedingly arrogant. Strutting about the castle..."
HARRY: (furiously) "My Dad didn't STRUT... and nor do I. Now, if you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you could lower your wand." (Snape waits for a moment, then does so.)
SNAPE: "Turn out your pockets." (Harry does nothing, because he is too distracted by his LOATHING for the man.) "TURN OUT... YOUR POCKETS."
ON TOP OF THAT... the main plot of Prisoner of Azkaban is that a supposed notorious mass-murder named Sirius Black who was convicted of murdering 13 people with a single curse, spent 12 years in the wizard prison Azkaban. The Ministry of Magic is SO convinced that Sirius Black is dangerous, that soul-sucking grim reaper-like creatures, called dementors are summoned to guard the Hogwarts grounds.
A murder attempt is even made in the Gryffindor Tower one night. Minerva McGonagall (played by Maggie Smith in the films) says to the students in pajamas: "Well... Sirius Black is gone tonight... but I think you can ALL safely assume that he will, at some future time, attempt to return.". Everyone THINKS Sirius tried to murder Harry, but NO... actually, he DIDN'T.
Later on, out on the castle grounds, lo, and behold... A BLACK DOG... sinks its' teeth into Ron's leg, INJURING him, drags Ron, holding his pet rat under the trunk of an old tree called the Whomping Willow. Harry and Hermione make their way to the Shrieking Shack, where Ron, in GENUINE terror, says "HARRY! IT'S A TRAP! HE'S THE DOG! HE AN ANIMAGUS!"
HERMIONE: (shielding Harry) "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us, too!"
SIRIUS: "No. Only ONE will die tonight."
HARRY: (roars) "Then it'll be YOU!!!" (grabs Harry and shoves him to the ground, aiming his wand at his throat, intent on killing him. He believes that Sirius betrayed his parents.)
SIRIUS: (smiles affectionately) "Ha, ha, ha! Are you going to kill me, Harry?"
REMUS LUPIN: (bursts into the room) "EXPELLIARMUS!" (makes Harry's wand fly out of his hand) "Well, well, Sirius... looking rather ragged aren't we? Finally, the flesh reflects the madness within."
SIRIUS: "Well, you'd know all about the madness within, wouldn't you, Remus?" (Lupin smiles and helps him up to his feet and they embrace each other in a friendly hug.)
SIRIUS: (giddily) "I found him!"
LUPIN: "Yes, yes..."
SIRIUS: "Let's kill him!" (Hmm... is it Harry, or someone else?)
HERMIONE: "NO!!! I TRUSTED YOU! And all this time... you've been his friend. He's a WEREWOLF! That's why he's been missing classes!"
LUPIN: (darkly) "How long have you known?"
HERMIONE: "Since Professor Snape sent the essay."
LUPIN: "Well, well, Hermione. You really are the brightest witch of your age I've ever met!" (That was a GENUINE compliment by the way, UNDER a guise of sarcasm.) Here's the pinch, Marsh: HERE... you have 6 opposing individuals.
HARRY, RON, and HERMIONE vs. REMUS, SIRIUS vs. SEVERUS. Many of them DO try to kill the other! Sirius physically injures Ron with the dog bite, Harry tries to kill Sirius, Lupin is SEEMINGLY revealed to be Sirius' "evil" cohort, Snape... who, DO NOT forget... is made into the shining hero at the end of the last film, threatens to kill Sirius... and JUST LIKE how Randall opposed Sulley, Snape and Sirius have been school enemies, because he's the friend of James Potter, who committed ONE act of horrible humiliation against Snape for the sick amusement of his fellow students (not revealed until the beginning of the last third of book 5, 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix'). Snape holds that grudge against James for YEARS, and even takes his anger and resentment out on Harry regularly, because Harry reminds him of James so much, but nevertheless... he is SECRETLY protecting Harry.
Don't forget, Dumbledore keeps saying that he trusts Snape, even though EVERYBODY doubts the legitimacy of his word, BUT... because everybody respects and trust Dumbledore, they trust Snape as well.... which REALLY gets under Harry's skin at one point. Dumbledore would literally put his own life and reputation on the line to believe the best in people, dismissing ALL gossip about him, because HE knows the truth.
Guess what? All 6 of those characters in that standoff? They're ALL good guys! Guess who the bad guy turned out to be? An EXTREMELY obscure character: Ron Weasley's RAT, Scabbers! Who, incidentally, isn't even Scabbers at all! He's revealed to be a human named Peter Pettigrew, who TRANSFORMED into a rat 12 years ago. He cut his own finger off so that everyone would THINK that Sirius killed him, as well as those other people. Guess who believed in Sirius' innocence? Dumbledore.
And SCREW this comparison with other LEGITIMATE Pixar Villains. Syndrome, Hopper, and Chick. RANDALL IS NOT LEGIT! There are only two (2) falsely accused villains Pixar has so far. NO more, NO less: Stinky Pete, from Toy Story 2, and Randall Boggs, from 'Monsters'.
P.S. DON'T even get me started on Stinky Pete. He's the sole reason I privately, but vehemently, boycotted Toy Story 3 when it came out in theaters... even my Mom had to miss out on it. I was so angry with Pixar over that, I refused to even look at any promotion or picture from that film for a LONG time. For the longest time, I referred to Toy Story as my EX-FAVORITE film series. I was onto Pete even before I was onto Randall Boggs, CLEAR back in 1999, because I had read the Woody's Roundup books and knew what a helpful guy Pete really is, as well as noting that Pete is a friend and fellow protagonist on the TV show as depicted in the film. I was 10 years old when I saw that movie in the theater, and I IMMEDIATELY started jotting down possible ideas that would show Stinky Pete being rescued and the Roundup Gang reunited. I don't care if it's Toy Story 6, 7, or 8! IT HAS TO HAPPEN!
In fact, I was SO insistent on Stinky Pete being a misunderstood good guy, that once, on a Disneyland trip in 2009, my great aunt, who had heard me give my ENTIRE defense case for Stinky Pete over the course of the drive to the Disneyland Resort, virtually offered (nigh on BRIBED) to buy me a revised Toy Story 1 and 2 Essential Guide book I was really wanting at Downtown Disney, just so I'd shut up about it, and promise not to talk about it for the rest of the trip.... I reluctantly agreed. I remember my defenses of Stinky Pete causing several verbal clashes, heated arguments, and hurtful words to the point where, one night, I cried helplessly in my bed, almost wishing that Toy Story had never existed.
I hated Pixar so much for a certain stretch, I actually missed out on seeing the theatrical premiere of Up, Toy Story 3, and Cars 2... to avoid any exposure to THAT film, or anything related to it. It was my burden, my curse. Nobody else's.
Guess who made me like Pixar again, huh? WHO REDEEMED THEM IN MY EYES? That's right.... Randall Boggs... when I saw 'Monsters University'.
|
|
|
Post by randallsnape7 on Aug 16, 2014 12:53:48 GMT -5
By the way, 2 more things, Marsh:
ANY point in either 'Monsters University' or 'Monsters, Inc.' that does NOT show Randall on screen is evidence in and of itself that there's more going on. This doesn't apply to ANY other character... only Randall, and we have yet to see what really went on in the story through Randall's eyes.
Also, for your information, Pixar NEVER intended for Randall Boggs to be a villain in the first place. That idea was conjured up by MICHAEL EISNER, who was pretty much hated by everyone - even Roy Disney himself. Back then, Pixar didn't even own their own characters and didn't have the final say so. In the recent years, that's changed. There's evidence that Pixar's move to reveal Henry J. Waternoose to be the mastermind at the end of MI probably was their way of sidestepping a sticky situation... and keeping Randall redeemable, so they could come full-circle back to their original power trio one day. That's probably why Randall was ultimately re-introduced as a sweet, shy, nerdy kid in 'Monsters University'.
|
|
marsh
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
Posts: 28
|
Post by marsh on Aug 16, 2014 20:09:16 GMT -5
This is ridiculous, Marsh. You're a complete dolt. Your every Randall-bashing comment yells it. 'No doubt', you say? I NEVER took Randall's actions at face value, so yes, there IS doubt.... loads of it! RANDALL IS NOT A MURDERER, I tell you! HE IS NOT EVIL! You are SOOOO convinced that Randall is guilty of murder 4+ times or 6+ times, or whatever, you REFUSE to entertain the possibility that ALL of the audience's perceptions of Randall COULD be altered drastically with just the right storyline. He can be redeemed! Mike, Sulley, and Randall CAN become friends! Lifelong friends!
I'm afraid you've given me no choice but to pull out the motherload of plot twists and confusion and decoding and deciphering I and BILLIONS of other Harry Potter fans were subjected to for the past decade. Read it and weep.
FYI: Severus Snape ALSO got physical with Harry throughout the course of the 'Harry Potter' series. From books 1-6, he, TOO, acted like a jerk... but JUST like Randall, it's only skin deep. Here's some examples from the books/movies:
Sorcerer's Stone: Granted, Snape as a Potions teacher has almost zero social skills, and zero compassion. He bullies the other students regularly and sneers in a deadpan manner at anything he considers to be dim-witted or stupid. He genuinely frightens Harry and Ron, and especially Neville Longbottom. He ignores Hermione's eagerness to answer a question, and just says curtly "Put your hand down, you silly, girl.", RIGHT before he then gives CRUCIAL information to Harry. Just like 'Monsters, Inc.', there was NO evidence of Snape being a good guy here... THAT didn't come until 5 books later, at approximately TWO-THIRDS through Year 6: 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince'. So, don't even TRY to convince me that a connection can't be made in the 'Monsters' films.
Also, there's a scene where someone is trying to use a spell to knock Harry off of his Quidditch broom... approximately 1000+ feet in the air, which means certain death if he falls. The oh, so smart Hermione Granger uses her binoculars and sees Snape staring DIRECTLY at Harry, muttering a long, silent spell under his breath. He TOO gave a smile at one point... but GUESS WHAT? At the end of the film, Harry finds his Defense Against the Dark Arts Teacher, Quirinus Quirrell, standing in front of the Mirror of Erised.
HARRY: "YOU?!"
Quirrell turns and glares grimly at Harry.
Harry: "But... I don't understand. SNAPE! He--he was the one..."
QUIRRELL: "Ah, yes... DOES seem the type doesn't it? Next to him, who would suspect... p-p-p--poor, st-t-t-tuttering Professor Quirrell?"
HARRY: "But that day! During the Quidditch match... Snape tried to kill me!"
QUIRRELL: (triumphant smile) "Mmm, no, dear boy... I tried to kill you. And trust me, if Snape's cloak hadn't caught fire and broken my eye contact, I would have SUCCEEDED... even with Snape... MUTTERING his little countercurse!"
HARRY: (in disbelief) "Snape was... trying to SAVE me?!"
Oh! Oh! OH! Does THAT clear everything between Snape and Harry? No. Because Harry STILL hates Snape for 6 more books.
Chamber of Secrets: In THIS book, Snape is every bit like Randall. There's even a point where his concern is laced with mockery, but UNDERNEATH that... is another layer of GENUINE concern, and the rabbit hole goes even deeper than that. There's a scene where Harry (the HERO) is accused (like RANDALL), by the Hogwarts caretaker, Argus Filch, of murdering his cat, Mrs. Norris.
SNAPE: "If I might, headmaster... perhaps Potter and his friends were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time....." (Harry, Ron, and Hermione look at each other DUMBSTRUCK, thinking 'Snape... is taking up for US? NO WAY...') "HOWEVER.... the circumstances are suspicious. I, for one, don't recall seeing Potter... at dinner.". Just like Randall, Snape is not allowed to be himself and show his true heart of compassion.
Prisoner of Azkaban: Snape becomes a temporary subsititute teacher for Defense Against the Dark Arts, much to COUNTLESS groans and scuttlebutt from all the wonderful students who think he's Satan incarnate. Snape DELIBERATELY scares the hell out of everybody in the room as he walks in... giving the APPEARANCE of a total jerk. He does that regularly... but in actuality, HE is the only one who knows one blessed thing about what's going on... it just doesn't LOOK that way.
SNAPE: (CUTTING one-liner) "Turn to page 394."
HARRY: "Excuse me, sir? Where's professor Lupin?" (Their usual teacher for that year.)
SNAPE: (evil smirk) "That's not really your concern, is it, Potter? Suffice it to say that your finds himself INCAPABLE of teaching... at... the present time. Turn to page 394."
(None of the students turn, so he rudely whips out his wand and makes the books turn to page 394 himself.)
RON: "WEREWOLVES?!"
HERMIONE: "But sir, we've just begun learning about redcaps and hinkypunks! We've all worked hard on this for weeks!"
SNAPE: "QUIET..... Now, which of you... can tell me the difference between an animagus... and... a werewolf?" (dead silence) "No one? How disappointing..." (sarcastically)
HERMIONE: "Please, sir! A animagus is someone who elects to turn into an animal... a werewolf has no choice. When he transforms, he no longer remembers who he is. He'd kill his best friend if he crossed his path. Furthermore, the werewolf very well responds to the call of its' own kind."
DRACO MALFOY: (howls obnoxiously)
SNAPE: (with calm affection) "Thank you... Mr. Malfoy." (reprimands Hermione) "That is the second time you have spoken out of term, Miss Granger. ARE you incapable of restraining yourself, or DO YOU TAKE PRIDE IN BEING AN INSUFFERABLE KNNNNNOW-IT-ALL?"
RON: "He's got a point, you know!"
SNAPE: (coldly) "5 points from Gryffinor." (addresses the class) "As an antidote... to your IGNORANCE... and on my desk by Monday morning, 2 rolls of parchment on the werewolf, with particular emphasis on RECOGNIZING it."
HARRY: (blurts out [similar to Mike]) "But sir, it's Quidditch tomorrow!"
SNAPE: (swoops down in front of Harry's face and hisses) "Then I suggest you take extra care, Mr. Potter.... loss of limb.... will NOT excuse you. Page three... hundred-and-ninety... four." (Leaves forcefully as he walks back to his desk to begin the class.)
Later on... Harry is up out of bed after hours. Snape shines his wand on Harry in the middle of the dark.
SNAPE: "Potter... what are YOU doing wandering the corridors at night?"
HARRY: (lying) "I was sleepwalking."
SNAPE: (sneeringly) "How extraordinarily like your father you are, Potter. He too was exceedingly arrogant. Strutting about the castle..."
HARRY: (furiously) "My Dad didn't STRUT... and nor do I. Now, if you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you could lower your wand." (Snape waits for a moment, then does so.)
SNAPE: "Turn out your pockets." (Harry does nothing, because he is too distracted by his LOATHING for the man.) "TURN OUT... YOUR POCKETS."
ON TOP OF THAT... the main plot of Prisoner of Azkaban is that a supposed notorious mass-murder named Sirius Black who was convicted of murdering 13 people with a single curse, spent 12 years in the wizard prison Azkaban. The Ministry of Magic is SO convinced that Sirius Black is dangerous, that soul-sucking grim reaper-like creatures, called dementors are summoned to guard the Hogwarts grounds.
A murder attempt is even made in the Gryffindor Tower one night. Minerva McGonagall (played by Maggie Smith in the films) says to the students in pajamas. "Well... Sirius Black is gone tonight... but I think you can ALL safely assume that he will, at some future time, attempt to return.". Everyone THINKS Sirius tried to murder Harry, but NO... actually, he DIDN'T.
Lo, and behold... A BLACK DOG... sinks its' teeth into Ron's leg, INJURING him, drags Ron, holding his pet rat under the trunk of an old tree called the Whomping Willow. Harry and Hermione make their way to the Shrieking Shack, where Ron, in GENUINE terror, says "HARRY! IT'S A TRAP! HE'S THE DOG! HE AN ANIMAGUS!"
HERMIONE: (shielding Harry) "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us, too!"
SIRIUS: "No. Only ONE will die tonight."
HARRY: (roars) "Then it'll be YOU!!!" (grabs Harry and shoves him to the ground, aiming his wand at his throat, intent on killing him. He believes that Sirius betrayed his parents.)
SIRIUS: (smiles affectionately) "Ha, ha, ha! Are you going to kill me, Harry?"
REMUS LUPIN: (bursts into the room) "EXPELLIARMUS!" (makes Harry's wand fly out of his hand) "Well, well, Sirius... looking rather ragged aren't we? Finally, the flesh reflects the madness within."
SIRIUS: "Well, you'd know all about the madness within, wouldn't you, Remus?" (Lupin smiles and helps him up to his feet and they embrace each other in a friendly hug.)
SIRIUS: (giddily) "I found him!"
LUPIN: "Yes, yes..."
SIRIUS: "Let's kill him!" (Hmm... is it Harry, or someone else?)
HERMIONE: "NO!!! I TRUSTED YOU! And all this time... you've been his friend. He's a WEREWOLF! That's why he's been missing classes!"
LUPIN: (darkly) "How long have you known?"
HERMIONE: "Since Professor Snape sent the essay."
LUPIN: "Well, well, Hermione. You really are the brightest witch of your age I've ever met!" (That was a GENUINE compliment by the way, UNDER a guise of sarcasm.) Here's the pinch, Marsh: HERE... you have 6 opposing individuals.
HARRY, RON, and HERMIONE vs. REMUS, SIRIUS vs. SEVERUS. Many of them DO try to kill the other! Sirius physically injures Ron with the dog bite, Harry tries to kill Sirius, Lupin is SEEMINGLY revealed to be Sirius' "evil" cohort, Snape... who, DO NOT forget... is made into the shining hero at the end of the last film, tries to kill Sirius... and JUST LIKE how Randall opposed Sulley, Snape and Sirius have been school enemies, because he's the friend of James Potter, who committed ONE act of horrible humiliation against Snape for the sick amusement of his fellow students (not revealed until the beginning of the last third of book 5, 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix'). Snape holds that grudge against James for YEARS, and even takes his anger and resentment out on Harry regularly, because Harry reminds him of James so much, but nevertheless... he is SECRETLY protecting Harry.
Don't forget, Dumbledore keeps saying that he trusts Snape, even though EVERYBODY doubts the legitimacy of his word, BUT... because everybody respects and trust Dumbledore, they trust Snape as well.... which REALLY gets under Harry's skin at one point.
Guess what? All 6 of those characters? They're ALL good guys! Guess who the bad guy turned out to be? An EXTREMELY obscure character: Ron Weasley's RAT, Scabbers! Who, incidentally, isn't even Scabbers at all! He's revealed to be a human named Peter Pettigrew, who TRANSFORMED into a rat 12 years ago. He cut his own finger off so that everyone would THINK that Sirius killed him, as well as those other people. Guess who believed in Sirius' innocence? Dumbledore.
Harry Potter still has no effect on Monsters, Inc., J.K doing something still is not any indication Pixar will do the same thing. So, again, You're still not backing anything up. This has nothing to do with anything. Unless the movie hints there's actually more going on, no there isn't, and you've yet to provide any evidence of any hints. Citation needed. And either way, that doesn't mean anything. Boo also wasn't supposed to be 2, and Sulley wasn't supposed to be a Scarer, in earlier concepts. That doesn't affect the fact that they clearly are both of those things in the final product, nor does any supposed plans for Randall effect his actions and role in the final product.
|
|
|
Post by randallsnape7 on Aug 16, 2014 21:56:32 GMT -5
'Citation needed'? You sound like those elitist smart-asses that run Wikipedia... are you, by any chance, a member of their little Oligarchy?
Click on the thread titled: "Randall 'good guy' evidence: Exhibit A" to read an excerpt from a 'Monsters, Inc.' book called "Mike: Life Through My Eye", where Randall is described in a hopeful light. The book was published in 2013, and is a Hallmark Exclusive. I suggest you accept the fact that the two movie marketings over Randall are pretty drastic.
Almost all MI merchandise mud-slings Randall and falsely accuses him of all manner of horrible things, but MU merchandise paints Randall in much more kind, generous light. I'm sure Pitbulllady will draw out her detailed explanation of this... be ready.
|
|
|
Post by randallsnape7 on Aug 16, 2014 22:27:10 GMT -5
I think you also underestimate the simplest evidence IMAGINABLE in the films: That first scene where Mike Wazowski says to himself "Your lifelong friend is right behind this door...", before Randall comes out with a bright smile and shakes his hand. He even tells Mike "I can tell we're gonna become best chums, Mike! Take whatever bed you want!". THIS is a scene from 'Monsters University'... and it DOESN'T foreshadow what happens in 'Monsters, Inc.'. It's foreshadowing what's yet to come, in a story yet to be told.... nevertheless, it's the most important part in the story. The point where everything comes together.
TRILOGY!!!
|
|
marsh
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
Posts: 28
|
Post by marsh on Aug 17, 2014 10:00:39 GMT -5
'Citation needed'? You sound like those elitist smart-asses that run Wikipedia... are you, by any chance, a member of their little Oligarchy?I don't automatically believe everything I hear on forums, it's generally a good stance to have. If the Eisner thing really happened, it should be easy to find a cite to prove it did. I've seen that. The line takes place before all the attempted kidnapping, attempted torture, and attempted murder. So, basically, there's one book with one line before all the bad stuff that says there's a slight possibility he's not a complete jerk, then there's a ton of stuff that never says anything like that, and in fact says the opposite. Why, exactly, should everything but this one book be ignored? Monsters U is, likewise, before he does any of the horrible things from the original movie, and even the big "bad thing" of his in the movie comes like halfway through. Plenty of time to write him as a decent person, because at that point he is, but that doesn't negate anything that happens later. Technically, you're right, it doesn't foreshadow Monsters, Inc. because it doesn't foreshadow anything. It's "irony". They're using contrast. It's sort of a quasi-joke, the point being that they're so sure they'll become friends when in fact the opposite happens. There's still no evidence there's going to be a Monsters 3, let alone that it was planned.
|
|
|
Post by randallsnape7 on Aug 17, 2014 22:14:15 GMT -5
Just because the opposite happens FIRST... doesn't mean that the story can't arc back to where it started. I don't believe in coincidences of any kind, ESPECIALLY in fictional stories. Just because Mike and Randall haven't made up and become friends again by the end of MI, doesn't mean it couldn't happen later in a future installment. I don't deny that a dramatic, shocking plot twist or revelation will have to happen in the climax of the third film to put Randall Boggs in the clear, but nevertheless... it CAN be done, rather easily.
Take Christopher Nolan's 'Dark Knight Trilogy', for example. (If you haven't seen it, I apologize ahead of time, but nevertheless, one day you should.) I know for a FACT - a SOLID FACT - that at the time 'Batman Begins' was made, none of the filmmakers knew that 'The Dark Knight', nor 'The Dark Knight Rises' would be made. That last scene in film #1 where Jim Gordon shows Bruce Wayne the Joker card could just as easily have led into the original 'Batman', directed by Tim Burton, in which Jack Nicholson played the Joker, if no future films followed, BUT... once we got Heath Ledger's Joker in 'The Dark Knight', that all changed. HOWEVER...
...to get to the point, for the LONGEST time, all that we learn about Liam Neeson's character, Ra's Al-Ghul, and the League of Shadows in 'Batman Begins', belonged EXCLUSIVELY in 'Batman Begins'. It had NO intentional foreshadowings whatsoever of what we would learn in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. That film did NOT exist anywhere on the globe, not on camera, not on paper, not on ANYTHING, back when 'Batman Begins' was released. 'The Dark Knight Rises' was NOT planned AT ALL. I know that for a 100% FACT, Marsh... so, you can't argue with this. Ra's Al-Ghul originally did NOT have any personal involvement with Bane (the muscular guy with the mask, ace bomber jacket, and muffled voice in the last film), and he did NOT have a daughter named Talia, who was masquerading around Gotham City under the guise of some industrial overseer.
What filmmakers do in situations like this is they review their original material from their past smash hits, and they oh-so-cleverly conjure up ideas brought up in the first film, and they choose to embellish those features by literally writing new material that did not exist to begin with, intially, as if they were still writing the original story for the first time, and they work that into the new film and use it for dramatic impact. In Peter Jackson's DVD commentary for 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey', he jokingly says that 'conspiracy theorists will say that we planned this from the very beginning', when in actuality, no, they didn't. It is becoming INCREASINGLY common for countless trilogies and film series to use flashbacks and revelations in their respective final chapters. Filmmakers do this all the time because it keeps the audience interested, and ensures that they'll remain invested in the franchise, long after the last film has left theaters.
In 'The Dark Knight Rises', Bane is a character who is LITERALLY brought out of left field, out of nowhere, his first scene being at a military tarmac the audience has never laid eyes on, and he hijacks a plane using brute force. Bane is kept in a very mysterious veil, but as the story unfolds, it is revealed that Bane was excommunicated from the League of Shadows (the PERFECT scapegoat explanation of why Bane was never shown in 'Batman Begins', AND it stands to perfect reason that Ra's Al-Ghul would NOT divulge everything he and his ninja buddies do in the League of Shadows, as is the nature of a secret society, so Bane was CLEVERLY worked into the story). There is even a FALSE revelation approximately two-thirds into the film where Bruce 'learns' that Bane is Ra's Al-Ghul's son, accompanied by a brief snippet of Ra's Al-Ghul from 'Batman Begins' where he talks about his dead wife, to make it fly, but... later on, this turns out not to be true. He just confirms that he has an offspring to finish what he started... NOT that Bane is his son. It was done purely for spite, because audiences eat that stuff up, ever since Darth Vader told Luke in 'Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back', "No. I am your father.", and Luke cries out "No.... no! It's not true! That's IMPOSSIBLE!". You can thank George Lucas for starting the shocking revelation as a modern trend... *wink*.
As for Ra's Al-Ghul's daughter, it is commonly joked among fans that her story came for the SOLE purpose of having a plot twist to tug at the heartstrings, without any integral film-verse prompting to do so. Ultimately, the revelation gave Liam Neeson 1 more additional juicy minute of screen time, even though he was dead and gone by the end of the first film. Despite the fact that Ra's Al-Ghul was cruel in the first film, he is shown in this flashback as being a sort of 'good samaritan' to his fellow men. She goes by the name Miranda Tate, and Gotham City only knows her by that name. What happens is a fight erupts over Gotham City at the film's climax, and Bruce Wayne (as Batman) is about to attack Bane, who has been the MAIN target throughout the film, when all of a sudden, Miranda basically grabs Bruce by the arm and says something along the lines of "No, Bruce. I'm the one you're looking for... my name is Talia. Ra's Al-Ghul is my father.", then she goes into this soft-spoken explanation of what a wonderful guy Bane is, how Bane was her protector, yet his methods were frowned upon by Ra's Al-Ghul. The League of Shadows is great, Talia was the shining beacon of the future, Ra's Al-Ghul was there for her as the prisoners clamored, etc, etc. Bane even... (gulp) ...er, CRIES.
And DON'T shrug this off as irrelevant, Marsh. This is coming from someone who has watched countless DVD special features and has learned TONS of tidbits from the masters on how movies are made. I've also read professionally-written books on storytelling and scriptwriting. You CANNOT tell me that Randall Boggs cannot be redeemed, and that he CANNOT befriend Mike and Sulley, regardless of how evil and horrible you believe him to be.
|
|
marsh
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
Posts: 28
|
Post by marsh on Aug 17, 2014 22:22:35 GMT -5
Just because the opposite happens FIRST... doesn't mean that the story can't arc back to where it started. I don't believe in coincidences of any kind, ESPECIALLY in fictional stories. Just because Mike and Randall haven't made up and become friends again by the end of MI, doesn't mean it couldn't happen later in a future installment. I don't deny that a dramatic, shocking plot twist or revelation will have to happen in the climax of the third film to put Randall Boggs in the clear, but nevertheless... it CAN be done, rather easily. Take Christopher Nolan's 'Dark Knight Trilogy', for example. (If you haven't seen it, I apologize ahead of time, but nevertheless, one day you should.) I know for a FACT - a SOLID FACT - that at the time 'Batman Begins' was made, none of the filmmakers knew that 'The Dark Knight', nor 'The Dark Knight Rises' would be made. That last scene in film #1 where Jim Gordon shows Bruce Wayne the Joker card could just as easily have led into the original 'Batman', directed by Tim Burton, in which Jack Nicholson played the Joker, if no future films followed, BUT... once we got Heath Ledger's Joker in 'The Dark Knight', that all changed. HOWEVER... ...to get to the point, for the LONGEST time, all that we learn about Liam Neeson's character, Ra's Al-Ghul, and the League of Shadows in Batman Begins, belonged EXCLUSIVELY in 'Batman Begins'. It had NO intentional foreshadowings whatsoever of what we would learn in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. That film did NOT exist anywhere on the globe, not on camera, not on paper, not on ANYTHING, back when 'Batman Begins' was released. 'The Dark Knight Rises' was NOT planned AT ALL. I know that for a 100% FACT, Marsh... so, you can't argue with this. Ra's Al-Ghul originally did NOT have any personal involvement with Bane (the muscular guy with the mask, ace bomber jacket, and muffled voice in the last film), and he did NOT have a daughter named Talia, who was masquerading around Gotham City under the guise of some industrial overseer. What filmmakers do in situations like this is they review their original material from their past smash hits, and they oh-so-cleverly conjure up ideas brought up in the first film, and they choose to embellish those features by literally writing new material that literally did not exist, intially, as if they were still writing the original story for the first time, and they work that into the new film and use it for dramatic impact. In Peter Jackson's DVD commentary for 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey', he jokingly says that 'conspiracy theorists will say that we planned this from the very beginning', when in actuality, no, they didn't. It is becoming INCREASINGLY common for countless trilogies and film series to use flashbacks and revelations in their respective final chapters. Filmmakers do this all the time because it keeps the audience interested, and ensures that they'll remain invested in the franchise, long after the last film has left theaters. In 'The Dark Knight Rises', Bane is a character who is LITERALLY brought out of left field, out of nowhere, his first scene being at a military tarmac the audience has never laid eyes on, and he hijacks a plane using brute force. Bane is kept in a very mysterious veil, but as the story unfolds, it is revealed that Bane was excommunicated from the League of Shadows (the PERFECT scapegoat explanation of why Bane was never shown in 'Batman Begins', AND it stands to perfect reason that Ra's Al-Ghul would NOT divulge everything he and his ninja buddies do in the League of Shadows, as is the nature of a secret society, so Bane was CLEVERLY worked into the story). There is even a FALSE revelation approximately two-thirds into the film where Bruce 'learns' that Bane is Ra's Al-Ghul's son, accompanied by a brief snippet of Ra's Al-Ghul from 'Batman Begins' where he talks about his dead wife, to make it fly, but... later on, this turns out not to be true. He just confirms that he has an offspring to finish what he started... NOT that Bane is his son. It was done purely for spite, because audiences eat that stuff up, ever since Darth Vader told Luke in 'Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back', "No. I am your father.", and Luke cries out "No.... no! It's not true! That's IMPOSSIBLE!". You can thank George Lucas for starting the shocking revelation as a modern trend... *wink*. As for Ra's Al-Ghul's daughter, it is commonly joked among fans that her story came for the SOLE purpose of having a plot twist to tug at the heartstrings, without any integral film-verse prompting to do so. Ultimately, the revelation gave Liam Neeson 1 more additional juicy minute of screen time, even though he was dead and gone by the end of the first film. Despite the fact that Ra's Al-Ghul was cruel in the first film, he is shown in this flashback as being a sort of 'good samaritan' to his fellow men. She goes by the name Miranda Tate, and Gotham City only knows her by that name. What happens is a fight erupts over Gotham City, and Bruce Wayne (as Batman) is about to attack Bane, when all of a sudden, Miranda basically grabs Bruce by the arm and says something along the lines of "No, Bruce. I'M the one you're looking for... my name is Talia. Ra's Al-Ghul is my father.", then she goes into this soft-spoken explanation of what a wonderful guy Bane is, how Bane was her protector, yet his methods were frowned upon by Ra's Al-Ghul. Ra's Al-Ghul was there for her as the prisoners clamored, etc, etc. Bane even... (gulp) ...er, CRIES. And DON'T shrug this off as irrelevant, Marsh. This is coming from someone who has watched countless DVD special features and has learned TONS of tidbits from the masters on how movies are made. I've also read professionally-written books on storytelling and scriptwriting. You CANNOT tell me that Randall Boggs cannot be redeemed, and that he CANNOT befriend Mike and Sulley, regardless of how evil and horrible you believe him to be. Is that seriously all you're trying to argue? "It's possible for it to happen"? Cause, that's honestly a given for anyone (pretty sure I've seen it be pulled for dead characters), your arguments gave the impression you were trying to argue it was a plan from a previous film (when it very clearly isn't).
|
|