|
Post by randylizard on May 1, 2015 15:07:18 GMT -5
Ok, here is my story. Sorry for mistakes (I'm not a native english speaker).
Monters, Inc has always been one of my all-time favorite movies. I watched it many times, I like its unusual story, characters, visuals. But I never paid particular attention at Randall's true story. I was an "average viewer" who thought that Randall and Waternoose were equal villains, both conceived an evil plan and both got what they deserved. Beautiful disney-ish picture, isn't it? However, I always liked Randall for his charisma, beauty, grace, and his amazing green eyes. The only moment that I never understood was the second scream extractor scene when Waternoose accused Randall of losing Sulley and said he was twice a scarer Randall will ever be. Rude, blatant, humiliating lie. Too much even for a true villain. What was the reason? I had no idea until I browsed some casual fanart on Deviantart and came across Pitbulllady's very thorough comments on Randall's pictures. They made me rewatch the movie in an entirely different light and basically rediscover the movie. Now the puzzle of this complicated movie seems solved. Yes, it was Waternoose who put psychological pressure on Randall, cynically playing on his flaws and fears. Yes, Randall got exhausted and it led to his ugly behavior and losing his mind control. Yes, Sulley and Mike participated in this game without even noticing. Yes, the competition probably intentionally was made unfair with those "slumber parties" and unclear counting.
I still don't understand why Randall's true motivation is so obscure in the movie. The creators just made us assume that Randall was a true villain from the beginning and almost never gave us a reason to cast doubt on this assumption. It's totally unfair. I feel SO sorry for him.
|
|
|
Post by randallsnape7 on May 2, 2015 0:54:40 GMT -5
I distinctly remember the very first photo I ever saw of Randall Boggs. It was in the 'Disney Adventures' special issue that promoted the movie Monsters, Inc., and honestly, I really fell in love with him as a character. It is very, very true what they say: It's hard to erase a first impression, and my first impression was that Randall is very sweet and cute.
I honestly was expecting Randall to team up with Mike and Sulley by the end of that film, and it genuinely confounded me and disappointed me that this didn't happen. I never saw Randall as a villain... so, to find out years later that that's the assumption most people had of him was very disconcerting for me.
As for that so-called 'ugly' behavior, let me just say that I have a book, called "The Great Snape Debate", and one of the arguments the book makes during 'Chapter I: In Defense of Snape', it explains that 'it's only human to protect vulnerable feelings by the appearance of their opposite'. My point is - and this is especially true after seeing Randall's role in 'Monsters University' - something is eating Randall up inside. The last time I saw Monsters, Inc., and saw Randall punching back every restroom stall, it suddenly occurred to me that Randall must be suffering some unspeakable tragedy. Underneath all that anger, I think his heart is breaking...
I simply do not buy the notion that Randall just "turned evil" off the drop of a coin, once he was humiliated in front of the RORs at the Final Scare Games Task, as many people interpret that scene. This whole train of thought defies logic, no matter what angle you take in trying to assess Randall's emotions when he says "That's the last time I lose to you, Sullivan.".
I think something MUCH deeper, longer, and more complex is going on in Randall's private life, and the main problem is that he thinks nobody cares. He has never felt comfortable enough to divulge to anyone the deepest, darkest secrets of his heart. That means dealing with his adult emotions, for once... and indeed, in order for Randall to finally make amends with Mike and Sulley, once and for all, he is going to have to share with them - and by extension, us, the audience - whatever has been eating on him all this time.
|
|
|
Post by randylizard on May 2, 2015 18:49:07 GMT -5
Compensation? I heard about it. Aggressive behavior may be a way of hiding internal insecurity and vulnerability, while humble persons can be very strong and confident inside. This is exactly the case. Still the movie doesn't give us any clues, and Randall's behavior looks unacceptable with no reason.
He didn't even finish opening all the stalls, which means he did it only to vent another portion of persistent anger... His nerves had been really worn out. Poor Randall.
Agreed! He needed a shoulder to cry to begin healing, but didn't have one because of his psychological state and behavior. Trap with no exit.
Also I remembered one more moment that seemed strange: when Randall says "even Sullivan is going to be working FOR ME", while, obviously, Waternoose wasn't going to pass direction to anyone. Now it's understandable: it was another hollow promise he made to keep Randall going.
|
|
|
Post by randallsnape7 on May 3, 2015 2:07:29 GMT -5
Keep in mind that we have NEVER seen the moment where Waternoose first approached Randall about the Scream Extractor project. Being a powerful third generation CEO, Waternoose could have made ANY promise to Randall from the beginning, and Randall most likely would have believed him naively. In fact, I wouldn't have put it past Waternoose to have been the one to have actually called Sulley a 'stupid, pathetic waste', and other things that we hear Randall say. Waternoose is a cunning manipulator who butters both sides of his bread - and he has two 'teacher's pets': Sullivan and Randall.
Don't forget! Waternoose had Sullivan roped in as well. That whole sweetalking, buddy affection, where he embraces his shoulders and exclaims "Oh, yeah! Now, THAT'S my BOY!", that's clearly all an act. ALSO, let's not forget that it was Waternoose's persistent and rude GOADING for Sullivan to "ROAR!!!" that made him inadvertently scare Boo. Waternoose ONLY cares about himself, and I don't think he gave one flip about Randall at ALL. For a monster that wanted so desperately to make friends, it's virtually next to impossible to see him and Waternoose as true allies. Waternoose CERTAINLY doesn't treat Randall like a friend... I don't think Waternoose likes Randall at all. And Randall clearly knew that disobeying Waternoose would mean SWIFT and SEVERE punishment from an unforgiving CEO.
Kinda marks Randall off as being 'the main villain', doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by randylizard on May 3, 2015 10:05:21 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more... When Randall became top for a minute, Waternoose ignored him, but when Sulley returned his position (with violating physical laws: containers appeared from nowhere!), he immediately began to publicly praise Sulley... So 'fair'. And, as you noticed, both Randall and Sulley were pawns in Waternoose's hands, and Randall completely depended on him and that made his situation hopeless. But I think 'Stupid, pathetic waste' were Randall's words. He probably was projecting his own hidden feelings about HIMSELF onto his helpless rival. That was a result of the affect in which Randall fell after Sulley destroyed the result of his 2.5-year hard work.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on May 3, 2015 11:39:48 GMT -5
hi, Randylizard, and welcome aboard. Have you seen "Monsters University", by any chance? Director Dan Scanlon actually does a pretty good job of explaining Randall's motives in that movie, and showing why he is the way he is in "Monsters, Inc.". His rivalry with Sulley goes all the way back to their freshman year in college, and Randall was left with a very good reason to believe that Sulley was a cheater, and someone who got away with wrong-doing because of his famous family name, that Sulley was privileged and someone that everyone "worshiped" and adored simply because he was a Sullivan. I have always STRONGLY gotten the impression, and now very strongly believe, that Randall himself rose from total obscurity, no more than a Midwestern country farm boy, through very hard work and personal sacrifice to get where he was in MI, only to still be bested by someone who, in his reasoning, has never had to really work at all, and just sits around waiting for success to be handed to him, and has probably done something completely unethical to keep the No. 1 position for such an unrealistic period of time(11 months). Randall is apparently the only one who can see this, or at least, admits to it. Everyone else has conveniently forgotten that Sulley wasn't always such a "Mr. Nice Guy" and that he definitely has some problems with personal ethics in the past himself. To work your butt off and still see someone like that adored and recognized for his "accomplishments" while you are ignored and shoved to the side is enough to push anyone over that emotional edge, eventually. Randall simply got the point where he was either going to turn that anger, pain and frustration inward, and continue to damage himself to the point of possibly even becoming suicidal, OR he could channel that negativity towards someone else, and that someone was James P. Sullivan.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by randylizard on May 3, 2015 15:52:49 GMT -5
Hi pitbulllady, I really enjoy reading your long comments. They are like little books. As I said in another thread, I haven't watched the movie, but plan to do it soon. I know it shows a bad side of Sulley and a good side of Randall and has a message about ethics in Monsters world. I wonder, why did it take 12 long years to start revealing the truth? Were guys at Pixar satisfied with the first movie and were they planning an immediate sequel?
|
|
|
Post by randallsnape7 on May 3, 2015 20:50:43 GMT -5
Probably not... UNFORTUNATELY. I certainly WISH it had been planned from the beginning, but I'm almost positive it wasn't.
The Dark Knight Trilogy wasn't planned either. Each movie was released one at a time. When 'Batman Begins' came out, Ra's Al-Ghul's involvement in the League of Shadows was solo (minus Dr. Krane) ...'officially', that is. There was no Bane or Talia tied to Ra's Al-Ghul's past and private life when 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight' were brand-new releases. Those story embellishments didn't exist until the final film, 'The Dark Knight Rises', was made.
When 'The Santa Clause 1 and 2' were first released, nobody knew that Jack Frost was going to turn back time and temporarily unravel EVERYTHING we'd seen up to that point and change history around. That didn't exist until 'The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause' was made.
Tragically, this whole pathos over Randall's struggles shown throughout 2 whole films has painted the story in a similar corner. Believe it or not, on the 'MONK: SEASON 8' DVD Feature called 'Mr. Monk Says Goodbye', series creator Andy Breckman says explicitly: "When I wrote the pilot for 'Monk', and had Trudy die in that car bomb, I never thought I'd have to figure out who did it, and why.". Hard to believe, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on May 3, 2015 21:02:34 GMT -5
The guys at Pixar knew that they wanted to make a sequel to MI, but there was a HUGE problem standing in the way: Walt Disney Co., and its then-CEO, Michael Eisner. You see, when Pixar was first starting out, they were a Nobody, and they needed a big film company with a big name in the animation world to market and distribute their films. Enter the Walt Disney Feature Animation. As part of the deal with Disney, Pixar had to sign away ALL of the ownership and marketing rights to their characters and movies, as well as the right to decide on any sequels. Disney literally owned all of Pixar's characters, the MI characters included, and Disney called the shots as to how those characters were marketed. That worked out fine, at first, but as Pixar became more and more successful, and Disney's animation fell into a horrible decline due in no small part to Eisner's idiotic decisions, which included "killing off" traditional 2-D animation, and churning out thousands of usually-bad direct-to-video/DVD "cheap-quels" to well-known Disney animated classics(aimed at what Eisner insisted was the only audience for Disney animation, children aged 4-10) , Pixar CEO Steve Jobs thought it was time to assert himself and re-negotiate a better deal with Disney. What resulted was a long and very bitter rivalry between Pixar and Disney, in which Disney wanted to maintain all ownership and control of the Pixar movies and characters. It finally wound up with the two companies parting ways completely in 2004, with Pixar leaving behind its beloved characters as property of Walt Disney Corporation, to do with as they pleased. Immediately-and in no small part to rile Jobs-Eisner created his own Disney off-shoot studio, called "Circle 7 Productions", for the sole purpose of making direct-to-video/DVD CGI sequels to Pixar's movies. However, things weren't so rosy at Disney for Eisner, and he wound up being fired, and replaced by Bob Iger, the current CEO, in 2006. Iger was on much friendlier terms with Jobs and Pixar and knew that he could not let such success and talent escape, so he and Pixar entered into a new deal, in which Disney and Pixar would merge to form Disney-Pixar, Pixar would regain control of their own characters and movies and would have the right to make sequels when they felt like they had the right material. So, all in all, it was mostly business politics that kept a sequel to MI from being made for 12 years. The other issue, was of course the "right material". Pixar knew that they didn't want to rush things, and if a story didn't sound right, it wouldn't get made. They needed to find the right script, and right director, etc., and I do believe that Dan Scanlon was the right one for that job, who didn't want to go with that cliche' "everyone is either a good guy or a bad guy" thing. Scanlon showed how complex personalities can be, how an individual's circumstances shape their attitude and later actions.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by randylizard on May 4, 2015 13:14:43 GMT -5
Well, then, it's better to have a Pixar's movie in 2013 than a "cheap-quel" in 2004. And I have finally watched it! What can I say? Instead of feeling bad for Randall, now I feel horrible for him! Sorry, I can't express my feelings in a foreign language. Did you see that cutie? Do you remember Randy covered with hearts? My heart just dropped! It was the real Randall! Did he deserve to be humiliated? And for what? For nothing. For things that happened beyond his control. I just wanted to... hmmm... break the screen, jump right there and hug him. Now things seem completely wrong. Cutie with golden heart ended (?) his life the way we've seen in MI? But I don't blame Pixar in any way. The guys know their job and had a purpose. What I think is that they have prepared a solid ground for a third movie in which a complete Randall's story will finally be told. Am i right? Are there any plans?
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on May 4, 2015 18:05:35 GMT -5
Back in 2013, right before MU was released, Dan Scanlon strongly hinted in an interview that MU would be the second film "in a long line of 'Monsters' films" for Pixar. That, however, has never been confirmed by Disney-Pixar, nor have they denied it(oops...sounding like the nefarious CDA there). If there IS a third movie in the works, it hasn't been posted on any of the upcoming releases for Disney-Pixar through the year 2018. I'm with you, though, and most of us Randall fans would agree-MU really left the door wide open for further character development for Randall, since we clearly see that he is NOT someone who was just inherently evil and mean. MU establishes a pattern, probably life-long, of him being overlooked and ignored and learning to think of himself as a "nobody", someone who was NOT "cool", always on the outside looking in, desperate for acceptance and as a result, very easily manipulated by someone who recognized those hang-ups, like Waternoose or Johnny Worthington. By the way, I assume that you have not also seen the MU short film, "Party Central", which was ONLY released in theaters ahead of "The Muppets Most Wanted". That takes place the following year after the events of MU; Mike and Sulley are now working at MI and come back to their old OK frat house to host a party during the Rush Week, which is at the beginning of the college term each year for students to check out and pledge to a fraternity or sorority. Mike and Sulley literally have STOLEN an active door station from the factory, a very serious crime, so it cements in my mind that those two are far from the perfect angels most people think them to be! To make a long story short, though, Randall is not in "Party Central", at all. All of the other characters, including Johnny(who was a senior in MU, so I'm guessing he decided to pursue a graduate degree after all)are back, but no Randall, not even lurking around in the background without speaking. He's not there. We know that he got kicked out of ROR for the "hearst" incident. Either he left MU altogether following that and transferred to another college, or just dropped out and worked his way up to Scarer the way that Mike and Sulley did, or, if he remained at MU, he just became isolated and reclusive and shunned the company of others, probably fearing ridicule and harassment, poor guy.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by randylizard on May 5, 2015 1:52:20 GMT -5
The CDA agent could neither confirm nor deny, but the child actually WAS there. So I really hope the third movie will come out soon and it won't take another 12 years. Looks like what happened in MU was only the first iteration of ruining Randall's beautiful self. I believe it was mostly result of his own mistakes. I haven't seen "Party Central", but, judging by the cards at the end of MU, Randall successfully completed the university. The third variant is the most likely, and for the same reason Randall wasn't in the tv commercial in MI.
|
|
|
Post by randylizard on May 6, 2015 15:06:07 GMT -5
Is there any "official" view about what happened to Randall after banishment and did he survive?
|
|
|
Post by randylizard on May 8, 2015 14:37:49 GMT -5
That trailer is exactly the same as in "A Bug's Life", as seen here. I haven't watched bugs life. Maybe it gives a clue about where that scene happened and who were those people?
|
|
|
Post by randallsnape7 on May 8, 2015 18:07:00 GMT -5
No, it doesn't. The trailer is there, but it doesn't feature those humans at all. A Bug's Life was made before Monsters, Inc., I might add. So, the film A Bug's Life offers no clues.
|
|