|
Post by lizardgirl on Jul 11, 2013 18:07:09 GMT -5
Actually, I meant that he seems to carry himself a lot closer to the ground in MU, not in MI. As a college student he seems almost to squat down a lot more- in the cupcake scene, the underside of his torso almost touches the ground when he shakes from being hit, whereas if he were standing as he usually does in MI, that wouldn't have happened.
It's not a big deal but just something I've noticed that's been bothering me a bit. Maybe it's just something that changed with age, but I can't see why Pixar would have made that decision consciously, if you see what I mean, since it's not really an anatomical change that's an obvious marker of age or anything. it's a fair comment that he's a flexible guy (the way his hips twist right round in that football goalie image we saw with him and Mike is pretty amazing haha) but I'm referring more to his automatic, normal standing pose which (hopefully) shouldn't require too much flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jul 11, 2013 17:31:29 GMT -5
I haven't even seen the film yet but that short clip was painful to watch. The way those sorority girls looked at him...
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jul 11, 2013 17:25:06 GMT -5
Still haven't seen MU yet (it comes out tomorrow but I'm seeing it on Sunday, eep!) but one thing I have noticed thus far that has really bothered me is his stance and gait, which seems to be different to his stance and gait in MI. I've only seen a few bits with Randall standing and walking, but that development reel on the other thread which shows Randall and his cupcakes really emphasised to me just how different his natural pose is from what we see in MI; in Mi, his knees tend to face forwards, if at a bit of an angle, and he doesn't hunker his torso down much, keeping himself more elevated. In MU, it seems as though he knees face outwards a lot more, and that they continue to do so even when he walks.
I might be totally wrong, seeing as I haven't really seen much of Randall actually walking in MU at all, but if there is actually a recognisable difference, I wonder whether it was purposeful or accidental. I have a sad feeling it's the latter, since it's a mistake that's easy to make in terms of Randall's design, as most people assume that his knees bend outwards, but having watched Randall in MI for so many years, it's a bit jarring seeing this difference. What does anyone else think?
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 16, 2013 16:36:44 GMT -5
That sure is some interesting insight! I have to say that the video did make it look more balanced to me, as he also pointed out the importance of education and values imposed onto a child by the environment it grows up in, as opposed to mentioning only the clearly short-term effects. I have to wonder, though: do the studies also factor in the effects of, say, sleep deprivation or circadian cycle disruption? I might read some literature on the topic eventually (including that in question), but not at this point, so I'd really appreciate an answer What you raised in regards to people being happy with Randall's punishment is, in my opinion, one of the most ironic things about the MI fandom. While the movie's message is all about love, compassion and understanding, the fans of the "villain" are those who actually get it, while the fans of the protagonists celebrate that someone's got hit in the head with a shovel... Thanks! I begrudgingly had to take a course in first year all about this sort of stuff and as much as I loathed it, a lot of it stuck with me, haha. If you're interested in reading more, check out stuff about the person versus situation debate. It's the main idea that encompasses what Zimbardo and Milgram were trying to demonstrate, and arguably there's better research out there that is perhaps less dramatic but more reliable and exact in its findings. I forgot to mention, I didn't watch the video as I moved back home yesterday and the internet here is absolutely rubbish, so watching videos is out of the question unfortunately! I will try and watch it at some point though, since I'm curious as to whether Zimbardo has mediated his more extreme original views (and it sounds as if he has- I'm glad to hear it!). As far as I know, the effect of sleep deprivation or circadian cycle disruption was not measured specifically in neither Zimbardo nor Milgram's original studies, which itself could be considered a flaw; they were studies that were able to demonstrate the impact of the situation, without actually pinpointing the exact cause of the person's behavioural malleability- probably because there are so, so many factors to consider that it's difficult to know what to focus on. Some of these factors have been considered, mainly high level ones (i.e. looking at the brain at a whole-person, sociological level) such as, in the case of Milgram's studies (which are more easily controlled and hence can be empirically manipulated, unlike Zimbardo's more flimsy design) proximity to the victim. So, for example, they found that someone is less likely to electrocute another person if they can hear them, even less likely if they can see them, and so on. But when it comes to lower-level factors, particularly biological ones such as circadian cycle disruption as likely seen in Zimbardo's study, there doesn't seem to be lots of empirical research. Even a quick look on Google Scholar or PsychInfo doesn't seem to come up with much. I'm sure there's stuff out there and it's a pretty intuitive idea that these factors might have an effect, but like much of the stuff related to Zimbardo's work, the finer details are missing, mainly because no-one's been able to replicate his study due to ethical issues. But again, there may be more stuff out there- I've only done a very preliminary search and I can imagine there must be SOME research in the area. I guess the association with torture means that any research in the area could be misused, another problem the field has to deal with often. Anyway, sorry I don't know much, but hope that helps a little. Yeah, I totally agree. It happens so often, too, that the 'villain' gets some nasty punishment and everyone rejoices when the message of the story is about compassion. Again, people don't recognise the flaws in their own thinking, they don't follow the logic through. I guess when you see it happen enough times, and when you grow up watching the stuff in Disney films, it's easy not to question it. Still sucks, though.
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 16, 2013 14:34:09 GMT -5
As much as I believe that Zimbardo's original Stanford Prison experiment was a highly flawed study (and I don't just mean ethically, I mean in terms of the conclusions he drew from the results and how he garnered those results in the first place) I do agree with the general message that anyone can do 'good' or 'evil' things dependent on their situation.
Where I disagree with Zimbardo is his sheer emphasis on the importance of the situation over everything else in the short-term, specifically. From what I can remember of reading The Lucifer Effect, he does his best to negate the individual differences in reactions of both the prisoners and the guards, whilst the video evidence clearly demonstrated that although some guards did take the role to heart and 'turn evil', others really did not. Plus Zimbardo himself, in his desperation to get the results he wanted, did things that influenced the behaviour of the guards beyond the mere situation.
But as I said, the principle in general is good because it does show that any one of us can do both bad things and good things, and it is very true that we often see ourselves as individuals who would not do bad things even when put in such situations. This seems to be a particularly Western bias, as a lot of studies have shown that this good and evil dichotomy, with emphasis on the person rather than the situation (so saying that the person is inherently good or evil, rather than attributing their actions to the situation) seems much less prominent in Eastern cultures.
Milgram's studies also have their flaws but, again, they should be praised for at least getting the idea out there. I guess my main contention is to do with the emphasis on the short-term that both Milgram and Zimbardo's studies seem to focus on, whereas in reality, the impact of a positive or negative situation on a person's behaviour is much stronger with a longer period of time (as we see with Randall!) And THAT'S why you get people saying "I would never do that!" because, if you put them in that standalone predicament right now, they actually probably wouldn't commit the acts that Randall committed. However, with time and with the same context that Randall was in, they most likely would- and there's the importance difference that Zimbardo and Milgram negate (probably because it's much more exciting and interesting to be able to emphasise the idea of 'turning people evil' in a short amount of time).
Going back to that whole "I'd never do that!" thing, that's just one example of so many cognitive biases that will all fall prey to to some extent. Another example is "that'll never happen to me!" in reference to some negative situation, for example being in a car crash. These are actually pretty adaptive biases, but it can get pretty frustrating when some people don't recognise the flaws in their own thinking. As for such people calling themselves Christians whilst apparently being unable to commit sin, I agree that it's pretty ironic. However, part of me does find the whole claim troubling- it's almost like an invitation to sin, since if, theoretically, no-one sinned, then Jesus died in vain. But I'm going off on a religious debate tangent here and that's not what this discussion is about (although I do find the concept interesting!)
And finally, as for the relationship of all of this to the perception of psychology, well, yeah, it does suck that people make these assumptions. I guess what irritates me most is that there are so, SO many misconceptions or 'popular lies' about psychology ("you only use 30% of your brain capacity! If you used 100% you could read people's minds!" for example. Or the ever-popular "the brain and the mind are two different things!") and it's all because we, as humans, are inherently egotistical. It's why we don't like accepting our cognitive biases (and why we struggle to change them even when aware of them), it's why we spend so much time constructing personality tests and figuring out 'who we are' (because "everyone's special", right? Nope!), and it's why only psychological findings that adhere to our expectations (or, in some cases, go so wildly against our expectations that it's deemed more interesting than other stuff) get any real exposure.
Note that I said 'perception of psychology', and not 'perception of psychology AND psychologists'; I am not a fan of practitioners, as although they obviously provide a very valuable service, their reluctance to adapt to cutting-edge findings in the field of psychology really holds back the discipline. So people's wariness of them is understandable (though probably for entirely the wrong reasons).
Anyway, I'll stop blabbering now. In short, yes, anyone can do good and evil things dependent on the situation they're in, but I personally don't think Zimbardo and Milgram are necessarily the most accurate or reliable examples of this (even if they are the most dramatic and appealing). In addition, the average person sucks because they don't realise how biased their cognition is, and for every person who gets that Randall did the stuff he did predominantly due to his difficult situation, there will be 100 who will label him the villain and be glad that he was banished (even with his cuter appearance in MU).
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 10, 2013 13:06:00 GMT -5
I've got very blue eyes which look a bit odd with my dark hair. A friend of mine has lovely green eyes and there is something about them, not just in terms of how unique they are, but they almost glisten in the light haha! But, again, I also have friends with deep, dark, brown eyes and they too look beautiful in a more sort of soul-searching way.
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 10, 2013 13:02:02 GMT -5
Experienced Mac user with some background in desktop publishing here If you need help or tips regarding software or its use, just ask! Thanks for the offer! I might have to take advantage of your skills at some point.
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 10, 2013 6:12:43 GMT -5
Sorry for the delay in getting the new banner up, guys; I've been enjoying my last few weeks of university a bit too much, so to speak, haha, and I haven't had much time to just sit down and do this. I'm also struggling a little on the technology side of things as one evening when I did find some time to work on it, I realised that I'd never actually done this sort of stuff on my new laptop, and as it's a Mac it doesn't have the usual programmes that I'm used to. But I hope the current banner will do for the time being, and if anyone has any suggestions for other Randall screencaps they fancy being on the banner let me know!
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 10, 2013 6:04:34 GMT -5
I have to admit, I properly laughed out loud when he holds Mike and then throws him to that hand slappy thing haha. At first I was like, "aw, isn't that nice, Randall's carrying Mike OH HOLY WHAT-" He does seem to be doing more 'mean' things in this one but yeah, like you said, it depends on the player. And I get the feeling these are all things that any character can do so it's not like they're pinpointing Randall specifically as the only one doing 'bad' things (though really he's just throwing balls and toilet paper at people which, to be fair, is pretty funny, haha). I agree though, I preferred the first trailer, if just for that moment when he zooms off with his jetpack.
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 9, 2013 13:47:01 GMT -5
This is amazing, so fluid and beautiful! Did it just take you one night to do? Really impressive work!
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 9, 2013 13:46:18 GMT -5
I agree PBL about the whole Waternoose as a surrogate father thing, and I can really imagine him using Randall's Achilles heel, as you put it, when first proposing the idea of the SE to him- telling him that only Randall was capable of building the thing, perhaps even saying that he'd be proud or something to that effect of Randall if he managed to achieve this, and so on. And that in turn would have made Randall put aside any worries or fears about the machine (to a certain extent, at least) and hence sign up to the project. I know we know this already, but it's amazing just how conniving Waternoose was- I mean, everyone who has watched MI knows that he's deceptive in regards to Sulley in particular, but he really pulled the wool over Randall's eyes too, and Randall, so desperate for recognition and that fatherly consideration from him like you said, fell for it.
And yeah, again, totally agree that it can't have been a coincidence that the two of them were scaring next to each other, especially in terms of the size of MI; it's such a huge place with so many Scarers that, well, it really couldn't have been a coincidence! I don't know the details of that scene in MU that you're referring to, PBL, the one which really changes Randall's perception of Sulley, but I know that it was a catalyst for a lot of his feelings towards him (and I know about that line he mutters afterwards) so it must've been a horrifying moment when Randall realised that he'd be scaring literally next door to his arch rival. I can imagine him almost seeing it as some sort of test of his words, that promise he made to himself in MU, and for him then to keep being bettered by Sulley in every aspect of his life must've been...gah. Awful. And Sulley, all along, so oblivious to everything!
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 9, 2013 5:20:47 GMT -5
Yeah, seems...schools in the monster world have very accommodating chairs, though it seems they are generally oversize. As we see, Randall and Wazowski have something breathing room while the others seem...squished. So guessing he, thankfully, enjoys a lot of space for whatever chair he gets into. I have remarked on this before Pistol, as one of the ideas for the direction with Randall's story in the sequel I'm working on. At first it was a dominance thing...then it turned into "Randy" being a hallucination of sorts...which can actually be funny for the audience (sad as it still is). But the thing is...Randall is still both those people. He's a kind soul, but he's also a fighter. Finding the balance is the key. === Considering the reaction, as me and PBL had detailed, when he first blends from surprise...it's pretty likely his childhood was tough, and that something may have happened. People can be naturally nervous...but Randall's over-kindness may be compensating a balance in his view of the world to "make things better"...as in making things better due to his own experience of something (or multiple somethings) really bad that happened to him. One thing other people (outside the core of his fandom) forget, is that this is set 10 years ago. A LOT can happen in those years. Pixar did us (and him) right by showing him this way, because that's honestly who he was. He was a good person, got screwed over by life, and figured he had to change. He hung on, but got screwed again, leading up to an inevitable snap. === At the very least, Ran may have thought "whatever's on the other side HAS to be better". The thing about the "I plan to" line...for one...Randall was Top Scarer before Sullivan even took a step onto the Scarefloor. And given what happens in MU...well...in the end Randall IS better, and he knows it. And it's true. He is the better scarer. But, things came to the point where everybody around him was saying Sullivan was, but Randall knew it wasn't true, probably leading to his reputation falling. He's dang good at his job. Heck, sleep deprived AND probably sick, he was STILL matching up to Sullivan's "big numbers". I still believe, like others, those numbers were tampered with. Sullivan's a great scarer, but so is Randall, and he got the headline. === Now to RANDALL, Sullivan's "may the best monster win" may have been arrogant itself. Randall KNEW he was the best, and he had proved it for the past several years to try and rebuild his self-esteem. But then Sullivan takes his position, somehow, and Randall's been trying to figure out how. Now...this is going to be something I'm going into in the Series, but I'll say it to make the point. Randall has NO real idea that Sullivan's changed for the better. The only image he has of Sullivan is the SAME jerk he saw in college. The same jerk that was a show-off, that was arrogant, and that was Mr. Popular. The same jerk that SOMEHOW his former roommate, who once hated the blue behemoth, was now chummy with. Randall is unaware of Sullivan's change of heart and all that happened between him and Wazowski. Of course, the end of the Scare Games, for reasons show in MU, also influenced Randall's perception on Sullivan. So as far as Randall was concerned, that "may the best monster win" may have been a genuinely arrogant. It may not have been a serious "old wound" Randall was still reeling from, but to him, Sullivan may have been trying to push his buttons. As we know, Sullivan wasn't... It's...all really...a big misunderstanding for everybody. Randall has this unchanged (because of what HE went through and being absent from the events) view of Sullivan...and Sullivan doesn't KNOW what Randall's been through and what his OWN actions have done. When he blends from surprise could be taken in two different ways. Firstly, as suggested here before, it might be that it's a learned response- that something bad has happened to him before, that it's been beneficial to be able to turn invisible, and hence the two were associated so it's a direct result of that negative experience. Secondly, it could be purely instinctual; have you ever jumped at a loud noise before? Knee-jerk reactions like that don't have to be learnt from experience but are there from birth. Admittedly by the age of 18 you'd think that he'd have learnt to get a handle on it a bit, but in fact it being a knee-jerk reaction would explain why it's so difficult for him to control it, as such reactions bypass higher processing areas of the brain, i.e. the areas which he would use to control it. In the same way, I'm sure no-one on here can say that they are always able to avoid themselves from jumping at an unexpected noise, haha. But, again, there's no real way of knowing which it is in this case. Yes, it's a real testament to Randall that if, theoretically, he didn't have the nicest of childhoods, he's such a pleasant guy in MU. Most people would bypass that stage and go straight to being a lot less overtly friendly (more like Randall in MI, though stress and other factors clearly made him much less likeable at that time). I guess for Randall, college really is his last chance at making friends and leading a happy, normal life. When that chance is blown (partly by him, partly by others) he sees no reason to keep trying. I base all of my 'theories' and ideas and so on entirely on the movie itself- I don't take anything else, even stuff printed in official Disney/Pixar books and so on, as cannon, because as we've seen before there's a lot of contradictory information and things that don't make much sense. Hence as far as I'm concerned, although it's likely that Randall was once Top Scarer, there's nothing in the film itself that directly states this and so I don't take it as fact. Anyhow, my point still stands: it doesn't matter how good you are, even if Randall was the best Scarer in the WORLD, haha, that doesn't give you an excuse to boast or brag (not that Randall does much of either of these things, though he does hint at it). Randall may be the better Scarer in a number of ways, but ultimately Sulley was at the top at the time of the movie. Hence I always took the 'I plan to' line as Randall thinking of himself as better, regardless of the numbers. Yes, I can see how (to Randall at least) that line might've been arrogant or even threatening, even if Sulley did just say it to try and build bridges. And I agree, that sort of misunderstanding between the two of them especially is very unfortunate and seems to play a big part in their poor relationship. It's a real shame. In reference to some of the other posts on this thread, I totally agree with the idea that Randall suspected something (and that something was indeed going on). I guess everyone else either didn't notice it (there do seem to be a lot of oblivious individuals at MI) or they did notice it but didn't speak up (which would also make a lot of sense- who wants to rock the boat? I can imagine a lot of people gossiping about it but not doing anything). That must've been incredibly frustrating. However, if Randall knew something was dodgy, why did he keep trying so much? By this logic he must've known that all of his efforts were pointless and that Sulley would ultimately always be on top due to number-fiddling. Perhaps because it was done so cleverly, since Randall was always right on Sulley's heels (and as we see in the film, even manages to surpass him for a moment) that kept giving Randall hope that perhaps it COULD be done, just for it to be taken away from him again.
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 8, 2013 18:08:59 GMT -5
You can definitely see how the two situations relate, that "Randy" and "Randall" are NOT two distinct personalities at all, but simply manifestations of the same. What we see in MI is a survival mechanism, a last-ditch effort by his Ego to salvage itself from self-destruction. I don't really recall Randall ever saying how great he was, though, in MI. He IS delusional that he will get rewarded handsomely for building that machine, as he indicates to Mike, which, when you think about it, seems to show that he is STILL trying to confide in Mike and trust him to some degree. Randall never actually says that he's great, or that he's even better than anyone else, except for ONE time, when Sulley offers that handshake and says, "may the best monster win", and Randall responds coldly with, "I PLAN to." I never took his words in the locker room, when he says he's gonna be "doin' some serious scarin'" and "puttin' up some impressive numbers" as bragging or trying to say he was better than anyone else. It was just a statement of what he was being paid to do, after all, like a football player "psyching" himself up before the big game with a little self pep-talk. All things considered, Randall's numbers WERE impressive and he WAS doing some serious scaring, so he wasn't making hollow promises there or saying anything that was not true, that he could have "backed up" with actions. pitbulllady I don't see the locker room scene as entirely the same as a footballer trying to psych themselves up before a big game; to a certain extent, maybe, but it's very much directed at Mike and Sulley in a bid to intimidate them. Sure, what he was saying was true, but you can be braggy about something without necessarily exaggerating- I'd still find it boastful if someone said they'd done great on a test even if they'd genuinely done really well. And I do think there's an air of arrogance when Randall says "I plan to"; not genuine arrogance, because as I said before, he himself is not convinced of his abilities, but it was an arrogant reply ultimately. And yes, those are the only two occasions where Randall comes across as boastful but considering how little screen time he has it's not like there are lots of chances for that to be conveyed. But I do agree that he's almost half-hearted with it, that he says things like how great he's going to do to make himself feel better more than anything, and even just that is a pretty radical difference to how he comes across in MU- he never would have talked about the numbers he's going to rack up back when he was a student! Randall's 'arrogance' or the times when he's 'boastful' pale in comparison to Mike's pure, unadulterated arrogance that we seem to see both in MU and in MI, and the same can be said of Sulley's arrogance in MU. So to be fair to him, Randall isn't that bad at all in these aspects. But especially in comparing him in MU and MI, he does develop much more of a 'boastful' nature which he seems to use to prop himself up and convince himself that everything's going to be okay. That was always my interpretation, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 8, 2013 15:21:23 GMT -5
Oh, Randall...So beautiful. I could watch that GIF all day.
As for his nervous disposition, doodlebug is right; some people are naturally nervous- I know I am. In fact, I have my own version of the hand thing that Randall does in that clip, haha. So he could simply be a anxious person, although such dispositions can of course have a root in some sort of negative experience, and I wouldn't be surprised if Randall had a bit of a tough childhood, and that combined with a slight predisposition to being nervous, that could lead to the worried college student we see here.
Although Randy is very different to Randall, his complete and utter lack of self-confidence works well with his change in MI; in fact, if there's one trait that seems to be pretty enduring throughout his life, it's a low self-esteem and lack of any confidence whatsoever. Randall might be braggy in MI, but as we've discussed before, that's more to do with him trying to convince both everyone around him about how amazing he is, in a bid to convince himself that it's actually true. So he essentially changes tact in trying to deal with his confidence issues, but as we know it doesn't work either way. It's like he just internalises his problems, going from one extreme (telling even people he's only really just met how nervous he is and showing signs of weakness) to another (refusing to show any signs of weakness whatsoever and talking about how great he is).
Just a bit of a random ramble there, but I just love how Pixar have managed to change his character so much to show development over time, and yet on the other hand, with a bit of consideration, it's possible to see how the two relate.
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 6, 2013 17:54:04 GMT -5
I like that it's much easier to go from one page of a thread to the next, and the notifications thing is cool. It also all looks a bit 'cleaner'. Not sure how much can be tweaked though, beyond the basic features.
|
|