tmazanec1
Randall's Head Servant (300-799)
Posts: 463
|
Post by tmazanec1 on Jun 14, 2009 23:03:06 GMT -5
We have dissected the depiction of Randal to show many clues that he was a basically good, if insecure and driven, guy who was duped into the scheme by Waternoose (in particular one who shall go nameless, but whose non-de-plume is dog-breed-female-adult :-) ). There seem too many such hints for it to be coincidence. Did Pixar purposely make him somewhat sympathetic in this way, or are we reading too much into a villain we happen to like, or what?
|
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 14, 2009 23:05:47 GMT -5
*folds arms* I'd honestly like to think they did drop these hints intentionally. But as time dragged on, I'm unsure. I mean they could've just locked Ran into making him gun-ho on bad guy. *shakes head* But the fact that there ARE hints, some more open than others....maybe there were some writers who didn't want to completely change Randall from the original script *shrugs*
|
|
DinoGirl
Randall's Head Servant (300-799)
Aladar sure has one sparkling eye!
Posts: 512
|
Post by DinoGirl on Jun 15, 2009 10:24:06 GMT -5
I am not so sure anymore if they did put the hints in 'intentionally' to try and make him a good guy. All talks of a sequel compliments this in my eyes, too. Was it once that on this forum it described Disney manipulating (or maybe that's too stronger word?) Pixar into crating Randall as a bad character.
Anyway, we can always look towards this very forum as a sanctuary for Randall's appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jun 15, 2009 12:05:19 GMT -5
We've all seen the early concept drawing of Randall, which sort of evolved from this rather insane-looking, goofy character(something VERY Craig McCracken-ish, lol)to what we see onscreen now. I have read several accounts from various Pixar animators and story-board artists of Randall's "evolution", and indeed, the developmental changes that the entire cast and script went through, some of which is presented on the DVD, a lot of it which isn't. Initially, there WAS no Bad Guy; the three monsters-Sulley, Mike AND Randall-were all best buds throughout many of the initial script treatments. In the first script, they weren't even real monsters in the exact same sense of the movie, they were IMAGINARY FRIENDS of a guy who lived a very boring life, and they help him to regain his sense of adventure and creativity. Even after it was decided that there would be this parallel universe in which the dominant life-form was a race of sentient, sapient monsters who were terrified of humans, there was no real Bad Guy, not a monster, anyway. In one treatment, there was a very nasty little kid(think Syd, only a girl)who was into torturing small animals and such, who got into the Monster World and had to be dealt with, but that was quickly dropped, and thank goodness, too. That kid later became a little boy about six or so, whom the monsters THOUGHT was dangerous, and our three intrepid heroes set about to "save" the Monster World from this "threat", in the process learning that human children are not toxic, and more importantly, learning how to put aside their own differences and work cooperatively. From what I've read, Randall started out as an Irish character, with a thick brogue, but became all-American at some point in the re-writes. He always apparently supposed to be, in the words of Eduardo from the "Foster's Home..." pilot, "tightly-wound, emotionally", prone to loud and angry outbursts fueled by too much caffeine and a work-a-holic mentality, but no one took his outbursts seriously. The other characters just shrugged it off, as the characters in "The Honyemooners" ignored Ralph's tirades, knowing it was all just a bunch of hot air. One of the animators who actually worked on Randall's design, a guy with a Latino-sounding name, had a blog that is now gone, and he actually went into detail as to how difficult it was to animate Randall due to him having all those limbs AND a long tail, since there was no real animal that they could model his gait from, and described how he wound up observing big cats at the LA Zoo for inspiration on how Randall would move, rather than the large lizards or crocodilians. He also stated that right up until the very last script re-write, even after full animation had begun, there was no villain. Michael Eisner, then-CEO of Disney(who at that time owned all of Pixar's franchises and controlled the distribution of all their movies for a set fee), insisted that the movie needed to have a villain, a real threat, rather than a perceived threat in the form of a human child, and that decision probably also had a lot to do with Boo evolving from an older, more independent child into a very young toddler, to make her more vulnerable to that threat and strengthen the parental-protective bond between her and Sulley. I don't know who, specifically, decided to make Randall the primary "Bad Guy", but I'd guess since he already was supposed to have this irrascible temper, AND he was reptilian in appearance, he was automatically the first choice, to keep from having to create, design and animate an entirely new character this late in the game. I'm not sure how or when they decided to include Waternoose in on the whole Bad Guy side, and it's pure conjecture on my part that it was a subliminal "jab" at Michael Eisner's meddling about with Pixar's creativity, since Waternoose was also a CEO. While Randall might not have always been depicted as a 100% sweet, lovable guy, he wasn't always treated as a "villain", either, and I don't know if Pixar intentionally wanted anyone to see that in their final version, or not. I honestly don't know. I DO know that there were scenes left out which probably would have made him more sympathetic, like the one that Sean has posted here, in which Randall's expression after being reamed by his boss and told that "James P. Sullivan was TWICE the Scarer YOU'LL EVER BE" is clearly one of HURT, not anger, so it appears that Pixar later did try to make him seem as mean, cruel, and heartless as possible to avoid garnering any sympathy for him from the audience.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 15, 2009 20:05:46 GMT -5
Morely it was consider Eisner but...*shrugs*
*nods*
-------------------------------
It's pieces like THAT that make it difficult to say if they were intentional or not. Especially a pic like that that was far into the film and was essentially a "finished package". *folds arms* Which leads one to wonder if there ARE extra pieces of footage they DIDN'T release in the DVD...
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jun 15, 2009 20:45:33 GMT -5
Morely it was consider Eisner but...*shrugs* *nods* ------------------------------- It's pieces like THAT that make it difficult to say if they were intentional or not. Especially a pic like that that was far into the film and was essentially a "finished package". *folds arms* Which leads one to wonder if there ARE extra pieces of footage they DIDN'T release in the DVD... For nearly all movies that make to into theaters or on DVD, there are HOURS of scenes that are edited out, removed, for one reason or another. Most of it is edited in the interest of time, to get the movie's length down to something that people will actually sit through, and this is probably more true of animated movies than of live-action movies, since it's pretty much understood that a large segment of the audience will be people with very short attention spans. Some, but certainly not all, of the material that was edited from the original movie will wind up on DVD as "extras", but most won't, and unless you work for the studio that made the movie, you won't ever see it. I'm sure it's no different for Monsters, Inc. than for any other film. I've always suspected-no proof, just a strong hunch, female intuition, gut instinct, whatever-that Pixar orginally had a LOT more footage of Randall filmed that we will never see, unless some of it makes it onto the Blu-Ray disc, and that one of the reasons it was taken out was because it might have made him too appealing, too sympathetic, perhaps by providing more of a "back story" to him that would go further towards explaining his actions rather than just saying, "well, he's mean, he's jealous, he wants to beat Sulley at all costs, yada yada yada". I have always felt strongly that there was a connection between Boo's disguise and Randall "going ballistic" and really going in for the kill when he saw her dressed that way. Prior to actually SEEING her, in Sulley's arms, dressed that way, Randall was simply trying to intimidate/bluff Mike into revealing where the kid was. Seeing her dressed like that, though-something really just "snapped" at that point. The gloves came off, so to speak. I've always wondered if perhaps there was some back-story about Randall having a kid, somewhere, or perhaps having lost a child, or a younger sibling way back, and seeing that human child dressed like that was just too much. I even saw an Ebay ad, for one of the pewter statues, "Slithery Scarer", in which the seller mentioned that Randall was the same color/texture as Boo's costume, and that the two of them looked cute together, so I'm not the only one who has made a connection between Randall's appearance and that of Boo's costume. There is just a lot more here than what we actually saw. pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 15, 2009 20:49:23 GMT -5
Hmm...Well I doubt that Pixar would discard any of the extra stuff they didn't show people, or all that hard work (and it would be certainly for a scene that COULD have made it in the final cut) is wasted. *folds arms* It may still be in there somewhere...
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jun 15, 2009 21:08:32 GMT -5
Hmm...Well I doubt that Pixar would discard any of the extra stuff they didn't show people, or all that hard work (and it would be certainly for a scene that COULD have made it in the final cut) is wasted. *folds arms* It may still be in there somewhere... No, no...studios don't discard edited-out material. It's all cataloged and stored somewhere, on some computer, most likely, in Emeryville. Like I said, though, it's not like any of us will ever see it. pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 15, 2009 21:15:23 GMT -5
Emeryville you say...hmmm...
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jun 15, 2009 21:47:53 GMT -5
Emeryville you say...hmmm... Uhm, yeah...that IS where Pixar Studios are located, so logically that's where all of their edited-out footage, stuff from all their movies that didn't make the final cut or the DVD, would be stored. pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 15, 2009 21:54:52 GMT -5
Hmm....
|
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Sept 14, 2009 18:00:04 GMT -5
Sorry about pumping life back into an old thread, but, at least right now, I feel it's a rather good topic to discuss. I honestly used to HATE the movie when I thought that Randall was evil. Upon finding these fans, however, I had changed my attitude a little bit. Now, however, the more I'm looking into these new Pixar-endorsed developments, the more I'm starting to doubt that Pixar wanted him to be anything more than pure evil. But my doubts don't even stop there. I fear that Pixar's hints about Randall not being evil were unintentional on their part, and that, to them, anyone who likes such a character is nothing short of weird, if not disturbed. Think about it: it's not just the details in the comics. It's also the details in the Special Features DVD of the 2-Disc version, SEVERAL of the games based on the franchise, and the rides, most notably "Ride and Go Seek". Maybe I'm just being overly pessimistic, like I usually am, but I fear that we HAVE started to like something that just isn't there.  |
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 14, 2009 19:32:03 GMT -5
Sorry about pumping life back into an old thread, but, at least right now, I feel it's a rather good topic to discuss. I honestly used to HATE the movie when I thought that Randall was evil. Upon finding these fans, however, I had changed my attitude a little bit. Now, however, the more I'm looking into these new Pixar-endorsed developments, the more I'm starting to doubt that Pixar wanted him to be anything more than pure evil. But my doubts don't even stop there. I fear that Pixar's hints about Randall not being evil were unintentional on their part, and that, to them, anyone who likes such a character is nothing short of weird, if not disturbed. Think about it: it's not just the details in the comics. It's also the details in the Special Features DVD of the 2-Disc version, SEVERAL of the games based on the franchise, and the rides, most notably "Ride and Go Seek". Maybe I'm just being overly pessimistic, like I usually am, but I fear that we HAVE started to like something that just isn't there. If what you are saying IS true, think about the implications. First, it means that a LOT of people, not just here on this forum, but all over the 'net, all over the WORLD...are a bunch of delusional idiots whose experience, and whose logic, means nothing. It also means that Pixar, and John Lasseter especially, are a lying bunch of money-grubbing hypocrits. Not only that, but that we have also been deceived into thinking that Pixar is somehow better, a cut above, the typical movie studio, and animation studios especially, and that their movies somehow have a special merit, when in fact, they don't. John Lasseter stated on national television that Pixar cares about fans, ALL fans, and that their goal is to please fans, to make the movies that the FANS want to see. He proceded to show a framed copy of the "Pixar Rules of Filmmaking" on his desk, and one of those rules was "NO VILLAINS". Now, if it's true that they INTENDED for Randall to be a villain in every sense of the word from the get-go, this means that they do not believe in their own rules of filmmaking, which is supposedly what makes their movies superior. If they ignore us, and treat us like crap and flip us the proverbial middle finger, if you will, then what does that do for the "we make movies for our fans" statement, and what does that do for any credibility on Pixar's part? Would you continue to support a studio, a group of people, who openly LIE to you? What is that saying about the actual quality of their work? Perhaps every Pixar fan out there is seeing something that does not exist, that we are simply conditioned to believe exists, when we think we're watching top-quality movies and story-telling, when it's clearly not. I do not, not for one second, believe that all of us are delusional, that we are seeing something that does not exist. Far too many people see Randall as something other than Evil Incarnate. Far too many people DO believe in people having more than once facet to their psyche, in people being able to change, in people being neither inately good or bad. For many of us, it's something based on very real experiences. I know I'M not stupid, or naive, or delusional in believing those things, and if Pixar does not, and fully intends for one of their characters to be nothing more than a Saturday morning cartoon villain, what is that saying about their story writing, their creativity and originality that supposedly sets them apart from the rest of the pack and supposedly makes them the "creme-de-la-creme" of animation studios? pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Sept 14, 2009 19:40:44 GMT -5
There are indeed many people who are fans, and yet, at the same time, none of them are anyone I know of personally, even among those who DID see the movie. Still, I understand what you're trying to say, pitbulllady, and, really, I'm just not sure what to think. Pixar has taken this direction with their comics as showing Randall as nothing short of pure evil, at least in the first issue, yet the idea of him being evil in the movie is not that accurate due to the details. Again, I don't know what to think.  Sorry about the venting. I was just REALLY upset right then due to a misinterpretation of the Special Features DVD. |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Sept 14, 2009 19:44:18 GMT -5
Teheheh...there ARE a lot of people who are a buch of delusional ignoranamacs ^0^
|
|
