|
Post by sgtyayap on Sept 14, 2009 19:52:35 GMT -5
Ignoranamacs as in those who DON'T like Randall? If so, I've seen it first hand.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Sept 14, 2009 19:54:11 GMT -5
*shakes head* No, I just mean in general. Most of the masses belive things openely without peronsally looking.
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Sept 14, 2009 20:00:02 GMT -5
Sadly, that's true as well. At least some are flexible, in terms of opinion; hence, why we might get a huge amount of voices for the campaign in time to come.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 14, 2009 20:07:13 GMT -5
Teheheh...there ARE a lot of people who are a buch of delusional ignoranamacs ^0^ Yeah...but I think that Sgtyayap's concern was that the "delusional ignoranamacs" in this case are US...you, me, him, all of the people who do not believe that Randall is evil and who believe that there is a lot more to him and his character than a mere born-evil, always-evil villain. Do YOU believe that all of us are seeing something that isn't there, in terms of seeing some good or the potential to change for the better in this character named Randall Boggs, and believe that we should simply give up and acknowledge that we are wrong and have been wrong all along, and that the people who believe that Randall is, was and always will be evil are right? That was the point he was trying to make, although I can understand where he's coming from, since I cannot claim to be the most optimistic person myself. I'm confident in my own intelligence and clarity, though, and I am willing to argue one-on-one with any Pixarian who wishes to challenge that perspective from a logical point-of-view. If their so-called creative people are that narrow-minded, that can't say much about the quality of their story-telling, or about the people who continue to flock to their movies and consistently put them in the top-ranked films of their respective release years. It means that an awful lot of people are falling for the deception of Pixar having a superior product, when it's just more of the same-old, same old, cranked out by a studio who does not even believe their own words. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Sept 14, 2009 20:10:46 GMT -5
We are indeed not delusional ignoranamacs (I know the proper term is "acy" or such). But if people call us that, so what. I man who looked at an empty sky and claimed a tower to be build that would scrape it was seen as a delusional man. Yet now he would be accepted, as that which he was called delusional for was made in existance and reality. WE look at that existance, WE look at what is within. Just because these people don't want to look makes them ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Sept 15, 2009 3:40:52 GMT -5
I at first thought his as a villain on my first viewing- it was more so when Sulley banished him did I start to look more closely at it and started watching the movie multiple times. That Randall didn't believe humans were sentient- plus Waternoose, when he chased Sulley and Boo down the hall freaked me out, alot. I was always more scared of HIM than Randall, even in the beginning, his face when he released the scream from the canister in the opening scene was a bit...
Hard to explain. I DID think he was a 'good guy' until the banishment of Sulley and Mike though, I at first thought that 'fake surprise' was just some bad animation or writing at first.
"Gasp, the child!"
But looking back, it was actually kind of clever.
Thing is, some people don't see what Sulley did as bad so might not try to look further into it. There are fans of monsters inc- who watched it once or twice ages ago and enjoyed it, but might not watch it again until this sequel transpires, if even that.
Then there are FANS who watch it over and over and can pick out the details and certain hints that might be missed from only a few viewings or might fail to 'sink in'. And keep in mind I am SLOW though. Or at least, I was more so when I first viewed monsters inc.
HERE'S a scary thought: what if the sequel goes the way of the Harry Potter books.
What I mean to say is that JK Rowling of the Harry Potter books did something almost 'unforgiveable' as she wrote the series:
She DIDN'T reread her earlier books. Oh she kept her NOTEBOOKS, but considering she changed things around before she published the first drafts in some way usually, this doesn't inspire much confidence in of itself. This also meant that ALOT of previously established canon rules of magic in some of the earlier books got broken in the later ones. It took her SEVENTEEN years to finish the series, so since she didn't reread, she inevitably forgot some things. Plus her moral stance changed in the middle of it and house unity became- 'all this generation's snakes are evil and lions are awesome!' When it is pretty obvious there is a double standard going on.'
In the end the last few books did not make logical nor moral sense considering the rules and hinted future lessons she had previously established.
I'm hoping the sequel doesn't go the same way. Things get forgotten over time. If they want a decent sequel, they need to go through the original with a fine teeth comb AT LEAST before coming up with a story or coming to the conclusion that the story works.
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Sept 15, 2009 5:35:10 GMT -5
Yeah...but I think that Sgtyayap's concern was that the "delusional ignoranamacs" in this case are US...you, me, him, all of the people who do not believe that Randall is evil and who believe that there is a lot more to him and his character than a mere born-evil, always-evil villain. Do YOU believe that all of us are seeing something that isn't there, in terms of seeing some good or the potential to change for the better in this character named Randall Boggs, and believe that we should simply give up and acknowledge that we are wrong and have been wrong all along, and that the people who believe that Randall is, was and always will be evil are right? That was the point he was trying to make, although I can understand where he's coming from, since I cannot claim to be the most optimistic person myself. I'm confident in my own intelligence and clarity, though, and I am willing to argue one-on-one with any Pixarian who wishes to challenge that perspective from a logical point-of-view. If their so-called creative people are that narrow-minded, that can't say much about the quality of their story-telling, or about the people who continue to flock to their movies and consistently put them in the top-ranked films of their respective release years. It means that an awful lot of people are falling for the deception of Pixar having a superior product, when it's just more of the same-old, same old, cranked out by a studio who does not even believe their own words. pitbulllady Yes, I WAS referring to us, but only in terms of what Pixar might think of us. I do not mean to doubt the intelligence of ANY of you. The question is REALLY whether Pixar views us as such. I hope not, but...I don't know. Also, that IS another possibility, mentalguru, as it HAS been quite a few years, especially where the comics are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 15, 2009 11:54:44 GMT -5
Yeah...but I think that Sgtyayap's concern was that the "delusional ignoranamacs" in this case are US...you, me, him, all of the people who do not believe that Randall is evil and who believe that there is a lot more to him and his character than a mere born-evil, always-evil villain. Do YOU believe that all of us are seeing something that isn't there, in terms of seeing some good or the potential to change for the better in this character named Randall Boggs, and believe that we should simply give up and acknowledge that we are wrong and have been wrong all along, and that the people who believe that Randall is, was and always will be evil are right? That was the point he was trying to make, although I can understand where he's coming from, since I cannot claim to be the most optimistic person myself. I'm confident in my own intelligence and clarity, though, and I am willing to argue one-on-one with any Pixarian who wishes to challenge that perspective from a logical point-of-view. If their so-called creative people are that narrow-minded, that can't say much about the quality of their story-telling, or about the people who continue to flock to their movies and consistently put them in the top-ranked films of their respective release years. It means that an awful lot of people are falling for the deception of Pixar having a superior product, when it's just more of the same-old, same old, cranked out by a studio who does not even believe their own words. pitbulllady Yes, I WAS referring to us, but only in terms of what Pixar might think of us. I do not mean to doubt the intelligence of ANY of you. The question is REALLY whether Pixar views us as such. I hope not, but...I don't know. Also, that IS another possibility, mentalguru, as it HAS been quite a few years, especially where the comics are concerned. I believe that if this is the case, if Pixar thinks we are stupid and/or crazy, then THEY are the ones who need to seriously take a look at themselves and their values. Are they really that immature that they believe in the "born evil-born good, always evil, always good" concept? I find it hard to believe that such creative people would be so narrow-minded, honestly, but then, if they continue with that trend toward traditional "Good Guys vs. Bad Guys", that is no long reflecting much creativity, hence they will be jumping the shark, and it will be only a matter of time before others besides ourselves realize it. You can only impress an audience with visual eye candy for so long, but if there is no longer an original story behind it, it's meaningless. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Sept 15, 2009 14:08:39 GMT -5
I personally was never FULLY convinced that Pixar did not "believe" in villains. My basis is not limited to Waternoose of Monsters, Inc., however. Hopper of A Bug's Life, for instance, seemed quite bossy, putting it lightly, and at least for Randall there were sides shown that made some question whether he really WAS "basically evil" (quoting Buscemi's forced comments on his character)
For many of their movies, it's seems to be hard to think that there are no villains in their movies to most people as well unless you are VERY wise, the following being my reasons:
1. In the actual movies themselves, my universal emphasis is where the musical score is concerned (ranging from the dark french horn melodies played relentlessly for Randall, to, I could've sworn I recall Psycho-esque music for that girl in Finding Nemo?).
2. Though I admit it wasn't actually Pixar who wrote it, the Disney Villains countdown we've discussed previously ALSO proves my point, at least in terms of interpretation by the masses: Randall was not the only Pixar character listed. Sid pops right off of my head, for some reason; he was in an even LOWER-numbered place!
3. Let's not forget that Pixar's movies are family friendly. Whether they intend this or not, that often means that the bulk (not ALL, though, fortunately) of people who watch it, aside from parents, are little kids, who, in MY experience at least, seldom have the capacity to realize that there is such a thing as "shades of grey". My only hope in regards to the audience of the comics is that Pixar is fully aware of this analysis as well, and are trying to do something to appeal to them in order to build up for the sequel, whether it relates to the plot of the sequel or not.
I like what I DID hear though, in that they said that they DIDN'T believe in villains, but unfortunately, even if they were being honest, I didn't see whatever thing they said this in, and I doubt many others did, either.
Sorry if this sounds gloomy. I'm just trying to interpret the average viewer of their movies.
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Dec 27, 2009 15:12:26 GMT -5
All of a sudden I feel it necessary to bring this thread back to life yet again. Even if Pixar DID design him to not be pure evil, the brutal truth is this: those of us who know that he wasn't are, as lizardgirl put it to me in a Pixar Planet PM, a minority. We'll have to face it: the bulk of people are closed-minded idiots who use appearances of a character to instantly judge whether they're good or not. So many, in fact, that I'm starting to wonder whether the people at Pixar are among them. RandallBoggs suggested to me that it could just be supply-and-demand. That, in certain respects, actually makes it worse, though, because, again, we are nothing but a minority. Check out one of the signature's for one of the newbies on Pixar Planet, for instance. I've PM'd the newbie about my concerns, and they said that Randall wa sevil throughout the whole movie while Waternoose was just evil at the end. Mind you, I had already pointed out Waternoose's deception, which somehow the newbie interprets as Waternoose being a good person in the beginning and turning bad! Worst of all, this is just ONE person. One out of who-knows-how-many people who constantly demonize Randall, even by ignoring Waternoose in the process. I've even seen dA art showing Randall among other villains. Meanwhile, despite the member count, we have like, what, 8 active members here? The numbers are barely any higher on other sites. We are the only ones saying otherwise, which is especially sad because none of us are professionally involved in the official stuff about him, unlike the other side. No matter how smart and knowledgeable we may be about real life, I'm starting to think that we are hopeless and always were, considering that we are only a microscopic percentage of all the fans of the movie.
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Dec 27, 2009 16:10:36 GMT -5
I think that ID is an example of someone not really thinking about what they mean by 'bad guy' and just putting in whoever. I mean, aside from Randall, you've got Bruce the shark from Finding Nemo (who is not a bad guy at all), as well as Chick Hicks from Cars, who, though he isn't the nicest of characters, is hardly a 'bad guy'. So I don't think they've really thought it through.
Don't get too sad about it, SgtYayp. As long as Randall has made a difference to your life and to others, then that's all that matters, I think.
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Dec 27, 2009 16:15:16 GMT -5
I was wondering when you'd come back here, lizardgirl. As for the main topic, I'm still worried, nonetheless. That newbie, though not thinking things through clearly (and I DID address Bruce the shark in the PM as well), is just an example. In fact, at least in terms of Monsters, Inc., they seem to represent the average viewer quite well, at least in terms of Randall. I've seen other things, too, such as meshing Randall in with real villains on sites like YouTube as well as dA.
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Dec 27, 2009 16:22:14 GMT -5
People just prefer to take things on face value, I guess. I love Randall to pieces, but there's no denying that in some ways he 'acts' like a villain- he clearly doesn't get along with the 'good guys', he's 'sneaky' and all of that sort of thing. When people see that, it's a normal reaction to assume the worst (which is what Pixar wanted the audience to do, as Randall is, essentally a red herring).
In fact, I'd even go as far as to bring evolutionary psychology into all of this. There's a reason why people watch Monsters, Inc., see Randall and think 'that guy's a villain'. As strange as it sounds, it might even be to do with Darwin's survival of the fittest, connecting this with the strange necessity in stories and films alike to have a villain in the first place. But Pixar didn't make things straightforward with Randall, he doesn't follow the usual formula, and so it takes someone with a little more care, understanding and the ability to empathise with a fictional character to see this. Not everyone has those things.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Dec 28, 2009 11:38:46 GMT -5
Considering that this is my last post, I am only going to say this...unless you have permission from the original artist to put that sig here than you shouldn't have in the first place...that signature is NOT yours SgtYayap and unless you have permission from the artist to use it then you have no right to post it where ever you see fit, if you would have posted a link to it then that would have been different but that is not what you did. I'm sorry if I'm coming off rude but as an artist myself, if I found out that someone took something of mine and chose to display else where WITHOUT my permission I would be angry as HELL! You don't have to remove the sig from your post but I'm just letting you know because if the original artist were to somehow come across this site by accident, I'm sure he wouldn't be too happy either, this site is not that hard to find, just do a google search and it's one of the first things that pops up. So with that said, I take my leave.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Dec 28, 2009 16:53:22 GMT -5
Mmm. Really mistica? I find that rather odd myself. He's not claiming the banner as his own. Then again the critique surrounding it may not be liked... Personally it's not really a good idea to set ourselves up as somehow 'above' those who think Randall as evil. People approach this movie differently and the thing is, with Randall things are a bit complicated. As said by LG at first glance randall is not SHOWN directly to have another side. Its a whole lot more subtle as well as the fact more often then not a viewer requires some knowledge about the work environment and all that entails. Not to mention the fact that him always being THAT agitated would make it (almost) impossible to get hired. It's not really immediately apparent. It wasn't to me. The only thing I knew instinctively was that his exile was more than a little iffy, but even then I didn't realise it was because I'd more or less subconciously absorbed the trial line among other things. So I wouldn't be TOO judgemental.
|
|