I've Got a Question

The Pixar Studio & People
#21

Hmm, I can’t say as much as you can about the matter considering I don’t deal with the same problems with the company, and I’m not expecting anyone to blindly worship them or anything, that’s being short-sighted. I think I just have an odd view of the issue considering that’s all I ever see you (aimed at Pitbulllady), SgtYayap, and Nexas ever post about on here, and I don’t know much about your opinions about Pixar regarding other matters. I’m not saying Pixar can’t do wrong, but they’ve shown little room for error in their work as far as I can see, and I’m just curious about why this has been such an issue for you guys.

I also know absolutely nothing about the BOOM! comics, so I don’t have much to add in that case, but I never really thought of the elimination of Randall in MI to be fighting violence with violence. Sulley knocks him out because he’s being strangled, and then tosses him into the door. The thing with Fungus is a bit more controversial, and I kinda understand that, but I don’t think it was to be taken as something malicious, especially considering the intended comical outcome.

For the most part, I see where the argument lies, but I think it’s being a bit over-analytical in regards to the theme of fighting fear without violence, as I hardly see any violence on Sulley’s part. That’s not to say there’s anything wrong with analyzing story themes that deeply, but to criticize something that subtly done seems a bit critical. That’s just my opinion.

As for the issue with contacting Pixar itself, I don’t have much I can really say, since I don’t know the story on either side’s part very well. All I can add is that they may have dismissed it for one reason or another. I honestly doubt they would be intentionally defiant about the matter, in which case, I would completely agree with you about the whole thing, it just seems too dishonest and low for a studio of that caliber and creative audacity. I’m not sure about this, but they might not have full rights of the writing in the comics in the first place since it’s run by at least a second party, so that might not even be their complete fault. That is being a bit hopeful for them, but Pixar’s been good to us for a long time, if something of theirs ended up tainted, there’d have to be some explanation, considering the painstaking processes they use for their material. The lack of response, I’m not sure what to say about that. :\

#22

That’s rather insulting saying that’s the only thing we ever post about.

Actually that’s wrong. Wazowski beans him in the head with a snowball, Sullivan knocks him out, and after a long chase through the door vault, Sullivan catches Randall off guard thanks to Boo. And after a few minutes (yes. Despite seconds for us, it would have taken time for them all to get on one of the vault platforms together, choose a door (yes, choose), and for Sullivan to switch hands on Randall).

As for Fungus…He relatively got off, just like the “heros”. I mean to his credit, Fungus was just in a similiar situation Randall was in, so if he got off (Just like Waternoose did/will), that’s alright…as long as it’s along with Randall.

As for Sullivan. Now pay attention people. At heart…Sullivan is NOT a violent person. He’s a hardworker, honest (he can’t lie worth a darn…unlike his friend), and tries to be a good sport. However, he might an implusive person. If anybody’s seen Anger Management (movie, not the program…well…program true), there are mostly two types of anger, implosive and explosive (…I think that’s the term). Now Randall of course is explosive…he’s got an anger fuse like so many people and he TRIES to control it. Sullivan would morely be implosive than explosive.
But anyway. Just like everyone else, Sullivan can get angry and can be violent. The best example of this is getting rid of Randall. If he wasn’t so fixated on anger there, he would have done the right thing instead of taking law (this will not be a discussion on their law, it is a reflection of ours) into his own hands. The term “get rid of” applies in many fashions here.
Like said, Sullivan is not a violent person…but he does do it either when he’s deeply stressed in a situation, or holds something against the other person.

The recent events and activites in this respect for Pixar…we’re not sure what extent they are involved. However they had to be to some degree in order to allow this.
The recents, these comics and the previous Tokyo Disney, have Pixar being in a third party of sorts, with BOOM and Disney. Unsure of the relations in Tokyo Disney (given the fact that they have some specifics there that we don’t here and vice-versa)…but as for BOOM, Pixar would at least be involved in the plot.
As for their lack of response…at the very least it is giving us a lower opinion of Pixar in terms of their stability as an entertainment company.

#23

Relax, I didn’t say that’s all you post about, I said that’s all I see you post about. I’m trying to discuss this in the most neutral stance possible, I’m not trying to start an argument or anything. And yeah, I didn’t remember the entire scenario, sorry about that. It’s been a while since I’ve seen MI. Still, I fail to see all of the logic behind the argument. It’s just a difference in perspective.

#24

I’m not going to get too involved here, but what I will say that, as much as we Randall fans (and yes, I do obviously include myself) hate how Randall has been treated and is still being treated (by those comics especially- they’re both very amusing and very disheartening, but I don’t know how much Pixar controls those anyway) we should remember that he is, after all, one of Pixar’s characters. Pixar has the right to do whatever they like with their characters, as they have done in the past and will continue to do in the future. It’s a right they have in creating them in the first place. They don’t necessarily have to listen to their fans (though they have claimed to in the past) and they do obviously respond to praise much more than they ever would do of criticism. There’s a massive reason for that- they’re a big, successful company, not only financially but critically. According to pretty much everyone (aside from people who hate Pixar just for the sake of it) they’ve been doing everything just fine so far. So a ‘minor detail’ such as how they treat one of their more ‘villainous’ characters from a past movie isn’t going to make them change or apologise, or whatever it is that we expect them to do.

I mean, they created the guy in the first place, right? They created someone that we’re all eager to defend and to help, and that’s because he’s managed to connect to a part of us and has ended up almost like a friend, as these are things that’d we’d do for a friend or for family- we’d help them when they were being ‘dragged through the mud’ and that kind of thing. So yes, it is sad when something like this happens to a character we love, but it’s up to Pixar to do what they like with him. They don’t have much of a reason to listen to anyone else considering how successful they’ve been so far.

#25

That reminds me of a comment made by an abusive parent of a student of mine a few years ago: “She’s MY kid, I created her, so I can beat her as much as I want to!”

My earlier comment about fighting fear with violence was in regards to Boo’s “overcoming” her fear of Randall when she jumped on him and bashed him with a baseball bat. Anyone who knows the slightest little bit about behavior, whether human or animal, knows that there are two basic reactions to fear, what behaviorlists refer to as the “fight or flight” reaction. You react to a fearful stimulus by either avoiding it(flight)or attacking(fight). The thing is, the FEAR is still there; it doesn’t “go away” when an organism reacts to it by fighting back, whether that fighting takes the form of hitting, or biting, or whatever. As Cesar Milan, aka “The Dog Whisperer”, has often pointed out on his show, the most dangerous dogs are those who bite/attack out of fear, but they will kill you just the same as a bold, dominant-aggressive dog. Boo did NOT overcome her fear of Randall. All she did was channel that fear into violent behavior, but the fear is very much still there. Only now she’s learned an important lesson: if you are afraid of something or someONE, beat them up, and you’ll feel better. A person who grabs a garden implement and dispatches a snake in the yard is just as terrified of snakes as the person who screams and runs away upon encountering one; they just display that fear in a different way, because they have learned that channeling that adrenaline into violent, aggressive behavior removes the stimulus that caused that fear. It does NOT remove the fear.

pitbulllady

#26

Yup, pretty much, except in this case the person who is being ‘beaten’ technically doesn’t exist. It’s like creating a beautiful painting and then burning it- the artist’s choice.

#27

I acknowledge that Randall is indeed Pixar’s creation. However, I happen to agree with pitbulllady on this one. The purpose of creating a story is to entertain, and if the characters aren’t appealing, the story is not going to sell.

As much as some people seem to deny it, such a requirement must apply to all characters, including antagonists, such as Randall. This is why he has fans such as us in the first place: he was believable in the movie.

And now, Pixar is degrading the quality of their own work by allowing such things like “Ride and Go Seek” and the Boom! Comics to happen. As I have said before: they are inaccurate, and the inaccuracies are NOT (and I don’t know how many times I’ll have to emphasize that word) limited to Randall’s personality. A year has passed since the first movie in the comics, yet Boo acts like she was still two! Randall has four fingers/toes per limb in the comics, not three! Mike is dumb enough to risk another scandal, even despite he was against the idea of keeping Boo in the first movie!

Is this REALLY what you think should be allowed to happen, lizardgirl? To degrade messages and characters of major works, even at the expense of fans? The purpose of a fanbase is to lend support, and if the company they’re supporting doesn’t want them, well, I don’t think I should describe it. Pixar is being hipocritical, since they only listen to people who have nothing bad to say about them, instead of true fans who have legitimate concerns about their work. If they continue in this direction, then they WON’T remain as successful as you say they are, as the public will start to get the pattern.

Which reminds me, I am starting to have doubts that Pixar is as successful as you say they are as of lately. I had a summer job that involved setting up newspapers for cages, and one of the headlines I noticed was “UP Fails to Soar.” This isn’t the only article I’ve seen on such a topic, either.

#28

SgtYayap- I see where you’re coming from, but there’s a reason why the traditional Disney films in the past have always had a truly evil villain- because adults and children alike love to hate an antagonist. Randall wasn’t created to be appealing (even though some of us certainly do love him!) but he was created with a proper personality with multiple sides, and we can obviously see that he’s not the out-and-out antagonist from the older Disney era.

Of course I hate to see Randall being treated badly, by Pixar and the BOOM! comics and other sources, but it has to be admitted that we are the minority. As pitbulllady pointed out, so far Randall seems to be the only character that has been treated like this by Pixar, and considering how many Pixar films have been released since Monsters, Inc., that’s says to me that this isn’t really a trend and therefore isn’t a big enough reason for lots and lots of people to turn away from Pixar. There isn’t a pattern yet because Randall’s the only one who’s really been subjected to all of this. Most people realise that AUTO isn’t evil, just following his directive, Cars had no real villain, and even Syndrome and Muntz have been treated pretty respectfully considering the fact that they are antagonists. I don’t like the fact that they both reach their demise within their respective films, but it’s not as though they’ve made reappearances in other mediums or TV shows or things like that and been treated badly. In general, Pixar is pretty good when it comes to their ‘villains’.

I do agree that it would be nice for Pixar to respond to negative criticism, but I guess it’s their perogative, and as they don’t tend to get too much negative criticism (though some newspapers, as you have pointed out, might not have written all rave reviews about Up, the fact that it seems to be a serious contender for a Best Picture nomination this year, as well as the high percentage score on Rotten Tomatoes and other reviewing websites does say a lot) then I guess they feel no need to respond to it.

#29

To me, the lack of a response IS a response in and of itself. It’s a rather loud and resounding, “F*** YOU! We don’t need YOU!” When anyone whose job depends on public perception, at some point adopts this attitude, if indeed that’s what it is, this is not going to be to their benefit. Now, I know that there are fans who are so blindly devoted that if this studio decided to make a movie about Satan-worshipping Nazis who drink the blood of infants, those fans would watch it and love it and find absolutely nothing wrong with that, and would defend said movie against any and all critics. I’m just not one of those people.

It’s a bigger problem, though, than simply how this one character has been treated. It’s about the messages being sent. We have a “hero” who breaks the law, and gets away with it, who basically commits what would be in our own legal system an example of a lynching, a crime which most sensible people find reprehensible. We have the claim that reacting violently is proof of losing one’s fear-she’s not afraid of you anymore"-YES SHE WAS! We see other examples of guilty individuals who not only get away with their crimes, but are REWARDED for them(Fungus). And then there’s that whole issue of negative stereotyping, that message that “____________(fill in the blanks with the hated group of choice)are ALL bad! Anyone who LOOKS like a ____________is bad!”. As I’ve pointed out before, Randall is the ONLY scaly, reptilian character in the entire movie, so this is simply taking advantage of unfounded fear/hate of certain types of animals in OUR world. It’s like having a movie with only one African-American character…and he’s a pimp and a drug dealer, or one Middle Eastern guy, and he’s naturally a terrorist. For me, personally, this is a bad thing, since that exact same mindset,-“if it’s got scales and it’s not a fish, it’s EVIL and must be destroyed”-is right now responsible for a FEDERAL bill in Washington, which is on the fast track towards passing, that will make criminals of ME and millions of other Americans, many of them children, overnight, should it pass, and will require me, along with those millions of other Americans, to KILL OUR PETS, not because of what they have done, or what we have done, but because of what they ARE-Scaly. Reptilian. This is what negative stereotyping leads to, and the choice to turn the one reptile-like character in this movie into the “Bad Guy” is no different than the portrayal of such creatures in Anaconda or Snakes On a Plane. Whether conciously or subconciously, it reinforces that negative image.

I know that PIxar can’t change the original Monsters, Inc. movie. BUT, they DO have the opportunity, either through the sequel or “off-shoots” that are considered “canon”, to turn things around and offer a more positive message. Sulley, Mike and Fungus all did some very wrong things, and we need to see them at least acknowledge this. Beating someone or something does NOT indicate that you’re no longer afraid of them; in fact, FEAR is a leading cause of violent behavior. There are legal and ethical means of punishing wrong-doers, and we do not simply have the right to take the law into our own hands, not in a civilized country, anyway. AND, ALL people have the capacity to do good or bad, and simply because someone makes a bad choice or a mistake, does not necessarily mean that they are always bad and can never be anything BUT bad. People CAN and DO change, even if they need the help of someone else to do so, and doing this starts with acknowledging your mistakes and flaws. And finally, it’s wrong to judge someone as bad or good simply by what they LOOK like, as I can guarantee was the intent of Randall’s reptilian-like appearance. Instead of continually harping on how wonderfully perfect and angelic Sulley and Mike are and how horrible, 2-dimensionally evil Randall is, Pixar can do better. They CAN and HAVE written much deeper character developments than that.

pitbulllady

#30

And this is where I take my leave of the argument. This is exactly what I was trying to avoid when asking this question, and the lack of debates like this is one reason I enjoy this environment in the first place. Pixar Planet was absolutely devoid of any sort of heated and accusational finger-pointing, be it at the company or just members in general. I’m not saying you don’t have a point or anything, you do, it’s just when you start talking like you do in the last post, it seems like outright bashery of one minuscule aspect of one of their stories, blown entirely out of proportion. It seems to me that this is a personal agenda, and I could be wrong entirely, but that what it comes off as. You seem to be speaking from a defensively biased perspective on the topic of what is stereotyped, be it character portrayal, story themes, or plotlines, and the second Pixar steps into that realm, you shut them down for it. I honestly don’t have a problem with these sort of formulas as long as they work, and the story is good.

So what if Pixar used a stereotype? At least they didn’t make it AS two-dimensional as something you’d see in a modern day Disney animated film, they’re as two-dimensional as ever. Yes, I understand Randall isn’t an absolute bad in the movie, and yeah, Sulley and Mike did some things that can be viewed as criminal, but that’s one reason Mike was so apprehensive about the whole situation in the first place, and so what if they took risks? It’s not like that hasn’t ever been done before, and it seems a bit contradictory of you to say that having two-dimensional, one-sided characters is bad, and then turn around and harp on the fact that Sulley and Mike did a few bad things. Doesn’t seem to make that much sense to me.

So, with that said, I have no desire to participate in this discussion anymore, it’s gone too far for my taste. Your accusations are just too radical in my opinion to find too much validity.

#31

I admit that pitbulllady was the one being addressed here, but the brutal truth is this: personal agendas are what makes the world go round. Take the sponsors of the anti-reptile bill she mentioned, for instance. The politicians don’t give a crap about the people, only money and publicity. And if her agenda really IS personal, at least she’s not trying to make money off of it like the special interest groups who fully support the aforementioned bill are.

But I digress, at least in relation to politics. :blush:

Um, since when did we say that Sulley and Mike were pure evil? What we’re mad about isn’t that they made mistakes, period, but that they got rewarded for them. Pointing out flaws in a protagonist doesn’t mean that the one who points them out is a hypocrite, either, which is what you’re implying about us Randall fans. It makes perfect sense.

You’re right about one thing, though: this argument IS getting carried away. BY BOTH SIDES, however, NOT JUST MY OWN!

#32

I’m with ffdude1906. I think you are blowing this way out of proportions, and your arguments are becoming increasingly… well, just plain weird. I’ll leave it at that. This is a nice forum, and that’s the reason I’, stopping right now.

#33

Fine. You want to know why I care so much about such a stupid thing like this?

For quite a while I hated Monsters, Inc. because I DID used to think Randall was evil. You get what I’m saying? If not, note his external appearance: what kind of animals does he resemble? That’s right, reptiles! I am completely against this over-popularized idea of demonizing and often slaughtering of reptiles and reptile-like things.

Then I came across the Randall fanbase, and there was a SLIGHT glimmer of hope. Maybe Randall wasn’t evil. Maybe Pixar wasn’t trying to promote the famous anti-reptile agenda in the media.

Above all other reasons for why I believed them, their arguments made SENSE! They bothered questioning WHY he did the actions he did, whereas the ignorant majority chose NOT to, resorting to personal attacks instead.

Guess Pixar is just another conspiratorial film-making company via the Boom! Comics and “Ride and Go Seek”! Happy now? :cry:

#34

Go ahead. Throw more insults at me. Tell me that reptiles deserve to be wiped off the face of the Earth. I’m waiting. :cry:

#35

Okay, so I’m not done, but this is the last say I have.

My last post was directed at Pitbulllady, my mistake for not indicating that. But really, you’re putting words into my mouth. I never insulted anyone, if fact, that’s exactly what I was trying to AVOID. I was simply curious as to what all the fuss is about. The assumption that Pixar is involved in a conspiracy against reptiles? Seriously, that’s outright ridiculous. I understand that you’re frustrated that reptiles are constantly put into antagonizing roles, but I mean think about it. Why on Earth would Pixar be conspiring against reptiles. That’s just outlandish and convoluted. I’m not saying YOU are these things, I’m saying the argument is.

I never said anything that should have indicated an attack at anyone on here, that’s what I’ve been trying to avoid. I stand by that, and I haven’t, nor am I trying to put anyone in the spotlight and point fingers. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Also, I think SgtYayap may have read my last post wrong, but I’m not going to take the time to further describe what I said, I don’t want this to get any more heated. I’m leaving the discussion as is, but I will defend myself because I never insulted anyone.

Also, isn’t Pixar making a movie about Newts?

#36

I halfly apologize. Have been accused of that before. Not just me.
And I’m trying to be respectful to all sides, as I’ve always been. I don’t try to insult other people (note this is not in referrance to the above) or bash their views, despite me and others getting it ourselves…
laughs I haven’t seen the film in many years…but have it in my head.
Ahh yes perspective…interesting and ironic you chose THAT word…hm. Pay attention to the Fan-Fiction section…think very soon you’ll find something that will interest your perspective…

Strange that you say family lizardgirl. A motto in my family is that “you mess with one, you mess with all”. And evidently that should be true for all families, that they should stick together.

For Pitbulllady’s post…people, remember…Pixar prides themselves on great research and attention to detail. Take Ratatouille. The food, the scenary, everything there was done through research. Heck, they went to Paris and tasted the culinary arts personally.

That’s redundant lizardgirl…then why are you trying to defend something that “doesn’t exist”. In fact why do people care for good or better for something that “doesn’t exist”. Existance is a view of perception.

Actually in fact, Boo looks pratically the same even after a year. Personally it’s a story role by letting a kid have the “simpson child” role (of never growing up). Not neccessarily a bad thing…but it’s there.

Maybe not enough to turn people away, which is not our intention, but to realize that they are paying more attention to Randall in particular with negative treatment.
Next to every villain in Pixar has some motivation other than the “i’m going to rule the world” or “i’m gonna hurt so-and-so” and stuff like that, which gives them a deeper working. They SHOW Syndrome and Muntz’s past…we hear a little about Hoppers (VERY LITTLE), and we know Auto was created by B&L. And then nothing about Randall. Syndrome and Muntz had GOOD pasts and turn into what we see them. I mean if they did that for Ran, there would be some understanding, since he WAS a good person before like Buddy and Muntz. But no, instead they do the opposite.

If they DON’T tend to get negative criticism, only makes it clearer that they aren’t listening to those who DO give it.

I apologize for my…colleages bringing in some points, despite them being true. This is not a hate-sport against Pixar. We are still unaware of the degree of their involvement…

However, a rounded understanding is needed to see and understand a perspective. For instance, Pitbulllady probably knows more about reptiles than anyone here, as she takes in, keeps, and (I think) adopts reptiles, even (if I recall) some snakes that are venemous. She also, because of her experience, knows about the distreatment and situations of being a reptile-owner, and is aware that many people in all honesty hate/dislike them.
For an example, a rather sick individual posted on a site a picture of a butchered snake (a harmless one, without the ability to strangle or poison), claiming it had “attacked” his brother.

Sullivan and Wazowski did a few good things and a few bad things. And Randall did a few good things and a few bad things. For them NOT to be two-dimensional, people have to know that.

Sgt, the guy’s basically new, we shouldn’t be hard on him.

Don’t think us as extremists ffdude, yes I know you did not say that. We know there is no “conspiracy” or the like. I even have to remind my colleages…that at the time M.I. was made…EISNER WAS STILL IN OFFICE.
See…here’s the thing…at the start, which we see in the special features, Randall was intended to be the “third guy” along with Wazowski and Sullivan. Sullivan was in his previous role as a janitor, and Wazowski was the assitant to the Top Scarer, Randall. And in some form the girl came, but not cute like Boo, rather more of a handful.
Why did it change? Well…I doubt it was Pixar. Eisner probably changed it himself by saying there had to be a villain (which makes it clever of Pixar…that if the case is that they DO have sympathy for Randall…that Randall represented them (the hard workers with allot of talent) and Waternoose (the CEO, TRUE VILLAIN, and boss) represented Eisner.
But now…with these recent things…Eisner’s not involved…

This was not intended to be a heated discussion…if you wanted to…clarify anything, please do.

#37

Someone must have flunked Biology 101. Newts are NOT reptiles; they are amphibians, just like frogs.

MY point, that you for some reason can’t see, is the WRONG messages sent by the movie. Let me break it down for you in case you missed it.

  1. Revenge is the way to solve problems. If someone does something bad to you, do something WORSE back to them. It’s OK. Never rely on the law or legal authorities to deal with Bad people when you can do it yourself. Be a hero-Get EVEN!
  2. The best way to deal with fear is to beat the snot out of whatever you are afraid of. Beating someone up proves you’re not afraid of them.
  3. If you are NOT of an unpopular minority, you’re Good by default. Anything you do is therefore good. Who cares if you break the law? You won’t get punished because you’re GOOD! If you’re Good, you can do anything you want to!
    4.It’s OK to stereotype.
  4. If you’re of an unpopular minority, you are automatically BAD by default, so no matter what you do, it’s BAD. You are horrible, and you deserve the worst possible treatment. Nothing you do could ever possibly be a good thing and others are right to hate you.
  5. ONLY those who are of an unpopular minority deserve to be punished, by anyone and everyone, whether or not they represent any legal authority. Good people can do anything they want to, and get rewarded for it.
    7.People can only be Good or Bad. There is no “in between”. Good people cannot do bad things, and bad people can never do good things. People cannot change. If you do something bad, or make a mistake, you ARE bad, and will always be bad, no matter what.

Now, is THIS what you would want to teach YOUR own kids? If YOU wouldn’t want to teach them this, or let another adult teach them this, why would it be fine and dandy for a movie to teach them this? They are going to get that message, even if it’s on a subliminal level, after all. This amount of negativity isn’t present in any other Pixar movie, nor do their franchises promote it, either. I hate to think of Pixar as being so mean-spirited, shallow and vindictive as to create a character for the sole purpose of abusing for entertainment, in spite of the fact that this character DOES have many fans, and it’s equally disturbing to think that they actually do find all of those negative messages to be just fine, even though I know that a lot of people actually don’t have a problem at all with those concepts.

pitbulllady

#38

I wasn’t trying to take it out on him in particular. I was just really stressed upon knowing that Pixar won’t listen.

Which reminds me: I’m sorry I snapped like that. Again, I was under a lot of emotional pressure at the time.

EDIT: To make up for the damage I’ve done, I’m going to try to stay out of this as much as possible now. Though, pitbulllady, you might want to tone it down yourself. :confused:

#39

ffdude1906 is right. I have noticed that pitbulllady, nexas and SgtYapyap do seem to bring up the alleged mistreatment of Randall in a lot of threads. I’m not exactly sure what that has to do with Pixar’s contact with fans, though…

Remember to keep things civil, guys. Especially, you, pitbulllady. Just tone it down a bit and respect others please.

Actually some higher up Pixarians DO visit Pixar Planet and read Upcoming Pixar. Probably daily. But they are just quiet about it, is all.

#40

To understand Rachel, the main reason we send…well whatever it is we send…is mostly in regards to Randall. waves hand Alright, go ahead and claim we’re extremists or the like…
But the point is is that in 8 years and more…they haven’t responded to any of US just ONCE. And from what we SEE, especially in recent comings, they hadn’t even listened.

I mean think if something you saw as “non-Pixar-worthy” in a Pixar film, and you, like others, agreed and asked simply “why?”. And never get a response.

I am civil, but most people don’t see me as Nexas, they seem me as solely a fan of an “allegedly mistreated” person.