Monsters Inc 2 : Randall's role/thoughts?

A note on Waternoose…while James Courbon (hope I have that right) is no longer amoung the living…Waternoose does NOT have to speak if he appears in the sequel.
Perhaps he’ll be seen in a t.v. commercial, not saying anything, being surrounded by his lawyers that state “my client has no comment”, with the newscaster talking about the state v.s. Waternoose, or whatever the legality is…

As for Sullivan and Randall, yes, there definetly has to be SOMETHING going on aside from them that they have to buckle down against. And there’s allot to work through here.
Kudos to Mental for mentioning…Sullivan’s trust issues could be shaken due to what Waternoose had done. Perhaps we saw this effect with Randall, where he never listened, thinking he couldn’t trust him anymore (even if he had), though mostly it was his loss of reason.
There’s allot to work with here. Sullivan, soon becoming alone and stressed from his job as CEO, slowly starts to worry he might step into the claws of Waternoose and do something wrong. Waternoose could be a defining feature, a “darkness” that befalls him.

And when you think about it, it’s interesting. Many would consider RANDALL to be what would haunt him, in a negative fashion. Randall would, but in the concept that Sullivan feels GUILTY.
But with Waternoose, Sullivan would face the realization that he could become just like him. Can picture Sullivan staring up at a painting of Waternoose (who can tell me someone like him does NOT have a painting of himself, or a relative, in his office?), and suddenly the painting comes to life, grabbing him and sucking him in, and then he wakes up, realizing he had fallen asleep from exhaustion on his desk in a cold sweat.

Randall would initially be a threat, and Wazowski will have no stops with trying to pin every little bad instance on him, even if he wasn’t involved. I’d HATE for Wazowski to be right in this instance, because it isn’t really creative to go the “I told ya so” route. But Sullivan might not see it as that.
Give what Randall went through on his mere “welcome” to the human world, he’d be pretty beat up. And he’d likely had no medical attention either. Just SEEING Randall would be enough for him to feel sorry for what he did.

prods head Of course I’ve been molding up my own ideas for the sequel, cutting and editing, trying to form the “perfect script” as it were. Every main person’s got their own arc, and hopefully it will all come together, albiet shakily.

Buzz and Woody is (incidentally) one of my favourite Pixarian friendships. Plus them getting to that point pretty much makes up all the movie.

Haunted would be a good word for it. Of course it has to be subtle if they ever went in that direction themselves yet not something which would fly over peoples heads. Some build up as to how Sulley has something bothering him but he can’t put his claw on exactly what it is.

Oddly this topic seems to be what we think SHOULD happen in M.I.2 but perhaps we should also state what is most likely here: I’m 99.95% certain Randall was supposed to simply be with no depth and 100% certain Sulley’s action wasn’t suppossed to be questionable in terms of creator intent.

I think the problem comes because while Docter has a lot of talent and imagination as well as ideas- he has little discipline when it comes to putting them together. While we have only two examples of when he’s directing, he breaks his own worlds internal logic and the world he’s built and doesn’t think about what is sometimes implied He can produce excellent heart warming moments and an interesting world in M.I.- but most of the interesting parts of M.I’s world. are accidental (except perhaps Waternoose).

I guess I should explain here: Basically for instance in Up it’s more or less established they are dogs which have collars which make them talk. That’s fine really if that’s the rule in their universe. Otherwise they act like dogs it seems anyway. They simply can talk. And I can buy that you could train a dog to carry a tray like they did (albeit they were VERY easily distracted.). But I can’t buy them flying aeroplanes as easily. (Plus the presence of them and the fact they CAN use them makes you wonder why they didn’t use them earlier in tracking the bird- have some on the ground to track and communicate with some in the air for example).

Simarilarly in M.I. we get throw away lines about Jury duty from Mike- probably literally thrown in there without thinking more on what it implied. We get Waternoose, in what might have been simply the writers trying to drive the point home that Sulley was the better scarer make the relationship with Randall look unbalanced and certainly not one built on mutual respect. It was unusual for someone as high strung and argumentative as Randall to act as he did to Waternooses argument.

I can see what they were going for- Randall was simply the bad guy and any depth we saw was and is technically accidental, though the problem is they could have made it easier on themselves with some changes despite the difficulties sometimes of creating someone like that in a world with paycheques.

Waternoose is an excellent and realistic antagonist. His reveal is shocking but in retrospect has build up and makes utter sense considering his reactions to certain things and the fact Randall would need resources in various forms in the plot as well as this someone being higher up in the company. This IS and always WILL BE a display of Docter’s talent and potential to me personally: Waternoose. He is an EXCELLENT character, a human form of which you could see existing and it will be sad that his reappearance in any talking form seems unlikely. But if they wanted Randall to come off as nothing but bad and no controversy to surround his exit, there could have been changes made. They have to take into account world building and general perceptions. I mean just because the designated hero does i doesn’t make an action automatically good.

First off take away the Jury Duty line OR make it so he’s stuffed in the back of the CDA truck at the end instead of exiled, perhaps tying him up after they have him in their power. (Or heck do that latter one anyway, even without the legal issues it just throws me.).

It also seems to at points want us to forget that humans were never viewed as intellectual or sentient equals to monsters at all in the beginning, even though they are. If they wanted Randall to be pure evil forver, there could have been a number of ways of doing so to make it a bit more believable. But THIS particulary is one of them- make it clear that yes monsters see humans as equals. That in their eyes it would be the same as testing on a monster kid. And there you go Instant Randall evil, just add water.

While it raises some other questions DON’T have it clear that humans are seen as lesser animals. Sure it results in questions regarding Mike’s own behaviour towards Boo (well even as how they view them, it still raises eyebrows) but if you WANT Randall to be pure evil you have to make it so they know they are intellectually more or less equals.

Another instance could have that its stated that Randall is a recent addition to the staff and only came in when the plot started, or the only reason he was hired as a scarer was as a cover for the plot- Waternoose got him through for that reason alone.

Perhaps even have him NOT be the engineer at all! Perhaps merely a ‘grunt’ in some other form for Waternoose- like someone who ‘takes care’ of certain people and is not officially on the payroll, so he doesn’t have likely sleep deprivation issues. The builder of the sceram extractor is some other guy. Making Randall a scarer on top of an engineering project is dicey.

(Heck I just went through one night of no sleep recently, I was terrible the day afterwards and was snapping at my dad down the phone because he frustrated me. He’s frustrating in general to talk down the phone to but not sleeping before hand just made things worse- he’s better to talk to face to face. I did email later to apologise and explain though.)

. I can understand why in a way things went this way in the movie- things seem more obvious in retrospect if at all and people approach movies differently. Sleep deprivation isn’t something many kids face or the work environment or how it might function. It can get easy caught up in hating someone like Randall- who ON-SCREEN any other side would be considered to be remarkably subtle and not as in people faces. Possibly because it wasn’t intended at all. Sometimes double standards do happen in fiction, M.I. wasn’t the first- because many people (creators included) relate and think more on that character’s story and thoughts and feelings compared to others and don’t maybe think that perhaps that the action committed isn’t all that great just because its done by them or even though the desire is understandable.

(I may have been thrown even when I liked Sulley only and not Randall the first time I watched it, but people have different levels of this probably).

Overall I can see what they want- and this is likely what is role in the sequel probably WILL be. But there are mistakes in that area which weren’t exactly accounted for

Plus in more shallow terms, it’s pretty dull and a boring idea to me personally speaking.

BUT, if you were to poll many people who call themselves Pixar fans, and ask them WHY they like Pixar’s movies so much, one of the most-consistent responses will be…and HAS been…that Pixar’s characters seem so realistic, and have much more depth to them than characters in other movies. We can therefore “relate” to them much more than others. IF it’s true that Pixar does NOT develop their characters, Randall included, any better than other studios, then we’ve been HAD, big-time. We’ve been taken for suckers, fallen to the Big Lie, and everyone of us here is an idiot who can be told anything and fall for it. If Pixar just created this character to be a “flat”, one-sided, ordinary run-of-the-mill cartoon bad guy, even though he was a major player in one of their movies, why is it that so many people still believe that Pixar is better than other studios, or special in any way? If they can’t do better than that, but can get people to THINK that they are, then the only things they ARE good at are lying and deceiving people, convincing fans that they are somehow better than Blue Sky, or Dreamworks, or any of the other studios making animated feature films. It’s no different, honestly, than a husband who cheats on his wife at every opportunity, but she’s either so in love that she is blind to his flaws, OR he is such a convincing liar that he is able to dupe her into believing in his fidelity.

I have to ask-is this REALLY the case? HAVE all of us REALLY been deceived into believing that Pixar’s characters are somehow more believeable, more “filled-out”, more developed, in terms of personalities, etc., than those of other studios, including the ones that make paint-by-numbers Saturday morning 'toons, or ARE they really superior as writers, and are they REALLY creating characters that ARE a cut above the rest?

pitbulllady

It’s possible they still have the talent in other characters among other things but we also have to remember that not all the directors or writers are the same for each movie really. (Plus when they talk about relatable characters people could conveniently forget Randall or certain characters- I don’t find Syndrome to be all that relatebale for instance. Some characters are more relateable to some people than others)

Docter sometimes bothers me- he has talent and imagination but he doesn’t channel it to the best of his ability I think and there are gaps in his world building abilities and his knowledge on various subjects and the idea of implications and what they can mean. Like the fact being the designated hero doesn’t mean “fair game”.

Randall is certainly not someone who is “evil for the sake of evil” but I’m pretty sure now we weren’t supposed to sympathsise with him as much as we and others might have, if we include creator intent there.

Thankfully, creator intent means jack in interpretations. It’s not canon. And neither are interviews, it’s just bothersome now with a sequel on the rise, though Docter himself is not on it- so maybe fresh meat will take the opportunity for themselves.

The thing is the M.I. is filled with possibilities unexplored through the slip ups made. But still I find it unlikely they’ll somehow detract from Docter’s own view on events all the same. Which is a shame, but there’s nothing to be done now. And we have to wait and see about that.

The thing is, making Randall as flat as (perhaps) their original intent probably was doesn’t really work very well for me from what I extrapolate which is there in the movie and all when I decided to look into detail. Not to mention it’s boring in general that idea. But if that’s what they were going for they’d have to change a fair few things to make that idea air-tight. 9In the ORIGINAL movie- but too late now).

Still, boring.

But M.I. is one of those instances where perhaps it’s good they messed up a little (minus the whole exile deal), because it makes for a far more interesting story.

It’s going to be nearly a decade since the original piece, has to at least be something for those who have followed it since then.

Personally, the many drop hints of Randall’s portrayal lead me to think of a lower number. There’s just too many occurrences and audience-brought-inaccuracies for it to be completely unintended.

Of course the fact that many DO sympathize with Randall is something that HAS happened. It’s occurred, that’s fact. Maybe it was unintended, maybe the spark was put there, but regardless it happened. And now that a sequel has been decided, it can’t be ignored.
Many of us have stated fact bases that maybe even those at Pixar hadn’t even considered. Perhaps they’ve noticed this, and is what drives them to make a sequel.
chuckles, shakes head It would be ego-inspiring to say…but I feel to say it…wouldn’t it be interesting if all those little facts, all the little speculations, all the discoveries that have been made in these 10 years so far that we’ve talked and discussed…is the reason for the sequel? That we are the reason it’s being made? chuckles Hopeful thought, but in the words of the guy in Amadeus…“Well, there it is”.

I totally see what you’re saying here. I always have problems understanding why people defend certain characters, especially villains(most of the time, of course.)
That’s a reason why I seriously consider it unlikely that they’ll put Randall in the new movie, because though he has a fairly large fan base, it would be alienating their biggest fanbase(forgive me), kids. I think that for 12 year olds who remember the movie from 2001 would feel really weird if they were expected to connect to Randall, after “everything he did”.

Pixar has many adult fans, and obviously a lot of the ones here want closure for Randall. But, they still have to make money off of the money. Film studios like PIXAR can’t live off adults and critics alone, but of the opinions of GASP small kids, too.

Of course, it’s the adults the spend the money chuckles

My math may be incorrect, but I don’t think there’s a Pixar film to date that did not break even and more in terms of finances. And I doubt M.I. 2, with Randall in it, would hurt it at the box-office.
Personally, I don’t think they need to worry about making money on this.

But, whether we as animation/PIXAR fans like it or not, 90% of the adult population that actually pays to see animated features in cinema have small children. Fact, not opinion.

Well unsure if that’s actually fact…but I’m just going to say that it is because it’s true enough.
A kid who sees the trailer for an animated feature will most likely ask their parents to go and see it. And given the economy these days, people like escaping into films just like the Romans did with the Coliseum.

Okay. I’m done arguing my point, because I just haven’t read enough books to argue with adults who have already been through/are in college. I just can’t argue with that.

Your point’s a valid one. My last post was in agreement with you.

And no, I’m not old in age, am in experiences. Heh heh…find it interesting I’m thought of as college material…

The only books I read are adventures and fantasies…I like the worlds…the creativity…

Oh, okay. I misread. Sorry(I have that problem all the time on the TS forum :angry: ).

Well, you’re smart, so I assumed you were 25 or older. Sorry again. :laughing:

Yeah…you do do that. Just take a breath and observe the words a little more before making a post. In terms of Randall fans, don’t think the worst of each of us at the start and think we’re always against everything else…
But anyways, it’s ok.

grins 25 huh? Same age as Randall was, and he’s even smarter heh.
And thanks for calling me that…it does mean something for me.

Maybe you should read slower if you’re going to ague with the people agreeing with you. :laughing:

I took this to mean “people will see any fantasy movie to escape real life” because I’m stupid.

Please tell me you’re being sarcastic when you say you’re stupid.

Sgt…hmm…uhh yes hopefully she was.

But yes, like I said, most people like escapes from the world because it’s…well for most has become rather hard. Hence why movies, books, and video games have become popular…
Look at the Twilight series…no. NO discussion on THAT here heh :laughing: Just saying, something that had become very popular and people have it as an escape. It’s not a bad thing at all.

Oh IVG, you’re far from stupid.

But yeah, people do use fantasy to escape life sometimes, as long as it doesn’t take over completely it’s okay though. But it can produce a welcome break that we all need sometimes. This not only counts in watching or reading or hearing them but also making them too.

Life has always been hard in some way, sure some people have it easier than others but if you live long enough, people will never prevent themselves from having the feeling of hardship or loss at least once, of feeling like either an outsider or someone who doesn’t understand what is going on. And stories as well as being an escape, sometimes help people make sense of real life at times too whether they’re fictional or not.

I think with re: Randall, it may have been a mistake what they did or we took from it (but Docter… well like I said talent- but doesn’t think of extrapolations very well, with kids things have to be simple, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t make sense. A lot of problems come from what you can think on later.). But like I said it would be excellent if they ran with the possibilities the mistakes in of themselves present. Sometimes things can happen as you create a story, as you write characters and new ideas can take hold. I think Docter, while only having two Pixar films has demonstrated this ability of littering of various mistakes here and there which actually mean a lot in the big scheme of things. He messes up. Now no-one is perfect, or story for that matter, but it seems to be a particular issue I have in his mistakes. Great imagination and his friendships between Sulley and Boo, and relationships like Carl and Ellie are heartwarming, but he can seriously mess up by throwing jokes and various lines and ideas in which really actually say more than he wanted to. Or can kind of throw people at least.

I think it is possible to redeem Randall, taking into account his previously shown personality to kids, even without showing them the (almost essay length) extra extapolations on the basis of behaviour and world building issues which can be brought to light before seeing the sequel, but it just seems unlikely to me they’ll go down that route somehow unfortunatly. There’s still a chancem but not a very large one. And while I don’t approve on the basis in which revenge is often shown in Western culture, it IS a product of our culture- there are people who want to see Randall hit, hurt etc. for what he’s done. Revenge itself isn’t pretty, but if you’ve lived long enough you’ve felt the desire for it, even if in most cases you never go and carry it out. In media, it’s probably living vicaciously these emotions and desires- things we’ll never do in real life for various reasons.

In acts of revenge on this level you don’t really view the other person as a ‘human being’ so to speak with their own thoughts and feelings or reasons. It’s being caught up in our own desires and seeing the person as ‘deserving’ it. It is part of our natural selfish desires into play. Admitting mistakes is also difficult and a painful exprience but necessary, and no-one here is free of that. But still such things are hard to do or admit to. (Though even in the case of Randall being pure evil, it wasn’t Sulley’s call to make).

But to be honest I do feel that regardless, I will continually bugged if Sulley doesn’t display the slightest hint of doubt over it at all. Even in the case of Randall not being redeemed, it really wasn’t his call to make, and Sulley as we’ve seen in the original movie, blames himself pretty easily when he lets Boo in and feels guilt fairly easily. He doesn’t have as big a problem admitting to himself he’s made a mistake, though I could see himself mentally tripping himself with regards Randall, thinking he only missed Boo.

With regards to little kids being the “core” Pixar audience(which has NOT been established as “fact”, actually…otherwise this site would not exist), it is even MORE important for those audience members to see a “bad” character redeemed. Children NEED to learn that people are not always cut-and-dried “good” or “bad”, and that doing something to get even with another person is NOT the way to solve problems and in reality, it does NOT make you a “hero” or result in rewards, but rather, often brings down more problems on you than you had from the person you “got even with”. In other words, Sulley’s actions should carry some negative consequences. Kids need to see that this is not the way to go, when it comes to solving conflicts with other people. They should also see that it IS possible for people to change. Many times, kids themselves get labeled “good” or “bad”, and find themselves “stuck” in that labeling, and feel that once they are “stuck”, they might as well just live up to their label. If they believe that they are “bad”, they figure they might as well just do bad things, since there’s no way to escape that, and at the same time, I often see kids who’ve been told, “you’re good, so everything you do is good”, and basically they believe that they are incapable of doing anything wrong. They therefore don’t take responsibility for their own actions when they do inevitably make mistakes. Kids absolutely NEED to see that beating someone up is NOT the way to solve your problems nor is it the way to get over being afraid of them, and the sequel would be a good opportunity for Pixar to right those wrongs in the first movie. If anyone here actually believes that doing something bad to a person to get back at them for something they did to you actually solves problems and is a good thing, show me the proof, because I can certainly show you plenty of examples why it does NOT work and is NOT a good thing!

pitbulllady

I don’t understand what you mean. I didn’t mean to cause a big discussion, I just don’t get a lot of things, particularly emotional and psychological things, which is mostly what’s discussed on the MI forum. It makes me feel like I don’t deserve to be here, because I’m not good at understanding emotions. If someone does something wrong, I feel that they should be punished, no discussion. My mom says that Asperger’s does that, but I just don’t get why I can understand “hard” English and Biology classes, but if someone dies, I don’t get upset. I feel good, because they’re not sick/in pain anymore.

And I totally get what you guys are saying about seeing films and taking advantage of other media for an “escape”. Personally, I don’t like reality. I’d much rather watch Star Wars(not the prequels :open_mouth: ) than things like the Bucket List or Precious.