Monsters Inc. 2?

Pixar's Feature Films Monsters, Inc. / University
#221

Perhaps two movies aren’t sufficient evidence on which to judge a director, but those two movies DO both feature a very UNoriginal theme: there are “Good” Guys and there are “Bad” Guys; the Bad Guys oppose and try to harm the Good Guys, and the Good Guys ultimately win by killing the Bad Guys. This is not new, it is not original; it has been stock-in-trade in countless cheap Saturday morning cartoons aimed at four-year-old kids, and of course, is the basis for most of Disney’s animated movies. You can’t get any more predictable than that. There’s no “risk-taking”, no breaking out of that particular mold and challenging that Saturday-morning convention of “once Bad, always Bad” or “Anything the Good Guys do is GOOD”, no daring to explore the more intricate and complex aspects of REAL behavior, no willingness to say that “Good” and “Bad” aren’t always so straight-forward, but that there is a lot of “gray” when it comes to our actions and those of others. There is also a certain reliance on negative stereotyping in Mr. Docter’s movies, a message that “THOSE are always BAD, and THESE are always GOOD”, that doesn’t sit well with me. “Dobermans and Rottweilers are BAD, while Golden Retrievers are GOOD”, and “Scaly, reptilian creatures are always BAD, while furry creatures are always GOOD”. For the most part, you KNOW, in one of Docter’s movies, as soon as you see a character, whether that character is “Good” or “Bad”, based on what the character looks like. It’s no different, really, from seeing an African-American character with a lot of gold chains and a flashy ride and KNOWING that this is going to be the Bad Guy, a thief and a drug-dealer and a gangsta who is going to be a threat, compared to a blond-haired, nicely-dressed Caucasian who drives a Prius with an “I Brake For Animals” bumper sticker on the back. Again, perhaps I’m not being fair to judge Peter Docter based on just two films, but that’s all I have to go on, and if I’m to believe that he CAN make a movie that does NOT rely on the concept that people are 100% either “Good” or “Bad” and that there MUST be a battle between them, or draw upon preconceived negative stereotypes to categorize characters as either Good or Bad, then I need more evidence, which at this time, is lacking. IF Mr. Docter sticks to these same formulas in Monsters, Inc. 2, and refuses to challenge those conventions, then it does show a lack of originality and creativity and daring, no matter how nicely it’s dressed up and embellished with special effects and background and emotion.

pitbulllady

#222

I’m very good at determining such a result Totoro. Believe, I know what will occur. And if that’s not enough, seven years of experience is added to it.

Indeed. Though that was morely for Pixar as a whole, not directly to Pete Doctor’s works. For terms of creative stories, Cars was lacking, while the rest had original and inventive concepts.

tips head We’re not “freaking out” because there is a sequel…I already went over this.

rubs temple Harsh but true, as Pitbulllady usually gives it straight…sighs Here it comes…

#223

Nexas, you seem a bit,… sure of yourself, but it’s not my position to argue with you about your personal opinion. I guess I was just a bit defensive of Pete, he is my favorite director after all. I do agree with your position about Cars. It seemed rather cookie-cutter for Pixar, but it still had some serious themes mixed it, as weak as they were. I’m also a bit bugged at the fact that Pixar decided to pick Cars for it’s second continuation, but I think Lasseter knows what he’s doing, he practically invented the 3d animation industry anyway. Who knows, maybe he’ll kind of redeem Cars for it’s lack of Pixar’s trademark depth with Cars 2.

Pitbulllady, I kind of see where you’re coming from, but I think you criticize it a bit much. That’s just my opinion, I’m not jumping on you or anything. My view is that you can use that sort of formula in good ways, or bad ways, good ways being original, unexplored ways to utilize that sort of formula. I was a bit disappointed with Muntz’s character, but it didn’t detract from the movie for me by any means, I watch it for Carl and Russell anyway. Carl’s a mixed bag, you can’t deny that. He never reaches the point of antagonist by any means, but he’s not exactly a trademark good guy. As for Monsters, I am a bit bugged that Sulley never has any sort of character development, besides his attachment to Boo, and his dilemma with Mike, he’s just kinda Sulley. He never has any sort of diversion from being just a nice guy in the movie, which I can see creating problems for character depth, Sulley is a bit of a shallow character. Regardless, I think the movies work very well, especially Up, there’s a lot of deep relationships in that movie that make it very moving, and Monsters has undeniable charm and innovation in the creativity of the whole world. It’s just fascinating.

I guess you just have to pay attention to different things in the movies to enjoy them the way I do (not saying you enjoy them less, just for different reasons), I think I focus on different plot points and aspects of the movie than you do.

#224

I appreciate you see a segment of my view ffdude…and I am sure. Probably not too big a stretch to say that it would be as predictable of a reaction as of Pete Doctor’s workings on M.I. 2. In some honesty, I would like to be proved flase on both these accounts, but from personal experience, that is very doubtful.
rubs temple I appreciate your defense of Pete…he is indeed a very creative man and one of Pixar’s finest. It is just that some of his…actions…about how he handles things in some of his films…is simply one of his faults. Directors are not always going to cover every distinct piece of a great film. I think Pete might do well on many options but…perhaps if he had the help of…well lets see…Finding Nemo’s director…he would be in a better position to make an even greater story.

In terms of Cars 2…I believe it’s Pixar’s attempt to sorta “dry their hands” of the predictable plot of the first Cars. Plus the whole concept of taking “Cars national” is a good one, and should be great visually if they extend it to different places.

In terms of Up…I have not seen the film, but confirmation of a few things from a good friend of mine gave me the grave history of Muntz throughout the film. And in all honesty…he really didn’t have to die at all.

And that’s something for the M.I. sequel too. Being FAITHFUL to those who were in the events of the first one. Sullivan…at his basics is a nice guy, some-what absent-minded sometimes, over-protective, and quite average. If in the sequel he feels NO remorse for ANY of the actions he has done previously, or feels the DIFFICULTY of his current role as CEO (come on people…LESS than a YEAR of training for a CEO position? Sullivan’s an average-worker through and through, he certainly didn’t expect to get such a high position so fast and certainly was NOT prepared for it) then it is NOT faithful. These are elements, at least for Sullivan, that shows his personality, makes him much deeper. If they just skip all that, then Sullivan is proved to be a remorse-less, over-lucky, law-overiding person. And honestly…he shouldn’t be that.
Wazowski? Well he can pretty much be the same…HOWEVER…he’ll be establishing a better relationship with Celia. If he IS though, he’s gonna have to shape up, because despite Celia loving him, she DOES see his faults.
Of course I’m forgetting another important person…but if I mention him, we’ll be entering what I predicted.

It’s true, some people see things differently, and it’s not just in films. Some of us just look at it as entertainment. Others may look a little deeper and start to think more. Others…look so deep they find truths and facts and conclusive speculation that when they even discuss them, they are criticized for it.

#225

Well, technically, by the end of the movie, [spoil]the other dogs aren’t bad. All along, Beta and Gamma, (the Rottweiler and the Bulldog), were not so much bad as they were following their dog Alpha, who happened to be a Doberman. But Alpha was just following his superior, Muntz. As I’m sure you know, in dog packs, you don’t try to pull rank on the alpha too often… But at the end, He is brought back with Carl and Russell - no longer the bad guy. He was merely playing out his part in the pack - a ranking given to him by Muntz. He seem a little conceded to me at times, (do you wish to challenge my ranking given to me for my strength and cunning?), but no, not inherently bad. As for Dug, even he wanted the bird as his prisoner at first… Again, trying to find his ranking in the pack. As for Alpha being the alpha of the pack… well, some dog breeds - if you had a group of a bunch of dogs together - are just naturally more apt to settle into different rankings. Golden Retrievers are often less dominant… I think that’s what happened here - that and probably Muntz’s preference over certain breeds. [/spoil]

As for Muntz, [spoil]at the beginning, he is not the bad guy. The point of the movie is, that he is not that different from Carl, really. Carl had to let go of his house/stuff, which was essentially - and literally - tying him down. Had Muntz, who had started out the same way - stuck in the past - been able to let go as well, then he would have saved himself. Carl was not trying to kill Muntz, and ultimately he did not intentionally kill him. It was Muntz’s choices that caused the series of events. Muntz was Carl and Ellie’s idol when they were younger. Unfortunately, Muntz became to caught up in his own obsession - because at the beginning, he was profiled as a hero set out to prove himself. [/spoil]

Mods: I do understand that that was all off-topic to MI2, as it is about Up, but I felt it made sense since we were discussing Mr. Docter. I will try to stay more on topic…

  • C-3PO
#226

You nailed some excellent points there C-3PO, I hadn’t really thought about that, most notable that[spoil] Carl really didn’t directly harm Muntz, it was self defense, and just trying to save Kevin, Muntz just ended up falling out on accident. And also about Alpha, almost like Auto, having to take orders from higher up, with no personal regard towards the main characters. That’s another thing, Muntz didn’t have a personal grudge towards Carl, at least until he became paranoid[/spoil]

And Nexas, I totally agree about your position towards Sulley regarding a sequel. I really think that the unfamiliarity of this new responsibility should play a big role in Suley’s story in the second movie, or at least be included to a healthy degree. I think the main plot will consist of something starting to work incorrectly, machines running goofy, and there’s some sort of deeper thing going on regarding why. Whether or not this will include Boo, I’m not sure, but I’m kind of hoping it won’t, at least not to the point where she becomes integral to the plot, like big time. That’s just one idea I have, seems like it might be what they end up doing.

#227

What Pitbulllady was saying is that, even though that IS the truth, and the dogs are NOT evil, many people will precieve them that way do to stereotypes. Pitbulls and Dobermans are commonly “guard dogs” and are commonly the guard dogs of the “villains” and in such are labled with them.

C-3PO, unknowingly you are partly-still on topic, as the understanding of Muntz and motivations of what he and Carl were doing is relevant to what is in this conversation.

Though Carl DID directly harm that guy who accidentally damage his an Ellie’s mailbox, thereby labeling him a Public Menace. blinks You see…Carl was JUST as subdued by his obessions, his longings, that he COULD become what Muntz was at his worst. He is JUST as subsceptibal (ugh spelling) to these emotions as anyone.
A few groundings. Carl’s main obession was fulfilling his promise to Ellie no matter what. Muntz’s main obession was clearing his name and finding the bird in Paradise Falls. They’re men. They’re human. I have no doubts that if Muntz had captured Kevin earlier (note he would be unaware she had babies), he wouldn’t harm her (as he stated himself “bring the bird back alive” when he first set off). But due to the obession overtaking him, he became senile…but ONLY when the bird was brought up.
Muntz first appears as the old adventurer, welcoming Carl and Russell with open arms. It’s ONLY AFTER Russell absent-mindedly mentions the bird that all those thoughts came to Muntz again. and it is ONLY AFTER Russell makes the, obviouslly, reckless decision to find Kevin on his own, that Muntz steps up to actually hurt one of them.

Thank you ffdude1906. And for the earlier comment to C-3PO, that despite being a Monster, Sullivan is just as human as anyone. He loves, he cries, he cares, he feels guilt. These mulitude of actual emotions IS what makes the characters in these films so powerful.
In my eyes, and also a plot to be used by me in possible story, the sequel would go somewhere like this…Sullivan’s having hard times being CEO ot Monsters inc. The multi-tude of work and backlashing from possible Anti-laughter/Pro-Scareing takes it’s toll on him. Mike is of little help, complaining that him and Celia are in odds and evens in planning a wedding, though Mike is uncertain of commitment. Sullivan, however, envies the fact Mike has someone, and that he’s nearly alone in his endeavor. Meanwhile (and this actually compliments what you said), Monsters Inc. is taking it’s toll from multiple mechanical problems. What is the cause? Can the equipment handle Laugh Energy? Is it protesters? Or someone else? To add to Sullivan’s worries, Henry J. Waternoose (note this is a kink since his voice actor, condolences, has passed on), will soon have his trial coming up. The mon he admired will soon be judged, and can Sullivan truely put him away even if he wanted to? His only comfort is seeing Boo at the end of nearly everyday, something he looks forward to. But still, everytime he sees her, he is slowly recalled to that day in November when things changed. The day when Boo first came, Waternoose’s plot was uncovered, and when Sullivan banished a monster without mercy.
The story would still be funny of course, so much with Sullivan juggling so many tasks, and Wazowski being the comical, at least to women, “man afraid of commitment”. But there would also be a deeper story that eventually leads to the strain being lessened for Sullivan, Mike and Celia marrying, and a particular someone being employed, once again, though he never quite/fired, to fix the equipment problem.

#228

Which is why I am so glad at the end [spoil]the dogs were shown to be just the opposite.[/spoil] Actually, in stores I think the toy of Beta, (the Doberman) was one of the biggest sellers. And I had thought of this, (and I believe someone else on here did too): Obviously, Muntz still had tons of dogs years later, because, well they would have kept on breeding. But when he [spoil]took off at the beginning, he had only working breeds, like the above mentioned, and St. Bernard’s and such. So, did Dug possibly belong to one of the other explorers Muntz had “encountered”? Because otherwise, where would a Golden Retriever have come from? [/spoil]

As for Carl and Muntz, I agree completely. They weren’t all that different. Unfortunately, only one of them knew when to [spoil]let go of the past… [/spoil]

Back to MI2, if they are indeed making one, I have no idea what it’s going to be about. The thing is, truthfully, right now, I am a little unsure of what TS3 is going to be like… Sometimes sequels can be quite a gamble. One thing’s for sure. The end of MI with Randall was not as final as what happened [spoil]with Muntz[/spoil]. So technically, a plot like you mentioned could very well happen. Whether or not it does? We will just have to wait and see.

  • C-3PO
#229

As am I…though I was unaware before I saw the film that they actually used Muntz’s ship rather than the house…
Interesting info about Dug…the DVD release, if I recall will have an added extra containing just what mission Dug had…as the creators have pointed out that it’s about “just what mission Dug had” so it seems it was something else other than the bird, though Dug was aware that capturing Kevin was what his master wanted (and the fact Dug changes masters many times shows promise in that theory).
Carl only let go when he found something new to care for…and in fact he relatively succeeded in his goal of bringing the house to Paradise Falls as he promised Ellie. So he succeeded and became a better man for it. Muntz, unfortunately didn’t get that, but I believe he very well could have become a better man if he had succeeded to bring Kevin stateside…and hopefully in that better form, return Kevin to Paradise falls.

Toy Story 3 is an interesting example of a long-time-period sequel. Just how they’re going to work it out will truely be an expression of how they will handle such things.
Glad you agree, and that I wasn’t the first to openly name Randall…now I can. Randall indeed had to survive, or Sullivan and Wazowski would be labeled killers, and we can’t have that now can we? In all honesty Wazowski couldn’t care less of Randall’s current predicament, but Sulley WOULD honestly. It wouldn’t be fair to him if the sequel had Sulley with no regret to exiling (I did not say banishment as that is the LEGAL term) Randall, as that’s just not who Sulley is.
A plot like the one I mentioned has many fair treatement, and I hope Pixar looks it over and has inspiration. They’ve been beating over Randall with a stick, and are certainly NOT being faithful at all to him of course in their latest work…and I’m unsure of how Sullivan is being treated, but I have theorys the whole “guilt truth” is NOT being honored…

#230

This is my first post, so please take it easy on me. :wink:

Maybe it’s just because I’m also a Randall fan, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to agree with Nexas in regard to the characters being faithful to the original. One thing that doesn’t seem to have been said, though, is that, at least outside of the movies, Pixar has also seemed to have modified their audience, which might explain the 2D side of the characters. For instance, ignoring the fact that Randall meets a quite gruesome demise in it, I can’t really picture ANY adults (other than parents, of course) going on that ride in Tokyo.

#231

You don’t have to be afraid to agree with me SgtYayap :slight_smile:
That’s an interesting prospect concerning the 2-D/3-D versions…

By the way…good luck with your…videos ^_-

#232

I don’t have a problem with differing opinions, not at all, it’s always good to see the other side of the fence. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, especially considering this is nothing to get into a fight about.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying though,about changing their audience. I kind of understand that, since they’re covering more serious topics in their films, but other than that I’m a bit lost.

#233

Perhaps a better example would be Wall-E.

If you think about it, the film covers some fairly dark topics: the theoretical apocalypse (the intro), obesity (the humans), and abuse of the environment (one of the main plots). In contrast, I once noticed a kid’s book based on Wall-E’s journey in space, which was not that dark at all, unless you count passing through countless satellites in Earth’s atmosphere. Maybe it’s just because Pixar was acquired by Disney.

Hopefully that clears it up for you.

As for M.I.2, I’d rather wait to reveal my other opinions about the franchise, except for the fact that 2012 is a long time from now, and it probably won’t even be released that early!

#234

I agree with Nexas for the most part. Sulley kind of NEEDS to show remorse, or else he isn’t really Sulley. iI’s my own theory that the reason he didn’t show it in the MOVIE is because he believed the only reason he felt bad was because he missed Boo.

After some time with Boo in his life, he’s going to eventually have that belief challenged. Sulley more so banished Randall not just because of him trying to kill him, but also probably due to parental rage. Which can be incredibly blinding. After all, even in that short time he picked up a daughter-father bond with Boo.

Randall has different issues to contend with which I won’t get into right now.

But neither of these guys issues are dealt with fully in the first movie.

Randall and (yes) Sulley are not complete saints and neither are them are perfect- it’s what makes them more real, more like actual people, and this is also what makes them interesting characters. It is also why a sequel could be a good thing, if its taken in the right direction.

#235

That’s exactly how I felt about Sullivan when I had a beta music video, which I quickly took down due to messages not being conveyed visually, among other things.

As for the sequel being taken in the right direction, there’s apparently a relatively high chance it won’t be, hence, my hearing about pitbulllady’s letter campaign to Pixar.

#236

There’s alot… unsaid regarding Randall and Sulley and their relationship as well as alot of misunderstandings in my view.

A major reason I loved the FIRST movie is not just because it had my 3 favourite characters (Sulley, Randall and Boo) but it is also because it showed the beautiful developing relationship with Sulley and Boo like a father and daughter. It was in alot of ways incredibly endearing to see, and one of my favourite pixar relationships- along with nemo and his dad (my SECOND favourite movie). Even though of course, this relationship probably had a hand to play in the illegal banishment thing. How unfortunate that such a beautiful relationship should be ‘sullied’ (puns. I could not resist.I am sorry.) in such a way really. Not just for Randall (obviously), but them too.

Randall’s relationship with these two characters… still some things unsaid in my opinion. THAT story is still left wide open really, and thus has potential for the sequel.

As long as it’s not something stupid, like a ‘Randall’s revenge’ movie at any rate.

#237

Randall’s relationship with the protagonists is also a valid point; we never see how he and Sullivan interacted before the events of the movie. Mike and Randall’s interactions would probably be obvious, though. :unamused:

#238

Yeah… I also agree with Nexas when he says Mike probably wouldn’t care much for Randall’s predicament. I’m not saying he’s completely heartless but… yeaaaah. He’s self centered. Very self centered. Randall and MIKE act more like the rivals than Sulley and Randall do in the beginning. It’s only when Boo enters the picture then the REAL rift between Sulley and Randall shows. Mike seems to be the one most concerned with the scare record out of the pair, the one who is more ‘in your face’ to Randall and vice versa. Sulley meanwhile is shaking his head like they’re both a couple of kids.

Sulley actually tries to make amends at one point before the scaring starts too.

There’s little details you can watch out for, but when you see most of Sulley’s and Randall’s interactions you can tell there is alot they don’t just really CATCH ON to regarding the other. A part of this is both interesting and annoying, it’s like there’s something I’m not quite getting, or THEY’RE not quite getting if that makes sense.

Like the fact that in the end they’re not that different after all. Both scarers, both tricked by Waternoose to a degree, there’s the odd Boo relationship they have (Boo and Randall are also actually pretty similar in alot of ways) neither are saints in the end… perhaps they have other things in common.

#239

Of course Sullivan would mentally trip himself into thinking that all the remorse he had was for Boo, so actually showing that at least some of it was for someone else was a little beyond him.
Of course I do have to wonder what Sullivan’s thoughts on Wazowski’s “company play” were…

Of course that said about the three having a connection is indeed true. While Sullivan connects with Boo on a more parental note, Randall was still her scarer and also has a connection to her. Albiet it was mostly out of fear, his job, but still.

That is right SgtYayap. Of course, Randall and Sullivan have quite an interesting past that would surprise a few. I won’t reveal why, as I probably already have. Of course also in that little bit of past we see a starting bitterness that Wazowski had started against Randall merely out of a lack of Wazowski’s abilities (which he, like everyone, has), and gets angry at HIM for pointing it out.

Wazowski is one of those people, and I do use that term correctly here, that “rides the coattails of the popular jock”. Although I can’t coin specifics, people like that in other films exist. A person who’s not overly strong, or smart, or something similiar that are friends with someone who is either intelligent or intimidating, someone to “hide behind” while they ride their success.
Sullivan is a great scarer, his “teacher”…who is not Waternoose mind you…saw to that, and Wazowski used that to biggen his own ego. When Sullivan…errm…“obtained” Top Scarer and employee fame, Wazowski USED IT. Whether it was to attack Randall personally, or use the “benefits” Top Scarers have to treat himself (Ex: Reservations, MADE by Sullivan, at a top resturant that is very difficult to get into).
I’m sorry Wazowski fans, but it’s the truth. I’m not saying Wazowski has some saving grace, though escapes me what they exactly are, but he DOES have as much faults as Randall or Sullivan does.

Sullivan’s “offer of a handshake” WAS actually intended as a goodwill gestured. RANDALL, however, thought it was a sly comment aimed directly at him. The reason Randall thinks this is due to him knowing something is “fishy” about Sullivan being ahead for so long, as well as being cushy with the boss. I’m sure that if Randall wasn’t under the effect of the Scream Extractor or under pressure from his boss, and Sullivan had honestly made Top Scarer position, Randall would have accepted the handshake.

At first, Sullivan and Randall actually had a good work relationship before Sullivan started getting ahead. Sure, Wazowski was a kink, but not overly a bother. Heck, maybe even at one point Wazowski got jealous that RANDALL might’ve taken over his role as Sullivan’s friend. But anyways…Sullivan and Randall honestly had no grudge, though Randall had some negative thoughts that he’s been trying to confirm at the time, against each other before. Heck, Randall had no intention to hurt Sullivan before he was ordered, in anger, too. And Sullivan probably didn’t think of it himself (think for instance when Randall was alone after the Scream Extractor was unplugged. If Sullivan had any gull, he could’ve knocked him out in one punch).
Heck…in fact…it seems to some degree…SULLIVAN was AFRAID…of RANDALL. Either it was him being cautious from the fact that if Boo was discovered, he would be found out or something like that…
But in all in all…it’s…sad that the “friend-like” relationship they HAD before was broken up by the same manipulative man. shakes head THAT’S one of the key points that SHOULD be in the sequel. Sullivan and Randall making amends to each other. It will be difficult. Sullivan would be remorseful and his parental thoughts of Boo are still there. Randall is in malice of what was done to him, and WHO did it to him, even when he asked for mercy. They may not make complete amends (face it people, forgiveness is NOT always the answer and NOT always easy), but at least make the start of healing.
shakes head I think one of Randall’s main arguements would be…that he never expected Sullivan to be the one to do what he did…

#240

No other Pixar movie without a sequel (yet) has had as much buzz about a sequel in the works than this movie. Here is a current interview and the tiny tidbit of information that Pete Docter revealed:

filmschoolrejects.com/news/p … -neilm.php

And here is where filmschoolrejects got their info:

pixarplanet.com/blog/whats-next- … ters-inc-2

And here is where pixarplanet gots its info, which is the original source:

nymag.com/daily/entertainment/20 … octer.html

He probably had established before the interview that he wasn’t going to say anything to the interviewer substantive at all about his next project, except that his time off was finished and he was getting ready to start something for 2013-2015. The way Docter repositioned his answer says so me that he is considering a MI2, probably has some stuff for it, but that it won’t be his next movie. By this time last year, Stanton had told everyone what the name of his next movie would be, and what story it was based on. Perhaps Mr. Docter wants to be sure that this is the next one before he commits to something in public.