Contrary to Pitbulllady’s extensive reply above, she did talk once about a reasonable reply to what you were saying.
Sullivan was not, like Wazowski, “thinking straight” at this point, like Randall had been during the chase. What the two had not considered was that one of the doors that they were picking may be one that would let Randall back or, if their unluck followed, dare I say they seem to have any, chosen a door near Boo’s own home.
The two had one simple motive at the time “get rid of him”. “Get rid of the one who kidnapped children”. “Get rid of the one who hurt boo”. “Get rid of the one who wanted to throw them out of their high positions”. Contrary to their belief, all of the above statements ARE WRONG…with a bit of acceptance to the kidnapping bit.
In simple terms, the two weren’t thinking of their actions…but they were sure enjoying them.
While they were certainly enjoying themselves, I DON’T think that the door that Mike and Sulley picked out to throw Randall into was chosen at random, to the contrary-Mike knew exactly where that door led to and what sort of humans would likely be inside, and what would likely happen to Randall once HE was inside. Not random at all, actually. As for “thinking clearly”, of the three of them during that chase, RANDALL was the one who wasn’t thinking clearly, his logic obliterated by what was basically a wild-animal survival mode by that point. He was more or less functioning on a sort of instinctive “auto-pilot”, driven only by emotions. He KNEW it was going to be his neck on on the chopping block-literally- if he failed to carry out Waternoose’s orders(and probably would be regardless by that point), he most likely assumed that Mike and Sulley only had “the kid” so they could turn her over to the CDA as evidence against HIM, so basically, Randall’s whole world was crashing down around him by that point in the movie, and he was in “kill or BE killed” mode-no thinking involved, at least not until he actually had “the kid” and had to figure out what to do with her. Mike and Sulley, on the other hand, HAD to have taken time to discuss what to do with Randall once Sulley had him under control, and that implied mutual planning. Mike, as I’ve said, most likely would have recognized that particular door, since doing so is part of the Scare Assistant job description. Yes, they wanted to get rid of Randall, not only out of revenge for him earlier trying to hurt THEM(and need I remind you that Randall NEVER once hurt Boo), but because he was, in Mike’s way of thinking anyway, both a “creep” and unpopular co-worker, AND he was the only threat to their team breaking the All-Time Scare Record. To Mike it would have been the perfect, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity-rid themselves of their only competition, an annoying co-worker, AND get even at the same time. No point taking a chance that Randall might come back soon through a different door, or might wind up in the same part of the Human World as Boo-make darn SURE he’s not likely to ever make it back. I have no doubt that this door was chosen deliberately, with full knowledge that Randall would not be likely to survive once inside.
Contrary to some of my findings…your…most likely right here Pitbulllady…
One thing I noted a long long time ago was that the hand of which Sullivan had Ran…ehh…by the neck…was his left one…but during the bit in which he was…err…dang it…being used in a “baseball” fashion for the two…his neck was in Sullivan’s right hand.
Now some, at least SOME, time had to pass in order to do that, especially with Randall getting out.
I have reasons to believe, yes, there were door callers, though have a bit of deliberation for Wazowski gaining any sort of keycard in the time, for matinence purposes. But then again the door could be laying out in the open and the Wazowski knew where it led. Wouldn’t put it past them with the luck they had.
With the “thinking straight” bit Pitbulllady, I was referring to the two’s inability to comphrehend what was “really going on” and taking a moment to think on it. Randall did the same. Sure some primal instinct, but also neither two were thinking.
And honestly an “eye for an eye” is primal instinct in terms for Sullivan and Wazowski.
Remember when he was choking Sulley, and verbally abusing Fungus throughout the entire movie, and showing off the Scream Extractor?
Who cares if the guy got hit with a shovel a few times?
Did anyone shed a tear when Scar was attacked by a ravenous pack of hyenas at the end of The Lion King? Or when Hopper was eaten by the birds in A Bug’s Life? I know I didn’t.
I’m just one of those optimistic people who believe that there are no real bad guys. And if there is one in a film, then that character becomes unbelievable and the people who created the film have failed to suck me into their world, so to speak.
Scar was evil, yes, but he wasn’t born like that. There was that whole rivalry thing between him and Mufasa, and it was pretty mean that all of those other animals had to live in the wasteland or whatever.
Hopper obviously had some power issues, and the mention of his mother on her deathbed is always a line I remember him saying, because it’s the smallest hint of all of the stuff we don’t know about.
And I believe the same applies to Randall. Yes, he was a ‘bad’ guy as such, but there’s no such thing as an evil gene. Children aren’t born evil, and grow up to be evil. Admittedly, some people have less agreeable personalities than others, but that doesn’t mean they’re evil. Even psychopaths are only psychopaths because of how their brain developed- if they had ‘normal’ brains, as such, they wouldn’t act the way they do. And although Randall did many, many horrible things, I think it always has to be considered why a person does that.
Which is why Pixar is so amazing- every ‘villain’ they’ve ever had in any of their films are just so much more intriguing than your everyday, ‘I am evil, I want to kill you all and rule the world for absolutely no apparent reason!’ type villains. Pixar makes you fear them, and most of the time, be against them, but there’s always the idea that something drives them to do what they do, and if you found out exactly what that is, the audience might feel more sympathetic towards them.
I’m glad people here know how to agree to disagree.
Personally, I have no problem with the possibility of Randall being dead.
And my opinion on whether or not there should be a sequel is absolutely not. I love the ending of that movie so much. It was perfect, and I can’t think of a way for the Pixar peeps to improve upon the world and story they created.
There are times, depending on my life situation that I have no control over, that I can become someone that most of YOU would want to hit with a shovel, or at least pay someone to do it for you. I can totally relate to Randall’s situation, having been in it myself, which is a position most of you can’t fathom. It’s always easy to point a finger a say, “He’s EVILLLLL!” and “He deserves to DIIIIIEE!” when you have no idea what that individual is going through or has been through, and let me tell you, I’m guilty of the same thing-accusing a person of being nothing more than a rotten piece of excrement that deserved the worst, but I can also tell you that life, or Karma, or whatever you want to call it, has a sneaky way of reminding you that you AREN’T all that yourself, by flinging you into a similar situation as that which the person you vilified has been through, as if life just says, “OK, let’s see how YOU deal with it, Mr.Ms. Perfect!” A person can only handle so much, and Randall most definitely had his plate full of tribulations and then some, so I cannot in any way, shape or form just say, “well, he’s EVIL so he deserved what he got!” When you realize that most of the murderers in our prisons here in the US are there because they killed someone out of revenge for something the other person allegedly did to them, it also makes certain other characters(cough MIKE cough SULLEY) not look so rosey, too. What THEY did was just as wrong, from a legal standpoint, even though we’ve supposed to believe that they’re heroes. If I want vigilanties, I’ll go to a stupid KKK rally, but I prefer my heroes not to be the “bent on revenge, take the law into our own hands” types.
Lets see…choking someone who’s just about ruined your entire plans, which are not really clear to everyone else since they’re masked by your BOSS’s, verbal abuse isn’t really too severe given that you hadn’t had rest in several months, trying to get your position back, AND have been watched every step of the way while you build a machine for someone else, which you SHOULD be proud of once you get it done.
Hmph…
Welcome to Pixar Planet, enjoy yourself
Lizardgirl
It’s not really an optimistic view Lizardgirl
shrugs that’s true, forgot about that. And Scar wasn’t his real name, he had one before hand if one were to look into HIS past (something we don’t get with Ran)
Ahh right forgot that bit too…and the fact he restrains himself for his “brother”
Good points. Take Syndrome for instance. The guy DID want to be a hero, but had his dreams crushed when he was a kid, very impressionable at that age, became bitter, and took matters into his own hands. He wasn’t born evil.
RaeKasey
Well it depends on the people heh heh.
Well if THAT is a possibility, makes the “heroes” killers heh.
Got a good point there. Though I do like the prospect of looking around a corner we don’t see or seeing what’s behind a closed door.
Pitbulllady
In the words of the Blazin Saddles prospector…“Raffer!”
I cannot understand why people must get so heated when having a discussion such as this. This issue is not war or abortion or same-sex marriage. It’s a completely fictional character in a movie.
Try breathing deeply or screaming into a pillow before you get hostile with someone who has a different opinion than you.
It’s good when people get into heated discussions about fictional characters- it proves that the creators of those characters have put so much depth and life into the character that it makes them almost real. Why are you on this forum if you’re not somehow connected to a fictional character? Most everyone here is, because they’re what makes Pixar so great.
Not nice to get snappy- it just makes you look like the bad guy.
Most people who dislike the thought of Randall being a good guy have no good argument, so it’s best you just post elsewhere and not offend his fans. You’re entitled to your own opinion, yes, but you seem to be seeking either negative attention or a fight.
I have no qualms with people getting attached to a certain character and defending them, and their actions to the death, but sometimes it can come off as an attack and very aggressive… so I can see where RaeKasey is coming from. This is just coming from someone who doesn’t take part in these Randall discussions, though. Just remember you can disagree with someone in a polite and assertive way, without getting personal. I know I need to follow this advice myself, sometimes too but the point still remains.
But anyway, how did this “Monsters, Inc. 2” thread get turned into yet another Randall VS Mike and Sulley argument, exactly?
TO note, I was not being aggressive, just…educational. Most newbies in the field here are unaware of findings and what not. Though there ARE those in this exact same field who can just as easily bash anyone, especially Ran, over the head with the claims and “in your face” stuff that it can get annoying when they don’t listen, or rather “take in” the facts and what not.
This type of situation is actually common dealing with Ran here.
In terms of the topic…sighs Given that it’s variable and deals with possible futures for everyone, there is no doubt some budding heads was going to happen
It’s not so much “another Randall VS Mike and Sulley argument” as it is a plea for common sense and fairness. If you’re going to hate one character and want that character to be tortured and killed because that character did something wrong, why not hate the others who ALSO DID SOMETHING WRONG? It makes no sense for some self-righteous and shallow individual to say that they have no trouble with the thought of one character being killed, and justify that by attempting to remind us that this character was “the bad guy” and harp on what he did that was so bad, yet apparently they do not feel the same way about other characters who did something JUST as bad. Why is the one character vilified while the other two exonerated? You can argue until you’re blue in the face that “Mike and Sulley were justified, yada yada yada, because of what was done to them, blah blah blah”, but keep in mind that in the movie, we got to SEE the background of their situation. What we do NOT see is what Randall went through prior to that, although anyone with a bit of real world experience can figure out it was no picnic. Everyone has a breaking point, a point after which they just function on instinct, and as someone who’s been pushed to the brink myself, I can say that Randall was likely just as “justified” in his reactions as the other two were. All THREE did wrong, period. All three made some serious errors in judgment without considering, at that time, the consequences for either themselves or anyone else. It happens when people(and I would consider the Mons to be “people”, just not HUMAN people)are pushed past their limits. The mystery is, why is one so deserving of so much vilification and the other two are considered “heroes”?
RaeKasey, a LOT of people here and elsewhere really like Randall, not because he did something bad, but IN SPITE of it. Many of us can relate to his situation, in one way or another, but more importantly, we can understand that any one of us, YOU included, are not beyond doing something just as bad as Randall, if not worse, given the right set of circumstances. We aren’t perfect or infallible, and like I said, speaking from experience, when you point the finger and go on about how evil someone is, without knowing their situation, Life has a nasty little way of showing you up by putting you in a similar situation. I also know that many people have a tendency to hoist a Holier-Than-Thou banner while doing the very things that they love to condemn others for; a “hypocrite” is NOT a fat animal that lives in African rivers. You’re probably young, by my standards anyway, and yes, it DOES have a lot to do with the topic, since one’s age and experience has a tremendous influence on how you see others. I’m not so young, and I’ve found out the hard way just how easy it is for someone who considered myself to be immune to ever considering harming another person, or too smart to fall under the control of someone just like Henry J. Waternoose, to actually nearly fall as far as Randall did. I know now that people aren’t born evil, and sometimes, people DO get pushed to the point where it’s nearly impossible to make logical decisions based on morals or ethics, when that primal, instinctive part of the brain takes over. I also know of people who have done really horrific things, who did turn their lives around and wind up becoming excellent role models and true heroes in every sense of the word, so unless there is something physically wrong with a person’s “wiring”, so to speak, that renders them literally incapable of having morals, there’s not many people who can be written off that easily. Since Randall did have a job in a large company, he’d have to have undergone psychological and personality profiling before being officially hired, and if there was truely something wrong with him, if he was a real sociopath or psychopath, someone who could be considered about as close to really “born evil” as it gets, he never would have been hired. Whatever happened to Randall to push him to the point of trying to kill someone, happened to him after he came to work for that company, and his behavior was directly caused by those factors.
Don’t get too comfy up on a noble High Horse, since they have an unpredictable tendency to turn into wild bucking broncos when you least expect it…
These arguments really ruin the movie for me. Why? Because he’s fictional and everyone is taking the movie out of context. I mean, he’s not even real!!
Martini speaks the truth. Admiring a cartoon villain isn’t exactly the same as owning a Che Guevara shirt. And cartoons aren’t worth getting into a heated debate over… but that’s what the internet was invented for, right?
I like randall. Steve Buscemi is a genius, I like all his roles and nearly all of his movies. A villian is an essential part of the story that deserves to be admired. More essential than the hero. (Before anyone says this, I know that some stories don’t have villians, or the villians play a minor role. This is called an exception.)
Sometimes, I can’t help but admiring real criminals. When someone breaks out of prison, I don’t think about how terrible that is, I think that criminal must have a lot of determination and resourcefulness. But you know, even if this is a socially unacceptable reaction, I don’t think it’s that bad. Just because someone screwed up most of their life, doesn’t mean there isn’t anything worth liking about them. It doesn’t mean I think crime is a good thing. Things don’t have to be black and white, good VS evil all the time.
That being said, I don’t like this attitude that you can’t judge people for doing something wrong, because you haven’t lived their exact life. The things you do are decisions, not inevitable consequences
Thanks Glyph.
I like Randall too, although I think Mike is way cooler, but he is not worth arguing about. He’s not even a real person and trying to prove somebody wrong about something that can’t be proven is pointless. It’s RaeKaseys opinion, so respect it, don’t run her out of the site for it.
