What was Randall trying to do during the door warehouse chase sequence?
Randall intended to bring Boo back to Waternoose or something equally unpleasant.
Randall intended to return Boo to her door/room safe and sound, unaware that Mike and Sully were trying to do the same.
Randall didn’t know what he was going to do with Boo, he just didn’t want Mike and Sully to have her
Other
0voters
From a subject brought up in other threads - I’ve read opinions that Randall was not attempting to recapture Boo during the big chase sequence in the door warehouse, but was in fact attempting to return her to her door, just like Mike and Sully were trying to do. I thought this might be an interesting topic for a poll .
I voted for the second. The Scream Extractor was detroyed, and to have rebuilt it would have taken weeks, and I seriously doubt that ANYONE would want to be caught with a live human child on their hands, waiting for the machine to be rebuilt, with the CDA all over the place. It would have been too risky.
I don’t think that Randall was going to bring her back to Waternoose, either. He’d been ORDERED to kill her, after all, and bringing her back alive and well would have been a show of insubordination to his boss, who no doubt wanted to distance himself from any human child at the time. It would have been a very simple matter for Randall to have just dropped her from the great height in the Door Vault, and if her body was discovered, it would have been a reasonable assumption that she simply fell out of an open, active door to her death. No one would have known that she was “THE child”, the same one in the restaurant photo at all, but just some kid unfortunate enough to have gone to her closet while that door was activated a few hundred feet above a concrete floor(which is a miracle that such a thing DIDN’T happen during that scene). It’s pretty clear that Randall did not want her dead, for whatever reason, and like I said, keeping her around to test in the Scream Extractor, IF it was reparable at all, was not an option. That only leaves one logical conclusion: he intended to put her back into HER door, and try to forget that she’d ever existed. Waternose would have assumed that Randall had carried out his grim orders, having no proof otherwise. The kid, who was also proof of the plot, would be back in her own world safe and sound.
I agree with what pitbulllady said. It all sounds very logical to me. Because, let’s be honest, if Randall had truly wanted to kill Boo, he had plenty of chances to do so. Returning Boo to Waternoose would’ve just been plain stupid- I mean, I doubt Randall was thinking straight at the time, but he’d have to have had some kind of mental block to even consider that. So, the only other option would’ve been just to get her back into her door. Then, Randall would be able to go back to Waternoose, saying that he’s sorted out both Mike and Sulley as well as the kid, and get on with rebuilding the SE and starting all over again.
I guess the only other option that I can think of is Randall just shoving Boo through any door, but if he planned on doing it, well, he would’ve done it immediately after he had ‘killed’ Mike and Sulley.
I have little regret on saying this.
But this poll is pretty useless. Pitbulllady and Lizardgirl, as well as myself, have proven with fact that Randall was taking her back to the door.
Honestly some humans are so stubborn…
I agree with the second choice but I’ve pretty much given up trying to convince people other than what they believe at first. Waste of energy and they’ll never change their minds.
Nexas, you’re right, humans are stubborn.
But I’m glad that you, Mitch, are starting to see the light.
Off-Topic - Pfff. Well, umm, I guess you could say that I always viewed Randall as a straight-out villian – a guy with some series problems that he didn’t know how to handle and who took out his anger on his employees for no reason. The only pity I had for him was when he was unceremoniously thrown into the trailer, but even then it was a shallow pity… He’s not a character that I find attracting, so to speak (though my sister would say otherwise – she loves the guy). However, I’m pretty sure that I finally comprehend what you guys are communicating here concerning the dude. I’d look at him as more of a…“troubled individual” nowadays, I believe…
Forgive me, but I still laugh at that whole “shovel” scene nonetheless. Call me an idiot, but I laugh at it (though not as hard as I used to). The only difference now is that I do feel bad for the guy. I mean, who wouldn’t be sentimental for an entity in that particular situation?
So yeah… I will say right now that I will laugh at that shovel scene and there is nothing anyone can do to make me feel down about it. I’ve gone through enough trouble without someone bashing me for giggling at a certain sequence in a movie. Don’t get me wrong, though, because I do understand what you guys are saying here… You want some proof? I would vote on the second option, but I’m not going to because…well…I really have no idea why. I just don’t feel like I should, for some odd reason…
FONY
Heh, good way not to get in trouble I suppose.
Heh heh.
Same.
Mitch
I see…
You still need some convincing Mitch. Don’'t feel too bad…me, Lizard Girl, and Pitbullady have been researching since for years, FONY joining in around half of that. I’m sure by now your starting to get an expert view on Remy…considering your devotion to make you a some-what up and coming expert in the field. And sure that taking care of rats futhers your understanding. You don’t really need to vote if you do not want to Mitch. The answer is there but alas some don’t see it. Maybe as the days pass and you peek in here, you’ll learn…I have such an expectation of someone with such dedication to Remial to sometime understand clearly.
No problem. I apologize for putting you on the spot. I merely wanted to see how much you learned so far…
Nexas - Exactly! See, one can better understand and have sympathy for a character that he/she can relate to. I love Remy because I… Well, I shan’t get off the subject, but you know what I mean.
And no, you didn’t put me on the spot, Nexas. No worries.
Mitch- Hey, no worries- everyone’s got a different sense of humour. I’m sure I laughed the first time I saw that scene, all those years ago! And, after all, that’s what that scene was for- to make the audience laugh.
Back on topic, I’ve just had a thought- after all that had happened to Boo in the Monster World, surely just returning her home would be a bit…? What I mean is, she’s seen so much, and it’s made obvious throughout the film that the Mons are very wary of the Humans getting wind of there being a Monster World. So, just returning Boo back to her room when she obviously remembers a lot of the stuff that had just happened to her might be a bit risky.
Then again, she is just a child, so if she draws any of the monsters she’s seen and shows them to her parents or something, they’d most likely just brush it off as an over-active imagination.
The only reason I mention this is because it is quite obvious that, by deduction, Randall does plan on returning Boo to her room, but the idea of her actually remembering it all happening is a real risk. He could just kill her, which would be a lot easier, but he’s actually having to risk quite a lot to put her back.
This is a fairly fast-paced animated film with a fairly short running time (compared to, say, “The Incredibles”). So when they were building momentum towards a big climax, instead of stopping to explain what Randall was trying to do, they used cinematic shorthand -
Sully, Mike = protagonists*
Randall = antagonist
Therefore, Sully and Mike having Boo = “good”, Randall having Boo = “bad.”
Though I voted for #1 because that’s the impression I always got while watching the film, I’m not entirely certain that the filmmakers knew what Randall was going to do with Boo if he had her.
I did get the impression Randall and Waternoose specifically chose Boo as the child to abduct, that it wasn’t just random - perhaps that she had an especially powerful scream, or something - which might explain why they wouldn’t want to part with her.
Randall may not have been being rough with Boo or overtly trying to kill her because this is a G-rated movie. Note how The Incredibles, in which it is specifically spelled out that the bad guys are willing to kill the child characters, got a PG rating.
If Sully/Mike and Randall have different goals, the purpose of the chase sequence is suspense - who will wind up with Boo and what will happen to her? Even if you want to say that you’re rooting for Randall to wind up with her, it will work that way, too. However, if they truly have the same goal, I don’t understand the purpose of the whole chase sequence. If it was all supposed to be a big ironic misunderstanding, I think they would have pointed that out.
In the pilot movie for the TV series Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends, a little girl is trying to adopt Bloo against his will, and his friends Wilt, Coco and Eduardo are all trying to help him escape her - but they don’t realize that they’re all trying to do the same thing, so they keep taking Bloo away from one another. Once they realize this - and they do realize it - they have a good laugh about it - the purpose was an amusing irony. And there was also a real antagonist in the scene - the little girl - genuinely working against our protagonists, so there was suspense as well .
On why Sully and Mike are the protagonists - most of the film is told from their perspective. We find out things when they do. When Sully/Mike and Randall part ways, the camera follows Sully/Mike. In films, somebody who dislikes and works against a protagonist is an antagonist, regardless of which one is considered “good” or “bad.” Regardless of his motivation, Randall was trying to take Boo away from the protagonists in that scene - an"antagonistic" action, cinematically speaking.
Also, just have to ask, Pitbulllady - how are you certain about how long it would take to repair a fictitious piece of technology?
lizardgirl - Heheh. Yep, that’s true. We all have different tastes and…such! Thanks for understanding me, dude.
Just to “settle the score” and come to a firm and definite understanding, no one can tell me how to do things, what to think, or how to live my life. I’ve learned the hard way that doing everything other people advise me to do just puts me in an uncomfortable and often fruitless situation. I don’t intend to “learn” anything as far as Randall and his situation is concerned, but I am willing to come to a compromise and make an attempt to comprehend what you guys are saying.
Heh. I’m not usually an argumentative type of person as far as personal views (in this particular aspect) are concerned, but this was important. I just felt like I should say that…
animagusurreal - Yeah, see, that’s exactly how I viewed Randall! You summed a good majority of my thoughts up in one post. Eheh.
Mitch- I didn’t intend to offend you if I have, and I certainly don’t wish to change your, or anyone else’s, opinion of Randall. Whatever you feel about him is your business, and I’m happy to listen because it’s interesting to know what other people’s opinions are- hey, that’s the whole point of these discussions!- and the only thing I’m trying to do is present my opinion to others. I certainly don’t expect everyone to be convinced of what myself and other Randall-fans say, and rightfully so, because if we all thought the same thing, the world would be a very boring place indeed.
animagusurreal- I understand your point, but the thing is that if Randall wanted to return Boo to Waternoose, what would they actually do with her? The SE was very badly damaged, so it’d take a fair while to get that up and running and, in the mean time, what would they do with Boo? I didn’t see any cages or anything in Randall’s lair, and looking after a child like that is a big job in itself, so returning her to her room would be better all around.
I’m not ruling out the possibility that Boo was chosen for a reason- I’m pretty sure she was, and I think that if Randall had managed to return her to her room, they’d probably keep her door key and, when the SE was ready again, I wouldn’t be surprised if Randall popped back in there and retrieved her to use the machine on her.
I just don’t see Randall harming Boo. I don’t know why- I’m fully aware of everything else bad that he did in the film, and I don’t see him as some kind of angel or something. I just get the feeling that he knew more about human children than most others Mons did. After all, he was happy to handle Boo without running around screaming ‘I’M GONNA DIE, IT’S INFECTED ME!’ Throughout the entire film, he calls Boo ‘the kid’, whilst Mike labels her ‘it’ or ‘that thing’. And I think along with this knowledge that human children aren’t toxic, Randall’s figured out a few other things about humans, and has more than likely realised that humans are of the same intelligence as Mons. Sure, he’s happy to throw some punches at Sulley and half strange him to death because firstly, he doesn’t like Sulley, and secondly, he thinks Sulley, as well as Mike, is out to get him. Randall does not realise at any point that Sulley cares about Boo, since why would he? Everyone else just sees humans as sort of toxic, deadly animals, so why wouldn’t Sulley think that?
Then, you’ve got Wazowski calling Boo ‘it’, reinforcing in Randall’s mind that, actually, Wazowski and Sullivan don’t give a damn about the child. The only reason they’re going ahead and doing this whole thing and getting involved is that they want to annoy Randall and spoil his plans.
Then it’s made obvious that, actually, Wazowski and Sullivan didn’t even realise that Randall had any plans up his sleeve! So, in Randall’s mind, that automatically comes out as ‘they’re getting involved just to annoy me’, since there’s no other logical reason, and with so much at stake, including possibly Randall’s own life (I mean, can’t you just see Waternoose threatening Randall with banishment if he doesn’t complete the SE on time?) it’s just not what he needs.
Okay, I’ve drifted a lot here. But my whole point is that he attacks Wazowski and Sullivan with good reason. I’m not saying what he did was right- far from it- but there was reasoning behind it. And harming Boo would have no reasoning behind it.
Anyway, Randall gives Wazowski and Sullivan endless chances to put things right and get out of the situation- Randall does bring down Boo’s door, giving Wazowski and Sullivan a chance to return her. It’s like Randall’s desperate for them to just butt out, but they keep going on and on and keep insisting that they’re involved in it all, so fine then, you wanted to be involved, you’ve got it- this is when Randall applies the SE to Wazowski. Horrible, I know, but there’s reasoning behind it.
Meanwhile, Boo has done nothing directly to bother Randall. None of his anger is directed at her, and at one point in the door sequence, he saved her life. If he wanted her dead, he wouldn’t have done that. When carrying her, he wouldn’t have adjusted her position to make her secure and stop her whimpering.
But yeah, this is just my opinion. I know I’m reading a lot into these things, but we’re sort of forced to since, as you said, animagussureal, the whole story is told from Wazowski and Sullivan’s point of view.
It took TWO YEARS to build said “fictitious piece of technology”, and fictitious or not, it was still busted up pretty good after Sulley got through with it. I actually work on old cars myself, and have to do pretty much all the repairs around here, and there’s no reason to assume that the mechanics of the machinery in the Monster World is that much different from ours. I know how long and how much aggravation it can be to fix things when they break, and the more complex they are to start with, the harder they are to repair. This is Pixar, not a Warner Bros. cartoon, where something can blow up and five seconds later, Wile E. Coyote’s got it up and running again for another shot at the roadrunner.
Ironic that you should bring up Foster’s, since that’s my favorite tv show by far, and I can certainly remember that pilot episode where the three main friends, Wilt, Coco and Eduardo, all are trying to rescue Bloo, not just from that little hateful snobbish girl, but from each other, not realizing that they all wanted the same thing. Still, there is no other logical explanation for Randall NOT killing Boo as soon as he had her. Waternoose would have been livid had Randall brought her back to him, given the risk she posed of attracting the CDA, and her uselessness at the time with regards to the Scream Extractor. I’ve worked for people like Henry J. Waternoose, and I know how they think. My experiences in the work force give me insight to draw upon that people who are only just n00bs to the workplace, or more likely, students who have no real clue as to what goes on at work just can’t claim to have. I know that Waternoose types do NOT, absolutely DO_NOT, accept ideas from underlings and nobodies, and Randall was most definately both. I know how much they love to take advantage of people’s weaknesses and use people that they don’t like, so that they wind up benefiting from it and getting rid of the employee without having to pay them unemployment. I also know from experience that it’s not uncommon for two people to be working towards the same goal, and not realize it, and find themselves at odd with each other over it. It’s therefore very plausible to me that both Sulley and Randall wanted the same thing at that point in the movie, to get Boo back to her room, but due to lack of communication between them, neither of them realized it. Both were so caught up in their own negative image of the other that they couldn’t see anything else. That’s the key difference here between Randall and Sulley, and the Foster’s characters-Wilt, Ed, and Coco were all friends to start with, though like all friends, even they had their moments of misunderstanding. They were afforded a chance to discover that they were all trying to do the same thing, whereas Randall and Sulley did NOT get that chance. If Wilt, Ed and Coco hadn’t all literally run into each other and ended up in a big helpless pile on the floor, however, their rivalry might have escalated into something worse, and had they not been best friends prior to that, even this most likely would not have would up with them laughing about it. It is interesting to note, though, that when put into a competitive situation, Wilt, who is normally regarded as the Nicest Guy In the World, can be very determined, and when he’s pushed into a situation that’s beyond his control, as in “Bus The Two of Us”, it doesn’t take much for Wilt to resort to physical violence, just lashing out without thinking it through, in order to prevent someone from doing something. Randall was at that same point by the Door Vault scene, little more than running on animal instinct, doing whatever it took to prevent something from happening, in this case, to prevent Sulley from using that child to implicate Randall to the CDA. Randall would have no reason to assume that they were trying to save her; why WOULD he? IT would have been as ludicrous to have thought that as it would for someone seeing a person holding a known rabid dog to assume that they were trying to save the dog, given how dangerous human children were believed to be.
Well, I gotta admit that nothing else crossed my mind except Randall was still planning on using Boo and to me that wasnt a good thing. I never got the impression that that he was going to just send her back (nor did I think he was going to go so far as to try to kill her. I think he still needed her for whatever he was going to do.)
Lizard Girl
Remember Lizard Girl that Randall, at the time, didn’t think much on the “revealed intellegence” of human beings. So, like in school, he probably wasn’t taught about them remembering events to a great extent or the like.
animagusurreal
Those two are not “good” either.
G-rated? Heh. What about your statements of him trying killing Sullivan? Well I suppose a child would be more shocking for audience, but the showing of possible death wouldn’t be stopped by mean showing.
Simple. Neither knew, or wanted, to know the other’s agenda. Sullivan and Wazowski’s point was clearly shown. Randalls? Well I’ll let Pitbulllady tell that one.
That word there you used “regardless”, shows you may not want to, or care to, know what Randall’s motive was.
MITCH
There is a difference from opinion and fact. At one time the world was square, but proven round. At one time the church of an entity held rule over scientific explanation and experimentation. A mass can believe a lie.
As confined as that version of opinion is…
LIZARD GIRL
Maybe so, a boring place. But one thing to know is to at first consider all options before a decision. A man judged simply for his actions without the observation of his own justification is simply wrong.
Thank you. THAT’S ruling out the other options.
I’m still studying this option.
Good point.
Ahh good addition.
Reasoning, something to be considered.
There ya go.
Ah there we go, good addition.
PITBULLADY
Sorry you have to keep explaining Pitbulllady. But like always, explanative, well thought out, and good life experiences to go with it
Lennonluvr9
When you get a chance to watch the movie in spare time, look a little closer.
lizardgirl - I appreciate the way you take others’ views into account, while stating your own .
This is a very astute and insightful observation :
This is the kind of thing that inspired Gregory Maguire to write the novel “Wicked” about the Wicked Witch of the West. I’m certain that L. Frank Baum, as well as the makers of the famous 1939 musical of “The Wizard of Oz”, fully intended her to be an antagonist, yet Maguire has said that he always had questions about what made her so quote-unquote “wicked,” which inspired him to make her into a protagonist.
I agree that many of the things you guys say about Randall’s motivations in the doors sequence would make sense. However, I still don’t see what would motivate the filmmakers to devote such an elaborate, prominent sequence to that kind of irony, and not reveal that irony to the audience - and I don’t feel that the filmmaker’s motivations have been addressed by your citations of in-context character motivations.
I think that what Pitbulllady describes here would have been very dramatically compelling, but if this was truly the filmmaker’s intention (which I don’t think it was), I don’t think that they took full advantage of it:
Randall could have revealed it as he attempted to make Sullivan fall from the door, in a gloating sort of manner. Or something like that.
Much of what you guys see as evidence, I see as “plot holes.” Almost every film has them. In David Koenig’s book, Mouse Under Glass, he lists plot holes in virtually every Disney animated classic.
Take, for example, this thing I just read on IMDB.com (Internet Movie Database):
The important thing in the bathroom scene is that Sulley bonds with Boo. The lights going all haywire might have distracted from that. So, they chose to ignore it, hoping no-one would notice - and personally, that didn’t even occur to me until I just read that on IMDB and went, “by golly, they’re right!”
Nexas I’m curious what makes your opinion “fact” and other people’s opinions not fact.
Regarding your example - it’s a fact that the Earth is round because there really is an Earth and it has been scientifically proven that it really is round (and I’m sure there are still people around somewhere who would contest even that )
Monster’s Inc. is fiction. It is not even fiction based on a true story, like “Balto” or “Pocahontas”. There are no “facts,” there is only what is canon and what is not canon, which is typically decided by the creators of the fiction, in this case Pixar Animation Studios. BTW, here is how Randall is characterized on Pixar’s official website:
I suppose you could get around the fact that Monster’s, Inc. is fiction by questioning the very nature of reality. However, then there still wouldn’t be any unquestionable “facts” about Monster’s Inc., because then everything about reality could be called into question.
I agree that a mass can believe a lie. But a mass believing it isn’t what makes it a lie. It’s also possible for very few people to believe a lie. It’s also possible for different people to just see the same things in a different way .
Pitbulllady, while I take your workplace experience into account when reading your comments, it seems that you are referring to anyone who disagrees with you about this film as:
You have no idea what my workplace experience is (I know that you don’t, because I haven’t told you )
Furthermore, Monsters, Inc., the business, is fictitious. (I know, I’m using that word a lot ) While I’m certain Pixar drew inspiration from reality to create it - and I love that about Pixar - I don’t see the film’s central purpose as being to recreate 100 % realistically and precisely the real workplace experience, particularly not in a film that, while fully enjoyable by people of all ages, is marketed to children who certainly have no experience in that workplace.
(BTW - slightly OT - it happens I’m currently reading Studs Terkel’s nonfiction book “Working”, which is a wonderfully insightful cross-section of workplace experiences. There’s also a Broadway musical based upon the book.)
Back on topic -
Also, I must ask where you found out how long it took to build the scream extractor, and why you would assume that their technology would be the same as ours, when they have found a way to turn screams into energy and closet doors into portals: two things which we have not done .
And now, just for fun, two more reasons that Mike and Sulley are the protagonists of the film:
The ride at Disney’s California Adventure is called “Monster’s Inc.: Mike and Sulley to the Rescue”
Mike and Sulley appear on the front of the DVD box.
animagusureal- Concerning the whole irony thing- that if Randall and Sulley wanted the same thing, the film-makes would have actually made a point of it- well, let’s just pretend that they did. Just say that at one point, for some reason, in the door sequence Sulley calls out to Randall, ‘we just want to get her back in her room, safe and sound!’ It just wouldn’t work as well as what the film-makers did decide to put in.
Firstly, would Mike and Sulley really believe Randall if he said that he wanted to put Boo back? No matter what Randall says, the two of them would insist on getting Boo relentlessly. Then, let’s just say that Randall does hand over Boo. Let’s just say that they all agree. They return to the Scarefloor and do the whole Waternoose thing, exactly as before. But the thing is, Randall’s still going to get arrested by the CDA if he gets caught there. Maybe he would just turn invisible and slink away, start a new life somewhere else, but the fact is that at the end of the day, Mike and Sulley have still won, and Randall just wouldn’t accept something like that.
Also, it’s a lot more boring. They’d have to have a massive discussion about it all, and it just doesn’t create the kind of climax that a door chase ending with the bad guy getting his just deserts does. Sure, there’s the whole Waternoose getting arrested thing, but Waternoose is never seen as the evil one, even though he started the whole thing. Ask a little kid after they’ve watched the whole film who the bad guy is, and ‘Randall’ will be the answer. He looks more evil, sounds more evil, and is put forward as the one against the ‘good guys’ right from the beginning of the film, so there’s always the lasting memory of him being the bad guy rather than Waternoose. Not having Randall be outright defeated would possibly even confuse kids, and it just doesn’t balance out well.
Sure, it means that as Randall-fans, we have no closure whatsoever, but that’s the way it goes.
Very good points, Lizardgirl, as to why there was no discussion between Randall and Sulley as to what to do with Boo, or any mention from Randall as to what he intended. Even a work of fiction, as someone is so fond of stating and re-stating as the status of this movie, had to follow some semblence of order and logic. People have to be able to suspend disbelief and relate a work of fiction to their lives and situations, or it’s meaningless. Everything in this movie has a close parallel to our own world; things basically work the same, so there’s no reason to assume that is, like a “Loony Toons” episode, would have machines that can be nearly completely destroyed and re-built within a matter of minutes. It therefore follows no pattern of logic that Randall still wanted to take Boo back to the Scream Extractor, which was severely damaged. She would have to be alive when it was tested, so that means that SOMEBODY would have to take care of her until the repairs were done, and whether that took several days or several weeks, is a moot point. No one is going to want to have a human child on their hands with the CDA already suspicious and snooping around everywhere. Fiction or not, it wouldn’t make sense any other way.
.
But my whole point is that he attacks Wazowski and Sullivan with good reason. I’m not saying what he did was right- far from it- but there was reasoning behind it. And harming Boo would have no reasoning behind it.