Pixar Planet

Is Waternoose the "bad guy" in Monsters Inc?

Talk about Pixar's Monsters, Inc. and Monsters University here!

Moderators: Pixar Planet Moderators, The Brain Trust

Is Waternoose the "bad guy" in Monsters, Inc.?

Yes, he definitely knew what he was doing was wrong and continued for his own personal benefit
21
50%
Yes, but Randall is more of the antagonist than he is and should take the most blame
10
24%
No, but what he did was wrong and he deserved his punishment
11
26%
No, and he didn't deserve to be taken away like he did
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 42

Postby Al-Bob » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:13 am

i think mr. Waternoose os the bad guy only because;

He hired Randall to do this job...Randall wasn't a serperate bad guy he was a hired bad guy...

Mr. Waternoose would have kidnapped children just to get screams out of them...so that way the company would survive...common...is that right? He was willing to risk those yellow guys storming his complex just to get some screams? I don't know this part is kinda shaky.

Mr. Waternoose got rid of Sully and Mike not Randall...Randall helped but Mr. Waternoose was the one who set it all up.


I hold the ceo (kinda sounds American) accoutable for his actions and say that he was the "bad guy" on this film.
Image
User avatar
Al-Bob
Master Scarer
 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:00 pm

Postby WBoon » Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:55 am

I voted the third option.

Sure, Mr. Waternoose (*giggles at the name*) claimed that he would kidnap children just for the sake of saving his company, but considering him as the 'bad guy' is just... a little unsuitable.

The proper terms to use here are 'a barbarian who has his own strong views about how the company should be saved.' :D

It was wrong for him to kidnap children, yes, but he was more blinded than evil.
Christmas Special canceled. Follow this link to find out more.
User avatar
WBoon
AXIOM Crewmember
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:06 pm
Location: Singapore, probably the smallest country on Earth

Postby Fairly Odd New Yorker » Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:55 pm

Waternoose was blinded by his intent to save his company, which in turn made him evil. Well, maybe evil is too strong a word, even for someone I've hated for so long ... 'nuts' maybe?
He wanted to risk anything to save his company, and that in turn led to his downfall. No, he probably wasn't evil, per se, but his good intentions to save the company collided with bad intentions to kidnap human children in order to save it.
User avatar
Fairly Odd New Yorker
Master Scarer
 
Posts: 3151
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:46 pm
Location: Cackles Academy

Postby PixarPixie » Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:03 pm

Waternoose is the villian of this movie, without a doupt. I hate him.

Poor Randall was just a pawn he used in his plan.

Why do people blame Randall for anything ? Randall was a victim and has feelings too. :?
SYNICAL -- Syndrome's Sidekick and Biggest Fan
" Elastigirl ? You married Elastigirl ? Oh, and got bizzay !! " -- Syndrome
" Force Fields ... Worthwhile . Force Fields blocking little brothers ... Priceless . " -- Violet
PixarPixie
Garbage Boy
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:29 am

Postby lizardgirl » Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:12 pm

PixarPixie- I love you. :D :lol:

I don't think Waternoose was evil, though. Just a bit crazy.
Image
Like looking at or creating Pixar fanart? Then you'll love PixarPlanetdA!
User avatar
lizardgirl
Pixar Planet dA Administrator
 
Posts: 8786
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Sussex, England

Postby Nexas » Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:16 am

I am very content with the results of the poll and glad the majority see the light and truth of the matter :D

A little note about Waternoose....or rather...the Waternoose line.
The Waternooses are already a wealthy bunch. And there have been three generations of them. Two, at the least, at the lead of Monsters Inc. in the CEO department. Waternoose are also, strangely, given a long lifespan. Henry, the one we see, took up Monsters Inc. from his father...."at the tender age of 142".
Henry, as a boy, was also highly educated in an Ivy League School. Having a wealthy NAME, Henry got what he wanted. He HAD what he wanted. When he took over Monsters Inc., he aimed to KEEP it out of pride and desire. The Waternooses had kept it for generations. Henry was NOT aiming to be the one to lose it.
When you have rich boy with power in his hand, most of the time, they won't let anyone else take it from them.
Waternoose showed no regret in his actions, even cursing Sullivan and Wazowski (well not literally) as he was hauled off. (on a note, this is opposite of Randall who was pleading for the two "heroes" to listen to him, but nah they didn't of course).
Of course, given Waternoose's connections, family name, and wealth, he'll probably get out of it all.
User avatar
Nexas
AXIOM Crewmember
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:34 pm

Postby Fairly Odd New Yorker » Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:22 am

I'll say what I just said to my friend today when we were discussing our *cough*obsessions*cough*

Speaking as a huge fan of villains in general, I can say that Randall would make a cooler villain than Waternoose, simply because ... well, he looks cool. The sad fact of the matter (for villain lovers) is that he's just a minion, if anything, and the main villain of the story isn't so cool-looking but is in fact just some crabby old crab monster.


I hope that made sense. If not I'm sorry. I just got back from my class (that ended at 9 pm) in other words, I am tired and don't know what I'm doing here. :lol:
User avatar
Fairly Odd New Yorker
Master Scarer
 
Posts: 3151
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:46 pm
Location: Cackles Academy

Postby Nexas » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:01 am

So essentially you think Randall's hot? :lol:
User avatar
Nexas
AXIOM Crewmember
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:34 pm

Postby Fairly Odd New Yorker » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:06 am

Cool, Sean. I said cool! :lol:




Although yes, I'm sure it's pretty obvious that I find him attractive, but that's besides the point - I'm stepping outside the box and dropping some of my biases ... some. ;)
User avatar
Fairly Odd New Yorker
Master Scarer
 
Posts: 3151
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:46 pm
Location: Cackles Academy

Postby WBoon » Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:56 pm

To define whether one is 'evil' or not is a very gray matter, IMO. What makes one 'evil?' Just because he does things that harm others and benefits himself? Or as the people who made up the term through their own theorized philosophy labeled as 'selfish.'

So what makes one a 'good guy' then? By performing good deeds that benefit other people (before gaining benefits and popularity himself in the end anyway)?

Sure, Waternoose might have been demented or... crazy, or the such, but he just didn't really seem like an evil villain to me. I have my share of evil villains before, and trust me; they are bombastically evil alright. Twisted, sick, capable of destroying one's soul by just staring at him. Waternoose, however? Sure, he aimed to take over the company by being the best, even at the expanse of... others. Nevertheless, let's not forget how people in our world reacts with this kind of situation.

People wanting to take over other countries wage war with them. Are they considered 'evil?' Cows and sheeps are slaughtered by farmers and the like excessively so that we can enjoy more meat. Are they considered as 'evil?'

As I've said before, it's a dog-eat-dog world out there. We can have our playful interests over Pixar films and all, but let's not forget the reality of things. Treat Boo as... a piece of mutton meat we eat, if you will.
Christmas Special canceled. Follow this link to find out more.
User avatar
WBoon
AXIOM Crewmember
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:06 pm
Location: Singapore, probably the smallest country on Earth

Postby lizardgirl » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:45 pm

Nexas wrote:So essentially you think Randall's hot? :lol:


Replace the word 'think' with the word 'know', and then that statement would be correct. :lol:

You're very right there, WBoon. Evil itself is so undefined, that it's practically unfair to label either Waternoose or Randall evil, because the fact is that neither of them are. They both did things because of certain motivations, and they both had an end goal in sight that wasn't really evil at all. They just did things unscrupulously to get there (or not get there, as the case may be).
Image
Like looking at or creating Pixar fanart? Then you'll love PixarPlanetdA!
User avatar
lizardgirl
Pixar Planet dA Administrator
 
Posts: 8786
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Sussex, England

Postby Nexas » Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:30 pm

If I said it that way it would be weird since I'm a guy :lol:

*folds arms* I haven't referred to Waternoose as evil in this thread. But between him and Randall, I consider Waternoose closer to that shade. As Waternoose already had his wealth and family name behind him (he'd probably get off on his charges or at least a severely reduced sentence), got rid of someone (by Banishment) he treated like family (Sullivan), and was behind it all and, clearly, aimed to pin it on Randall when it suited him.
User avatar
Nexas
AXIOM Crewmember
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:34 pm

Postby Lil-Bandit » Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:44 pm

I think it's a really good and oft used setup, to have the seemingly kind and trustworthy character (waternoose) turn out the sort of puppet master of the entire scheme.

And I really like animagusurreal's comparison!:
"In a sense, you could say that Randall is the Darth Maul or Darth Vader of the movie, and Waternoose is the Darth Sidious (not in terms of the "evilness level", but in terms of how the protaganists and the audience are aware of them)."

That seems about right in how the audience of this film is manipulated into thinking Randall is our main villian throughout.

Debating Randall's own manipulation and just how much of a pawn he was can be a never ending debate! I think that because this is told almost entirely through Mike and Sulley's eyes, we have to accept that he is a "bad guy" of sorts in this context, even if he isn't behind the entire Scream Extractor idea.

The great thing about it being revealed that Waternoose was behind the plan, is that it surely makes Randall the more complicated character a lot of people see him as (myself included). It makes a fan look back on the entire film from an entirely new persective and gives these other characters an added depth.

Having said that, I do still like to think of Randall as a bad guy (I probably wouldn't have enjoyed him half so much if he wasn't), but a bad guy who just isn't aware of it. He, rather like Waternoose, has got his own motives, and they both seem to think they're doing these things out of their own sense of good. ie "the good of the company" and Randall's motives appear a little more confused between seeking approval from his boss and a petty sort of "I'll show you" attitude toward Sullivan.

I do think it is Waternoose who garners the most sympathy from the audience though. Or at least he is the character who is allowed the most sympathy by the writers. He is the one who appears to regret banishing Sulley, he is the one who often has an expression of regret throughout much of the Boo/Scream extractor sequence. Although this is later cancelled out by the "I'll kidnap 1000 children..." line and his lashing out at Sulley. I guess this needed to be included so the audience felt it was justified whenWaternoose was captured at the end of the film.

Having said that, despite the lack of sympathy shown to Randall throughout the film (in my opinion), I think that upon future viewings, when you already are aware that Waternoose is behind it, it's easy to pick up moments of sympathy for Randall. Waternoose's apparent favouritism of Sulley springs to mind for me, as well as the fact that Randall appears to be running around like a lowly lackey for much of the film, getting snappier and snappier. And its only upon the second viewing can you appreciate that Randall really is just the lackey here.

I voted for the first option. Waternoose certainly knew what he was doing, and even if he did show clear hints of regret, it was more than obvious he planned to keep up the warped plan, and at the cost of various monsters too.
User avatar
Lil-Bandit
Shark Bait
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:34 pm
Location: UK

Postby lizardgirl » Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:07 pm

Interesting post, Lil-Bandit. I agree with everything you've said, especially concerning needing to see the film twice in order to really appreciate Randall's role in the whole thing.
Image
Like looking at or creating Pixar fanart? Then you'll love PixarPlanetdA!
User avatar
lizardgirl
Pixar Planet dA Administrator
 
Posts: 8786
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Sussex, England

Postby Nexas » Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:02 am

Lil Bandit

It's always from one person's perspective......unless you do a sort of Pulp Fiction sort of thing ^0^

Personally I don't consider Randall a bad person. Just a good person with allot on his mind that got put between a rock and a hard place. I mean I still go with the "he tried to give them a way out" bit (Randall: I think I know how to make this all go away). I mean a true-to-heart bad guy wouldn't give heroes a way out. Sure he's got a temper and a grudge against Sulley (which is probably understandable and part of the bigger picture), but there's still allot we don't know about him. And because of that, not too right to judge him harshly ^_^

I thought kinda shifted to "oh this guy is great...wish I had a boss like that" to "JEEZ....maybe not" ^0^

Good point LB ^_^ I believe that in any film, viewing it a few times make you look at the different layers that are within ^_^
And erieely, I recall watching movies some times and seeing scenes I didin't see before 0_0
User avatar
Nexas
AXIOM Crewmember
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:34 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Monsters, Inc. & Monsters University

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest