sighs I was hoping that this topic would have died throughout the night but it seems that is not the case…why don’t we end this and just say that we agree to disagree…it’s obvious that everyone’s opinion is set and all this may become is just another unfortuante heated discussion…hmm, maybe a bloody stab to the heart would be enough to kill this topic smiles darkly actually yes…that would be quite nice…oh, might I suggest something MI2, adding a poll to a topic won’t always lead to accuracy for not everyone votes in it even if they discuss things in it…such as me for example considering that you only gave two options, there should be more choices than that, don’t you think…
I didn’t even vote cause I had no idea how to answer. Like I said, the gator bit was funny but it still wasn’t the most reasonable thing to do to him.
I chose not to vote simply because that I felt that neither answer really related to my opinion on the matter…like I said, too limited of choices, it’s more of a black and white kind of view upon the matter…how sad…
Of course, discussion is also fair to the voter. Facts and evidence, along with speculation, can further make a better opinion for the voter. For instance, Flik-E here is unsure how to vote. Being properly informed and yes, he still has the decision to choose. But in being informed him, like others, will have a much better understanding of the “why” in the voting.
laughs Wouldn’t vote for a president unless you figure out how much of a hazard he is wouldn’t ya? 
Now i think about it, it would be better if the police would take Randall. He could have escaped easily when Sulled opened the factory again.
Honestly(somebody’s gonna kill menow), I think he deserved it. He was a jerk. Now Sid was just messed up, and TS is more of a…light movie, but Rabdall was just mean. I can understand jealousy, but he seems like a bad person to me, and they didn’t kill him. If he got away, he’d be fine. Argue all you want, but I have no sympathy for Randall after his ignorant behaviors.
Of course, before that you’d have to get a trial. And depending, who knows what would happen. Sullivan and Wazowski would probably get off for uncovering things. Randall MIGHT get let off, or his sentenced reduced if he provided evidence that Waternoose was, which he was, behind it all. Fungus…well depends if Randall’ll help him out. Probably.
rubs temple Being the most civil, I’ll try to be…civil.
Taking a page from another topic…Wazowski can be a jerk just as well. Now I can’t apply that to Sullivan because…well…he’s not.
Sid…yeah…kid was messed up. My guess is he lacked a father figure. I mean sitting in a recliner in a white shirt with a beer, probably passed out…one could guess his father didn’t really care to teach him anything, nor scold him.
As for jealousy…that’s to be determined. Jealousy COULD have been an influence, but it’s not a certainty.
Quite ironclad it seems hmm…
I think it was a little harsh. If he did have ti get banished, Don’t banish him near to many humans.
stares at Ristar’s avatar image Oh cool, Kirby! I love Kirby, he is just so cute, very awsome avatar you have there Ristar…wonders for a bit Now…if only someone gets an avatar image of Shadow the hedgehog…that would be awsome, although I may end up being that person’s stalker assuming the day comes when somebody gets an avatar image like that! Still, two PP members with avatar images of characters I love! prays to sky Please let someone who loves Shadow become a member here, I can only dream for now…
I won’t defend Mike here, but I’d be happy to rush to his defense on The Mike Thread. My one comment to Mike being a jerk(:roll:) is: drum roll of epic epicness
Take that how you will.
About Randall, I see why some people wanted a trial for him, but I don’t see any redeemable qualities to him. He seemed pretty 2-D and evil to me(especially since canon and Pete’s idea of him obviously point to that direction 
). He’s not like Goob or Stitch. He doesn’t seem like a good “friend” to me, and it really irritates me from an artistic standpoint when the villain from a film returns in a sequel. One exception is Barbosa in POTC. He enhanced it for me, but most of the time, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Need an example?
Personally, I think the creators DID want Randall to be 2D and evil but that interpretation just doesn’t work for me at all given what I take from the movie. I can see… effort placed in that direction, to attempt and make him pure evil and nothing but that, but they continually shoot themselves in the foot if that was what they were going for.
I think this comes from putting in scenes and concepts without realising how it looked. For instance the Mike trial line? Probably just something random they threw in to show two ordinary guys on their way to work (despite their odd appearance). There were things just added in which were clearly not thought about at all. A mistake.
Of course creator interpretations are never canon anyway. In the end only the movie is.
I think what makes M.I. a bit odder than the rest however isn’t in the sense that they have to redeem Randall. Technically they don’t and Randall would hardly be the first antagonist Pixar hasn’t redeemed. The only one who comes close I guess is… Mirage from the Incredibles? The odd toy in TS3?
(Is there anyone else… anyone?)
But Pixar it seems in general follows the protaganists.It is after all their story. They are the ones we’re supposed to be rooting for to relate to, for their story to be completed.
But what happened to Randall, given how their world works… means it doesn’t reflect very well on the protaganistic character arc. They didn’t MEAN for it to look that way. But even disregarding the whole thing with a painful revenge which occurred AFTER the fight being a bad idea, it makes the world at best have a hole in it. The CDA got them out of trouble legally speaking etc. But does that really look good? Not really. I mean it’s not even something very silly like Stinky Pete ending up with the Barbie owning kid. He got physically harmed.
The things is we’re not supossed to see what happened to Randall as highly questionable and that it reflects badly on the protaganists. .
But it simply does whether or not you view Randall as redeemable. You don’t even have to when it comes to drawing into question the actions taken with regards him. How it reflects on the protaganists maye be the real issue here and something that the sequel should probably explain and rectify.
The thing is that Randall was in their power at the time, they had a decision to make and they blew it. Revenge is an understandable emotion, and I feel anyone who says they wouldn’t be tempted in the slightest to do what Sulley and Mike did, to someone like Randall who has been trying to hurt and kill them is well a liar. But understandable isn’t really the same as admirable. It wasn’t even in the case of a necessary evil type of thing because it happened when the fight was over.
Basically if they’d taken Randall to jail the story would have been complete and there would be little problem saying that. True it would be very interesting I feel for Randall to be redeemed, and I find that possible and something Pixar doesn’t have a habit of doing. I think they could also make it believable too.
But regardless of this, it’s rather like if after someone who broke into your home and you tied them up you smacked them around a bit after they came round. You’d be guilty of assult and for good reason. Even though you of course have a right to be angry and a lot of people would be severly tempted in your position, you’d still be guilty of that.
If Randall had (somehow) got himself in that mess by himself, it might not be as much of an issue. If the harm had been dealt DURING the ‘fight’ and not AFTER it could also be arguably something more defensible. If Randall had been issuing a lot of threats a la Syndrome in the ‘Bwahahaha’ maniacle and he was still a possible threat also that would be more defensible. Plus it wasn’t exactly the exact aim to get him chewed up by the turbine.
But he was begging. Not spitting in their faces even.
I think what is odd about the whole Randall thing ISN’T that Randall ‘has’ to be redeemed (he doesn’t at all going by Pixar’s record) but how the action reflects on the protaganists is a problem. It hurts their hero status and renders their story to be incomplete in some form, it kind of leaves a bad message.
Because it wasn’t really even a case of a ‘necessary evil’ or happened during the fight. It was afterwards and comes across as spiteful and pretty unnecessary.
Revenge is certainly an understandable thing to desire and in certain areas to actually carry out (and in this case too), but admirable? No, not at all.
They didn’t have to ‘let Randall explain’ either really though. They owed him nothing before they exiled him. Instead say tie him up or something and then later after the whole Waternoose thing infer that he is taken to the authorities. That’s really is all that’s needed perhaps to ‘fix’ this movie. The story is done, fineto and over if they’d done that (beyond interesting questions about how the Boo-Sulley relationship goes and possible CDA weirdness). People could say Sulley hired Randall after he got out of jail, and that he got a shorter sentance than Waternoose under coercion or something. That’s what fanfic could be for. Pixar doesn’t redeem their antagonists very often, so whether or not you take Randall as being more than he appears does not affect the completed status of this movie, and Pixar has a lot of anatagonists people can pity and relate to that they never redeem. It’s the actions of the protaganists against him however which do affect this movie. Because it’s the protaganists story, and while they are never perfect their story is the one which must be completed. This kind of includes the CDA who without the whole thing would simply have come across as prone to over-reaction, among other things, but less shady than they could be taken as perhaps.
So, let me ask you this, IGV-Do you believe that is OK for people to take the law into their own hands, and punish those that they view as criminals, for whatever reasons, without the benefit of a fair trial? Do you accept that the practice of lynching is OK and should be legal? If YOU should ever committ and crime(and don’t think you’re above doing so, lest that high horse find a convenient time to start bucking), should I, or any other citizen, have the right to punish you as WE see fit?
pitbulllady
We’re not supposed to quote photos. Anyway, this is a movie, and I’m not going to go out of my way to argue with grown adults who see fit to attck my views. Randall survived, so it’s not like capital punishment, and the whole scene was intended to be humorous, not for a bunch of grown adults to take it personally and hate people who don’t care for Randall. I respect your opinion, but I’m still allowed to disagree with it. I’m going to stop posting on the MI forum since I upset you so much, I’m sorry you only like the villain, and yes, Randall got what he deserved.
I don’t think you personally read my post but in any case…)
(And it’s really SULLEY which is also a worry about personally and in regards to the whole exile issue because it renders his story incomplete. If you don’t like people who disagree well in the end it’s your choice not to post, however that does not equal to ‘attacking’ really. While PBL can be harsh in tone, there is some truth to it in some ways)
But I’ll basically give another rambling post:
Basically regardless of the creators intensions that does not remove the fact that it was literally revenge was presented in the film as being funny. That’s… not the best idea. It wasn’t necessary for them to do the action, while it is indeed understandable to want it wasn’t very funny to me. And it’s not a very admirable or always very funny action to take in real life (unless we’re talking harmless pranks here). How it affects the protaganistic arc is what’s important with regards stating whether the movie can be taken as complete in Pixar. As stated, many antagonists do not become redeemed. It’s a simple fact with their movies. Most never are in Pixar with the odd exception here and there which in some cases are even arguable against. Randall is one of a large list which aren’t redeemed. This argument HOWEVER I’m making is based on whether the exile was right or not, which should be made regardless of whether he’s redeemable or not.
Regardless. In any case, or this case at least, it doesn’t matter whether or not Randall is the moustach twirling bad guy or if he’s redeemable. This is about the protaganists. Only. Let’s focus on them and not whether Randall is redeemable or not.
This is an argument on the basis that regardless of the antagonist, the movie ending should be taken on behalf of the protaganists, because of how it reflects on them. You can say someone ‘deserves’ it, and while it is certainly understandable to want revenge especially given the situation, I don’t happen to agree that it is an action people should take. That’s not how morality works. If Randall was still a huge and massive threat like Syndrome and there was no other option, if he somehow got into that situation himself/during the fight it would not have been as much of an issue. But it happened afterwards. After the fight and he was in Sulley’s power. Lots of antagonists after all also get seriously hurt or even killed. But what makes M.I. different is the way it happened. After the fight. The protaganists had him in their power. What is the most tempting option isn’t the one which should always be taken. This is regardless of feeling if someone ‘deserves’ it, it’s how it reflects on those who carry out the action.
If you only (in morality) try to make out ‘well I’m better than them’ to justify yourself… well wow, that’s really selling yourself short and that’s kind of sad in a way. Because I’m sure you can do better than that. I’ve always though morality is not about say telling yourself you’re better than that drug dealer you see on the street but being the best person you can be.
And Sulley and Mike were not being the best people they could be when they exiled Randall. That’s the real issue I think guys. Let’s not talk about actually being the person who gets the action committed against (the criminal who gets the vigilante attack), but the person who does it. The vigilante themselves. What does it say about that person?
Even if someone sees Randall as a pure and utter disgrace, pure evil and without redeeming qualities whatsoever, the real argument here is how it makes the protaganists look in this instance. Which unfortunatly isn’t very good. It’s understandable, but not good.
This is on the basis of course that they knew Randall would get hurt severely in part of course.[/i]
I’m not saying she’s wrong(this is all subjective), I just don’t see why everything I say has to be argued with and disregarded as trash. I don’t see why someone like her doesn’t have anything better to do than attack an Autistic 15 year old who just wants to share the awesomeness of a forum. I’m done here. Sorry to disturb her and her unlimited knowledge. And you’re right, MG, I was not arguing with you.
I have to agree with Virginia here… Randall got what he deserved in my opinion. It wasn’t like Mike and Sulley killed him. They sent him away from the monster world, almost like how he and Waternoose had banished them. I think it was perfectly reasonable.
Exactly!! Didn’t he stand there smiling when they were banished?
The way I see it, Randall was out to kill them. They were just defending themselves, which meant they had to get rid of Randall for good, otherwise it would be a fight that would never end. Like some of you said, Mike and Sulley had no way of knowing what would happen afterward. If I were in that same situation, I’d probably do the same thing. It’s not taking the law into your own hands, it’s simply defending yourself. 
And violence is legal if you’re defending yourself, no? Yes.
Exactly. With him there, they’d never be safe. With him there, Boo wouldn’t have been safe. It was a quick and simple way to get Randall out of the picture, without having to kill anybody. I thought it was clever.