No I ,meant what Disney baddies have turned good to Vox's replei.

While you are entitled to your own opinion, however much I utterly, absolutely and ENTIRELY disagree with just about everything about it (you'd have the entire army of Randall fans willing to challenge it, anyway), I agree with that one thing you said about him not being able to survive after his encounter with that human. That woman didn't seem as though she was going to let up anytime soon, unless Randall played dead for the sake of getting her to stop. Anyway, plenty of "villanous villains" have changed their ways before, Iago being one example that comes to my mind right away, and he wasn't even half as reliable as Randall since Iago wishy-washed from side to side once Jafar came back into the picture. In the end though, he proved everyone who was doubtful of him wrong, saving Aladdin's arse and almost dying for it. Who's to say that it is completely impossible for someone like Randall to change?

Kuzco changed!


Also I'd like to emphasize how unpleasant whathisface's name's death was in Tarzan. Where he fell and got hanged on the vines. That still creeps me out.

Also, didn't Captain Gantu turn good in the final Lilo & Stitch film?

I know both Iago and Gantu turned good in DTV sequels, but I wouldn't be surprised if Pixar found some sort of way to "redeem" Randall as a wink to his cult following. (If he somehow survived the first one... I confess it's been a long time since I've seen Monsters Inc., so I guess I misunderstood the severity of it...)

Then again, I'm still kinda shocked at the character arc taken for Buddy Pine/Syndrome. Going from well-meaning fan who gets rejected by his hero, to a psychotic villain who receives a very grisly death... that's pretty dark.

uh
 

NEIN!!!!!!!!! only a sequel for any movie that's of Pixar quality!(ie.not a disney cheapquel) I personally am not begging for a sequel for ANY of the pixar movies.But if I had to choose it would be Monsters inc.

The Black Cauldron, Oliver and Company, and Atlantis all had some fairly violent scenes as well...

Yes and yes! Which is why I fail to grasp why some people cannot fathom a "baddie" becoming good. Iago was a particularly nasty foe who *I* never thought would ever change, and look at him now. He's still a bit of a coward, greedy, and even selfish, but he managed to put his own interests aside and almost sacrificed himself to help the very people who doubted him and were willing to turn their backs on.

I agree on many of the grisly villain deaths in Disney movie history. I know it's just for entertainment value (though I fail to find anything entertaining about death, to be honest), but I find it kind of macabre to dispose of every villain by killing them off in the most violent, bloodiest way. It's become such a trend now that people get surprised when a bad guy isn't killed off, whether they've been particularly nasty or not. If they're bad, they're supposed to die because that's just the way it's been for as long as television and entertainment have been around, right? We didn't need Disney to introduce us to the very fine line that defines "good" and "bad". Unfortunately, having been spoon-fed this ideal for most of our lives is what keeps some individuals thinking that redemption is a long ways from anyone who's ever crossed that fine line. It's strictly black and white with no in- between, and I hate it.

To my knowledge, Gantu remained a glorified pain in the ass not only in the direct to dvd sequels but also the series, in fact, he was the main villain. Lilo and Stitch never did a good job with "real" villains considering how Dr. Jumba and Pleakely turned out anyways. And yes they WERE the starting villains.

But back to Kuzco and Iago, both were more pains in the asses then evil. Iago was certainly nasty at times but he's more of the kind of guy to say what he wants to save his own feathers. Kuzco was a spoiled brat and I never considered anything he did worthy of a villain title.

Randall to me showed some pretty cruel nature, mostly stemming with his whole scream device, how he went about doing it and when he said "I'll take good care of the kid" towards the end. But that's just me.

It really isn't and despite the countless grizzly deaths I mentioned, there are of course many clean "ends" for villains that happen without death. Consider:

101 Dalmations
The Rescuers
Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Robin Hood
The Jungle Book
Cinderella

None of the villains died, and YES they can turn good. It all depends on whether the character has the potential to become good or the willing to make changes in their lives. Buffy the vampire slayer, Dragon Ball Z, Pokemon, Digimon, Jackie Chan adventures and Beast Wars have all shown bad guys turning good.

Anime uses this evil going good thing CONSTANTLY, especially in Sailor Moon, it happens A LOT more then you think. It all depends on how far the character can go. But to be honest, some villains CAN'T go good and most of them don't want to, it's a choice they make and have to live with.

Some things can't be helped, some people too, and villains like Buddy/Syndrome who let personal matters or issues control and corrupt their lives are doomed to pay for their mistakes in the end....even if the end is bloody or clean, either way, karma comes back at ya.

I know that Capt. Gantu was in much the same situation that Randall was-a pawn of someone with far more power and influence than himself(even if, in the case of the former, that individual happened to be a pint-sized RODENT, NOT that this might be symbolic of Disney's hold over its creative persons or anything...), while at the same time desparately trying to improve his situation in life. It happens-I've Been There, Done That. Good people CAN be misled or forced into doing bad things. Real Life has shown me, personally, that there is indeed a fine line between good and bad, and everyone crosses it at some point, some more than others. Ironically, in my own experience, which I think I can safely say does excede that of anyone else hear by virtue of age, it's the people who most loudly cry out "EVIL!!" and point fingers and cast those proverbial stones at those they believe are deserving of punishment who are themselves the most likely to have the most skeletons in THEIR closets, with regards to having done some not-so-nice things.

Disney, however, did not make Monsters, Inc., and Disney's penchant for having that jaded "Good Guy vs. Bad Guy" formula, with their "Bad Guys" usually meeting some horrible demise, is reason alone for Pixar to buck that trend and actually show that there are indeed two sides to every coin. What Sulley and Mike did was committ premeditated murder, if Randall did indeed die-and anyone who argues that this is not the case better have a good lawyer on retainer when you decide to off someone who's hurt you in the past. Revenge is the number one motive for murder, after all. Yet, we are supposed to believe that two guys who plot the death of a co-worker out of revenge, or vigilantism, are great and wonderful individuals who can do no wrong?

pitbulllady

Uhhhh I just want to say this because this sticks out WAY too largely for me to ignore, apologize for off topicness again but....

Randall tried to kill Sulley when he was hanging from the doors, AND by suffocating him...so their "murder" of Randall was hardly without reason. And I also doubt Mike and Sulley knew where that door went to for Randall.

Unless they looked into it a head of time (which I don't buy because the family probably would have seen them considering trailers are quite small spaces), I think they just dumped Randall into the nearest door they could find.

Sorry again for the off topicness.

Killing someone is only justified BY LAW if that person is STILL trying to KILL YOU and cannot be stopped by any other means. Killing someone because they had TRIED to kill you earlier, but are no longer doing so, is an act of revenge, and it would not therefore be considered "self-defense". It would simply be murder, PERIOD. 75% of the murderers in prison now are there because they killed someone else out of revenge, because of something that their victim earlier did to them. Revenge is the most common motive for murder. The court system still does not justify it, and will punish those caught accordingly.

Sulley acted out of revenge, pure and simply. He and Mike also had to take time to plan what to do with Randall(who was no longer attempting to harm them and was under Sulley's control), which consitutes premeditation. That makes Sulley just as bad a person as Randall, if not worse, because unlike Randall, who was under orders from someone else and felt he had no real choice in the matter, Sulley DID have choices, but he CHOSE the worse one.

pitbulllady

Yeah, the last time I saw those two were in the their shows. (Iago being one of my fave Disney charcaters next to Donald Duck).

Tp PBL, Randall was jacka** you would of done it too. Randall could of said no & took teh pain that may of come, but nooooooo he was so un-Wilt like. (Using your Wilt loving-ness against you ;) )

Actually, IB, Randall and Wilt are a LOT more alike than you think. Both are highly competitive and driven by the urge to win. NEITHER would resort to cheating(Randall was NOT CHEATING-any screams collected via the prototype Scream Extractor would NOT have counted towards his total on the Scare Boards, and he was very upset that Mike thought he'd been cheating). Both, when under extreme pressure, tend to "snap" rather quickly and react, rather than think things through. Wilt showed this side very plainly in "Bus the Two of Us", when HE, too, resorted to sudden physical assault on someone(Mr. Herriman)to achieve his goal of preventing anyone from finding out that the bus was missing. Randall's uber-stressed-out behavior throughout much of the movie, and Wilt's behavior in that episode, are stunningly similar, right down to that near-heart attack jump they both do when startled. As for Randall "taking the pain that was to come" if he'd said "no" to Waternoose, how painful does DEATH sound to you, hmmm? Given how Waternoose treated an old friend who'd crossed him, how do you think he would have treated Randall, someone he clearly disliked? Unless YOU have personally had YOUR life on the line and had to make that sort of decision, you're in no position to judge. I've been through that, so I know from first-hand experience what it's like to have a make a very serious decision like that. I know first-hand what that sort of pressure, for months on end, will do to someone, since I've lived it myself. SURVIVAL is any organism's strongest instinct. I'll give Wilt more credit for courage and gameness than I'll give Randall, but to many people, Wilt's self-sacrificing nature, and tendency to put the safety and survival of someone else above his own, makes HIM a negative character. I've just recently seen him described as "suicidal" and "stupid" on another forum for things he did in Good Wilt Hunting. It all depends on one's personal experiences. Wilt also came from a loving, caring background, and has people even now who care deeply about him. Randall, on the other hand, apparently had no one HE could count on, otherwise his family or SOMEBODY would have shown up(along with a bunch of lawyers and detectives)following his disappearance, and certainly would not have stood for Mike's lying excuse of a "company play", making fun of their loved one who'd gone missing while working for that very company. I myself came within a hair's breath of committing a horrible act, such was my own desparation, many years ago, and the only thing that pulled ME from that brink was my family, so don't try to tell me it doesn't make a difference.

pitbulllady

Well, Wilt would of had death instead of Waternoose had Randall doing. I see Randall having a grudge on Sulley now never turning back good. I mean he threw Randall with hicks! HICKS!! No one would ever forgive that!:P