Monsters University

[TheVileOne]

Scaring is the Monster equivalent to fossil fuels, a dirty negative fuel that the society has been built around, that companies profit hugely from, at the expense of a more positive form of energy. Laughter is essentially Monster green energy.

No it isn't. See Solyndra.

 

[redhawk23]

Hmm?

The finances of one company do not change the way overall type of energy are talked about or are presented thematically in children's films.

 

[TheVileOne]

Hmm what? No it's not the same. In Monsters Inc. they found a new, more powerful source of energy they could replace virtually overnight. In a cartoon movie you can do that. It doesn't work that way in the real world.

I live in a state that has wasted tons of money investing in solar power and green energy programs that have yielded few results, and we are nearly bankrupt. I'm not saying green energy is invalid, but it's not LAUGHTER ENERGY in Monsters Inc. All all these resources are being invested into green energy and its still not working yet, then no to me it's not the equivalent of laugh energy in Monsters Inc.

 

[MrMaooz]

I missed this at the theaters, so I checked it out today. Great movie with lots of heart and humor. The animation was top-notch. Overall, a great time, but it's not as good as Monsters Inc.

8.5/10

 

[Quasimod0]

I missed this at the theaters, so I checked it out today. Great movie with lots of heart and humor. The animation was top-notch. Overall, a great time, but it's not as good as Monsters Inc.

8.5/10

glad you liked it.

 

[Teelie]

I saw it a few weeks ago and it's a nice prequel/origins to Monsters Inc. I don't think it would be a bad idea to see a sequel that shows the kid (Boo) grown up and the Monsters now facing some new crisis.

And California's energy and financial problems are far more reaching than green power's failure there. It could be argued the resistence to integrating it only exacerbated the situation further, that the implementation was blundered and there was/is not enough public participation in making it work.

It's just easier to use an older, outdated and inefficient system that works rather than accept a newer, potentially better system that hasn't been thoroughly vetted yet.

Outside of that are a host of other factors for California to deal with. The state itself has had problems related and unrelated to energy demands for a long time so directing blame on alternatives isn't very productive to the overall issues faced there.