He'll probably clarify.

 

No this was not directly aimed at you of course I said that everyone should drop the disrespect and that humans do these things as in general if you read my post...and the point still stands.Some may feel attacked in particular and say they're not the first and stuff like that but this is no legit justification or any argument(again in general as many use that excuse)The right thing is right even if no one does it and the wrong thing is wrong even if everyone does it.There is no reason to get triggered either..I would just appreciate if everyone would get less triggered and more motivated to measure their words in the future...because this is really pointless.Nobody tries to take someone's opinion away but it doesn't need to be treating something that has it's fans here as a sickness in a place where it should be dedicated to fans..it's not gonna encourage anything but heated arguments.

 

You said everyone, once. Let me highlight all the uses of "you" so you can understand why I think it's aimed at me...

Considering you called me your guy, used you, and another poster told me I didn't need to be posting, just as you said with "no one said you need to be on a site"

Why wouldn't one infer that it was aimed solely at them instead of everybody?

And I'm one of the people who used the word "garbage" (I'm not the only one, admittedly, but I was one of the most vocal...)

You can at least admit the "clarity" (or lack thereof) might lead one to wonder, right?

 

If that helps I'll admit it wasn't as explicit but it was never a personal attack like that,just trying to explain that entertainment is not what devided fandoms...people did like everything else in the world and no one is forced to continue down that path where they have to go back and spread more conflict.And I know most won't get my point even after this but it's always worth to try..the day we lose hope for a civilized discussion is the day we really lose that all together.

 

Yk I'm the one who started that whole exchange

 

I take it then you don't have a problem with either SuperMan, or Batman killing then?

 

False equivalence. Batman has a specific moral code that dictates he avoid killing. Optimus has no such limitation.

 

Eh, I disagree. Batman has beaten people so badly that they should've died. They would at least be maimed for life or disabled. That's actually a tad more cruel, really. Superman has killed, usually as a last resort, but he has. Optimus kills in war, both in the cartoon and live action films, but cartoon Optimus never took GLEE in it. Neither did Batman or Superman. Movie Optimus tells you he's going to kill you and then slaughter you. That's kind of odd and dark for what was a warrior who had a code and defended people, even if it meant being violent. Movie Optimus is a violent guy who keeps it under wraps until he gets a chance to use it.

Bottom line is, all of the characters we consider heroes have been mishandled and none of them are perfect and we're expecting perfection from something that isn't capable of it.

And there's a difference between a soldier who HAS to kill, either in self-defense or in defense of others, and a leader who says "I'll kill you! YOU DIE!" and then proceeds to do it. Where movie Optimus crossed the line was killing Attinger. "Whoever he is, he's gonna diiiie..." is not something you hear from Optimus, EVER. Even in the previous films! Was he justified in killing him? Yes. Was it Optimus? No. That's not the Optimus we know and grew up with.

 

YouTube clip of this please.

 

You forgot “Give me your face!”.  

I liked Kill-imus Prime. His bloodthirstiness was the most funny thing in the films. Was he a slobbering murderer? No. A lot of the complaints against him were just people taking a piss at the franchise. I, myself, have had a little fun making him into Hannibot Lecter from time to time.

Whether we like the Bay movies or dislike the Bay movies, they did give us some good things. The music (especially in 3) was great. IMHO, DotM was Jablonsky’s magnum opus. They also gave us variety on the toy shelves. And gave us all cheap laughs (though not all for the same reasons).

 

I never said that.

THIS is what I said:

Don't twist my words like that. I don't do it to you, extend me the same courtesy. That's a crappy thing to do and you know it.

GMYF goes without saying. It's quintessential Slaughterprime. Sadly, Murderbee's claim to fame is... "Sting like a bee!" Man, those movies shortchanged everyone. lol

 

I'm sorry; not my intention.
I thought that by you saying "but cartoon Optimus never took GLEE in it" was an implication that Movie Optimus does... which is why I ask for visual proof of Movie OP taking glee in combat.

 

My only real complaint about the Bayverse movies is some of the over-the-top idiotic dialogue and irrational behavior displayed by pretty much every character (humans and robots) at one time or another. I'm fine with, and expect, some amount of tension-breaking humor from time to time, but it became so ridiculous that some characters lost all semblance to reality and relatability in my eyes. That being said, I still find the movies to be enjoyable overall and will rewatch them from time to time.

 

Agreed. There are some other minor things, like in DotM when the Autobots were captured it just seemed to happen out of nowhere. They were moving and fighting then all of a sudden they were captured without showing how.
But it's still my all time favorite movie.

 

As someone who doesn’t believe in the idealised notion of a saintly hero, I don’t mind Prime’s portrayal in the Bayverse.

Never liked characters like Superman. I just think it’s unrealistic. If someone shows hostile or malevolent intent, then all bets are off. A villain shouldn’t get to dictate to what extent their potential victims respond in protecting themselves.

As far as I’m concerned, if one doesn’t like their face being ripped off or having their spine pulled out, they can simply avoid that by not committing mass genocide or enslaving an entire species. If you make a conscious decision to hurt someone, then your rights don’t matter. Anything is fair game.

Perhaps my view is clouded by my weariness of seeing the worst sides of humanity, and knowing that the softly softly approach doesn’t work with most bad people. Plus, I’m not a stickler for source material, so it doesn’t bother me that Bayverse Prime isn’t as righteous than his comic and cartoon predecessors.

Of course, others with more rigid moral and ethical boundaries would have a different view, and that’s perfectly fine too.

 

I think if the just tone down the obvious robo-viscera whenever they fight so looks less like Scream, sci-fi edition, they'll be fine. Like the Prime v. Bonecrusher fight is a perfect example. Efficient, clean and quick. Optimus kills his enemy; BC was deader the Julius Caesar at a Roller Disco.

So less Wolverine, more Captain America to use a contemporary analogy.

 

No, Chaos Prime is spot-on on this one-Burton, Nolan, Schumacher, and definitely Zack Snyder had Batman killing people. I also recall that being the case in Batman comics. Also, the aforementioned point applies to a certain Queens-native webslinger, too. . .

Yes, bayverse Optimus has no such limitation, and even gamefaqs.com and this magazine (ironically titled) recognize this. . .

When you have a director, writer, producers and corporate movie exec suits and beancounters who consider our favorite Cybertronian residents as just "a stupid kids toy", (thanks also to Music for pointing that real quote out), and then they influence several moviegoers to agree with them, guess what? Their screenplays and finished films will reflect that same sentiment, and they will continue giving what they influenced their devotees to want as long as they continue co-signing it- and that's no accident. It's deliberate. Funny how some folks say, "Well it's just entertainment", when the executives that create it have job titles that tell otherwise and give corporate speeches and presentations (4th paragraph, 7th line down) that use the term programming. . .

 

I didn't say he never kills, I just said he tries to avoid it. It's a central tenet to the character.

 

Some would say the more moral thing would be to kill the villain. For example, think how many lives have been lost in the Batman comics that wouldn't have been if Batman killed the Joker earlier. (This is based on what I've read about the comics, I haven't actually read them personally. )

 

I've been saying that for years. Sparing the villain over and over again because he might change isn't moral, it's indulging in sanctimonious, misplaced compassion that does nothing but get innocent people killed. Hell, I had a saying that I'd repeat ad nauseum: Mercy to the brute is brutality to the weak.