So... in other words, they were too lazy/unprepared to move him.

Not at all. The mission wasn't to capture any prisoners, it was a seek and destroy mission, no prisoners. And, he was dying anyway.

... why would that make it better?

I'm not sure I get your question. Make what better? They weren't being lazy or unprepared for prisoners. As others have mentioned, taking prisoners really wasn't an option anyway. They certainly had equipment prepared to remove any evidence (including the bodies), and, if they had wanted to take prisoners, they would have still fit on board the transports. The problem was that it was too risky, for starters. Then there is the issue of taking live enemies into a secure, secret facility—enemies with built-in communiucations systems, and thus, could transmit the Autobots' location to their superiors which would compromise the Autobtos' position. It's just too risky.

Okay, let's try putting this into perspective... let's pretend they're people. They go on a mission to hunt town a terrorist cell hiding in an urban environment. They run, and kill one while running. That I'm completely fine with.

 

However, they manage to stop the other one, and cripple him. Rather than capture him, they execute him on-site. How does saying "IT WAS A SEEK AND DESTROY MISSION" make them seem any better? They're just not willing to not kill anyone? They can more than likely block transmissions, and call me crazy, but maybe, just maybe, Prime would have gotten more info from Demolisher if he didn't simply shoot him in the face when he resists.

Except Optimus didn't simply "cripple" Demolishor. He mortally wounded him. Demolishor was going to die anyway. So let's put your terrorist scenario up again, and replace "Crippled" with mortally wounded. You have a mortally wounded enemy who isn't going to survive much longer because of severe head trauma you inflicted upon him. On top of that, but he has a transmitter implanted inside of is body as well as explosives. Are you still going to try and take him alive? No. you're going to end his life, put him out of his misery, and keep him from compromising the security of their base, or perhaps causing major damage to it and the personnel inside, or even setting them off immediately and taking you with him right then and there as well as half of the area around you causing massive numbers of casualties. This happened in Vietnam on many occasions. What Optimus did was necessary. Demolishor was already dying and he still remained a threat. There was one option and one option only, put him down for good.

Where is it even implied that he's mortally wounded?

 

And when did he ever use explosives? So many things are coming directly from your anus.

 

Other continuities have had no problems taking prisoners, either by disabling weapons and communication systems or by jamming them. I highly doubt that in the long time the Autobots and Decepticons have been fighting they've been unable to take prisoners.

Where is it even implied that he's mortally wounded?

 

And when did he ever use explosives? So many things are coming directly from your anus.

 

Other continuities have had no problems taking prisoners, either by disabling weapons and communication systems or by jamming them. I highly doubt that in the long time the Autobots and Decepticons have been fighting they've been unable to take prisoners.

Demolishor was shot in the face. That's what took him down in the first place He had a hole through his head. That is a mortal wound. The second shot Optimus administered after Demolishor mentioned The Fallen rising again, was just the final kill shot. He was already mortally wounded though. The mention of explosives is an example for your terrorist scenario. Demolishor is a living weapon in his own right. His arms by themselves are lethal weapons. Most other continuities had the majority of Transformers' weapons being hand-held or externally mounted and thus easily removed, not built in. Most of the movie Transformers have all of their weapon systems fully integrated into their bodies, and thus impossible to disarm.

You know: fundamentally, no 'murder' took place here. This isn't the Black Dahlia Avenger case. There was a war--or, at least, the sentient mechanoid extraterrestrial approximate of it. We don't see the Cybertronian equivalent of law being played out. It's literally the Hatfields vs. The McCoys: two sides that exist to wipe out the other, with neither side displaying anything softer than ambivalence towards any casualties the other side takes.

 

I don't think morality is given room to be displayed in this context.

 

Also: Tramp is completely correct. Prime's execution of Demolishor was a mercy killing. And even moreso, I'm not unconvinced that surrender on the Decepticons part was not an option (would you really want The Fallen/Megatron/Starscream) coming after you to take you out because of what you might have told the enemy? It's very plausible that victory or death were the Decepticons sole options.

 

But, now here is where I diverge. I'm drawn to the Mutant Massacre storyline in the X-books during the mid-80's. I recall Uncanny X-Men #211 where, as the X-Men have no idea of the identity, goal(s), abilities or true number of the Marauders, Storm directs Wolverine to remain in the Morlock tunnels and take a Marauder prisoner so that they might learn the identity/goals/abilities/number of these new enemies. The remaining Marauders--if Wolverine found any--could be dispatched in any fashion he deemed appropriate.

 

The movie left this wide open enough that I would think that this would be a prime (no pun intended) course of action. We're assuming that the Autobots knew who these Decepticons were. You could just as easily assume that they did not--and probably a whole lot more convincingly. Were I Optimus, with all these new Decepticons coming from Primus knows where and now operating under The Fallen (deduced by Demolishor's last words), I'd want a prisoner. It might not be this Decepticon I just ashed, but I want one. For questioning. Not in the name of morality, but for simple strategic purposes. I want to know why, when, what, how and where. Do we have facilities to hold a prisoner? Perhaps not at this moment, but we'll make it happen. The fact that Megs was supposedly dead would add impetus and urgency to this: who's in charge, what's his goal(s), how does he plan to pull it off, who's with him and how many, where specifically does he plan do prosecute this new chapter of the war and why?

 

Why would you NOT take a prisoner in this scenario, with hostile forces coalescing around you? Doesn't mean the prisoner will talk, but I'm certain that the TFs had other means of getting information from you if you weren't of a mind to give it up willingly.

 

Understanding that each TF is, in fact, a living weapon would make this difficult but...the TFs have aeons of experience in this area, presumably. The Bayverse equivalent of stasis-cuffs, perhaps?

Where is it even implied that he's mortally wounded?

 

And when did he ever use explosives? So many things are coming directly from your anus.

 

Other continuities have had no problems taking prisoners, either by disabling weapons and communication systems or by jamming them. I highly doubt that in the long time the Autobots and Decepticons have been fighting they've been unable to take prisoners.

Demolishor was shot in the face. That's what took him down in the first place He had a hole through his head. That is a mortal wound. The second shot Optimus administered after Demolishor mentioned The Fallen rising again, was just the final kill shot. He was already mortally wounded though. The mention of explosives is an example for your terrorist scenario. Demolishor is a living weapon in his own right. His arms by themselves are lethal weapons. Most other continuities had the majority of Transformers' weapons being hand-held or externally mounted and thus easily removed, not built in. Most of the movie Transformers have all of their weapon systems fully integrated into their bodies, and thus impossible to disarm.

 

I'm going to have to agree here, thinking back it does seem to me that Demolisher's wounds were certainly of an arguably fatal variety.

Seeing him laid out, bits of his exoskeleton crumpled up after taking that crazy cartwheel, he very well looked like he could be dying.

 

However the criticism that can (and probably should) be leveled at the film is that you kind of have to infer this. If you don't meditate on it as we've been doing, it really looks like Prime straight up 'Executed' him as opposed to 'Euthanizing' him to spare him his pain.

What makes it such an unfortunate mistake is that this could have been easily amended: Either by a human on sight or (Better yet) by Ratchet.

 

5- 10 seconds of film: The "doctor" on hand (human or Ratchet) is examining the wounds and either A) Shakes his head and looks somewhat pensive, or B) Steps up behind Prime as he approaches Demolisher and says something like "He's dying; you'd better make it quick".

 

Suddenly the scene has new meaning. That's all I'm sayin'.

I just finished reading the "Alliance" prequel TPB yesterday. In issue #4 it's the human commander that gives the orders to find the Decepticons and eliminate them on site (paraphrase, I forget the exact words used).

Yep. Exactly. as I said previously. It was a seek and destroy mission.

I just finished reading the "Alliance" prequel TPB yesterday. In issue #4 it's the human commander that gives the orders to find the Decepticons and eliminate them on site (paraphrase, I forget the exact words used).

Yep. Exactly. as I said previously. It was a seek and destroy mission.

Coolness.

 

Still, it would have been nice if they had actually mentioned this in the movie; I'd rather not have to comb throuth comics and/or novelizations to find hidden plot points. :)

Yes, this is all great stuff because we all know that the Autobots are only play things of the US military and not a race that is millions of years old and able to think for themselves.

Yes, this is all great stuff because we all know that the Autobots are only play things of the US military and not a race that is millions of years old and able to think for themselves.

 

Well, no, that part isn't cool. That's the ironic thing about this situation.

 

It's good to know (to some degree) that they weren't just doing it 'for fun' that there were actual orders given by superior officers that necessitated it, so it wasn't just arbitrary. It would have been nice if this had been in the movie so that there would have at least been a clear "Legal" justification for it, so we weren't guessing as to all the "whys" of the situation. However...

 

Was it "Morally" justified? Was it an accurate representation of what the Autobots ought to stand for?

 

Heck, no.

 

I mean, even in the original series they had ways of taking prisoners that deprived them of their bodies and by extension their weapons. Recall if you will when Starscream created the Combaticons. Where did he get the brains for these tin soldiers that he built? He stole the "Personality components" (IE: Brains) of convicted war criminals from prison; a prison that looked suspiciously like a bunch of security deposit boxes at a bank.

 

Now, I realize that a straight port of this concept may not have worked, but I'm sure it could have been adapted in SOME way to fit this movie. After all, what more efficient or effective way is there to incarcerate someone than that? Taking out the vital bits of someone and sealing them in a container the size of a old trunk? Even our prison system isn't half as efficient or effective as that!

But I guess the counter argument could be that perhaps they don't have the technology on hand to do that so in that case...

 

Even if they DIDN'T take prisoners and had to kill those guys anyway, they could have done it so that there was some higher justification for the termination that transcended: "Well, That guy told us to."

 

(and now some editorializing :) )

I think it really comes down to the fact that Michael Bay is a very small minded man. Michael Bay only cares about making marketable films. He doesn't think very far past "Lets have a cool action scene where some dude gets cut in half". He didn't even cement the legal justification in the actual film; John 14:6 (again, awesome that you managed to find that by the way) had to go look in a book for that! As far as Bay is concerned, a cool action sequence is its own justification.

 

So if you want to be an optimist: Be glad that Michael Bay went into movies, not politics, because if he became President he'd probably initiate Thermonuclear war because it would make a "cool action sequence."

 

But if you want to be a pessimist: Don't be surprised if Optimus Prime kills a decepticon in the next movie by pulling his Spark out and making him eat it, cuz hey, "It'd make a cool action sequence."

 

Okay, so IN CONCLUSION:

 

Sideswipe's killing of Sideways and Prime's euthanizing Demolisher were "Legally Mandated Acts of Agression" and therefore cannot be considered MURDER in spite of the fact that it wasn't extremely clear in the film.

 

However, these acts were NOT portrayed in a way so as to make them seem MORALLY justified, and could therefore be considered a perversion of what Transformers as a whole has stood for in the past, and should stand for, depending on your point of view.

 

So, out of curiosity, have I made a good argument? Or am I just being "full of it"? Seriously. :shrug

:yay :yay :yay :yay :yay :yay :thumb :agree :agree :agree :tfdance :alert :notworthy :notworthy

 

 

 

Basically you hit it on the head. Even in the original and animated series when given the opertunity Prime would not kill Megatron. So why change who he is now?

:yay :yay :yay :yay :yay :yay :thumb :agree :agree :agree :tfdance :alert :notworthy :notworthy

 

 

 

Basically you hit it on the head. Even in the original and animated series when given the opertunity Prime would not kill Megatron. So why change who he is now?

 

I dunno. Prime seemed pretty ready to finish him off in the 86 movie, before Rodimus jumped in.