How does Sideswipe necessarily know Sideways is an inferior underdog opponent? There are lots of Decepticons...

And without having read Sideway's toy bio, how can Sideswipe know that Sideways would refuse to fight? Maybe if Sideswipe wasn't so quick, Sideways would have eventually turned around and blasted him?

I don't think the attack was really "brutal." He stuck his sword in the ground and Sideways drove into it...

I agree the celebration was uncalled for, though...

That's a great question. I would actually say that what Sideswipe did was, under the circumstances, quite logical - especially when dealing with an opponent from a species that thrives on the gullibility of others. I simply think that the scene as written depicted Sideswipe as competent, rather than heroic.

 

For instance, Sideways could have ran, slowed Sideswipe down with a cheap-shot, and then ambushed Sideswipe as he rounded the corner. Cue some nice, high-speed hand-to-hand fighting and just when it looks like Sideswipe is done for he turns the tables and hurls Sideways. That's Sideways cue to transform in midair and land on all four wheels, ready to escape - only for Sideswipe to then cut him in half.

 

Bang! Sideswipe looks a hell of a lot more sympathetic. :)

 

The only thing I can say in response to that is (and I can't believe I'm actually defending the non-character development in ROTF in some capacity), Sideswipe has generally been depicted as the kind of dirty, anything-goes streetfighter who likes to pound on Decepticons and will use any dirty means he has at his disposal to take them down. I know the Bayverse didn't do one thing in the movie exposition-wise to illustrate this, but...it actually fits with Sideswipe's character (at least with his G1 bio). He'd ace Sideways and ask questions later...and would brag about it, to boot.

The scene was, however, pretty horrible in terms of showing Sideswipe in a good light. He chased down an inferior underdog opponent that refused to fight, killed him in a particularly brutal fashion, and then tops of his performance with a jaunty celebration! Hardly the best depiction of a 'heroic' Autobot...

How does Sideswipe necessarily know Sideways is an inferior underdog opponent? There are lots of Decepticons...

And without having read Sideway's toy bio, how can Sideswipe know that Sideways would refuse to fight? Maybe if Sideswipe wasn't so quick, Sideways would have eventually turned around and blasted him?

I don't think the attack was really "brutal." He stuck his sword in the ground and Sideways drove into it...

I agree the celebration was uncalled for, though...

Actually, Sideswipe threw his blades so that they imbedded into Sideways' hood, not the ground. Then, while flipping over the top, he grabbed the blades and sliced him in two.

Remember, prior to the "murder", Sideways turned a tenement building into a tunnel.

Maybe he wouldn't have if he wasn't being chased down like an animal.

Maybe he wouldn't have been chased down like an animal if he just surrendered.

 

[sarcasm]Because let me tell you, surrendering is the first thing I would do when faced with life or death.[/sarcasm]

I was in the military for 9 years and am a disabled vet and still work with the military and I also have several friends...... Well you get the point, any ways even in war if a known terrorist came up to you you could draw your weapon but could not fire on them unles they:

 

1: keep coming after you tell them to stop.

 

2: Draw a weapon

 

 

Did the decepticons pull a weapon or try to keep coming at the autobots after being told to stop?

Different type of engagement situation with a different type of enemy. What you described is in a guard post situation, not a combat situation. The Decepticons didn't need to pull a weapon because they are weapons. Their bodies have built in weapons. On top of that, this was a seek and destroy mission. Find the enemy and destroy them to prevent them from fulfilling their overt and covert missions. Those were the rules of engagement. The US military has run several such missions in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Quaida (sp?), seeking out their strongholds and blasting them to smithereens before they can even knew what hit them, much less draw their weapons. We use snipers armed with 50 cal. sniper rifles to take out enemy commanders and the like, sometimes from from two miles away, without the enemy even knowing they're about to die, much less seeing their killer, or hearing the shot.

 

Also, in your list, you missed one. If you order an enemy to stop in order to detain them, and they attempt to flee, you can shoot them then as well.

So then.

 

What's the moral justification for shooting an injured combatant rather than capturing him? I'm being serious here, the only reason I can think of for killing Demolisher rather than taking him captive is either "I feel like killing him" or "We're too lazy to move him while he's alive."

 

Neither of which put Prime in the best light. I do wish this was addressed in the movie, it could've been interesting. Especially since they tried to show the Autobots in an "ambiguous" light... except ambiguous more meant "LOOK AT THE STUPID HUMANS BEING PARANOID THE AUTOBOTS ARE AWESOME FUCK YEAR. WE SHOULD ALWAYS LISTEN TO PRIME."

Simple, the first one is to put him out of his misery. He was already mortally wounded, and dying. He wouldn't survive anyway. They also didn't have the facilities to imprison POWs, nor the capability to move such a large prisoner, even if his wounds weren't mortal. Even if he could have recovered from his injuries, he would have been too dangerous to keep alive. Thus, the risk was too great.

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?

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.

Ok okokokokokokokokokok, I understand every ones argumments but it goes back to the same point.......

 

AUTOBOTS ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO SEEK AND DESTROY. THEY ARE SUPPOSE THE BE THE GOOD GUYS. THEY DON'T GO OUT LOOKING TO KILL OTHERS OFF THEY ARE THERE TO PROTECT IN CASE OF AN ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Umm weren't the original ones introduced around the time of the cold war? 1985-1991 during the Reagan years. and wasn't there a constant threat of nuclar war and wasn't everyone out to kill everyoneelse.... Oh wait I get it those were actually the good old days when people cared for each other and everything now is much worse.....Right?

Umm weren't the original ones introduced around the time of the cold war? 1985-1991 during the Reagan years. and wasn't there a constant threat of nuclar war and wasn't everyone out to kill everyoneelse.... Oh wait I get it those were actually the good old days when people cared for each other and everything now is much worse.....Right?

 

This.

Ok okokokokokokokokokok, I understand every ones argumments but it goes back to the same point.......

 

AUTOBOTS ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO SEEK AND DESTROY. THEY ARE SUPPOSE THE BE THE GOOD GUYS. THEY DON'T GO OUT LOOKING TO KILL OTHERS OFF THEY ARE THERE TO PROTECT IN CASE OF AN ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Protecting life does not simply mean waiting for an attack. It also mean eliminating threats before they can attack. If you know an enemy, such as a terrorist cell, is preparing to attack you or innocents, You deal with them before they can implement their plans. IF you know the enemy is hold up somewhere, you take them down. If you know criminals hare planning a crime, you stop them before they can commit it. It's called being proactive instead of reactive. The key to winning any war is cutting off the enemy's supply lines, intelligence, and communications, and then taking them out where they're holed up. The Autobots are at war. There is no time to play around. You don't play "nice" with the enemy.

What he said. The Autobots would have been completely eliminated a long time ago if they were unwilling to meet the war on its terms and rise to the occassion. This would be doubly grievous, as the Decepticons plans for conquest involve much more than simply conquering Cybertron. There is no quarter asked--or given--between the two sides. It really is that simple.