Optimus is portrayed as a hero character, but in the reality of the canon, he's a military general at war. The war had gone on for at least a century, so I'm confident to say that Optimus had gone through the whole "do heroes kill" argument a long time ago and is already numb to the moral guilt.
The real story of Michael Bay’s Transformers is seeing a kind, restrained, and friendly leader slowly being pushed towards a ruthless approach after seeing his friends die, his old master betraying him, and his enemies committing genocide on innocent people. It’s likely not what Bay was thinking, but with a few tweaks to the scripts of these films, it could easily be seen that way
This is always how I thought of the movies and their approach to optimus prime. This is also why I love the last knight so much believe it or not. After all the stuff that happened in the previous movies and Optimus being a shell of his former self, it barely took much convincing for a poser pretending to be his creator to manipulate him into turning against those left he protects. Even though it’s admittably really corny, Bumblebee speaking brought optimus back to the years before his arrival to earth and reminded him of what he is supposed to stand for and protect. He then reaffirms himself as Optimus Prime leader of the autobots and saves the day in a spectacular fashion. Personally I found this really powerful and it struck a chord with me for some reason, I know it may be a bad movie or whatever but idc i always love it.
I remember when Transformers Prime explored that push to become more ruthless. Megatron was causing the third apocalypse in a row and awakening a god beyond his understanding. Optimus Prime stopped being so diplomatic and tried to tried to kill him. He failed. Ironically it was Megatron's diplomatic overtures that saved the day. Optimus Prime lost his identity in the process and went on a journey of self discovery. "Orion Pax" lacked the wisdom and confidence of past Primes. But his heart was in the right place. Optimus Prime was reborn stronger than ever. Unwavering in his pursuit of peace. But temptered by ruthless pragmatism. Years later Megatron's faction was decimated. Megatron was cut down by Optimus Prime in the final battle. Many fought to the bitter end. Others accepted Optimus Prime's offer of peace. The tragedy of the whole thing is that many sympathetic villians like Breakdown and Dreadwing never got the chance.
Samurai Jack is the pinnacle of "don't worry they were all robots." Even villains who look completely human that don't show any signs of being robots will have mechanical innards once they're cut in half. It gets to the point that when he fights the daughters of Aku he kills one of them without hesitation, but is genuinely shocked to learn that she wasn't a robot.
I vaguely remember an episode saying that Samurai Jack's sword cannot hurt the righteous/innocent. So Jack just swings and lets the blade be the judge. I think. Though to be fair, if you spent 50 years being hunted by evil robots, you'd be stunned when they send an actual evil person after 50 years.
and jack straight up killed bounty hunters in that one episode and countless squid aliens only reason real people just fall down is cartoon network censorship and i blame it for making every enemy a robot and if they are not robots they blow up with their gimmick machine or it's ok buecause they look like people but it's a demon or some other excuse
What I love about Bayverse Optimus is that you can pinpoint the precise moment where he snapped. Up until the forest battle, he has been pulling his punches, and it winds up with him outnumbered, forcing him to stop holding back. Even after that, his initial hesitation quite literally gets him killed. In every fight after the forest battle, Optimus has become this brutally efficient killing machine, going straight for the kill shot instead of fighting in a restrained manner. This very well could have been accidental, but it’s a theory I choose to believe in.
I think it would be pretty awesome if the scene in where Optimus scans the glasses was altered instead to go in the direction of "The Decepticons must be destroyed, show no mercy. There can be no peace with those who crave death and destruction and take joy in quenching their lust for evil."
One of my favourite 'Batman never kills' observations: Batman doesn't kill you - he just breaks all the bones in your limbs and leaves in a dark alleyway. You'll be fine.
He doesn't kill at all! He just leaves you bedridden for the rest of your life and stuck in a hospital owned by the billionaire Bruce Wayne And remember folks, this is America. No free healthcare!
Something I would like to point out about John Wick is that while he *is* an assassin, he actually goes out of his way to not harm innocent bystanders. In the first movie, his target used a human shield which of course force him to relent firing on his quarry. In John Wick's case it is a moral *and* ethical imperative to conduct himself so precisely and professionally, nevermind that he is/was a member of a *criminal* society.
The funny thing about Bay's Transformers movies is that while they got progressively more terrible, Optimus's increasing misanthropic brutality was actually kind of morbidly fascinating to watch. XD
The point where bee pulls down the mask and goes all out against his brother to snap him out of it could have been the perfect moment for a return to form.
That's because Bay focused more on the action and money than the plot. The franchise was originally supposed to end with DoTM, but Bay wanted an action-pack movie. So....
One thing I love about Berserk is that Kentaro Miura is more than willing to go as dark as possible when it comes to humanity's potential for depravity, but he also has the courage to get the audience to understand *why* someone would commit such heinous acts, hero or villain.
Yeah, in the lost children arc, Guts is depicted like a monster and throughout the series Griffith is like the hero that inspires everybody, especially in the later arcs. For the people that don't really know what Griffith has done, he's basically Jesus Christ
I think Miura shows more on how much more powerful, yet rare, Gut's capacity for forgiveness and compassion is. It's not about condoning what they've done due to their suffering. It's about showing another way when another way looks impossible, and the benefits of taking that less traveled path.
It bothers me when people misuse the word "murder", e.g: the hero was defending himself against a vicious eneny and stabs him in obvious self-defense... "murder"
Yep Murder is an UNJUSTIFIED intentional killing. Every single culture has situations where killing is justified, for 99% of them it's been self defense, execution, and war.
It bothers me too, but it raises an interesting question. How do you justify that which others would call murder? Is it simply the act of killing when someone tries to kill you or another innocent, or is it killing when you have no other alternative? If I tried to kill Batman in real life, I would fail. He would dispatch of me very easily. He could knock me out, disarm me, disorient me, escape... but what if, when I fire a bullet, he makes a conscious decision to aim the sharp end of a baterang at my jugular, killing me? He KNOWS it wasn't necessary because he has the gear, experience and ability to beat me non-lethally. I am not much of a threat. Technically though, it was self-defense. Is that murder, or no?
I always find it ridiculous when the hero slaughters countless faceless henchmen but will spare the villain out of some sort of “moral high ground”. It was at its most egregious in Moon Knight, and I remember it in Guardians of the Galaxy 3, where they kill damn near all of the High Evolutionary’s men, but spare him because “they’re better”, when he was most deserving of getting killed out of everyone.
One example that stuck with me was Ellie in The Last of Us 2 because she refuse to kill Abby; the person who killed her father in an incredibly gruesome manner in front of her eyes, the person who shot the father of her child in cold blood, the person who literally put a gun to the head of her pregnant wife, and even after all of that Ellie spares her AFTER killing hundreds of people to the point of singlehandedly changing the power dynamic of 2 factions, Ellie literally kills so many WLF's that the seraphites become capable of a head own confrontation, and then she goes and spares Abby
There's a difference between killing people in a fight and killing someone who's at your mercy. The heroes aren't usually killing minions who aren't actively a threat to them.
@@AnEnemySpy456 You're saying that the consequences of your actions cannot be retroactive? Because Abby smashed Joel's head with a golf club, and she shoot Jesse in the face, and she was ready to shoot Dina, and she crippled Tommy. None of that can be taken back, Joel's head won't just heal, Jesse won't regrow his face, Tommy won't get better, Dina would always remember that day that she almost died. *And yet, Ellie goes and SPARES HER* Look, I'm not saying that killing Abby would be the best ending, you can make Ellie's revenge be unjustified just as much without killing Abby, maybe killing Leb while Abby watch, maybe simply letting her die in that post, maybe killing Leb and then letting her die in that post, maybe killing Leb and freeing Abby just to be cruel, etc. *But she needed to face CONSEQUENCES, to make the story compelling*
I mean, in GotG 3, it was Rocket's decision to spare him. And, since the movie was pretty much all about solidifying his transformation into a leader, the rest of the Guardians follow.
In the TF movie lore, you start to see why optimus does what he does. For example, demolisher (the robot he shot while saying a one liner at the beginning of revenge of the fallen) killed almost everyone in an autobot refugee camp filled with displaced cybertronians. Its kinda understandable why Optimus has this hatred and is so brutal because hes not dealing with mindless henchmen, hes dealing with evil genocidal monsters who will kill for no reason. Take megatron in the first movie, he kills a random human for literally no reason and says "disgusting"
i still wish sideswipe was the one accompanying optimus instead of ironhide now that the comic is out would've gone full circle for him to go from wanting to kill demolishor himself to simply assisting optimus and coldly watching as demolishor gets killed by his leader maybe have him comment "got what he deserved" as they leave, maybe as a response to one of the soldiers questioning if it was morally okay
Im not saying the decepticons are good... But them calling us parasites and other fun insect nicknames might actually be justified. The reveal that earth is Unicron, the 'Be all end all' monstrosity, and we little bugs are simply "spawns" of a thing that eats everything. Plus the fact that Prime is doing his very best to protect earth (despite Quintessa literally telling him that the biggest galactic parasite is earth itself) is kinda suspicious dont you think?
Sentinel never stopped being an Autobot. Remember, he said to Megatron, "I will never work for you". The Decepticons were little more than a means to an end. If anything, he wanted the Bots to join him. In that case, Optimus didn't murder a defenceless villain; he simply executed a member of his ranks for the murder of Ironhide and the Chicago Massacre which is well within his right what with him being the leader of the Autobots.
I honestly think one of the best cases of a story addressing its hero's need to take life is Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. Not every single person Raiden kills may 100 percent deserve it, not everyone is there because they want to be, but they're still complicit in a system that harms for more innocent people than it employs. In order to cut the head off the snake, Raiden has to cut off EVERY part of the snake that stands in his way. Every person who stands between Raiden and Armstrong, whether they know it or not, are playing the worst type of devil's advocate. Raiden can't delude himself into thinking there's nothing wrong with what he's doing, but he doesn't have time to contemplate either. Countless children are at the mercy of his enemies' employers, on a fast track to end up as the same kind of monster he grew up to be. If Raiden has this capacity and this power to take life, why not take the lives who are damaging all the others?
@koboldwizardRaiden instantly became more badass to me (and he already was a complete hardass in my eyes before) when Monsoon basically tried to mindfuck him with "You're just a psychopath that enjoys killing, stop hiding behind the "for the greater good" facade" that many other villains try in order to break (or weaken psychologically) the hero for an easy kill, except it backfired horribly and Raiden just went: "You know what? After having been a goddamn child soldier and then keeping constantly fighting in wars throughout my entire life, I guess I quite literally was born to kill. I'm a bloodthirsty monster alright, except I'm a monster that doesn't kill without reason, and right now you and your entire organization give me a VEEERY good reason to slaughter you all. Now come here, got some steam to let out." All it really accomplished is just make Raiden hesitate and hold back way, way less lol
I love the fan theory (for lack of better term) that Optimus gets more and more violent as he's becoming more and more jaded by everything going in around him. The kills are subdued in the first because he's killing as a last resort. He doesn't want to, but he's being pushed to it by the situation he's in. Then, in the second, he gets swarmed by a bunch of decepticons, so his more.violent kill is basically him taking out all his anger and fear on the enemy. Then he gets killed. After that, he rips off the Fallens face and tore Megatrons head from his torso because he's actually experienced exactly what they're doing to ever single person they've killed. Then he executes Sentinal because he's already betrayed them once (technically twice by that point, I think) but he also very violently killed Ironhide. Is it that deep? Hell no, it's not. But it could've been. And it would've been awesome.
I like to think that him being brought back to life sorta messed him up a bit, I mean if you died surely you'd be a different person after coming back right?
People tend to forget that he's a fighting a war for millions of years. So he's holding back and still being diplomatic is insanity because it's war. War changes you. But the brutality needs to be toned down, and not exactly a justification, but Optimus is justified however not excusable. Bay could've stopped with DoTM but he wanted an action-packed movie. So...
The meta critique about superheroes acknowledging the harm they do reminded me of an early scene from Injustice 2. Damian Wayne calls Bruce out with, “So you’re against killing, but you’re okay with blunt force trauma?”
The problem there is that Damian was literally raised by a death cult and Batman in that story has obviously failed to get him out of that mindset, so of course he'd be making such an obvious false equivalence.
It's not false though. Blunt force trauma can so easily kill - there are numerous stories of people being killed with a single punch or by being knocked down and hitting a curb. Batman may not deliberately kill but it would be so easy for him to accidentally kill someone with how he fights
The thing is: batman lives in an unrealistically violent city for how functional it is. It's already a semi-fantastic setting, so I think we shouldn't think much about the morality of what batman does, because it isn't what his stories tend to talk about
@@Rafael_Peixoto I thought that his no kill policy was the basis of many stories that get philisophical with it, so we should absolutely think a lot about the morality of it. Also it's fun.
Vader was so good at killing his subordinates as a show of force that every other villain has to do it to try to evoke that feeling, and they almost always fall short. It's hard to care about a faceless goon as you said. Heroes that kill is a fine line. I think Tony Stark is an interesting figure because more often than not in the comics he's been portrayed in the wrong and constantly makes bad decisions. Him killing makes sense. Superman killing is so unnatural because the point of Superman is that he chooses to be good because that's the right thing to do. It's all execution, and fits some characters better than others imo.
It's because when Vader killed his subordinates, it was due to their repeated failures and incompetence. Their deaths are 'earned,' for lack of a better term. However, with the same ease that he takes lives, he also elevates those he feels have proven themselves. Vader has a firmly established line - useless and stripped of power or useful and granted it. Even Vader has a code, not killing soldiers and generals for the thrill or simply because he can but because he sees it as the most effective way of getting ineffective people out of power to make room for those who might better use it.
The difference between the flawed hero, the one who aspires to be better, and the paragon hero, the one who seeks to inspire others. That's basically the best way to decide where to draw the line and how to present the characters. Too bad a lot of directors don't seem to get that these days and almost all heroes in (hollywood) cinema these days feels like the flawed normal guy who's trying
Re: Superman - I am reminded of the line in a comic where Joker decided to mess with Metropolis, only to have Superman effortlessly thwart his plan due to his superpowers. At the end, Superman gives Joker a warning to not try something like that again, or else. Joker replies that he thought Superman had a no killing rule, to which Superman replies along the lines of: I don't have a no killing rule. I just prefer not to kill. There's a difference, and it would be a bad idea for you to try to find out where that difference is.
Not killing the villain because it’s morally wrong or makes the hero a hypocrite is the exact BS the villains would come up with to keep the heroes from killing them.
it becomes a problem when serialization gets introduced like most popular example - batman any normally written story would have joker appear 3 times once he gets locked in arkham and makes harley help him escape second time he's locked in maximum prison because nobody believes his insanity plea third time he escapes and this time they send him to a chair and that's at most if you want to use joker's potential fully and NOT make current DC comics mess but they treat prison like a "might need later" box how secure can be a prison when everyone breaks out of it every thursday
Optimus is like a viking, a pagan warrior. A pre-christion hero, celebrated for his prowess in combat and the violence he inflicts on our enemies. If you think about it, Transfomers, Autrobots and Decepticons both, are both sentient beings, so that we consider this violence and gore acceptable for children says a lot about the audience preconceptions.
I never thought about it like that but it does make a lot of sense. Many, and maybe even most, cultures throughout history have celebrated martial prowess and the amount of violence one can inflict upon the enemy.
This is also how knights got a "free pass" on being depraved as the stereotype depicts them as, and how the most brutal, least honorable famous soldiers still leave their cleft of blood in the history books. A couple examples are el "Cid" Campeador, the Great knight Roland, and Baudouin de Bologne
funny enoght, knights themselfs were also selebrated for being able to kill houtherd of men, if just that they were also praise for caring about those weaker that themselvs
@@MrAnimason Rolando furioso, King Arthur, pretty much any pre modern literature operates on the notion that killing was necessary. The modern 'never kill, ever!' Comes from child oriented media in the West
7:50 I know a lot of people hated Superman snapping Zod’s neck in Man of Steel, but even ten years later that scene still makes me emotional. You can feel the agony Superman feels at being forced to take a life. BvS ruined that by having him casually turn a guy into paste in the next film but… it still works well as a scene at least.
Meanwhile, Superman commonly kills in the comics. Zod. Hank Henshaw. Darkseid. Imperiex. Countless nazis and Japanese warriors. Superman killed them all. So...
@@Idazmi7 Exactly. He won't go out of his way to kill you, but if it's 'innocents get hurt or Superman kills you' you are already dead. (Nani?) It is within the remit of a hero to kill when the situation calls for it.
7:40 When you show the hero emotionally distraught at killing as a last resort, it definitly helps to establish that the hero values life above all else.
Realizing that Transformers subconsciously motivated my desire to write a story both on the morals of killing robots whom seem sentient, and the morality of killing when it is a constant cycle. So I guess thats one thing to thank the Transformers series for. Also…”we” is doing galactic heavy lifting here lol
It is quite an interesting topic to write about, for sure. I feel like we both have something similar in mind in our stories we want to tell. Hope it goes well. Best of luck. 💛☀
I guess it's not a big issue for us to destroy a robot - anything they might feel is programmed. But for Optimus, to kill the way he does is just monstrous. They are, after all, his kind. And when he starts killing humans - albeit the villains - you can't help but think that the good guys would be in jeopardy if he decides that they don't fit into his moral code.
In the original ending to dark of the moon. Optimus and Megatron negotiate a truce and Megatron leaves earth with the decepticons for good. That ending got leaked so Bay had it changed last minute to Megatron getting the axe (literally) which is why it feels so jarring.
Because god forbid the audience get a well-crafted and carefully woven story that they had advance knowledge of! The only logical thing to do is rewrite it the complete opposite way so that they'll be really surprised! ....at how dumb someone can be. Now, if everyone saw the leak and shouted to the rooftops about how crappy an ending that was, that's one thing. But since you didn't say it, I can't rightly assume it. And I've seen people do dumber things than this anyway. Too many people are obsessed with the power of raw shock value. But adding that to your story is the same as adding any raw ingredient to your meal: there's a really good chance you just poisoned your audience. The lesson is....cook your shock value before serving??? Sure, let's go with that.
Holy shit. I had no idea Optimus Prime was so violent. I guess in the movies it flows better and isn't as creepy, but seeing those clips in a vortex is crazy.
I never cared too much since it's a Michael Bay movie and the spectacle is part of the experience, but I remember feeling awkward as a 10 year old, along with the entire cinema, during the 'give me your face' scene. It was a bit like Man of Steel's neck snap scene, moments where the hero goes a bit too far to where the audience isn't really sure how they feel.
What I never understand is how some people write a trigger-happy hero who spends their day brutally mowing down enemy henchmen and choose to spare the actual villain because "they don't deserve this" or "I'm better than the villain." as if we don't spend hours watching the supposed hero casually performing a genocide to some paid intern in the villain roster.
and i never understand how people can write a character who is meant to do the right thing always and then proceeds to spare a terrorist because it makes them worse than them somehow (talking about batman and joker, and ig spiderman too but those are usually just powerful people or gangs who dont care about collateral damage instead of literally bombing a city just to get the hero's attention, but some prob still do that in some spiderman series)
The One Piece cast is an interesting spectrum of this: Some of the Straw Hats hold back and just don't kill intentionally (even though as pirates it's bound to happen). Others can kill and probably have, but try not to because it isn't their style. Then you have Nico Robin and Roronoa Zoro, who straight-up kill, no questions asked. Robin actually kills in the most painful way possible, and Zoro is capable of killing the rest of the Strawhats if ordered to. And then you have Luffy: he is capable of killing and probably has, but when given a choice prefers not to. Why? Because he thinks death is a mercy when compared to crushing someone's dreams and making them live through that despair. And all of the Strawhats are likable, regardless of how they chose to handle opponents.
One Piece is an amazing example because Luffy (and others) often reinforce the idea that hurting bystanders is deeply wrong BUT hurting pirates or marines who opted into a life of constant danger is justified as part of that secondary world of violence. Luffy is not shy about what he will do to people who oppose him, regardless of moral considerations, but he also understands that he has chosen to put himself in those situations and will not question the morality of those who hurt him.
@@tristanescure7384 "Now that you have drawn a pistol you have wagered your life" is both a badass line from Shanks but also a philosophy that permeates the Strawhats as a crew through Luffy
I mean, Luffy doesn't have a large body count simply because his enemies are incredibly resilient but we all know that he was going for the kill when he punched the celestial dragon, he was going for the kill when fighting against Mingo, and he *will* try to kill Akainu the moment he gets the opportunity. And all of that because Luffy is not a hero, he himself has said so, after all, "heroes would share their meat"
it makes no sense though because just an out of series comment that Oda himself has said in a interview. It never LOOKS like Luffy is EVER "holding back", any enemy that luffy fights and survives seemed to have done that from their own will to be able to survive BY CHANCE. Not because luffy is trying to "destroy their dreams", lol what? I know that's what oda says but luffy NEVER said that or even looks like he's DOING that in the series, any of his enemies who survive do so by chance and chance really ONLY. Not because of "mercy", nowhere in the rob Lucci fight does it look like luffy is "holding back" as he's going ALL OUT to beat down rob lucci entirely. Same with Crocodile, Arlong, Buggy the Clown, and all of the other fights luffy has been in.
@@Gadget-Walkmen so Luffy was trying to kill Foxy? Or the Hancock's sisters? Or Fujitora? Or Katakuri? Nah, Luffy takes his opponents seriously, but if he wanted to kill, more than half of his opponents would be dead.
It seams like, even if the villain is a cold blooded killer, it isn’t ok to kill them while they are running away, or even in a holding pattern. That’s anti-hero territory. Once they start to become aggressive, their death becomes more and more a product a product of their own decision. The hero has fewer options, becoming less of a murderer and more like an instrument of their self destruction. But Optimus is an antihero and Han shot first.
@TheRunningJoker Antiheroes who go after the villains who are just low life monsters who are one dimensional and may not deserve it as much as the real pure evil villains the good moral heroes go after
Uh huh, yeah... So tell me again why Optimus killing a mass genocidal megalomaniac who views his race as superior to everyone else thus ultimately becoming a personification of Hitler is unjustified because they used to be friends even though the actual meaning of his last words reveal he doesn't hold an opunce of regret for his actions and he even fully intends to try again?
@@NexusProductions-rz1sv yeah, Bay kinda excluded one of my favorite staples of the franchise, side swapping. It does kind of change the thinking when the underlings are just completely soulless extensions of their cartoonishly evil leader, rather than a coalition of individual baddies with motivations of their own. I mostly remember watching Beast Wars as a kid, and I have a hard time rooting for an Optimus that would have gutted Black Arachnia/Dinobot(the character) and cracked a joke, before they had a chance for redemption.
In the 90's and early 2000's a lot of movies like 'Bad Boys' would have the defeated villain make a last ditch effort to kill the protagonist (like a hidden blade or ankle gun) so the hero could justifiably finish them off. The issue with not killing them when they're running away depends on their intent. Suppose the bad guy has the McGuffin needed to harm more people?
That was fun, but I really think you missed a vital part of your analysis by ignoring Homer: in THE ILIAD, we have heroes who fight to rescue Helen and restore her to her husband, and we have heroes who fight in defense of their homes--both sides kill, and both sides can be seen as justified in their actions; with THE ODYSSEY, we see a hero and his cohort who kill villains and are loved for it, but they don't kill anyone but the bad guys who have violated social norms already. In both examples, we have heroes who kill while exercising restraint. For that matter, this restraint can be seen in classic western heroes--they kill the bad guys and nobody else, even with a sense that the dead "had it coming," but there's nothing villainous in saying those words in that genre.
I’m pretty sure the only human villains that get killed in the Odyssey are the evil suitors trying to take Penelope for themselves while leeching off of Odysseus’ resources, so yeah, of course we clap when Odysseus, his men and his son massacre them.
@@alexman378 That's my point: the suitors deserved to die for everything they did, and slaughtering them wasn't an evil act, despite it being the killing of humans by humans. In a video about heroes killing people, it should definitely have been part of the focus.
@@sovereigndayyouthkafir3943 Yeah but you can argue that this was set in the ancient world and the morals and laws aren’t the same as today, maybe that’s why he didn’t include something like that. Pretty much every hero in Greek mythology would kill someone during their journey, and unless it was done for no reason, it wasn’t judged negatively.
@@alexman378Just because it’s an old story doesn’t mean it can’t be used as an example. Taken with the context of it being written in a different time, for a different culture with different conceptions of heroism, it could be interesting to compare and contrast with modern heroes.
yeah people complaining about sentinel and Megatron like what he should do? a Pat on the shoulder and say "all good bro? " Especially for Megatron that caused a world War that destroyed a planet
@@tooru-kun4178 Well tbf megatron and the decepticons were treated like dirt before the uprising, it was actually partly the autobots fault that the war got so bad since they had many opportunities to sign a peace treaty, their pride and refusal to give megatron equality drove him insane to the point he just decided to end the war by killing all the autobots. This all depends on the continuity though since there are a lot of different versions.
@@giantenemycrab1192 yeah I know that in some continuity Cybertron war was a pretty much justified rebellion but still that doesn't justify deception action, especially Megatron allowing Shockwave to be around
@@zerobullets6935yeah, it's not exactly unreasonable to feel no guilt about slaughtering people who are literally hunting your people like animals *after you saved their planet twice.* They're lucky he didn't just go "fuck this, the decepticons can have this shithole", I'm out.
I always prefer a hero that is ready to kill but won't do it unless its necessary. Like shoot the guy about to shoot you but if you have him knocked out on the ground it is up to the courts to deal with them and decide if he should punished with the death penalty. The only moral part I am conflicted on is a villain who is too dangerous to let live; such as one who kills people with just their presence. then i feel it may be necessary to kill regardless if they are an immediate threat or not. I would also say you can make a hero that enjoys fighting and killing. The point is making sure that while they enjoy it, they can still have the strength to hold back and not use violence when it is morally wrong or would get in the way of the better goal of the hero and/or their allies.
17:08: I've never understood the "oh this is when Optimus murders Sentinel". Sentinel kills Iron Hide in cold oil, and was actively working with Megatron weather he had good intentions or not it doesn't matter. Had the roles been reversed Sentinel would have done the same, and we all know what Megatron would of done.
Remember people. Self defense,Revenge and Justice may end in a body dropping but it doesn't have the same ramifications in stories and real life. Same with passivism. People forget the meaning as it's not "never fight at all" it's "fight as a last option when all else fails" basically don't take someone's insult as an excuse to beat them up and don't take someone getting hurt in front of you and keep walking by.
You mean pacifism? Either way, pacifism is a spectrum and everybody has their own stance, own lines they won't cross or won't tolerate if others do and their own justifications to do things. For some few it is _exactly_ about "never fighting/hurting others under any circumstances" with all consequences that entails, both in real life and fiction, but it is rarely so "cut and dry" for most people... Morality can never be 'solved' once and for all and there are moral arguments against all kinds of positions that are considered moral, by those who take them.
@@donatodiniccolodibettobardi842 it's also why "evil prevails when good men do nothing" aka what people think pacifism is. I think even beast stars said this best when the grandpa shows his brand of pacifism by taking out thugs who would hurt the innocent That's my line. If it's nothing that actually affects you or anyone else physically or mentally that can't be healed in a day or so just walk. If it's someone's life on the line fight like a demon and take the consequences after you survive as some situations being passive means letting evil win.
@@ivanbluecool I just wanted to clarify that pacifism is a whole range of things. Better ask what person mean by that and what led them there (even if its not _your_ brand of pacifism). :) I don't argue with you. As long as your bottom line is to help people who needlessly suffer and prevent more suffering, I'm down with this. As long as you strive to overcome barriers on way of your compassion, you are more likely to not be blind to see evil for what it is and recognize suffering, where a cold heart would see a just and fair world, I think...
@@donatodiniccolodibettobardi842 yeah depends on the situation but nobody can argue when someone is being hurt for no justifiable reason anyone in any part of the world would want to stop that as while the internet has the worst in people that makes us forget the good.
Optimus Prime has been waging war for MILLIONS of years. I don’t blame him for a second about killing decepticons. I would probably do the same if i was him. But atleast he only did it in protection of earth and humans.
I find heroes who do not have the capacity to kill tend to be shortsighted, or they have too much reliance on a system that either is not suited to the task or is corrupt/incompetent. Take Batman: by all rights with the amount of mass murder the Joker has committed nobody would argue if he was killed…except for Batman if he did it. If he decided to kill the joker then it would likely save hundreds more people. The judicial system is notoriously slow and that is reflected in the shows.
Gotham not having consistency on wether they have a Death Sentence or not doesn't help either. It basically becomes up to the people if they want the joker dead, wanting Batman to do it with his own hands feels equal to someone wanting cops to do it.
@@GenericProtagonist118 at this point it’s become a bad joke. Like holy shit this guy is a mass murderer and we keep putting him away and he just keeps escaping. At some point you’d imagine the police force would just say “kill the bastard”
I like how Under the Red Hood film says the reason Batman won't kill is because he's afraid he wouldn't stop. I think the Joker knows this, so he tries to push all of Batman's buttons every chance he gets. Does that make Batman a type of coward??? Maybe. I personally vote for putting a bullet into that clown's head, or at the very least have Batman Beyond torment him with better jokes.
"I find heroes who do not have the capacity to kill tend to be shortsighted" Literally an inversion of reality and as far from the truth as anti-heroes are from being uncommon rather than a sadly increasing norm.
@@DoomguyIsGrinningAtYou.Yeah, and i think it makes real sense for his character. He is, after all, a boy traumatized by the deaths of his parents by a random lowlife. In his pursuit of vengeance for himself, and justice for others, it might make sense for him that if he got accustomed to killing goons for being goons, it might feed his traumatic thought processes in a way that makes him lose sight of his mission, or himself. And yeah, I think that future adaptations of Batman should go out of their way to avoid the whole "multiple prison breaks per villan" thing, so that the threat of a villan doesn't necessarily end with the thwarting of their plot(s). Less "I beat *villain name here* and now- Arkham Asylum" and more "I stopped *villain name here*, but they're still out there. Gotta stay vigilant" type stuff.
I honestly kinda sorta like that Bayverse Optimus killed Decepticons that way. It's more like real life where people aren't all good or all evil, they have their own reasons to fight and even those who are supposed to protect your country might not be the heroes you imagined them as and they might do questionable things too.
No mention for my boy Frank Castle? He was technically only a bad guy in the issue he was introduced, and that's only because he was misled by Jackal. Probably my favorite miniseries was Warzone, where he basically became a public menace too great for the Avengers to ignore, and each member took a turn trying to capture him while he frantically blazed his way through third world countries, permanently crippling their arms, drug and sex trades. And he still had the level-headedness to take it easy on the Avengers once they finally teamed up on him.
One of the things I really like about Vash's character is how you can see the toll his pacifist approach takes on his own body. He would rather be injured than kill someone so his body is covered in scars.
Which makes it pretty silly to take the risk and more likely that he and innocent people will die. It's fun to fantasize about the ranger who can lasso a twister and shoot the trigger finger off of all the cowboys, but it's not realistic. There was a guy in my CCW class asking how to shoot the gun out of someone's hand. Even a professional trick shooter wouldn't do that. They would aim for center mass and keep shooting until the threat was stopped.
Optimus Prime used to be friend/rival with Megatron, the celebrity charismatic Gladiator, so he probably picked up the thrill from sparing at some point. he is also stuck on a planet with limited capacity to incarcerate any POWs from a terrorist faction from his old home with a native population dependent on technology that has no protection from his civilization's level of subversive action. with that context, Optimus is just making the most out of a situation where he knows just what kind of genocide can result from one cuckoo egg being laid in the nest by people who tried to genocide the half of their own species who chose not to genocide other Sophants for connivence and profit.
@@tc-channelhobby4051 Additionally, from the prequel comics of the movies, Optimus Prime and Megatron were in the same tribe, serving under Sentinel Prime. There were no gladiator fights because they fought to survive every single day against other tribes. It's a different dynamic compared to IDW and Prime.
It's always interesting to me when people bring up Optimus as a killer in the new movies. While I do also dislike the brutality of his murderousness, it never exactly surprised or even stood out to me as a kid. Before the movies, I never watched Gen 1 stuff as a kid, but I watched many of the cartoon shows and some of the older movies and it never got past my single digit old brain that these are soldiers in a war that has killed most of their race. Even if they didn't show deaths with rare exceptions like Optimus in an old movie or Starscream only for them to come back later like any media, the evolution of how much they show in the Bay movies just seemed natural. Optimus was always a war hero to me, not a super hero like Superman.
I remember at the end of dark of the moon when I was 12 in the theater with my dad. He literally said out loud “Jesus Christ” when optimus killed megatron with one arm and an axe
" The Hero doesn't kill '' thing always bothered me because it is just a wrong way to view morality, for example Batman doesn't kill but everytime he put the villans in jail after they murderd alot of people, after a while they break out and do the same thing and Batman and the authorities does the same thing and the cycle continues , the difference between when hero kills and when a villain kills is who and why did they kill context is everything
Violence used to be a natural reaction to lawful/evil. Civilization took that option away without offering a reliable alternative. The way I see it, we’re now living in a world without cautionary tales. A lot of the examples used were from wars, where villains are deemed enemy combatants. Civil action has to be set aside, or exhausted(rarely), prior to the hero’s violent actions. What does a hero look like when the villain can’t be reasoned with, prosecuted, or unseated?
Personally this conundrum always felt silly to me, even as a kid, but I came from a military family. Any 'hero' or individual that is going out against opposing forces is going to need to go for the life subscription ender, otherwise you're just as likely to be alt f4'd. You don't put yourself at a disadvantage because it's not just your life at risk, it's everyone you're trying to help or save as well if you fail. It's also something almost everyone does have a line with so the argument is moot, it's just where you want it to be and to those that don't have said line, have likely never been in such situations or they would realize how foolish of a position it truly is. It feels like such an argument that only those who overthink things have a problem with. You're rarely ever (more likely never) going to get a purely painless, inconsequential life suplexing. Hell even serial struggle snugglers may have a kitten at home who they treat like a princess who will be put down when you put them down. If you're having the debate in your head if they need to put down than they likely they do. The question shouldn't be if they should be, it's if it will be worth it. Which I find a far more interesting moral conundrum. Should you hunt the vampire that owns an orphanage and a youngling a year, but saving more lives possibly in the extremely long run, but dooming the many in the short term along with any that would of been taken in and care of? How about ending the unlife of a liche who is keeping the undead of the countryside in check and ordered, rather than constantly rampaging across villages. Or the ever fun one, is ending the crime boss worth the dozens of minions? One of the reasons I enjoy the TW3 so much, it's one of the very few nuanced tales that actually legitimately brought nuance in my eyes in the arguments of your choices. What's your least favorite aspect of this style of story telling? One of my most hated tropes is the hero slaughtering their way through hordes of minions but sparing the villain as some sort of obviously faux moral superiority. Or heroes not ending villains who constantly break out of imprisonment, at that point you aren't "stopping them", you're just giving them a government paid vacation.
@@pn2294 I mean if that's the logic we're going by then there's even less of a reason to not end them and basically zero morality issues on top of it. I'm not disagreeing mind you. They absolutely would and it shows with every major character ending being taken back by some form of resurrection anyways. But that's more meta than story.
@@alphamineron Certain words like to shadowban you on YT. It's more a contingency than anything. It's not even all curse words either, just the term pre-adult can do it to you for whatever reason. Also just because one understands things like ending life at times being necessary, doesn't mean they have to be uncouth.
@@pn2294 Who, batman? No he didn't, he had personal reasons, not pragmatic. Though that depends on the version. Some it's just because he's a psycho in a bat suit who can't handle the nuance of ending the likes of the joker vs a petty thief, others he's just your basic story book hero who thinks all ending is wrong because story. I wouldn't argue batsy's sanity is a pragmatic reason. Unless you're talking of something else to which I apologize and you'll need to clarify.
I feel like Cal's final fight in jedi survivor breaks this trope down really well. You go through the game killing stormtroopers without a second thought. Only to realize that's part of the darkside of the force building in Cal and that killing the final boss for revenge reasons might be the final straw. Leading to the superman neck snap sort of ending. Where surrender is offered to the villain but it ends with the choice of killing the villain or losing another person to the villain.
The most interesting thing to me is that Cal gets to keep his Dark Side mode in the post game, so perhaps he'll have to come to terms with it in the third installment.
I remember in the first God of War, there was this one scene where Kratos, the protagonist, had to sacrafice a man in order to continue the dungeon. The man pleads with Kratos, but to no avail, the soldier gets sacraficed. In the international version of the game, this scene is censored by making the soldier a zombie. But tbf, Kratos is not a hero, he's a monster.
At the very least, he's a monster in the first three games. 4 and Ragnarok are a delightfully detailed and intricate story on how he learns to be human again.
Kratos is a monster that killed a lot of innocent for absolutely no reason other than he is a psycopath Tbh i hope he pays with the life of his son in another game
@@LaloSalamancaGaming69 Not a great bait mate, I rate straight one out of eight. "Tbh i hope he pays with the life of his son in another game" And if that's actually meant to be unironic, you might do well to show more emotional intelligence than the character you're criticizing.
ngl, Hugh’s rendition of Wolverine also fits in the Optimus Prime Archetype, guys is good with his people and protects humans as seen in The Wolverine when he kills Yakuza in order to protect Mariko, or him protecting X-23 and the other X-periment kids from Logan while killing the Reavers.
There's also not really any satisfying ways that you can have wolverine non lethal ly take down his enemies when one of his main abilities is that he has fucking knives in his hands.
I think Optimus, to me, is justified in his actions to a degree. I've always seen Optimus as a paragon but with him being in a war it makes sense for him to kill. The only problem that I have is the excess of it. I think Rise of the Beast did a good job with his character being someone torn by the tides of war.
In writing my own heroes (superheroes in particular) , I always go by a specific rule when determining how much killing/violence is too much. Would a bystander trust that hero after seeing them do that?
Well said, and a great point. Would Spider-man really be a "friendly neighborhood superhero" if the people in queens and in NYC saw him kill a man with his barehands or hang them with his webs? Would kids really want to inspire to be like him or be scared of him?
And on that note, why would that bystander matter when the cause is just? More often than not, there have been lies and slanders being created for heroes, real life and fiction. We can’t just consider every person’s words since they could just be another bad actor.
@@WhoTFMadeThisChange it's a bad image and a bad look, it's one thing if you have to kill to save someone's life, it's another to kill BRUTALLY. Would you really want to be anywhere NEAR superman if he tore out someone's heart with blood splattering everywhere just to stop a purse snatcher? Would you want children to see superman or ANY hero do that? I know I wouldn't. It's one thing to kill them but there's a level of brutality that should be avoided for public image. And lol what's with this "bAd AcToR" nonsense you're saying right now? What? No one is EVERY acting at all.
Great video. Personally the whole "we all know this villian is too dangerous to be left alive, but we can't have the hero getting his hands dirty, so let's have the villain die as a result of his own hubris/bad luck/whatever" trope to be one of the most maddening/immersion breaking conventions in storytelling. I understand why it is used, but it always comes across as a jarring cop-out and I dont think it does the audience a service. It's always more interesting to actually engage with that question than it is to just 'hand wave' your villian to death. If you are going to have antagonist that is too dangerous to be left alive in your story, you need to be prepared to deal with the implication that somebody is going to have to be the one to do the deed. 'Heroes' who abdicate that responsibility have never come across to me as particularly nobel, even when I was a kid. Instead it usually comes across as cowardice/selfishness at being unwilling to do the hard but necessary thing. To let the hero 'off the hook' because of some deus ex machina is extra frustrating and just comes across as the author 'having his/her cake and eating it too.'
@tceugonbear Antiheroes who go after the villains who are just low life monsters who are one dimensional and may not deserve it as much as the real pure evil villains the good moral heroes go after
That trope is mainly used in Disney animated movies for the villains to be killed so it can be "safe for kids" to not have kids see heroes kill their villains with their bare hands.
I slightly disagree, I honestly find the idea of a villain dying as a result of their own actions just as vilifying because it's more insulting. Like imagine if hitler slipped on a banana peel and died, it'd be hilariously at odds with the evil committed. Having the hero outright refuse to might be eye rolling past a point sure, but imo not every hero needs to kill the villain and a situation where the hero may not have reservations with killing the villain but the villain still dies by their own hubris/karma anyway is still just as fun.
I wonder if there could be a way round this that allows the hero to make the choice but also technically not be responsible, to appease the censors. For instance if a hero throws the villain off a cliff, and are surprised when they land on a ledge instead of falling to their death. Then the villain could somehow fall victim to themselves.
I usually prefer protagonists with less of a "you deserve to die" outlook and more of a "you no longer innately deserve to live" outlook, very similar, but different where it matters. They'll kill a villain without a second thought, but if presented with the option to safely spare them will take it. I however hate when this logic isnt extended to henchmen.
Excellent analysis. I personally find my favorite to be a Batman style character, where someone who refuses to kill exists in a land or world where killing is almost required to survive and succeed, still choosing against it.
but then, it leads to the Batman/Joker connundrum how many lives could've Batman saved, if Joker didn't escape prison and kill so many people but at the same time, once Batman kills one villain, where does it end? when would the justification stop being "good enough" to kill the next reprihensible villain? IMO these questions don't have clear cut answers, and that leads to interesting storytelling
@@LuisSierra42I really wish Jason was used more in the live action and animated series; he absolutely stole my whole damn universe in Under the Red Hood
Personally he's one of my least favorites, it goes along with the concept that if he ended a life he'd just become a sociopathic mass petty criminal genocider if he ended the lives of the likes of Joker, which is a ludicrous position. So ludicrous that writers treat him like the man standing at the edge of crazy. Which ironically is the only way to justify him in a realistic setting because how utterly screwed up so many of his villains are. (It's also hilariously ironic since he's been shown to be okay with ending sentient aliens.) It's just a goofy sense of morality in the end, which works fine with less mature kids shows. If ending lives is a necessity in the world and they choose to not do it without major repercussions to show why it's a necessity then it comes as big mary sue energy. Which they unintentionally I imagine don't have that issue with Batsy as his villains repeatedly escape and keep building their body counts as the outcome. This is coming from someone who does enjoy Batman. But man is he the biggest target to point at how heroes that don't take villains out is goofy in serious settings. (It's even more ironic when you consider Superman is often involved in his stories and he does take out villains, on top of being considered the more moral individual by Bruce himself.)
If I punch Hitler in the face to 'make him stop' but beyond that just let him go, am I the good guy? That's Batman these days. I suppose Batman was actually more reasonable in his older, less serious incarnations? I haven't read them, but Adam West Batman with a Joker that gives him 'boners'? I doubt this Joker was portrayed as a mass murderer that ought to be executed. Batman would probably work a lot better if the justice/legal system he operated within meant he wasn't dealing with repeat offenders all the time. He's more justifiably bringing them to actual justice that way considering his tenuous vigilante status. As it is he's not really achieving anything by making the effort to abide by the letter of the law.
The only other protagonists I can think of besides Bayverse Optimus that are universally loved by the audience despite killing everything that stands in their way are Doom Guy/Doom Slayer and John Wick. Doom Guy doesn't have much character going for him and doesn't need to. He's pissed off, loves guns, and really FUCKING hates demons. Demons are pretty much universally bad, especially the infernal always chaotic evil variety that appear in DOOM, who's sole goal in existence is to conquer, enslave, and convert everything into more hell. Doom Guy thinks the whole multiverse would be better off if he just killed every last one of them, and he's kinda right. This is, as you called it, a get out of jail free card that guarantees that Doom Guy can kill his enemies in the most savage, brutal ways possible and still have the audience rooting for him; the fact that he's a video game character serving as an avatar of the player's rage as well as his own certainly helps. As for John Wick, he's an assassin, albeit one with a backstory and personality traits (dead wife, likes dogs) that make the audience sympathetic towards him. He also spends all of his movies' runtime fighting other assassins and criminals that all have an unspoken understanding between them that they're all liable to start killing each other at any given moment.
the cherry on top with doomguy is he shares a motive with John. the antagonistic factions they're mowing down have both killed their respective pets named Daisy
It's so wonderful to see how much Transformers of the Bay verse have been shittalked for years! And now it's appreciated for what it had (still understanding the bad contents of each movie). They had something really cool and the fighting was definitely one of them. All that epic action
I admit I haven't seen them in years, and a marathon might be needed, but I remember really liking them, all of them, and I thought that Last Knight or whatever it's called was a great progression for the series. Also, I've seen Bumble Bee and Rise of Beasts, and I didn't care much for either of them, the most exciting part was the ending scene for ROB setting up that one thing that I'm not going to say because the movie isn't that old.
I wouldn't say this was "appreciating" the bayverse lol, it's just observing the Optimus Prime character and how Bay got lucky that he can use Optimus that way. The movies deserve to be shittalked. The action sandwiched between too many awful and boring human scenes. The Transformers themselves don't get the spotlight they deserved despite being the titular race, it's all about the awful hoomans in these movies.
The reason killing is emphasized as a bad thing and glossed over when it isn't, is because if Marvel movies for example dove deep into what it means to take a life, it would get too dark for the mainstream audience who came to just see explosions and stupid jokes. It would be too real for someone trying to escape reality. At least for the casual viewer.
@lighttrack/806 I think amongst "mature audiences" this would still be a problem as they want villains to always have motivations and explanations for their actions rather than being dangerous and unhinged and put in their place for good
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674 There is a reason writers are on a strike. It's hard work. Striking these balances takes an insane amount of effort thought because phoning it in means the entire project suffers.
It's emphasised as a bad thing because society has moved away from harsh principles and is still technically in the postwar era. Prior to the two World Wars, killing was something accepted as part of life - good men could kill, just as bad men could show mercy. After the Wars and the generational trauma caused by death on such a scale, it became less acceptable to use in media or depict outside of very select circumstances. Add in the comics code authority, the moral panic throughout the 50s to the 90s, rating agencies being established for films and games, as well as a memetic being passed from generation to generation of "if you kill a bad person, that makes you just as bad," and it became difficult to show a hero killing without the audience objecting. Personally I've always felt shying away from it purely for the sake of a squeamish audience was cowardly. Any level of understanding a film or having basic common sense should tell a viewer that villains like Megatron, Sentinel Prime, and 95% of the superhero movie villains are both irredeemable and also too powerful. The funniest critique to me was people getting antsy over the choices to kill Sentinel Prime or General Zod when the movies very clearly show why this needs to happen: - In Man of Steel, Kryptonite doesn't exist yet because BvS showed it as being a byproduct of the World Engine. Mankind has no Red Sun prisons because Superman was discovered the same day Zod invaded. Zod is drastically less powerful than Superman for most of their fights because of less exposure to Earth's sun, but he's still winning for most of it due to his superior training and age. Every second he's on Earth, he's getting stronger, and will eventually be too powerful for Superman to stop. Killing him is a necessity to stop the Earth being destroyed and Superman being killed. - in Dark of the Moon, Sentinel Prime was unrepentant, publicly admitted his crimes, and was so strong that even Optimus Prime and Megatron couldn't defeat him. He was only defeated by being caught off-guard in a sneak attack. Again, there are no prisons for Cybertronians on Earth and given time, Sentinel will heal. He was capable of creating a technology that quite literally shredded half of Cybertron when it malfunctioned, and he's easily capable of making a physical weapon on that scale given the motivation and freedom. Like Zod, he cannot be reliably defeated and contained if allowed to live.
@@tsukopara2054 I watched the Transformers movies ages ago but you're pretty much spot on with what you're trying to say. It IS cowardly. But depicting death and..well you know taking someone's entire life away especially if the kill is brutal in any way is very difficult to do when your audience is frankly not smart on average. Most people can follow a basic story but actually subtle implications fly over their heads. Which is pretty much the entire reason people still root for Loki - he's charismatic. Doesn't matter how many innocent lives he has taken or he is responsible for. That 4 year old girl reduced to a red puddle under a Chitauri boot? Who cares!? It's just a movie!
I'm surprised you didn't bring up Shockwave getting Merc'd like he did. And I swear, I remember the Wreckers eating that pilot when they entered Chicago, like the war had finally descended into outright barbarism.
9:45 I know it's just an exaggeration to convey the point, but Thanos' decapitation was far from a proud moment. It was a fit of rage of a guilt-struck Thor that felt the weight of half of the universe's deaths on his own shoulders, and no one was happy he did it, especially Thor himself.
Nothing speaks violence more than Optimus ripping your face off, punching the All Spark out of your chest, and crushing it in front of you. Dude was so brutal that Sentinel practically got a walk in the park demise. 💀
The oil you were talking about is Energon, it’s basically the blood for Cybertronians and it’s also one of the main reasons the war started. In some continuities Cybertron is losing Energon and different cities keep taking it for each other. Energon In a Cybertronian’s body (in the Bay films at least) is three different colours all coming out for different reasons, Red Energon (the Energon pouring out of Megatron’s body when he gets killed and the Energon the dreads bleed when Ironhide rams into them) that is in the joints so if you get your leg cut off at the knee red Energon will pour out, Blue and Green Energon are basically the main ones in a cybertronian body and spilling out depending on the wound. Ik this is a very dumb thing to be ranting about but Cybertronians aren’t robots, they’re obviously sentient beings and people compare them to robots cuz that’s the closest thing we can compare them to. Also when Sentinel dies he’s actually blind because of what Megs did to him, you can see that when he’s on the ground he’s trying to figure out where everything is and feel around but when he finds out where Optimus is, it’s too late for him so have fun knowing that Optimus shot and killed a disabled person also another thing is when Grindor (the guy in the forest battle who gets his face and head ripped apart) says “No Prime please” and the screaming NOOOOO as his head gets ripped apart also the Named Decepticons aren’t really henchmen they’re more like genocidal maniacs who enjoy killing for no reason at all but the. Vehicons (apart from Steve and Todd) and the Decepticon protoforms (a Protoform is a Cybertronian before they have a proper Cybertronian vehicle mode) are the mindless henchmen
18:37 this may spark a riot, but you know who I was reminded of by basically entire description of optimus but specifically him being righteous vengeance/killing incarnate? Old testament God.
Really, really well done. This was an almost absurdly succinct take on a complex idea. I would love a longer take and breakdown of the ideas and tropes involved. Well done man! And yes, Prime can do no wrong.
I'm fine with most of Optimus's kills, but the Sentinel kill felt extremely dirty. Sentinel's begging getting cut off just colors the whole scene (and Optimus) so poorly.
@@RacingSnails64 I think it humanises Prime. Sentinel had dishonoured everything that he had sworn to uphold and the whole species. I think it was justified. Harsh, absolutely, but justified.
My favourite approach to killing is from Code Geass. Main character's mindset can be narrowd to 3 quotes: - "The only ones who should kill, are those who are prepared to be killed." - "When there is evil in this world that justice cannot defeat, would you taint your hands with evil to defeat evil? Or would you remain steadfast and righteous even if it means surrendering to evil?" - "Before creation there must be destruction. If my soul stands in the way, then I’ll toss it aside. Yes, I have no choice but to move forward." I simply love Lelouch
I finished reading the Mistborn trilogy, and Vin is a heroine who is really really good at killing, which makes for an interesting flavour of story. The fact that she sometimes spares henchmen, allies with truly good people, and is capable of making nigh-impossible sacrifices very decisively is what makes her a hero (even though she really doesn't see herself that way). One of her key quotes in book 2 is "I'm not a good person or a bad person, I'm just here to kill things."
For me, fighting to suppress instead of straight up killing is a luxury of those with immense strength. Characters who lack power cannot afford to show their enemies mercy because that will get themselves killed.
This is one of the reasons why I like the Metroid franchise. Samus doesn't hesitate to kill anything in her way, UNTIL she meets the Infant Metroid. It's such a huge moment for the franchise and her character.
In the case of Eddard Stark, I don't think the narrative portrays his execution of the night's watchman as justified. He makes the mistake of prioritizing southern politics over the true threat in the north and ends up paying with his life in the same way he took it. His only redeeming quality in this senario is that he recognizes that he should be the one holding the sword because it's his moral responsability to carry. But he also compromises that rule when he kills Lady on Robert's orders so really Eddard's story uses killings as failures in his moral jugment.
After a recent readthrough of my WIP novel, I realized that the main character not only doesn't kill ("on screen"), he doesn't even physically injure anyone (again, "on screen"). This wasn't planned but it's an interesting situation, considering he's considered as the most virtuous and moral of all my characters. He's a trickster character, relying on stealth and deception to get what he wants to achieve. I went through all the planned stories I have for this character and turns out he only kills after the enemy has snuck in and executed a mass assassination of everyone in the current power structure. That puts him in the "the gloves are off" mode. It also promotes him to the height of the new power structure where he's now forced to make morally grey choices.
i always love when media has characters that are good, and especially when theyre actually Nice or humble and try to protect as many people as possible, but also have nothing against destroying what they need to or killing people who deserve it, and also the opposite, i know some people hate when villains have a point but i love when evil characters are actually good people doing the wrong thing whether they know it or not, its just so much more interesting to see a good person going their own way instead of either a goody two shoes who never kills or a character that just kills because theyre evil or because the writers dont know how to make a good antihero
In Batman:TAS the writers couldn't kill a characters because they were alive, so each time there was a Scarface episode, they brutally "killed" the doll. Each subsequent appearance, Scarface met with a more brutal demise.
In the last season of Samurai Jack, we see a much more worn down Jack, similar to that of prime. He he ruthless but efficient and simply moves on when the task is done. He has no choice to kill the daughters of Aku because they are trying to kill him, as he says himself their deaths were a result of their choices, not so much his. However later in the season we see jack facing off against what jack believes are small creatures trying to tear him apart. When he is freed from the hallucination and discovers that he may well have just killed a bunch of innocent children - he breaks. He seeks to end his own life out of shame and disgrace. Despite his years surrounded by endless evil and corruption, he still fought with honour and was willing to end it all upon straying from that path
If people want Optimus to be nice to his movie villians.... that will get him killed. do you think scourge saying "grant me mercy I beg of you" will make prime not want to kill scourge, after scourge almost kills him in new york, killing Bumblebee, and controlled Air Razor. And people think Optimus is evil or a psychopath for killing his enemies, with that logic Optimus Primal is a psychopath for ripping off heads and biting one, As well as killing an injurded terrorcon who was on the ground
@RacingSnails64 Antiheroes who go after the villains who are just low life monsters who are one dimensional and may not deserve it as much as the real pure evil villains the good moral heroes go after
You mentioned it briefly but I think Samurai Jack is a great way to show how a hero killing can be handled. Throughout the first five seasons it’s robots or aku getting beaten even the animal looking creature still explode in oil. The one time in my memory we see him trying to kill a “human” is during his fight against mad jack who is Akus magic made flesh so you can decide how human that is. How does jack do when trying to kill a human, he doesn’t he decides the only way to move on is to not fight “killing” mad jack with peace. But during that last season when he does kill first the animals that are transformed by aku he is startled even scared by it. This only gets worse as it makes him no longer morally right in a sense as he killed an innocent like the villains so he is now a villain. Showing how a strict no kill hero reacts to killing is a underrated story point as it expands on the characters morals and then allows them to grow into a kill in self defense only type way. Jack again shows this with the daughters of aku how he mainly hides and runs until he is forced to kill one and then it becomes a slaughter in the name of self preservation. Even after that he saves one as she is restrained and harmless showing that jack even though a murderer now still holds the value of human life high. Just a great example that I’m sad wasn’t explained more but your video is still fucking amazing.
Chris Carr once mentioned that heroes killing people in cold blood only started after that one Magnum episode where he killed that soviet spy with the iconic line "Did you see the sunrise this morning?" Nice shirt by the way, really like it.
Its funny because that personal code of no kill often bites the hero in the ass. Case in point Red Hood is correct that the only way to stop a crimal whose show disreguard for human life is to snuff them out quickly. The same thing with Vegeta who when presented with a threat has no qualms of killing if it means eliminating a threat. The same can be said about Goku, although kind-hearted hes not above killing someone if it means saving thousands. He does spare his foes a bit too much but the ones who deserve death often get it. However Batman by allowing the Joker to run around freely instead of snapping his neck after he proves himself irredeemable has allowed untold victims including his own sidekick.
I think Iron Man and especially Cap’s kill counts are thought about differently since they’re casualties of war. Cap is literally fighting in the biggest war in history, so it makes sense. I always assumed, even in the cheesy 1940s comic days that he was also killing Nazis they just never outright showed it.
@@TornaitSuperBird well she was an assassin before she was a spy anyway..and was introduced as a villain. So all of her occupations have basically had eliminating targets as part of the job description.
Really great video essay. Loved all the clips you included form all sorts of things. Mass effect scene was unexpected but welcome. And I absolutely love Optimus Prime, but yeah, his savagery is nearly unmatched. It is crazy though that for him, the decepticons are real people whose heads he has to rip off to protect the people he loves and the innocents of the world. He’s truly inspirational
15:44 Should probably add the caveat that Bay Optimus's trigger-happy character only appealed to general audiences who probably didn't know any better. Long-time fans of the Transformers franchise actually found this interpretation of Optimus disturbing and shameful, with Peter Cullen, the voice of Optimus since the 1980s, also expressing extreme discomfort toward a lot of his dialogue in later interviewers.
the worst part of MCU downfall was the fact that captain america in first avengers movie actually used guns and later he was so stuck to throwing his shield and then civil war got pushed forward because of that one woman showing stark the picture not entire town getting destroyed but that one specific kid dying. as for optimus prime in bayformers, he's general at war, his planet is gone, his arch enemy was killed and came back and got killed AND GOT REINCARNATED only thing optimus can do is to kill them all
Big red Murderbot make brain go BRRRRR. Great video, this is why the transformers movies are some of my favorites. I don't need a deep story for every film, sometimes I just want to watch the big robot kick the other big robots ass and look like they are enjoying themselves 😂
Even as a kid I always viewed heroes that do not kill as naive, short sighted and often weak, without spine. "Like, stop him forever! Wtf are you doing? He's going to do it again!" And so on. And I don't need hero to be a butcher like Punisher but there is time and place for mercy, forgiveness and "doing things right".
That Transformers one made me laugh. “Because they’re robots, we couldn’t care less that Optimus is brutally killing them”. To that, I have to say… Have you watched Murder Drones? If not, I highly recommend it.
No one asked but the punisher is HANDEDLY my favorite hero that kills. (Specifically the punisher: max garth ennis run). He has virtually no depth and is effectively a terminator for criminals. Idk why exactly I love it so much.
I have made many arguments against Heroes Don't Kill when it came to scenes where the heroes are getting steamrolled because they didn't kill. Like scenes from GoT as a whole. It has made me create characters who do go that far, or even one particular character who is the type to kick the door in and attack the antagonist before they can start monologuing.
Optimus is portrayed as a hero character, but in the reality of the canon, he's a military general at war. The war had gone on for at least a century, so I'm confident to say that Optimus had gone through the whole "do heroes kill" argument a long time ago and is already numb to the moral guilt.
millions of years actually
@@rhashadcarter2051 9 million years to be exact.
@@kelkellacsamana7298 technically in the bayverse the war only started 19000 years ago
@@kelkellacsamana7298 "only" 4 million years
He became a zealot, "we kill them all" because they are not on our side
The real story of Michael Bay’s Transformers is seeing a kind, restrained, and friendly leader slowly being pushed towards a ruthless approach after seeing his friends die, his old master betraying him, and his enemies committing genocide on innocent people.
It’s likely not what Bay was thinking, but with a few tweaks to the scripts of these films, it could easily be seen that way
I've never heard anyone else with this take but this was my read
This is always how I thought of the movies and their approach to optimus prime.
This is also why I love the last knight so much believe it or not. After all the stuff that happened in the previous movies and Optimus being a shell of his former self, it barely took much convincing for a poser pretending to be his creator to manipulate him into turning against those left he protects. Even though it’s admittably really corny, Bumblebee speaking brought optimus back to the years before his arrival to earth and reminded him of what he is supposed to stand for and protect. He then reaffirms himself as Optimus Prime leader of the autobots and saves the day in a spectacular fashion. Personally I found this really powerful and it struck a chord with me for some reason, I know it may be a bad movie or whatever but idc i always love it.
TBH I love the idea of portraying paragons like Superman and Optimus Prime in _He Who Hunts Monsters_ stories
Ngl I always imagined there being a group of humans who decided to go against all transformers and some of the autobots defect
I remember when Transformers Prime explored that push to become more ruthless. Megatron was causing the third apocalypse in a row and awakening a god beyond his understanding. Optimus Prime stopped being so diplomatic and tried to tried to kill him. He failed.
Ironically it was Megatron's diplomatic overtures that saved the day. Optimus Prime lost his identity in the process and went on a journey of self discovery. "Orion Pax" lacked the wisdom and confidence of past Primes. But his heart was in the right place. Optimus Prime was reborn stronger than ever. Unwavering in his pursuit of peace. But temptered by ruthless pragmatism.
Years later Megatron's faction was decimated. Megatron was cut down by Optimus Prime in the final battle. Many fought to the bitter end. Others accepted Optimus Prime's offer of peace. The tragedy of the whole thing is that many sympathetic villians like Breakdown and Dreadwing never got the chance.
Samurai Jack is the pinnacle of "don't worry they were all robots." Even villains who look completely human that don't show any signs of being robots will have mechanical innards once they're cut in half.
It gets to the point that when he fights the daughters of Aku he kills one of them without hesitation, but is genuinely shocked to learn that she wasn't a robot.
I vaguely remember an episode saying that Samurai Jack's sword cannot hurt the righteous/innocent. So Jack just swings and lets the blade be the judge. I think.
Though to be fair, if you spent 50 years being hunted by evil robots, you'd be stunned when they send an actual evil person after 50 years.
@@nousername191 Specifically it was when Aku was able to steal Jack’s sword during a fight and used it against him only to realize it won’t cut Jack
and jack straight up killed bounty hunters in that one episode
and countless squid aliens
only reason real people just fall down is cartoon network censorship and i blame it for making every enemy a robot
and if they are not robots they blow up with their gimmick machine or it's ok buecause they look like people but it's a demon or some other excuse
What I love about Bayverse Optimus is that you can pinpoint the precise moment where he snapped. Up until the forest battle, he has been pulling his punches, and it winds up with him outnumbered, forcing him to stop holding back. Even after that, his initial hesitation quite literally gets him killed.
In every fight after the forest battle, Optimus has become this brutally efficient killing machine, going straight for the kill shot instead of fighting in a restrained manner.
This very well could have been accidental, but it’s a theory I choose to believe in.
"this is the moment where walter white became gus hermanos pollos chicken fring"
I think it would be pretty awesome if the scene in where Optimus scans the glasses was altered instead to go in the direction of "The Decepticons must be destroyed, show no mercy. There can be no peace with those who crave death and destruction and take joy in quenching their lust for evil."
The only contradiction is Optimus’ brutal dismantling of Bonecrusher
My guy. In his first fight with a Decepticon, he punches Bonecrusher so hard his eye pops out.
@@snoot6629’This is the moment when Werner Heisenberg became Heisenberg.’
One of my favourite 'Batman never kills' observations:
Batman doesn't kill you - he just breaks all the bones in your limbs and leaves in a dark alleyway. You'll be fine.
lol right?
He doesn't kill at all! He just leaves you bedridden for the rest of your life and stuck in a hospital owned by the billionaire Bruce Wayne
And remember folks, this is America. No free healthcare!
Batman never kills because the writer is too lazy to invent a new villain. So joker again. Joker again. Joker again. Bull crap.
Which is crazy because the original Batman walked around with a gun lol 😂 kind of like the noir comic The Shadow
@@ikochomi3070tbf people get antsy about new villains
That’s why the MCU was praised for starting to leave its villains alive
Something I would like to point out about John Wick is that while he *is* an assassin, he actually goes out of his way to not harm innocent bystanders. In the first movie, his target used a human shield which of course force him to relent firing on his quarry. In John Wick's case it is a moral *and* ethical imperative to conduct himself so precisely and professionally, nevermind that he is/was a member of a *criminal* society.
"Professionals have standards!" -- The Sniper
He also has a mutual respect for the other people, even if he just wants to remove them from the world. Francis, Aurelio, Viggo, Cassian…
@@kyze8284well not the kid that killed his dog tho
@@shadowling77777 Well thats how the kid lost his respect
@@atomicspartan131 One is a job and the other's mental sickness.
The funny thing about Bay's Transformers movies is that while they got progressively more terrible, Optimus's increasing misanthropic brutality was actually kind of morbidly fascinating to watch. XD
Bayformers*
The point where bee pulls down the mask and goes all out against his brother to snap him out of it could have been the perfect moment for a return to form.
Misrobotic*
That's because Bay focused more on the action and money than the plot. The franchise was originally supposed to end with DoTM, but Bay wanted an action-pack movie. So....
Bay lucking his way into creating one of the most complex violent protagonist in recent memory sure is something else.
One thing I love about Berserk is that Kentaro Miura is more than willing to go as dark as possible when it comes to humanity's potential for depravity, but he also has the courage to get the audience to understand *why* someone would commit such heinous acts, hero or villain.
Yeah, in the lost children arc, Guts is depicted like a monster and throughout the series Griffith is like the hero that inspires everybody, especially in the later arcs. For the people that don't really know what Griffith has done, he's basically Jesus Christ
For wings?
@@KittSpiken For a cheap batsuit
I think Miura shows more on how much more powerful, yet rare, Gut's capacity for forgiveness and compassion is. It's not about condoning what they've done due to their suffering. It's about showing another way when another way looks impossible, and the benefits of taking that less traveled path.
Except for the horse.
The horse will never be understood…
It bothers me when people misuse the word "murder", e.g: the hero was defending himself against a vicious eneny and stabs him in obvious self-defense... "murder"
All of this. Most blanket 'killing is wrong' types clearly don't know how the legal system work. And don't care to.
@@mysteriiisnot just the legal system, they don't know how morality work they don't know the meaning of the word context
Yep Murder is an UNJUSTIFIED intentional killing. Every single culture has situations where killing is justified, for 99% of them it's been self defense, execution, and war.
Yes murder requires malice. Killing isn't murder.
It bothers me too, but it raises an interesting question. How do you justify that which others would call murder? Is it simply the act of killing when someone tries to kill you or another innocent, or is it killing when you have no other alternative? If I tried to kill Batman in real life, I would fail. He would dispatch of me very easily. He could knock me out, disarm me, disorient me, escape... but what if, when I fire a bullet, he makes a conscious decision to aim the sharp end of a baterang at my jugular, killing me? He KNOWS it wasn't necessary because he has the gear, experience and ability to beat me non-lethally. I am not much of a threat. Technically though, it was self-defense. Is that murder, or no?
I always find it ridiculous when the hero slaughters countless faceless henchmen but will spare the villain out of some sort of “moral high ground”. It was at its most egregious in Moon Knight, and I remember it in Guardians of the Galaxy 3, where they kill damn near all of the High Evolutionary’s men, but spare him because “they’re better”, when he was most deserving of getting killed out of everyone.
One example that stuck with me was Ellie in The Last of Us 2 because she refuse to kill Abby; the person who killed her father in an incredibly gruesome manner in front of her eyes, the person who shot the father of her child in cold blood, the person who literally put a gun to the head of her pregnant wife, and even after all of that Ellie spares her AFTER killing hundreds of people to the point of singlehandedly changing the power dynamic of 2 factions, Ellie literally kills so many WLF's that the seraphites become capable of a head own confrontation, and then she goes and spares Abby
There's a difference between killing people in a fight and killing someone who's at your mercy. The heroes aren't usually killing minions who aren't actively a threat to them.
@@hasturthekinginyellow5003THANK YOU
@@AnEnemySpy456 You're saying that the consequences of your actions cannot be retroactive? Because Abby smashed Joel's head with a golf club, and she shoot Jesse in the face, and she was ready to shoot Dina, and she crippled Tommy.
None of that can be taken back, Joel's head won't just heal, Jesse won't regrow his face, Tommy won't get better, Dina would always remember that day that she almost died.
*And yet, Ellie goes and SPARES HER*
Look, I'm not saying that killing Abby would be the best ending, you can make Ellie's revenge be unjustified just as much without killing Abby, maybe killing Leb while Abby watch, maybe simply letting her die in that post, maybe killing Leb and then letting her die in that post, maybe killing Leb and freeing Abby just to be cruel, etc.
*But she needed to face CONSEQUENCES, to make the story compelling*
I mean, in GotG 3, it was Rocket's decision to spare him. And, since the movie was pretty much all about solidifying his transformation into a leader, the rest of the Guardians follow.
In the TF movie lore, you start to see why optimus does what he does.
For example, demolisher (the robot he shot while saying a one liner at the beginning of revenge of the fallen) killed almost everyone in an autobot refugee camp filled with displaced cybertronians. Its kinda understandable why Optimus has this hatred and is so brutal because hes not dealing with mindless henchmen, hes dealing with evil genocidal monsters who will kill for no reason. Take megatron in the first movie, he kills a random human for literally no reason and says "disgusting"
Funfact: The random human was Michael Bay
i still wish sideswipe was the one accompanying optimus instead of ironhide now that the comic is out
would've gone full circle for him to go from wanting to kill demolishor himself to simply assisting optimus and coldly watching as demolishor gets killed by his leader
maybe have him comment "got what he deserved" as they leave, maybe as a response to one of the soldiers questioning if it was morally okay
Where does that lore come from? They never said anything about that in the movie
@@spacewargamer4181it was in the comics
Im not saying the decepticons are good... But them calling us parasites and other fun insect nicknames might actually be justified. The reveal that earth is Unicron, the 'Be all end all' monstrosity, and we little bugs are simply "spawns" of a thing that eats everything. Plus the fact that Prime is doing his very best to protect earth (despite Quintessa literally telling him that the biggest galactic parasite is earth itself) is kinda suspicious dont you think?
Sentinel never stopped being an Autobot. Remember, he said to Megatron, "I will never work for you". The Decepticons were little more than a means to an end. If anything, he wanted the Bots to join him. In that case, Optimus didn't murder a defenceless villain; he simply executed a member of his ranks for the murder of Ironhide and the Chicago Massacre which is well within his right what with him being the leader of the Autobots.
"You, who are without mercy, now plead for it? I thought you were made of sterner stuff!” - Optimus Prime
I honestly think one of the best cases of a story addressing its hero's need to take life is Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. Not every single person Raiden kills may 100 percent deserve it, not everyone is there because they want to be, but they're still complicit in a system that harms for more innocent people than it employs. In order to cut the head off the snake, Raiden has to cut off EVERY part of the snake that stands in his way. Every person who stands between Raiden and Armstrong, whether they know it or not, are playing the worst type of devil's advocate. Raiden can't delude himself into thinking there's nothing wrong with what he's doing, but he doesn't have time to contemplate either. Countless children are at the mercy of his enemies' employers, on a fast track to end up as the same kind of monster he grew up to be. If Raiden has this capacity and this power to take life, why not take the lives who are damaging all the others?
@koboldwizardRaiden instantly became more badass to me (and he already was a complete hardass in my eyes before) when Monsoon basically tried to mindfuck him with "You're just a psychopath that enjoys killing, stop hiding behind the "for the greater good" facade" that many other villains try in order to break (or weaken psychologically) the hero for an easy kill, except it backfired horribly and Raiden just went: "You know what? After having been a goddamn child soldier and then keeping constantly fighting in wars throughout my entire life, I guess I quite literally was born to kill. I'm a bloodthirsty monster alright, except I'm a monster that doesn't kill without reason, and right now you and your entire organization give me a VEEERY good reason to slaughter you all. Now come here, got some steam to let out." All it really accomplished is just make Raiden hesitate and hold back way, way less lol
“I don’t enjoy killing, but when done righteously, it’s just a chore, like any other.” Joshua Graham
I love the fan theory (for lack of better term) that Optimus gets more and more violent as he's becoming more and more jaded by everything going in around him. The kills are subdued in the first because he's killing as a last resort. He doesn't want to, but he's being pushed to it by the situation he's in. Then, in the second, he gets swarmed by a bunch of decepticons, so his more.violent kill is basically him taking out all his anger and fear on the enemy. Then he gets killed. After that, he rips off the Fallens face and tore Megatrons head from his torso because he's actually experienced exactly what they're doing to ever single person they've killed. Then he executes Sentinal because he's already betrayed them once (technically twice by that point, I think) but he also very violently killed Ironhide.
Is it that deep? Hell no, it's not. But it could've been. And it would've been awesome.
I like to think that him being brought back to life sorta messed him up a bit, I mean if you died surely you'd be a different person after coming back right?
@@giantenemycrab1192He's seen death because he hesitated before. He's not going to let more innocents meet that fate because he hesitated again.
People tend to forget that he's a fighting a war for millions of years. So he's holding back and still being diplomatic is insanity because it's war. War changes you. But the brutality needs to be toned down, and not exactly a justification, but Optimus is justified however not excusable. Bay could've stopped with DoTM but he wanted an action-packed movie. So...
The meta critique about superheroes acknowledging the harm they do reminded me of an early scene from Injustice 2. Damian Wayne calls Bruce out with, “So you’re against killing, but you’re okay with blunt force trauma?”
"Can you close yourself off from the moral ambiguity of your violent actions" - Spider-Man Noir
The problem there is that Damian was literally raised by a death cult and Batman in that story has obviously failed to get him out of that mindset, so of course he'd be making such an obvious false equivalence.
It's not false though. Blunt force trauma can so easily kill - there are numerous stories of people being killed with a single punch or by being knocked down and hitting a curb. Batman may not deliberately kill but it would be so easy for him to accidentally kill someone with how he fights
The thing is: batman lives in an unrealistically violent city for how functional it is. It's already a semi-fantastic setting, so I think we shouldn't think much about the morality of what batman does, because it isn't what his stories tend to talk about
@@Rafael_Peixoto I thought that his no kill policy was the basis of many stories that get philisophical with it, so we should absolutely think a lot about the morality of it. Also it's fun.
Vader was so good at killing his subordinates as a show of force that every other villain has to do it to try to evoke that feeling, and they almost always fall short. It's hard to care about a faceless goon as you said.
Heroes that kill is a fine line. I think Tony Stark is an interesting figure because more often than not in the comics he's been portrayed in the wrong and constantly makes bad decisions. Him killing makes sense. Superman killing is so unnatural because the point of Superman is that he chooses to be good because that's the right thing to do.
It's all execution, and fits some characters better than others imo.
It's because when Vader killed his subordinates, it was due to their repeated failures and incompetence. Their deaths are 'earned,' for lack of a better term. However, with the same ease that he takes lives, he also elevates those he feels have proven themselves. Vader has a firmly established line - useless and stripped of power or useful and granted it. Even Vader has a code, not killing soldiers and generals for the thrill or simply because he can but because he sees it as the most effective way of getting ineffective people out of power to make room for those who might better use it.
The difference between the flawed hero, the one who aspires to be better, and the paragon hero, the one who seeks to inspire others. That's basically the best way to decide where to draw the line and how to present the characters. Too bad a lot of directors don't seem to get that these days and almost all heroes in (hollywood) cinema these days feels like the flawed normal guy who's trying
@themace2055 I have met hyper empathetic people that care about faceless goons
Re: Superman - I am reminded of the line in a comic where Joker decided to mess with Metropolis, only to have Superman effortlessly thwart his plan due to his superpowers. At the end, Superman gives Joker a warning to not try something like that again, or else. Joker replies that he thought Superman had a no killing rule, to which Superman replies along the lines of:
I don't have a no killing rule. I just prefer not to kill. There's a difference, and it would be a bad idea for you to try to find out where that difference is.
Is it better to be born good, or to overcome your nature through great effort?
Not killing the villain because it’s morally wrong or makes the hero a hypocrite is the exact BS the villains would come up with to keep the heroes from killing them.
And what you just said reminds of Toga from MHA situation in the anime/Manga
it becomes a problem when serialization gets introduced
like most popular example - batman
any normally written story would have joker appear 3 times
once he gets locked in arkham and makes harley help him escape
second time he's locked in maximum prison because nobody believes his insanity plea
third time he escapes and this time they send him to a chair
and that's at most if you want to use joker's potential fully and NOT make current DC comics mess
but they treat prison like a "might need later" box
how secure can be a prison when everyone breaks out of it every thursday
That just sounds like the villain gaslighting the hero at that point.
Optimus is like a viking, a pagan warrior. A pre-christion hero, celebrated for his prowess in combat and the violence he inflicts on our enemies.
If you think about it, Transfomers, Autrobots and Decepticons both, are both sentient beings, so that we consider this violence and gore acceptable for children says a lot about the audience preconceptions.
I never thought about it like that but it does make a lot of sense. Many, and maybe even most, cultures throughout history have celebrated martial prowess and the amount of violence one can inflict upon the enemy.
This is also how knights got a "free pass" on being depraved as the stereotype depicts them as, and how the most brutal, least honorable famous soldiers still leave their cleft of blood in the history books.
A couple examples are el "Cid" Campeador, the Great knight Roland, and Baudouin de Bologne
funny enoght, knights themselfs were also selebrated for being able to kill houtherd of men, if just that they were also praise for caring about those weaker that themselvs
@@rgama1173 what is this writing 💀
@@MrAnimason Rolando furioso, King Arthur, pretty much any pre modern literature operates on the notion that killing was necessary.
The modern 'never kill, ever!' Comes from child oriented media in the West
7:50 I know a lot of people hated Superman snapping Zod’s neck in Man of Steel, but even ten years later that scene still makes me emotional. You can feel the agony Superman feels at being forced to take a life. BvS ruined that by having him casually turn a guy into paste in the next film but… it still works well as a scene at least.
Meanwhile, Superman commonly kills in the comics.
Zod.
Hank Henshaw.
Darkseid.
Imperiex.
Countless nazis and Japanese warriors.
Superman killed them all. So...
@@Idazmi7 Exactly. He won't go out of his way to kill you, but if it's 'innocents get hurt or Superman kills you' you are already dead. (Nani?) It is within the remit of a hero to kill when the situation calls for it.
The scene most definitely was clumsy, but I do understand what they are going for.
I was never bothered by it, honestly I think it was mostly the grimdark edgy way Snyder presented it that rubbed people the wrong way.
7:40 When you show the hero emotionally distraught at killing as a last resort, it definitly helps to establish that the hero values life above all else.
Realizing that Transformers subconsciously motivated my desire to write a story both on the morals of killing robots whom seem sentient, and the morality of killing when it is a constant cycle. So I guess thats one thing to thank the Transformers series for.
Also…”we” is doing galactic heavy lifting here lol
It is quite an interesting topic to write about, for sure. I feel like we both have something similar in mind in our stories we want to tell. Hope it goes well. Best of luck. 💛☀
I guess it's not a big issue for us to destroy a robot - anything they might feel is programmed. But for Optimus, to kill the way he does is just monstrous. They are, after all, his kind. And when he starts killing humans - albeit the villains - you can't help but think that the good guys would be in jeopardy if he decides that they don't fit into his moral code.
@hobodonpin a TH-cam channel about writing's comment section even... How dare they
@hobodonpnobody asked for your opinion 💀
That story exist is called Nier automata
In the original ending to dark of the moon. Optimus and Megatron negotiate a truce and Megatron leaves earth with the decepticons for good. That ending got leaked so Bay had it changed last minute to Megatron getting the axe (literally) which is why it feels so jarring.
Because god forbid the audience get a well-crafted and carefully woven story that they had advance knowledge of! The only logical thing to do is rewrite it the complete opposite way so that they'll be really surprised! ....at how dumb someone can be.
Now, if everyone saw the leak and shouted to the rooftops about how crappy an ending that was, that's one thing. But since you didn't say it, I can't rightly assume it. And I've seen people do dumber things than this anyway.
Too many people are obsessed with the power of raw shock value. But adding that to your story is the same as adding any raw ingredient to your meal: there's a really good chance you just poisoned your audience. The lesson is....cook your shock value before serving??? Sure, let's go with that.
you look too socially compatible to know that much about filmmaking
It's a condition
This is probably the best comment I’ve ever seen on this channel
Socially compatible? 🤔
@@donatodiniccolodibettobardi842Have witnessed gr*ss
It's because he's so handsome
Holy shit. I had no idea Optimus Prime was so violent. I guess in the movies it flows better and isn't as creepy, but seeing those clips in a vortex is crazy.
It's definitely jarring when you realize it haha
Brush I realised as a kid rewatching the first movie when Optimus how's absolutely ham on the receptions in the forest. He is an absolute machine
@@desuordie4856my name is optimus prime and i HATE receptionists
In the cartoons he's not
I never cared too much since it's a Michael Bay movie and the spectacle is part of the experience, but I remember feeling awkward as a 10 year old, along with the entire cinema, during the 'give me your face' scene. It was a bit like Man of Steel's neck snap scene, moments where the hero goes a bit too far to where the audience isn't really sure how they feel.
What I never understand is how some people write a trigger-happy hero who spends their day brutally mowing down enemy henchmen and choose to spare the actual villain because "they don't deserve this" or "I'm better than the villain." as if we don't spend hours watching the supposed hero casually performing a genocide to some paid intern in the villain roster.
I personally love the stories where the hero ignores that and just kills the villain for example the first Dead pool movie with Francis.
They're already standing on a mountain of bodies. What's one more at that point?
and i never understand how people can write a character who is meant to do the right thing always and then proceeds to spare a terrorist because it makes them worse than them somehow (talking about batman and joker, and ig spiderman too but those are usually just powerful people or gangs who dont care about collateral damage instead of literally bombing a city just to get the hero's attention, but some prob still do that in some spiderman series)
It's just bad writing, because they want to re-use the villain later on instead of create a new one.
alternate idea: they don't kill the actual villain...because they have something much worse for them in mind
The One Piece cast is an interesting spectrum of this:
Some of the Straw Hats hold back and just don't kill intentionally (even though as pirates it's bound to happen).
Others can kill and probably have, but try not to because it isn't their style.
Then you have Nico Robin and Roronoa Zoro, who straight-up kill, no questions asked. Robin actually kills in the most painful way possible, and Zoro is capable of killing the rest of the Strawhats if ordered to.
And then you have Luffy: he is capable of killing and probably has, but when given a choice prefers not to. Why? Because he thinks death is a mercy when compared to crushing someone's dreams and making them live through that despair.
And all of the Strawhats are likable, regardless of how they chose to handle opponents.
One Piece is an amazing example because Luffy (and others) often reinforce the idea that hurting bystanders is deeply wrong BUT hurting pirates or marines who opted into a life of constant danger is justified as part of that secondary world of violence.
Luffy is not shy about what he will do to people who oppose him, regardless of moral considerations, but he also understands that he has chosen to put himself in those situations and will not question the morality of those who hurt him.
@@tristanescure7384 "Now that you have drawn a pistol you have wagered your life" is both a badass line from Shanks but also a philosophy that permeates the Strawhats as a crew through Luffy
I mean, Luffy doesn't have a large body count simply because his enemies are incredibly resilient but we all know that he was going for the kill when he punched the celestial dragon, he was going for the kill when fighting against Mingo, and he *will* try to kill Akainu the moment he gets the opportunity.
And all of that because Luffy is not a hero, he himself has said so, after all, "heroes would share their meat"
it makes no sense though because just an out of series comment that Oda himself has said in a interview. It never LOOKS like Luffy is EVER "holding back", any enemy that luffy fights and survives seemed to have done that from their own will to be able to survive BY CHANCE. Not because luffy is trying to "destroy their dreams", lol what? I know that's what oda says but luffy NEVER said that or even looks like he's DOING that in the series, any of his enemies who survive do so by chance and chance really ONLY. Not because of "mercy", nowhere in the rob Lucci fight does it look like luffy is "holding back" as he's going ALL OUT to beat down rob lucci entirely. Same with Crocodile, Arlong, Buggy the Clown, and all of the other fights luffy has been in.
@@Gadget-Walkmen so Luffy was trying to kill Foxy? Or the Hancock's sisters? Or Fujitora? Or Katakuri?
Nah, Luffy takes his opponents seriously, but if he wanted to kill, more than half of his opponents would be dead.
It seams like, even if the villain is a cold blooded killer, it isn’t ok to kill them while they are running away, or even in a holding pattern. That’s anti-hero territory. Once they start to become aggressive, their death becomes more and more a product a product of their own decision. The hero has fewer options, becoming less of a murderer and more like an instrument of their self destruction. But Optimus is an antihero and Han shot first.
@TheRunningJoker Antiheroes who go after the villains who are just low life monsters who are one dimensional and may not deserve it as much as the real pure evil villains the good moral heroes go after
Uh huh, yeah...
So tell me again why Optimus killing a mass genocidal megalomaniac who views his race as superior to everyone else thus ultimately becoming a personification of Hitler is unjustified because they used to be friends even though the actual meaning of his last words reveal he doesn't hold an opunce of regret for his actions and he even fully intends to try again?
@@NexusProductions-rz1sv yeah, Bay kinda excluded one of my favorite staples of the franchise, side swapping. It does kind of change the thinking when the underlings are just completely soulless extensions of their cartoonishly evil leader, rather than a coalition of individual baddies with motivations of their own. I mostly remember watching Beast Wars as a kid, and I have a hard time rooting for an Optimus that would have gutted Black Arachnia/Dinobot(the character) and cracked a joke, before they had a chance for redemption.
There was jetfire he swapped sides
In the 90's and early 2000's a lot of movies like 'Bad Boys' would have the defeated villain make a last ditch effort to kill the protagonist (like a hidden blade or ankle gun) so the hero could justifiably finish them off.
The issue with not killing them when they're running away depends on their intent. Suppose the bad guy has the McGuffin needed to harm more people?
That was fun, but I really think you missed a vital part of your analysis by ignoring Homer: in THE ILIAD, we have heroes who fight to rescue Helen and restore her to her husband, and we have heroes who fight in defense of their homes--both sides kill, and both sides can be seen as justified in their actions; with THE ODYSSEY, we see a hero and his cohort who kill villains and are loved for it, but they don't kill anyone but the bad guys who have violated social norms already. In both examples, we have heroes who kill while exercising restraint. For that matter, this restraint can be seen in classic western heroes--they kill the bad guys and nobody else, even with a sense that the dead "had it coming," but there's nothing villainous in saying those words in that genre.
I’m pretty sure the only human villains that get killed in the Odyssey are the evil suitors trying to take Penelope for themselves while leeching off of Odysseus’ resources, so yeah, of course we clap when Odysseus, his men and his son massacre them.
@@alexman378 That's my point: the suitors deserved to die for everything they did, and slaughtering them wasn't an evil act, despite it being the killing of humans by humans. In a video about heroes killing people, it should definitely have been part of the focus.
@@sovereigndayyouthkafir3943 Yeah but you can argue that this was set in the ancient world and the morals and laws aren’t the same as today, maybe that’s why he didn’t include something like that. Pretty much every hero in Greek mythology would kill someone during their journey, and unless it was done for no reason, it wasn’t judged negatively.
Both are excellent examples
@@alexman378Just because it’s an old story doesn’t mean it can’t be used as an example. Taken with the context of it being written in a different time, for a different culture with different conceptions of heroism, it could be interesting to compare and contrast with modern heroes.
Optimus Prime is the hero that makes other heroes say "Wow I'm glad he's on our side."
This can apply to every versions of Optimus. Most of them being in different context of course
I’m very happy the discussion around bayverse optimus is finally getting deeper than “he’s psychotic”
yeah people complaining about sentinel and Megatron like what he should do? a Pat on the shoulder and say "all good bro? " Especially for Megatron that caused a world War that destroyed a planet
@@tooru-kun4178 Well tbf megatron and the decepticons were treated like dirt before the uprising, it was actually partly the autobots fault that the war got so bad since they had many opportunities to sign a peace treaty, their pride and refusal to give megatron equality drove him insane to the point he just decided to end the war by killing all the autobots.
This all depends on the continuity though since there are a lot of different versions.
@@giantenemycrab1192 yeah I know that in some continuity Cybertron war was a pretty much justified rebellion but still that doesn't justify deception action, especially Megatron allowing Shockwave to be around
@@giantenemycrab1192
That's a completely different lore compared to the Bayverse
@@zerobullets6935yeah, it's not exactly unreasonable to feel no guilt about slaughtering people who are literally hunting your people like animals *after you saved their planet twice.*
They're lucky he didn't just go "fuck this, the decepticons can have this shithole", I'm out.
I always prefer a hero that is ready to kill but won't do it unless its necessary. Like shoot the guy about to shoot you but if you have him knocked out on the ground it is up to the courts to deal with them and decide if he should punished with the death penalty.
The only moral part I am conflicted on is a villain who is too dangerous to let live; such as one who kills people with just their presence. then i feel it may be necessary to kill regardless if they are an immediate threat or not.
I would also say you can make a hero that enjoys fighting and killing. The point is making sure that while they enjoy it, they can still have the strength to hold back and not use violence when it is morally wrong or would get in the way of the better goal of the hero and/or their allies.
17:08: I've never understood the "oh this is when Optimus murders Sentinel".
Sentinel kills Iron Hide in cold oil, and was actively working with Megatron weather he had good intentions or not it doesn't matter. Had the roles been reversed Sentinel would have done the same, and we all know what Megatron would of done.
A lot of folks don't know the diffrence between Kill and Murder. Optimus didn't murder Sentinel, he killed him for good reason.
Cold oil😂
Remember people. Self defense,Revenge and Justice may end in a body dropping but it doesn't have the same ramifications in stories and real life.
Same with passivism. People forget the meaning as it's not "never fight at all" it's "fight as a last option when all else fails" basically don't take someone's insult as an excuse to beat them up and don't take someone getting hurt in front of you and keep walking by.
You mean pacifism?
Either way, pacifism is a spectrum and everybody has their own stance, own lines they won't cross or won't tolerate if others do and their own justifications to do things.
For some few it is _exactly_ about "never fighting/hurting others under any circumstances" with all consequences that entails, both in real life and fiction, but it is rarely so "cut and dry" for most people... Morality can never be 'solved' once and for all and there are moral arguments against all kinds of positions that are considered moral, by those who take them.
@@donatodiniccolodibettobardi842 it's also why "evil prevails when good men do nothing" aka what people think pacifism is. I think even beast stars said this best when the grandpa shows his brand of pacifism by taking out thugs who would hurt the innocent
That's my line. If it's nothing that actually affects you or anyone else physically or mentally that can't be healed in a day or so just walk. If it's someone's life on the line fight like a demon and take the consequences after you survive as some situations being passive means letting evil win.
@@ivanbluecool I just wanted to clarify that pacifism is a whole range of things. Better ask what person mean by that and what led them there (even if its not _your_ brand of pacifism). :)
I don't argue with you.
As long as your bottom line is to help people who needlessly suffer and prevent more suffering, I'm down with this. As long as you strive to overcome barriers on way of your compassion, you are more likely to not be blind to see evil for what it is and recognize suffering, where a cold heart would see a just and fair world, I think...
@@donatodiniccolodibettobardi842 yeah depends on the situation but nobody can argue when someone is being hurt for no justifiable reason anyone in any part of the world would want to stop that as while the internet has the worst in people that makes us forget the good.
tldr: "i have no enemies"
Optimus Prime has been waging war for MILLIONS of years. I don’t blame him for a second about killing decepticons. I would probably do the same if i was him. But atleast he only did it in protection of earth and humans.
“Transformers was never serious before Michael Bay” *Beast Wars intensifies*
I find heroes who do not have the capacity to kill tend to be shortsighted, or they have too much reliance on a system that either is not suited to the task or is corrupt/incompetent.
Take Batman: by all rights with the amount of mass murder the Joker has committed nobody would argue if he was killed…except for Batman if he did it. If he decided to kill the joker then it would likely save hundreds more people. The judicial system is notoriously slow and that is reflected in the shows.
Gotham not having consistency on wether they have a Death Sentence or not doesn't help either. It basically becomes up to the people if they want the joker dead, wanting Batman to do it with his own hands feels equal to someone wanting cops to do it.
@@GenericProtagonist118 at this point it’s become a bad joke. Like holy shit this guy is a mass murderer and we keep putting him away and he just keeps escaping.
At some point you’d imagine the police force would just say “kill the bastard”
I like how Under the Red Hood film says the reason Batman won't kill is because he's afraid he wouldn't stop.
I think the Joker knows this, so he tries to push all of Batman's buttons every chance he gets.
Does that make Batman a type of coward??? Maybe. I personally vote for putting a bullet into that clown's head, or at the very least have Batman Beyond torment him with better jokes.
"I find heroes who do not have the capacity to kill tend to be shortsighted" Literally an inversion of reality and as far from the truth as anti-heroes are from being uncommon rather than a sadly increasing norm.
@@DoomguyIsGrinningAtYou.Yeah, and i think it makes real sense for his character. He is, after all, a boy traumatized by the deaths of his parents by a random lowlife. In his pursuit of vengeance for himself, and justice for others, it might make sense for him that if he got accustomed to killing goons for being goons, it might feed his traumatic thought processes in a way that makes him lose sight of his mission, or himself. And yeah, I think that future adaptations of Batman should go out of their way to avoid the whole "multiple prison breaks per villan" thing, so that the threat of a villan doesn't necessarily end with the thwarting of their plot(s). Less "I beat *villain name here* and now- Arkham Asylum" and more "I stopped *villain name here*, but they're still out there. Gotta stay vigilant" type stuff.
I honestly kinda sorta like that Bayverse Optimus killed Decepticons that way. It's more like real life where people aren't all good or all evil, they have their own reasons to fight and even those who are supposed to protect your country might not be the heroes you imagined them as and they might do questionable things too.
No mention for my boy Frank Castle? He was technically only a bad guy in the issue he was introduced, and that's only because he was misled by Jackal. Probably my favorite miniseries was Warzone, where he basically became a public menace too great for the Avengers to ignore, and each member took a turn trying to capture him while he frantically blazed his way through third world countries, permanently crippling their arms, drug and sex trades. And he still had the level-headedness to take it easy on the Avengers once they finally teamed up on him.
@mc_zittrer8793 I wish Punisher went after more Marvel villains that are redeemable and worst of the worst
I had to scroll way too far to see someone mention the punisher. I was rather surprised he wasn't in this video as well.
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674 Irredeemable, you mean?
One of the things I really like about Vash's character is how you can see the toll his pacifist approach takes on his own body. He would rather be injured than kill someone so his body is covered in scars.
Something similar has happened to Thorfinn as well in Vinland Saga but a much smaller scale.
Which makes it pretty silly to take the risk and more likely that he and innocent people will die. It's fun to fantasize about the ranger who can lasso a twister and shoot the trigger finger off of all the cowboys, but it's not realistic. There was a guy in my CCW class asking how to shoot the gun out of someone's hand. Even a professional trick shooter wouldn't do that. They would aim for center mass and keep shooting until the threat was stopped.
Optimus Prime used to be friend/rival with Megatron, the celebrity charismatic Gladiator, so he probably picked up the thrill from sparing at some point. he is also stuck on a planet with limited capacity to incarcerate any POWs from a terrorist faction from his old home with a native population dependent on technology that has no protection from his civilization's level of subversive action.
with that context, Optimus is just making the most out of a situation where he knows just what kind of genocide can result from one cuckoo egg being laid in the nest by people who tried to genocide the half of their own species who chose not to genocide other Sophants for connivence and profit.
You are taking idw verse, the Bayverse has its own origins and it was a jor El and zod comparison.
@@tc-channelhobby4051 Additionally, from the prequel comics of the movies, Optimus Prime and Megatron were in the same tribe, serving under Sentinel Prime. There were no gladiator fights because they fought to survive every single day against other tribes. It's a different dynamic compared to IDW and Prime.
It's always interesting to me when people bring up Optimus as a killer in the new movies. While I do also dislike the brutality of his murderousness, it never exactly surprised or even stood out to me as a kid.
Before the movies, I never watched Gen 1 stuff as a kid, but I watched many of the cartoon shows and some of the older movies and it never got past my single digit old brain that these are soldiers in a war that has killed most of their race. Even if they didn't show deaths with rare exceptions like Optimus in an old movie or Starscream only for them to come back later like any media, the evolution of how much they show in the Bay movies just seemed natural. Optimus was always a war hero to me, not a super hero like Superman.
I remember at the end of dark of the moon when I was 12 in the theater with my dad. He literally said out loud “Jesus Christ” when optimus killed megatron with one arm and an axe
" The Hero doesn't kill '' thing always bothered me because it is just a wrong way to view morality, for example Batman doesn't kill but everytime he put the villans in jail after they murderd alot of people, after a while they break out and do the same thing and Batman and the authorities does the same thing and the cycle continues , the difference between when hero kills and when a villain kills is who and why did they kill context is everything
Violence used to be a natural reaction to lawful/evil. Civilization took that option away without offering a reliable alternative. The way I see it, we’re now living in a world without cautionary tales. A lot of the examples used were from wars, where villains are deemed enemy combatants. Civil action has to be set aside, or exhausted(rarely), prior to the hero’s violent actions. What does a hero look like when the villain can’t be reasoned with, prosecuted, or unseated?
THISSSS!!!
Judge Dredd, that's who
Personally this conundrum always felt silly to me, even as a kid, but I came from a military family. Any 'hero' or individual that is going out against opposing forces is going to need to go for the life subscription ender, otherwise you're just as likely to be alt f4'd. You don't put yourself at a disadvantage because it's not just your life at risk, it's everyone you're trying to help or save as well if you fail. It's also something almost everyone does have a line with so the argument is moot, it's just where you want it to be and to those that don't have said line, have likely never been in such situations or they would realize how foolish of a position it truly is.
It feels like such an argument that only those who overthink things have a problem with. You're rarely ever (more likely never) going to get a purely painless, inconsequential life suplexing. Hell even serial struggle snugglers may have a kitten at home who they treat like a princess who will be put down when you put them down. If you're having the debate in your head if they need to put down than they likely they do.
The question shouldn't be if they should be, it's if it will be worth it. Which I find a far more interesting moral conundrum. Should you hunt the vampire that owns an orphanage and a youngling a year, but saving more lives possibly in the extremely long run, but dooming the many in the short term along with any that would of been taken in and care of? How about ending the unlife of a liche who is keeping the undead of the countryside in check and ordered, rather than constantly rampaging across villages. Or the ever fun one, is ending the crime boss worth the dozens of minions? One of the reasons I enjoy the TW3 so much, it's one of the very few nuanced tales that actually legitimately brought nuance in my eyes in the arguments of your choices.
What's your least favorite aspect of this style of story telling? One of my most hated tropes is the hero slaughtering their way through hordes of minions but sparing the villain as some sort of obviously faux moral superiority. Or heroes not ending villains who constantly break out of imprisonment, at that point you aren't "stopping them", you're just giving them a government paid vacation.
For someone advocating killing, you sure are quite hesitant to using the “bad words”…
Even if the heroes did kill the villains, the villains would just resurrect
Power Rangers is proof of that
@@pn2294 I mean if that's the logic we're going by then there's even less of a reason to not end them and basically zero morality issues on top of it.
I'm not disagreeing mind you. They absolutely would and it shows with every major character ending being taken back by some form of resurrection anyways. But that's more meta than story.
@@alphamineron Certain words like to shadowban you on YT. It's more a contingency than anything. It's not even all curse words either, just the term pre-adult can do it to you for whatever reason.
Also just because one understands things like ending life at times being necessary, doesn't mean they have to be uncouth.
@@pn2294 Who, batman? No he didn't, he had personal reasons, not pragmatic. Though that depends on the version. Some it's just because he's a psycho in a bat suit who can't handle the nuance of ending the likes of the joker vs a petty thief, others he's just your basic story book hero who thinks all ending is wrong because story.
I wouldn't argue batsy's sanity is a pragmatic reason. Unless you're talking of something else to which I apologize and you'll need to clarify.
I feel like Cal's final fight in jedi survivor breaks this trope down really well. You go through the game killing stormtroopers without a second thought. Only to realize that's part of the darkside of the force building in Cal and that killing the final boss for revenge reasons might be the final straw. Leading to the superman neck snap sort of ending. Where surrender is offered to the villain but it ends with the choice of killing the villain or losing another person to the villain.
The most interesting thing to me is that Cal gets to keep his Dark Side mode in the post game, so perhaps he'll have to come to terms with it in the third installment.
I remember in the first God of War, there was this one scene where Kratos, the protagonist, had to sacrafice a man in order to continue the dungeon. The man pleads with Kratos, but to no avail, the soldier gets sacraficed. In the international version of the game, this scene is censored by making the soldier a zombie. But tbf, Kratos is not a hero, he's a monster.
At the very least, he's a monster in the first three games. 4 and Ragnarok are a delightfully detailed and intricate story on how he learns to be human again.
Kratos is a monster that killed a lot of innocent for absolutely no reason other than he is a psycopath
Tbh i hope he pays with the life of his son in another game
@@commander1935i dont think genocidal monsters can be human
@@LaloSalamancaGaming69 Not a great bait mate, I rate straight one out of eight.
"Tbh i hope he pays with the life of his son in another game"
And if that's actually meant to be unironic, you might do well to show more emotional intelligence than the character you're criticizing.
@@commander1935 idk man, what he did to the princess of Atlantis is pretty f#cked up, so at least I know where he's coming from emotional wise
ngl, Hugh’s rendition of Wolverine also fits in the Optimus Prime Archetype, guys is good with his people and protects humans as seen in The Wolverine when he kills Yakuza in order to protect Mariko, or him protecting X-23 and the other X-periment kids from Logan while killing the Reavers.
There's also not really any satisfying ways that you can have wolverine non lethal ly take down his enemies when one of his main abilities is that he has fucking knives in his hands.
I think Optimus, to me, is justified in his actions to a degree. I've always seen Optimus as a paragon but with him being in a war it makes sense for him to kill. The only problem that I have is the excess of it. I think Rise of the Beast did a good job with his character being someone torn by the tides of war.
Yup this is why I love Prime, he's one of the best most fun fictional characters put to the big screen.
One of the better no Kill rules was in Full Metal Alchemist. With the main character saying “no one should have to pay for our mistakes.”
In writing my own heroes (superheroes in particular) , I always go by a specific rule when determining how much killing/violence is too much. Would a bystander trust that hero after seeing them do that?
Ooohhh, that's genius, I'm using that. If you don't mind, that is. 😂😂.
This is quite sensible advice.
Well said, and a great point. Would Spider-man really be a "friendly neighborhood superhero" if the people in queens and in NYC saw him kill a man with his barehands or hang them with his webs? Would kids really want to inspire to be like him or be scared of him?
And on that note, why would that bystander matter when the cause is just? More often than not, there have been lies and slanders being created for heroes, real life and fiction. We can’t just consider every person’s words since they could just be another bad actor.
@@WhoTFMadeThisChange it's a bad image and a bad look, it's one thing if you have to kill to save someone's life, it's another to kill BRUTALLY. Would you really want to be anywhere NEAR superman if he tore out someone's heart with blood splattering everywhere just to stop a purse snatcher? Would you want children to see superman or ANY hero do that? I know I wouldn't. It's one thing to kill them but there's a level of brutality that should be avoided for public image.
And lol what's with this "bAd AcToR" nonsense you're saying right now? What? No one is EVERY acting at all.
Great video. Personally the whole "we all know this villian is too dangerous to be left alive, but we can't have the hero getting his hands dirty, so let's have the villain die as a result of his own hubris/bad luck/whatever" trope to be one of the most maddening/immersion breaking conventions in storytelling. I understand why it is used, but it always comes across as a jarring cop-out and I dont think it does the audience a service.
It's always more interesting to actually engage with that question than it is to just 'hand wave' your villian to death. If you are going to have antagonist that is too dangerous to be left alive in your story, you need to be prepared to deal with the implication that somebody is going to have to be the one to do the deed.
'Heroes' who abdicate that responsibility have never come across to me as particularly nobel, even when I was a kid. Instead it usually comes across as cowardice/selfishness at being unwilling to do the hard but necessary thing. To let the hero 'off the hook' because of some deus ex machina is extra frustrating and just comes across as the author 'having his/her cake and eating it too.'
@tceugonbear Antiheroes who go after the villains who are just low life monsters who are one dimensional and may not deserve it as much as the real pure evil villains the good moral heroes go after
That trope is mainly used in Disney animated movies for the villains to be killed so it can be "safe for kids" to not have kids see heroes kill their villains with their bare hands.
I slightly disagree, I honestly find the idea of a villain dying as a result of their own actions just as vilifying because it's more insulting. Like imagine if hitler slipped on a banana peel and died, it'd be hilariously at odds with the evil committed. Having the hero outright refuse to might be eye rolling past a point sure, but imo not every hero needs to kill the villain and a situation where the hero may not have reservations with killing the villain but the villain still dies by their own hubris/karma anyway is still just as fun.
I wonder if there could be a way round this that allows the hero to make the choice but also technically not be responsible, to appease the censors. For instance if a hero throws the villain off a cliff, and are surprised when they land on a ledge instead of falling to their death. Then the villain could somehow fall victim to themselves.
Sentinel: No Optimus! Think about the Geneva Convention!
Optimus: lol.
Optimus became unhinged after he died. I probably would too.
I usually prefer protagonists with less of a "you deserve to die" outlook and more of a "you no longer innately deserve to live" outlook, very similar, but different where it matters. They'll kill a villain without a second thought, but if presented with the option to safely spare them will take it.
I however hate when this logic isnt extended to henchmen.
Excellent analysis. I personally find my favorite to be a Batman style character, where someone who refuses to kill exists in a land or world where killing is almost required to survive and succeed, still choosing against it.
And some of the best stores involving Batman, actively challenge this rule, in particular, Under the Red Hood
but then, it leads to the Batman/Joker connundrum
how many lives could've Batman saved, if Joker didn't escape prison and kill so many people
but at the same time, once Batman kills one villain, where does it end? when would the justification stop being "good enough" to kill the next reprihensible villain?
IMO these questions don't have clear cut answers, and that leads to interesting storytelling
@@LuisSierra42I really wish Jason was used more in the live action and animated series; he absolutely stole my whole damn universe in Under the Red Hood
Personally he's one of my least favorites, it goes along with the concept that if he ended a life he'd just become a sociopathic mass petty criminal genocider if he ended the lives of the likes of Joker, which is a ludicrous position. So ludicrous that writers treat him like the man standing at the edge of crazy. Which ironically is the only way to justify him in a realistic setting because how utterly screwed up so many of his villains are. (It's also hilariously ironic since he's been shown to be okay with ending sentient aliens.)
It's just a goofy sense of morality in the end, which works fine with less mature kids shows. If ending lives is a necessity in the world and they choose to not do it without major repercussions to show why it's a necessity then it comes as big mary sue energy. Which they unintentionally I imagine don't have that issue with Batsy as his villains repeatedly escape and keep building their body counts as the outcome.
This is coming from someone who does enjoy Batman. But man is he the biggest target to point at how heroes that don't take villains out is goofy in serious settings. (It's even more ironic when you consider Superman is often involved in his stories and he does take out villains, on top of being considered the more moral individual by Bruce himself.)
If I punch Hitler in the face to 'make him stop' but beyond that just let him go, am I the good guy? That's Batman these days.
I suppose Batman was actually more reasonable in his older, less serious incarnations? I haven't read them, but Adam West Batman with a Joker that gives him 'boners'? I doubt this Joker was portrayed as a mass murderer that ought to be executed.
Batman would probably work a lot better if the justice/legal system he operated within meant he wasn't dealing with repeat offenders all the time. He's more justifiably bringing them to actual justice that way considering his tenuous vigilante status. As it is he's not really achieving anything by making the effort to abide by the letter of the law.
The only other protagonists I can think of besides Bayverse Optimus that are universally loved by the audience despite killing everything that stands in their way are Doom Guy/Doom Slayer and John Wick.
Doom Guy doesn't have much character going for him and doesn't need to. He's pissed off, loves guns, and really FUCKING hates demons. Demons are pretty much universally bad, especially the infernal always chaotic evil variety that appear in DOOM, who's sole goal in existence is to conquer, enslave, and convert everything into more hell. Doom Guy thinks the whole multiverse would be better off if he just killed every last one of them, and he's kinda right. This is, as you called it, a get out of jail free card that guarantees that Doom Guy can kill his enemies in the most savage, brutal ways possible and still have the audience rooting for him; the fact that he's a video game character serving as an avatar of the player's rage as well as his own certainly helps.
As for John Wick, he's an assassin, albeit one with a backstory and personality traits (dead wife, likes dogs) that make the audience sympathetic towards him. He also spends all of his movies' runtime fighting other assassins and criminals that all have an unspoken understanding between them that they're all liable to start killing each other at any given moment.
the cherry on top with doomguy is he shares a motive with John. the antagonistic factions they're mowing down have both killed their respective pets named Daisy
It's so wonderful to see how much Transformers of the Bay verse have been shittalked for years! And now it's appreciated for what it had (still understanding the bad contents of each movie). They had something really cool and the fighting was definitely one of them. All that epic action
Yeah this is one of the few videos that doesn’t talk about the bay movies just to talk shit about the movies or even it’s fans.
I admit I haven't seen them in years, and a marathon might be needed, but I remember really liking them, all of them, and I thought that Last Knight or whatever it's called was a great progression for the series.
Also, I've seen Bumble Bee and Rise of Beasts, and I didn't care much for either of them, the most exciting part was the ending scene for ROB setting up that one thing that I'm not going to say because the movie isn't that old.
I wouldn't say this was "appreciating" the bayverse lol, it's just observing the Optimus Prime character and how Bay got lucky that he can use Optimus that way. The movies deserve to be shittalked. The action sandwiched between too many awful and boring human scenes. The Transformers themselves don't get the spotlight they deserved despite being the titular race, it's all about the awful hoomans in these movies.
The reason killing is emphasized as a bad thing and glossed over when it isn't, is because if Marvel movies for example dove deep into what it means to take a life, it would get too dark for the mainstream audience who came to just see explosions and stupid jokes.
It would be too real for someone trying to escape reality. At least for the casual viewer.
@lighttrack/806 I think amongst "mature audiences" this would still be a problem as they want villains to always have motivations and explanations for their actions rather than being dangerous and unhinged and put in their place for good
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674 There is a reason writers are on a strike. It's hard work. Striking these balances takes an insane amount of effort thought because phoning it in means the entire project suffers.
It's emphasised as a bad thing because society has moved away from harsh principles and is still technically in the postwar era. Prior to the two World Wars, killing was something accepted as part of life - good men could kill, just as bad men could show mercy. After the Wars and the generational trauma caused by death on such a scale, it became less acceptable to use in media or depict outside of very select circumstances. Add in the comics code authority, the moral panic throughout the 50s to the 90s, rating agencies being established for films and games, as well as a memetic being passed from generation to generation of "if you kill a bad person, that makes you just as bad," and it became difficult to show a hero killing without the audience objecting.
Personally I've always felt shying away from it purely for the sake of a squeamish audience was cowardly. Any level of understanding a film or having basic common sense should tell a viewer that villains like Megatron, Sentinel Prime, and 95% of the superhero movie villains are both irredeemable and also too powerful. The funniest critique to me was people getting antsy over the choices to kill Sentinel Prime or General Zod when the movies very clearly show why this needs to happen:
- In Man of Steel, Kryptonite doesn't exist yet because BvS showed it as being a byproduct of the World Engine. Mankind has no Red Sun prisons because Superman was discovered the same day Zod invaded. Zod is drastically less powerful than Superman for most of their fights because of less exposure to Earth's sun, but he's still winning for most of it due to his superior training and age. Every second he's on Earth, he's getting stronger, and will eventually be too powerful for Superman to stop. Killing him is a necessity to stop the Earth being destroyed and Superman being killed.
- in Dark of the Moon, Sentinel Prime was unrepentant, publicly admitted his crimes, and was so strong that even Optimus Prime and Megatron couldn't defeat him. He was only defeated by being caught off-guard in a sneak attack. Again, there are no prisons for Cybertronians on Earth and given time, Sentinel will heal. He was capable of creating a technology that quite literally shredded half of Cybertron when it malfunctioned, and he's easily capable of making a physical weapon on that scale given the motivation and freedom. Like Zod, he cannot be reliably defeated and contained if allowed to live.
@@tsukopara2054 I watched the Transformers movies ages ago but you're pretty much spot on with what you're trying to say.
It IS cowardly. But depicting death and..well you know taking someone's entire life away especially if the kill is brutal in any way is very difficult to do when your audience is frankly not smart on average. Most people can follow a basic story but actually subtle implications fly over their heads.
Which is pretty much the entire reason people still root for Loki - he's charismatic. Doesn't matter how many innocent lives he has taken or he is responsible for. That 4 year old girl reduced to a red puddle under a Chitauri boot? Who cares!? It's just a movie!
I'm surprised you didn't bring up Shockwave getting Merc'd like he did.
And I swear, I remember the Wreckers eating that pilot when they entered Chicago, like the war had finally descended into outright barbarism.
9:45 I know it's just an exaggeration to convey the point, but Thanos' decapitation was far from a proud moment. It was a fit of rage of a guilt-struck Thor that felt the weight of half of the universe's deaths on his own shoulders, and no one was happy he did it, especially Thor himself.
Nothing speaks violence more than Optimus ripping your face off, punching the All Spark out of your chest, and crushing it in front of you. Dude was so brutal that Sentinel practically got a walk in the park demise. 💀
The oil you were talking about is Energon, it’s basically the blood for Cybertronians and it’s also one of the main reasons the war started. In some continuities Cybertron is losing Energon and different cities keep taking it for each other. Energon In a Cybertronian’s body (in the Bay films at least) is three different colours all coming out for different reasons, Red Energon (the Energon pouring out of Megatron’s body when he gets killed and the Energon the dreads bleed when Ironhide rams into them) that is in the joints so if you get your leg cut off at the knee red Energon will pour out, Blue and Green Energon are basically the main ones in a cybertronian body and spilling out depending on the wound. Ik this is a very dumb thing to be ranting about but Cybertronians aren’t robots, they’re obviously sentient beings and people compare them to robots cuz that’s the closest thing we can compare them to. Also when Sentinel dies he’s actually blind because of what Megs did to him, you can see that when he’s on the ground he’s trying to figure out where everything is and feel around but when he finds out where Optimus is, it’s too late for him so have fun knowing that Optimus shot and killed a disabled person also another thing is when Grindor (the guy in the forest battle who gets his face and head ripped apart) says “No Prime please” and the screaming NOOOOO as his head gets ripped apart also the Named Decepticons aren’t really henchmen they’re more like genocidal maniacs who enjoy killing for no reason at all but the. Vehicons (apart from Steve and Todd) and the Decepticon protoforms (a Protoform is a Cybertronian before they have a proper Cybertronian vehicle mode) are the mindless henchmen
18:37 this may spark a riot, but you know who I was reminded of by basically entire description of optimus but specifically him being righteous vengeance/killing incarnate?
Old testament God.
There is a lot of killing in the Bible that isn't considered murder. Even in the 10 commandments, the Hebrew word for murder is used rather than kill.
Really, really well done. This was an almost absurdly succinct take on a complex idea. I would love a longer take and breakdown of the ideas and tropes involved.
Well done man!
And yes, Prime can do no wrong.
I'm fine with most of Optimus's kills, but the Sentinel kill felt extremely dirty. Sentinel's begging getting cut off just colors the whole scene (and Optimus) so poorly.
Thanks so much for the support!
@@RacingSnails64 I think it humanises Prime. Sentinel had dishonoured everything that he had sworn to uphold and the whole species. I think it was justified. Harsh, absolutely, but justified.
I think the best reaction I've ever heard to Transformers is "No Optimus, please don't execute me with a shotgun"
Heroic bloodshed has been a favorite of mine for a long time. I think it's far more interesting and realistic.
My favourite approach to killing is from Code Geass. Main character's mindset can be narrowd to 3 quotes:
- "The only ones who should kill, are those who are prepared to be killed."
- "When there is evil in this world that justice cannot defeat, would you taint your hands with evil to defeat evil? Or would you remain steadfast and righteous even if it means surrendering to evil?"
- "Before creation there must be destruction. If my soul stands in the way, then I’ll toss it aside. Yes, I have no choice but to move forward."
I simply love Lelouch
It definitely would've confused me as a kid if Prime spared Megatron after all the shit he did
I finished reading the Mistborn trilogy, and Vin is a heroine who is really really good at killing, which makes for an interesting flavour of story.
The fact that she sometimes spares henchmen, allies with truly good people, and is capable of making nigh-impossible sacrifices very decisively is what makes her a hero (even though she really doesn't see herself that way).
One of her key quotes in book 2 is "I'm not a good person or a bad person, I'm just here to kill things."
For me, fighting to suppress instead of straight up killing is a luxury of those with immense strength. Characters who lack power cannot afford to show their enemies mercy because that will get themselves killed.
This is one of the reasons why I like the Metroid franchise.
Samus doesn't hesitate to kill anything in her way, UNTIL she meets the Infant Metroid. It's such a huge moment for the franchise and her character.
In the case of Eddard Stark, I don't think the narrative portrays his execution of the night's watchman as justified.
He makes the mistake of prioritizing southern politics over the true threat in the north and ends up paying with his life in the same way he took it.
His only redeeming quality in this senario is that he recognizes that he should be the one holding the sword because it's his moral responsability to carry.
But he also compromises that rule when he kills Lady on Robert's orders so really Eddard's story uses killings as failures in his moral jugment.
Yesss! That's one of the things I loved about Michael Bay's Optimus Prime and now I can finally put it into words. Thanks!
After a recent readthrough of my WIP novel, I realized that the main character not only doesn't kill ("on screen"), he doesn't even physically injure anyone (again, "on screen"). This wasn't planned but it's an interesting situation, considering he's considered as the most virtuous and moral of all my characters. He's a trickster character, relying on stealth and deception to get what he wants to achieve.
I went through all the planned stories I have for this character and turns out he only kills after the enemy has snuck in and executed a mass assassination of everyone in the current power structure. That puts him in the "the gloves are off" mode. It also promotes him to the height of the new power structure where he's now forced to make morally grey choices.
i always love when media has characters that are good, and especially when theyre actually Nice or humble and try to protect as many people as possible, but also have nothing against destroying what they need to or killing people who deserve it, and also the opposite, i know some people hate when villains have a point but i love when evil characters are actually good people doing the wrong thing whether they know it or not, its just so much more interesting to see a good person going their own way instead of either a goody two shoes who never kills or a character that just kills because theyre evil or because the writers dont know how to make a good antihero
In Batman:TAS the writers couldn't kill a characters because they were alive, so each time there was a Scarface episode, they brutally "killed" the doll. Each subsequent appearance, Scarface met with a more brutal demise.
I love that half the video was a love letter for Optimus Prime
I attribute most of Optimus’s complexity to the actor who portrayed him.
In the last season of Samurai Jack, we see a much more worn down Jack, similar to that of prime. He he ruthless but efficient and simply moves on when the task is done. He has no choice to kill the daughters of Aku because they are trying to kill him, as he says himself their deaths were a result of their choices, not so much his. However later in the season we see jack facing off against what jack believes are small creatures trying to tear him apart. When he is freed from the hallucination and discovers that he may well have just killed a bunch of innocent children - he breaks. He seeks to end his own life out of shame and disgrace. Despite his years surrounded by endless evil and corruption, he still fought with honour and was willing to end it all upon straying from that path
People absolutely do not like how Optimus is portrayed, not even Peter Cullen (Optimus's VA). Micheal Bay portrayed him like a fucking psycho.
If people want Optimus to be nice to his movie villians.... that will get him killed. do you think scourge saying "grant me mercy I beg of you" will make prime not want to kill scourge, after scourge almost kills him in new york, killing Bumblebee, and controlled Air Razor. And people think Optimus is evil or a psychopath for killing his enemies, with that logic Optimus Primal is a psychopath for ripping off heads and biting one, As well as killing an injurded terrorcon who was on the ground
I'm fine with heroes needing to kill, but I hate when they *enjoy* their killing.
It feels as antithetical to heroism as you can possibly get.
@RacingSnails64 Antiheroes who go after the villains who are just low life monsters who are one dimensional and may not deserve it as much as the real pure evil villains the good moral heroes go after
if they're an anti-hero, than it's ok.
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674anti heros are often more based and have more layers the heroes seem one dimensional to me.
also why can’t they enjoy putting them down? you ever enjoy to see someone see justice ?
@@rhashadcarter2051 that’s not what I’m talking about
You mentioned it briefly but I think Samurai Jack is a great way to show how a hero killing can be handled. Throughout the first five seasons it’s robots or aku getting beaten even the animal looking creature still explode in oil. The one time in my memory we see him trying to kill a “human” is during his fight against mad jack who is Akus magic made flesh so you can decide how human that is. How does jack do when trying to kill a human, he doesn’t he decides the only way to move on is to not fight “killing” mad jack with peace. But during that last season when he does kill first the animals that are transformed by aku he is startled even scared by it. This only gets worse as it makes him no longer morally right in a sense as he killed an innocent like the villains so he is now a villain. Showing how a strict no kill hero reacts to killing is a underrated story point as it expands on the characters morals and then allows them to grow into a kill in self defense only type way. Jack again shows this with the daughters of aku how he mainly hides and runs until he is forced to kill one and then it becomes a slaughter in the name of self preservation. Even after that he saves one as she is restrained and harmless showing that jack even though a murderer now still holds the value of human life high. Just a great example that I’m sad wasn’t explained more but your video is still fucking amazing.
Chris Carr once mentioned that heroes killing people in cold blood only started after that one Magnum episode where he killed that soviet spy with the iconic line "Did you see the sunrise this morning?"
Nice shirt by the way, really like it.
Its funny because that personal code of no kill often bites the hero in the ass.
Case in point Red Hood is correct that the only way to stop a crimal whose show disreguard for human life is to snuff them out quickly.
The same thing with Vegeta who when presented with a threat has no qualms of killing if it means eliminating a threat. The same can be said about Goku, although kind-hearted hes not above killing someone if it means saving thousands. He does spare his foes a bit too much but the ones who deserve death often get it.
However Batman by allowing the Joker to run around freely instead of snapping his neck after he proves himself irredeemable has allowed untold victims including his own sidekick.
I think Iron Man and especially Cap’s kill counts are thought about differently since they’re casualties of war. Cap is literally fighting in the biggest war in history, so it makes sense. I always assumed, even in the cheesy 1940s comic days that he was also killing Nazis they just never outright showed it.
Literally EVERYONE in the avengers kill except for Spider-man and Daredevil, that's it.
@@Gadget-WalkmenI wonder if all of the spines that Widow has snapped the necks of could reach the height of the Empire State Building.
@@TornaitSuperBird probably.
@@TornaitSuperBird well she was an assassin before she was a spy anyway..and was introduced as a villain. So all of her occupations have basically had eliminating targets as part of the job description.
Really great video essay. Loved all the clips you included form all sorts of things. Mass effect scene was unexpected but welcome. And I absolutely love Optimus Prime, but yeah, his savagery is nearly unmatched. It is crazy though that for him, the decepticons are real people whose heads he has to rip off to protect the people he loves and the innocents of the world. He’s truly inspirational
15:44
Should probably add the caveat that Bay Optimus's trigger-happy character only appealed to general audiences who probably didn't know any better. Long-time fans of the Transformers franchise actually found this interpretation of Optimus disturbing and shameful, with Peter Cullen, the voice of Optimus since the 1980s, also expressing extreme discomfort toward a lot of his dialogue in later interviewers.
the worst part of MCU downfall was the fact that captain america in first avengers movie actually used guns and later he was so stuck to throwing his shield
and then civil war got pushed forward because of that one woman showing stark the picture
not entire town getting destroyed but that one specific kid dying.
as for optimus prime in bayformers, he's general at war, his planet is gone, his arch enemy was killed and came back and got killed AND GOT REINCARNATED
only thing optimus can do is to kill them all
Big red Murderbot make brain go BRRRRR.
Great video, this is why the transformers movies are some of my favorites. I don't need a deep story for every film, sometimes I just want to watch the big robot kick the other big robots ass and look like they are enjoying themselves 😂
Even as a kid I always viewed heroes that do not kill as naive, short sighted and often weak, without spine. "Like, stop him forever! Wtf are you doing? He's going to do it again!" And so on. And I don't need hero to be a butcher like Punisher but there is time and place for mercy, forgiveness and "doing things right".
Not only does this man have an amazing voice, he has the looks match it!
haha thanks
That Transformers one made me laugh.
“Because they’re robots, we couldn’t care less that Optimus is brutally killing them”.
To that, I have to say…
Have you watched Murder Drones?
If not, I highly recommend it.
No one asked but the punisher is HANDEDLY my favorite hero that kills. (Specifically the punisher: max garth ennis run). He has virtually no depth and is effectively a terminator for criminals. Idk why exactly I love it so much.
I have made many arguments against Heroes Don't Kill when it came to scenes where the heroes are getting steamrolled because they didn't kill. Like scenes from GoT as a whole.
It has made me create characters who do go that far, or even one particular character who is the type to kick the door in and attack the antagonist before they can start monologuing.