Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

shamone wrote:Again i dont know what you are talking about. i didnt say that the movies were successful because they appealed to the majority, im assuming thats what (Invoking the appeal to popularity fallacy ) means, but that there popularity is no indication of their value. Are you saying that the movies are like flies eating ****, its done because it sustains us. What a ringing endorsement

Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm always make me smile, you know that?

Since you're either playing dumb or honestly don't know what I meant, I'll point it out in detail:

The Appeal to Popularity Fallacy is a logical fallacy often used by opponents of popular works of media to shoot down any praise of said work, or used by fans to divert criticism based on said popularity. The former group (popularity = bad) often uses it by saying sarcastically "a million flies eat crap, so obviously crap must be good." My counter analogy, better worded, meant "obviously flies get something out of it you don't, so who are you to judge?"

What I'm saying is you dig yourself into a hole by criticizing popular things because they are popular. They got that way for a reason, namely that people enjoy them. You just waste your energy with statements trying to use the popularity of something against it.

shamone wrote:And internet armchair warriors calling critics idiots, is there a greater hypocrisy

So the only word to be trusted is the word of critics? We're to sacrifice all of our own opinions, tastes, and preferences because some guy we don't know other than his web or newspaper articles said, "I didn't like this, and neither should you?"

I feel sorry for you if that's how you go through life, letting others decide what you should enjoy for you.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

shamone wrote:How many critics do this to be fair, apart from the unsubstantiated "as many do". The clue was in the words i used, respected critics and folm scholars, aside form Ebert how many have done this


Again i dont know what you are talking about. i didnt say that the movies were successful because they appealed to the majority, im assuming thats what (Invoking the appeal to popularity fallacy ) means, but that there popularity is no indication of their value. Are you saying that the movies are like flies eating ****, its done because it sustains us. What a ringing endorsement

And internet armchair warriors calling critics idiots, is there a greater hypocrisy

Like many, I don't read critic reviews. The problem with critics is they judge every movie like it's in the running for best picture when most just set out to entertain. We know every movie isn't Oscar bait, but they don't seem to realize that. Which is pretty dumb. That means people aren't going to care about their opinion because it's nothing like their own. In the end that's all a critic is, someone with an opinion.

i cant speak for american movie critics, not reviewers big difference, but this doesnt ring true for me.

most critics know that not every movie can be citixzen kane or a bout de souffle and review accordingly.

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:Again i dont know what you are talking about. i didnt say that the movies were successful because they appealed to the majority, im assuming thats what (Invoking the appeal to popularity fallacy ) means, but that there popularity is no indication of their value. Are you saying that the movies are like flies eating ****, its done because it sustains us. What a ringing endorsement

Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm always make me smile, you know that?

Since you're either playing dumb or honestly don't know what I meant, I'll point it out in detail:

The Appeal to Popularity Fallacy is a logical fallacy often used by opponents of popular works of media to shoot down any praise of said work, or used by fans to divert criticism based on said popularity. The former group (popularity = bad) often uses it by saying sarcastically "a million flies eat crap, so obviously crap must be good." My counter analogy, better worded, meant "obviously flies get something out of it you don't, so who are you to judge?"

What I'm saying is you dig yourself into a hole by criticizing popular things because they are popular. They got that way for a reason, namely that people enjoy them. You just waste your energy with statements trying to use the popularity of something against it.

shamone wrote:And internet armchair warriors calling critics idiots, is there a greater hypocrisy

So the only word to be trusted is the word of critics? We're to sacrifice all of our own opinions, tastes, and preferences because some guy we don't know other than his web or newspaper articles said, "I didn't like this, and neither should you?"

I feel sorry for you if that's how you go through life, letting others decide what you should enjoy for you.

so you are saying its crap, but people like crap and need crap. another ringing endorsement

Critics review movies before they are released so i dont know how they can deride something for its poularity before its released and its box office is known, do you knwo how they do that ?

i don think theirs is the only word, did I. jsut said its ironic that people without the experience and the knowledge of serious critics and scholarscan call them idiots, just because they dont like a transformers movie

shamone wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:Again i dont know what you are talking about. i didnt say that the movies were successful because they appealed to the majority, im assuming thats what (Invoking the appeal to popularity fallacy ) means, but that there popularity is no indication of their value. Are you saying that the movies are like flies eating ****, its done because it sustains us. What a ringing endorsement

Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm always make me smile, you know that?

Since you're either playing dumb or honestly don't know what I meant, I'll point it out in detail:

The Appeal to Popularity Fallacy is a logical fallacy often used by opponents of popular works of media to shoot down any praise of said work, or used by fans to divert criticism based on said popularity. The former group (popularity = bad) often uses it by saying sarcastically "a million flies eat crap, so obviously crap must be good." My counter analogy, better worded, meant "obviously flies get something out of it you don't, so who are you to judge?"

What I'm saying is you dig yourself into a hole by criticizing popular things because they are popular. They got that way for a reason, namely that people enjoy them. You just waste your energy with statements trying to use the popularity of something against it.

shamone wrote:And internet armchair warriors calling critics idiots, is there a greater hypocrisy

So the only word to be trusted is the word of critics? We're to sacrifice all of our own opinions, tastes, and preferences because some guy we don't know other than his web or newspaper articles said, "I didn't like this, and neither should you?"

I feel sorry for you if that's how you go through life, letting others decide what you should enjoy for you.

so you are saying its crap, but people like crap and need crap. another ringing endorsement

Critics review movies before they are released so i dont know how they can deride something for its poularity before its released and its box office is known, do you knwo how they do that ?

i don think theirs is the only word, did I. jsut said its ironic that people without the experience and the knowledge of serious critics and scholarscan call them idiots, just because they dont like a transformers movie

Well you can't win em all. So how about Skids and Mudflap being in DOTM sound good or no?

Can we keep this on topic PLEASE? I started a thread on this a while back called "Pollitcal Correctness Strikes again" and because of two people arguing and it de-railing from the main topic, It got locked!
IMO, they should totally have been in the film. If they died like they did in the novel, They would be re-deemed to those who hated them, and for those who really dis liked them, they would love to see them die, and for those of us who liked them, Like me, It would have shown just how EVIL sentinel really was, having him kill them off, and the way they die, is the way of the **** hero!

BeastProwl wrote:Can we keep this on topic PLEASE? I started a thread on this a while back called "Pollitcal Correctness Strikes again" and because of two people arguing and it de-railing from the main topic, It got locked!
IMO, they should totally have been in the film. If they died like they did in the novel, They would be re-deemed to those who hated them, and for those who really dis liked them, they would love to see them die, and for those of us who liked them, Like me, It would have shown just how EVIL sentinel really was, having him kill them off, and the way they die, is the way of the **** hero!

I agree with you 100%. I liked their honor and sacrifice in the novel. But it was all taken away in the movie. It would have also shown grief and sorrow for Optimus b/c he would have lost three comrades in about 2 mins.

Optimus1138 wrote:I think they should definitely have at least had their death scene. If they had been in it, people who liked the twins would have been pleased that they were in the movie, and that they died heroically; people who didn't like them would be glad to see them die, and they might have been at least partially redeemed in their eyes due to having heroic deaths. Their deaths would have also helped Sentinel seem more evil.

Yup that would seem like a win-win. I do wonder how much of it was created and filmed though. It seems like if work had been completed, it would have been one of the money scenes in the movie. Perhaps lots of stuff we're unhappy with, too short scenes, bad cuts, etc, can find their roots in just, out of time and out of money.

Powaglide wrote:

BeastProwl wrote:Can we keep this on topic PLEASE? I started a thread on this a while back called "Pollitcal Correctness Strikes again" and because of two people arguing and it de-railing from the main topic, It got locked!
IMO, they should totally have been in the film. If they died like they did in the novel, They would be re-deemed to those who hated them, and for those who really dis liked them, they would love to see them die, and for those of us who liked them, Like me, It would have shown just how EVIL sentinel really was, having him kill them off, and the way they die, is the way of the **** hero!

I agree with you 100%. I liked their honor and sacrifice in the novel. But it was all taken away in the movie. It would have also shown grief and sorrow for Optimus b/c he would have lost three comrades in about 2 mins.

prime showed no grief for his second in command or his oldest friend.

You think a couple of stepin and fetchit bots would stir his emotions

shamone wrote:

Powaglide wrote:

BeastProwl wrote:Can we keep this on topic PLEASE? I started a thread on this a while back called "Pollitcal Correctness Strikes again" and because of two people arguing and it de-railing from the main topic, It got locked!
IMO, they should totally have been in the film. If they died like they did in the novel, They would be re-deemed to those who hated them, and for those who really dis liked them, they would love to see them die, and for those of us who liked them, Like me, It would have shown just how EVIL sentinel really was, having him kill them off, and the way they die, is the way of the **** hero!

I agree with you 100%. I liked their honor and sacrifice in the novel. But it was all taken away in the movie. It would have also shown grief and sorrow for Optimus b/c he would have lost three comrades in about 2 mins.

prime showed no grief for his second in command or his oldest friend.

You think a couple of stepin and fetchit bots would stir his emotions

No, I said I wish he would have shown grief for at least any of those three characters in the movie or novel. But he didn't, which is think is kind of lame. I mean, when Jazz died at least Optimus recognized his death. But for Ironhide nothing?...smh

Powaglide wrote:

shamone wrote:

Powaglide wrote:

BeastProwl wrote:Can we keep this on topic PLEASE? I started a thread on this a while back called "Pollitcal Correctness Strikes again" and because of two people arguing and it de-railing from the main topic, It got locked!
IMO, they should totally have been in the film. If they died like they did in the novel, They would be re-deemed to those who hated them, and for those who really dis liked them, they would love to see them die, and for those of us who liked them, Like me, It would have shown just how EVIL sentinel really was, having him kill them off, and the way they die, is the way of the **** hero!

I agree with you 100%. I liked their honor and sacrifice in the novel. But it was all taken away in the movie. It would have also shown grief and sorrow for Optimus b/c he would have lost three comrades in about 2 mins.

prime showed no grief for his second in command or his oldest friend.

You think a couple of stepin and fetchit bots would stir his emotions

No, I said I wish he would have shown grief for at least any of those three characters in the movie or novel. But he didn't, which is think is kind of lame. I mean, when Jazz died at least Optimus recognized his death. But for Ironhide nothing?...smh

i dont understand your previous pot then

i read it as if the three died it would have shown grief and sorrow for prime

shamone wrote:

Powaglide wrote:

shamone wrote:

Powaglide wrote:

BeastProwl wrote:Can we keep this on topic PLEASE? I started a thread on this a while back called "Pollitcal Correctness Strikes again" and because of two people arguing and it de-railing from the main topic, It got locked!
IMO, they should totally have been in the film. If they died like they did in the novel, They would be re-deemed to those who hated them, and for those who really dis liked them, they would love to see them die, and for those of us who liked them, Like me, It would have shown just how EVIL sentinel really was, having him kill them off, and the way they die, is the way of the **** hero!

I agree with you 100%. I liked their honor and sacrifice in the novel. But it was all taken away in the movie. It would have also shown grief and sorrow for Optimus b/c he would have lost three comrades in about 2 mins.

prime showed no grief for his second in command or his oldest friend.

You think a couple of stepin and fetchit bots would stir his emotions

No, I said I wish he would have shown grief for at least any of those three characters in the movie or novel. But he didn't, which is think is kind of lame. I mean, when Jazz died at least Optimus recognized his death. But for Ironhide nothing?...smh

i dont understand your previous pot then

i read it as if the three died it would have shown grief and sorrow for prime

You are correct.

Personally, I detested every aspect of the Twins in RotF and I was quite relieved that they did not make an appearance in DotM. However, with that said, I truly enjoyed their death scene in the novel. And not because they died, but because I finally found some respect for their characters in that scene. Had that scene been properly portrayed in DotM I would have enjoyed their appearance.

In general, their characters could have been ok...I like the idea of young inexperienced warriors...but almost everything about them turned me off to their characters. Their faces were poor attempts at humor...I couldn't get past the gold-tooth...and every line they had struck me as a missed attempt at humor. However, that is only my opinion...I do know people that enjoyed them.

Powaglide wrote:

shamone wrote:

Powaglide wrote:

shamone wrote:

Powaglide wrote:

BeastProwl wrote:Can we keep this on topic PLEASE? I started a thread on this a while back called "Pollitcal Correctness Strikes again" and because of two people arguing and it de-railing from the main topic, It got locked!
IMO, they should totally have been in the film. If they died like they did in the novel, They would be re-deemed to those who hated them, and for those who really dis liked them, they would love to see them die, and for those of us who liked them, Like me, It would have shown just how EVIL sentinel really was, having him kill them off, and the way they die, is the way of the **** hero!

I agree with you 100%. I liked their honor and sacrifice in the novel. But it was all taken away in the movie. It would have also shown grief and sorrow for Optimus b/c he would have lost three comrades in about 2 mins.

prime showed no grief for his second in command or his oldest friend.

You think a couple of stepin and fetchit bots would stir his emotions

No, I said I wish he would have shown grief for at least any of those three characters in the movie or novel. But he didn't, which is think is kind of lame. I mean, when Jazz died at least Optimus recognized his death. But for Ironhide nothing?...smh

i dont understand your previous pot then

i read it as if the three died it would have shown grief and sorrow for prime

You are correct.

but my point was he never showed remorse before, why would twins death change that

did he feel it in the novel

For the sake of continuity I would have liked to see the Twins' returns. Their deaths, as portrayed in the DOTM novelization, really set the tone for the remainder of the book, and could have easily done so for the film, as well.

At least we got Barricade.

Autobot032 wrote:They should've been left in. I'm so sick and tired of too many people getting their way. The majority shouldn't lose out to the minority. It just defies logic.

Yet, they won. They got what they wanted, and all I wanted was to scream at the top of my lungs.

Fandoms: Not. Even. Once.

I love you.

Mrs.BlackAndWhite wrote:At least we got Barricade.

I should pay closer attention because I never saw any remains of them in the final battle scene. Then again, I never noticed Michael Bay's cameos or R2-D2 in Star Trek either. Should the remains of the twins have been in DOTM it would have been out of place just like the hostage scene taking place out of nowhere.