Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

I know a lot of people have been talking about how the twins were still visible in the movie even after supposedly being cut out, mostly because you can see their remains during the traitor scene and because of the wrecked smart car. But do you think it was a good thing to cut them out? I personally always like them and would've at least liked to have let them be in there long enough for Sentinel to kill them. What do you think?

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 would say no. DOTM carried a more serious and better tone without the constant slapstick humor the twins put in rotf.

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.

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.

I fully agree with this. Everyone wins if they were brought in and killed.

I think one Autobot death was enough for the traitor scene. Plus, what makes that scene so powerful is that Ironhide just risked his life for Sentinel, who promptly stabs him in the back.

Having the Twins die just seems like racking up the kill number. Plus, to redeem themselves, they have to do something heroic (jumping into what just killed Ironhide isn't heroic, it's just stupid). Not to mention painting such controversial characters black and killing them off would not at all shrug off all the cries of racism.


Incidentally, it'd have been the 5th & 6th black bot death in a row.

Noideaforaname wrote:I think one Autobot death was enough for the traitor scene. Plus, what makes that scene so powerful is that Ironhide just risked his life for Sentinel, who promptly stabs him in the back.

Having the Twins die just seems like racking up the kill number. Plus, to redeem themselves, they have to do something heroic (jumping into what just killed Ironhide isn't heroic, it's just stupid). Not to mention painting such controversial characters black and killing them off would not at all shrug off all the cries of racism.


Incidentally, it'd have been the 5th & 6th black bot death in a row.

Did you read the novel? If the film had copied even 50% of the impact of their deaths, it would've been a tremendous scene. If they had filmed it as it was in the script, it would've made the audience want Sentinel's head on a stick.

It shouldn't have been cut.

Noideaforaname wrote:I think one Autobot death was enough for the traitor scene. Plus, what makes that scene so powerful is that Ironhide just risked his life for Sentinel, who promptly stabs him in the back.

Having the Twins die just seems like racking up the kill number. Plus, to redeem themselves, they have to do something heroic (jumping into what just killed Ironhide isn't heroic, it's just stupid). Not to mention painting such controversial characters black and killing them off would not at all shrug off all the cries of racism.


Incidentally, it'd have been the 5th & 6th black bot death in a row.

And this is the problem right here. people taking a robots death to the next level. I know your not crying racisim, but there is no need to even make such a conection because the robots were black.
As far as the death scenes go, Autobot32 is right. In the book they run in front of sentinel as he's taking a shot at Bumble Bee. The other attacks Sentinel in defense of his brother. Thats not stupid. That's heroic.

Autobot032 wrote:

Noideaforaname wrote:I think one Autobot death was enough for the traitor scene. Plus, what makes that scene so powerful is that Ironhide just risked his life for Sentinel, who promptly stabs him in the back.

Having the Twins die just seems like racking up the kill number. Plus, to redeem themselves, they have to do something heroic (jumping into what just killed Ironhide isn't heroic, it's just stupid). Not to mention painting such controversial characters black and killing them off would not at all shrug off all the cries of racism.


Incidentally, it'd have been the 5th & 6th black bot death in a row.

Did you read the novel? If the film had copied even 50% of the impact of their deaths, it would've been a tremendous scene. If they had filmed it as it was in the script, it would've made the audience want Sentinel's head on a stick.

It shouldn't have been cut.

Hopefully it'll be one of those deleted scenes they mentioned would be on the DVD.

jaredautobot1 wrote:I know a lot of people have been talking about how the twins were still visible in the movie even after supposedly being cut out, mostly because you can see their remains during the traitor scene and because of the wrecked smart car. But do you think it was a good thing to cut them out? I personally always like them and would've at least liked to have let them be in there long enough for Sentinel to kill them. What do you think?

no,the twins,appliance bots & other tiny bots ruined the ROTF movie for me.

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.

what a rather strange and peculiar belief to possess

shamone wrote:

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.

what a rather strange and peculiar belief to possess

Belief in majority rule is strange now? I find that a rather strange belief myself. A common saying is "the idiot who screams loudest is the one who gets all the attention." I've seen more people who perfered the Twins stay, personally. However, these people aren't (for the most part) screaming idiots.

Noideaforaname wrote:I think one Autobot death was enough for the traitor scene. Plus, what makes that scene so powerful is that Ironhide just risked his life for Sentinel, who promptly stabs him in the back.

Having the Twins die just seems like racking up the kill number. Plus, to redeem themselves, they have to do something heroic (jumping into what just killed Ironhide isn't heroic, it's just stupid). Not to mention painting such controversial characters black and killing them off would not at all shrug off all the cries of racism.


Incidentally, it'd have been the 5th & 6th black bot death in a row.

Yeah, I think it would have taken some of the weight from Ironhide's death. Skids and Mudflap dying alongside Ironhide would have just hurt it.

Think about it: whether you hate the twins or not, they're a very divisive couple of characters. Ironhide is not. By having them die in the same scene, you take away the impact of Ironhide's death by making half the audience just happy to see the twins bite it. All of a sudden, a scene that was shocking and kind of messed up is now tainted.

I wouldn't have minded having them written out in some other way, though. Like Megan Fox.

Lastjustice wrote:

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.

I fully agree with this. Everyone wins if they were brought in and killed.

Agreed in full. This is my main point in this argument. they would have been awesome in that scene! I mean, they would have contributed to the movie's "Mature" Theme very nicely, if they had gone down the same way they did in the books anyway...

Marcdachamp wrote:

Noideaforaname wrote:I think one Autobot death was enough for the traitor scene. Plus, what makes that scene so powerful is that Ironhide just risked his life for Sentinel, who promptly stabs him in the back.

Having the Twins die just seems like racking up the kill number. Plus, to redeem themselves, they have to do something heroic (jumping into what just killed Ironhide isn't heroic, it's just stupid). Not to mention painting such controversial characters black and killing them off would not at all shrug off all the cries of racism.


Incidentally, it'd have been the 5th & 6th black bot death in a row.

Yeah, I think it would have taken some of the weight from Ironhide's death. Skids and Mudflap dying alongside Ironhide would have just hurt it.

Think about it: whether you hate the twins or not, they're a very divisive couple of characters. Ironhide is not. By having them die in the same scene, you take away the impact of Ironhide's death by making half the audience just happy to see the twins bite it. All of a sudden, a scene that was shocking and kind of messed up is now tainted.

I wouldn't have minded having them written out in some other way, though. Like Megan Fox.

Now that I think about it, I think I would've liked to have seen them written out like they did for her, too. I'd never really thought about it before...

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:

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.

what a rather strange and peculiar belief to possess

Belief in majority rule is strange now? I find that a rather strange belief myself. A common saying is "the idiot who screams loudest is the one who gets all the attention." I've seen more people who perfered the Twins stay, personally. However, these people aren't (for the most part) screaming idiots.

you never hear about the tyranny of the majority. The kind of thing that givesthe green light for slavery and persecution

Well most broadsheet journalists and film scholars must be screaming idiots then

I love SKIDS and mudflap so much!! Even if they were just going to die at Sentinel's hands, at least I would've seen them at least (and going down like heroes too)

shamone wrote: Well most broadsheet journalists and film scholars must be screaming idiots then

Yes... Yes they are.

If you think about it, the majority of movies that critic hold in high regards are either office failures, or their opinions are vastly different than the general public.
not only that, but in most cases their opinions don't affect the over all outcome or succes of said movie.

I wanted the Twins to be in the DOTM movie because they were in the DOTM book. Just for consistency between the two.

I would have wanted a death scene for them, but at a different time. Maybe Shockwave could've ACTUALLY killed some bots. Maybe put them in the "No prisoners, only trophies" scene.

5150 Cruiser wrote:

shamone wrote: Well most broadsheet journalists and film scholars must be screaming idiots then

Yes... Yes they are.

If you think about it, the majority of movies that critic hold in high regards are either office failures, or their opinions are vastly different than the general public.
not only that, but in most cases their opinions don't affect the over all outcome or succes of said movie.

well thats quite the sillies tthing i have ever heard

Respected people in their trade, ho have spent years tudying and immersing themselves in the art of cinema are screaming idiots because they might not like a movie which is popular, because critical analysis should be based on popularity

In that case reality tv is the greatest invention for Tv, Kesha, Bruno Mars, Enrique Iglesias are the finest musicians alive.

Critics and scholars role is no to affect the box office of a movie, its to give a critical dissertion of the piece placed before them

Blirthering idiots indeed

shamone wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

shamone wrote: Well most broadsheet journalists and film scholars must be screaming idiots then

Yes... Yes they are.

If you think about it, the majority of movies that critic hold in high regards are either office failures, or their opinions are vastly different than the general public.
not only that, but in most cases their opinions don't affect the over all outcome or succes of said movie.

well thats quite the sillies tthing i have ever heard

Respected people in their trade, ho have spent years tudying and immersing themselves in the art of cinema are screaming idiots because they might not like a movie which is popular, because critical analysis should be based on popularity

In that case reality tv is the greatest invention for Tv, Kesha, Bruno Mars, Enrique Iglesias are the finest musicians alive.

Critics and scholars role is no to affect the box office of a movie, its to give a critical dissertion of the piece placed before them

Blirthering idiots indeed

Two problems here, shamone.

Respected people in their trade, ho have spent years tudying and immersing themselves in the art of cinema are screaming idiots because they might not like a movie which is popular, because critical analysis should be based on popularity

Based on popularity, no. But when you insult people for enjoying what you do not (as many critics do nowadays) then they are indeed idiots undeserving of this supposed respect.

In that case reality tv is the greatest invention for Tv, Kesha, Bruno Mars, Enrique Iglesias are the finest musicians alive.

Invoking the appeal to popularity fallacy fails because popularity is mainly determined by enjoyment of a work, and the fallacy is mostly used nowadays to shoot down praise of popular media. You can say "a million flies eat crap, so who are we to argue against eating crap" all you want until you realize "flies eat crap because it sustains them."

In short: learn to deal with the fact that something you like is enjoyed by a great many people, just like I've learned long long ago to deal with something I enjoy being disliked by a few people.

Also, yeah. Critics are idiots.

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

shamone wrote: Well most broadsheet journalists and film scholars must be screaming idiots then

Yes... Yes they are.

If you think about it, the majority of movies that critic hold in high regards are either office failures, or their opinions are vastly different than the general public.
not only that, but in most cases their opinions don't affect the over all outcome or succes of said movie.

well thats quite the sillies tthing i have ever heard

Respected people in their trade, ho have spent years tudying and immersing themselves in the art of cinema are screaming idiots because they might not like a movie which is popular, because critical analysis should be based on popularity

In that case reality tv is the greatest invention for Tv, Kesha, Bruno Mars, Enrique Iglesias are the finest musicians alive.

Critics and scholars role is no to affect the box office of a movie, its to give a critical dissertion of the piece placed before them

Blirthering idiots indeed

Two problems here, shamone.

Respected people in their trade, ho have spent years tudying and immersing themselves in the art of cinema are screaming idiots because they might not like a movie which is popular, because critical analysis should be based on popularity

Based on popularity, no. But when you insult people for enjoying what you do not (as many critics do nowadays) then they are indeed idiots undeserving of this supposed respect.

In that case reality tv is the greatest invention for Tv, Kesha, Bruno Mars, Enrique Iglesias are the finest musicians alive.

Invoking the appeal to popularity fallacy fails because popularity is mainly determined by enjoyment of a work, and the fallacy is mostly used nowadays to shoot down praise of popular media. You can say "a million flies eat crap, so who are we to argue against eating crap" all you want until you realize "flies eat crap because it sustains them."

In short: learn to deal with the fact that something you like is enjoyed by a great many people, just like I've learned long long ago to deal with something I enjoy being disliked by a few people.

Also, yeah. Critics are idiots.

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

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.

Yeah, I believe what my friends think of a movie before what any of the critics say. So when I am interested in a movie I ask people I know what they think. General Public > Movie Critics