Last Stand of the Wreckers discussion

[andersonh1]

The fact remains that the dead Autobots died to preserve a lie. That lie being that some individuals that other Autobots look up to are, to quote Prowl, "monsters among us". That's a downer ending, and one that doesn't justify my sitting through five issues of violence and torture. I was expecting the story to boil down to more than that.

It doesn't undo my enjoyment of the art or the characterization or the use of previously obscure and neglected characters. It just means that after reading the story I'm unsatisfied with the end, particularly with the very trite "life persists" comment from Verity. Her life persisted...

[Dominic]

In story, the lie is wholly necessary. It was covering precisely the sort of thing that one would want to see kept as quiet as possible. In that sense, the Autobots won.

I read the "life persists" line as being an accurate description of what had happened. A few guys died. But, the world and universe did noot come to an end. And, the status quo, (based on a lie as it may have been), was maintained.


As for the ending being a downer, it comes down to what one is reading for. Would you rather have had a happy ending for a story that was not as intelligently written? Overlord's mass killing at the end arguably made the story more cheerful, as it removed the possibility that the Wreckers or Magnus would have to kill a bunch of prisoners to keep them quiet. (Remember, the prison itself likely would have been unusable, and there is no reason to have that many political liabilities just walking around. As it is, I am half wondering how long it will take for Magnus to go after Impactor.) The dead Wreckers make sense because the Wreckers were a suicide team whose job it was to solve the most dangerous problems.


Dom
-wonders if Impactor killing prisoners would cound as a pillow-smothering.

[andersonh1]

In story, the lie is wholly necessary. It was covering precisely the sort of thing that one would want to see kept as quiet as possible. In that sense, the Autobots won.

It might be necessary. Note Ultra Magnus' words to Prowl: "You believe the information would tear the Autobots apart...". Prowl might be dead wrong. The dead Autobots died for Prowl's assumption, not a proven scenario.

I read the "life persists" line as being an accurate description of what had happened. A few guys died. But, the world and universe did noot come to an end. And, the status quo, (based on a lie as it may have been), was maintained.

It's still awfully trite. A word of respect or rememberance for the dead would not have been amiss at that point. In fact it would have been far more appropriate.

As for the ending being a downer, it comes down to what one is reading for. Would you rather have had a happy ending for a story that was not as intelligently written?

I don't see why 'happy ending' and 'intelligent writing' are mutually exclusive. But no, I'm not arguing for a happy ending, just one that offers an actual reward or laudable goal for the pain and suffering. Make the prize that was obtained worthy of the cost. And it simply wasn't.

Does the ending of the story as-is make the story invalid or poorly written? Not at all. But I as an individual reader feel cheated.

Overlord's mass killing at the end arguably made the story more cheerful, as it removed the possibility that the Wreckers or Magnus would have to kill a bunch of prisoners to keep them quiet.

You've got a bizarre definition of "more cheerful".

(Remember, the prison itself likely would have been unusable, and there is no reason to have that many political liabilities just walking around. As it is, I am half wondering how long it will take for Magnus to go after Impactor.) The dead Wreckers make sense because the Wreckers were a suicide team whose job it was to solve the most dangerous problems.


Dom
-wonders if Impactor killing prisoners would cound as a pillow-smothering.

When Overlord ordered the death of helpless prisoners, it made sense because it was entirely in character. He's a homicidal maniac who gets his kicks from torture and death. It amuses him. When Impactor does it, it's a horrible thing because we expect Autobots to exercise a higher level of morality. Something that Impactor himself realizes when he doesn't kill the helpless Overlord, despite the fact that Overlord deserves death a thousand times over.

[Dominic]

It might be necessary. Note Ultra Magnus' words to Prowl: "You believe the information would tear the Autobots apart...". Prowl might be dead wrong. The dead Autobots died for Prowl's assumption, not a proven scenario.

At the very least, it is a "better safe than otherwise" scenario. The potential damange the information could have done justifies the effort made to keep it quiet.

A word of respect for the dead would arguably have been just as trite as "life persists".

don't see why 'happy ending' and 'intelligent writing' are mutually exclusive. But no, I'm not arguing for a happy ending, just one that offers an actual reward or laudable goal for the pain and suffering. Make the prize that was obtained worthy of the cost. And it simply wasn't.

I am not saying that happy endings and intelligent writing are mutually exclusive. I have read plenty of stories with grim endings, (because they wuz hard-core you see), that were hardly what I would call intelligent. After a while, it got easy to spot the "oh no" element that would ruin things for the hero. A "suprise" grim ending is just as predictable as, and no more intelligent than, a standard happy ending.

But, in this case, Roche gave us an intelligently written story that would have been undermined by a happy ending. The good guys are a team of no-so-nice guys who are kept on pay-roll specifically to deal with the very worst situations, such as a prison break orchestrated by a mad man pitching a tantrum.

Stopping Overlord and reclaiming the politically explosive files is a more than laudable goal in story. Roche's writing on the subject makes the meta-cost worth it.

You've got a bizarre definition of "more cheerful".

I was thinking in the, "If you think the ending as it was is bad, how would Magnus and co shooting prisoners in the head grab you?", sense.

When Impactor does it, it's a horrible thing because we expect Autobots to exercise a higher level of morality. Something that Impactor himself realizes when he doesn't kill the helpless Overlord, despite the fact that Overlord deserves death a thousand times over.

Wasn't there also a line about being a more or less crippled prisoner being worse for Overlord?

Either way, I think Impactor's biggest crime was less shooting the prisoners than how he did it.

He did so in a way that could have implicated his troops. He killed them in a way that could have dragged another planet into the war, (despite that planet really just wanting to stay out of it).

Had he taken the Decepticons off planet and then killed them, that would have been more defensible. He could have taken them off planet, and legalistically "released" them after mostly disarming them, (he would need to leave them just armed enough to attack him and justify his killing them all in a legal retaliation).

Or, he simply could have shot them, buried the bodies and lied to his commander about letting them go.


Dom
-not sure letting them go would have been an excercise in high morality.

[Onslaught Six]

It might be necessary. Note Ultra Magnus' words to Prowl: "You believe the information would tear the Autobots apart...". Prowl might be dead wrong. The dead Autobots died for Prowl's assumption, not a proven scenario.

At the very least, it is a "better safe than otherwise" scenario. The potential damange the information could have done justifies the effort made to keep it quiet.

A female friend of mine recently saw Watchmen, finally, and was confused about a lot of stuff. I explained what Ozymandias did and why Rorschach had to die and everything. And then we actually got into a discussion about whether Ozymandias was right or not.

When Dom talks about ideas in comics, this is what he means. Wreckers' idea is that protection of the ideal is more important than introducing the reality. Maybe it's not the story you came in looking for, but it's there.

Me? I like depressing endings, but I'm a depressing person.

[andersonh1]

When Dom talks about ideas in comics, this is what he means. Wreckers' idea is that protection of the ideal is more important than introducing the reality. Maybe it's not the story you came in looking for, but it's there.

Me? I like depressing endings, but I'm a depressing person.

I'm certainly in the minority on this one, judging by the comments here and on other message boards. I will say that it's certainly good to see so much enthusiasm for one of IDW's Transformers comics rather than the constant griping we generally see from some quarters. It would be nice if I could join in, but I really can't. I've enjoyed the series tremendously up to this point, but the ending fizzled for me. Clearly it worked fine for just about everyone else.

[Dominic]

Well Anderson, at least you are clearly immune to any sort of "Emperor's new clothes" dynamic.

Going by the fawning comments and praise this series is getting, I am betting it is largely due to "Nick Roche being teh awesome" and "obscure British and Japanese characters is teh kewlz". Look at the nature of most of the comments and praise. Roche pitched over the heads of much of the fandom. But, he is Nick Roche, so it is okay.

A female friend of mine recently saw Watchmen, finally, and was confused about a lot of stuff.

What was confusing about "Watchmen"? Technical details aside, the plan made perfect sense. Give the world a common enemy to be scared of and unite against. Revealing the deception would be unreasonably expensive, so you kill the guy who is likely to do that.

Granted, one might disagree with such a plan. But, the concept is very simple.


I think Anderson's problem with this series is that he fundamentally disagrees with what Prowl did. (This is based on other comments Anderson has made in the past.) I really have not problem with it. The potential danger of revealing the truth to the Autobots, (who likely would handle it badly), justifies the cost of keeping it quiet. (I half expected Prowl to take a shot at Impactor and Guzzle.) Of course, the information is valuable in the right hands, so simply blowing up Garrus 9, or at least the facility housing the computer, was not an option.

Along similar lines, I do not think what Impactor did was that bad. It was certainly nothing anybody would want to discuss publicly. But, was it really that bad to get rid of a Decepticon death squad?


Dom

[Onslaught Six]

What was confusing about "Watchmen"? Technical details aside, the plan made perfect sense. Give the world a common enemy to be scared of and unite against. Revealing the deception would be unreasonably expensive, so you kill the guy who is likely to do that.

Granted, one might disagree with such a plan. But, the concept is very simple.

Well, for one thing, she's only seen the film (not that it matters all that much, the film's a very well done adaptation), and...let's just say she's not the sharpest crayon in the box. The fact that Ozymandias never really says in very simple terms, "I did this and here's why!" confuddled her.

I also had to explain that there were two generations of costumed heroes, and that Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are indeed different people from their original incarnations.

I think Anderson's problem with this series is that he fundamentally disagrees with what Prowl did. (This is based on other comments Anderson has made in the past.) I really have not problem with it. The potential danger of revealing the truth to the Autobots, (who likely would handle it badly), justifies the cost of keeping it quiet. (I half expected Prowl to take a shot at Impactor and Guzzle.) Of course, the information is valuable in the right hands, so simply blowing up Garrus 9, or at least the facility housing the computer, was not an option.

Along similar lines, I do not think what Impactor did was that bad. It was certainly nothing anybody would want to discuss publicly. But, was it really that bad to get rid of a Decepticon death squad?

This is probably what it is, yeah. Anderson doesn't think the sacrifice of the Wreckers was worth the end result--but sometimes, the good guys don't get to be the hero and save the girl.

[andersonh1]

I think Anderson's problem with this series is that he fundamentally disagrees with what Prowl did. (This is based on other comments Anderson has made in the past.) I really have not problem with it. The potential danger of revealing the truth to the Autobots, (who likely would handle it badly), justifies the cost of keeping it quiet. (I half expected Prowl to take a shot at Impactor and Guzzle.) Of course, the information is valuable in the right hands, so simply blowing up Garrus 9, or at least the facility housing the computer, was not an option.

I don't have a problem with state secrets, and Prowl's desire to keep them out of the hands of the enemy is sound enough. But without knowing just what they are, it's hard to accept that the deaths we saw were a price worth paying to keep them secret. See below for some more thoughts on this.

Along similar lines, I do not think what Impactor did was that bad. It was certainly nothing anybody would want to discuss publicly. But, was it really that bad to get rid of a Decepticon death squad?

This is probably what it is, yeah. Anderson doesn't think the sacrifice of the Wreckers was worth the end result--but sometimes, the good guys don't get to be the hero and save the girl.

That's half of it. Yeah, in terms of the story itself, the sacrifice of the Wreckers wasn't worth it. But it's more a case of a story for the most part that needed to justify the plentiful use of death and torture with a strong narrative payoff, and I don't feel that it did so. I mean, we get to see all the gaping holes in torsos and dismembered bots in gory detail, but Roche and Roberts can't spare a few pages to detail these terrible secrets that would have split the Autobots in two? That justified Prowl sending Autobots to their deaths to preserve the lie? Sure we got one of them when we learned about what Impactor did, but that wasn't nearly enough. Not for me.

[donosaur]

Hi! I haven't read any of this (just the forum rundown and TFWiki entries). Anderson, is your issue basically that the "secrets" are a weak MacGuffin?