Talk:Transformers (film)/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Where are Blackout, Devastator/Brawl and Scorponok?

In the decepticons cast section where are Blackout, Devastator/Brawl and Scorponok? Each had parts in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.56.215 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, where are they? They didn't speak. Alientraveller 14:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They did speak when Frenzy/Starscream told them to go to Frenzy's location as he found the Allspark but that itself is debatable. What about Bonecrusher he didn't speak and died in the next fight scene with Optimus, yet he is included. And regardless of that, they are characters of the film just because a person doesn't speak doesn't mean they should be removed because of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.56.215 (talk • contribs)

Real-world context and people, not electronic babble. Alientraveller 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
They are mentioned in the plot section, just not the cast section because they are not part of the "Cast". They appear in the film, but there is no actor playing the role. There was Mountain Dew machine coming to life as well, but they are not listed in the "Cast" section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of a "Cast" section, it would be better served by a "Characters" section, since several major characters had no one cast to play their parts, they were completely CG creations with electronic voices. Scorponok was a character, but he wasn't in the cast Mathewignash 20:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

While it sounds good, it does raise questions of who should and shouldn't be included in a characters section. How much of a role do you need to have in order to reach the characters section...I'm sure that would be something that would get edited often. We're they really major characters? Who's to say? (Rekija 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
That's not really a valid arguement. Same could be said of "Cast", should the used car salesman's wife be listed as "Cast"? She was mosy definitely in the cast, played by an actress, but she was very minor, not worth noting. Definitely Scorponok, Brawl and Blackout were major characters in the movie. They just wern't played by voice actors, they were completely created by special effects, right down to the sounds. Mathewignash 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a cast section, the cast section is meant to contain real world information about the actors and their roles (which it currently does not completely fulfill). Cast sections are not mandatory. As for those three characters, they are mentioned in the plot, which is the only relevant place for them since they have no actors voicing or portraying them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Although he didn't speak, shouldn't the guy who played the hologram pilot for Blackout be listed as playing Blackout? Mathewignash 00:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that guy even have a name? Wasn't he also the hologram for Barricade? He didn't play Blackout, he was just a hologram in a seat. Blackout wasn't the hologram, he was the vehicle itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have something at the bottom of the decepticons list saying Blackout,Scorponok and Devestator are decepticons. These decepticons played major roles in the films plot without Scorponok attacking the US soldiers they would never find out SABOT rounds are their weakness. RiseDarthVader 09:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is all in the plot. And Devastator and Blackout didn't do much except blow up stuff. Barricade, Frenzy, Scorponok and Megatron acted as the plot movers/devices. Alientraveller 09:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation(s) for use

I'll add this sooner or later, maybe later, when the article goes under much revision when the DVD is released. Alientraveller 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding some content

Why don't some members let me add this parts to the Critical Reception section? These are the truth.

[edit] Over-Sponsorized

The film is full of e-bay ads and US military shows. It's idea is based on mixing Terminator and Independence Day. Transformers is not a recovery of the old characters, sorry for the developers; specially CGI; It's is just a propaganda. An example: "Nokias are really nasty. You will have to respect Japanese. They know the way of Samurai." (Sector 7 Agent) Japanese sponsors?

Wow, you're dumb. Didn't you hear the next line about Nokia being Scandanavian? That line was to make fun of a character. Although, I thought it was interesting that all the Autobots that showed car company logos were all GM.... Professor Chaos 20:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this guy serious? Did you even watch the movie? And what propaganda, would you rather the movie talk about how evil America and the western world are? Yeah, they should of been anti-U.S. Military so that way the Military wouldn't of donated all of those C130s, Blackhawks, M1Abrahms. etc. Oh and F.Y.I, smart guy, this isn't a discussion board about the movie. This should be deleted, try IMDB. Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.142.210 (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldnt call the section "over sponsorized", but take a look at the german version for example. There is really a big section about sponsoring and you surely cant deny that the military used the film trying to cast a positive light on itself making it look cool and dynamic and so on. It doesnt have to be criticized as this is an encyclopedia and not a personal comment and they surely couldnt buy all those aircrafts for the film themselves but i think its worth mentioning. Its also not only about the military, i just havent seen a movie with so much product placement for a long long time. Then theres also the thing about Hasbro and how much / how they influenced the film... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.68.244 (talk • contribs)

I'd simply call a section Product Placement and list what licensed products appear in the movie and when they appear. This movie was full of them, possibly escessively, but this is an encyclopedia, and a section should be focused on facts not opinions. Listing the placements is a fact, saying it was excessive is opinion.Mathewignash 20:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Do any of you actually have a source that discusses the product placement in the movie?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Er, yeah, it's called "Marketing" and "Design" and "Filming". Alientraveller 20:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There is an article at brandchannel.com about what products were placed in this film. They are AAA, Apple, Aquafina, AT&T, Austin-Healey, Beretta, BMW, BOSCH, Bose, Boston Red Sox, Burger King, Cadillac, Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet, Chevrolet Camaro, Cisco, CitiGroup, Daewoo, DeWALT, Dickies, Ding Dong, Dodge, eBay, Enterprise, Fila, Ford, Ford Mustang, Furby, GMC, GMC Yukon, GPX, G-Star Raw, HO HOs, HP, Hummer, Kidrobot, Lexus, Meltdown Comics, Mountain Dew, My Little Pony, NFL, Nike, Nokia, Oakley, Panasonic, PayPal, Pepsi, Pepto-Bismol, Peterbilt, Pontiac, Porsche, RadioShack, Realistic, Reebok, Roar with Gilmore, Saturn, Sennheiser, Sikorsky, Taco Bell, Technics, Toyota, USA Today, USPS, Volkswagen, Volkswagen Beetle, Washington Redskins, Wells Fargo, Xbox and Yahoo! http://www.brandchannel.com/brandcameo_films.asp?movie_year=2007#264 Mathewignash 21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ask for a list, I asked for a source that discusses product placement. All they did was watch the movie and write down every brand name that appeared--which some were most likely not placed there on purpose.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The proper response is "Thank you." - Your welcome. Mathewignash 21:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
If you ask for a glass of water and someone hands you a hamburger, do you say "thank you"? No, you clarify that you wanted water. If you'd like a thank you, ok. Thank you Mathewwignash, for providing a source that did not provide what is needed if you want to create a section, paragraph, or even discuss any relevancy to "product placement" in Transformers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Er guys, we already note that having four of out five Autobots being GM saved $3 million in the Design section, that the military supplied many vehicles and aircraft in the film, and in Marketing that Bay directed tie-in adverts. Alientraveller 21:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
True, Maybe just a reference to the link I provided as a source for what tie-ins occured in the film. Opinions? Mathewignash 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's really necessary. That site isn't linked on many other articles. I save external links for something more official or relevant like those concept art galleries. Alientraveller 21:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, it isn't a product placement list, it's a "every brand seen in the film list". Look in the list up to the Russell Crow western (3:10 to Yuma). They listed "Smith and Wesson". Did they list that because the filmmakers placed "S&W" all over the place, or because a character had a S&W gun? It isn't a product placement list, it's just a list of everything that appears in a film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a source for it, but if you read the leaked full script that came out months before (dated February 26, 2006 written by John Rogers), it has literally dozens of products mentioned by name, Snickers Bar here, Blackhawk helicopter there, Sector Seven driving Surburbans, Bumblebee yodeling the "Yahoo!" jingle, crashing near a "National League Baseball Stadium", using an "American Express" card with the phone operator. It's all mentioned in bold letters on the script - of course some changed along the way, including them using "I-Chat" for the web cam talk and the Nokia phone that came to life was an "I-Pod" in this script. They seem to have removed all Apple references in the final film. I'd look forward to them officially released the final script so we can reference it. Mathewignash 00:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Most "leaked" scripts cannot be verified as "official" scripts. Also, Bay does mention the leaked script in the commentary for the movie, and explains that it was at least 5 months older than the final version that was used in the film. Regardless, you cannot apply intention to "product place" by saying "it appears in the script by name." If I eat Snickers candy bars, then I'm likely to have a character eating one as well. Product placement insinuates intention to place products in a manner that markets them to the audience. You need a source actually saying that was the intention, or at least saying that it is believed that was the intention to even discuss such a thing. Alien has already pointed out that the "products" are mentioned in 3 separate sections, and we do not need a new section devoted to retelling the same information. A list of products for a "product placement" marketing attempt would be nothing but indiscriminate information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe I made a point that the script I had was early and unofficial. Most productions I am aware of make sure NOT to use name brands for ANYTHING. You saw what happened with Insinkerator and Heroes. The script mentions things like by brand name and BOLD LETTERS, it seems to imply the writer is placing them. Are any Brands mentioned in the credits? That would seem to indicate they did it on purpose. Mathewignash 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't watch the credits all the way through, but it wouldn't be unusual to have them there is you showed their product, even if you weren't intending to market for them. The reason being, if you saw Dr. Pepper on the counter in a kitchen scene, but it was sitting over to the side, you'd have to get Dr. Pepper's permission to show it...otherwise you'd have to either reshoot the scene or digitally remove it. Products in films are not knew, since everything nowadays is trademarked and copyrighted. What this section was trying to imply is that the film was "over-sponsorized". To define what "over-sponsorized" is, you need reliable sources discussing the product placement. You cannot just go, "oh, there are 100 brand names that appear in the film, so that's way more than any other film". Going by the link you provided above, Ocean's Thirteen had a lot of products in it, as did Blades of Glory and many more. It's just a common trend in films nowadays.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goofs

-Scorponok stays out of the village when it attacks Qatar base survivors. Why didn't he go to the village and put all of them on skewer?! Maybe then they couldn't set up an air support deployment show. -Nobody notices Frenzy when he sneaks out of the aircraft after attempting to steal data. -Megatron cuts the statue that Sam has been holding and causes him to fall off the skyscraper. Why didn't he go and get the Allspark properly? -How did Sam survive the fall with Optimus Prime and not being crushed or kicked by Megatron later?


It won't be added because it's all from your POV, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Haven't you learned anything from Bignole's advice on WP:NOR and WP:AVTRIV? You're taking the film too seriously IMHO.

Before I forget, would you mind signing your entries here so everyone will know who you are? Thank you. Eaglestorm 07:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the goofs? Aren't they "purposeful"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Maxx (talk • contribs) 04:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Goofs are trivial. They hold no encyclopedic value. They are also personal observations, which falls under original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know this is my point of view. I was disgusted when I watched it and saw my childhood favorite characters; not even them, they should be grateful to be brought back to life after 20 years; more than that annoyed for such an amazing and outstanding CGI used to create a military show off. So there are no more than two ways to add content to wikipedia: -Anything you add is your POV. -You discuss, vote and decide on every word you put in wikipedia. Is that possible? Or perhaps the "Over-Sponsorized" part has some political content that may be hazardous for wikipedia? the truth is bitter. All right, I'm going to add only "Goofs" to the article and please don't undo or delete it. By the way, If Goofs hold no encyclopedic value, why other movie articles have it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.151.131 (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the page warning:
This is not a forum for general discussion of voice cast, how much you hate the character designs, the new interpretations of Transformer biology or how this movie "isn't Transformers". Any such messages will be deleted.
What part of it don't you understand? Oh and don't bother trying to put those goofs, just because other film Wikiarticles 'have' them. Whether its you or anybody else's POV doesn't matter - it'll be out of the page before you know it. So STOP insisting that your views must be put in the article! Eaglestorm 05:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are two ways to add content to a Wikipedia article: by either following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or by the wrong way.
I can add material without discussion, "votes" (BTW, Wikipedia is not a democracy; we use consensus), or decisions. What I add just need to be something that is neutral, encyclopedic, verifiable and free. If you can bring us that type of material, you will be welcome to improve our encyclopedic article about the Transformer film, and any other.
If you find relevant material from reliable sources about criticism for this film, it will be possible for this article talk something about the negative reception from relevant critics about these perceived "sponsors". But we just can't say "the film had a lot of propaganda", even less having just your opinion as base for this claim.
Have a nice day. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 11:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously there was a little misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Yes, it is a place where everyone can edit...but that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want. I would request someone with all those handy links to policies post a view of them here so our new friend can get a better understanding of how this works. But for the topic at hand, goofs should be left out, but if you can find a reliable source saying the film is over-sponsored (some major critic must of written about it somewhere) I would see no problem with adding that to critism to the movie. Part of being NPOV is showing balancing the good and the bad, just remember no wiki editors opinion on a movie should appear in the artcile...as we are not notable. But if you find someone notable that says what your trying to get across, and its not in the artcile already...thats how you can add to the article. Rekija 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I got it, Wikipedia is for getting knowledge not others' personal comment. I'm sure every one can realize those so many stupid aspects of the film. Additionaly to the parts above, the movie is also advertising some cars and flash memories. I haven't seen so many ads even in a cheap, sponsor powered soap opera! max 06:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Go whine on that cesspool named IMDB. Alientraveller 11:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMAX Poster

IMAX Poster of the film Was Released today on IGN. I Was wondering how can we add it into the article If it is possible Or is it possible create a separate section on the article for the IMAX version of the Film with the poster on the side?

Transformers IMAX Poster --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 22:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

First... crazy signature you have there! Secondly, posters are usually added to identify the article's subject, which is done with the current film poster. There's not usually a reason to add another poster, unless reliable sources have commented on it. I think the current poster works because it shows more elements from the film, rather than just Optimus Prime in this IMAX poster. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sequel (Variety)

Variety says here that "Bay has not yet inked a deal to helm the follow-up but is in the final stages of negotiation" which slightly conflicts with the sources cited in the article. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 08:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Alientraveller 11:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Furman and Yee's reactions

For those who don't know, Simon Furman and Benson Yee are two highly respected Transformers writers: Furman's been writing for the characters since 1985 at Marvel UK, Marvel, Dreamwave and IDW. Yee was a story consultant on Beast Wars and is collaborating with Furman on a new BW profile book. The article would benefit from their reactions to the film, but I'm not so sure where to place it. I'd place them in "Reaction", but would others feel they should go under "Critical reception"? Here's their reactions for people to look at. [1] [2] Alientraveller 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If they have having a reaction to the film, then I would say critical reception, as that is more about how the film was viewed when released, and less on how it was viewed in development.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well thing is, the reaction section also shows how the actual box office success of the film prompted Hollywood to re-make Voltron, Knight Rider etc, unless you feel that information would be more relevant to the box office bit. Alientraveller 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't know, that would be up to you. It would probably be better served there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm still unsure because Furman and Yee aren't film critics, so they would feel out of place. Their familiarity with the series gives them a bias certainly. Alientraveller 21:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I made up my mind and included them in "reaction". Alientraveller 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This stuff is unneed and might be disguised trivia

Just glancing over the article for something else linked in this page, and I noticed the little "notes" below each actors blurb. Do I really want to know that 75% of the film's cast were Transformers fans? Um, no. Should I have known that Bumblebee was going to ad lib lines from other movies? I dunno, does that affect the plot somehow or does Megatron die by the utternace of said words or something else (like "Do a barrel roll?") in a cut scene?? You Trans-fans might consider it relevant, but to someone who's underlying interest in the film is a good family DVD viewing time, probably not relevant. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. That many of the cast were fans indicates why they were interested in the project. Alientraveller 09:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
And yet, when I go to other movie pages, no mention is made about the actors interest in said films, or the info is contained elsewhere and not with the actor/character listings. I'll concede the fact that it should be included in, but where it is right now in the article is the wrong place for it.--293.xx.xxx.xx 07:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument, otherwise all articles would be clones. Why not take a look at Jurassic Park, Children of Men and Sunshine, as well as WP:MOSFILMS. In any case, if your interest in the film is purely entertainment, then don't go and read the article. Alientraveller 08:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Executive Producer

The lead section states that Steven Spielberg was EP. It's correct, but misleading, as he was one of the EPs. IMDB lists four of them: Michael Bay, Brian Goldner, Steven Spielberg and Mark Vahradian. - ntennis 04:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, but Bay as director is most important than him as the executive producer. Greg Jones II 21:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaked script

Shouldn't there be at least one line mentioned of the early script that leaked on the internet in 2006? It ended up being more or less accurate, besides a few name changes and other small details, and was commented on by Michael Bay's web site. Seems worth mentioning in one line, perhaps in the development section. Opinions? Articles about it can be found in various place, like here: http://theubergeeks.net/2006/05/18/transformers-script-leaked/ http://www.slashfilm.com/article.php/20060825transformers-script http://www.filmjunk.com/2006/08/26/transformers-movie-script-review/

Additionally 5 pages of a leaked script were posted on the internet and removed by legal action from Dreamworks, after the uspposed writer claimed it wasn't real, which is odd, if it's not their work then how can they demand it be removed? http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/news/transformers-movie-exclusive-first-five-pages-of-transformers-script-199846.php Mathewignash 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There were dozens of design leaks during production, the script itself becomes part of a whole. The early codenames are discussed in Design, and I think early drafts are only really notable if they were really different. Case in point, the robots not speaking in the first draft. However, this 2006 script was almost the finished product. The only new thing I can gleam from it was the name of the plot device; "Energon Cube". Alientraveller 10:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of the early released movie talking keychains actually say "We must protect the Energon Cube." This was later changed. Mathewignash 18:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sources talking about said keychains? If so, that would be placed in the marketing section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have the first one. I also found a later one at a store and they replaced that line. Basically the first shipment of the keychain said BOTH "Allspark Cube" and "Energon Cube". Here is a link to a store page selling it. http://transformers.awestores.com/ttp/Transformers-Optimus-Prime-Communicator-Talking-Keychain/products_id/113647.html It lists both energon cube and allspark cube as lines. The later ones released took out "Energon Cube" and changed it "Bumblebee, come in Bumblebee!" http://www.shopatron.com/product/part_number=1454/317.0 Mathewignash 20:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special effects needs a minor change

When I watched the amazon video clip preview of behind the scenes transformers footaged michael bay said Digital Domain did a third of the movies CGI so I just think we should update the special effects section to say that. Because ATM it says Digital Domain did frenzys severed head but in the video it shows Digital Domain actually did all of frenzys body for the scenes it is in. RiseDarthVader 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a citation here, should anyone care to use it in the article ("Digital Domain completed nearly 100 visual effects shots, including the character animation of several robots...") Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 13:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: Hang on, I'm talking crap, and appear to have missed your point. Though in my defence, I've been shying away from reading most of the article until I get around to actually seeing the film. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fate

Bignole, therefore his fate is not decided inTransformers. Shall I rv your rv or will you? Rick-LevittContribs 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

His fate is not pertinent to the plot of the film. You are making speculative remarks which have no encyclopedic value. The last sentence says, Starscream is the only verified survivor. That pretty much sums up that he was the only one confirmed to be alive, and if any others are alive then it doesn't matter because they were not show to be alive. Barricades whereabouts are irrelevant to the film article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, firstly it is not I who is making speculative remarks. Secondly I was working on diffs and stating that his fate is undecided would seem perfectly plausible. Have it your way. Rick-LevittContribs 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a universal "You", as in anyone making the statement is merely making speculation. His fate was not explained, which is perfectly accurate, but has nothing to do with the plot of the film. Starscream is only mentioned because he's the only one seen. For all we know we could easily say that Megatron could very well be alive, as no one saw Ratchet check his cybertronian pulse.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Nor did we see the fate of all the product-placementformers. It's much easier just to state whats confirmed rather then list everything not mentioned. The plot section is about what is in the plot, not what isn't. Rekija 08:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to Barricade?

Does nobody relize that when Barricade made his second appearance, he was never shown being destroyed. Maybe he went into space with Starscream. I think it should at least mentioned somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.76.123 (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned, in the last sentence it says "Starscream is the only confirmed survivor." We don't know what happened to Barricade, and we cannot speculate as to what could be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Speculation in and of itself is bad, but this is speculation that flies (no pun intended) in the face of what little evidence we have is worse. Starscream flew into space alone; end of story. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If you watch the movie, you will see that Barricade isn't shown being destroyed. so there has to be some explenation for it. And when in the movie did it say that Starscream flew into space? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.76.123 (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
During the credits, the final shot is of Starscream flying into space. As for Barricade, you don't know what happened to him. The magic of movies is that characters can die off screen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TRAILERS?

Why was my information deleted on the 3 trailers after the credits?.SethSYLAR 14:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the top of the page. "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transformers (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Asking whether other people found the trailers is the latter and doesn't belong here. V-train 15:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release date

Sheesh. All this to-ing and fro-ing over something which takes approximately 13.2 seconds to find on Google. Here is just one of several billion sites which confirms the US release date as July 2nd. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] missing

you missing a plane,the one that shot the sabot rounds to help the survivors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.54.125 (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA push?

Hey, um, I am considering an FA push for this article. I am going to put this article up for peer review for now. Any comments to help on this FA push should be very much appreciated. Thanks. Greg Jones II 02:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Serious discrepancy

Well, serious to those who know cars and/or watched this movie because of the Camaro in it. In the theatrical release, mikaela is talking to sam about the engine bay of the car. HERE is what is shown, and what should be shown, as it has a "high rise double pump carburetor", or something to that effect. I can see that, as it definitely has a high-rise intake manifold, and the air cleaner covers the carburetor. However, in the DVD version, THIS is the image that is shown - obviously not a carbureted engine at all, and obviously not what came in the car. If you look closely, the surrounding engine bay looks more like it belongs in the concept Camaro - which I think it does. The only reason I considered this "serious" is that when I was watching the DVD, I thought "wow, the car's engine just transformed itself into that!?" and "people in Hollywood don't know fuel injected engines from carbureted engines" (hint: carbureted engines usually have a round air filter on top), but I later discover that the scene must have been mistakenly placed in there, as the engine with what mikaela describes is actually pictured in the first link I posted. I was told the first was from the theatrical release, though I never actually saw it in theaters. Either way, I got a completely wrong impression from the movie (as I'm just now watching it from the start, I've only seen the 2nd half) because of this error. I know it may not mean much to some people, but it seems quite worth being noted. Zchris87v 06:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's trivia. I'm surprised they changed the image and didn't bother changing Devastator's name to Brawl, like they were supposed to have done. Either way, it isn't encyclopedic enough to note anywhere. Us stating "comparing these two images, this is wrong" would be original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand, but if the DVD is re-released with this correction made, will it then be notable? Zchris87v 05:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Not unless some secondary sources starts making note of it. It's a goof, and goofs are trivia. Unless there is some controversy over the scene, general goofs are not noteworthy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The scene wasnt changed for the DVD its always shown that engine. RiseDarthVader 09:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

I think the plot needs to be rewritten as it jumps around all over the movie. I can tell this as I've only seen half the movie and 75% of the plot makes no sense to me what-so-ever.--04:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Plots do not have to follow the order in which they were presented in the film. Finish the movie, it will all make sense in the end.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, finish the film. Plot makes perfect sense, and until you see the end, it might not make sense. The same as if you watch the first 25% of the film. Nothing at all will make sense. Zchris87v 05:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, after watching the entire film, the plot doesn now make sense...however, I think the ending of the plot summary could do with improvement. It just seems to be short sentences for a lot of the last sentence and that's it.--§ Eloc § 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As for the plot not making sense to you after watching the film entirely...well, that's your problem. The plot section does not need some sort of an epilogue sub-area IMO. Eaglestorm 02:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I just have one little question: Where does the movie take place? I read somewhere that when Bumblebee reconfigures into the more modren looking Camaro, it takes place in Detroit. But when I read Jazz's thing, it says he crash landed in a baseball stadium in California. I'm really confused. Kap2319 18:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
All takes place on the West Coast. There were parts filmed in Detroit, but I don't believe anything takes place in that actual city.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Sam lived in California - all the cars had california licenses. They then travel to Hoover Dam for the sector 7 scenes, then the final fight is in Mission City, which was 22 miles from Hoover Dam. Portions of Mission City were filmed in Los Angeles (You can see the LA Orpheum Theatre in one scene), and the part where Megatron chases Sam into a big abandoned old building was the Michigan Central Station in Detroit. The bits at the Pentagon would occure on the east cost obviously. Mathewignash 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review Suggestions

The following is the suggestons from AndyZ's automated peer reviewer suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 10 pounds, use 10 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 10 pounds.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), favorite (A) (British: favourite), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), any more (B) (American: anymore), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, isn't, don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 16:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Any of these suggestions should be very much appreciated. Thanks, Greg Jones II 21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clips used for Bumblebee

Can anyone identify the clip from the movie Explorers for Bumblebee? It's mentioned in the film credits, but i'm not sure where it's used. Mathewignash 15:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allspark vs. AllSpark vs. All Spark

Looking on the movie and Hasbro web sites, there are numerous official instances of all three spellings for "all spark". http://www.hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=browse&product_id=19451 http://www.hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=browse&product_id=20148 http://www.hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=ps_results&product_id=19711 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewignash (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

But in the film, it is always written in Cybertronian subtitles as "All Spark". Alientraveller 15:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonecrusher lives

According to the toy bio for Jungle Bonecrusher, just revealed, Bonecrusher didn't die, he was only severely injured, and he crawled off to do repairs and now hides in the South American jungles. http://www.seibertron.com/news/view.php?id=11950 While it's never said if he lived or died specifically in the movie (heavily implied he was dead though, I admit), maybe the plot should chage to Optimus "defeated" Bonecrusher, instead of killing him? Mathewignash 20:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should change events that happen in a movie to reflect continuity changes that a toyline makes just to help sell toys. A comic book sequel could have Jazz rebuilt and alive, but that wouldn't change his death in the movie, and a sword through the head seemed rather definite of death to Bonecrusher.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
With Jazz I can agree with you, but it's never stated in the movie that Bonecrusher died. So I merely suggested it be changed to he was "defeated", or "apparently killed", or something more open. Word it as you will. Considering how hard it is to kill a Cybertronian, this may be reasonable. Mathewignash 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The "difficulty" of killing one was really only felt by the soldiers. Optimus dispatched Bonecrusher quite easily, and when Bumblebee returned he took out Blackout without much resistence. I doubt Prime would stab him in the head with a sword and then walk away knowing he was still alive. Considering his head basically seemed to almost fall off after that strike, there doesn't appear to be any reason to suggest that he is alive, short of that toyline that wants to suggest that. The finale statement of the plot, "Starscream is the only confirmed survivor," basically says everything it needs to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

After Bumblebee "took out" Barricade, we saw him again "en route" to free Megatron, as you recall. Why would Bumblebee leave Barricade alive? They are not so easy to kill. Mathewignash 02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bumblebee was only trying to stop Barricade long enough to get Sam to safety and meet up with Optimus, Ratchet, Jazz and Ironhide--who had just landed. Prime was separated from the pack at the time, and also, the Decepticons had already made themselves known to the Autobots in the middle of the day. The fight with Barricade was much more discrete. Regardless, you clearly see Prime stab him in the head, whereas with Bumblebee you don't see anything and are left to assume Barrcicade is dead until you happen to see him later in the film. Fight not seen = open to interpretation. Fight seen, with sword through head = No reason to assume that isn't deadly. You're basing your opinion to change the wording of Bonecrusher's death off of a toyline bio description. If you can find official word from someone attached to the film that Bonecrusher was indeed not killed in that fight, then I can see changing it, but not based on a toy's description which has no bearing on what actually happened in the movie, or will happen in a sequel.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hasbro owns the character, not Bay. Mathewignash 04:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Bay made the film, not Hasbro. This is a plot summary for what happens in the film. There's no reason in the film itself to indicate that Bonecrusher survived. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Bignole and Erik. Marketers don't care about plots, or creating new plot holes, "writers get paid to fix that" (except right now, of course). They just want to move plastic off the shelves. Until Bay, or the writers, says that Bonecrusher's coming back, there's nothing to support that it's 'true' for the character. ThuranX (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Except for the people who actually own the character who say he did survive of course, but who cares about them? Unlike most movies with a toyline, in this case the toy company OWNS the character they licensed it to a movie company to make a movie about, not the other way around (usually a movie company licenses out to a toy company). I will give you this though, this page is devoted to the movie itself, not the larger line and fiction that exists., but nothing in the movie says he lived or died specifically. He was beaten to a pulp in the movie and then we saw nothing else of him. I mean we saw Frenzy Beheaded and live, Why can't Bonecrusher do it?Mathewignash (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
None of it really affects what was in the movie. No matter who owns the character, what was written on the toyline did NOT happen IN the movie. This article is about what? The events IN the movie. So, no matter if minutes after the end credits, all the bots climbed out of the ocean and killed everyone on the planet, it didn't happen IN the movie, and so shouldn't appear in this article about...the movie. PureSoldier (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you tell me where in the movie it says he's dead then? NOt just beheaded like Frenzy? Mathewignash (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Let it go dude. What happens in the movie and what happens in the toyline has no bearing on each other. The character received a sword through his head, he wasn't "beaten to a pulp", his head was cut through. Different from Frenzy, who's head was simply removed from his body, yet still intact.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Barricade, what happened to him? I saw him heading to the fight, but after Bonecrusher transforms, you don't see Barricade again. Did Bonecrusher just get careless and flip him over? 69.130.25.75 (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Lest we forget, this isn't a forum, but I'll be nice and just say Barricade drove off and is lying in wait until a sequel. Alientraveller (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
For information on the seeming error of Barricade's disappearance, you can read his individial Wikipedia page. Barricade (Transformers)

What about scorponok? What happened to him?--Dlo2012 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum. You are officially starting a sequel speculation topic. Alientraveller 09:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robots more popular than humans

Special THR report. Any ideas of where to include? It's pretty obvious, but an interesting read if the sequel is more bot-focused. Alientraveller 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] SoundWave Leaked image

Image:SoundWave from the 2009 movie.jpg

Should the leaked SoundWave image for the 2009 TransFormers 2 movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.51.152 (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's fan art. Alientraveller (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It's very cool fan art though... shame it has nothing to do with the film!-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't belive you!-- Gretnablues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretnablues (talk • contribs) 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of belief. Alientraveller (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
google the name on the imge, you'll find it's an old-school new-movie revisionist at deviant-art, showing off a bunch of 'how they should have looked to be faithful to the old stuff because i can't let go of my childhood' type art. He's got a grasp on the new style ,but immediately runs backwards. it's sad, really. that much talent could really do a lot if he wasn't terrified of it. But it's clearly fan art, google searching supports that, thus no inclusion. ThuranX (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If you look on his DeviantArt page you'll even see that he says "This, of course fan made and has nothing to do with the TF movie. Just having fun trying to find a balance between the movie style and retaining as many classic visual cues of the character as possible."-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)