Talk:Transformers (film)/Archive 3

Corrections to Note

{{Spoiler}} Just some points to correct in the article after viewing this movie:

• Megan Fox plays a girl that Shia likes, but does not become his girlfriend until the end of the movie.

• The Beagle 2 clip was in the movie, with it being shown to the secretary of defense (Jon Voight) in the Pentagon I believe, by Sector 7. It ran for approximately 13 seconds (quoted in the movie) and a picture was provided to the secretary of defense.

• In addition, Sector 7 accedes to the demands of Sam and William Lennox to release Bumblebee after his capture, eventually aiding in his release. -- Permafrost 08:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to write a plot summary then? Alientraveller 08:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm sure there are more dedicated people out there that will. In any case, the article's under protection so there wouldn't be any editing for now. -- Permafrost 08:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's semi-protected, so I think you can edit it. Alientraveller 08:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that initially. As I am unfamiliar in editing newly released films, I'm wary of editing the plot summary after reading Wikipedia:Spoiler on what I can put in. I've done minor changes to correct things here and there, but nothing to reveal the actual plot as of yet. -- Permafrost 10:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised there hasn't been any fleshing out of the plot since the movie has been released in an English speaking country for several days now. Mcr29 17:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What English-speaking country? Alientraveller 17:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it already opened in Australia? Mcr29 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Today, not for a week. Alientraveller 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some other notes I may have noticed after seeing the movie twice

• I cannot confirm that "Non-Biological Extraterrestrial" is the correct expansion of NBE. My memory serves to tell me that it stood for "Non-Biological Entity," but, again, I cannot confirm this.

Non-Biological Entity is correct. Mcr29 04:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong, it's Extraterrestrial, not Entity. Mcr29 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have also confirmed that is Extraterrestrial, not Entity. Thanks for the help. -- Scottjar 12:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• I would argue that Starscream does not disable the mechanisms that thaw Megatron, but merely destroys the transformers that power the cooling mechanism. It is revealed in the movie that backup generators are kicked on and can sustain Megatron for some time, but we are then shown the cooling device being shut off by Frenzy in a room full of computers.

• There also seems to be some conflict with the outcome of the Megatron/Optimus Prime fight. I do not remember there being any confirmation that the Cube is destroyed, and it did not appear that Sam physically inserted the Cube into Megatron's chest, but just held it up to it and the Cube released it's power onto Megatron's chest. The main intention was that the Cube be destroyed, but I do not remember any confirmation of this.

As far as everyone knows, the cube was in fact destroyed. Optimus told Sam that if he couldn't beat Megatron, he would fuse the cube with his own spark, destroying the cube and sacrificing himself. Sam simply did it to Megatron instead. That's also why the Autobots remain on earth, they no longer have any way of restoring Cybertron. Optimus states this in the epilogue. Mcr29 04:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we are actually shown the remnants of the Cube and do not in fact realize it. After Megatron is destroyed, we see Optimus Prime reach into his chest and pull out a shard of what appears to be metal with the Cube's "hieroglyphics" on it, which he squeezes in his hand. This is probably all that is left of the Cube. -- Scottjar 12:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Frenzy does not successfully hack the DoD network on Air Force One. The connection is terminated before he can access everything (hence him bashing his head into the screen), but he is able to grab a screen that mentions Captain Witwicky's name and Project Iceman.

P.S. Can anyone who has seen it already recall the name of the city the final battle is in? -- Scottjar 15:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

LOS ANGELES, perhaps! Pole Heinz Tower 16:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the setting for the showdown is quite a unique combination of Detroit, Los Angeles, and Boston. Detroit's own Michigan Central Depot is the building Sam must reach with the Allspark, and it also is torn to piece by Megatron. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070702/ENT01/707020359/1035/ENT My specific question asks the fictional name of the city in the movie, not the city it represents. -- Scottjar 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this and what are trying to query? You merely wanted the name of the city instead of the fictional name of the city --- you never mentioned specifically enough, is not that what you are asking for? Secondly, I just said "perhaps", it does not have to be taken rightly. Pole Heinz Tower 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The name of the fictional city is Mission City, said to be approximately 22 miles from Hoover Dam. Mcr29 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misinterpretted your first response as somewhat confusing, due to the enlargened font size. I thought you were commenting on the location of where the scene was shot, and hence why I responded the way I did. If I wasn't specific enough, what I really wanted is what Josh Duhamel calls the city towards the end of the movie, not the actual name of the city it is supposed to represent. Again, my apologies. -- Scottjar 23:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Decepticon remains weren't dumped into the Marianas Trench, they were dumped somewhere else. I forgot what they called it, but I know it's not Marianas. 20:02, 3 July 2007 76.104.160.116 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That is what they called it. They even described exactly what the Marianas Trench is, which is the deepest part of the Earth's oceans.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It was the Laurentian Abyss Mcr29 03:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would they call it that, and then describe Marianas Trench? Especially when they were battling at/near the Hoover Dam, which is on the west coast (e.g. Pacific Ocean), whereas Laurentian Abyss is on the East Coast. Seems weird they would fly the bodies all the way across the US to dump them in LA, when they could dump them on MT just a few hundred miles right next to them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The sub-zero temperatures of the Atlantic were going to help keep them entombed, and the Laurentian Abyss is quite deep. I don't recall Keller saying it was the deepest part of any ocean in the world. If he did, it was a mistake. Mcr29 04:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Any place in the ocean, several miles deep is going to be cold. I remember Keller saying it was 7 miles deep, and Marianas is (according to the article) 6.77 miles deep. I could have sworn he said Marianas Trench in the film. It makes better sense to me that if one was in Los Angelos, that they would have an easier time dumping them in the Pacific Ocean than in the Atlantic which is 3000 miles across the way (not including the distance to Laurentian Abyss).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You will not find sub-zero temperatures anywhere in the Pacific except in the Arctic region. Trust me, it was the Laurentian Abyss. As soon as Keller said it, I flashed to The Hunt For Red October, as that is where they pretend to scuttle the boat. Also, your geography is a bit off. The MT is off the coast of Indonesia, while the LA is off the coast of Canada. Anywhere you are in the US, the LA is closer than the MT. Just take my word for it, it was the LA. Mcr29 05:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was right off the coast of the US. What I said was that it was in the Pacific, which is right next to the city they were in. Otherwise they'd be traveling across the country, as LA is on the otherside. So my geography wasn't off, as I never stated how far away it was. Considering the Keller says they are putting them in the deepest part of the Earth's oceans, and MT is the deepest part, it seems that would be the place. Also, it seems that others thought it was MT also, since it's been apart of the plot since it was first written.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the last comment I'll make on the subject as it's a small detail and not really worth a lengthy debate, but you're contradicting yourself. You did state how far away it was: "Seems weird they would fly the bodies all the way across the US to dump them in LA, when they could dump them on MT just a few hundred miles right next to them." And again, your geography is off. The MT is approximately 8,000 miles from the west coast of the US. Also, if you Google "transformers laurentian", you'll get results. I'm going to see it again tomorrow, I'll report back. Mcr29 06:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I didn't even realize I said that. My bad. You mean this google search? In the novel, it appears as

"To prevent any chance of unforseeable environmental fallout resulting from possible degradation of the, uh, bodies, they are being dumped into the Laurentian Abyss. At the disposal point it is seven miles to the sea bottom -- the deepest point in any of the oceans" - [1] If they duplicated it in the movie, which I don't remember every bit (as if you follow the link there appears to be more chatter going on at the end over the "events" that took place than what actually happens in the film), then it appears they combined the two, a LA isn't the "deepest part of the ocean" or "7 miles down". No mention in the novel about "subzero temperatures" (which could be just the movie).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw it again, it is in fact the Laurentian Abyss. Mcr29 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone made the correction, as they did was I linked just above, which was copied the book which says "Laurentian Abyss" but then goes on to describe Mariana Trench.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember after the first time I saw it on the 3rd, I seemed to recall someone saying somthing about the Marianas Trench. But today I specificly remember that I was confused when I heard the location called the Laurentian Abyss.24.20.184.141 07:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Brawl or Devastator?

• The wiki article States that the M1 Abrams Tank transformer is Brawl but in the movie I'm pretty sure the Transformer called himself Devastator, can anyone else verify.

He's known as Brawl in the toys and according to the writers. Should make a note of this slip-up, considering he has a tiny part anyway. Alientraveller 11:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the movie, the tank definitely refers to himself as Devastator. Dac 12:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a claim on the Devastator page that says:

Furthermore, it was rumoured that Devastator would appear as a separate character that transformed into a modified M1 Abrams tank. This character was listed as being renamed Brawl; however, in the final movie, the Decepticon clearly identifies himself as Devastator. This is due to Hasbro's edited name not being altered in time to make the final cut of the film

This is uncited, though - do we want to add something like that to this article? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not true. The toys are correct and the subtitle in the film is wrong. Roberto Orci (one of the credited screenwriters) has confirmed that the character's name is "Brawl" and the "Devastator" reference will be corrected in the DVD release. KyuzoGator 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Devastator is a nickname. Anyone read the credits to see if Brawl or Devastator is credited with a voice actor? user:mathewignash

He definitely refers to himself as Devastator.24.20.184.141 07:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw it again and there's no Devastator in the credits. I'm not sure about Brawl but I don't believe the character ever speaks so there might not be anything to see.24.20.184.141 02:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't speak, not in english. He speaks in Cybertronian and it's subtitled "Devastator".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Devastator" subtitle has been confirmed by the screenwriters as an error in the film, which will be corrected in the DVD release. The twin-turreted tank Decepticon character is Brawl. All of the toys and other promotional materials call him Brawl. KyuzoGator 12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll tell you if it's corrected for the British release later on. Alientraveller 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's corrected in either releases (DVD or UK film) then it should be noted that there was a correction, and not changed to insinuate that there was never an error.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)\

I'm okay with noting that the theatrical release incorrectly referred to the character as "Devastator" as long as the article in which Orci confirms that the character is "Brawl" is also referenced. I don't have that link in front of me right now but I can update it later. I agree that we should not treat the error as if it never happened. KyuzoGator 13:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Live action?

I came here wondering what type of movie this was. The opening sentence used an unfamiliar and not-very-descriptive term, live action. The linked article says it means the film is acted out by real actors. However, the article itself talks at length about computer animated characters. Perhaps this could be clarified. --Russell E 12:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not animated. Alientraveller 12:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear of someone who doesn't understand the phrase "live action". As Alientraveller stated, Live action is a term used to mean "acted by people" as opposed to animated. For example, the Spider-man movies are live action, whereas the TV shows are generally animated. In fact when I looked at the second article that I linked to, I notice it also makes use of the phrase "live-action"!-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Then what's this? "Such detail meant Industrial Light and Magic spent thirty-eight hours rendering each frame of animation.[5] The complex mechanics make the characters feel dynamic and quick like a human, rather than a lumbering beast,[3] with even the eyes complexly modelled to resemble pupil dilation.[8] Bay instructed the animators to look at martial arts films to inform the characters' movements,[3] and they also looked at actor Liam Neeson's performances to inspire the animation of Optimus Prime. Michael J. Fox's performance in Back to the Future informed Bumblebee.[5]" --Russell E 00:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's computer-generated characters implemented in a live-action environment. That's all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so perhaps that needs some clarification or qualification in the opening sentence, because to me if live action is defined by a lack of animated characters then the use of the term to describe this movie is confusing.--Russell E 01:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

They call it live action as to not confuse it with the fully-animated film from the 1980's.

A good portion of the Spider-Man scenes were CGI, that doesn't change that film from being live-action. The fact that the alternate modes of all the Transformers are "real" vehicles suggests that it isn't anything but live-action. Bay also built a scale model of Bumblebee for several scenes. Star Wars is live-action, even though a good portion of it takes place in a CGI created world.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Live action" is a term that is generally well understood by most people to mean naturalistic and involving real settings and characters, as opposed to being fake, like a cartoon, like a Disney movie. It's a very common term and requires no further explanation.Rglong 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Russell E.: a qualification of "live-action" is needed since many characters are animated. It is different from having actors in robot suits. The formulation should be correct not only in a narrow context of films of a particular genre or series like Transformer films, but also in a general context.--Patrick 06:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just want to say that live action just means that it was played by real actors, but the reason the article talks about computer generation because in most movies that need stunts to be proformed, computer generation is needed to make them more extreme.

I'm sitting here, scrolling down the Talk page, and I get to this section, and just...wow. If you, Russell E, have managed to never hear the term "live action", that is just...odd. And if you're trolling, try harder next time.;)DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 19:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please immediately remove the "future film" template.

This film has already been premiered or shown in the cinemas of my country Malaysia on today. Why is it not removed? I have already watched it, and it is a great film, that is to say! Could not believe this film has some notable references in real life popular culture too like eBay, Wolverine (comics), Nokia, MacBook, Jesus, Japanese, Herbert Hoover, Armageddon (1998 film), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial etc! Plus a wounded dog named Mojo! Pole Heinz Tower 21:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't out in its country. Alientraveller 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Have removed the Future Films template as the film has now been released in several significant markets, including Australia. It is no longer "not yet released", it is "in the process of being released". --PalaceGuard008 06:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been shown in America and I agree with above, it is a good movie, especially the killer Mountain Dew machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.180.69 (talk)

Action Comedy?

My friends and I were wondering if it should have considered an Action comedy because when it wasn't weren't Action/Fight scenes, it was a humorous scene. BTW, I saw it last night at a special screening, it was great.Uber Cuber 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

yes it is action comedy:)

Are you sure?68.43.180.69 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say its action comedy, but thats not for us to work out. Find a source saying its action comedy and we can change it. (Rekija 00:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

yes it's very funny :)

Considering that it's the funniest movie I've seen since Borat (and the funniest movie of 2007 so far), I think it's safe to call it an "action comedy". KyuzoGator 14:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OR, as the movie wasn't billed as an action comedy. Just because you find it funny doesn't make it an action comedy. The fighting wasn't funny. The comedy was in between the fights, which were serious. Look at Rush Hour, the fight scenes have a lot fo comedic moments (or at least, intended that way), with puns directed at the bad guys. There weren't really puns during the fights scenes of this film. There were jokes leading up the serious moments, but the action itself was "serious".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Very true. There is a bit of humor in the end of scene where Frenzy is throwing disks at the people in the Hoover dam communications room. It's nothing like Jackie Chan movies though. -Fnlayson 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cast/Characters

Can someone do a better description of Brawl/Devastator (the tank) in the movie. I don't believe "A moody piece of battle fodder" is NPOV or really accurate. All I can remember from the movie, is that he self identifies as "Devastator" and that he's a tank. Nothing really to suggest that he's moody or that he's battle fodder. Edwin s 13:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Another description which might need modification is that of Starscream, I don't really feel there is much indication in the movie that he desires to overthrow Megatron and take the Allspark for himself. Edwin s 14:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen it yet, but that's pretty much who they are according to the writers, toy boxes, comic books etc. Alientraveller 15:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe changes can be made when the film is in wider release and more contributors can make make a critical assessment. I'm not sure whether past character depictions are appropriate for inclusion in this article since it's speculative, especially considering the disparity in existing storylines. I think it's possible that the screenwriters may retain these characteristics but it wouldn't be explicit until further developments in film sequels. (SPOILER WARNING STARTS) However I don't see how Starscream can take the Allspark or overthrow Megatron as leader, since the former is destroyed and killing the latter in the process. They dispose of megatron and some other decepticons in an incredibly deep ocean trench claiming that the extremes will make them completely unsalvageable. However the writers could just bring him back to life thus giving Starscream an opportunity to overthrow him in the next movie. (SPOILER WARNING ENDS) 220.237.79.166 00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to add the additional transformers that was created by the allspark in the movie? -ray243

I don't really think it's necessary. The additional characters of (semi-SPOILER) a Cadillac Escalade steering wheel, an Xbox 360, and a Mountain Dew pop-machine (/semi-SPOILER) aren't really relevant characters to the plot, and only server to show the power of the Allspark and possibly for comic relief. -- Scottjar 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Power of the All Spark, comic relief but mostly just product placement. (Rekija 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Visual Effects by ILM and Digital Domain

This topic is intended merely to have Digital Domain included along with ILM as a significant contributor to the visual effects work at Transformers (in both the introductory paragraph and the Effects section of the article). The following is provided as background:

The visual effects contract for Transformers was originally awarded to ILM in early 2006. Then head of production at ILM, Mark Miller was instrumental with Michael Bay in securing this business for ILM. In May 2006, Michael Bay and partners at Wyndcrest Holdings purchased Digital Domain, also a leading visual effects company based in Los Angeles. Michael Bay, as Co-Chairman of Digital Domain, immediately announced that his firm would begin to work on specific sequences of Transformers and, otherwise, would be available to handle the increasing scope of work as the film moved toward completion. Within a few short months of the acquisition, a trio of Lucas Film/ILM executives (including Mark Miller) was recruited to assume the helm of Digital Domain. The combination of Bay's ownership of Digital Domain and the move of ILM senior staff positioned Digital Domain to contrinute materially to the visual effects production of Transformers.Jtextor 05:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)John Textor, Co-Chairman of Digital Domain

Source? Alientraveller 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what qualifies as a 'source' in Wikipedia. Your effects section is based on comments from the visual effects supervisor from one firm, though most large action films will have several films participate. Scott (from ILM) was the lead visual effects supervisor as the film was awarded to ILM before Wyndcrest (Mike Bay included) purchased Digital Domain. This purchase was completed with alot of work remaining to be completed in Transformers and Michael started immediately to shift certain significant responsibilities over to Digital Domain. My point is that the Effects section of your article cannot rely solely on the view of one individual from one firm.

There are multiple references to the work of Digital Domain on Transformers, though our firm does not have an in-house PR department as does ILM. Our firm has a history of allowing films to release without telling the viewing public what is real and what is CG. If you are trying to pass off images as realistic, as was necessary for example with our work on Flags of our Fathers/Leters from Iwo Jima, then the visual effects houses generally should not publicize effects work in advance of a film's release. Transformers is a little different as so much of the film obviously has to be CG. ILM elected to publicize their work and their promotion, to some extent, is probaby helping the film...so that's good. We elected not to publicize our work in advance of the release and allow the film, and our partner Michael Bay, to speak for the film. As a result of this decision, your source information for Wikipedia appears to reflect only the press perspective on this film.

Just to be clear, we at Digital Domain are very happy to see ILM credited as the lead effects firm on the film. With a team that includes several recent ILM alumni who were involved in landing Transformers, we are always happy to compliment the capabilities of ILM. Michael Bay recruited these people from ILM to Digital Domain for a reason...then, began to assign Transformers work to Digital Domain. So, while we are happy to see ILM continue with its PR effort and be rightfully credited as the lead, we think reference sources like Wikipedia should be factually correct and comprehensive...especially since Wikipedia is increasingly used as a source by other authors. Digtal Domain made a material contribution to Transformers that overseen directly by its owner, the director of the film.

As for sources, I am happy to be quoted as a direct source as Co-Chairman of Digital Domain and Michael Bay's partner (Michael is the other Co-Chairman). You can also gain comfort by looking at the film credits and the ordering of the effects credits...and the intentional black gap between ILM and Digital Domain that creates visibility for Digital Domain. There are multiple sources available via Google relating to our purchase of the company and the recruitment of the ILM trio. If you need additional sources, or a conversation, you can email me directly at jtextor@d2.com, or after the holiday through my offcie at Digital Domain. www.DigitalDomain.com

Thanks for your help...I do like the article...JohnJtextor 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't want to list too many companies in the lead. But a lot of the interviews I've read really talk about ILM and what not. Thanks anyway. Alientraveller 14:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see reliable sources for a better understanding of what is considered exactly that. If there is information on what Digital Domain actually performed then the article could only benefit from it. But whatever is put in the lead must be in the body of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your view of what 'must' be in the article, though I think the standards for credit is fairly well-established within the industry. The only thing that seems to be responsible for the imbalance of credit thus far is a PR strategy. If the article only credits ILM, because of your interpretation of the relevance of the 'lead', then the reader is led to believe that significant portions of the film that were completed by DD were instead completed by ILM. I am sure that ILM expects (and deserves) to be referenced as the lead, but I am sure that they don't want credit for the work of others. My suggestion is that your article say something along the following lines - "ILM served as the lead visual effects house with significant contribution from Michael Bay's effects firm Digital Domain". To make this easy, I'll have this confirmed directly bby Michael Bay. Who is the administrator of this site? I'll arrange a call with Michael. Does that work? Thanks, Jtextor 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless you didn't know, Wikipedia isn't designed to be a primary source: it's a free-for-all based on published news articles, books, videos and websites. There are many administrators. Anyway, ILM is discussed in the effects section. I am aware Bay bought Digital Domain and had assumed it was to save money on Transformers, but adding that into the article would be original research on my part. Alientraveller 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...I really am not too aware of all of the workings of Wikipedia...though I am impressed thus far. I have only just learned through this process that Wikipedia is actually used as a source for articles. It seems a little circular that reliable sources are mainly limited to the press, only to have the press use Wikipedia as a source...but I guess it works pretty well as a body of research when everything is footnoted. Small FYI, we bought DD to advance the cause of CG film-making and the fusion between films and games. It's early, but ultimately we'll do our own films and games (off-topic I know). As for the Admin issue, it seemed as if this article was locked and that an individual (or a small group of individuals) were responsible for its content...so I apologize if I did not get it...this is new to me...really intriguing, but still new. Just to be clear, though, are you saying that the only way to have the story told more comprehensively is for Michael (or one of us) to communicate such to the press...and then have that cited by Wikipedia? That is likely to happen anyway in the next few days, but we would be happy to communicate directly as well. These are all new rules to me...what's your advice? Best, John76.108.82.49 16:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is a tertiary source. What I meant was, the lead paragraphs are meant to summarize the article. Digital Domain isn't mentioned in the body, so it cannot be mentioned in the lead. Emails and phone calls are not reliable sources, as we are just editors and not a board of directors on Wikipedia. Articles are run by everyday people (one of the pitfalls), and even a personal conversation with the Wikipedia founder, Jim Wales, wouldn't be reliable for an article. Not unless it was written in some form of publication. We need third party reliable sources, once that explain exactly what Digital Domain did for the film. Simply saying "it did a lot of work" doesn't help us, or the article for that matter. For one, it's weasely worded, as applying a qualifier for an amount is subjective. What is "a lot" or "significant portions"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Great advice...I did originally misunderstand your use of the word 'lead'. Michael is planning to speak to the press in the coming days, so this should likely work itself out. Thanks!...and have a great Fourth...76.108.82.49 16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If he is, make sure that he talks about DD's work on the film, with more than just the statement you suggested. Otherwise, the only thing that will happen is DD's name will be mentioned, but their significance won't because we won't be able to gauge the amount of work they did. Happy 4th.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Thirty-eight hours to render each frame." -This is misleading. Bay was describing a few frames, not every one of them. 38 hours for each frame would mean over a century of processing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.216.131 (talk • contribs)

Possible Spoiler Problem (contains spoilers)

This actually doesn't apply on this page from what I can tell (but feel free to double check), but it happens on some of the pages for the characters. If you look up some characters' Wiki pages, in the "2007 Film" discussions at the bottom of their pages there are some major spoilers. Can anyone check this out and make proper edits, like warnings, if appropriate?--Scottymoze 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Character pages are, by natural law, going to have spoilers on them. Per WP:SPOIL, if it's obviously going to have spoilers then you shouldn't put a warning up. Current consensus is that one needs to provide a very good reason to include a spoiler warning on a section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't see a very good reason why NOT. I looked at the section and am rather ticked that someone thoughtlessly ruined the ending for a few select characters before the movie's release in America, without a heads up whatsoever. This needs a spoiler warning, especially since certain areas of the world have ACCESS to that information thanks to early releases and pre-screenings, and the majority of people here do not.--MrDopple 17:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the character pages and found "Movie plot" subsections, which doesn't need templates per WP:SPOILER. Did you look at something under this subsection? 'Cause the section title specifically points out that there would be film details. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The movie plot gives a very brief mention of what happens to the character at the opening of the film, which seems relatively fine. My problem is with the last part. For example, with Autobot Jazz:

He is eventually killed in the final battle, firing at Megatron while in the Decepticon leader's colossal grip. He is defiant to the end, as shown in the following dialogue:

Jazz: "You want a piece of me?!"

Megatron: "No... I want two pieces of you!"

This film has NOT been released here yet. Take a look at this section of the spoiler section:

1. Spoiler tags are more likely to be appropriate in newer works than in older works. Movies currently in first release, TV shows that haven't aired in all major markets, and books that have only been released in hardcover are more likely candidates for spoiler tags than a film from 1935, though exceptions may exist on either side. Note that this does not imply that spoiler tags become redundant shortly after the work of fiction reaches market.

This has NOT been released in our market (theaters) yet! This should have gotten a spoiler warning.--MrDopple 17:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It was called the Movie plot, dude... these details will tend to pop up. That's the risk taken by anyone interested in learning about only a certain portion of a film of interest that would not spoil them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Then dump it elsewhere. Not here. --MrDopple 18:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you got spoiled where you didn't want to be, but this is an open wiki. Sometimes an editor will add too much unnecessary detail about a future event. I've come across information I wish I didn't knew, but I tend to push it in the back of my head and fix the excessive edit. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, hold on. I can make this simple - what is the point of the spoiler alert if, where there's a spoiler, we're not going to use it? Saying "sorry...but this is an open wiki" doesn't account for why the spoiler alert exists in the first place. I am simply thinking, without trying to step on toes, why NOT have the alert up? Our choices are: 1) Not have it up, and get people angry for learning the fates of characters when they were possibly just looking for a taste of what to expect from the film 2) Put up spoiler alerts in the proper sections (ESPECIALLY Jazz's page) and, well,...no negatives that I can see? I don't think this is a tough choice but maybe I'm missing something? The policy says it's OK when..."Spoiler tags are more likely to be appropriate in newer works than in older works. Movies currently in first release..."--Scottymoze 16:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SPOILER in full? The spoiler tags are redundant in section headings like "Plot" or "Movie plot". If there was a Production section in which there was a paragraph about the design of a film's twist ending, then the tags would be applied before/after the paragraph. Does that make sense? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a style guideline, not a policy. It's subjective to each article. If you have a problem with Jazz's page, or another individual page, take it up there. This is the film's page, we have no control over what goes on on those other pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Add a reference section?

I was curious as to other people's thoughts on whether to start a references section in the article. Here a few examples that I've thrown together:

• After Sam drives Mikaela home, she asks him "You think I'm shallow, don't you?", to which he responds that there is "More than meets the eye" to her, a reference to the cartoon's theme song.

• In the ending dialogue, Optimus Prime comments that "Humans, like us, are more than meets the eye", a reference to the cartoon's theme song.

• When Bumblebee is first introduced (in his 1970s Camaro form), he drives into Bolivia's car dealership and parks next to 1971 Volkswagen Beetle, a reference to Bumblebee's orignal form in the cartoon.

There are also various references to be made in Bumblebee's speech via radio, as lines from other movies and famous people appear to be used (Frank Sinatra comes to mind). -- Scottjar 15:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like disguised trivia to me. No encyclopedic value in it. You could submit these entries to the trivia page at IMDb. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it does seem that way. Perhaps it has some value, though, due to references to the original cartoon concept, and not just media pop-culture in general (although there are plenty of those as well). -- Scottjar 15:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, another issue is that entries like these are largely original research. This is appropriate for the Plot section and t he Cast section to provide a background to the real-world context of the rest of the article, but the trivial mentions in a film that's obviously going to be full of them does not hold a great deal of encyclopedic weight. It can be mentioned via an independent, secondary source that the films had a lot of nostalgic bits or produce placements, et cetera, but we don't need to indiscriminately list the specific items here on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A well argued point. I'll post them to IMDb once I gather a complete collection, then. It was strange, however, to view the movie and not have the person sitting next to me understand the "More than meets the eye" reference. I didn't even watch the cartoon, and yet I knew this. Feel free to delete this if necessary. -- Scottjar 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's alright; relevant discussions are supposed to be kept. If this issue arises later, we can point the editor to this section instead of repeating our arguments. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is that simply, being a Transformers film, stuff like "More than meets the eye" will pop up, as will references to previous incarnations of Transformers. These may be major, like Beast Wars, which is notable as a very clear story decision, or very minor, ala Armada. It isn't important as why they chose their Autobots certainly. Alientraveller 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but things like the yellow VW beetle next to BB when he's being bought, or the line "Tonight, one shall stand, and one shall fall" that is spoken by Optimus Prime in his battle with Megatron in both films among other things, rather have to be put in there on purpose don't they? CDI 05:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they were, just like that Armageddon references, but the point is "listing" is not favorable, unless it's a "List of" article, and without any reliable sources detailing why Bay did something then it isn't relevant. If it is done on purpose then we need a reason why, so that we can have proper prose written up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Most, if not all of the G1 references would be there as a 'throwback' of sorts to the original series, otherwise he would have left them out. It'd probably just be 'trivia' [ not allowed ] or something. But they are there for the older audience who grew up with the older show. But you are right in that unless we could find a notable reason for putting it in, it is better left to other pages/sites. CDI 05:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

An Aircraft Carrier doesn't HAVE to be Tidal Wave

There's a comment in the Sequels section about Bay wanting to include an aircraft carrier. A few people have added thoughts along the lines of possibly Tidal Wave, which comes under WP:NOR, I'd have thought. In any case, why wouldn't it be the G1 character Broadside? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a personal assumption, which falls under original research. If he hasn't specified a Transformer, than the plain description will suffice until an attributable source mentions something. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can tell from the Design section, Bay chose alternate modes before characters for the Decepticons, and I assume it's the same case. Alientraveller 17:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget the Decepticon FLattop's aircraft carrier. user:mathewignash

Do you mean the toy that was packaged with the Chinese Flattop knock-off? If you do, that is Broadside! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The REAL Hasbro Flattop toy he came with an aircraft carrier that turned into a jet he could pilot. Not Broadside, but they are similar looking in vehicle mode. user:mathewignash

Ah people, not a forum for general discussion. Whatever Bay's aircraft carrier is named is a potential sequel, we'll be there to document it. Alientraveller 18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I really only started this section so I had somewhere to direct people that keep adding oh he means Tidal Wave to the text about Bay wanting an aircraft carrier. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

First time using wiki in this manner, not sure if this is interesting enough to be put up:

Transformers as delivered to theatres can in two cans. This is pretty standard, one can contains one half of the film and the other the second half. For Transformers they (the studio) put a combo lock on the second cans. Theatres generally received the Transformer prints on Friday. The code was to be given out today so projectionists would only have enough time to finish putting it together and run it for the 8pm shows. This was in an effort to combat piracy. Now for the bit of trivia...the code to open the locks was 0217, which is part of the hero's ebay handle (Ladiesman217).

70.246.229.130 02:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Theatre Manager70.246.229.130 02:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not all theatres followed this rule. For example, the theatre I work at was supplied with the code early in order to assemble the film and preview it for quality control and assemble the trailer package. I was amused at the code to open the lock when I saw the movie, though. However, I will refer you to my post above, "Adding some references," to see as why this may or may not be eligible for posting. Still, it is a pretty neat fact that most people probably will not know about (unless they work in a movie theatre, like us) -- Scottjar 03:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have sources beyond the unreliable IMDB. Also have a look at WP:AVTRIVIA. Alientraveller 08:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the the Generation 1 Bumblebee reference, when Bumblebee is right next to a car that looks identical to his Generation 1 disguise in the car dealership, should be under trivia. Burn8tor16

Again, WP:AVTRIVIA. Alientraveller 21:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User reception?

Is it worth mentioning that on virtually all the 'larger' review sites (EG. Rottentomatoes, IMDB) the ratings from users has been a lot higher than that of critics? On Rottentomatoes atm the critic rating is 61% while the user rating is 85%, and is on a 8.3/10 on IMDB. Would something like a note saying that "The movie has received largely positive reviews from non-critics (Can't think of the word to use there)" or somethign of the like? Geshpenst 22:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No because there is the risk of voter stacking and non-representative sample. The film is viewed by millions, and a few thousand people that rate the film on IMDb or RT do not represent the community of viewers best. That's why we use professional writers for the "critical analysis" of the film, and the "money talks" rule for how the fans liked it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Votestacking happened with 300. The film was actually in the Top 200 at IMDb for a while because of an inordinate amount of positive votes. It leveled off, I think, but the dynamic nature of these polls is suspect to abuse. I agree with what Bignole said about the appropriate way to gauge how a film was received. What would be permissible, though, is a bona fide poll (like when a film audience leaves the theater and gets polled randomly) to see how many liked it and what demographic they were, as opposed to young Net-savvy people who log on after seeing the film to rate it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Cream of the Crop matter for rottentomatoes? I noticed it's alot higher than the general critics' reviews, at 70% or so last time I checked.Rglong 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cream of the crop is only 13 percent higher. This film had a lot of 5 star user ratings before anyone even saw it, so no, user ratings should not count. JayKeaton 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

the movies been out for nearly a month. im sure ALOT of people saw it. robkehr

I did rather mean the general public that rated the movie five stars before seeing it, I was not talking so much about the people who rated it after its release JayKeaton 15:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Cream of the Crop has now dropped below the standard rating and has been removed from the article. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Doesn't that show that the most respected critics find the film to be less appealing than the majority of random unknown critics?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Captain William Lennox is an Army CPT in charge of a mostly Army, not Marine Spec Ops group.

Most of his soldiers (not including the AF combat controller of course) when not in Qatar are shown wearing the Army ACU uniform and black beret. Also they are shown wearing Army patches such as the 4th I.D., Special Forces Arrow head, etc. Finally when he returns home he is wearing the Army's green Class A uniform.

My mistake, didn't see a cleverly hidden topic just like this one

Hi, I have seen this movie, but I image some others haven't it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to put a spoiler warning on the plot summary. thanks.

WP:SPOILER. Alientraveller 14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the movie -MULTIPLE- times, Captain William leads a -RANGER- Special Ops team; we all know Rangers are part of the Army

TSgt Epps also seems to be more in the role of a TACP than a combat controller. TACPs specialize in calling in airstrikes (which he seems to do the entire movie) while combat controllers deal with air control for airfields and whatnot. Should it be changed, or is he "officially" a combat controller?

he's wearing a combat controller beret, and combat controllers perform c2 comm functions as well as terminal attack control. but i agree the part would have fit a tacp better, but he was written in to be a cct and he's wearing a cct beret, so i say leave it. Robkehr 03:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Critical reception section is unbalanced

As the article presently notes, the critics' response has been in the range of about 60% favourable and 40% unfavourable, but our critical reception section is unmistakeably inclined towards certain points of view. (It's not just the quantity, but quality; using words like "admitted" shows the author's slant to agreeing with the party being quoted.) Balancing the section wouldn't be too hard; for instance, a brief glance indicates a number of those quoted as giving positive reviews also had negative things to say about the movie. Johnleemk | Talk 16:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand you at all, but if you have a problem, go ahead and work at it. Alientraveller 16:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think what he's saying is that while the critical reception has been mixed (and the article says as much), almost every review quoted is very favorable, which lends a definite slant to the section. There are no quoted reviews which simply say "The movie just isn't very good". Also, I think there are too many quoted reviews in the first place. Mcr29 04:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I chose the most interesting and varied quotes: and if we got too many quotes, can you think of another way to discuss the opinions of a very biased group? In my view, critical quotes should chime in with the production aims: so Harry Knowles' review goes back to the original "just Sam and Mikaela" draft. Alientraveller 07:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RT has rated the movie as "certified rotten", so what do you expect? An average of 59 percent doesn't mean that 59 percent of reviews loved it and 41 percent hated it, it means that on average reviews thought the movie was only worth a score of 59 percent. Which means that they generally didn't like the movie, RT even sums up the average as being "rotten", so what do you expect from a "rotten" movie besides unfavorable comments? JayKeaton 10:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand RT. 59% is based on how many liked it: 6/10 is the average rating. Alientraveller 10:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the average score was 6/10, so I was only 001% off. JayKeaton 10:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Might also be worth realizing that the "Cream of the Crop" rating is 73%... that rating is based on major news and media outlets. So I don't think it would be terrible of the reaction leaned toward favorable as long as the unfavorable reviews were covered in a comprehensive enough manner. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The cream of the crop ratings have an average review of 6.3/10, that's 003 percent better than the overall ratings JayKeaton 10:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe we can throw Google Movies and Yahoo! Movies into the mix to reflect other kinds of balances. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we not focus so much on statistics and rather comments that epitomise common praise or criticism? Alientraveller 11:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RT is pretty much the most respected movie review aggregation site. I don't get what the big deal is, even the reviews that gave good scores criticized the movie quite harshly. Is there something I am misunderstanding? A conspiracy perhaps, by some unseen mastermind working for a competing movie publisher attempting to knock the wind out of Transformers by sneaking in negative critics opinions into the wikipedia page? JayKeaton 11:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And about google movies and yahoo movies, their combined review number isn't even a third of RTs. And a "B minus" isn't exactly differing from RTs findings anyway JayKeaton 11:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like giving one critic predence over another. It's a fact it's much easier to write criticism than praise, so I'm sorry if you feel my "one critic, one sentence" rule creates an irksome tone for some. What I've done is take common praises and criticisms, and it works as two organic paragraphs: people love the action, comedy and special effects, but the script is weak for many. Alientraveller 11:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, if you feel it needs more praise, then add the praise. Don't just delete criticism. The more opinions by professional critics there are on there the better the reader can truly understand the critical reception. Both jeers and cheers are best from the same critic, as it shows what that one critic loved about it and what he hated. If you just put praise from one critic, the review might think the critic loved the movie, when that one line of quoted praise may have been taken completely out of context from the critics overall writeup of the movie. What do they call it in politics? Quote farming? JayKeaton 11:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't taken any review out of context mind. I made special effort to look at all the positive, mixed, negative reviews and placed them in a natural order. Positive quotes have been picked from positive reviews, and vice versa. Alientraveller 11:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he's recognizing the bias in each subsection you described (the action, special effects, and the script). The section you wrote on the action and special effects contains mostly only positive reviews, while the script section only appears to have negative reviews (with one or two listed above). Perhaps it would be better to divide the critical reception into subcategories and list both positive and negative reviews for each category (if you would like as much detail as possible), or remove some of the category-specific reviews in more favorable of general positive/negative reviews (for example, what you wrote from Drew McWeeny's review is a good example of a generalized review). Now, this may or may not be possible, considering whether or not you have assembled reviews that actually have both positive and negative reviews for each category (from what I've read, it seems like EVERYONE like the action sequences and special effects), but it's just food for thought. An average user may fail to realize that in your first section, a majority of your quotes are only praising the special effects and action sequences, though not necessarily the whole movie, as JayKeaton has pointed out. Otherwise, it is a very well written section. -- Scottjar 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is still very unbalanced and slanted towards the positive. RT shows the movie as 56%, 5.8/10. Basically, this movie did not fair well with critics. And yet, the first entire paragraph of the section is nothing but glowing reviews filled with keywords such as "delightful", "the best", "ingeneous", etc. And the second paragraph has two positive reviews before you get to a "conflicted" review. Only one paragraph is necessary, and some of the positive reviews need to be taken out to balance things out. Mcr29 17:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fan reaction

Viewers seemed happy with the film, even a lot of Americans on myspace and stuff were proclaiming it the best film ever made, even though it hadn't even come out yet when they praised the film (they said they loved it without even seeing it, go figure). Although the fans love it, it has been panned quite badly in comparison by critics. It might be worth mentioning that the hype created fans even before anyone in the public had even seen the movie? For a movie to create a strong fan base before it was released still counts as reception JayKeaton 15:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to find an accurate measurement of fan reaction, though there is a material in the article about the fan base's division over and acceptance of the film, and I found some reactions of those involved in Transformers in the past. I'm just not sure what to call such a section. Alientraveller 15:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

While it would be interesting, perhaps, to include such information, it's incredibly hard to source, and in some ways pointless to do. Almost all films based on existing properties have pre-release fans - Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings? With the advent of the internet, this has grown, because of communication ease. But there's little way to measure objectively the size of the pre-release fan crowd, little to document the reasons WHY they've become energized beyond the 'oh man i loved this as a kid/loved the book/the hottest chick is in the movie'. Measurements of the success of certain pre-release 'viral marketing' techniques, if available, might bolster such an argument, but the entire concept seems to be WP:SYNTH, which is a subset of WP:OR. I'd suspect that an article Viral Marketing and American Film might be a better place to collect such info, then link to it with something like "Transformers was promoted before release by the highly successful (cite for webhits, member signups or executive commenting on its success) [[Viral Marketing in American Film|viral marketing]] website Sector Seven." However, that's only one aspect of the pre-release fan hype. I suppose that one MIGHT be able to cite the existence of places like seibertron and other TF fansites, but there are fansites for the Judge Dredd film and for Man-Thing's movie, so existence isn't enough, and uging relative popularity would be OR. I don't think there's any really good way to do it, which is probably why so little's been done. The best you can do is cite people in news articles talking about being excited, but that only speaks for them. Even if they refer to a website, "ALL of us thousands of fans go to TransformersRDKewllest.com" they're not experts, and can't be cited. That would leave us with 'bob by in Peoria and cindy in Saskatchewan were really eager to see Transformers", which is trivia, and possibly stalking, or a BLP violation. or all of the above. This is getting long, I'm done. ThuranX 16:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We could look at reviews on sites that offer the option of user reviews and see the reviews that were dated before the film was even released, or forum chatter with people praising the movie before it was even released, but it all seems like too much work and borders on original research. I do think it is worth mentioning that much of the praise of the film was generated in the pre-release hype, as it is curious that this movie was a critical hit with common viewers before it even came out. And you're right, the whole subject of viral marketing generating a lot of fans before its release is very interesting and perhaps deserves its own article. I'm sure someone notable has written about movies becoming hits before they even see the light of day, so it wouldn't be too hard to source. JayKeaton 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Something interesting to all you editors

This probably has little to do with the article, but I thought you all might be interested in something. There has been a little bit of discussion here over this movie getting an average critic score of 59%, or certified rotten, according to Rotten Tomatoes. Well on Michael Bays official website, on his own blog, 6 days ago he apparently seemed excited about getting 100% on RT. 6 days and an update of more reviews changed that score to what it is now, of course. But I find it very interesting that Michael Bay himself is interested in the RT score and that he most certainly has checked it again and found what the score on the RT page currently is. Also note that he uses an Apple Mac when he checks the internet for his movie reviews. JayKeaton 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's uncommon for films to start off with 100% ratings and slide from there. The 100% rating is harder to keep the more reviews there are. If there are 9 positive reviews out of 9 reviews, a negative review would bring it down to 90% (out of 10 reviews). I don't know if the focus on Rotten Tomatoes is warranted; it's meant as one of the gauges of overall critical reaction, but I don't think it's necessary to delve into any further detail beyond its percentage(s). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RT, looking at almost all other movie articles, seems to be one of the default review rankings used on wikipedia. Even the directors of these movies check RT ^_^ But yeah, RT is very good at quickly stating stats on wikipedia articles, but there isn't really much more to say, any explanation of how RT works belongs on the Rotten Tomatoes page. I never post anything that doesn't relate directly to the article on wikipedia talk pages, but I just had to share this with everyone that worked so hard on this page and everyone that has taken an interest in the reception section of this article. JayKeaton 17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know why the UK release is 25 days behind the US?

On the third Pirates and fourth Potter film (two comparable summer blockbusters) the releases are only a day apart. Is there a special reason for the comparative long delay that might be worth mentioning? ANTIcarrot 20:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No idea, so it can't be included. Alientraveller 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That date seems a bit off, I live in the UK and am able to see it in the cinema with surprising regularity between screenings, and this is before the release date, so I don't know what is happening. Asdolin 09:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, same in Ireland, saw it today, 5 days before listed. jak217 23:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Optimus's weapon

is stated to be a energy axe in the main article. it is not. it is shaped like a sword.

I'd say it's more like a sword with an axeblade molded into it, but the thing is that's exactly what the old energy axe was like. It fits where his hand goes, so he's not -holding- it. That means the entire 'body' of it is both 'blade' and 'handle' and since both swords and axes are defined that way, it's difficult to say which it was. I don't think anyone would mind 'machete' as a compromise, but whatever. It had a 'head' on the blade for chopping'

GI Joe Reference

Not sure if this warrants it's own spot but anyway. Something to put on the Trivia section of the main page, now this may or may not be coincidence, Colonel Sharp (seen in the beginning of the movie in the Military base) was one of the leaders of GI Joe; this may be a reference to GI Joe, and there have been multiple crossover between GI Joe and Transformers in the past and recent past. And also there may be a GI Joe movie in the mix in the near future, anyway should we put this in the Trivia section of the main page? - LTenhet

What trivia section? Oh... read WP:TRIVIA before you add one! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you could actually read the "Development" section, it says they were inspired by G.I. Joe characters for the military story. That's all we can do without making the article crap. Alientraveller 11:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well whatever works, it could also just be a coincidence -LTenhet

It's not. Alientraveller 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ending?

I could have sworn that they dumped the Decepticons in the Marianas Trench and not the Laurentian Abyss. I would change it but i'm not 100% sure on it. Natural number is e 05:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See the end of the section "Corrections to note" above. Apparently, Jon Voight's character tells us they are dumping the bodies of the Transformers into the Laurentian Abyss, but his description of "the deepest place on Earth" is inaccurate. Scottjar 11:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty much it. When he described it, I must have immediately thought of the Trench, as that was what I thought he said....but he said Laurentian, and everything he described isn't identifying that abyss.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Something for a future trivia section? DraxusD 06:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Brawl/Devastator

His name is Brawl. The movie made a mistake, using the stand-in name they had during production. Both Roberto Orci and Hasbro's Transformers Team at Botcon 2007 confirmed seperately that 'Devastator' is a mistake and that he's supposed to be subtitled as Brawl. Also, the toys take precedence over the movie in this case, because Hasbro owns the characters, and are the ones who had to trademark the name for usage. As such no there is technically no movie Transformer named 'Devastator'. --144.138.141.249 14:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So, the movie made a mistake, we aren't in the business of correcting a movie. For the film's plot, he is called "Devastator". I think we made a note on the cast section that it wasn't intended to be called "Devastator", there or in the production section somewhere.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a document or website to back this up? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We already have it in the Design section. Bay wasn't fully aware of the Decepticon's trademark names. Alientraveller 15:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Brawl is a pretty petty name for a tank character perhaps Bay and crew chose a name they felt was more fitting? Bushido Brown 23:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't all references be changed from Brawl to Devastator? It's been established that as far as the film, the character is referred to as Devastator. The article refers to the film and the character in the film is Devastator. It is not our place to fix any mistakes that may have been made.24.20.184.141 06:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a wikipedia entry about the film, NOT the toys or comic books or cartoons. In the film, he is referred to as Devastator. Therefore, for the purposes of THIS ARTICLE, he should be called Devastator. If it changes in the DVD release than it can be updated. Slinky317 21:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the makers of the film stated it's a mistake, I'd at least give it mention. Also, I think this page talks about the film AND it's adaptions to comic and book. Those call him Brawl. So BOTH should be mentioned. Heck, if you go by the movie I don't think Frenzy has his name mentioned at all does he? user:mathewignash

The name difference was mentioned in two places I think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for Starscream Attack??

Is there any credible evidence that Starscream attacked Megatron during the final fight? If not, its being removed.

I don't recall that occurring, and since he looks like all the other Raptors, and he didn't scream anything as the planes attacked, I can't find any reason to suggest that it was him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

ya...what brought that up? theres no way to tell if this happened and i just watched the scene over... its almost like... trying to figure out if optimus was giving the finger to sam during the final fight against megatron... because it didnt happen...Robkehr 06:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that completely false. I'm also curious why he wasn't shot at more. I would think the other 22s could either identify him by locking onto his transponder or targeting the plane without the transponder.24.20.184.141 06:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No kidding -- totally ridiculous, like something out of a movie. --EEMeltonIV 06:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It was in the plot, that's why it got brought up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

i meant why was it included in the plot... wrong choise of words. Robkehr 20:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Got me, it was only recently added, and removed shortly there after. This discussion just happened to occur in the limbo time of addition and removal.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I work at a movie theatre. I've seen the ending 10 or more times, and Starscream does NOT attack Megatron. Basically, Starscream looks like a Raptor (almost as if he transformed into one), and Raptors are shooting missles at Megatron.--Can Not 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Starscream looks like a Raptor because he did indeed copy a F22 for his alternate form. -- Scottjar ^{(t • c)} 21:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bumblebee

The article fails to mention Bumblebee's injury in the final battle. And I was under the impression that Bumblebee returned the following morning when Sam was getting the milk, but the article states he returned the previous night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.184.141 (talk • contribs)

And for that matter, why didn't the allspark heal him (his voice OR his legs) when it was so easily able to heal Frenzy's entire missing body?

It did heal his voice, eventually. user:mathewignash

Because Bumblebee probably didn't "activate" it the same way Frenzy did. All he wanted to do was give it to Sam to hide. 'Bee healed his own voice again, with the power of his own spark. Disinclination 21:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that he didnt realize his voice was back, due to him not using it in a while. But I guess that dosent explain why he suddenly out of no where uses it at the end.

Reaction

Are there any good media sources that we can use to show how the public responded to the film?

perfectblue 15:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not verifiably. Rule of thumb is "money talks" when it comes to the public. A movie may do real well opening weekend, but it's how it performs over time that is an indication of what the public thought.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Allspark Radiation's effects

Would someone add, in the paragraph describing the opening events at the Hoover Dam, Sector 7's presentation of the effects of Allspark radiation(ie changing inanimate objects into sentient beings)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.10.48 (talk • contribs)

Not to mention the fact they can detect spark radiation using "Geiger counters" earlier on in the film. Must not be hazardous to humans, though I was at first alarmed when I heard Simmons say "14 rads." 128.138.117.254 19:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Release

In the Release section, I added Malaysia to be released on June 28 but someone keeps reverting back. I checked it on IMDB and with my cinemas. Any reason why this person is reverting it?

It's not English. Alientraveller 14:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Its generally Wikipedia policy to not list more than 4 or 5 dates, these usually being the movie "home" country, and then some English countries (US, UK, Australia, etc). If its an American or a Canadian movie, dates from countries that are not recognized as being "english" are general not included. If we included every release date, we could have from 8 to 15 dates. I've seen it happen (like on Children of Men). Disinclination 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers in cast section

Stupid... the cast section isn't another plot recap, it's meant to describe characters. Thanks a lot... Alientraveller 14:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but coming to Wikipedia to check on something and not expecting to find spoilers is a bit faulty. Disinclination 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I expect Plot in Plot, not Cast, which should be personalities. Alientraveller 20:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Saw this earlier and meant to comment on it but I agree, the ultimate fate of a character should not be mentioned in the cast list. It's a style and form issue, not really a spoilers issue. Mcr29 23:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Largest Decepticon

In the article, it states that Blackout is the largest Decepticon. But the vehicle he is based on, the MH-53 Pave Low, weighs only 32,000lbs. Both Bonecrusher (45,320lbs/Buffalo H) and especially Devastator (135,400lbs/M1 Abrams) are based on vehicles that are larger than a helicopter. It seemed obvious to me when watching the movie that Devastator was the largest Decepticon. I think the article should be changed to reflect that, unless there is something else I'm missing out on, like compactness, density, or height in robot form.Torchiest 23:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be yanked, although for different reasons: there's no citation that Blackout is the largest Decepticon, and really it's just a bit of trivia not worth mentioning. As for your reasoning: remember that it "seemed obvious" isn't grounds to add/remove information; that's WP:OR. The other two may weigh more, but probably that's because they're made up largely of heavy armor. If I had to use my own OR, I'd be more curious about their volume. Anyhow. --EEMeltonIV 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I have no reference to cite (and won't bother looking for one), Megatron is the largest of all Transformers. I remember reading this a few times before the movie was released and it's very obvious by watching the movie. Mcr29 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This may not be canon, but in the TF video game players guide, the following measurements are given(these are the only ones I read, though they seem to bear up to the film). Megatron, 35'; Blackout, 31'; Optimus Prime, 28'; Bumblebee, 16'; Jazz, 15'.DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 14:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I should have mentioned this yesterday: I think what is meant is that Blackout is the largest of the Earth-form Transformers(and if he's supposed to be 31' tall, that would bear out.)DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 14:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Soundwave

Shouldn't Soundwave be included in the decepticons section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.159.251 (talk • contribs)

Considering he doesn't appear in the movie, I'd say, No. Perhaps you're thinking of the animated movie? --EEMeltonIV 00:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He's probably thinking of the little boombox that turned into the cellphone. That's -NOT- Soundwave LTenhet

Fate of Decepticons

I'm willing to write this if it is okay, but I wanted to clear it with some people before I just dive in and write something (especially if it will be deleted, thus wasting my time and yours). In the movie several Decepticons' fates are not explained or shown. Anyway this could just be added into the section of the list of Decepticons (it certainly is trivial enough that it doesn't deserve its own section)

- Scorpinok has his tail end blasted off but burrows into the sand. We never see him again
- Barracade was defeated by Bumblebee earlier in the film but returns in the final fight scene (I actually do not recall him being destroyed, but he may have)
- Bonecrusher gets decapitated by Optimus Prime
- Blackout was defeated by the humans
- Starscream blows up a helicopter, shoots at Ironhide / Ratchet, and then vanishes, only to fly off into space at the end of the film (during credits)
- Megatron has the allspark pushed into his spark and dies
- Brawl ("Devastator") is defeated in the final battle
- Frenzy is decapitated by his own razor blade

I won't update until I get home from work anyway, so if you want to do that for me (the information is above) that would work too. Piepants 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Piepants

The only fate that is really worth mentioning is Megatron's and that is covered in the plot section. Bonecrusher and Devastator are barely seen in the film, and when they are they are disposed of. The fate of all but one of these Decepticons makes just about no impact on the plot itself. It's only after Megs is killed that there is resolution. The descriptions of each's death is really unimportant to the encyclopedia. People can watch the movie if they want to know what happens in such detail.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think starscream's escape into space is worth noting, as it's likely to be an avenue explored in the inevitable sequel. The others are negligible. ALso ,Frenzy wasn't decapitated , it cut his head in half vertically, not horizontally, leav most of both halves attached. ThuranX 17:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Starscream's escape is already covered in the plot synopsis, why repeat it? Mcr29 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Misc Transformers' Fate?

Whatever happens to the Xbox 360, Mountain Dew, and that car (I didn't catch the make) that made contact with the matrix of crea...I mean all spark? Piepants 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Piepants

It wasn't shown, thus it's not in the article. However, they did drop a lot of stuff down the trench. ThuranX 20:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Make Prime Speak" contest

I put this paragraph into the article, with a proper reference:

A "Make Prime Speak" contest was held by Paramount; fans could submit a line of dialogue for Optimus Prime to speak in the film, and the filmmakers selected a line from the top 30 entries as voted by fans. The winning line was "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings," submitted by "Carl from Norristown, PA."

This paragraph has been removed twice by Alientraveller, once with the comment "not-notable. According to John Roger's blog it was in the script alreadt", and the once with the comment "According to John Roger's blog, it was in the first draft, so I'm unsure of notability, especially against huge GM or Hasbro deals". In what way is a contest like this "non-notable"? And if one of the film's scriptwriters is saying that the winning line of dialogue happened to already be in the script, then doesn't this also merit a mention in the article? I don't see how that in any way invalidates the existence of the contest - at the very least, it makes the contest results more interesting. - Brian Kendig 12:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Where's the reference by the way? Berserkerz Crit 14:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[2] - Brian Kendig 02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the artist in me doesn't like a third paragraph in marketing. Perhaps the info could be put in the cast regarding Cullen. Alientraveller 14:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see AT's point. We don't make a note of every 'You Could win a part in Movie X" in all the films where that's happened before, so why here for something LESS notable? ThuranX 17:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with the contest being relegated to a single phrase in the article, but I just wanted to point out: there are three paragraphs quoting critics' opinions of the movie. I find that a heck of a lot less interesting than a contest in which somebody had the chance to write a line of dialogue spoken in the movie by the hero, and I think it's really neat that the top ten winners got their lines recorded by Peter Cullen. Saying that there shouldn't be "a third paragraph in marketing", or that a contest like this is less notable than "win a part" contests, is subjective and I disagree with these assertions. (And I happen to think it's fun to note what walkon characters were played by contest winners.) - Brian Kendig 02:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I typed similar and got an edit conflict, I to think it can be included. Add a quote section possibly? put the information of the contest as a sidenote to the quote. --Xiahou 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller: After I thought we had worked out a compromise here - reducing mention of this to one sentence - you went and removed that sentence without any further comment here. Just because you don't think this tidbit is interesting doesn't mean your opinion automatically wins out over people who do find it interesting. - Brian Kendig 22:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Barricades death?

Me and a fellow editor are having trouble getting to a conclusion over whether or not barricade dies.I would like for anyone who has information on his death please make a comment on barricades talk page.Oldandslow217 04:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I could've sworn I heard about a Youtube video of a deleted scene where someone kills Barricade. ShadowUltra 05:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Barricade just seems to vanish after the freeway chase. He must bite it in a deleted scene, one of many that I heard exist. (I hope they're on the DVD). 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I think but the other editor says he actually dies in the movie.Oldandslow217 06:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the film twice, and I did not see him in any fight scene after he was last seen escorting the other Decepticons down the highway. And if there is a deleted scene on YouTube, I have yet to stumble across it. Blacklist 15:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

he gets what looks like an energy sword thru the dome care of optimus... a DIVX telesync is out there if you look hard, it was posted on vcdquality, it was nuked for bad res, but it looks fine to me Robkehr 04:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of July 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

This article is stylistically well-written, and wonderfully cited. It covers all aspects of the film, from the actual plot, to the cast and marketing. Because the film is still so new, this article will change with time, just make sure that the article does not contain personal reviews (no original research). Good job to all editors who contributed to this article, and, to any future editors, keep up the good work! -Lauren^whisper 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much. Alientraveller 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Optimus Prime and Megatron as brothers

What sort of proof is needed to say they are brothers? Optimus calls him brother, and Optimus' word is enough for me. In the comic adaption Megatron also calls him brother when they first see each other, and the Harpercollins book adaption's description says "Optimus Prime must battle his evil brother Megatron for the Allspark and to save humanity." user:mathewignash

well then find that info so it can be linked and cited, then add it. Robkehr 06:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WHy do you need to cite a scource of something they plainly STATE in the movie? BTW - The movie prequal calls them brothers. user:mathewignash

Brother could however be meant in the colloquel sense (brothers in arms, brother of humanity). My interpretation of the line is that Prime was showing disappointment with the choices made by his "brother" (read: fellow transformer) in choosing a path of destruction and dominance. Technicially, both interpretations are valid, and there is no clear way to distinguish between what was actaully intended.

That was my interpretation, hence the reason for a citation to prove that they are in fact related "biologically" (so to speak). Neither the comics, or the novelization are verifiably reliable sources for the film. Reason is because things get changed so that the film is fresh. For all we know, the guy writing the book could have misinterpreted the line at the end of the film. The only thing writers usually get is a script, and the scripts they get are not always the final draft. Optimus merely stated "brother", he wasn't like "I can't believe my own brother would do something like this", or "You're a disgrace to our family", etc etc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How is it possible for robots to have family? Technicaly for them to actually be related there has to be some kind of blood goining on and some kind of reproduction.

Why is inaccuraye about stating that Optimus Prime called him "brother"? he did in the movie. This is supported in the comic and script as additional material, but he DID state it in the movie. Seems like people are just in denial about this. Removing it is suppressing the fact of the statement. You can argue as to what "brother" means, but he did say it. The statement that Optimus Prime called Megatron "brother" is irrefutable, only what it means is debatable. user:mathewignash

Without context it's irrelevant. You are trying to insinuate that it means something other than "pal" or "brother in arms" or something that means the two were more than just friends at one point. The film doesn't say that, he simply says "brother"...nothing about actual family. Thus, simply stating "Optimas calls him 'brother'" is irrelevant, unless a reliable source can be found to provide a reason as to why he does it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bignole's correct, context is important and if the movie doesn't provide any, then it's original research to claim which context it was used. Compare with how in real life priests, monks, and nuns are often referred to as "father", "brother", and "sister" respectively. --Stratadrake 12:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As an even better example, African-Americans often use the term "brother" to refer to one-another. Do you think that the movie Undercover Brother is about an undercover sibling? The word "brother" is far too ambiguous on its own without context. King Zeal 12:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep talkin trash like that and I'm gonna have to take ya down, brother... -Mike Payne (T • C) 12:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely accurate to say "Optimus Prime called Megatron brother" in the article. What brother means is left up to the leader, but it's a factual statement that he SAID it. user:mathewignash

What you are missing is that it is irrelevant if it doesn't have context. Otherwise, we might as well say "Optimus Prime said, 'My bad', when he stepped on a bird bath".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also just a bit of trivia that ultimately doesn't mean much/anything. The line comes as an afterthought at the end of the fight -- it doesn't create and contribute toward any particular effect; the movie would be exactly the same and have the same conflicts and tension if he doesn't use the line. It simply doesn't matter, and including the line is unnecessary trivia/minutiae. --EEMeltonIV 13:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, in this particular case, simply drawing attention to that line is suggestive in and of itself. You can't claim a neutral POV in calling attention to a phrase that has vague context. If you aren't certain of its meaning, leave it alone. King Zeal 14:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I thought Optimus simply meant "brother" as in fellow transformer, it fits in with his character - plus cybertonians don't have brothers in the same sense as we biological humans. --The Matrix Prime 03:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why did he only say brother to Megatron and not Jazz or Bonecrusher? Yes they don't have brothers in the way humans do, but maybe they have "brothers" in the way Cybertronians do? user:mathewignash

Because they're not monks? Maybe he did call 'em brothers, just off camera. Or maybe they're actually step-brothers. It's ambiguous. And either way, it doesn't matter; it's trivia(l). --EEMeltonIV 12:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mathew, it's clear that you're the only one supporting the addition of this as proof of genealogical link, or as an unconnected statement. There's a lot of consensus against the line being added to the article. Please help edit the article in new ways. thank you. ThuranX 13:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything about a genealogical link. I said he called him his "brother" (in quotes), which is true, he said it. What it means, I don't know, which is why the quotes. To NOT mention it would be suppressing something you are uncomfortable with and taking an opinion on the matter. user:mathewignash

No, not mentioning it means that there wasn't any encyclopedic relevance to it. Answer this, why did he say it? Provide a source for the reasoning as well. If you cannot answer that question with a reliable source, then it doesn't warrant a mention. It obviously had nothing to do with the plot of the movie, since it's said once, at the very end, and with no clarification before or after it's said. Thus, it isn't important. What I'm uncomfortable with is you including in a manner that suggests more meaning then is actually given (i.e. OR). If you don't have a reason then it isn't significant, if it isn't significant then it doesn't need to get mentioned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I did find an interview with Peter Cullen, who plays the voice of Optimus Prime, who states matter-of-factly that in the movie Optimus and Megatron are brothers. Right from the actor's mouth. [3] user:mathewignash

Then I would link that in the cast and character section, by saying "According to Peter Cullen, Optimus and Megatron are brothers, and their story is similar to the story of Cain and Abel".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys clearly need a third opinion, so wait until next week when I've seen it. Until then, leave out the "brothers" quote. Alientraveller 21:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we don't. There are 10 editors here who oppose mathewignash's interpretation of the line and opppose including it in the article without a distinct citation to support it. You could be number 11 if you'd like, but really, this is consensus against already. ThuranX 07:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the people making the movie seem to think they were brothers and I quoted a source, shouldn't this hold some weight? At least enought to be mentioned user:mathewignash

Doesn't Peter Cullen qualify as a primary source? --Stratadrake 12:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, peeps, we're arguing about something that's over and done with. Cullen said it was they were brothers in the film, so it's in the cast and character section (with the source), written to show that Cullen says they are brothers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If they all came from the Allspark, then they are all brothers. Translating to English as best as can be had, there might have been a different sense intended. Take their words with a grain of salt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.216.131 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the reference that Optimus and Megatron are brothers in the sense of being part of the Cybertronian race. Of course, I am inclined to look at all things from the point of G1. Peter Cullen is from G1, so all of the original story can be the same up to the point of the movie. The All Spark and the matrix that has spread throughout in Beast Machines also can be one in the same.--Reoperkins 12:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

who is he?

the fake pilot that appears in the car-mode of Blackout, Starscream and Barricade are the same person.who is the actor?Maybe it is only a trivial but Stann Lee rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.68.122 (talk • contribs)

• Yay, something I can figure out. According to http://www.af.mil, he is Captain Brian Reece, 58th Special Operations Wing, Kirtland Air Force Base, Albequerque, New Mexico U.S.A. He wore a false mustache in the film. Additionally, though the actual airbase scenes were filmed at Holloman AFB in Alamogordo(which houses the only operational F-117 fighter wing), the CV-22 Ospreys and in-flight MH53 Pave Low helicopter were supplied from Kirtland.DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 19:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Detroit Riverwalk

I was curious as to where else they showed up that makes this appearance unmentionable. The only other place I read about was Bumbleebee's older Camaro version showing up at the Barcelona premiere. I haven't found anything that said they were all were present somewhere else, making this particular appearance unique and worth mentioning as a form of marketing,. But, like I said, I haven't found anything that said they all appeared somewhere else, yet. If anyone has any info, could you post it? Thanks. -- Scottjar ^{(t • c)} 12:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The five Autobots were at the LA premiere. But really, I don't think the fact they appeared wherever was notable. It seems a bit much, and all that matters is we have a picture of Ironhide and Ratchet. Alientraveller 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the River Walk Festival was the first public appearance of the 4 movie cars, which makes it notable. user:mathewignash

Explain something to me...

Someone may have mentioned this before. Sorry if this is old. Can someone explain to me how Megatron is able to turn into the plane AS SOON as he's unfrozen? He doesn't hack into the network at all, and I don't think up until he's unfrozen by Frenzy does he have any clue of the technological advances of mankind. The only other time he was aware of the humans was when he met Sam's Great-Great Grandfather (forgot first name). And I don't think those folks had flying machines until about 10-20 years later or so...70.100.166.161 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum, you should really go to IMDb for this type of thing. But, to answer you, his "plane" wasn't an Earth jet, it was a Cybertronian jet, suggesting that he turned into that when he lived on Cybertron.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It won't happen again. Thank you for answering.70.100.166.161 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Weapon discussion

I added a descrip of how the TF's didn't use any handheld or 'gun' type weapons in the film, as opposed to the comics/cartoons. It got RV'ed because I got carried away and used an adjective, and the guy claimed it was OR. However, to go through the entire runs of comics or the entire broadcasts of the cartoons to find examples of the TF's using guns/blasters is not feasible. These were not the Go-Bots, they didn't fire energy beams from their fists. I re-added a modified and trimmed descrip, so hopefully it will stand. This may not seem like a big thing, but as a fan from day one of the series, having the TF's use 'morphable' weaponry in the film really stood out to me(not as bad, actually as more logical, given their nature) and I believe it deserves to be referenced along with mention of other design changes. Thank you.DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 14:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Adjectives are not OR, Original research is when you interpret things yourself. You cannot compare two different things without a reliable source doing it for you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many differences between the movie Transformers and previous incarnations. Just because we editors happen to think that a particular difference is worth including doesn't meet Wikipedia's bar for inclusion -- it's just trivia because we like it. But what's the real-world notability of having the weapons be different? Probably none. Did it impact the plot or the writing at all? Probably not. Did it impact the marketing? Nah. The merchandising? Perhaps -- but is there a source to cite it? Ultimately, whether the weapons are integrated or hand-held is just plot summary and trivia. If there is a meaningful source -- a producer, a toy-maker, etc. -- that talks about how this change is significant to the story or its real-world impact, then by all means include it. --EEMeltonIV 14:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(waves white flag)DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Are Frenzy or Scorponok mentioned in the film?

I was just talking to someone who saw the movie, and only knew a little about Transformers and he told me he liked the "Soundwave" character. I said Soundwave wasn't in the movie and he say yes, he was the boom box. This got me thinking. Since he never read any movie-prequal stuff or press information, he didn't know who Frenzy was. Do they ever mention the names of the characters Frenzy or Scorponok in the movie? Even in the credits? Or are they just the funny little unnamed Decepticon drones of the movie. If not then their name is no more "official" than Brawl. user:mathewignash

Scorp and Frenzy are never "named" in the film. Those are the names that were given in that citation for the cast awhile ago.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The merchandise for the movie uses those names as well (Scorponok has his own figure and is included as a mini-figure with Blackout, while Frenzy is included with Barricade's figure). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

They are called Frenzy and Scorponok in the credits. I too thought Frenzy was suppose to be Soundwave (abet a really bad interpretation of Soundwave) myself when I first watched the film. But I stayed to see the credits and they identify both Decepticons by name.--The Matrix Prime 03:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How are they credited? Do they speak? user:mathewignash

Frenzy is definitely credited with a voice actor, I don't recall if Scorponok is as well. Mcr29 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Because Scorponok didn't have an actor: he is an animal. Alientraveller 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is - even animal characters are sometimes vocalized by human actors (and technically, he's not even an animal, he's a robot). To assume he didn't have a voice actor simply because he's based on an animal is bad logic. Mcr29 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying Scorponok isn't credited as he doesn't have an actor, because he's just a beast owned by Blackout. Should we remove the voiceless Blackout, Scorponok and Devastator/Brawl from the cast? Alientraveller 17:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No we shouldn't, I don't recall suggesting that and it's not the point of the original question, which was simply if Frenzy and Scorponok were actually named at any point in the film, including the credits. And to make a further point regarding "he's just a beast owned by Blackout", Ravage and Lazerbeak are just beasts owned by Soundwave but they definitely had voice actors. Mcr29 17:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK mate, you don't quite get what I mean as "beast". I just mean unintelligent. Sorry. Alientraveller 17:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My point in asking the question is that someone walking in off the street with no prior knowledge wouldn't know he was called Scorponok - even by watching the credits. He's an unnamed character we only know from supporting material like the toys. Might be worth mentioning. user:mathewignash

unknown music/score

Shyft 06:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

if this post needs to be edited//deleted or what not, feel free to do so, I lack experience with this system.

Ahem, If someone can tell me the name of the song that is played during the movie, when Bumblebee upgrades to the 2008 concept Camaro, it would be most appreciated.

thank you.

It was the "Made You Look Kill Bill Remix" by Nas. KyuzoGator 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, further searching has come up empty. I was able to find a remixed version of the song i'm looking for, but it was not titled aside from being called a 'kill bill track'. But, perusing the soundtracks themselves, the song wasn't on either volume. Shyft 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to ask but since you asked nicely, the track is from the Kill Bill soundtrack, it's called Battle Without Honor Or Humanity. Mcr29 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

pieces of trivia

Should anyone make mention of the reference to Armagedon when the Transformers hit the Earth and the chubby kid video tapping says something along the lines of "This is way better than Armagedon"? Since it is a Michael bay movie.

Also, did anyone else hear the main bass effect of the the Terminator 2 music when Optimus and Devestaor and fighting on the freeway and the little kid says it looks cool? Also it is played again during the climax of the movie. Or am I just hearing things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.247.55.12 (talk • contribs)

Please read our policies WP:AVTRIVIA and WP:RS. Alientraveller 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller is right. The goal of a Wikipedia article is to be encyclopedic, so trivial mentions do not carry much encyclopedic weight. I would suggest submitting the trivia at IMDb, if it doesn't exist there already. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveler please read my policy WP:DBADB. It is known as the Wikipedia policy: Don't Be a Douche Bag. I was simply asking a question. Get over yourself and find something else to do besides monitor Wikipedia. Would it have been better if I actually put this in the main article? Man you would have had a fit then, wouldn't you? Sorry if I didn't read all the policies before posting a question on here, sorry if I have better things to do than that, like having a life. Thanks for your uncaring, unhelpful and unappreciated response, it is people like you that makes Wikipedia a cesspool for ignorant self proclaimed "know-it alls".

Prime Directive

I know the leaked script had the title "Prime Directive" for the story. Anyone know if the final script used that name? user:mathewignash

Eh? The movie prequel was called "Ghosts of Yesterday". -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be worth mentioning in the development section that the working title for the early script was "Prime Directives". Has anyon seen a final version of the script to see if it has changed? user:mathewignash

If you can find a source for it then I can't see why it can't be included. (Rekija 05:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

Blackout and Devastator Character Information

Do we really want to remove their character descriptions from the Cast, per this diff? Clearly they played somewhat important roles in the movie, and I don't think that their absence of voice actors is a viable reason to remove them completely from the article. -- Scottjar ^{(t • c)} 12:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to talk about this while others have not seen the movie yet. Devastator has a bit part. He only shows up for the end fight. He isn't trying to steal something like Blackout. It technically isn't necessary because they are mentioned in the plot, and since they have no actors attached to them then we can't very well call them part of the "cast" per say. I think the plot is a better home for them, and since Devastator does nothing more than show up to fight and get killed, his presence in the plot isn't all that important, other than to name the fact that he is in the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to us to specify who had a "bit" part and whose roles were more important. Was Ratchet more important than Jazz? Was Anthony Anderson's character more important than Tyrese Gibsons? That's up to debate, and it won't help the article to do that. However, I don't think anyone will doubt that every Transformer in the movie was "important" since, frankly, the movie was about them. Therefore, I don't see any reason to exclude Blackout and Devastator simply because they weren't voiced. King Zeal 12:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Another way to look at it as from an outside perspective. One might see the movie and wonder exactly what type of vehicle Blackout and Devastator are, which is really one of the main reasons we should include their character descriptions. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this could be considered valuable information. Also, Devastator is mentioned at other times throughout the article, so perhaps a character description is necessary to anchor these connections. -- Scottjar ^{(t • c)} 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We should include Devastator and Blackout in the Deceptacon lists. They both played a role in the movie and Blackout played an important role in the prequel to the movie and was the first Cybertronian seen in the movie (at the start). Besides, by adding the two would only mean each one wouldn't have the phrase "So-so as the voice of Blackout or Devastator." Also Scorponok... I almost forgot that Taipan198 13:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason for a cast list is to have out of universe information. If people are interested in what type of vehicle they are, that should be in the production section, not the cast section since they are not part of the cast. No actors = not part of the "cast".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the vehicle types should be moved from the characters section to a new, separate section in the production section, then? In any case, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines never mentions that a character must have an actor to be included in the cast section. It does explain how to write a character description that is based off of an actor, but it does not specify whether a character with no actor can/not go in the cast section. -- Scottjar ^{(t • c)} 13:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I still have issue with classifying cars without citations. I'm not a military experts, I don't know the exact tank that Devastator is. As for the cast section, what films have characters but no actors? Would you list Freddy Krueger as part of the cast for Wes Craven's New Nightmare, since technically he appears in the cast section being credited as himself? He isn't a real person. The concept of a "cast and characters" list is that you list the actor and the character he plays, not just list the characters in the film. There's no OOU to that. We might as well list the mountain dew machine, the x-box and the SUV, since they technically become transformers in the film (and according to King Zeal, there is no such thing as a bit part in a film that is about transformers). It's my opinion that if you don't have an actor then you really aren't part of the "cast". You can have production information about your character, but when it comes to casting information, there's nothing to fill out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We must look into the context of the situation. For example, if I made a film about a mute cartoon, should he not be listed in the characters section, even though he is the main subject of the movie? Now, clearly this is just an illustration, and neither of these characters are main characters, but it just shows to prove a point that just because a character doesn't have an actor does not make them unmentionable. The best course of action would to be remove the vehicle descriptions from the Cast section and create a new section in Production that includes which vehicles the Transformers are based off of, or to create production notes under each character subsection for the Autobots and Decepticons. Would something like that work? -- Scottjar ^{(t • c)} 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you made that movie then you won't have a cast section period. That is why the style guideline says that a cast section is not mandatory. Look at Halloween (film). No cast section. Look at Jaws (film), no cast section. The "cast" is covered in the production section, in those cases under "Casting". I prefer this way, because it keeps the possibility of lots of in-universe information and original research from over-running the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright. To settle this, I've removed the robots from the cast section to a separate section for the robots. If anyone disagrees with this feel free to discuss. (NOTE: section may need some cleaning) H^t/c 14:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate it. Alientraveller 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember having this discussion with Alientraveller a while ago! This is why i suggested having a Characters section (using the format Character [voiced by Actor]) rather than a Cast section (uysing the format Actor playing character). I know this is raking up an old discussion, but I feel the idea has merit. For the transformers themselves the character is more important than the voice actor (note that by "transformer" I mean the Autobots and Decepticons, not the Allspark-created psychotics!) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be in violation of WP:WAF. Alientraveller 15:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think as it works now is fine. Alientraveller 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be fine now. At least the characters are mentioned and what vehicles represent them, are in the article, somewhere. I just fear that the later discussion about the Brawl/Devastator naming conflict may not be anchored enough, as he is only noted as existing in the characters section. But thats another topic to discuss, I suppose. -- Scottjar ^{(t • c)} 16:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why we don't have citations for the vehicle forms. Visual identification is not reliable. As I stated before, I'm not an expert in military vehicles, nor the difference between a Peterbilt truck and any other semi-truck on the road. Saying Starscream is a fighter jet is one thing, but classifying the jet into a specific model is another. We had citations there at one time, but they seem to have gone.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I've found on backlogs/Google, Ironhide [4], Starscream [5], Barricade [6], Jazz [7], Blackout [8], Optimus Prime [9], Devastator [10], Ratchet/Megatron/More confirmation of the others [11]. Should these be re-added? -- Scottjar ^{(t • c)} 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't view most of those (at work), but what I'd really prefer (though, what one prefers and what one gets are not usually the same) would be a car expert talking about the vehicles. Like say, if Car and Driver did a spot on the vehicles for the film, that sort of thing. To me, that is the most reliable, but possibly not findable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of them are supported by the production notes avaliable at ENI. However, the Peterbilt is discussed and cited in "Design". Alientraveller 17:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Should cite both (preferably), or at least the first mentioning.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comic book and novel adaptations

While this is a page about only the film itself, shouldn't it at least be mentioned in one line that the film was adapted as a novel and comic with links to those pages for those who wish to follow them.? user:mathewignash

I personally dislike having itty-bitty mentions of soundtracks or video games, but they are mostly linked in marketing. The article is already a bit long. Alientraveller 16:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

See Halloween (1978 film)#Adaptations for an idea of how to write it. That includes both the books and the game that was created.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Anyone object? Please chime in. user:mathewignash

Blackout No Voice?

How can he be credited with no voice actor when he said "All Hail Megatron" as the Decepticons converged for the final battle? TimothyPilgrim 13:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Decepticons were communicating with each other electronically at that time. What they were saying was shown on the screen as subtitles. Mcr29 13:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've only seen it once so far, perhaps I remember is as a vocal line instead of text.70.52.142.136 03:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)