Talk:Transformers (film)/Archive 5

Where are Blackout, Devastator/Brawl and Scorponok?

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

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

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

Real-world context and people, not electronic babble. Alientraveller 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

While it sounds good, it does raise questions of who should and shouldn't be included in a characters section. How much of a role do you need to have in order to reach the characters section...I'm sure that would be something that would get edited often. We're they really major characters? Who's to say? (Rekija 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

That's not really a valid arguement. Same could be said of "Cast", should the used car salesman's wife be listed as "Cast"? She was mosy definitely in the cast, played by an actress, but she was very minor, not worth noting. Definitely Scorponok, Brawl and Blackout were major characters in the movie. They just wern't played by voice actors, they were completely created by special effects, right down to the sounds. Mathewignash 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a cast section, the cast section is meant to contain real world information about the actors and their roles (which it currently does not completely fulfill). Cast sections are not mandatory. As for those three characters, they are mentioned in the plot, which is the only relevant place for them since they have no actors voicing or portraying them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Citation(s) for use

• "'TRANSFORMERS' WRITERS: A REVEALING DIALOGUE". Wizard. 2007-07-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

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

Adding some content

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

Over-Sponsorized

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

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

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

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

I'd simply call a section Product Placement and list what licensed products appear in the movie and when they appear. This movie was full of them, possibly escessively, but this is an encyclopedia, and a section should be focused on facts not opinions. Listing the placements is a fact, saying it was excessive is opinion.Mathewignash 20:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do any of you actually have a source that discusses the product placement in the movie?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, yeah, it's called "Marketing" and "Design" and "Filming". Alientraveller 20:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an article at brandchannel.com about what products were placed in this film. They are AAA, Apple, Aquafina, AT&T, Austin-Healey, Beretta, BMW, BOSCH, Bose, Boston Red Sox, Burger King, Cadillac, Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet, Chevrolet Camaro, Cisco, CitiGroup, Daewoo, DeWALT, Dickies, Ding Dong, Dodge, eBay, Enterprise, Fila, Ford, Ford Mustang, Furby, GMC, GMC Yukon, GPX, G-Star Raw, HO HOs, HP, Hummer, Kidrobot, Lexus, Meltdown Comics, Mountain Dew, My Little Pony, NFL, Nike, Nokia, Oakley, Panasonic, PayPal, Pepsi, Pepto-Bismol, Peterbilt, Pontiac, Porsche, RadioShack, Realistic, Reebok, Roar with Gilmore, Saturn, Sennheiser, Sikorsky, Taco Bell, Technics, Toyota, USA Today, USPS, Volkswagen, Volkswagen Beetle, Washington Redskins, Wells Fargo, Xbox and Yahoo! http://www.brandchannel.com/brandcameo_films.asp?movie_year=2007#264 Mathewignash 21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask for a list, I asked for a source that discusses product placement. All they did was watch the movie and write down every brand name that appeared--which some were most likely not placed there on purpose.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The proper response is "Thank you." - Your welcome. Mathewignash 21:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you ask for a glass of water and someone hands you a hamburger, do you say "thank you"? No, you clarify that you wanted water. If you'd like a thank you, ok. Thank you Mathewwignash, for providing a source that did not provide what is needed if you want to create a section, paragraph, or even discuss any relevancy to "product placement" in Transformers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Er guys, we already note that having four of out five Autobots being GM saved $3 million in the Design section, that the military supplied many vehicles and aircraft in the film, and in Marketing that Bay directed tie-in adverts. Alientraveller 21:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

True, Maybe just a reference to the link I provided as a source for what tie-ins occured in the film. Opinions? Mathewignash 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary. That site isn't linked on many other articles. I save external links for something more official or relevant like those concept art galleries. Alientraveller 21:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, it isn't a product placement list, it's a "every brand seen in the film list". Look in the list up to the Russell Crow western (3:10 to Yuma). They listed "Smith and Wesson". Did they list that because the filmmakers placed "S&W" all over the place, or because a character had a S&W gun? It isn't a product placement list, it's just a list of everything that appears in a film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Most "leaked" scripts cannot be verified as "official" scripts. Also, Bay does mention the leaked script in the commentary for the movie, and explains that it was at least 5 months older than the final version that was used in the film. Regardless, you cannot apply intention to "product place" by saying "it appears in the script by name." If I eat Snickers candy bars, then I'm likely to have a character eating one as well. Product placement insinuates intention to place products in a manner that markets them to the audience. You need a source actually saying that was the intention, or at least saying that it is believed that was the intention to even discuss such a thing. Alien has already pointed out that the "products" are mentioned in 3 separate sections, and we do not need a new section devoted to retelling the same information. A list of products for a "product placement" marketing attempt would be nothing but indiscriminate information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe I made a point that the script I had was early and unofficial. Most productions I am aware of make sure NOT to use name brands for ANYTHING. You saw what happened with Insinkerator and Heroes. The script mentions things like by brand name and BOLD LETTERS, it seems to imply the writer is placing them. Are any Brands mentioned in the credits? That would seem to indicate they did it on purpose. Mathewignash 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't watch the credits all the way through, but it wouldn't be unusual to have them there is you showed their product, even if you weren't intending to market for them. The reason being, if you saw Dr. Pepper on the counter in a kitchen scene, but it was sitting over to the side, you'd have to get Dr. Pepper's permission to show it...otherwise you'd have to either reshoot the scene or digitally remove it. Products in films are not knew, since everything nowadays is trademarked and copyrighted. What this section was trying to imply is that the film was "over-sponsorized". To define what "over-sponsorized" is, you need reliable sources discussing the product placement. You cannot just go, "oh, there are 100 brand names that appear in the film, so that's way more than any other film". Going by the link you provided above, Ocean's Thirteen had a lot of products in it, as did Blades of Glory and many more. It's just a common trend in films nowadays.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Goofs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per the page warning:

This is not a forum for general discussion of voice cast, how much you hate the character designs, the new interpretations of Transformer biology or how this movie "isn't Transformers". Any such messages will be deleted.

What part of it don't you understand? Oh and don't bother trying to put those goofs, just because other film Wikiarticles 'have' them. Whether its you or anybody else's POV doesn't matter - it'll be out of the page before you know it. So STOP insisting that your views must be put in the article! Eaglestorm 05:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are two ways to add content to a Wikipedia article: by either following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or by the wrong way.

I can add material without discussion, "votes" (BTW, Wikipedia is not a democracy; we use consensus), or decisions. What I add just need to be something that is neutral, encyclopedic, verifiable and free. If you can bring us that type of material, you will be welcome to improve our encyclopedic article about the Transformer film, and any other.

If you find relevant material from reliable sources about criticism for this film, it will be possible for this article talk something about the negative reception from relevant critics about these perceived "sponsors". But we just can't say "the film had a lot of propaganda", even less having just your opinion as base for this claim.

Have a nice day. wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 11:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there was a little misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Yes, it is a place where everyone can edit...but that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want. I would request someone with all those handy links to policies post a view of them here so our new friend can get a better understanding of how this works. But for the topic at hand, goofs should be left out, but if you can find a reliable source saying the film is over-sponsored (some major critic must of written about it somewhere) I would see no problem with adding that to critism to the movie. Part of being NPOV is showing balancing the good and the bad, just remember no wiki editors opinion on a movie should appear in the artcile...as we are not notable. But if you find someone notable that says what your trying to get across, and its not in the artcile already...thats how you can add to the article. Rekija 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

IMAX Poster

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

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

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

Sequel (Variety)

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

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

Furman and Yee's reactions

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

If they have having a reaction to the film, then I would say critical reception, as that is more about how the film was viewed when released, and less on how it was viewed in development.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well thing is, the reaction section also shows how the actual box office success of the film prompted Hollywood to re-make Voltron, Knight Rider etc, unless you feel that information would be more relevant to the box office bit. Alientraveller 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know, that would be up to you. It would probably be better served there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unsure because Furman and Yee aren't film critics, so they would feel out of place. Their familiarity with the series gives them a bias certainly. Alientraveller 21:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made up my mind and included them in "reaction". Alientraveller 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This stuff is unneed and might be disguised trivia

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

Nonsense. That many of the cast were fans indicates why they were interested in the project. Alientraveller 09:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet, when I go to other movie pages, no mention is made about the actors interest in said films, or the info is contained elsewhere and not with the actor/character listings. I'll concede the fact that it should be included in, but where it is right now in the article is the wrong place for it.--293.xx.xxx.xx 07:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument, otherwise all articles would be clones. Why not take a look at Jurassic Park, Children of Men and Sunshine, as well as WP:MOSFILMS. In any case, if your interest in the film is purely entertainment, then don't go and read the article. Alientraveller 08:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Executive Producer

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

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

Leaked script

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

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

There were dozens of design leaks during production, the script itself becomes part of a whole. The early codenames are discussed in Design, and I think early drafts are only really notable if they were really different. Case in point, the robots not speaking in the first draft. However, this 2006 script was almost the finished product. The only new thing I can gleam from it was the name of the plot device; "Energon Cube". Alientraveller 10:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of the early released movie talking keychains actually say "We must protect the Energon Cube." This was later changed. Mathewignash 18:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources talking about said keychains? If so, that would be placed in the marketing section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the first one. I also found a later one at a store and they replaced that line. Basically the first shipment of the keychain said BOTH "Allspark Cube" and "Energon Cube". Here is a link to a store page selling it. http://transformers.awestores.com/ttp/Transformers-Optimus-Prime-Communicator-Talking-Keychain/products_id/113647.html It lists both energon cube and allspark cube as lines. The later ones released took out "Energon Cube" and changed it "Bumblebee, come in Bumblebee!" http://www.shopatron.com/product/part_number=1454/317.0 Mathewignash 20:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Special effects needs a minor change

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

There's a citation here, should anyone care to use it in the article ("Digital Domain completed nearly 100 visual effects shots, including the character animation of several robots...") Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Hang on, I'm talking crap, and appear to have missed your point. Though in my defence, I've been shying away from reading most of the article until I get around to actually seeing the film. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fate

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

His fate is not pertinent to the plot of the film. You are making speculative remarks which have no encyclopedic value. The last sentence says, Starscream is the only verified survivor. That pretty much sums up that he was the only one confirmed to be alive, and if any others are alive then it doesn't matter because they were not show to be alive. Barricades whereabouts are irrelevant to the film article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, firstly it is not I who is making speculative remarks. Secondly I was working on diffs and stating that his fate is undecided would seem perfectly plausible. Have it your way. Rick-Levitt^Contribs 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a universal "You", as in anyone making the statement is merely making speculation. His fate was not explained, which is perfectly accurate, but has nothing to do with the plot of the film. Starscream is only mentioned because he's the only one seen. For all we know we could easily say that Megatron could very well be alive, as no one saw Ratchet check his cybertronian pulse.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nor did we see the fate of all the product-placementformers. It's much easier just to state whats confirmed rather then list everything not mentioned. The plot section is about what is in the plot, not what isn't. Rekija 08:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Barricade?

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

It is mentioned, in the last sentence it says "Starscream is the only confirmed survivor." We don't know what happened to Barricade, and we cannot speculate as to what could be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Speculation in and of itself is bad, but this is speculation that flies (no pun intended) in the face of what little evidence we have is worse. Starscream flew into space alone; end of story. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you watch the movie, you will see that Barricade isn't shown being destroyed. so there has to be some explenation for it. And when in the movie did it say that Starscream flew into space? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.76.123 (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

During the credits, the final shot is of Starscream flying into space. As for Barricade, you don't know what happened to him. The magic of movies is that characters can die off screen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

TRAILERS?

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

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

Release date

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

missing

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

FA push?

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

Serious discrepancy

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

It's trivia. I'm surprised they changed the image and didn't bother changing Devastator's name to Brawl, like they were supposed to have done. Either way, it isn't encyclopedic enough to note anywhere. Us stating "comparing these two images, this is wrong" would be original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but if the DVD is re-released with this correction made, will it then be notable? Zchris87v 05:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not unless some secondary sources starts making note of it. It's a goof, and goofs are trivia. Unless there is some controversy over the scene, general goofs are not noteworthy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Plot

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

Plots do not have to follow the order in which they were presented in the film. Finish the movie, it will all make sense in the end.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, finish the film. Plot makes perfect sense, and until you see the end, it might not make sense. The same as if you watch the first 25% of the film. Nothing at all will make sense. Zchris87v 05:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, after watching the entire film, the plot doesn now make sense...however, I think the ending of the plot summary could do with improvement. It just seems to be short sentences for a lot of the last sentence and that's it.--§ Eloc § 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the plot not making sense to you after watching the film entirely...well, that's your problem. The plot section does not need some sort of an epilogue sub-area IMO. Eaglestorm 02:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I just have one little question: Where does the movie take place? I read somewhere that when Bumblebee reconfigures into the more modren looking Camaro, it takes place in Detroit. But when I read Jazz's thing, it says he crash landed in a baseball stadium in California. I'm really confused. Kap2319 18:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

All takes place on the West Coast. There were parts filmed in Detroit, but I don't believe anything takes place in that actual city.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sam lived in California - all the cars had california licenses. They then travel to Hoover Dam for the sector 7 scenes, then the final fight is in Mission City, which was 22 miles from Hoover Dam. Portions of Mission City were filmed in Los Angeles (You can see the LA Orpheum Theatre in one scene), and the part where Megatron chases Sam into a big abandoned old building was the Michigan Central Station in Detroit. The bits at the Pentagon would occure on the east cost obviously. Mathewignash 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review Suggestions

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

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

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 16:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Clips used for Bumblebee

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

Allspark vs. AllSpark vs. All Spark

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

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

Bonecrusher lives

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

I don't think we should change events that happen in a movie to reflect continuity changes that a toyline makes just to help sell toys. A comic book sequel could have Jazz rebuilt and alive, but that wouldn't change his death in the movie, and a sword through the head seemed rather definite of death to Bonecrusher.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

With Jazz I can agree with you, but it's never stated in the movie that Bonecrusher died. So I merely suggested it be changed to he was "defeated", or "apparently killed", or something more open. Word it as you will. Considering how hard it is to kill a Cybertronian, this may be reasonable. Mathewignash 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The "difficulty" of killing one was really only felt by the soldiers. Optimus dispatched Bonecrusher quite easily, and when Bumblebee returned he took out Blackout without much resistence. I doubt Prime would stab him in the head with a sword and then walk away knowing he was still alive. Considering his head basically seemed to almost fall off after that strike, there doesn't appear to be any reason to suggest that he is alive, short of that toyline that wants to suggest that. The finale statement of the plot, "Starscream is the only confirmed survivor," basically says everything it needs to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Bumblebee was only trying to stop Barricade long enough to get Sam to safety and meet up with Optimus, Ratchet, Jazz and Ironhide--who had just landed. Prime was separated from the pack at the time, and also, the Decepticons had already made themselves known to the Autobots in the middle of the day. The fight with Barricade was much more discrete. Regardless, you clearly see Prime stab him in the head, whereas with Bumblebee you don't see anything and are left to assume Barrcicade is dead until you happen to see him later in the film. Fight not seen = open to interpretation. Fight seen, with sword through head = No reason to assume that isn't deadly. You're basing your opinion to change the wording of Bonecrusher's death off of a toyline bio description. If you can find official word from someone attached to the film that Bonecrusher was indeed not killed in that fight, then I can see changing it, but not based on a toy's description which has no bearing on what actually happened in the movie, or will happen in a sequel.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hasbro owns the character, not Bay. Mathewignash 04:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bay made the film, not Hasbro. This is a plot summary for what happens in the film. There's no reason in the film itself to indicate that Bonecrusher survived. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Bignole and Erik. Marketers don't care about plots, or creating new plot holes, "writers get paid to fix that" (except right now, of course). They just want to move plastic off the shelves. Until Bay, or the writers, says that Bonecrusher's coming back, there's nothing to support that it's 'true' for the character. ThuranX (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Except for the people who actually own the character who say he did survive of course, but who cares about them? Unlike most movies with a toyline, in this case the toy company OWNS the character they licensed it to a movie company to make a movie about, not the other way around (usually a movie company licenses out to a toy company). I will give you this though, this page is devoted to the movie itself, not the larger line and fiction that exists., but nothing in the movie says he lived or died specifically. He was beaten to a pulp in the movie and then we saw nothing else of him. I mean we saw Frenzy Beheaded and live, Why can't Bonecrusher do it?Mathewignash (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

None of it really affects what was in the movie. No matter who owns the character, what was written on the toyline did NOT happen IN the movie. This article is about what? The events IN the movie. So, no matter if minutes after the end credits, all the bots climbed out of the ocean and killed everyone on the planet, it didn't happen IN the movie, and so shouldn't appear in this article about...the movie. PureSoldier (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me where in the movie it says he's dead then? NOt just beheaded like Frenzy? Mathewignash (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Let it go dude. What happens in the movie and what happens in the toyline has no bearing on each other. The character received a sword through his head, he wasn't "beaten to a pulp", his head was cut through. Different from Frenzy, who's head was simply removed from his body, yet still intact.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

LOL. Lest we forget, this isn't a forum, but I'll be nice and just say Barricade drove off and is lying in wait until a sequel. Alientraveller (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For information on the seeming error of Barricade's disappearance, you can read his individial Wikipedia page. Barricade (Transformers)

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

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

Robots more popular than humans

[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3if4dd78b5e8cb03906e2e7fb5e3f535ee Special THR report]. Any ideas of where to include? It's pretty obvious, but an interesting read if the sequel is more bot-focused. Alientraveller 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

SoundWave Leaked image

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

No, that's fan art. Alientraveller (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's very cool fan art though... shame it has nothing to do with the film!-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

It's not a matter of belief. Alientraveller (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

google the name on the imge, you'll find it's an old-school new-movie revisionist at deviant-art, showing off a bunch of 'how they should have looked to be faithful to the old stuff because i can't let go of my childhood' type art. He's got a grasp on the new style ,but immediately runs backwards. it's sad, really. that much talent could really do a lot if he wasn't terrified of it. But it's clearly fan art, google searching supports that, thus no inclusion. ThuranX (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look on his DeviantArt page you'll even see that he says "This, of course fan made and has nothing to do with the TF movie. Just having fun trying to find a balance between the movie style and retaining as many classic visual cues of the character as possible."-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Starscreams Lastword

I have watched the movie in theaters, on DVD, and on Blu Ray. When Star Scream goes to space in his ending credit sequence he says something, but between the audio fx and the Linkin Park Song i cant hear it, even in surround sound. I think someone should find out what he says and post it in the main page so that those of us with OCD can die happy knowing what he said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.57.152 (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit

JimDunning (talk · contribs) is now taking care of my request. Alientraveller (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cast

Blackout

What about Blackout? How come he doesn't have his own biography like everyone else in the "Decepticons" section? -JasonQ87

Blackout was not voiced by anyone. Likewise with Devastator and Scorponok. Alientraveller (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of weather or not he had a human voice, he is still an important character in the story and should be included in the list of other characters. I am adding him. Andrew (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The section is "cast", not "characters that appear in the film". He's mentioned in the plot section. There is no need to mention him again in the "cast" section when he isn't part of the "Cast".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow... Responded quickly... I decided against adding him myself... but I still think digital characters should be added in the cast list. Andrew (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Alientraveller and Bignole -- if there is to be real-world context about Blackout, it would be more appropriate in Production instead of Cast. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no point in having Blackout in the cast list when nobody voiced him. Production fits better. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Andrew that Blackout and Devastator should be in the characters list or cast characters list. Technically or academically they are not "cast". But most viewers won't know until they read it. To disobey people's instinct logic and hide the fact somewhere else won't help people know it quickly or at all.Cofi (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your instinct is to assume that a CGI character, that does not speak, would be listed in a section for characters that were represented physically or verbally by an actual actor? You cannot make a blanket statement about what "most viewers" will assume, unless you actually have statistical data to support such a theory. If readers are only interested in "what Transformers are in the movie", they can read the plot, that's why it is there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit I don't have any statistical data to support my theory. I am not sure the burden of proof has to be on my side since neither side has the data. My point is that I agree your technical definition of "cast", but not itemizing non-speaking transformers with other voiced transformers would probably cause confusion. (again, no statistically significant data to prove it, only me and my friends got confused when we read it the first time) My suggestion is to list non-speaking CGI with the others and tell the reader there instead of in some other section. I didn't find any "what Transformers are in the movie" section and am not sure what you refer to Cofi (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you still arguing over this? He's in the cast section now. Alientraveller (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Devastator

Why tank Devastator is not in Decepticons section?Cofi (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See above discussion on Blackout Quetzilla (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I think a mistake many of us editors and Transformers fans have made is that the voice actor is be all and end all to the performance of a 20-foot robot. It's not: this totally disrespectful to the animators and the prop makers who bring the characters to life via computers and vehicle driving. So my proposal is to start rearranging the article, so the newly-renamed "Cast and characters" section ultimately supplements Production. What say you? Alientraveller (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I have advocated it be a character list for some time, so I agree, add all the Cybertronian characters to the list, even if they didn't have a voice actor. Mathewignash (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on cast lists has been that they shouldn't exist. I believe in "Casting" sections under "Production". To me, a cast list does nothing but open the door to IU information that should really be in the plot section. Having a casting section is better because you stick to the essentials.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's not my point: what I'd like to do is start extrapolating and displaying specific information on the creation of each character. Similar to Jurassic Park, except clearly, the robots had dramatic roles too. Alientraveller (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not see things suppliment production sections. I think having the cast mentioned in a casting section, and the robots mentioned in both a special effects section and probably a writing section. SFX covers their design, while writing covers how their individual personalities were created for the film itself. The voice actors can be discussed on the casting section as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What about an alternative way of presenting information about the Transformers? The Actor as Role setup doesn't apply, clearly. Why not just have a table containing three columns -- Transformer, vehicle type, and voice actor? It wouldn't put the voice actor at the forefront. As for in-universe detail about each Transformer in the film, what is being suggested about that? I don't think we really need to detail what a Transformer specifically does in the film to back its real-world context. The general role seems enough -- e.g., leader of the bad guys, one of the good guys. For the real-world context, I agree with Bignole about having the information segmented where it's relevant -- Casting, Special effects, Writing, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a draft of what I've imagined in my head User:Alientraveller/Transformers (film)#Cast/Production redraft Alientraveller (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Implemented now due to approval from Bignole and Liquidfinale (talk · contribs) on my talk page. Alientraveller (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Live-action/animation

Every time I put the Category:Live-action/animation films thing on the Transformers (film) page, they delete it. Why? Transformers is a live-action/animated film. All the Transformers are computer animated. -Dpm12

I think that's because it isn't an animated film, but a live action film with some animation in it. Just about any film with CGI would be considered "live action/animation" when you think about it, no matter how minute the CGI was. Plus, in this day and age, when you say "animation" you initially think of things like Bugs Bunny or the Little Mermaid, you know, something that is more cartoon. At least, that is my first thought, and possibly the thought of those that are removing the category.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the examples at the category. The category refers to traditional animation, not computer-generated effects. If this were the case, films like the Matrix sequels would belong. This is the threshold that exists, and Transformers doesn't fall in that category. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bay on sequel script

“ I can't do the movie without my writers, but I have been prepping. I'm not in the guild, but I've been writing every day. This strike (is) insane, and a director's responsibility is to the 50 crew members who depend on you for their livelihoods. We've got battle plans ready for the possibility of an actors strike. Somehow, you've got to keep the ball rolling. ”

[3]

I'm confused. Does this mean Michael is writing the script now? Alientraveller (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. To me, it more implies that he's throwing some story ideas together or something, in order to plan and prep his action scenes and ready for the writers to work with when they come back off strike. Steve ^{T • C} 10:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kurtzman, Ehran, and Orci wrote an outline and submitted it to Bay the day before the strike began. Bay's "template" is basically a fleshed-out version of said outline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.66.253 (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit issues

These are questions and issues raised during the copy-edit process.

• There's a passage in the Production>Effects section that references the animators using Prime and Megatron's weapons from the show —

"Bay instructed the animators to observe footage of two martial artists and numerous martial arts films to make the fights look graceful. Many of the animators were big Transformers fans and were given free rein to experiment: a scene where Jazz attacks Devastator is a reference to a scene in The Transformers: The Movie where Kup jumps on Blitzwing."

The second sentence seems out of place, a non sequitur. It may support Bay getting the desired fight style, but some additional context would be helpful to enhance the cohesiveness of the section. Can anyone provide more info?
Jim Dunning | talk 14:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I rearranged it and took a cue from the DVD: they actually discuss how many fans animated the movie after discussing ILM and Digital Domain's work load. Alientraveller (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The first line of the Plot section states that Optimus Prime is explaining Cybertron's destruction. Is this a voiceover? To whom is he explaining this? Is this straight-forward exposition? The sentence should have an object, but I haven't seen the film so I can't add context. Also it says, "and his quest to obtain the All Spark." Is this OP's quest or Megatron's? I want to break up this long sentence, but need to understand the context.
  • Optimus narrates the beginning, middle and end of the film, so the movie's always had this context being about Optimus's discovery and appreciation of humanity. I'll see what I can do, as "The film begins with" is rather redundant.
• In the same paragraph there's a reference to "Cube". Should there be additional context? Is the Cube the name of the facility at Hoover Dam? Also, it says Sector 7 discovers the All Spark; should it location on Earth be mentioned here?
  • The All Spark is nicknamed the Cube by every character. This should be removed or fleshed out.
• In the fourth paragraph there is a statement, "Locating the All Spark, he sends an alert to the other Decepticons." What is the antecedent of "he"? Who sends the alert? Is it Frenzy or Megatron?
  • Frenzy alerts all the other Decepticons.
• Also fourth paragraph, the sentence, "Frenzy's virus has shut down government communications, so the Autobot-human convoy goes to nearby Mission City to get a radio that can communicate with the Air Force into taking the All Spark away." is confusing. Are only certain radios able to contact the Air Force and are they few and far between? Is it supposed to say something like "the Autobot-human convoy goes to nearby Mission City to radio the Air Force to ask it to take the All Spark away", or something to that effect?
  • Even after repeatedly viewing the film, I'm unclear on this myself. Essentially Frenzy's virus planted on Air Force One evolves to take down military communications, bar a basic non-digital line the hackers and the secretary of defense use to eventually call the F-22 Raptors into action.

• In the end I count four Decepticons dead and Starscream escapes to Space. That appears to leave Scorponok and Barricade unaccounted for. What is their status? Who dumps the dead Decepticons into the ocean?
  • Keller orders the Decepticons killed in the climactic battle to be dumped in the Laurentian Abyss. Indeed, Scorponok and Barricade's fates were left open to the sequel.

• Again fourth para, it says, "Optimus takes a fragment of the All Spark from Megatron's corpse, but realizes that with it destroyed . . . ." Does "it" refer to Megatron or the All Spark?
  • Maybe a good time to use the Cube nickname. Alientraveller (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk 05:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Academy Award Nomination

I'm going to re-add the bit in the intro about it being Academy Award nominated, its notable. Numerous articles for actors and actress' on wikipedia who were nominated and didn't win an academy award and/or golden globe award have the same note in the intro. The Academy Awards are arguably for film what the Hall of Fame is for baseball or any other sport. Just being nominated for an Academy Award denotes excellence in the field of cinema. WalterWalrus3 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's more important than being a live action film adaptation of the toy line? I rephrased it so as not to be so biased. Alientraveller (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sentence order can indirectly cause bias. By putting the Academy Awards in the first sentence you are indirectly saying that the AA are better than any other award, because no others are listed. Second, the first thing a person reads when they come to the page is about how good the film must be, because it won awards. Per WP:LEAD the first paragraph should contain all the basic information about the film, and the second paragraph (or really the last paragraph if you have more than two paragraphs) should contain the information that makes it notable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, check this out please.

Resolved

Also this. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception

So... I see nothing in the critical reception or reaction section about the movie's portrayal of black people, as with Anthony Anderson and Bernie Mac's characters. In the movie, (probably jokingly, but nonetheless) they are shown as being extremely rude and profane with their mothers or grandmothers, and the maternal figures are the same with them. I suppose it's not listed because no one reputable made a big deal of it, but it seems not to be appealing at that point, especially then to me as a black person, or as I'd say brown.  ?
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts would have to be that no one talked about it, in which case you should blame the critics and not the Wiki article. Now, if you can find some reliable critiquing of such elements, then I would say it would be a shame not to include it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If a white person had played Glen, would people cry "racism"! No. The argument is pretty void. Alientraveller (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Alientraveller, I don't know what you're trying to get at there, but fact is 1. A white person did not portray Glen 0 he told his Grandmother to shut up and drink prune juice come on now, and 2. There is also Bernie Mac's character. So that's two instances. And let's not forget the emergency call that was transferred through the presumed Indian telecommunications guy. The movie seems to play on stereotypes purposefully probably as a joke. But don't start playing race games here. I was just wondering if it was mentioned anywhere. I'm not that good at finding new citations anyway ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the telecommunications scene, that was based on a real-life incident. I wonder where I should place that. Alientraveller (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just accept the fact that blacks will be a target no matter how many wonderful things they do for the world, such as 72.49.148.17 (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds so wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.97.38 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The hidden message near the plot

Any particular reason why it was removed in early December last year? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As the film has been out for ages and most drive-by editors (who searched for the article after seeing the film) got the point. Alientraveller (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Some Dialog

Captain Lennox: Mission City is 22 miles away. We're gonna sneak that key outta here and we're gonna hide it somewhere in the city. Secretary of Defense: Good!

That was part of their mission, they were also looking for a way to communicate with the airstrike. That is why this section is a "summary" and not a play-by-play.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they want to grab some ice cream, but the dialog above is all they tell us about their reasons to go to the city. The airstrike is supposed to be called by the SOD and the other guys from the old radio.

A summary shouldn't contain wrongness. --87.189.121.82 (talk)

First, please don't say "wrongness", that's not even a word. Second, the summary contains their actions. What do they do when they get to Mission City? They try and find radios that will work so that they can contact the Air Force and get a strike team in, as well as get a transport out for the All Spark. Hiding the All Spark is just the initially phase of their plan. The SOD called them initially, but it was the ground force that guided them to the correct location (something the SOD couldn't do since he had no idea where exactly they were).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The article currently says that they go to the city to hide the allspark and obtain a radio; the second part is not mentioned in the movie; it's simply not verifiable, because it is wrong. (They do obtain radios while in the city though.) --87.189.121.82 (talk)

You mean the part where Josh Duhamel's character picks up the short wave radios and says -- (and I quote), "I want planes for air cover and get a Blackhawk helicopter to extract the Cube." -- isn't verifiable information that they are doing what I just said they are doing?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean; but they are in the city already, so it's no reason to go to the city. (Does it make sense? Nope, but that's not the only thing that doesn't in the script.) Can't you just find a sentence to bring both facts together? (I can't think of anything.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.117.71 (talk)

As the plot is a summary, it doesn't entirely matter what order events are: yes, Lennox and Epps improvised during the battle, but at the end of the day, they were in Mission City and got a shortwave radio to communicate with the Raptors and helicopters for defense and extraction. And please sign your comments. Alientraveller (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That same MOS that you're citing at "The Incredible Hulk" is the same one that says events don't have to take place in the plot section in the same order as they do in the film itself. If people want to know precisely what happens, they should watch the movie. As far as the summary goes, they simply go to Mission City to hide the All Spark and retrieve some communication equipment so that they can coordinate with the planes and helicopters. You are basically removing that last bit-which is more important then the "hiding the All Spark"-the entire battle is interrupting them extacting that All Spark, not hiding it. Did they ever get to Mission City and say, "ok, go hide this some where"...no, they were in battle from the moment they left the dam, and as soon as they got to Mission City they grabbed radios to communicate with the Air Force.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There. Alientraveller (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That's what I couldn't think of before! Thanks! (And I hope you don't mind my detail change.) --87.189.93.245 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not talk about order; the radios were simply not given as a reason to enter the city. Why do you think the summary would be better if the false statement is added?

I suspect that you try to interpret my version of the summary and come up with a blank; so did I; that's the fault of the script though. Wikipedia should not fix faulty scripts in its summaries.

So, please, don't try to write in your version of what the script should have been. Wikipedia relies on verifiability; script-doctoring is not an option.

Again, Why do you think the summary would be better if the false statement is added? --87.189.93.245 (talk)

Whatever, it's been settled. Alientraveller (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alientraveller just commented: "I just don't want the military to look like idiots for putting the Cube in a populated area, it's just Lennox never originally mentioned that"

It's not the military that are the idiots, it's the script writers. Yes, they explicitly mentioned to move into the most populated area they could reach to hide there, see dialog excerpt at the top of the section. Yes, this is very, very stupid. So is using visible light for laser designators. So is waiting for a pair of Thunderbolts when a Spooky is nearby. The list goes on. Again, please don't try to fix the movie's script in Wikipedia's summary. --87.189.93.245 (talk)

Actually, at BotCon 2007, the writers said their point was for Mission City to be a rendevouz point. And it still is that during the final battle, even if Lennox doesn't mention that reason to the silly secretary. So another piece of Bay bashing, courtesy of me. He doesn't mind.

Now enough off-topic joking around. Alientraveller (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Redwing

The part of the movie where they escape the base is amazingly like the events of operation redwing. A failed operation in afganistan i think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.132.136 (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a reliable source, we're not going to make a whacked comparison of real life to a giant robot attack. And Blackout and Scorponok's attack was in Qatar. Alientraveller (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

3d design of characters

Interesting fact needs to be included. This also is a yardstick of computer CGI in movies. Someone include the number of polygons it took to model Optimus prime. Here's the website. 1.8 million polygons for one model. Amazing.

http://www.design-engine.com/feature.php?feature=71 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.32.238 (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Design Feature's so called "news" article stole that info from VFXWorld, which I worked in ages ago. Alientraveller (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You keep deleting extremely relevant information. Do you not understand that people want to know how the movie was made and know how many polygons were used ? --70.243.74.186 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Optimus's number of mechanical pieces is unnecessary, reader already understands how complex Ironhide's cannons alone are.

2) Length of polygons is trivial.

3) Article is stolen from another website (which is already cited in the article) and should not be linked.

Alientraveller (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the article is unnecessary. We don't need information on how much money it grossed. You obviously don't understand or care how the movie was made. Why are you even moderating this page? --70.243.74.186 (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Nobody cares about ironsides guns. 2. Who mentioned length of polygons? I didn't. 3. Who cares where information comes from as long as it's correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Polygons for this film are mentioned in a lot of messageboards about this film. Telling people how many in one sentence shouldn't be a problem. It's also a benchmark of Cgi films.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 (talk)

Messageboards don't matter here. They aren't reliable sources for information, nor are they really likely to be a good gauge of the overall notability nor popularity of a topic. The Polygon counts have been discussed in detail already, we do not need to belabor the point with more of it, especially since it turns out that one of the major links you keep trying to include turns out to be plagarized from an article we already use. So if you would kindly STOP trying to add copyright violating materials to the article, and read the article through, you'd be in a much better position now. ThuranX (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to explain that the public doesn't understand how many polygons it takes to create one model and that it's a common topic about this on messageboards. How is it a problem to mention it in one sentence. And i don't care if it's plagarized if it's factual. Hello? facts are facts aren't they ? The links don't matter to me. Are we going around in circles? Were is the so called duplicate information? I don't see it. --69.152.37.243 (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

once again, message boards are irrelevant. Plagarism trumps 'accuracy', as well. This has already been used in the article, using the original, NON-plagarized article. This has all been explained both in article edit summaries and here on talk. I told you where to look, so go look. Look at the material on Optimus prime and some 20K polygons and so on. Once the information's stated in one manner, it doesn't need even more. ThuranX (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

--70.243.75.66 (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Once again you mist the gist of my comments. Do you speak english? I said on 3d and CGI messageboards that this a regular question. I thought this page was for ANSWERING questions. Bumblebees wrists and Ironsides guns referenced in the 'design' section doesn't do an adequate job. Both those descriptions are weak to people who understand 3d design. 1.8 million polygon models is better. And my edits are INFORMATIVE. They are NOT VANDALISM. To claim so is LIE.

Who are all these people who want to know how many polygons were used? After the movie, I didn't hear anyone asking "Did you SEE the polygons on that Autobot?" "Oh, man! Those were some nice polygons on that police cruiser!" I'm not sure the notability is there, especially based on one link. Considering every news source reports on the earnings of all the big movies, the money grossed is notable. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC) --70.243.74.188

You don't think people want to know of how the effects are made? The polygons are what made the movie into a blockbuster. And yeah they did say 'The computers effects were good'. Ever ask yourself why? Rendering and polygon count matter. Get it yet?--70.243.74.188 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I do have a problem with include a non-notable, trivial fact, if this fact is non-notable or trivial. So, again, is this fact notable in a worldwide view, or only among a small circle? ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 21:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I could see including it if there was context. "Optimus Prime's had 10,108 parts, there are also 1.8 million polygons and 2,000 texture maps" doesn't tell the average reader much. "1.8 million polygons" seems an impressive number, but how can we tell? I looked at the article the anon-IP referenced and all it says is, "Transformers indeed represents a new watermark in ultra realistic hard body surfaces. 'This had to be rendered and it's terribly complicated,'" and goes into little detail to put the "new watermark" statement in perspective. Was the previous achievement 1.5 million? 1 million? And what are polygons? The one line tells most readers nothing useful, whereas the statement "Ironhide's guns are made of ten thousand parts" seems to adequately convey a general idea of sophistication or complexity. (Maybe we add that OP had 10,000 parts, too? With a valid source, of course.)

Since the contributor says, "Most of the article is unnecessary," perhaps that indicates that a film article is the wrong venue for the information. Maybe it needs to go in Computer-generated imagery or Computer animation? Or an article just about CGI in Transformers?
Jim Dunning | talk 02:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming sour grapes for the editor. He seeks to use a plagarized article as a source, which is a problem. The original article was already used in the article, so his inclusions are generally redundant. He feels we should have emphasized other material in that article, and wants HIS view of it used in addition to the existing view. On top of that, he is dismissive of other real-world aspects of the film, like box office take and critical review, showing him to be a one issue editor. He's not willing to listen to any of this. This article's fine for covering the CGI in this film, but he just wants, effectively, two from Column A. His claims to be an expert on the subject are also problematic, as they border on 'arguments from special knowledge'. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats not true at all. I can use the original source of the facts. Thats not the issue. A small sentence on how the main characters were created in cgi by adding polygon count is 'informative' for computer knowledgeable people. Polygons ARE PARTS. If you want to then add an entry on 'computer animation' or cgi. --70.243.74.188 (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we write articles for everyone, not a select group of people. We cannot write articles that contain things that the average reader wouldn't understand. The average reader of a film article needs context as to what a polygon, in reference to the CGI, actually is and does for the image. If the last CGI character had 1.5 million polygons, why is Optimus so special with 1.8 million? What are the advances that makes 1.8 million so special? We cannot write an article for the average reader, and then have a single sentence that caters to only those that understand the concept. If the entire article was about CGI creations and polygons, when sure that's one thing, because you'd write the article and in the process explain what all that means...but it isn't, it's about the film. We need to know what it means to be able to use it beyond a trivial capacity.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Moderator problem. edit war. Need your help.

Can some of you email or notify other moderators about Alientraveller. He seems to think how the Cgi or polygon for one model in this movie is unnecessary to mention. We only want one sentence mentioning the polygon count. Alien'whatever' thinks it's not relevant for some reason. He's obviously uneducated little boy.

He referenced me as 'boy'. LOL. I am no boy son.

We need to kick this guy Alientraveller off this page or remove his priviledges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, you could just pay attention to what's been said and supported by others. We don't need duplication of the information in the article, and we don't need a bad link stinkin up the joint. Alientraveller's actions in the last few days are correct as far as I can see, and demanding his "priviledges" (privileges) be revoked isn't likely to get you anywhere. ThuranX (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What he said is wrong. He gave a list of awful examples. The polygon count is what made the film. It's the centerpiece. How could you not include in one little stinking sentence. Obviously your just protecting him. THERE IS NO MENTION OF POLYGON COUNT IN THE ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at Transformers (film)#Effects and you will see, very clearly, the text "Due to the intricate designs of the Transformers, even the simplest notion of turning a wrist needs 17 visible parts; each of Ironhide's guns are made of ten thousand parts." The article you are trying to add as a reference stole its text from another website which is already cited. There is no need to link to the same information twice. If we appear to be defending Alientraveller it's because he is an extremely skilled editor and, along with Bignole and others, has made this article what it is today (a featured article, no less). -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My problem with it is context. Everyone and their mothers knows what a "part" is. Saying something has 10,000 parts is clear as a bell, but I have no idea what 1.8 million polygons and 2000 texture maps is--or if that is significant. I'm not a CGI animator, so those numbers mean nothing to me. Unless the readers are, they probably mean nothing to them as well. Unless someone can provide some context to what a "polygon" is (not the general definition, I had geometry back in middle school so I know what it is) and "texture maps" and how they relate to creating Prime, then I don't see a reason to include the information. As for the stolen information, if one person reports on it you'll probably find others that have and hopefully they are more reliable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

10,000 parts is not clear to me. 1.8 million polygons is better and more accurate on how difficult the project was. Adding one sentence is going to hurt this article how? --70.243.75.66 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

1.8 millions polygons is not clear to me. So, the problem comes down to notability. How notable is it to mention this information? That's my question. I can try to imagine what that means with the limited CGI knowledge I have. I imagine the same for a majority of visitors. Adding one sentence of trivial or false information can hurt this article (not that I'm accusing this information of being false, possibly trivial). Adding something that is notable to a small group of people, but is not notable to a worldwide view, would be trivial and hurt the article. So, what is the notability of adding the number of polygons? ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 21:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can not understand what a polygon then add a reference to polygons in the article. Polygons are big part of what made this movie great to look at. They are the building blocks of each character for this film. Including the number is informative to people involved in the CGI business too. Does an article have to be dumbed down for little children? Have you looked at some math and scientific articles with all the equations on wikipedia? Adding a small blurb on polygon count shows the state of the art at this moment for a film like this. It can't hurt to add it when you look at all superfluous stuff in this article. --70.243.74.188 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above post to a point: if some new information about the significance of the CGI complexity can be added to this article so that it makes sense to the typical audience of this article, then go ahead (and "Adding one sentence" is not going to provide the necessary context). I have, however, four concerns about assertions the "add" supporters have made:

• They make statements that place all the weight on the CGI at the expense of other topics treated in the article ("Most of the article is unnecessary. We don't need information on how much money it grossed." / "I don't think people care how much it made in europe. Thats for imdb.com")

• Statements that focus on adding the "fact" with disregard for key Wikipedia policies about Verifiability ("And i don't care if it's plagarized (sic) if it's factual.")

• Statements that actually support the argument that their proposed contribution is more appropriate to a technical article about CGI ("superfluous stuff in this article" / "Including the number is informative to people involved in the CGI business" / "Have you looked at some math and scientific articles with all the equations?")

• Even after seeming to agree that additional context may be helpful, instead of just crafting a grammatical, clearly written, properly cited statement from a reliable source that does not duplicate existing information and adding it to the article, they keep "telling" other editors – who don't agree with the need for the change – to make the change for them.

Every edit made adding the polygon information has lacked sufficient context, duplicated existing info, and has not referenced a reliable source. Instead of just complaining to everyone about their removal – after numerous editors have pointed out very specific concerns – find a reliable source that can provide more information for context (and an acceptable citation) and write a few sentences that clearly communicate the CGI achievement to the typical audience of a film article. Also, ensure it doesn't duplicate existing information (this may require more writing). And make the change. Or try something more challenging (and possibly rewarding) by starting (or adding to) an interesting article about the current state of CGI in films where the technical content and tone are appreciated and appropriate to that article's audience. Just some suggestions.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

38 hours to render one frame?

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=2161640&enterthread=y

Math here is correct. Most movies use 6-10 hours per frame. 38 hours would mean one minute = 54,720 hours =152 days for one minute. Not accurate.

It says that it took 38 hours to render a single frame with ALL the transformers in it. It did not say that it took 38 hours to render every single frame of the movie. You're taking this out of context. Once they get them all in frame, they don't have to re-render them for each succeeding frame...they're already there. By your theory, it would take a 120 minute movie 172,800 hours to render all the frames (given that 24 frames per second is what the human eye processes...though that varies depending on slow motion or sped up shots.)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

you're right. But wiki article gives the wrong impression that it takes 38 hours for each frame.

Under 'Effects'- "Such detail needed 38 hours to render each frame of animation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.188 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It only gives the wrong impression if you take it like you're taking it. To me it says that whenever they had scenes that required that much detail it took them a day and a half to render a frame with all the Transformers in it. I guess any reader could take that a step further and assume that ALL the frames required 38 hours, but we can't help how readers interpret the sentences, and we cannot re-interpret the sentence if it isn't supported by the source material. What I've done is gone in an used Bay's exact quote from the source, this way if readers misunderstand what is being said at least they misunderstand it with the exact words used by Bay.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Because context is lacking from the reffed article I could be wrong about this interpretation, but "project" hours are different than "chronological" hours. That is, each frame may have required 38 hours of total effort, but real-time passage could have been significantly less. For example, if you have 20 CGI artists working on the scene, (assuming all contribute equally) each frame requiring 38 hours to create would actually take less than 2 hours of real time to render.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's another good point that I didn't think of. One person didn't work on the entire film by themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

152 days could easily have been allowed to render the shots after animation was done, considering the limited screentime of the 'bots and 'cons, and previsualization began in 2005. A film which was hamstrung by a $150 million budget like this meant pre-viz would have become the first stage in animation (like 2005 King Kong: the pre-viz was practically the finished product in terms of shots and movement). But anyway, nice use of the quote Bignole, for some neutrality. Alientraveller (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sam killing Megatron

It says under Plot: "Sam, who is ordered to get the All Spark to a rendezvous point for it to be taken to a safe location," but at that point he is actually ordered to push the All Spark into Optimus Prime's chest. Should this be corrected? Sparrer (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he's sent to a rendevouz point before being attacked by Megatron, which makes Prime order Sam to push it into himself. Sam choses to kill Optimus's "brother" instead. Alientraveller (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it reads like Sam chose to kill Megatron rather than get the All Spark to safety, whereas really he did obey Optimus (and almost succeeded) but Megatron caught up to him. It just seems to be missing a bit. Sparrer (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

I notice the first sentence in the Sequel section reads "Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg are expected to return as director and executive producer respectively for Transformers 2". I think it's pretty certain that both Bay and Spielberg are involved in the sequel - Bay's own blog implies that he's directing (and given that he's written the draft story, I think that's a given) and Spielberg has been quoted talking about the film. Does anyone have a reliable source that we can quote to confirm these facts? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just a choice of wording. Alientraveller (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just that, while they likely signed their respective contracts ages ago, no-one has seen fit to report the fact, so the article is relying on a story with the most up-to-date reliable information available. I'll have a trawl to see if I can find anything more recent. Steve ^{T • C} 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bignole's reversion and the problem(?) of two-sentence paragraphs

Bignole (talk · contribs) changes introduced by 68.167.191.26 (contribs) with the comment "let's try it again without turning everything into 2 sentence paragraph": the reversion lost interesting and relevant detail about the film's success in the U.S. market. The changes reverted can be seen here. I don't understand why the introduction of three two-sentence paragraphs is a problem, and suggest that the issues be identified here instead of handled via a reversion. Thanks 67.101.5.198 (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is bad to have short paragraphs. And theater gross is getting trivial, especially as the film wasn't just a success in America. Alientraveller (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Paragraphs should be 4 to 5 sentences longer, if they are to be good, strong paragraphs. I couldn't find your relevant information because you had broken up every paragraph on the page - thus, everything was in red and undistinguishable from everything else.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The 2-sentence "issue" was trivial to resolve without reversion.68.167.254.57 (talk) (formerly known as 67.101.5.198) 07:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC).

If I could have figured out what you had added, I would have put it back in. Unfortunately, you made so many unconstructive edits that the simplest solution was to revert the whole and say to do it again, only this time include just the information you want added.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned it all up. I don't think the theater average was worth a mention in the lead. While unconventional to straight up state the whole box office gross in that section, I do not object. Alientraveller (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we would move the worldwide gross to the top, and then mention that it was released in all those markets. It's out of chronilogical order of when the event occurred (i.e. it was released before it made money.). It seems that writing about how much money it made first comes across as trying to entice the readers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word 'kill'.

Resolved

ask when you get to heaven. ThuranX (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I havn't actually seen the movie, but this has been bugging me. The plot spoilers describe Sam as 'killing' Megatron. How can this be? Megatron is a machine, surely we should replace that with the word 'destroy' instead? Or is Megatron and the other machines technically considered as living beings? A Prodigy^Talk 15:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's not get into a metaphysical debate. It's just a word, and this isn't an argument worth having, especially since you haven't seen the movie (and that's not inteded to be a dig at you, it's just a statement of fact). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I just thought it would be better to use 'destroy', thats all. A Prodigy^Talk 16:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See the movie first, then discuss, if an ontological pseduometaphysical debate about if a CGI character in a fictional film has a 'soul'. sheesh. ThuranX (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Humans are soulless squishy creatures who, fortunately, Optimus Prime favours. All hail Megatron! Alientraveller (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Optimus Prime explicitly state that he would sacrafice his "life" to stop Megatron by having the Allspark pushed into his chest? Since we only have the words of the actual robotic aliens to go on, they seem to believe they are "alive", and alive things are killed. Mathewignash (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, really. Stop. This is getting REALLY forum-ish. It doesn't matter, they're fake. There aren't any Transformers (except the electrical kind). don't pander to the user. I would've deleted the entire section, but Evula answered. ThuranX (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant to the article, but I agree, this discussion is getting out of control, should I maybe add a resolved tag? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dates

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transformers_(film)&diff=next&oldid=236001684

I disagree with this edit. Why? Because Transformers is an American movie, which is why I believe the dates should be the American way. (June 21 instead of 21 June.) I am willing to discuss this, furthermore I looked at the this in the manual of style and according to that both formats are ok. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed them to the date/month format (rather than month/date) because the manual of style recognises that as the international format. To be honest, I'd rather they stayed as links, as that way they'll be formatted to the preferences of the user, but it seems that was too easy! LOL! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't be in the international format, they should be in the country of origin format. If we had specific times listed in the article, we wouldn't reformat them to be in the 24-hour clocks (which is the international format), they'd be in the 12-hour format because this is an American film. It's the same reason we don't change the spelling of words to "international spellings" (if such things actually exist), but to the spelling of the country of origin. If it's a British film, it gets British spellings; if it's an American film it gets American spellings; if it's a Japanese film, well it should be in Japanese ;). (Last one's a joke). Also, the dates are still automatically formatted (the coding is still present, just check the reference section which still lists the American format for dates on my computer, which is set to that format), as they are placed in the "2008-09-03" format in the cite templates that format them automatically. Plus, another test would be to say..what do you see when I do this: 12 September 2008? If you see "September 12, 2008", then they're still working, as I actually put in [[12 September]] [[2008]]. I don't know why they started discouraging the use of autoformatting, that's just stupid, but the coding still actually works.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(After edit conflict)

I agree with Bignole. Neither linking or my preferences is my point AT ALL!!!!! According to this section it should be month/date like in the United States. I have yet to see in the manual of style that the other format applies to ALL articles, including United States related articles, since you're so sure that's the case, it shouldn't be a problem to show me. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've reverted to the US-only format. Oh and Bignole - yes I do see the dates formatted correctly in your example, but not in the article, asTony1 removed all the links, thus negating the auto-formatting. I've never quite understood the rationale behind the American way of writing a date - the rest of the world writes them as "smallest unit/middle unit/largest unit", the ISO standard specifies "largest unit/middle unit/smallest unit" but the American way is "middle unit/smallest unit/largest unit"!

Hey, when you figure it out let me know. After that, explain why we're on a 12-hour clock, but everyone else is on a 24-hour clock (except our military...obviously).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly will! LOL! After that I'll try to work out why there is only one Monopolies Commission and what occasional furniture is the rest of the time! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

updated box office/home video sales

i tried updating the total gross (which was incorrect) and adding the dvd sales in the title box but it did something bad. Here is what I did. help?

There is no field for DVD sales in the infobox. See Template:Infobox Film for a list of all the available fields.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Spielberg

What is the rationale for going against community practice of NOT including executive producers in the inforbox and deciding to include Spielberg? Why don't Brian Goldner and Mark Vahradian get listed? Why aren't any executive producers listed in the infobox for other films? Saying it's because Spielberg was so "hands on" isn't reason to ignore the accepted practice of not listing the executive producers in the box (or any other producer for that matter). You cannot say that Goldner and Vahradian didn't have hands on experience in the film, just that Spielberg was the one people talked about. We cannot give special treatment to Spielberg just because of who he is. If any other no-name individual had "hands on" experience in any other film they still wouldn't be listed in the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll list Brian Goldner too. I wonder why Lorenzo di Bonaventura isn't linked too. Alientraveller (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the point, we don't list any other executive for any other film article. Why is this one special? You haven't answered my question. Mark Vahradian and Michael Bay aren't listed either. It's because the producer field in the infobox is for producers, not line, associate, or executives. Why does this film have to make exception to that rule?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a guideline (I linked Goldner in the G.I. Joe infobox for example). Hmm. Alientraveller (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This was under heavy debate about a year ago (or longer), as someone brought up (not here, I believe it was either on the FILM MOS or the Infobox page) why we don't list the other producers. They wanted us to list ALL producers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I went through that archived topic, and there was no consensus. I think the infobox here is free to include Spielberg, whose contribution to the film was invaluable. Unless, you want to link DreamWorks. Alientraveller (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Early title - Transformers: Prime Directive

Should it be mentioned somewhere that early reports of the film had it announced that the film was called "Transformers: Prime Directive" for instance here http://www.hollywoodnorthreport.com/article.php?Article=3049 It was even mentioned in interviews with some actors, for instance here: http://www.mania.com/transformers-prime-directive_article_102997.html The leaked script that was about 95% accurate to the movie was also titled "Prime Directive" http://www.millenniumfalcon.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=7059 Seems worth mentioning as a dropped title or working name, at least. Mathewignash (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Orci confirms leaked script was real

I figured it was worth mentioning (it was a point of contention earlier) that Robert Orci has confirmed that the leaked early script was real, and he wrote it early on before Michael Bay was even hired. So anything in it might be worth mentioning as part of the development of the characters/plot. When was bay hired on again? That would help place when this puppy was written. Mathewignash (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just had to read, it says "Michael Bay was asked to direct by Spielberg on July 30, 2005" and Orci was hired in 2005 (no date given) so this script was written some time in 2005, before July 30th. Mathewignash (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Awards

I've removed some of this content. These aren't awards and this qualifies as trivia under Wikipedia's guidelines. My edits of trivia from this article and the Titanic (1997 film) article have pissed off User:Alientraveller for some reason. Possibly because they think Wikipedia is a fan forum. It's not.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The voice of Bonecrusher

Right now, Jim Wood redirects to Dishwalla, which I find very dubious. It seems highly unlikely that the Jim Wood in that band is indeed the one doing the voice here. Main issue though, is that the right Jim Wood seems to be a somewhat obscure and scarcely known actor and does not have his own Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.178.246 (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Design

"The military of the United States provided significant support, enhancing the film's realism: the film features F-22s, F-117s, and V-22 Ospreys, the first time these aircraft were used for a film; soldiers served as extras, and authentic uniforms were provided for the actors.[1] A-10 Thunderbolt IIs and Lockheed AC-130s also appear. " It's obvious there was a Boeing E-3 Sentry . the one that directed the A-10s. zzkaelzz 11:50 April 4 2009 UTC

Air Hostess on Air Force One

Can ANYONE tell me the name of the actress that plays the air hostess on Airf Force One that goes down to storage??? Also, what else has she been in??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.204.104 (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is not the place to ask such questions. Try imdb instead. thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

My sincerest and most humble of apologies... :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.204.104 (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What were those military vehicles?

When the military is driving away from Hoover Dam and towards the city, what type of vehicles were they driving? Were they actual vehicles the military uses, or just something made up by filmmakers? They almost looked like ATVs. 64.136.26.230 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe they were made up for this movie, but they were the basis for the toy character of Landmine. Mathewignash (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

John Tuturro

John Tutturo's character is named Regiie Simmons in this but in the new film he's called Seymour does that call for a name change or no? GOBLUE56 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Where's the blurb about how critics thought of the film? All I see in the "Reception" box is how fans of the Transformers were divided about the portrayal of the characters. Fruckert (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Welker voicing Blackout?

User Plo Koon 1, known for ceaselessly adding unsourced fan fic, added Welker voicing Blackout. Is there any truth to this? AFAIK Welker didn't participate in the first movie in any way. If no one can confirm, I will check the movie's credits later today. --uKER (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As indicated, Welker almost made it as Megatron's voice actor. As for Blackout, there's no voice actor attached to it. Besides, why should anyone assert that Welker voiced Blackout two years after the movie's released? Plo Koon 1 needs to get his head checked for the unconstructive edits.--Eaglestorm (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Budget

The page says $150,000,000 but Bay says in the commentary that they spent $151,000,000. Is this worth changing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by H4eafy (talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured, eh

Damn, guys. Good job. I'm happily surprised and impressed. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

MPAA rating

While it may have been in the wrong place, I think there is some place an MPAA rating should be in the article, along with other ratings board... if only in the reviews section, since they do, basically review the film and rate it. No different than any other film rating/review group. Mathewignash (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Mosfilm#Ratings? This section says that unless specifically relevant, or enough data exists to provide a global view of the received ratings, the topic should simply be omitted. Namely, they suggest against the sole mention of the MPAA rating. --uKER (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I took that advise against SOLE ratings from the MPAA as advocasy that you should include them and many other from around the world for a more global view. Not remove them so you end up with no view at all. To quote "Provide global coverage of how different territories rate individual films if substantial coverage exists. " So that would mean give the MPAA rating, the rating in the UK, the rating in Australia, and everywhere else you can find it. Just don't rely on ONE since it's only local no matter which one is it - while wikipedia is global. Mathewignash (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I agree. --uKER (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think the reviews section would be the right spot to re-add the MPAA rating info, but then we should also include some other countries ratings systems to comply with the guideline. I think the IMDB has ratings for countries in it, but i"m not sure we can source that alone. Mathewignash (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Megan Fox myth

I think that this myth (which was spread on magazines and blogs) should be mentioned in the article because of how much it is known. It is not just something someone mentioned on a forum. There are three versions, one that she physically seduced him while wearing a bikini, another is that she came to his house in the bikini and they had sex in Bay's Ferrari. Another one is that Bay ripped off her top in the car and they embraced while kissing passionately. This was not just mentioned once but was mentioned many times.74.108.143.82 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Cite a reliable source and you're good to go. Otherwise, forget about it. --uKER (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a back-up story in an issue of National Enquierer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.143.82 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you could remember the particulars about that issue, cite it or you can just drop the issue altogether because unsourced stuff cannot be allowed here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

National Enquirer is NOT a reliable source. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Bell criticism

I tried to add comments made by one of the original show voice biggest actors (he did a half dozen voices), Michael Bell, in the films Reviews but was told he wasn't a professional critic. I think response from someone involved with the original show this is based on is based on is a legitimate point of information in this section. Other opinions? Mathewignash (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)