Talk:Transformers (film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citations for use[edit]

  • Kellvin Chavez (2007-02-21). "On Set Interview: Producer Don Murphy On Transformers". Latino Review. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Kellvin Chavez (2007-02-21). "On Set Interview: Producer Tom De Santo On Transformers". Latino Review. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Kellvin Chavez (2007-02-21). "On Set Interview: Producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura On Transformers". Latino Review. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Kellvin Chavez (2007-02-21). "On Set Interview: Producer Ian Bryce On Transformers". Latino Review. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Wiki-newbie 22:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph[edit]

Per WP:LEAD, the lead paragraphs are supposed to be a concise overview of the article's body. However, I do not see anything in the body that reflects this statement: "Due to the new complex design aesthetic of the Transformers, the film has had intense Internet speculation." Is such a notion even measurable? Vocal minorities can often seem to present a larger audience than what would normally perceived. I suggest that if this statement is not going to be backed by valid citations of the so-called speculation, it should be removed. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. WikiNew 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can someone fix the grammer of the first paragraph specifically "However, this film is an intended as a reboot"? that was bothering me ForwardtothePast 06:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's it now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New edits[edit]

Blackout's rotor weapon isn't a shield--there's nothing to base 'that' off of. And more importantly, Frenzy doesn't "launch out of Barricade's chest ala Soundwave." That's a feature *only* in Barricade's toy; the script makes 'no' mention of Frenzy and Barricade even having any relationship. In fact, we really need to stop using the toys as a reference point for the abilities of the TFs from the movie in general--the toys can probably do a ton of crap we're 'not' going to see in the movie. 72.72.229.127 15:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

really? i read some of the script and i couldve sworn that it mentioned Barricade and Frenzy working together at some point Thontor 17:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what version of the script you read. Michael Bay said on his blog that the versions of the script doing the rounds on the 'net have some differences to what will actually be in the film. JediLofty 08:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. As cited, Hasbro worked a lot with the Art Department on the designs. As of now, these are the characters unique to the film universe. WikiNew 15:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to an IGN interview with Acclaim, who will be publishing the official video game for the movie, Megatron's earth form is a Stealth Bomber. Originaldave77 01:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's in the article already. Not the "alien jet" nonsense that came before. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look here you'll see it specifically states his alt mode as Cybertron Jet. -- JediLofty User | Talk 08:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've read the comic, you know about Megatron's unique circumstances on Earth. But what matters is what mode they take up on Earth, (eventually in Megs' case): we don't go specifying that Starscream is say, a million tonne spaceship with 42 million energon cubes in storage for one second of the film. Alientraveller 08:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't he stay in his Cybertron form for most of the film? Obviously no-one's seen it, but that's the impression I get. -- JediLofty User | Talk 08:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis reed 21:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Why was the sector seven mobile command unit information removed from the Marketing section of the main article?[reply]

WARNING - QUIT PUSHING POV'S IN THIS ENTRY[edit]

This message is for several of you "idiot fans" - either get on the same page or get the f***ing hell off of Wikipedia! Henceforth, I WILL be checking this entry from time to time throughout the day, and ANY mention of biased forums or other non-official sites WILL be deleted!

Being a moderator does NOT mean you use that post to push your own agenda. Either keep is NPOV or supply info both pro AND con..... you CANNOT have it both ways.

Anonymous user, please keep your language and your personal attacks in check. If you want to edit constructively, great, but your fowl mouth, your personal attacks against other editors (e.g. "idiot fans") and your lack of complete knowledge about the 5 pillars of Wikipedia need some work. Removing "blog and forum updates" from the description for the link to Michael Bay's official site has nothing to do with NPOV or a violation of external links. Lastly, stop casting blame on everyone when you don't know who did what. Most of the time it's anonymous users, like yourself, that are placing inappropriate links to the article. So, in the future, please just edit and if you have a problem with something, address it nicely and in a civil manner.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not pushing anyone's pov here considering these are the people making the film. WikiNew 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added an entry for the novel Transformers: Ghosts of Yesterday, a prequel novel to the movie, but there seems to be no way to edit this page so that it will link to it. --EndrilRM 19:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some type of reaction to the choices made as far as vehicle changes when they become official. As movies do tend to take artistic license, I expected the changes. I'm sure criticisms will be an issue with this movie, as they are with most movies with such a fanbase. --Ben414 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will personally admit my own biases, being a "traditionalist" in a lot of the fan debates. However, I do think that some mention of the controversies amongst the fan reactons can be mentioned while both adhering to NPOV and being written as relevant to the subject of the article. 24.6.97.27 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can cite them, which I think we can when there are critic reviews, and maybe some articles discussing positive and negative fan reaction. Alientraveller 12:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most fan reactions are in the form of thousands of forum posts across multiple Transformers fansites and movie sites. They have been in reaction to everything from early development announcements, to concept character designs, final designs, to the teasers and trailers, and interviews/posts from various production members. I'm not sure how something that broad should be cited. It just occurs to me that the Wikipedia articles for various others films use language like, "strong praise" or "mixed reactions" or "negative reactions from fans" without citing any references. So I guess my question is: why should this article be any different? Granted that fan bias may impede journalistic (encyclopedistic?) integrity, but how would that be different from the articles of other films? --71.134.252.225 07:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ie. those films were released and reviewed by professional critics. Alientraveller 07:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace[edit]

Didn't know if you guys wanted it, but they just released the official MySpace page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Awesome posters for Optimus and um, is that Megatron or Starscream? The former is missing-in-action for most of the film and this Decepticon doesn't have his razor sharp mouth. WikiNew 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone with Megs. WikiNew 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is Megatron - the image is displayed with a count-down on Michael Bay's site and the image name is primemegs1920_sm.jpg JediLofty 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Weaving[edit]

According to this article, Hugo Weaving is stated to be the voice of Megatron. However, according to the Transformers entry in the IMDb, the voice of Megatron is credited to Frank Welker, the original voice actor. There is nothing in this article to back up the claim of Weaving being the official voice of Megatron. (128.118.100.49 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Oh yes there is. A gazillion news articles is more reliable than IMDb. WikiNew 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, shouldn't they be cited? (128.118.100.49 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is. WikiNew 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only source cited on the Wiki is from Ain't It Cool News--not the most reputable Internet news source available.

After doing some digging, however, I found an article from USA Today which states quite plainly "The Matrix's Hugo Weaving will voice Megatron." This, however, took me quite some time to find, and right after I had written a whole rant about fanboys and IMDb.

Anyway, I think it would make sense to replace the ainitcool article with the USA Today article, as the latter is much more reliable than the former. (128.118.100.56 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Done. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, Sector7 first posted the announcement, and AICN's Quint verified it by calling Dreamworks. Alientraveller 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think these details are ancillary. Latino Review was the first to announce Heath Ledger as the Joker, but we didn't cite them. AICN does not have the strongest reputation in these parts, so I think that the USA Today citation makes the information clear-cut. Not saying AICN shouldn't be permitted at all, but I believe it's been generally agreed that reliable sources that are more visible in the public scope are more acceptable than those that are limited to the Internet. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Login Passwords for SectorSeven.org[edit]

There is an additional password that will work for SectorSeven, "fwiffo".

If there are any others than the ones currently on the page, and that one, maybe we ought to list them here so that we can share them?

Actually I tried all of the passwords on the page and only "byebyepowers" allows access the others require a "retinal scan" and fail to log in.67.165.54.93 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC) WHAT THE?? IS THIS ALL ABOUT?[reply]

The link is not appropriate for Wikipedia due to the limited nature of its access, so I removed it. (H) 19:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, this is a viral marketing site that had passwords handed out in the trailers. Alientraveller 11:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It only allows certain IPs to connect(even with a password), and it requires a password, it is not for Wikipedia. (H) 13:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it again, because it does not work for every IP, only certain ranges. I am not sure what their gimmick is, but they are simply not accessible to the average reader. Please stop reverting me. (H) 13:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A sessions[edit]

Not sure if these have been seen. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added them to Transformers: The Game. Alientraveller 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decepticon Names[edit]

I added in a small bit saying that the names were reused. Last time I put some rubbish about the names, but I hope this time it's ok ;) UltimateNagash 11:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing[edit]

Should Marketing be branched into its own page? -- JediLofty User | Talk 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the page for each Transformer also discusses their toys, I don't think so. As it is, the Movie Prequel, prequel book and game have their own articles. Alientraveller 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot synopsis[edit]

The plot synopsis is, at this point, a disjointed mess obviously pieced together from what little has been officially revealed. I know it's fun to do some detective work, but I think this should be left to the fansites and message boards. It would benefit the encyclopedic value of the article article to leave a synopsis out of it for now and rewrite it as soon as the entire, complete movie can be used as a source and all events can be brought into context. --R. Wolff 13:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a major issue, take a look at the proposal that was implemented at Talk:Spider-Man 3#Scaling back plot detail in the article. We're using only the official synopsis at Spider-Man 3 until the film comes out. I would suggest, though, exploring a possible rewrite to improve the flow. If it's still disjointed, then maybe a similar proposal can be implemented. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that the official synopsis on the official site gives little on the actual plot. The comic book prequel has been so good though in spilling out details however. Alientraveller 09:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much of what's in the comic book will be in the actual film, though? I remember reading the Aliens book before seeing the film and wondering why so much was missing. I had to wait for the Special Edition for the film to accurately reflect the novel! -- JediLofty User | Talk 09:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a prequel, but it considering IDW publishing read the final draft of the script, they retro-engineered a story. So we got ourselves an icicle-Megatron and the Allspark in the Colorado river, with the map burnt into the Allspark. Alientraveller 09:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside... isn't icicle Megatron in his Cybertron Jet form? And doesn't he stay like that for most of the movie? ;-D -- JediLofty User | Talk 10:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the Cybertron form doesn't really matter compared to what design Bay has given him as a Stealth bomber. It's more interesting to know what they build out of real vehicle pieces as it were. Alientraveller 10:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - I'd have thought that the Cyberton jet form should be mentioned, as it is the form Megs takes for the majority of the film. It's like saying Darth Vader is a good guy in the Star Wars films. Well, yes, he becomes a good guy, but for the majority of the movies, he's a villain! :-D -- JediLofty User | Talk 10:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, the film's not even out yet. How do you know Megatron spends most of the film in his Cybertronic form? For all we know, Blackout the loyalist could free him from his icy prison thirty minutes in, setting off all the other Decepticon attacks. When we know for sure, we'll make a note of it that Megatron spends most of his time as an alien weapon. Alientraveller 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point! -- JediLofty User | Talk 10:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have the official plot and have typed up proper synopsis with spell check and human checking aid, request permission to post to better the article in full on the "Transformers Movie". This article will complete the page, reach me at windu588@yahoo.com for questions, answer, and comments. -- Hokage Benefactor User:Hokage Benefactor submitted 6:00 PM 29 May 2007

Megatron - Stealth Bomber[edit]

Just a quick comment.

I had a look at Michael Bay's site (trying to find a citation to back up SS-Schatz's claim that Welker wouldn't voice Megatron because his "voice didn't fit this new Megatron it wasn't about his age or his voice") when I saw that: 

The writers don't want to reveal yet what machine Megatron becomes.

We know he'll be an Alien Jet as we've seen the annotated designs, but are we sure he's also going to be a Stealth Bomber? -- JediLofty User | Talk 22:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A citation from an IGN journalist, who played the video game, and said that he was a stealth bomber. Alientraveller 07:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any others? IGN aren't particularly reliable. I'd also prefer to hear a citation about the film, rather than the game. -- JediLofty User | Talk 13:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's the best we got. Alientraveller 13:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advance screening report from AICN confirms Megatron doesn't have an earth mode - he's only an alien jet. This is consistent with the fact all announced toys of it are of the alien jet variety, as is all of the concept art or renders seen so far. It's also worth knowing Megatron wasn't included in the game demo shown to journalists - only Bumblebee and Blackout were implemented as player characters. The IGN journalist likely assumed Megatron was a stealth bomber from an earlier interview with Shia Labouf, who apparently confused Starscream (who is a F22, arguably a stealth plane), and Megatron. -- Bobbington User | Talk 27 April 2007

That AICN review is an unreliable source. As it is, the film is unfinished, as shown by the fact the reviewer doesn't mention the Artic prologue. Alientraveller 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What arctic prologue? Are you still basing opinions on the comics? -- JediLofty User | Talk 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, in the interview in the plot section Bay discussed the Artic prologue. Alientraveller 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Orci said the review was reliable on the official movie site's forum. Certainly gives more credibility to it than IGN's mention of a stealth plane. -- Bobbington User | Talk 28 April 2007

Link please. Alientraveller 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? -- JediLofty User | Talk 10:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

WOW - 116 references ! (More than in Alfred Hitchcock, well, that one has actually: none). You can overdo it! It doesn't make a movie "more important". --Wittkowsky 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like overdoing the header you just placed (that I've sence adjusted)? Is there actually a constructive concern about the references, or are you just criticizing the thoroughness of these editors? You cannot claim original research if it's cited everywhere. Secondly, the film isn't out yet, and once it is, you can be assured that a good portion of the sources will be removed. We won't need any for the plot, or the cast, because a lot will be verifiable by the film itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is quite clearly trolling. Clearly Wikipedia is neutral and every article should be good. As it is, this is the live-action debut of the greatest toys ever created, so I'm putting extra care into it. Alientraveller 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! I'm glad the talk pages don't require NPOV!;-D -- JediLofty User | Talk 15:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping someone would get the joke. Alientraveller 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vector Sigma[edit]

I was looking through StopSectorSeven.org when I saw mention of http://www.vector-sigma.org (login with MEGAMAN (all caps)). Are either of these sites official, would you think? I know the StopSectorSeven one is mentioned in one of the e-mails on the SectorSeven site. -- JediLofty User | Talk 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews[edit]

Interviews from a set visit. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Release Date[edit]

Hmmm... The UK version of the Transformers website says the release date is 29th June, while the Paramount UK website says it's the 27th July (as does IMDb and The Guardian). I've e-mailed Paramount UK for confirmation but (what a surprise) I've had no reply! Does anyone have anything concrete? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Its much more likely the july one is correct, as its hardly going to be released in uk before us PLAYWERT 19:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? It's going to be released in Australia before the US. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

transformersmovie.com's UK release date is wrong. You can read a full list of confirmed (By Paramount Pictures international offices) list on [1]Transformers At The Moon. The whole release section need to be updated as its missing many dates and others are wrong

Images of the Autobots and Decepticons[edit]

I found these on the Superherohype forums in the middle of this page, which have combined official pictures of the Autobots and Decepticons into cohesive wholes. Would it be a good idea to add them to the cast, without permission of the fan artists who themselves haven't got legal right to combine these images? Alientraveller 12:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no. We can't upload other people's work unless they give permission to use it under the right license, which we would need to verify that if they do. Plus, as you stated, those are copyrighted images, and merging them doesn't change that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rating[edit]

Just wanted to mention that a Lunch'able commercial airing on Cartoon Network during Naruto and One Piece said the movie is PG-13. DeathWeed 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to list any rating would be biased, and to list all would be trivia. Only the initial controversy is worth mentioning. Alientraveller 08:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that the rumor about the rating was false. It was for disturbia, not this

Cite? Alientraveller 12:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Lauren, who runs the director's official site, for one thing: [2]
All this R rating crap is down to one mistake Shia LaBoeuf gave in an interview; he confused Transformers with Disturbia--another Dreamworks picture in which he's the star and Spielberg's the exec producer--and that's it. I'm getting a little tired of seeing this bit in the article, but I'm also aware of WP:V, and probably wouldn't be able to competently rewrite the section anyway. Maybe someone else can take a crack at it. - DoubleCross 03:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on Bay's site, I'll remove it. Alientraveller 10:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viral marketing with fake UFO pictures?[edit]

Can someone say whether these photos are viral marketing for the movie? [3] [4] [5] (a "Space Bridge"?) 75.18.208.222 01:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. In this incarnation of the mythos anyway, Transformers fly themselves. Alientraveller

AUS Release Date[edit]

The Australian release date is the 28th of June and not the 29th. Sources are Hoyts and Greater Union Websites. Aus movies are released on a thursday for some odd reason.. maybe wikipedia has the answer to this.60.240.112.244 07:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Gear and Josh Duhamel's comments[edit]

Jumping the gun abit, aren't we? I think Duhamel was referring to Frenzy (who is indeed a kind of killing machine and had the working name of Soundbyte), while the any other electronic device Transformers are most likely just part of a scene to show the life-giving power of the Allspark. Its highly likely that none of the Real Gear toy characters are in the movie (as their device modes are made up), and in any case, for the purposes of categorization, the Real Gear guys are either Autobots or Decepticons. The full cast of Transformers has already been confirmed. - FFN


{{spoilers}}

Yes, indeed, but we have Real Gear characters too. But Duhamel didn't name the iPod character, and of my knowledge of the leaked February 2006 draft, the Allspark is shown to create transformers from ordinary objects. Alientraveller 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've gathered from visiting various boards and seeing a LOT of spoilers (dammit), the secret agent guys from Sector 7 demonstrate the Allspark's powers by bringing one of the characters' mp3 player to life in a secure containment room, it promptly tries to break through the bulletproof wall while playing some violent music or something, and gets destroyed by a laser beam. That's probably what Duhamel referred to. Its allegiance is never established, and it probably didn't have any since it's pretty much a "hi-and-die" character. - Hiryu84

Either way, those electronic gizmo TFs in the movie aren't characters, and its going to end up silly if you list each and every single Transformer that appears, especially ones that don't have names and are likely just there to as visual aids. And honestly, shouldn't their be official confirmation before people start listing anything and everything said by the actors (who, as demonstrated by Shia LaBeouf comments over the past year, aren't the most reliable of sources). - FFN

Opening paragraph[edit]

The opening paragraph ends with the text It will premiere on 20 June 2007 worldwide before being released across the world. I want to change this, as it doesn't make any sense, but I don't know what to change it to! Alientraveller... help!!! ;-) -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. How do people often approach multiple-release dates? Alientraveller 11:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my comment really was that it says it "will premiere on 20 June 2007 worldwide before being released across the world." Worldwide and across the world mean the same thing - surely it's not being premered worldwide is it? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just state the very first commercial release date then the United States release date. If they're the same, then just say that the worldwide release date is that particular date. Specific release dates for either English-speaking countries or otherwise can be explored in the Release section if there is a reason to that specific date, such as Spider-Man 3 released in Japan on a particular date to coincide for Japan's Golden Week. 155.91.28.231 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frenzy[edit]

Are there any sources for Frenzy being "attached to Barricade" other than the toy? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it would nice to see a source other than a toy. I don't think that's really appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Mcr29 16:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about a movie based on toys and has its own merchandise made by designers involved in the film. Alientraveller 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it's a movie based on several generations of cartoons and comic books. And that still doesn't justify using a toy as a reference. Mcr29 17:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just said, the toy of the movie, which the designers worked on both. Alientraveller 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this is synthesis because I doubt that the toys are going to be absolutely equal to the computer-generated Transformers. Do toys really have the thousands of parts that will move during a transformation? I think that this is unnecessarily assumed detail since we do not know how the film will unfold. If there is no information about Frenzy being attached to Barricade in the film itself, I don't think it's appropriate to make the comparison of features from toys to the computer-generated robots at this point. I would suggest exclusion because it's not clearly verifiable, at least not until we see the film or if there is a film-based report of Frenzy and Barricade being connected. 155.91.28.231 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The toys are the most verifiable thing about this film. Alientraveller 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because designers worked on both does not mean that everything will be the same. Like I mentioned above, the toys don't have thousands of moving parts. Thus, they are not exactly going to be like their computer-generated counterparts. It cannot be evidenced that all features from one portrayal will copy over to the other portrayal, or vice versa. Two other editors dispute your claim, which is not verifiable and only based on the questionable logic that because the designers worked on both the CG models and the toys, that the features in both will be absolutely identical. I would suggest letting the information be removed until there can be attribution about this detail directly tied to the film and not the toy. 155.91.28.231 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but that doesn't mean their packaging biographies don't describe the same character, they don't look alike, albeit simplified, that they don't have similiar gimmicks ie Megatron's morning star, Ironhide and Starscream's arm cannons, and so on and so forth... Alientraveller 18:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are similarities. However, if there is a feature that exists in the toy that does not exist with the computer-generated counterpart, or vice versa, then the 100% match between the two figures would be immediately questionable. If evidence of a difference in features is shown, would you agree that the verifiability of matching features could be questioned? Obviously, the fact that we even have to explore this path means that the assumption is not immediately verifiable for the film. 155.91.28.231 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the toys are our primary sources. Got a better idea? Because right now, there is nothing wrong with using the toy to know Frenzy attaches to Barricade. Because everything on the toys is what we've based our knowledge of the characters in the cast list (and don't ask me to cite toy packaging). Alientraveller 18:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just strikes me that far more verifiable sources could be found than toy packaging about the robots in this film. I don't believe it's been shown in the trailers, but I recall reading Michael Bay talking in an interview about Optimus Prime using a weapon in the film. Something like that is unquestionably verifiable, as opposed to citation of toy packaging. 155.91.28.231 19:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus' arm cannon? Yes, the Leader Class toy can transform his hand into a cannon. Alientraveller 19:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it is not unquestionably verifiable that a toy's features will be reflected in the film. The interview of Bay mentioning the weapon is directly connected to the film and obviously can't be doubted. Using toy packaging can be. How about this: Is there a citation that says, "All the computer-generated models' features will be completely reflected in the toys?" Or are you just working off the logic that because the designers worked on both, the features will be the same? 155.91.28.231 19:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the film's toy line has been completely show accurate, apart from the fact that obviously they're not-to-scale or made of millions of pieces. There is no reason to doubt the toy line, because it is official merchandise of a film based on Hasbro trademarks. Everything was confirmed early on by the toys, most relevantly to this discussion, that Scorponok is Blackout's drone. Alientraveller 19:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...not unquestionably verifiable that a toy's features will be reflected in the film." I think it might be better to look at it from the perspective that the film character's features might be reflected on the toy. Where else would the designers get that feature from??? Glazios 09:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Weaving is a decepticon?[edit]

This is the first I heard about him doing the voice... My only concern is that Hugo is listed as a Decepticon and not "Megatron (voiced by Hugo Weaving)". The same thing looks wrong for Peter as Optimus. Peter is an Autobot? I'm pretty sure that Optimus is the Autobot.

It doesn't say "Peter Cullen is an Autobot" it says he is the voice of Optimus Prime. He IS Prime, but by voice only. There is no physical presence to play, it's a CGI character. It only looks odd because we don't know who is voicing the rest of the transformers. Once we know that the layout may possibly change, but we aren't going to turn it into an in-universe format by acting as if Megatron portayed himself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

What will happen with the cast list if it turns out most of the Decepticons don't speak? Alientraveller 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast List[edit]

I really think that going with a Character (played/voiced by actor) format suits this movie better. Surely the characters are more important than the actors, especially considering that some of the characters aren't even going to have voice actors. I'm not going to revert, but I'd like to generate a discussion here. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just started it above. The thing is, Actor as Character is the general format, so I'm fine with it as it is. When the credits roll, we'll know who did the voices. Maybe we should use a box ala Gladiator, if some character won't speak though. Alientraveller 15:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the look of the table in the Gladiator article, but that's just personal preference. While I agree with rules for formats, there are times when they don't work, like here. For a strict cast list, Bumblebee and maybe Frenzy and Scorponok (just guessing here) would just not appear in the cast list, as there is no actor associated with them. For this film I think it's more a character list than a true cast list, as it's the "huge freakin' robots" that we're all really interested in, after all! ;-) -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the Fox... I notice on many Pixar film articles tables are done to show what a character looks like, being that they're animated so a user isn't going to click on an actor's article for a free image of their appearance. Maybe we can do the same thing given the uniqueness of the 'formers. Still, there's a reason I titled it "Cast and characters". Alientraveller 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we're going to have this issue with increasing regularity now that a number of films are having CGI characters that have no actors at all. I was thinking that mentioning R2-D2 would have had the same problem in the Star Wars articles, but was fogetting about Kenny Baker. Oh, and The Fox? Not a fan. I've not seen Rachael Taylor before, but she looks like she'd be my pin up of the movie! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cast lists are not mandatory, but when you are dealing with a huge cast, like this, they are necessary. So when they are used, per style guidelines it should be "Actor as Character". If they don't have a physical actor then list the "Actor voicing". The other way "Megatron (voiced by Hugo)" suggests that we are referring to a real person, it comes across as in-universe. It's something you would see in the plot itself, but not a cast and characters list. Notability goes to the actor, not the character. Hugo Weaving is Megatron; just because he isn't physically playing the character doesn't detract from the fact that he is the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so by that reasoning the transformers who don't speak shouldn't be in that section at all as they don't have voice actors.
I still think a character list, rather than a cast list is more relevant to this type of film. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who doesn't speak? Do we know who doesn't speak, or do we just not know who is voicing the character. In the trailer I clearly heard Bumblebee respond to Sam. I would think that all would speak, with the exception of maybe Frenzy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only sounds we've heard Bee make in the trailer have been electronic noise (the "It's you and me line" is thought to be either Prime or Megs) and I believe (although I could be wrong) that neither Frenzy nor Scorponok have "true" voices. The others, i would imagine, will speak, we just don't know who's voicing them. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's Optimus then he must be whispering or something, because it didn't sound like Peter Cullen. My point is that we won't know what's going on with that until the movie comes out (or someone talks and tells us everything). Right now we are in the dark.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - we don't know much about the voices (other than for the main Transformers), which I think lends weight to my main point here, which is that, in this film (for the Transformers themselves, especially) the actors are less important then the characters, and so the characters should be listed first. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like given precedence to any fictional character over an actor. Hugo Weaving is a very prominant actor, and not less significant than Megatron. Same with Keith David. One wouldn't say "Jason Voorhees (performed by John Doe)". That character has always been more important than the people that played him, and they didn't talk, just performed stunts. There wasn't "acting" involved. We still don't put the character ahead. I don't think I've seen too many articles that give precedence to the characters. Look at the Shrek films, they are all voiced acted. Shrek 2 doesn't put the character first.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shrek 2 isn't a fair comparison because all the major characters have voice actors, and the Friday the 13th film article on here doesn't even have a cast list. Suppose they made Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope with R2-D2 being purely CGI - would you not list him in the cast because he doesn't have a voice actor? I still maintain that, for this film, the characters should be listed first
Scanning down the Autobot and Decepticon cast list as it stands gives prominence to:
  • Actor
  • Character (who may or may not actually ever have an actor to list)
  • Character
  • Character
  • Character
  • Actor
  • Character
  • Character
  • Actor
  • Character (who may or may not actually ever have an actor to list)
  • Character (who may or may not actually ever have an actor to list)
  • Character
  • Character
which is confusing. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know F13 doesn't have a cast list, I removed it. But the original "Jason" was a child, check out the sequels (especially when you get to Jason X, where there character has been around for 20 years). If they have a voice actor, then the style is "Actor as Character"...if they don't then they don't. Maybe it could be subbed to say "Characters without actors". Look at Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace#Cast, here's a film with live people, CGI characters, and muppet characters... still the same format. The actor is still the character, even if they don't physically fill the shoes themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously not really making myself understood. My point is that there may well be main characters that don't have actors. Where will they go? They are part of the cast, albeit only digital, so should go with the rest. This is going to result in the mismatch I mentioned above which could be solved by making an exception for this film and listing them as Character played by Actor -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the only ones without actos will be the transformers. We'll have to wait and see who doesn't have a voice actor. It may come that we have to reorganize the cast section when the movie comes out. It's fine right now, because we don't know enough to make a choice about organization. At best, I'd keep all the Autobots with actors together, and tall the Decepticons with actos together, and put the no actor known ones at the bottom of their respective subsections. I think Keith David is the only other one we know...so I'd just move him up next to Hugo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it the way it is now, but we have to remember that even if Bumblebee doesn't speak, he certainly is going to be most prominent of all the robots. Alientraveller 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criteria for a character being included in the cast list? I don't think it should be anyone other than major characters since complete cast lists can be found elsewhere. Mcr29 17:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AUS premiere[edit]

Australian premiere is on June 12.

http://www.empireonline.com.au/news/story.asp?NID=1000000848

Reboot?[edit]

Is the movie really a reboot? The given source labels it as one, but consider that the Transformers universe is comprised from dozens of series which range from direct and indirect sequels to non-related, disparate series (see Transformers (fiction)). --Stratadrake 03:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my concern, and the site itself didn't really say that Bay called it a reboot. It seems more like people are simply associating it as a reboot since it's been 20 years since there was a movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. It would be more appropriate to call it a reboot if there were a series of theatrical films featuring the same continuity but that's not the case here. Mcr29 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poster Date[edit]

Why is the release date on the poster say that it releases on the 27th of July when it really releases on the 3rd of july?

Welcome to the UK version of the international poster. And it's out in your country at 8pm July 2. Whoop-di-doo for you lot. Alientraveller 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Harnell or Keith David?[edit]

So, is Keith David doing the voice of Barricade in the movie or is Jess Harnell pulling double duty as Ironhide and Barricade? The additional bit here is that Keith David actually did the voice for Barricade for the game and not the movie. I'd tend to see it the other way around but either way - can anyone confirm? LK Thurisaz 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDB entry still lists Keith David as the voice of Barricade. --SilverHawk7 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is an unreliable source and slow to update. Keith David was probably a rumor: Jess Harnell was announced at the Sydney press conference during the preview screening. Alientraveller 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Keith David's wiki. He already confirmed he's going to be the voice of barricade. --TrevelyanL85A2 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Player[edit]

  • I'm just checking on the casting for the movie. Today, I saw the toy for a new Decepticon named Wreckage. Has there been any mention of him as a character in the movie or is he just coming out as a toy? I only ask because the others are in toy form as well. Monksbane 7:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Check him out on his Wikipedia page Wreckage (Transformers). user:mathewignash

  • Thank you. :)

No, there are several toys so far that are not in the film, and more to come.

Music Section[edit]

I updated what Stan Bush was up to in regards to the soundtrack. Looks like he submitted two songs but the producers didn't put them on there. So he's going to re-release his album "In This Life" (already available in Europe/Japan) in the US with two bonus songs which are the two songs he submitted to the producers. It will be released on July 3rd, 2007. LK Thurisaz 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://au.music.ign.com/articles/794/794821p1.html here's the Transformers soundtrack, why can't this be included in the article, IGN are a reliable sourceLinkinParkOz 08:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a soundtrack article - the film article should have only a basic mention of the music, with a link to the soundtrack, which it does. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Devastator", not "Brawl"[edit]

I am not a Transformers expert by any stretch so I don't want to edit the article myself. However, I am 100% sure that in the final version of the movie the evil tank Transformer refers to himself as "Devastator", not "Brawl". Fuxoft 22:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debatable. But the toy based on the movie is certainly named "Brawl".... --Stratadrake 00:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I am translating Transformers movie for local release, I already saw it three or four times, I came here for some information to get the translation right and I wanted to help you to get the facts right. When all the "evil" Transformers announce themselves to Megatron, the tank's noises are subtitled as "Devastator reporting" - I'm looking at that scene right now. Paramount's final version of subtitle/spotting list clearly states:
1826.10	1828.10/	2.0	DEVASTATOR) (in alien language)
				Devastator reporting.
(Devastator  :  name of one of the Decepticons - derived from the word, 'Devastate')

What exactly is "debatable" about this? Fuxoft 00:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no debate- in the final film the subtitles, the tank calls itself DEVASTATOR ColScott 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the source you are using published? (H) 00:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, how ethical is it for you to discuss this here in the public arena? I doubt your bosses would be happy to see you discussing it here, and I further suspect that anyone actually working on the project would know that. Beyond that, you've got nothign you can cite, as the material you're working on is proprietary, and uncitable. ThuranX 00:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My contract requires me "not to divulge any information which is not yet known to general public". Taking into account that the movie was already officially shown to hundreds (if not thousands?) of members of general audience, I think it's safe to assume that "general public" already already has access to names of the characters in the movie. If I was in any doubt about legality of me posting this, I wouldn't be doing that. Of course I could "cite" the info by making a screenshot of the mentioned scene but that's something my bosses probably wouldn't be happy about and you could claim I photoshopped it or whatever. And if you doubt that I am indeed the movie's translator, have a look at František Fuka at this very site. Fuxoft 01:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere is in two days. Only people who've seen it are test audiences. Yeah, at this point, I'm going to go with 'You are a troll', because anyone who actually had these questions and worked for a company related to the film would have contact numbers of people actually connected to the production who they could call for help. and they wouldn't come to wikipedia. You're a troll, and that's that. ThuranX 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) You obviously have no idea how subtitling works. The only phone number I have is phone number of the boss of local translation company. This number is not very helpful because he is not exactly sure what is the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek. I know e-mails of some Paramount/Dreamworks people but I shouldn't use them directly. I have to contact the local distribution office, which in turn contacts the European / U.S. branch (via e-mail), which then (maybe) replies to the local distribution office, which then forwards their reply to me. Sometimes it even takes less than a week... However, this is completely moot point beacuse I was looking for some information about the exact model of yellow Camaro used in the movie, which I found here at Wikipedia page, thank you very much. I could be arguing that movie's translator is rather citable source and pointing you to this page, for example, but why bother? I don't require Wikipedia page to have the accurate name of some tank and, in two days, everyone will see... Fuxoft 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To FUXOFT - I am surprised the busy admins here have not caught your name yet- seems questionable to me. Maybe try StonedinEurope or something. Anyways, do not try to convince these people of the truth - as you say, the mistake is there, hopefully it can be fixed before release, but the one that played this weekend in LA, last week in NYC, and in Australia and Korea mistakenly calls the tank Devastator. This is only in a subtitle not verbal. Anyways, don't let the name callers here upset you. ColScott 04:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My real-life name is "Fuka". How "questionable" is that? :) "Fuxoft" is name of my software company ("fuka + software") and I used it 25 years ago, long before I learned English. As for "fixing" the subtitle - that's an interesting point but it is taken from final print which will be shown in our theaters so even if they manage to fix it, some countries will still show "Devastator". But I will try to ask the relevant people about possibility of that. 62.24.71.33 09:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My contract requires me "not to divulge any information which is not yet known to general public".
Is it just me, or are there no promotional images of Brawl/Devastator, Ironhide, and Starscream (like there are for the rest of the robot cast)? Anyway. The toy labels him 'Brawl', but I hear the official book labels him 'Devastator'. If this is "already known to the general public", then you should easily be able to find a reliable source to back up your claim. And then you can include it, otherwise it's an uncited claim and may be subject to questioning and removal. --Stratadrake 03:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devastator was a working name for Brawl, as he was officially announced at the August 18 2006 Yahoo webcast with the screenwriters. When we all see the film, present and correct in July, we can make a note of any error. Alientraveller 08:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so if we cannot confirm the name with reliables sources we should not mention either until it is verifiable. (H) 13:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except Brawl was announced with a reliable source. Alientraveller 13:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we reflect that which reliable sources show, even if they are wrong. We use verifiability over "truth", funny I know. (H) 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not funny at all. You know all this, you're an experienced editor. Stop playing games, edit per the rules. We have a source for Brawl, lack a source for Devastator, so that settles it. When the movie comes out, it may serve as a superior RS to contradict our information; it may not. ThuranX 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No games here, and my only edits to this article are unrelated to this issue. I did not mean funny as in "haha", I meant funny as out of the ordinary. (H) 20:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Alien Traveller is Wrong, Keith David is Barricade[edit]

I don't understand why a message board is taken as hard evidence. Not one bit of hard evidence has been putt forth to support the claim that Jesse Harnell is Barricade.
Imdb still lists David As Barricade and say what you will, there a much more reliable source that a message board. User:annoynmous:annoynmous 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is not reliable. It has listed casting incorrectly in the past, the most recent example I can think of listing Daniel Gillies in Spider-Man 3. The webmaster of that message board reported the cast information from a press conference. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should find another source, more main stream, so that we don't have this problem any longer. Bignole 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay how about this- Barricade doesn't say much anyway but it IS Keith David. ColScott 01:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof other than the unreliable IMDb? Bignole 01:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems when I search his name all I get was the early rumors that he was voicing Barricade, and the recent news that he does voice Barricade.....in the official game. Kind of like how Weaving does not voice Megatron in the game, but does in the film. Bignole 01:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that there are conflicting reports of who is voicing Barricade. I suggest that entry be left blank until an offical confirmation comes. annoynmous 02:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be stated that Wikipedia is not exactly blameless in this department. They were after all the source for the baseless claim that Zachary Quinto was in Live Free or Die Hard even though he wasn't listed on IMDB. annoynmous 02:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicting reports? I can give you a source that says David is the voice the the game if you so please. Nothing says he is the voice in the film, and IMDb has a knack for misinterpreting that being apart of one medium means you will be apart of all the mediums. Well, really the users of that website believe that. Bignole 02:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What do you mean no one says he's voicing it in the film? I can show you an item on ain't it cool news that says david is voicing Barricade and I have seen nothing serious to contradict that. If you have a serious source that says Jesse Harnell is voicing Barricade than put it in the article. A Message Board is not a solid source.
I repeat that as a compromise that until it is officially confirmed who is voicing Barricade that the entry should be left blank. annoynmous 02:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've had conflicting reports with Spider-Man. It is probably better to remove any voice actors that are not officially confirmed, and just wait for the film to be released (in a couple weeks). Bignole 02:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fine, but the task of doing it seems lies with you. I'm afraid if I do it I'll get banned for violating the 3rr rule. annoynmous 03:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let Erik and Alien comment first. Bignole 03:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Jess (not "Jesse") Harnell is listed as the voice of both Barricade and Ironhide in film's closing titles. Source: Film's closing titles... Fuxoft 06:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry if you feel that way about TFW2005, but they are one of the most reliable sources for the Transformers Movie out there, alongside Seibertron. Simply because of their layout does not mean they are fully a message board. They were there at the Sydney conference and heard Bay announce the voices. Clearly, if Keith David was rumored, then things could have not worked out and Jess Harnell replaced him. Alientraveller 08:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is also available at Seibertron, TFormers.com and About.com -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But why so many cites to prove one thing? If Anonymous disapproved, he/she would have removed the entire cast list. This is just his/her arrogance over things past. Alientraveller 09:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB have finally caught up and are listing Jess Harnell as the voice of both Ironhide and Barricade. Transformers page at IMDb (incidentally does anyone else find it amusing that they have a keyword "explosion"?) -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Release[edit]

Hey, I can't edit this page so I thought I'd mention it here: The NZ release is the same as Australia (28th of July), not June 2nd like the article says. You can see this in the advertising here in NZ, and also on sites like: http://www.readingcinemas.co.nz/movies/movie.asp?ID=f22o420.58246405i511y0s54.35&title=Transformers

Small detail, but thought I'd say something. :P 58.28.155.212 08:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Alientraveller 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for the Philippines. I'll add it myself. Berserkerz Crit 15:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Release dates are normally only specified for English-speaking countries. See the manual of style for more information. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to inform you but the Philippines is an English-speaking country. Filipino and English are the national languages. And Filipino is an amalgamation of Tagalog and English with some local dialects mixed in. Berserkerz Crit 13:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Filipinos do not need subtitles to understand what's going on. --Howard the Duck 14:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippines are not a primarily english speaking country. Please read the style guidelines for release dates. Do you have a source that can prove English is a primary language there, and not some small area of the country?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They teach English starting at first grade, if that doesn't make you an English-speaking country, I dunno what is. --Howard the Duck 14:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also this map. --Howard the Duck 14:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, they taught me spanish fron 1st grade to 5th grade, does that make the US a primarily spanish speaking country? They teach English in France throughout schooling, does that make France a primarily english speaking country? Let me help, no it doesn't. Just because they can speak it doesn't make it the primary language. Primarily english speaking means that more people speaking that language than any other language in that country.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can see for yourself the "sources" proving English is a primary language in the Philippines article itself. I've read the Manual of Style for release dates. And the Philippines falls under it. Don't discriminate. Ummm and your signature isn't clear, your name is missing Bignole. Also Philippines is singular not plural. Berserkerz Crit 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it, I put 5 tildes by accident, instead of the usual 4 tildes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add my $0.02, I don't believe that anyone's trying to discriminate. It's a matter of trying to keep a list of release dates to a minimum. This has been a matter that has been visited occasionally, and it's never been resolved in a complete manner. I think something that should be asked is if there really needs to be a comprehensive listing of release dates for English-speaking countries. The other criteria seem appropriate, but it does not seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose to mention the varying release dates of English-speaking countries if there is not a huge discrepancy in the dates, like Children of Men or Sunshine (the latter which has shown in the UK a few months ago, but not yet in the US). Perhaps we should disregard this particular criterion if it creates such a fuss. Is there an official list of release dates for the film that we can provide in the External links? Spider-Man 3 had an international release dates page on its official site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the Philippines may make one wonder, why are these people getting the movie first instead of us? Either someone has to amend the MOS or this'll stick. --Howard the Duck 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who would think that?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on some web forums I've been lurking around, Americans (or Westerners) were questioning why foreigners were seeing a movie first than them. Maybe to prevent piracy? 15:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Got a reason for them? I personally don't care. I know Alien is rather annoyed that we get to see it before him (he doesn't live in the States). As stated on the MOS page, IMDb keeps an expansive list of all the release dates. There is no reason to list them all beyond any major english speaking countries.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philippines international movie release dates are usually at the same time, if not earlier, as the release dates for the US. This is to prevent piracy and boot-legged copies from circulating if the release dates are earlier in any part of the world since, though I am not proud to say this, the Philippines is as notorious as China in piracy. Movies will not make as much money in the Philippines if it is already available in pirated DVD copies. The Philippines is a huge market for American movies because there is a demand here for such kind of films, one being we understand English and some are even colonial-minded and second our own film industry is in a slump.
And there's the discrimination I'm talking about. What's your parameter in deciding what country is a major English speaking country or not? Berserkerz Crit 15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines may be a majority-English speaking country (as said on the MOS, no mention of "major," though). English language films do not need subtitles, translations or dubbing in order to be understood. In fact, perhaps the film company may earn more than those in Australia and NZ since the Philippines is a significantly larger market. --Howard the Duck 15:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My parameter of "majority" (word on MOS) is the same as what most would say, which language is used the most. Majority means which language has the highest percentage of use. For the world, that would be French, but the Phillipines, I don't know. It doens't say on the page, and what it does say (without a source mind you) is that English is the "second official" language, not the first. It means it's used widely, and understood, but it isn't the primary language of the country. And Howard, lol, you are just making a wide guess about the box office take of the Phillipines compared to the other markets. Pick some films and go to boxofficemojo.com and it should list the final box office outcome for each of the countries.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English is the language of education, business and law. The local language (Tagalog) is used on the street. For mass media, English and Tagalog are both used. The Philippines is bilingual.
As for the official language, English is stated in the constitution as the official language (not "second-official", perhaps "co-official" may be the right word).
Checked out boxofficemojo.com... and surprise! Spider-man 2 earned $4,044,251 in the Philippines, and $2,863,889 in New Zealand. --Howard the Duck 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spider-man 3 is "worse", $9,135,799 for the Philippines and a paltry $2,746,655 for NZ. The huge population (i.e., market) made the difference). --Howard the Duck 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And after analyzing the numbers from the website, it turns out the Philippines is the fourth largest English market, behind USA, UK/Ireland/Malta and Australia (5th if you consider India as English speaking.) --Howard the Duck 16:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at our 1987 Constitution and see for yourself that it is listed as a primary language alongside with Filipino. And again, might I explain, that our official national language Filipino is an amalgamation or composition of chiefly Tagalog and English, with Bisaya and Gay Linggo thrown in. Our language likes to borrow words, that is why instead of Tagalog as our national language, Filipino language was created. If there is no substitute or equal word, we borrow, from English and the sorts. You can do research for yourself and find that the Philippines is quite different from the rest of its Asian neighbors in that it is very Western and not Oriental, even in Mindanao (except rural areas). We are the outsourcing hub in the region for call centers, with India beating us only because of their large population. Even IMDB does not think the Philippines deserve coverage, lol, we're not listed on the release dates. Sheesh. Berserkerz Crit 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you should amend the article page, because it says that it was made the official language in the late 80s. But, the next statement is about the language being the "second official". Doesn't make since to be both the "official" and "second official". Last time I checked we were in the early 2000s, and I have no idea if your consitution has been amended to make english the second official. If it's the most widely spoken language in the country, then by that standard it meets the requirements on MOS (but, as I said, it should be made more clear on the article page, because people generally go straight there to find out the percentage of language use in countries when it comes to people adding release dates for ones that are not as obvious as the UK). Oh, and I wasn't being snive when I said check boxofficemojo, I had no idea what the numbers would be and just directed you there because I can't do it myself while I'm at work. You should send in a request to IMDb to have it covered, and show them BoxOfficeMojo's box office numbers for various films to prove that there is a large market in that country and should be covered on their pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current constitution was promulgated on 1987, and did not mention any "second official" language. However, that article was heavily vandalized and wasn't cleaned up for a looooong time, it will explain your confusion.
With that said, it has become clear (to me, at least) the if you'll include NZ, you might as well include the Philippines, being one of the top 5 English-speaking movie markets. I dunno if "majority" of the people speak English, but a majority of the people are thought in English since first grade. The problem is if they'll understand it if they drop out of school, or if they even understand what the teacher was saying. --Howard the Duck 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think including more than 1 release date opens to the door to this type of mass confusion about "what should be included". I've always seen it as whatever the primary language of the country is will determine if it gets mentioned. Like I said before, my elementary school (Kindergarten through 5th grade) made us learn spanish every year [except Kindergarten, we had finger paints. :) ], but spanish isn't the largest language spoken in the US, not even the city that I went to school. If it's recognized as the "official language", then that basically says it's the "primary language". I'm not saying go out and count heads of how many people can speak the language, if that was the case I don't think english would be the primary language here, as there are plenty of people who can't speak it correctly. ;). Just, what is officially recognized as the most spoken language. The "second official" through me off on the page, if that isn't true then it should be removed if you havne't taken care of it already.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of that rascal already, although other parts where English was mentioned was cited (like in the lead). As for what should be included, I guess the current crop is the best, and the Philippines only has 13 characters (incl spaces) so it shouldn't that big of a gain. Now if we'll include French, Japanese and Guinean opening dates, then that's the problem. --Howard the Duck 16:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well hey, they are taught english throughout schooling in France, so that makes them an english speaking country, right? ;) I'm only kidding. But we should be prepared to find more release dates from multiple counties. I've found that when you actually start listing more than one country, everyone wants to add every country.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's because everyone wants fair coverage. We do as well, but ours has a basis. It doesn't follow that simply you don't know or acknowledge that the Philippines is an English speaking country and a huge English movies market, that the Philippines is not. Our country falls under the MOS, understandably written to cater to English readers since this is an English Wikipedia. So if anybody wants to add more countries, they can, if and only if they are following the MOS. Berserkerz Crit 03:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I knew that the French are probably the #1 haters of the English language... with that said we can simply direct them to this discussion and to the MOS. --Howard the Duck 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a postscript, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)#Release recognizes the Philippines as a major-English speaking country. Berserkerz Crit 14:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've already established it here, but in normal circumstances you couldn't cite Wikipedia for itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not Wikipedia I'm citing but the references cited in the article itself that merited the inclusion of the Philippines in the release dates. ^_^ Berserkerz Crit 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well....should have said that. :P  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary of State, not the President?[edit]

Don't get me wrong, Jon Voight will be James Keller, but in the trailers he acts more in a presidential role than Secretary of State. Secretary of State deals with foreign affairs, he's not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Shouldn't it be that he's the President of the United States? --TrevelyanL85A2 16:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't base it off assumptions. I thought he had a source, but apparently he doesn't. Casting is always a touchy thing before the film is finally released because changes could have been made during filming that never see the light of day until the film is actually released. We need a source for either of those titles. Bignole 16:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[6] Checked here again, he's Secretary of Defense. My bad. Alientraveller 16:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Allspark[edit]

Okay, I had a question here and someone deleted the whole question and If they do that again I will find them and make sure that they are blocked for vandalism. Anyways, I was wondering what is the power of the Allspark wthin the film. And how do you use it, if this is unknown don't answer but please do not erase this whole thing. ManofSTEEL2772

Ok buster, read the notice at the top. Now post your question again at IMDb. Alientraveller 18:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name ain't buster and this is not really a forum, If you think it is sorry, I just wanted to know some stuff about it. And I know where we can get a picture of it with Sam holding it and Bumblebee or what ever the yellow dude's name is, if you want. ManofSTEEL2772

I've seen the images. Non-free images have to have a justification for their use, and there isn't room in the article, at this particular moment, to justify their use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also another reason why I posted the question here is because I thought we could add a bit more information into the article about what exactly it is and does. Because some people who never really like the Transformers until this movie came out, like me, don't know everything. ManofSTEEL2772

I'm sure when the film comes out the plot section will include that type of information. At the moment, no one knows what it does in the film (except the filmmakers).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or if you've read the Prequel Comic or listened to Murphy's Transformerscon interview (*cough*Creation Matrix*cough*). Alientraveller 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My $0.02: I think it's fine to just wiki-link Allspark as background information for now, until the film is released and detailed information about it can be revealed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book of the movie states that the Allspark is within the Hoover Dam and can make any machine (even an iPod) come to life.

Transformers ammunition[edit]

Has it been mentioned or can it be mentioned in the article how they will tackle the transformers re-equiping themselves? I know scorpanok has a energy weapon but what about the tanks and jets? Do they just "magically" regenerate bullets and missiles, or is there a tiny factory within their chest that rebuilds ammunition or do they simply steal it from real tanks and jets? It would be worth mentioning if anyone has any sources.

-G

No one knows. We probably won't know till the film, and even then it's up for grabs. No reliable third party source has discussed the issue of ammunition.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The junior novel about the movie which follows the plot has them using laser cannons. The military also uses lasers to fight back, but mostly they used missiles and shot-guns (against the human sized Frenzy). Also it says where the Allspark cube is. (Although, I won't reveal it)

The novelization is not a verifiable source for the film, as things can easily be changed in the book. Plenty of examples of that happening with other films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to explain that on the Frenzy article! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those who think that the novelizations reflect the films, check these out:

  • MarvWolfman.com February 2, 2007 blog entry of Marv Wolfman, author of Superman Returns novelization
  • MarvWolfman.com July 5, 2006 blog entry of Marv Wolfman
  • COMICON.com July 14, 2006 interview with Marv Wolfman
  • Silver Bullet Comics Undated interview with Wolfman
  • Scifi Dimensions 2003 interview with Chris Claremont, author of X2: X-Men United novelization
  • TheXverse.com May 2006 interview with Claremont, also author of X-Men: The Last Stand novelization
  • PeterDavid.net September 2003 blog entry #1 of Peter David, author of Spider-Man 2 novelization
  • PeterDavid.net September 2003 blog entry #2 of Peter David
  • PeterDavid.net August 2006 blog entry of Peter David, also author of Spider-Man 3 novelization

In all of these, they explain the creative liberties entitled to them, and how films will sometimes be changed after authors receive a script for their novelization. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one that got me was the Aliens adaptation. I read that and loved the robotic sentry guns, then was disappointed to see that they didn't make it into the original theatrical release! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Certification[edit]

I know we don't list ratings, but I thought I'd mention that the BBFC have rated Transformers as a 12A BBFC Transformers Rating -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any controversy of note? Alientraveller 14:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. They say This work was passed with no cuts made.
Here's the blurb -

TRANSFORMERS is a science fiction action film, based on the 1980’s animated television series and toy franchise. It has been classified ‘12A’ for moderate action violence. BBFC Guidelines at ‘12A’ state that ‘violence must not dwell on detail’ and that there ‘should be no emphasis on injuries or blood.’ This includes many battle scenes between warring robots, which whilst being intense, place an emphasis on spectacle rather than detail. For example, a fight scene in which two robots rip each other apart features no human casualties and is played out in a fantasy context. The violence featured is similar to that found in other recent '12A' action films, such as SPIDERMAN III.

TRANSFORMERS also features infrequent mild sex references and language. The sex references – in keeping with BBFC ‘12A’ Guidelines – ‘do not go beyond what is suitable for adolescents’ and deal with a boy’s parents enquiring if their son has been masturbating. The language is also infrequent and is mild to moderate (‘shit’, ‘pissed’ and ‘bitch’). The film also includes one mild drug reference that is comic in tone and neither instructional or glamorous.

-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews collective[edit]

Please add here for eventual inclusion of subjective material, after objective material of box office. Alientraveller 20:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller 16:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aussies are lapping it up. Alientraveller 18:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Urban Cinefile review seems to require paid membership to be viewed, is it appropriate to use it here? Mcr29 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Alientraveller 20:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller 13:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller 09:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller 09:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller 10:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller 15:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller 09:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller 18:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bumblebees voice[edit]

Posted 6-22-07 Bumblebee does not have a voice cause his voicebox was destroyed

Something Erik showed me, and it's from Angelfire, what YOU believe proves that something is real. Check out the very top update.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well,I was wrong.BB does indeed talk in the very end.Some guy on youtube told me.He even has pics of him at the premire which are on the very bottom.I am so so sorry.Check the bottom,Again,I am sorry

Well, here's how it goes. BB can't talk, his voicebox was destoryed by megs, he talks to the autobots via raido, and BB plays songs fronm his stero to talk to Sam. in the end, his voicebox is fixed--Melman the cat 13:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical as to whether BB's voicebox is "fixed" per se, perhaps rather it is limited. Ratchet claims in the film that he is still "working on it," indicating that BB may be able to speak in small increments. -- Scottjar 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just saw the movie. At the end he says "Optimus, I would like...to stay...with the boy." Link's Awakening

I don't know, Bumblebee touched the Allspark, it's quite possible he was just unaware of the fact that he could speak again. Modem 14:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The movie premiered in Australia on June the 12th[edit]

Could someone add this? I can't be stuffed doing it, and if you need a citation, try Googling it, don't be ignorant.

[7] ? Berserkerz Crit 16:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. Alientraveller 16:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a link for a guy(NOT ME,I REPEAT NOT ME)who saw the movie on June 12th http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/Movie%20Premiere/

Interestingly (or not) the Emanuelle Levy link that Alientraveller placed in the Reviews collective section above confirms that the premiere was at the Taormina Film Festival in Sicily. Who is right? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 20:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are many "premieres" these days for films. I suppose it's just in each country. Alientraveller 20:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The film premiered in Italy in Sicily, but for the whole world, it was in Australia. June 12 vs June 20. Berserkerz Crit 12:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need to pick an image[edit]

Either the Botcon or the Detriot festival. Two images are in a section which barely holds one. They both labeled free, so this will be an aesthetic pick over a "free encyclopedia" pick.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to remove Ratchet (sob, he's my favourite G1 Autobot). It'd be much better if the photographer took a photo of all four of them. Alientraveller 13:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were all 4 at the show?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. General Motors were supplied the alternate modes for the Autobots, except Optimus, and showing that off. Alientraveller 13:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you removed the text that mentioned that the GM vehicles were at the show. Even without the image I think it's an interesting piece of copy. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put the text back, though it's worded awkward. It was originally awkward, and I don't think my wording actually helped. Someone may need to go in an polish some words.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All four were at the show, but I didn't get a good picture of all four. I have another of Ratchet with the other four in the background. I think you should include both pictures from Botcon and the River show - they are very different and nearly a year apart in the promotion. user:mathewignash
Yes, but being free doesn't exclude it from generaly image guidelines. The section itself isn't that large, I don't care which it is, just two would be cluttering. What's weird is that the BotCon information is in the Release section, not the Marketing section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Botcon counts under Marketing, even if we discuss the fanbase in Release. Or maybe I could put Ratchet in Marketing, and Botcon in Release. I think that'd work. Alientraveller 12:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's true - Alientraveller is psychic! I was just about to sugget that! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I were psychic, I'd be less annoyed about the UK release date. Alientraveller 12:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was just me that had the I-can't-believe-there's-still-a-whole-month-before-I-get-to-see-it hat on! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transformers_(film)/Archive_2&oldid=1140398099"