Talk:Characters in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Creation of article
I created this article to move a significant portion of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen to a new page, in order to shorten that too lengthy film article. The Red Queen (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

hoo boy, this going to take a while! The Red Queen (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to move it forward. What would you say still needs to be done? --uKER (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Insecticon is his name, dying is his game
Seems the tiny insect robot is getting a toy. Hasbro announced at Toyfare 2010 in New York that they are making a Scout class toy named "Insecticon". I've seen pictures, it's him. Mathewignash (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, that's interesting, but how would it be related to this article? --uKER (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the name and a link to his page to the mention of the insect robot. Mathewignash (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I have a feeling this will be hard. I don't agree with what you've done. I don't think the bug is called "Insecticon" as if he had an individual name. I'd say what was done is kind of what was done with some characters in the RotF game. One example is the one called "Seeker". It doesn't mean he is actually called "Seeker", but he is a generic seeker and they simply didn't care to give him an individualized name. --uKER (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh well, I just noticed there is actually a Seeker (Transformers) article separated from the Seekers (Transformers) article, which being mainly edited by you, confirms to me that you believe "Seeker" to be an actual character and not just a generic one. That's like them creating a game character and a toy called "Protoform" (which wouldn't be too far fetched, would it?). It doesn't make it into an individual character called "Protoform", does it? --uKER (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you don't understand, Hasbro has release previous characters in other series whose names are "Insecticon" - completely apart from the groups called "The Insecticons" (In fact neither of the previous guys named Insecticon were members of the Insecticons group), they have also released a guy named Predacon, and a guy named Dinobot. They sometimes use the same word for a group in one series, and for an indivdual in another. For a bio on the original character named Insecticon, who was a Predacon in the Beast Wars series, look here: http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Insecticon_%28BW%29 Mathewignash (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If he had the name of a faction he clearly doesn't belong to, I would be all-in with you, but what would be the reason to think that it's not the case I'm suggesting? A toy getting a generic name. I mean, to begin with, if you were to somewhat detail him in the article, you'd probably end up saying "The movie also features Insecticon, who pretty much is an Insecticon". Quite dumb, isn't it? Isn't it just simpler to assume Hasbro released a toy of him giving him no name? (which seems kinda appropriate since I can hardly imagine anyone addressing an insecticon like they were portrayed in the movie). It's just as if they released a toy of one of the little bugs turning into a ball bearing and called it "Microcon". --uKER (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I just checked the Blu-ray's audio commentary and Bay confirms it's meant to be an insecticon (ie belonging to the insecticon class). "It's a fun Transformer to have. You can have this little Insecticon who can send a message to a big bad guy." --uKER (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The toy line seems to list him as Decepticon named Insecticon. Mathewignash (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, while I'd tend to disagree, people in forums and comments on the coverage articles seem to agree with you on him actually being called that, so I guess it stays. --uKER (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted changes
I just reverted these changes which go agains everything that editors have agreed on so far. The changes are: If you care to contest any of these points, feel free to do so here so everyone can discuss it. --uKER (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Track loader in Devastator being unnamed: all of Devastator's components are unnamed, so no point in clarification.
 * Yellow unnamed dump truck forming left leg with Rampage: now when/where is that dump truck seen? Then, Rampage doesn't take part in Devastator. Also, same as before, no point in clarifying he is unnamed.
 * About Scrapmetal, he is unnamed in the movie. Hasbro only suggested a name for him in a Q&A, and even then the statement was made in a VERY informal tone.

Article seems a bit too 'fan cruft'
Not sure about this article. There is more about the human leads themselves than about their film characters. Article seems like a bit of a long crazy list of minutiae about the film (Cullen didn't do his intended cameo, Amaury Nolasco doesn't appear in the film, etc.), and about the toy models, (really, differences between the films and the toys are infinite and changeable):

...The packaging of his Scout-Class figure details he is skilled in dissecting and rebuilding almost any living organism.

A lot of this stuff belongs in the Transformers articles for each individual bot. This could quite reasonably cover the differences between each character in film, comic, novelisation and toy form.

Did LeBoeuf really blind himself?

Towards the end of filming LaBeouf was accidentially hit by a large prop, cutting his eye and narrowly blinding himself. Centrepull (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly I've long thought the same but I don't have a lot of experience with these "list of" articles (I'm mostly a text junkie of the plot summary variety) so I wasn't sure if that's how it should be. The stuff about the human leads is what you normally see in a well written cast section on a movie's article (i.e. parts offered to other actors, not doing cameos, etc.).  So I'm not sure if in this type of article it should be more based on the characters like you suggest.  I completely agree with your point about the toy details.  Those factoids deserve a passing mention at best I would have thought.  Between both of those angles, I've been wondering for some time now if the whole of the article couldn't really be incorporated into the movies' articles (and the articles for individual bots as you suggest).  But again, I don't really know much about these kinds of articles so I may be way off.  I only added it to my watchlist because I watch the movies' pages too and there was some squirrely vandalism going on a while back.  The thing about Lebeouf definitely needs a reference no matter where it lands.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  18:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I just realized the blinding thing DOES have a reference. No never mind on that.  I just missed it because of the incredibly awkward prose.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  18:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do strongly agree on the toy reachouts, especially when the information provided doesn't really merit it. About the people "not" making into the movie, I think it's good information. WP:MOSFILM encourages preproduction information, and casting considerations I'd say are valuable to have. --uKER (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)