Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon/Archive 2

Cited Rumors
Nearly a fourth of this article is cited rumors. Just because it is cited doesn't mean the information is credible. Here are things that need to be changed, notice how the important things are bolded:

"A red Chevrolet Silverado was spotted with tinted windows but it is unknown if it is a Transformer.[78] Also another Peterbilt truck attached with a cement trailer and a Volvo truck were spotted being used in a chase sequence and are believed to be Transformers.[79] A Maybach 62 Landaulet,[80] a JetTrain,[71] and a black/orange Chevrolet Impala[81] were spotted and are believed to be Transformers. It has been said (by who?) that Space Shuttle Discovery is a Transformer and it is also hinted that Atlas & Delta rockets are also Transformers.[82] A red Chevrolet Camaro was also spotted on set." "A cardboard cutout of a red faced Autobot has been spotted on set, but it is yet unknown who it belongs to.[68]" "two Chevrolet Spark cars with Autobot insignias resembling the Twins have been spotted.[64]" "It has been said that two robot assassins that will appear and murder humans in a scene to be filmed in Sherman Oaks.[75] A black Dodge Charger SRT-8 is rumoured to appear as a Decepticon.[76]"

"The Autobots and Decepticons become involved in a perilous space race between the U.S. and Russia.[citation needed]" This plot is ridiculous. Not cited, appearing as an advertisement as well.

The reason that none of this stuff works is because anything can be changed during editing. It is best to wait until the people associated with the production confirm these things or the film itself is seen. I know some people are not going to like what I have proposed, but Wikipedia isn't a news outlet or fan website. How do we know that chevy camaro was someone's car and not a set prop? Mwolvesto50 (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here some more: " It seems that Sam will possess a power glove in the movie." "It is rumored to be Wheeljack." "he Dreads have often been seen on set driving next to Megatron.[73][74] Mwolvesto50 (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's been a longstanding problem with all of the articles related to the live action films. I've tried pulling fansites used as sources (without cast and crew interviews to back them up) repeatedly from the articles.  Frankly, I've given up.  The fan cruft sneaks back in no matter how hard some of us try.  Millahnna (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Due to the fanbase they carry, it is the nature of these films to get ten times the coverage of any other film. Thus, every little thing that happens on set gets documented, mainly by fans or extras taking pictures on set, and this material is then published in Transformers-dedicated websites, with TFW2005 being the main one, which I'd say should be regarded as a reliable source on the subject by now. Despite being poorly worded, all of the affirmations in the cited text are backed by the sources presented. Even if TFW was a 100% fan-run blog, if there's non-disputable pictures that provide a bit of information, there's no denying them as reliable sources. Summing it up, apart from very poor prose, I see no problem there. EDIT: The ludicrous plot summary was written by someone who didn't happen to like a previous text which I think was a transcription from a promotional text posted somewhere I don't remember. --uKER (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My problem with tfw as a source is that it is used even when it's reporting rumours. When it's being used to confirm via a direct interview I have no problem with it. Millahnna (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with you then. But I'd add set photos along with the interviews as undisputable sources for information. The list of vehicles that have been seen on set is good information. It just doesn't belong under the list of robots if they're not confirmed being so. --uKER (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess there isn't much we can do. The problem I see with set photos is that this stuff can get edited out of the movie. Until the film is released we have no idea if it is some production worker's Porsche. I think that we could solve this article by requesting more protection. I know this can be a problem because whoever the protection is given to is forced to commit to the article until the protection wears off. To me that seems like the only "bullet proof" method to stop this. Maybe we could post some sort of notice at the top of the article about how the editing has been going? Mwolvesto50 (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh... the crew's cars aren't parked on set, you know? --uKER (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster - the fact is that if it's not a fact that the source states, it should not exist in the article. Speculation is not allowed, I have been bold and removed these edits. --Teancum (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The robot on the teaser isnt Alpha Trion because Alpha Trion had a long beard the robot is Seteniel Prime since he looks like the G1 senteniel prime and has the same paint job also in the secound transformers movie it mensions Senteniel Prime and it would make secnce if the lead of the autobots would be on the Ark so can you please change it and if I am wrong you can just put the truth when the movie premeires please reply.GZ411 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No matter who we may think it is, we can't mention it in the article unless there is a reliable source backing it.--uKER (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Empire online rating... http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=136209 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki leitao (talk • contribs) 12:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Transformers-Dark of the Moon review http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/ENT-transformers-3-movie-review-2230295.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam4484 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Trion
I noticed that the article states that Alpha Trion is the transformer in the teaser trailer, yet there is no citation accompanying the statement. I was just curious as to whether or not there is a reliable source for this assumption, other than the fact that Trion is rumored to be in the film? I have found several biased/fan-based websites that have opined that the transformer is Trion, but I'm having difficulty locating any official media to support the idea. As it is not directly stated in the trailer, and the appearance of the transformer bears little resemblance to Trion; if there's no good source then I move that the line be removed from the article (or at least modified to indicate that the identity of the transformer is unknown). Zargabaath 18:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargabaath (talk • contribs)
 * Agreed - speculation at its absolute worst, really must be removed. I actually thought it was Unicron! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.244.10 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my first inclination as well; the coloring, face, and crest on the forehead screamed Unicron. Alas, until there is some official info to point who it really is, I agree, the speculation is better left out of the article. Zargabaath 03:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargabaath (talk • contribs)


 * That quote from Bay saying it would not be done in 2011 is from an interview that was made right after Revenge of the Fallen came out, and things simply changed after that. About the first paragraph, I don't have a clue what you intended to say. --uKER (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha, fair enough. My first paragraph was just mentioning the note in the article about the uncited plot description someone wrote, but I've done the citation now. That's all. Freaky dragonlady 16:20 11 December 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freaky dragonlady (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - speculation on Transformer in trailer
Speculation on Transformer in trailer

Under the Release and Marketing section, it is noted that "An offline Transformer awakens at the end of the trailer, viewers speculaitng it to be such characters as Alpha Trion or Unicron" - this is pure speculation, it may not be either of these Transformers (even though I think it is Unicron by appearance) - there is no citation, it's based purely on fans discussions and cannot be proved. I'd like this changed to

"An offline Transformer awakens at the end of the trailer." please


 * Somebody fixed it for you ;) − Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And I prefer their wording - yay! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBoyMistry (talk • contribs) 01:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldnt it be safe to say its an autobot as it has blue eyes Ghost07 (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Transformers can defect - Wheelie and Jetfire have red eyes but consider themselves Autobots. It's entirely possible this is a Decepticon, an Autobot or some other faction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.146.11 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats true but both wheelie and jetfire were decepticon before they changed to autobots thats why their eyes are red Ghost07 (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And how do we know that offscreen this Transformer didn't start as an Autobot and then switched sides retaining his blue eyes? Another example are the original seven Transformers, The Fallen aside were all good (pre the Cybertron wars and the creation of the Autobot faction) and yet they had red eyes. Point is mate, colour of eyes cannot be conclusively linked to a faction. I'll eat my hat if it isn't Unicron - and I seriously doubt he'll belong to faction. But again that's just me speculating, can't prove it.

Could be a prime sayidi9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.205.23 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Eat yo' hat.24.13.125.86 (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotion
Theres a part I dont quite understand it says that a trailer will be released with the chronicles of Narnia and Tron what I dont understand is if it will be 2 different trailers or if they will be the same Ghost07 (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FERRARI
Anybody else notice the horrific English on this one? Also it was difficult to tell whether Bay said it was an Autobot or Decepticon. One ref site doesn't load and the other doesn't make it clear. I'm fixing the horrible English on this one.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.195.155 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Unkown Yellow Robot"
would it be safe or plausible to at least speculate the possibility that the robot at the end of the trailer is Alpha Trion? The facial features and structure clearly sway in the direction that this "unknown robot" is Alpha Trion, and its rather undebatable within the fan community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.155.25 (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thing is Wiki is not a fan forum for speculation, it's a verifiable encyclopaedia - it cannot be proved it's Alpha Trion or any other Transformer. As as I've said above in this page before I firmly believe this is Unicron because of the facial features and yellow armour - but I can't prove it! Speculation has no place here mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.56.220 (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

well thank you for the clarification, mate! funny though unicron is bigger than most planets, and the one shown is on the moon (hence, smaller). And in any case, in the absence of pure evidence, it is appropriate to speculate, so long as it is made clear that what is being said is speculation. But this is what they have talk pages for :-) 76.102.155.25 (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia it is never appropriate to speculate. Ever. --uKER (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Also remember that Micheal Bay's movies take some liberties, so the Transformer it looks like could be nobody close to who it really is. --Teancum (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cough... Devastator... cough! --uKER (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Major Speculation/ Unneeded Information
I have some serious issues with this article as regards to speculation, wording, overall unneeded information. First off, as to the description of characters, we don't need to know that "it seems that Sam will possess a power glove in the movie." The source itself says that it's not a power glove and we don't even know it's funcion. I also want to remove the following:"Dmpsey was initially cast to play Mikaela's boss but with Mikaela out of the movie, he'll be playing Carly's boss." It's obvious that he's no longer Mikaela's boss because we know Megan Fox was removed from cast. Next, Ithink it's better that we remove the character descriptions, such as the one about Hardcore Eddie, because the film hasn't been released and this may be entirely speculated. Plus, they seem entirely like a promotional description. As to describing Optimus Prime as "more heroic" and Bumblebee as more "mature", these statements should be removed. They are biased and have no citation. With the unknown Ferrari, we don't need to know what Michael Bay "personally" calls it. When the movie comes out and we know the actual name, that statement will be unnescessary. And the "accent" remark must be rmoved as well. The statement about the robot resembling Einstein should be considered as a mere opinion. Now, as regards to wording, I say that all statements that say It has been said, it is unknown whether, and such. If it isn't a FACT, then it shouldn't be stated on Wikipedia. For the last time, THIS IS NOT A FORUM OR TABLOID. --CaptGalactic (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, although I've contributed to this article, needless to say I haven't written all of the stuff you're disputing. That said:
 * The so called "power glove" perhaps shouldn't be called that, but the artifact is widely known to exist and there's no reason not to mention it.
 * The sentence about Dempsey is preproduction information. It goes to show that he was cast when Megan Fox was still in the film, but was reassigned when the movie was rewritten to get Fox out of it.
 * I didn't get at all what the problem is with the text about the Hardcore Eddie character.
 * The thing about Optimus becoming more heroic and Bumblebee more mature is sourced. I think it was some GM spokesman that said it. The source should be reinstated if it was removed.
 * What Bay calls the Ferrari is also production information. Revenge of the Fallen has been out for years and its article has the production names for all robots that have a known one. Also, I don't understand your issue with the mention of it having an Italian accent.
 * The thing about the bot looking like Einstein, I guess you haven't seen it. If you had you wouldn't be questioning it. Also I think it has been called Einsteinbot or something by official sources (Nelson IIRC).
 * About things being unknown, sometimes articles have that. It happens in all types of articles. Of course you won't go saying random stuff like "it is unknown whether Bumblebee will be wearing a party hat in the film", but sometimes it may be worth clarifying that something people may assume as fact, may or may not be true. I'm not strong on this one though. --uKER (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with CaptGalactic on most points.
 * All of the sources listed for the glove even question what is is for sure. We don't speculate just because they do.
 * The Dempsey note is particularly easy to debunk. Though his casting information was revealed before Fox was cut, nobody knows exactly when she was cut, only when the press found out.
 * Hardcore Eddie's character description is fine I guess, but is really close to the reference and is not quoted, meaning it could be seen as WP:COPYVIO. The source in this case TFW2005 via MovieMikes seems to be okay as it's an interview, but the MovieMikes link gave a 404.
 * I'd agree with uKER in regards to the descriptions for Bumblebee and Optimus - *IF* there's an actual source. If there's a source it should say "described as" unless Bay himself said they were modified to look a certain way.  I'd like to see a source here.  Maybe fact tags would help.
 * The Einstein Autobot has been covered by media (more than just blogs and fansites), who also cited it as a look-alike. I'd like to see a better source (since even if it's physically obvious to us that's technically not good enough) but this is pretty minor.
 * The "unknowns" do need to be removed or reworded, but the only one I found at the moment was Tom Kenny's role, which I reworded.
 * --Teancum (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to make these changes and do some rewording, since the stated issues hve no place here.--CaptGalactic (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're wrong on the Dempsey thing. There are sources saying he was cast as Mikaela's boss and now he's Carly's boss. What is it that you want to remove? --uKER (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I just sourced and restored the "heroic/mature" thing, Dempsey being cast as Mikaela's boss, and the bot resembling Einstein. I am also against the removal of the info on the Ferrari mentioning its working name and it having an Italian accent. What is exactly the basis for the removal of that? --uKER (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sentinel Prime is the yellow Transformer in the teaser trailer for Transformers:Dark of the Moon. http://comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=74051  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_Prime  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.86.111 (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Transformers Blogspot
This source is not reliable. It's run by a fan of the movie who also runs blogs on The Hobbit, Star Trek and others. It should not be used as a reference, and existing references should be replaced with something reliable. For example, Patrick Dempsey's casting in the movie can be replaced with a MSNBC reference. Sorry, but a fan blogsite, as reliable as it may be to fans, does not pass the criteria of WP:Reliable sources. Future additions will be removed. TFW2005 may fall into the same basket in some cases; if pictures or video can verify the information without any doubt they can be used, but things such as Sam's "power glove" cannot be used - all of the photos are taken from a long distance, and TFW2005 states that they're speculating on what it is as well. That thing over Sam's arm could be 100 different things, thus the reason it's not verifiable. --Teancum (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You said yourself that there's no questioning a source provided there's pictures of what's being mentioned, so I don't get your childish insistence on removing the mention of Sam wearing a special glove (NOT POWER GLOVE). Is it a glove? Yes. Is it a regular one? No. Did its reveal merit articles on media covering the film? Yes. (do you happen to like this source better?) Then I don't get your problem. --uKER (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I said "if pictures or video can verify the information without any doubt". Every source speculates what the glove is, and given Bay's previous changes it could be anything.  What if Sam was infected by some sort of Cybertronian infection?  The point is that we can verify it's physically there, but that's it.  In the case of say, the Autobot fire truck, it's been seen with the Autobots and has Autobot insignias, so we can list it as an Autobot, and that's about it. --Teancum (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my point is, the artifact exists and it seems to have merited headlines in several media (I think the BeyondHollywood source is as good as it will get), so unless you're deliberately determined to have it your way and keep it out of the article for no reason, there has to be a way to include it so that you don't have a problem with it. --uKER (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest - on the glove thing I'm not going to fight it if you honestly feel there's a need for inclusion, however it just seems unnecessary - nobody knows what it is or what it does, so it just seems unnecessary. I won't revert an addition of it again as I don't feel it's important enough to WP:BRD over.  I will, however focus more on reverting the Blogspot refs, which are really my bigger issue.  I'll see what I can do to replace those refs with something more reliable if I have time.  It seems either 1) reliable sources borrow from the blog (which works, since those sources selectively scrutinize what's reliable) or 2) the blog keeper reposts news they find (which in this case we would use an alternate source anyway).  I won't remove a blogspot ref if we can't replace it, but just know that other editors will, so it's better that we replace them now. --Teancum (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Twins
http://bbs.actoys.net/read.php?tid-572076.html One of the images in this link shows excatly similar robot mode than Skids, so I can not be another Autobot. Besides green and orange stripes were too identical with the Twins. Why people here still don't believe that they are those black and striped Chevrolet Sparks? --CAJH (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no source that specifically says Skids and Mudflap will be in T3, and in any case, they've been remodeled, so they could now be called Cheech and Chong for all we know. --uKER (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there seems to be a toy for DotM Skids that confirms at least him being in the film. Officially Mudflap hasn't been confirmed, but there being an orange Spark, I'd rather make a safe assumption that it's them both than to write a convoluted paragraph saying that Skids is confirmed, but Mudflap, despite the orange Chevy, is not. However, I leave it open to debate as maybe someone can find some way to put it so that it won't be too awkward to read. --uKER (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, but shouldn't we still write that Bay once denied their return. --CAJH (talk) 8:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely. That shouldn't have been removed. Source included, of course. --uKER (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Unicron in the RotF Blu-ray Transformers 3 preview (NOT THE TEASER TRAILER!)
For a LONG time, the article has included a mention of Orci expressing the production team's intention to include Unicron, with a passing mention of Unicron briefly appearing in the Transformers 3 preview in the Revenge of the Fallen Blu-ray. Well, someone seems determined to remove this, allegedly because we don't know whether Unicron is in Transformers 3. Well, nobody's saying he will be. All we're saying is the facts: Orci said he was considered for the film, and he appeared in the preview. Period. The information presented is all verifiable and relevant to this film so, there's no reason for it to be removed. --uKER (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, [ here]'s a recording of said Blu-ray extra. --uKER (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You said it yourself - he was considered. He wasn't confirmed.  There are just so many things Bay could have done that we can't assume, no matter how seemingly obvious, as to who the character is.  Look at Jetfire, who has very little in common with mainstream universe counterparts. --Teancum (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What's Jetfire got to do with anything? I mean, did you even look at the video I posted? It's G1 Unicron that is shown, FFS!!! And the article doesn't say "oh, Unicron is sooo going to be in Transformers 3" it's just saying "Unicron was CONSIDERED, and he appeared in the TF3 preview in the RotF Blu-ray". Now... CAN-YOU-DENY-THAT!? --uKER (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, to be fair, I think it's probably Unicron (or Alpha Trion) -- but that's not our call to make. The preview was on the TF2 Blu-Ray, which means it's old and could have been dropped, secondly, Orci was not a writer at all on this movie, so it's likely he doesn't know, and thirdly Bay often runs a misinformation campaign to throw people off, so unless it's been confirmed by him we can't say.  What's good enough for you and I isn't going to cut it for Wikipedia.  That's exactly why we don't state that the fire truck is Sentinel Prime.  Likely?  Yes, but we just don't have a factual confirmation. And just for clarification, Bay even says at the start of the video you posted (which was delinked here but works on your talk page):


 * I'm sure someone, whoever, the "Cyber Freak", found this and put this on the internet, so you know what? I'm going to tell you a bunch of lies right now; a bunch of wrong information.


 * Can't say it any clearer than that. On top of that he never actually mentions Unicron; though the screen flashes images and text of him, Bay says he only has "ideas" that he says he needs to "let simmer". Nothing iron clad. --Teancum (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, god. Please make it stop. Unicron or Alpha Trion? Please tell me you're not talking about the teaser trailer, or are you? Do you somehow think the text you keep removing holds ANY KIND OF RELATION to the teaser trailer? Are you even reading it? Orci said Unicron was once for consideration in the film. There's sources for it. It's true and it will always be, regardless of whether Unicron ends up actually appearing in the film or not. Then Unicron appeared in the TF3 preview and he was THE ONLY NON-FILM CHARACTER shown in that preview. That is, it was not like there was a hundred of Transformers shown and Unicron happened to be among them. Then, the text didn't say Bay gave it any special significance, or it was somehow proof that Unicron would actually be in the film. It just said what it said: that Unicron briefly appeared in that preview. I find all the speculation about Sentinel Prime, Hot Rod, Unicron, Alpha Trion and all the others just as annoying as you do, but let's not get overboard with the removals, shall we? That information was there since October 2010 and everyone was fine with it, but now all of a sudden the trailer comes out, and because there's a bunch of fanboys speculating it's Unicron in the trailer, we have to remove anything mentioning Unicron? Give me a break. --uKER (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the edits again per WP:BRD. When there is a dispute on content editors must come to a consensus before adding that content back to the article.  Future reversions made before coming to a consensus (either majority or entirety consensus) will be treated as vandalism per policy.  It's just not enough solid proof, which leads to WP:SYNTHESIS.  I have invited members of WikiProject Film to join the discussion so we can figure out what to do, as there may be specific allowances within that WikiProject or other things I don't know about. --Teancum (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no solid proof that Unicron is was in the trailer or is going to be in TF3. And this section Uker made will be a great place for future issues regarding Unicron.  It doesn't matter that it was here since October 2010 there are many errors that have gone unchanged on wiki since October 2010.  Teancum has this one right. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If an actor or character was considered for the film and it is in reliable sources I don't see why it shouldn't be added. — Mike  Allen   04:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally someone gets the point. Thanks for dropping by. --uKER (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Unicron is seen during the TF3 preview video" Nothing confirms that.  It shouldn't be added be added.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be willing to concede a mention of Unicron in the Development section of the article, but so long as it's clear that thus far he's not included in the cast. (admittedly I was confused as to why we were including this -- to many characters to follow!) I don't see why the extra "Blu-Ray" commentary is necessary though. The point is made very clearly with the fact that he was merely a thought by Orci - I don't see a need to expand beyond that - I suppose that's why I was so confused. Expanding with more information on Unicron automatically put my mind into "he's been confirmed" mode, and for some reason I then associated that with the trailer (actually, that was probably more a breakdown in communication among us). I agree that a mention should be made of the character, but I don't see a reason to expand the prose. Reference #14 covers all that just fine, and leads to the preview video mentioned earlier. --Teancum (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no, that's the point. There's NOTHING indicating Unicron will be in Transformers 3, or he appeared in the teaser. We just have that vague thought by Orci just as they finished RotF. Then the Blu-ray comment's significance may actually be debatable. As I said at some point in some discussion, I found it significant because Unicron is the only non-film character that appears in it, and does so in full screen. It's not like the preview shows a hundred characters and Unicron just happened to slip by, or he appeared in a billboard in the background. --uKER (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll even concede on that, but it just needs to be completely clear to the reader that Unicron is not confirmed for the film. So long as that's the case I suppose I don't have any major beef with this. --Teancum (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd mentioning him in the production section and not the characters' section would suffice, but if you can make a naturally-flowing paragraph that makes it clearer, you're welcome to do so. --uKER (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again. Nothing proves Unicron is in the movie.  I've watched the video, looked for it with the sources, not to mention google.  Nothing.  Stop adding your own lust for Unicron to be TF3.  --Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WTF? You again bringing this up? You must have serious reading comprehension issues. Nobody is saying he'll be in TF3. He just showed up in a TF3 preview in the RotF Blu-ray disc (Teancum, just for the record, IIRC it is not in the DVD). --uKER (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dana, you're misunderstanding what the intentions are here, just like I did. uKER is not implying he is to be in the movie, rather that Orci stated (and Bay later hinted at) Unicron as a possible plot device.  Hence why he is discussed in the Development section and not listed in the Characters section.  It's perfectly viable information which shows one of the many possible angles Bay and his team of writers were considering. --Teancum (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I firmly agree with the inclusion of Unicron in the development area - I would equally firmly disagree with his inclusion in the plot or any other section as no, there is no firm proof he is in the film but Uker is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.156.212 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC) — 78.151.156.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I hope that SPA tag doesn't somehow imply it's me votestacking for myself. That IP is in London and I'm in Uruguay. Also, I don't see the point of marking an anon as a SPA, since there's so many people with dynamic addresses. --uKER (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please WP:Assume good faith. I would have tagged it if it was balanced the other way.  Besides, I already moved to your side given your rationale. --Teancum (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Easy, I didn't accuse you. I just wanted to clear myself. --uKER (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "and Unicron is briefly shown in a secret Transformers 3 preview feature in the Revenge of the Fallen Blu-ray disc" --Dana60Cummins (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, great, you know how to cut/paste. Now, what would be the issue with that text? --uKER (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who, what, where says that is Unicron besides you?--Dana60Cummins (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I leave it to someone else to make him/her understand. I have already tried my best and it was useless. --uKER (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Where was Unicron? I must have missed it. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As the title clearly and appropriately says, he was in the RotF Blu-ray Transformers 3 preview. :) --uKER (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What does Dark of the Moon mean?
Is it the same as Dark Moon? I am trying to get the meaning of the title to translate it properly into other language on Wikipedia Transforers 3 project.


 * Dark of the Moon probably means the far side of the moon, although it could have an entirely different meaning (unlikely, but eg maybe a black-ish moon-sized transformer?). It's probably safe to translate it as far side of the moon, but that may be incorrect. Once the movie is released, we'll know for sure. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The dark side of the moon and the far side of the moon are not the same at all given that the dark side of the moon is never constant. For us on Earth we never see the far side of the moon since it never faces us, but as the moon orbits the Earth every 27.322 days, different sides of the moon are lit and dark.  For example, when it's a full moon the lit side of the moon is the side we see facing Earth, but when it's a new moon, the far side of the moon that we never see is the lit side.  So with that said, the dark side of the moon is NOT always the same as the far side except during the new moon period.  You are correct in the fact that we won't know what "Dark of the Moon" means until it's official stated or the movie comes out, but it doesn't make sense to say it specifically means the far side of the moon. Chadwpalm (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Dark side of the moon/ far side of the moon ARE interchangeable, DARK doesn't refer to it's literal amount of light but the fact that it's hidden to us. Dark being used to mean secret, stemming from the historical trope of light meaning known, understood and dark meaning hidden or obscured from our knowledge. 66.214.218.24 (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

IF YOU ASK ME "NEW MOON" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.210.96.3 (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Crankcase
Those Chevrolet Suburbans were said to be clone troopers. And toy version is named Crankcase. Term 'clone trooper' means that all of them have excatly similar robot modes, so don't you think each of them to be called Crankcase? CAJH (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Skids in DotM
I don't know about Mudflap, but we know there's DotM toys of him and they look just like the green Spark in the film. If there's a reliable source saying they were supposed to be in the film but they were cut, I'd like to see it. AFAIK, it was the other way round: Bay initially said they weren't going to be there, but accumulated proof ended up proving otherwise. --uKER (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, all this because of source. I didn't add it for two reasons. Jolt's non-appearance was neither meintioned in article and you didn't like when I added source links to edit summaries. But here I can tell it. Read this thread on Shoot For The Edit, so you'll understand: http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?8570-Update&p=163703#post163703 --CAJH (CAJH) 20:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read the followup posts presenting proof of the contrary? Nobody believed that for a second. In particular, see these; supposed non-Twins:, Skids toy: , Mudflap toy: . --uKER (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, Nelson seems pretty adamant about them not being in the film, so according to this post I'm relocating the Twins to the Development section, after a needed rewrite of the paragraph. --uKER (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We've seen in filming of these films vehicles that won't be transformers, but some toyline characters have them as alternate modes though the Twins were originally meant to be in. And removing them from the film doesn't mean they would be removed from toyline too. Understood? --CAJH (CAJH) 7:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Duh, the toys are already out there. Obviously they're not going to pull them off the shelves and trashcan them just because they're not in the film. --uKER (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Music
What about music? Is Linkin Park recording new song for the movie? 89.172.44.111 (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess if anyone had any info on the subject they'd have added it to the article. --uKER (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Egypt?
Any reason why? Evanh2008, Super Genius 00:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WTH? What is exactly the question? --uKER (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It premieres in Egypt three days before anywhere else. It just seems odd that, of all places, Egypt would get it first. Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The information is sourced, so what is exactly the question again? --uKER (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's sourced. I'm not saying it's sourced. I'd just like to have a source for why, out of every other nation on the face of the planet, this movie premieres in Egypt first. Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just Egypt that gets it on June 29. There's about ten more countries that have it listed for the same day. I changed the page to somewhat reflect that. --uKER (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better now. I should have checked that link and done that myself. Thanks. Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Teaser poster
The poster has come from IMPAwards, who are one of, if not the most reliable sources for posters on the internet. If they had had any whiff the poster was fan made they would have removed it from their site. As such, I believe the poster should stay. Quentin X (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Meadowbrookhall, 27 April 2011
Please change "Filming started in May 2010, with shooting locations including Chicago, Florida, and Moscow." to "Filming started in May 2010, with shooting locations including Chicago, Florida, Moscow, and metro Detroit, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow_Brook_HallPage title, the fourth-largest museum house in the country."

Because we are a struggling non-profit and we want viewers to recognize Meadow Brook Hall as the "mansion" in the movie and come to support us!

I can't find good citing, but this is one http://www.onlocationvacations.com/2010/08/22/mondays-lot-list-filming-locations-in-michigan-new-mexico-more-including-30-minutes-or-less/ and I work here, so I saw them filming. http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/detroit/index.ssf/2010/06/transformers_3_to_film_in_detr.html

Meadowbrookhall (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, although your cause seems a good one, Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. --uKER (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We can add the city or state if they're sourced, but a specific building would give undue weight. If a good deal of the movie takes place there or it turns out to be otherwise significant, then a link to Meadow Brook Hall would be in order. — Bility (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Megatron9999928382, 29 April 2011
Hugo weaving voices megatron, not frank welker

Megatron9999928382 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It does say Hugo Weaving voices Megatron, but Frank Welker is also part of the cast too. Welker makes the voice of Soundwave. --WikiEditor44 (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, there is no source for either of the two. --uKER (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Frank Welker will not be voicing Megatron in Dark of the Moon. When the 2007 film was released Michael Bay said Welker's voice didn't fit the movie Megatron and Hugo Weaving's voice sounded perfect so Hugo Weaving obviously voiced him in the first movie and the second and Michael Bay will want him for the third movie. Dr Eggman12 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Weaving Voicing Megatron?
I found this link and it states that Hugo Weaving is providing the voice for Megatron in Dark of the Moon I don't know whether I should add it to the cast. Here is the Link. Dr Eggman12 15:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know. The mention of him doing it is such a passing one that I'd question its reliability, but I'm not strong on it. --uKER (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to find out please because I think its sort of important to get it onto the cast list and also I suppose it would please alot of people if they found out that Hugo Weaving is voicing Megatron in the third movie. Thanks Dr Eggman12 15:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Frank Welker is voicing Soundwave and Hugo Weaving is voicing Megatron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.81.13 (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it has been confirmed that Hugo Weaving is voicing Megatron but it hasn't been confirmed who Frank Welker is voicing. Dr Eggman12 18:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hugo Weaving did voice Megatron in Dark of thr Moon. DOTM123 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wheeljack?Dodge charger?
so has wheeljack been confirmed or is this fan speculation, and is it true that a charger srt8 is set to appear in the film because it should be included or am i just missing something Ghost07 (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis of movie after premier TF3 -- WARNING -- Spoilers from 9 p.m. 3d showing of TF3 6/28/2011
Scene begins with historical footage of sixties. An Autobot ship crashes on the dark side of the moon. President Kennedy is briefed. A space race is launched. The Americans are too late. The Soviets get there first. President Nixon covers up the failure. The Soviets recover part of the Autobot ship. This part is used for Chernobyl. By the time the Americans, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldridge, get there they find a ship full of dead Autobots. NASA covers up the findings. They take the alien technology including pillars.

Back on Earth in the present time, the world has changed. The Autobots are leading covert missions for the US government and their allies to stop rogue human enemies. They do this and wait for their real enemies to emerge.

Sam Witwicky is adjusting to a new life with his unbelievably hot British model girlfriend, Carly Spencer. Sam meets her as part of the British embassy during his award ceremony with President Obama. Wheelie and Brains, two small midget Autobots, hang out in Carly’s posh apartment in Washington, DC.

Sam tries to get a job. His parents show up to help in their new RV bus. But like most millennium college grads he is unable to find a decent job. Carly is supportive and helps him through her creepy, billionaire boss, Dylan Gould. Gould is clearly part of the military-industrial complex, though he collects cars and claims to make his fortune through his father’s accounting and investment firm. Gould calls in a favor on behalf of Carly to get Sam a job at a local design company in the DC area – it looks like Northern Virginia. Sam drives a Datsun now and is trying to make it on his own. As he works, he finds his fame is more a curse than a blessing.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe in the Ukraine, Lt. Col. William Lennox, leads an investigation with a nefarious former USSR agent to the Chernobyl site. As they uncover the mysterious reactor core, that turns out to be a part of an Autobot ship, a giant, metal worm-snake reminiscent of a spinning driller, attacks Lennox and his men. Both Americans and Russians join forces to stop the worm-snake, controlled by a one eyed Decepticon named Shockwave. Optimus Prime and other Autobots join the fight. Prime’s haul a portable weapons and armor unit, which he gears up and easily dispatches the worm and Shockwave. Shockwave retreats. Optimus discovers the truth. During the fight the former USSR agent is murdered by Lazerbeak, a raven like Decepticon with lazers, sharp talons, and machine guns.

Back at NEST headquarters, the new Director of National Intelligence, Charlotte Mearing, orders Lennox to explain the international debacle at Chernobyl. Optimus emerges angrily to Director Mearing’s lack of candor. Mearing briefs what they know about a secret military operation on the moon. Optimus learns that the humans have found the wreckage of an Autobot ship, the Ark. In the Ark is a secret technology that could have won the Cybertronian war and was protected by Optimus’s predecessor, Sentinel Prime. Optimus has an Autobot ship delivered by a wave of new Autobot refugees. Optimus travels with his team to the moon and recovers Sentinel Prime in a secret vault. Also they bring back five mysterious pillars. Optimus revives Sentinel, and after a brief confrontation, Sentinel is welcomed home and Prime takes his mentor to show him their new home.

With this in motion, Megatron, now in the guise of a broken looking off-road truck, is found camped out in Africa. Megatron is hiding with a defeated band of Decepticons. Ominously, Laserbeak shows up at the camp.

Around the world, the agents and scientists who know of the government cover up start to be killed or commit suicide. Laserbeak is show to be killing several of them.

In DC, Sam is threatened and harassed by a former NASA, now senior VP, at Sam’s company. The former NASA scientist, after some bathroom humor, corners Sam and gives him documents to lead him back into secret government conspiracies. Shortly after the encounter, a Decepticon murders the former NASA scientist. Sam freaks out and runs back to his apartment. He grabs Carly and the mini-Autobots and goes to a secret government facility masquerading as an Health and Human Services building. When the guards don’t let Sam in, he fights the guards and yells to get Bumblebee’s attention.

With Sam pinned and under arrest, Bumblebee shows up, much to Carly’s delight. Lennox lets them in the NEST facility. They are met coldly by the new Intel Director. Sam shows him the notes from the dead NASA scientists. He is assigned Bumblebee as a temporary guardian until NEST can sort out why the scientists are being killed and what the Decepticons are after. Sam and Carly are kicked out of NEST.

Frustrated, Sam contacts former Agent Simmons and his new assistant Dutch. Simmons is now a wealthy author and decides to help Sam in exchange for more alien and government secrets. Bumblebee is in the apartment, as well as Sam’s boss briefly, as they brainstorm what the Decepticons are up too. They figure out that Sentinel is the key to the mystery. Carly comes home and disappointed at the mess made at the apartment. More so, Carly does not want Sam to get involved in more heroics. The same heroics that got her brother in the UK military killed.

Carly and Sam fight over getting too involved in alien war and state secrets. Carly gives Sam the stuffed toy rabbits’ foot and storms off in Gould’s gift of at $200k Mercedes. Sam more determined than ever, works with Agent Simmons and tracks down other scientists, even former Soviet cosmonauts. After a rough encounter with the Russian mafia elements, the cosmonauts reveal more secrets.

Sam contacts the Intel Director to report. She does not believe him at first. Sam and Agent Simons head to NEST DC headquarters but they are ambushed on I-295 (actually scenes are from Detroit and highway to Aurora). Autobots are able to rout the Chevy disguised Decepticons. When Sam confronts the Autobots about the inconsistencies in the secrets, Sentinel suddenly turns on Autobots and murders Ironhide and other Autobots. Bumblebee takes Sam to flee. Agent Simmons and his chauffer Dutch escape. Sentinel proceeds to tear up the NEST facility. When the NEST members rally to fight back, Sentinel flees the scene with the five pillars, including the master control pillar, to join Megatron.

Optimus Prime arrives too late and is blamed for the incident. Sentinel Prime at the Lincoln memorial activates the pillars and is able to open a portal to allow teleportation of a Decepticon army hidden and dormant on the Dark side of the moon. The Decepticons enter DC and cause mass havoc.

The Decepticons head over to Lake Michigan, where Sentinel is and take over the city. Sentinel demands that the alien civil war over, and that the Decepticons have won. Sentinel claims that if the rebel Autobots are dispatched from Earth and if the Decepticons are allowed to harvest some energy, they will leave the planet in peace. Scared governments quickly give into their demands. Optimus and his Autobots are exiled and scheduled to depart on a special space shuttle (Discovery) attached to a small Autobot ship. Autobot engineers, Wreckers, assist in the preparation.

Disheartened Sam goes to Carly’s apartment to find her missing. Sam’s parents are outside and give Sam a pep talk about finding and keeping true love. Sam goes to the billionaire’s mansion and attempts to take Carly away. In the process of leaving, the Mercedez Benz turns out to be a Decepticon. Sam and Carly realize that the military-industrial complex mafia, lead by Gould, was in league with the Decepticons all along. Gould takes Carly as hostage and puts a tracking-listening device on Sam. He orders Sam to spy on Optimus to find out if the Autobot’s counter-strategy. Otherwise, Carly would be killed. Sam reluctantly returns to NEST and the Florida space port, where Optimus claims not to have a plan and gives up the fight for the humans. As the shuttle leaves, Gould laughs at Sam on the phone. The Autobots are apparently killed when Soundwave shoots the shuttle down over the Atlantic. The Decepticon device leaves Sam. During the victory celebration of the Autobot’s demise, Carly spies Sentinel manhandling the injured Megatron.

Sam attempts a rescue attempt of Carly. Retired Sergeant Epps, now working as an engineer for NASA, helps Sam and recruits a small band of veterans. They arrive to a devastated Chicago and dying denizens. They put a heroic fight and as a flying Decepticon ship is about to vaporize them, Optimus Prime flies out of nowhere to save the day. The Autobots quickly dismember the Decepticon and Bumblebee flies the ship.

Sam with Bumblebee rescue Carly at Gould’s Trump tower suite. Carly is able to relay critical information about the teleportation device and how to destroy the master pillar. The Decepticons have placed hundreds of pillars at strategic points around Earth to draw in Cybertron itself from deep space.

NEST sends miniature drones to the site, which are shot down. Epps finds the drone and is able to relay information back to Lennox about the Decepticon plans. The Autobots create a diversion to get Shockwave and the Decepticon army to attack them. Meanwhile, warned of the Autobot’s survival and plan, Gould allows the Decepticons to raise the bridges of Chicago to make it difficult for the terrestrial based Autobot’s to attack the tower with the pillars. After massive firefight, that involves the giant worm destroying several skyscrapers, the humans are unable to destroy the tower. Optimus comes to the rescue and finally destroys the worm.

Lennox moves out with the rest of NEST as the Intel Director orders additional backups to help Chicago. Lennox and his team parachutes in and allows for close quarters combat with the enemy.

Sam and Carly are separated from Epps momentarily. They are caught in the open as Starscream attempts to pick them off. Sam, aided by new Autobot provided weaponry for humans, is able to blind Starscreen. Lennox and his team shows up to help. With Lennox, Sam is able to kill Starscream by plunging an Autobot mine onto Starscreams other eye.

Optimus engages in a ferocious fight with Shockwave, where Optimus is clearly outmatched with Decepticon gunships. Wheelie and Brains are able to ride an abandoned Decepticon gunship. The gunships have to reload on a mother ship, and Wheelie and Brains board to sabotage it. Since, the humans failed to destroy the tower, the Autobots are captured. One by one the Decepticons, egged by Gould, are executed. When Bumblebee is about to executed, the tide turns. Wheelie and Brains succeed. The main Decepticon flying galleon is crashes and allows the captured Autobots to fight back. Reunited Lennox and Epps now focus their fire power on providing cover for Optimus and his Autobots. Laser tagged Tomahawk missiles provide additional cover and Optimus is able to destroy Shockwave and his army.

Sentinel partially brings up Cybertron. The Earth begins to be a moon for this new planet. Optimus flies up and destroys the tower. The control pillar falls and there is a vicious fight between Gould and Sam. Finally, Sam gets the upper hand and is able to kill Gould in the process. Bumblebee and the other Autobots jump in and destroy the control pillar. Cybertron begins to slip back into Deepspace.

Seeing how Gould manipulated the pride and suspicion of the Decepticons, Carly speaks to a wounded Megatron. Megatron is about to kill Carly, referring to her as a slave. The plan revealed by Gould, was that six billion humans would be used to rebuild Cybertron. Carly strokes Megatron’s pride. Carly points out that Megatron is no longer being the leader. If Sentinel kills prime, then Megatron would no longer be the leader. Since the Autobot Sentinel was now in control of the Decepticons, the civil war is over and the Autobots won. Sentinel ambushes Optimus and severing Optimus’ arm. As Sentinel is about to deliver the final blow to Optimus, Megatron beats up Sentinel and wishes to kill both him and Optimus to be undisputed leader, winning the civil war. As the two betrayers fight each other, Optimus recovers and is able to kill both traitors. Optimus, having killed both leaders of the Decepticons, effectively wins the Cybertronian Civil War on Earth. The rest you need to see the movie. The final ending will not be spoiled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.199.105.164 (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from ThePurpleProtector, 20 May 2011
Following the title sequence, the camera floats through space until it lands on the planet Cybertron which is littered with giant metal constructs. From afar we witness the great battle-between Autobots and Decepticons as Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen) begins his voice-over. Describing the interminable battle on the planet’s surface, an airship flies by which Optimus reveals has cargo that could have saved them.

The airship with the precious cargo begins to fly away from the planet’s surface just when Decepticon ships successfully blow it up. We're then transported to 1961 New Mexico where the surface of the moon is being analyzed. We then see the Autobot ship crash land and scientists detect the impact. Knowing that they need to see what’s going on, a call is made to Washington and a CGI version of John F. Kennedy is shown discussing America's need to beat the Russians to the moon in order to figure out exactly what’s going on. We then watch archive footage of JFK’s famous address in which he stressed the importance of getting a man on the moon.

More archive footage of Apollo 11’s launch is shown as well as Walter Cronkite’s news coverage of the event. Finally we see Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin land on the lunar surface, with Armstrong proclaiming that “The Eagle has landed,” before giving his famous line, “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” After this quote, a man at mission control turns a knob and the signal feed is cut. Even some NASA scientists have no idea what’s going on. Speaking to the astronaut on a private feed, one of the insider’s says “Neil, you are dark on the rock. Mission is a go. You have 21 minutes.”

Neil and Buzz then travel across the moon’s surface to the location of the crashed ship, which is enormous in contrast to the size of the humans approaching it. Arriving at the edge of the ship, Neil kneels down and the dust sinks down to reveal a giant metal face. Reporting the findings, Neil then says that the ship has suffered a great deal of damage and that they won’t have time to explore the entire ship. There are no signs of life, but what the astronauts witness is not lost on him. “We are not alone, are we?” Mission control says into the radio. “No we are not,” Neil responds.

We then watch archive footage of President Richard Nixon as he praises the efforts of NASA in getting a man mission successfully to the moon. The command module Columbia flies safely into the Pacific Ocean and the entire mission is viewed as a success, with the general public having no idea about their actual motives. As the heroes are arriving back on land, a metallic suitcase is placed into a trunk labeled “Top Secret.” Back on the moon the camera flies into the inner bowels of the ship where we see a giant transformer – to later be identified as Sentinel Prime – whose eyes suddenly begin to glow, suggesting that he is still active. Flying into the robot’s pupil, moving machinery forms the film’s title: Transformers: Dark of the Moon. (http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/opening-scenes-of-transformers-dark-of-the-moon-revealed-172212/)

ThePurpleProtector (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but what the hell is this? Your attempt at some plot summary? --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Kinaro(talk)(contribs) 21:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Societyexile, 25 May 2011
After the discovery that Decepticons are still on Earth, searching for ancient artifacts from Cybertron, Optimus Prime and his Autobots must race against time to harness the power of the lost Cybertronian craft, the Ark, unlocking the long lost secrets of the Transformers' war, Cybertron, and the fate of both the Autobots and Decepticons. But these secrets may reveal more than either sides are willing to accept, thrusting Optimus Prime, Megatron, Shockwave, and the enigmatic Sentinel Prime into roles of immense power and consequence.

Societyexile (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I'm guessing this is a plot summary; but since the movie hasn't been released, we would only insert such a summary with a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like no different from what Purple Protector did a few days ago. Rather atrocious crap about something that is not out for a few weeks more. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Driller
Driller, a cybertronian tentacle-beast is confirmed to be in film as Shockwave's pet. But it's not added to character list. --CAJH (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
 * And by the way, it really IS called Driller, not Dweller (seen in The Transformers episode 87). --CAJH (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Skilds and Mudflap
In the section about Skids and Mudflap, should it be mentioned that they both appear in the novelization and the comic book for Dark of the Moon? Also, the whole Silverbolt thing seems to be a fake. If James Avery is in the film, he's probably some other character like Brains or Wheeljack.Mathewignash (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Welker voicing Mirage in 1984
It was added that Welker voiced Mirage in the 1984 film. This info was added in the section for Mirage. Does that affirmation say anything about the Mirage character in the present film? No. Does it even say anything about Welker's role in the present film? Again, no. That's why I say it is trivia and unrelated to the present film. The only way it could be made to be somehow related would be to interpret it as speculation that Welker will actually be voicing him, which is of course a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. --uKER (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. If this is to imply Welker is doing Mirage, then that's original research. If it's just to state he did the original voice, that's trivia. --Teancum (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Carly Miller or Carly Spencer
Both the novelization and the junior novel say Carly's last name is Spencer, but a promotional photo says it's Miller. Should we stick with a promo photo tagged by a third party, or 2 books based on early scripts? Or mention both? Mathewignash (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the two conflict just stick with plain old Carly (no last name) until the movie is released and the credits can be checked for the official word. --Teancum (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Score
Track Listing

1. Dark On The Rock 2. Sentinel Prime 3. Lost Signal 4. In Time You’ll See 5. Impress Me 6. What War Destroyed, We Can Rebuild 7. Battle 8. There Is No Plan 9. We All Work for the Deceptions 10. The Fight Will Be Your Own 11. Driller 12. No Prisoners, Only Trophies 13. Ospreys 14. It’s Our World Now 15. I’m Just the Messenger 16. I Promise 17. The World Needs You Now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.210.249 (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Premiere
Heres info regarding the world premiere at the Moscow International Film Festival and celebratory Linkin Park concert in Red Square; http://www.paramount.com/news/press-releases/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-presents-linkin-park-%E2%80%93-live-in-moscow-on-june-23rd-in-support-of-movie .--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added this info and separated marketing info from the release info. The marketing section by the way needs further clean-up per WP:FILMMARKETING.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Shockwave VA
They confirmed who voices him yet? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Twins
one guy i nthe tfw2005 wh osaw the film says the twisn appear for one Single scene in the film, the scene where they are seen in the trailer entering the NEST hangar, does this means they are TRULY in the film but for one scene link
 * First of all, forums are not a reliable source, and in any case, an editing mishap doesn't mean they should be listed here. --uKER (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why assume it's an editing mishap? If they appear in the background they appear, they have have greatly reduced roles with no lines. Mathewignash (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Errors
Agent Seymour Simmons pronounces Sam Witwicky's surname "Witwickety" when watching a camera surveillance feed of the mayhem in Chicago, into which Sam and others had penetrated. (This information should be placed in a new section titled something like "Errors" in the Wikipedia article for the movie. I am writing on the talk page, as I do not have a Wikipedia account and so cannot do so myself.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.230.47 (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A Few Minor Typos Within The Plot - Fixed
First, I mainly came back to request a correction on what I had previously read where it stated that Shockwave was the main antagonist in the film. He wasn't, he only had ten minutes or less of screen time, and only one word of dialogue. But that part I see was updated. But as I read through the plot, I noticed a few minor typos mainly just a few words spelled incorrectly and I fixed them. User Aidensdaddy2k9

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Somebody put Wheeljack as a...
Blue Mercedes Benz E320 in the Wiki please and thank you. 75.94.173.44 (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)6/29/11 3:51am EST
 * But he wasn't called Wheeljack, he was called Que. And for that matter, Mirage was called Dino !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.151.245 (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please change the Autobot names 'Wheeljack to Que' and 'Mirage to Dino'. Loads of us have now seen the movie and can confirm these are the correct names - an edit actioning this was reverted with no reason noted, presumably because no source was cited. Although I fully support that Wiki needs to be verifiable, short of Paramount releasing an 'Autobot Cast List' I'm not sure what more is acceptable than the characters being referred to by their names Dino and Que on screen! Wiki must surely take account of this in their 'source rules'. Thanks
 * If they are called Que and Dino then how are they Wheeljack and Mirage? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the toys were called wheeljack and mirage, as were their characters in the comics. But in film - which this poorly written and maintained article is about - they are called Que and Dino — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.197.93 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

✅ Please help enforce this. --uKER (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've edited the names yesterday to Que and Dino from the previous edit; but someone reverted Dino to Mirage again. Was that edit done after the article was semi-protected? --TitanOne (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking template as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Barracade and wheeljack
I just saw the movie and Barracade killed wheeljack. And a Waste Management truck transformed to a decepticon!! i saw it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.4.232 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Movie Review
Transformers- Dark of the Moon: What's not to like?

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/ENT-transformers-3-movie-review-2230295.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam4484 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Que
I don't know if you have noticed. After the scene where Que was killed, in another scene, running beside Ratchet's vehicle mode is a blue Mercedes.

Just My Little Observation Of Another Coincidental Trend Occuring In 2011!
Hi! I just came home from seeing the movie, so it is still fresh in my mind.


 * 00: The planned series finale for "SMALLVILLE" showed us Planet Apokolypse being brought into orbit near Planet Earth.


 * 01: The not-planned-to-be series finale for "THE EVENT" showed us a different alien planet being brought into orbit near Planet Earth too.


 * 02: Now this movie brings us Planet Cybertron being brought into orbir near Planet Earth!


 * 03: Similiar scenes that I may have scene in "DOCTOR WHO" were first broadcast in 2009 or 2010, so they don't count here, even if I didn't see them until this year. I only mention this to pre-acknowledge it before someone else does.

So anyway, my question to ponder over is, "Behind the scenes, was there some sort of contest going on as to who could make the best looking scene?"

Just curious. I recall some other contest about who could make "the best submarine movie" and then the next thing you know, "The Hunt for Red October" and "The Abyss" get made and are released.

LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but as it says at the top of this page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." See WP:FORUM. --uKER (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Question/confusion about the film's title
Okay, I still don't get this. Was the title for this film (which is now "Dark of the Moon") once called "Dark 'Side' of the moon?" I ask because the title sounds like a typo. It's like someone in charge of the movie screwed up in pre-production and forgot to add the word side and Michael Bay said, "Hmmmm.... Hey, that's catchy! Just leave it that way. Dark of the Moon.... original." So my question is that does the phrase "Dark of the Moon" mean anything OR is it just free form English when naming this film? Any history on this would be nice.75.174.130.129 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Like before
Someone let the Cast section like before, with characteristics of the characters, plz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.114.114.4 (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The info is just there. It has only been separated into its own article. --uKER (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Real D / other 3D systems
the article states that it uses Real D 3D

it can actually use many different types of types of 3d technology of which some can use real d glasses if set up that way (eg masterimage)

121.222.26.1 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 2nd/jul/2011

errors
Towards the end of the movie, topspin was killed by megatron after they were captured. later in the movie, while the autobots were driving back to Optimus Prime, you can see topspin with the other people. They might mean for roadbuster to be killed, but it does not show that is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascar198824 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Crowbar
As this character is one of the cast of this film, I thought I'd mention that someone nominated the artcile for Crowbar for deletion. Articles for deletion/Crowbar (Transformers) Mathewignash (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be talked about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7kcqB3thJM Its made a few news sites http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010714/Did-Michael-Bay-recycle-footage-The-Island-Transformers-3.html

ThanatosXRS (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a terse note concerning this article but leaving it in speculative point of view since it hasn't been promulgated yet, but I don't think it would. Hope its good enough.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Not in the list soundtrack
In the movie, which arrive in the city of Chernobyl Sam Witwicky, Seymour Simmons and the Dutch at the club on the background music plays "Seryoga - Diskomaljarija," but this song is not listed soundtracks. (not included in the book "Transformers: Dark of the Moon - The Album") Seryoga - Disco Malaria (Transformers 3) | Серега - Дискомалярия Рашидушка —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Comedy
It says that it is "A 2011 Science Fiction/Comedy/Action Film". I know these films have funny parts but the focus is the Sci-fi and action in the film, not the comedy, so I suggest that the Comedy be removed. Mattseay3000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Reception: "Generally mixed to negative," not "generally mixed"
A few editors will change the Critical reception part away from "generally mixed to negative" to "generally mixed." Well, let's be real here: 38% is not "mixed." That is "mixed to negative." Some would even classify that as "generally negative." Rotten Tomatoes encompasses more film critics than any other film site, and they have reported 38%, meaning that most film critics (the remaining half being too many to classify as "mixed") do not favor this film. The first film in this franchise, Transformers, has a score that is "generally mixed," which is 57%. 38% is nowhere close to 57%. I have had to add a hidden note in the Critical reception for fanboys who cannot accept that. Flyer22 (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's just me, but I find the "generally mixed to negative" wording plain horrible. I'd rather have a "negative/mostly negative/mixed/mostly positive/positive" rating system, which would define five "zones". "mixed to negative" sounds like someone instructing you to make a gin tonic told you to mix a 50% mix of gin and tonic, with a glass of gin. Why not make it 75% gin and leave it at that? Let's not mention the "generally" part, which adds to the mess in saying that there's stuff left out by this already ludicrous definition. In short, I'd just leave it at "mostly negative". --uKER (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Mixed" means the reception ranges from from positive to negative, so "mixed to negative" translates to "positive to negative to negative". --Boycool (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would've thought mixed would be something that hovers around low 50's, high 40's. 37% is flat out negative.  If you get 40% in a test they don't say you had mixed results.  You just failed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * UKER, I often see the "mixed to negative" wording or "mixed to positive" or even "positive to mixed" wording on Wikipedia. Maybe we should just drop "generally"? As stated in my edit summaries,, I wouldn't just leave it as "mostly." At 38%, which is close to 40%, that's not neutral enough. It's likely to cause even more edit warring. Also, having a hidden note about this helps to deter IPs from changing it to what they'd like it to actually say. Another reason I wouldn't leave it as just "mostly" is because most critics have liked the special effects; most simply have been divided on whether they also like the script/acting. Leaving it to only numbers is lacking an initial summary of the reception, so I wouldn't choose that either. If we do leave it as only "negative," I would prefer "generally negative" than "mostly negative" (and I did state above that "Some would even classify [the score] as "generally negative.") The reception for this film isn't quite the same case as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, though. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm perfectly fine with "generally negative". Despite WP:OTHER, "mixed to negative" doesn't seem right for the aforementioned reasons. --uKER (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The general opinion should be given and the general opinion is negative. It doesn't stop you talking about things that they liked ala "despite the poor reception, many critics favoured the visual effects".  That doesn't change their opinion of the film which is negative.  You can't say a film has "mixed reviews" when it receives 2% but the critics liked the font used during the credits. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that. I even stated in my first post above about this that, "Some would even classify [the score] as "generally negative." But do regard the other factors I stated about leaving it as "mixed to negative." Like I stated, this is not quite the same case as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Anyway, consensus here seems to be for leaving it as "generally negative." I'm not going to revert or contest any of you changing it to that. I do ask that you leave a hidden note about this discussion having taken place on the talk page for others to see, even if small. Flyer22 (talk)
 * Wait, Metacritic gives it a score of 42 based on 37 critics, which means "Mixed or average reviews." So should we factor this in and word it as "negative to mixed" instead? Unlike Revenge of the Fallen, which was panned by both sites, Dark of the Moon has more of a "mixed" component to it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WE can mention Metacritic but its still a low score. Theyre a bit more generous than I would be but NEGATIVE on metacritic starts at 40, the score for this film is 42 so its still much more in the negative.  Using Fast Five as an example, it had pretty decent reception in the 60%+ range but I still discussed the negative aspects such as acting, running time, cliches.  Its the same here, that the metacritic score is in the low 40's indicates that teh reviews were generally geared towards the negative and negative is the most applicable description of the reception to this film by professional critics. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh... can we just stay clear from the "mixed to" wording? It's either mixed, or mostly something, be it positive or negative. "mixed to [anything]" just doesn't make sense. --uKER (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Darkwarriorblake, good point about Metacritic. UKER, I understand why "mixed to [anything]" bothers you, though it doesn't bother me and I feel it can even be an accurate description of things. But per this talk page, I will change the wording to "generally negative" and change the hidden note accordingly. In the meantime, be on the lookout for edits such as this one. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Typing Error?
Roger Ebert gave the film three out of four stars, calling it "a visually ugly film with an incoherent plot, wooden characters and inane dialog. It provided me with one of the more pleasant experiences I've had at the movies." According to the source, it should be one out of four stars, and unpleasant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.139.197 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not a typing an error. Vandalism. As the section I created above shows, some fanboys cannot accept that this film has gotten mostly negative reviews from film critics. It has been fixed now. Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing of the Critical Reception Area
Small parts of the critical reception area have been edited to downplay and misrepresent the elements of the negative reception. For example Roger Ebert gave the film a one star, not a three star, and Rotten Tomatoes records 38%, not 68%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.88.118 (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was vandalism. And has now been fixed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it wasn't so much as fanboys nt being able to accept it got a bad review, but more of just people either honestly disagreeing with the reviews (As many critics seem to be incredibly biased themselves) or just reading an incorrect source. Calling them fanboys is a little unneeded, as it has got some positive reviews not noted on this site, and aparently, thr public reception has been positive (In fact, for most of it, only professional critics seam to really dislike it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.183.117 (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Where's Metacritic?
I have added a Metacritic article by myself. Don't think I am a fanboy of the film. I haven't even seen it once yet. Metacritic assigns the film a mixed score. Although, 42 is pretty close to the number 39 (which is where Metacritic's "negative" starts). I don't know why this hasn't been added yet, but I just decided to.
 * See above, in the main section: . Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

must added reviews by New York Times
movies.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/movies/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-theyre-at-it-again-movie-review.html

new york times review transformers dark of the moon reviews. Must be added to ensure the mixed receptions status — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigicesare (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Are marketing costs not included in the budget?
...because it looks pretty bad to say $270 million everywhere but in the infobox. --Boycool (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Template talk:Infobox film We had a discussion about this here, mostly concerning Green Lantern. In the source for the budget in the infobox, it does say $195 or whatever it says.  Marketing costs can be discussed in the article obviously but if it isn't classed/stated to be in the budget then it shouldn't be part of the infobox budget.  In theory anyway @Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The industry terminology is that "budget" denotes the cost of making the film, and marketing costs are separate. When Cleopatra set the record in 1963 costing 44 million, that was the cost of the production, not the nmarketing. When Terminator 2 became the first 100 million film, that was the production cost not the marketing.  Ditto for Titanic with 200 million. Pirate of the Caribbean: At World's End is the current record holder costing 300 million, but again that doesn't include the marketing. If you say the budget is 270 million that makes it inconsistent with the usage on every other article.  Basically, if we start including the maketing costs on one article, we have to add the marketing costs to every other article, but still our usage wouldn't be consistent with most sources.  Boxoffice.com just calls the production cost and the marketing cost the "total budget" (if you check the cost of each film, they are all about 50–100 million more than the Box Office Mojo estimates), but just about everyone else (Variety/Ny Times/LA Times/The Hollywood Reporter/Box Office Mojo/IMDB/The Numbers) calls the production cost the budget and the marketing costs the marketing or promotional costs. If we put marketing costs under the budget then we'd be using the word in a way that 99% of thr source don't use it. For the purpose of Wikipedia, we should break the cost into two to reflect the common usage of the term. Betty Logan (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I didn't mean to open a can of worms. --Boycool (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got my eye on you Boycool.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It can be confusing when sources fudge the terminology. We have to try and present the content as factually and neutrally as possible, but obviously we need to be consistent with our terminology across all the articles. Anyway, it was badly presented because we didn't clarify the figures in the article so I've added the two costs to the relevant sections, so readers can see what they relate to now. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Darkwarriorblake: Always! ;) --Boycool (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Protect
Can we protect this article for a week or so? Fanboys don't like the negative reviews it's getting. --Boycool (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You would have to ask here if you wanted the page protecting, stating your reasoning. If you just mention the constant reverts and changes it will probably receive protection Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Boycool (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)