Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon/Archive 3

Protection
Since the page has recently been unprotected, there has been lots of "edit wars" going on. Currently asked for semi protection again. Fanaction2031 (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Coleogdon, 6 July 2011
the film received mixed reviews, if it recieved negative reviews itd be 35 percent to 0 percent

Coleogdon (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say that anything under 40% is almost clearly negative. You fanboys are lucky it still says "mixed to negative". 40% means majority doesn't like the film because only 40/100 do. So anyone can see why under 40 should just be classified as "negative". Somebody please keep this article protected for a long time to stop fanboys from vandalism. Seriously. AndrewOne (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: See the discussion 4 discussions up. You can't create an arbitrary limit because you don't like that it got negative reviews.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary Clarifications
The summary assumes some background on the Transformers universe. I don't have that background, so I can't say exactly what's missing. Here are some questions that the summary should answer: 24.220.188.43 (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The good guys are the Autobots, the bad guys Deceptacons. The Ark is Cybertronian--is that good, bad, or neither?
 * Is Sentinel himself an Autobot? Sentinel betrays the Autobots, but apparently used to lead them too. What race was he trying to ensure the survival of through this betrayal?
 * What is Cybertron, and why is transporting it (him?) to Earth helpful to the Deceptacons?
 * Why does any of this happen on earth or the moon? Maybe this is just a plot hole.
 * You can't give an extensive rundown of the background of two films or the summary will be huge. It is stated in the summary that Sentinel used to lead the Autobots.  It happens on Earth ebcause they want the resources, this is also stated in the summary and they want to bring Cybertron there to rebuild it, again stated in the summary.  I'm not sure what the Ark is, it just states that it is a ship carrying a weapon.  Anything else happens on the moon because thats where the Ark crashed.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sellings
In its first week, 834.000 people saw Transformers: Dark of the Moon in Germany. This made the film reach No. 1 on the country's Cinema Charts and caused Bad Teacher, which was No. 1 the week before, to leave the top. It's the best opening week number surpassing Transformers and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen which were seen by 596.000 respective 816.000 people in their first weeks source.

Please include! --79.199.45.90 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Added. Since your information seems legitimate and you've also included a source, this has been added to the article. If you have any questions about what I've written accordingly to you, come visit my talk page. Fanaction2031 (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternate names
Regarding this edit, I would say that this film is known as Transformers 3 to most people. In the same way that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is known as Transformers 2; both are even called that in the Critical reception section of this article. We have the redirects Transformers 2 and Transformers 3 because that's what people commonly call these films. I'm pretty sure most people don't say the full name when talking in casual conversation. They just say Transformers 2 or Transformers 3. Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but if you look at other franchise articles we don't tend to say that Dead Man's Chest is also known as Pirate's of the Caribbean 2, or Prisoner of Azkhaban is also known as Harry Potter 3; we tend to give the formal name, and say it is the second/third film in the series etc. Can't we just do something along those lines on this article? Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We could and already are doing that, but I don't see the problem in mentioning the alternate names Transformers 2 and Transformers 3. It's not WP:OR, and alternate names are perfectly allowed and even encouraged in the leads of our articles, especially if those alternates names redirect to the article. I know there is something addressing this in guideline or policy. But, anyway, I just wanted to point that out. I'm not hard-pressed either way. Flyer22 (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, there was promotional material calling it Transformers 3, so I'd say it's not a fanmade name. --uKER (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Split "Production" into two new Sub-sections
Discuss here if you have an problem with this change, explain the reason why, and make sure your reason is relevant. Thank you. Fanaction2031 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 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)

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)

Edit request from 38.110.28.146, 31 August 2011
Blackout was in the movie too (Autobot prisoners scene.)

38.110.28.146 (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.151.176.195, 3 September 2011
you should include Que dying in the plot it is important.

98.151.176.195 (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Wheeljack is a minor character with hardly any screen time. He isn't worth mentioning in the plot. Fanaction2031 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nintendoboy3, 2 October 2011
Please edit " It is the highest-grossing filmof the franchise." to " It is the highest-grossing film of the franchise." because the words are not separated.

It is under the "Box Office" section.

Nintendoboy3 (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC) It appears to have been fixed now. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dark side of the moon flub: When the autobots go to the moon they land near the point the Apollo mission did. In fact, the COMPLETE lunar lander is shown in the background, signifying that the astronauts never ever left the moon, as that lander was their ride home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.64.21.64 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek trivia
Good references, but there was at least one more. Bumblebee talking to Sam, quoting Spock in STII: The Wrath of Khan, "I have been, and ever shall be, your friend." Nimoy's voice from the movie was used for at least the last 2 words. Someone with the DVD could check the exact location in the movie where it occurred - I just remember laughing when I heard it. I want to say there were more ST references, but one viewing of this movie was enough for me. Cynsayshi (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Cynsayshi

Edit request from, 14 October 2011
released. The Walmart exclusive version does NOT contain any additional footage even though the walmart.com website has the movie length advertised as 157 minutes instead Under the "home media" section of this article, it states that an exclusive version containing 3 extra minutes was of 154 minutes. Please remove the false statement and corresponding reference link.

I purchased the Blu-ray/DVD/Digital copy combo at Target and the exclusive Blu-ray disc from walmart.com specifically for the extra 3 minutes - the "exclusive" version is the exact same as the 154 minute version.

Sjleake (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC) sjleake
 * I removed, with an additional three minutes of footage - leaving the apparent fact that the Walmart exclusive edition of Transformers: Dark of the Moon also was released on September 30. I suppose the running time they quote might not represent anything extra; however, beware original research, and please ensure requests have reliable sources, thanks.  Chzz  ► 06:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Box office questions.
This is my first attempt to use this & hopefully I will not make a mess of it. I am curious about who updates the Box Office takings though & in the case of Transformers, Dark of the Moon, am wondering why it has not been updated since October 13th, especially in light of the fact that the other 2 currently-in-release 2011 titles, Lion King & Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part 2, are being updated every few days. All three films are still shown as currently in theatre release, yet for some reason, the box office for Transformers: Dark of the Moon has not been updated for 2 weeks. Can anyone tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.225.247 (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Change and Suggestion some text
I would prefer some more details that would describe what happened in the movie and if you think Sentinel Prime is now the film's main antagonist just because he was on the moon and turned himself into a disgraceful threat and by betraying the autobots and causing the main conflict, then I strongly suggest that we refer to him as Nemisis Prime when he was working with the decepticons and purposely against Optimus until he was defeated by Megatron.Mark (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. This is original research, point-of-view, and speculation. The character is referred to in the film and other media specifically as Sentinel Prime. --Boycool (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Title box
The box containing the information at the top right of the screen has been removed, and should be put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DETHREAPER (talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sequal?
I have been constantly hearing rumours of a sequal based on the Beast Wars. I think that this should be investigated and/or mentioned. Jdaniels15 (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Movie ignored prior discover of Megatron in the 1800s?
So in Transformers 1 Sam's relative discovered Megatron in the 1800s and in the 1930s Megatron's body was moved, by the US Government to Hoover Dam. How is in in Transformers 3 the US Government treats the Moon crash landing as if it were the 1st case of alien contact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.255.175 (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Reception Section
I did a minor rewrite of the "Critical reception" section, improving the phrasing and grammar, and making various other fixes. One thing I noticed though, is that the review by Roger Ebert doesn't actually contain the quote attributed to him. Rotten Tomatoes attributes the quote to him, and a brief Google search reveals several other websites that attribute the quote to him, but for whatever reason, the actual review (at least the version of the review that has been uploaded to Ebert's official site) doesn't have it.

I see that this article has been an FA candidate a couple of times, and if anyone still has aspirations of achieving this for the article, I would suggest paraphrasing a lot of the quotes in the Reception section. It would also be a good idea to explain why several critics felt that the film was a slight improvement over Revenge of the Fallen and why they felt that it was still inferior to the first film in the series. --Jpcase (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120811212637/http://vimeo.com:80/27178595 to http://vimeo.com/27178595

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead Too Long
The lead is significantly too long. Yes, guidelines say that the lead should be 3-4 paragraphs for a page of this length, but there isn't that much essential content. For example, we don't need to list all the potential upcoming sequels, just the one that immediately followed and a note about the franchise as a whole. Smith (talk)  16:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This article needs protection

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Requests for page protection are made here - Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 20:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Returning Transformers
I would like to know why exactly editors keep deleting my edit on the returning Transformers. Why is it such a bad thing to add? I'm confused. Spider-Man2017 (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Speaking for myself, because you were Bold, were Reverted but then, instead of coming here to Discuss, you kept adding (see WP:BRD). The lack of edit summaries didn't help either.
 * Looking at the current Lead, which is plenty big enough (although I couldn't see anything that I'd cut), I personally don't think the information is required. The Lead is a summary, and anyone reading Autobots and Decepticons will likely already have enough of an idea of which characters are in it.  There's then a whole section on it under Cast.  Works for me, but I've not spent much time on this article, so others' opinions will carry more weight.  Bromley86 (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry. I probably should've come here to discuss this more. I just think that this is necessary since the "Revenge of the Fallen" and "Age of Extinction" pages. Plus, I think it's important for people to know who came back and who didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaw0512 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not important.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

May I please edit the page and add the returning Transformers from the previous film on here? I'm sorry I didn't come here to discuss this first. I understand that there are rules here and I promise to follow them. Spider-Man2017 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2011-06-27-michael-bay-transformers-dark-of-the-moon_n.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://calcuttatube.com/transformers-3-2011-hollywood-film-release-date-dvd/117084/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-06-11-Transformers11_ST_N.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=148732
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/07/04/transformers-michael-bay-the-island-stealing-footage-video/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://legend3d.com/film/transformers-dark-moon
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gordonandthewhale.com/soundtrack-review-transformers-dark-of-the-moon/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/02/06/transformers-dark-of-moon-trailer/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3443&p=.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140605021612/http://www.the-numbers.com/weekly-bluray-sales-chart to http://www.the-numbers.com/weekly-bluray-sales-chart
 * Added tag to https://m.cinemascore.com/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65olbBrXC?url=http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)