Talk:Transformers (film)/Archive 4

Bumblebee Camaro NOT Concept
I have changed Bumblebee's vehicle mode listing from 2006 Camaro Concept to 2009 Camaro Prototype. The Camaro "Concept" has been verified to be produced as a 2009 model and while I don't think any road prototypes are already in testing, the car Bumblebee scanned would have HAD to be such a Prototype on a test run, thus I feel this is a more ACCURATE reflection of his later vehicle mode. Concept cars seen at auto shows, even ones that are ultimately produced in the exact form shown in concept, are RARELY used as road Prototypes. Being the original, they're usually preserved for posterity. In any case, does this change sound appropriate to everyone? -Bolt Crank 03:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is in-universe and original research. When the movie was produced, it was a Concept car. --EEMeltonIV 03:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is NOT original research. The Wikipedia entry on the Camaro concept contains the published information that the Camaro is going into production - admittedly it was still a concept when the movie went into production, but the announcement the Camaro was going to be produced was amde BEFORE the film was completed(announcement was amde in August 10th, 2006[], filming of Transformers wrapped up on September 24th, or October 4th depending on your POV) AND in the circumstances SHOWN IN THE MOVIE, a roadgoing prototype is the ONLY thing Bumblebee could have encountered to re-scan. Concept cars are not(well, maybe RARELY is a better word to use, here) road-legal due to a lack of safety and emissions testing(among other things[]). Based on what a concept car is, I think its safe to assume that Bumblebee could NOT have encoutnered the original Concept on the road and therefore it was a pre-production prototype.


 * You know what? I'm gonna alter my position slightly. I'll go with calling it either an '06 or '07 Camaro, but I'm still gonna have to insist on terming it a PROTOTYPE, not a CONCEPT, for the aforementioned reasons. One could feasibly argue that no model produced is a 2009 until we actually REACH the 2009 model year, even if it is a prototype for a car that will be made for that model year. I'm not going to change the entry yet, but if nobody provides good reason not to, I shall do so at some point in the future(if you agree with me on this, feel free to go ahead and change it, don't wait on me.)-Bolt Crank 00:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Somebody edited the entry to say 2009 Camaro Concept - this is an OBVIOUS error since Concept cars are labelled by the year they're built in, NOT the year the production version(when applicable) will come out in. Since this had to be changed regardless I made the edit I jsut recently spoke of to list Bumblebee as a 2006 Camaro Prototype. I would appreciate some more discussion on the matter before changing it again.

How do you know it's the 2006 concept? Considering they've refined the concept from year to year, and they have plans to produce one for 2009. Unless you have a citation to say what the year actually is in the film, then don't state otherwise. What I'm going to do is remove mention of the year altogether. There will be no 1977 or 2006/09 year attached. He's a camaro plain and simple. There isn't a source that states what year he is on the prototype camaro. Maybe he's the first concept, maybe he's the concept they are going for in 2009. No one knows because no one has provided a citation for it.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. They're both Camaros, so it doesn't make THAT much difference. However, I WOULD like to note that there is only ONE Concept, built in 2006. If its refined to work out details for a production model, its no longer a concept, its a prototype or a test type at that point. While most details about the final version are unconfirmed, it IS confirmed that the body design of the 2006 Camaro Concept WILL be what's used(look up the Fifth Generation Camaro) for the 2009 Camaro. That's the primary source of the confusion here. Not differentiating the two is probably the wisest choice. We don't know if the movie car was meant to be a production model or a prototype, but I think its very obvious it could not have been the 2006 Concept. No one will ever be able to make a citation for the version used in the film because it was not provided by GM, it was a replica made by Saleen specifically for the movie. While it takes its cues from the Concept(since no one's seen a Prototype yet), its the circumstances in the movie that show it can't be the Concept.


 * Now that I think of things, if people insist on differentiating the two we COULD, instead of listing a year, label it as "New Camaro" rather than argue over the year or whether its a Prototype or production or whatever. "New Camaro" could refer to the Concept, a Prototype, or a production model, so it tells all we need to know without the confusion. That said, I'm gonna support NOT differentiating the two at this ponit. It seems the wisest choice. -Bolt Crank 02:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How about as the real identifier: "Second gen." and "Fifth gen". ?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That works, but two different stylings were used in the second generation. "Late Second gen" would be more accurate. The Second generation Camaro began in 1970, and the style used for Bumblebee was started in 1974(I BELIEVE it came about to adapt to new federal bumper regulations), and with some minor tweaks here and there was carried through to 1981. Third gen began in 1982. -Bolt Crank 03:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

as lame and petty as this was... google 2009 camaro... and what comes up?

Chevy Camaro Concept Car: Chevrolet New 2009 Chevy Camaro Concept car. See technical specifications, photos and history. Get latest news and announcements from Chevy. www.chevrolet.com/performance/ - 3k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

seems chevy like to call its 2009 camaro a concept car Robkehr 03:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe so, but CONCEPT cars, at least as defined by the Wikipedia entry on concept cars, do not drive on the road so the car seen being scanned by Bumblebee in the movie CAN'T be the Concept - that's the central issue, here. It was either a production model(which would NOT have "Concept" attached to its name), or a pre-production prototype which is, by definition, NOT a Concept. The Wikipedia definitions have the final say, I would think. Calling it the 2009 Camaro Concept simply means GM has decided to RE-name the original concept made in 2006 to reflect the fact that its what the 2009 production model will, at the very least, LOOK like. Referring to it as the "New Camaro" or "Fifth Generation Camaro" is the best way to do it in the context of this article, as both descriptions cover the concept, prototypes, and production models. -Bolt Crank 03:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see the problem with calling it a 2006 Camaro Concept, as Saleen made Bumblebee from molds of that concept car. It's the most accurate title, imo.  The world in the movie does not have to conform to the real definition of a concept car.  However, I think Fifth-generation Camaro is fine. V-train 04:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Verifiability is not truth. What can we verify? We can verify it's a Camaro. We can verify it's a fifth generation. We cannot verify whether to refer to it as a 2006 Concept or a 2009 Prototype.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We CAN verify that it was built from molds of the 2006 Camaro Concept. V-train 05:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's like saying we can verify that the 1977 Camaro is based on the mold from the 1974 Camaro.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

im adding this to the lamest edit war page, congratulations! Robkehr 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He did as well!!! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What can be offered as valid proof? If you look at the on-set pictures and design sheets  on TFW, they claim he will be 1974/2007, but these might be pre-production designs. Theres a source on the Camaro page that's cited claiming he's a 2009 by this link, which seems legitimate and verifiable enough. But is it? This article also claims that the "younger" Bumblebee was a 1976, while the current source is this, which claims it's a 1977. So, we appear to have conflicting statements from two verifiable (mostly) soruces. Then again, how verifiable is an eBay auction's information about what type of Camaro it is, when it describes the car mainly using wording directly from the movie, and misspells Camaro? I would agree with Bignole in saying that we can classify him as Second/Fifth Generation, but another option would be to choose the most verifiable source, which, in this case, I would think that the article from Edmunds is probably the best choice, and we should go with 1976/2009 Concept. Comments? —  Scottjar   →   Talk   12:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Blackout and Brawl not speaking?
There is a scene in the movie in which Brawl and Blackout most definitely say 'Devastator reporting' and 'Blackout incoming. All hail Megatron!' respectively. -Machine758
 * I should change it to "not speak English." Alientraveller 16:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's electronic communication, so they do not actually speak. Mcr29 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current phrasing. Their electronic speak is as much a language as humans speaking. Alientraveller 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Communication is not the same as speaking. We are communicating with each other, but we are not speaking to each other. Also, one cannot assume they do not speak English. It's sufficient to say they do not speak in the film. Mcr29 17:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The way it is now seems ambiguous.  It implies that they do actually speak, just not in English, in which case they would have voice actors. —   Scottjar   →   Talk   17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, don't some characters speak in Cybertron-ese without just having electronic sounds for voices? I could swear some of them definitely had human voices, just garbled and filtered, and others had just noise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs)
 * How about "in their native language", or, "In Cybertronian"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormfin (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Having a character listed without an actor is like baking bread without yeast. No substance. Alientraveller 19:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Shortening Reference Section
I was wonder what other people's thoughts were on shortening the references section using a scrollable box, a la Lindsay Lohan. Since this article has over 100 references, this could shorten up the overall length of the page considerably (though not reduce its size in kB). It really is more of about how the article looks, although I haven't found anything in WP:MOS that says we can use this. This would be tailoring mainly to IE users, since reflist|2 only works for Firefox and Mozilla browsers. And P.S., I only happened upon that article because of recent news events :) —  Scottjar   →   Talk   17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you didn't know, the scrollref template was deleted. Alientraveller 13:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was then someone created a new one, because I saw it on another page just yesterday. I don't particularly like it when I'm trying to sort through references. I'd much prefer a "hide" option. This way, if you need to look through refs you can see all of them together, but if you don't then you can hide it so it isn't in the way.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) Alientraveller is right. The template was posted for deletion, and consensus, from what I recall, was to delete based on formatting issues and how it would not reflect how referenced an article was.  Also, I'm sure that there will be a DVD with extras that can be cited to trim down the number of references down the road.  Bignole, I've seen people apply DIV coding to , basically the coding that was used in the template, but it's used outside of it, like the original way to create two columns of references. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Two columns, three columns, that only works for FireFox and like browsered users. If you use Internet Explorer it does nothing. Just an issue one must deal with.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a version of scrolling references used on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article. This works fine for me in Opera, although I have no idea how Internet Exploder or Firefox will handle it! --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the revert, but the template that utilize the same (or similar) coding was deleted here: Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11. If other articles have it, they probably shouldn't have it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is talking about the Scrollref template. That isn't the one I used. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the deletion of that template was because consensus felt it shouldn't be there. If someone creates the exact same thing, just under a different name, then it's circumventing consensus for deletion. It's like having an article deleted for some reason, and instead of going through the proper review channels someone just recreates it with a different title.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this isn't a template - it's a &lt;div&gt;. To be honest, this is a trivial thing - if the consensus is to go back to the long list, then I'll drop it. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I find it annoying to look through. You only get a selected bit of information. I prefer to be able to see all references at the same time.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, why do some people seem to prefer the form of listing references rather than the &lt;references/&gt; form that is specified in Citing sources? --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that Template:Reflist utilizes DIV coding in a more compact form to shrink the size of the references. Smaller print of references is common not only on Wikipedia, but in literature as well.  Also, the link to the template that was deleted used the same DIV coding as what you're trying to add.  Like , it used the template to make the coding more compact.  Due to this similar nature, any DIV coding that creates a scrollbar for the references does not belong. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Racial Stereotyping
Why was the racial stereotyping section removed? Which of wikipedia's guidelines does it not meet? Malamar 13:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems more appropriate in the section that details the reviews, since what you have are reviews that talk about it, and not scholarly articles.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems to be the opinion of an extremely small minority, which would make it non-notable. Mcr29 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since they are reviews, they should be written like such, and not presented as a wide spread controversy, which it wasn't (nothing like what happened with 300). I say, move it to the reviews section and rewrite accordingly. The negative opinion of the movie based on those concepts is better to use than say someone going "the actors sucked", or something like that.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bignole above. If it is to be included, it should be part of the Reviews section.  It is still too early for the film to be criticized by those with academic credentials, either in film studies or an area that may be related to contemporary racism.  When these scholarly articles arise, they can be included in a prominent capacity in a subsection or even a section.  Time will have to tell; it's difficult at this stage to tell what kind of criticism the film will get in the long run. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I finally get to see the film tomorrow (I hate the fact that the UK is a poor cousin when it comes to film releases) but this reviewer's complaint sounds very tenuous to me. Jazz was always "black" in the cartoon (he was voiced by Scatman Crothers for pity's sake!) and frequently made use of "black slang".  My issue with including the review, however, is its source.  I always thought that blogs were verboten when it came to Wikipedia? --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The reviewer in this case is the one from Ain't It Cool News, right? The site is actually very prominent (having been mentioned and quoted in numerous newspaper articles), but its layout is crappy on purpose.  It's a constant challenge to cite it because, like you just noticed, it does not seem credible at first glance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

None of those sources seem credible. Alientraveller 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"credible"? They said what they said. The section I added could be summarized as "some people have said that there are racial stereotypes in the movie" or "some people have expressed opinions about the film".. I dont see how credibility comes into it. Do you deny that these people have opinions? Do you think they are lying about what they thought of the film? I'm not trying to vandalize the article, I'm just stating that people have commented on racism in the film. Do a search and check to see if anyone else is talking about it. Some of the most popular cinema satire sites on the web (e.g. The Editing Room) talk about racism in the film. Maybe you guys are seriously waiting for there to be a "scholarly article" on the subject, but does one scholar's opinion matter so much? When you talk about film criticism you are always dealing with matters of opinion. Malamar 10:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? Every film has stereotypes and archetypes, racial, sexual, age-related, you pick a fuss over nothing. "Racism in the film", oh give me a break. Alientraveller 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So now you're saying that the film does contain racial stereotypes, but that it isn't worth mentioning in the article? All I'm saying is have a look around on the net. It may be a minority of people talking about this, but how small does a minority have to be for it to be completely ignored by an unbiased encyclopedia?Malamar 00:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Should we highlight character types in all films? You seem to be saying the film is intentionally racist and the article should include that from a very small minority. Bah. Every film is accused of racism for whatever stupid reason these days on IMDb. Alientraveller 07:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never mentioned IMDb. Your argument that this should not be mentioned in the article is very general and makes no mention of this particular film. Did you even check the references which I included or take the time to do a search of your own? I think you've put a lot of work into this page Alientraveller, and it is very impressive, but don't you at least want to satisfy yourself that I am just some crackpot trying to corrupt wikipedia? I urge you to consider the possibility that Transformers is attracting more attention for stereotyping than most summer blockbusters do. Why not investigate a little further? Is your argument that such an opinion of the film is not widespread enough? I would submit that the purpose of wikipedia is to do a little more than repeat what is common knowledge about any given submit. In the interest of completeness I hope you would at least look into the possibility that negatives comments of this type have been made in places other than IMDb message boards (which I agree would not be noteworthy enough for inclusion in any wikipedia article).
 * I would also like to point out that in the reviews section a quote is attributed to a contributor to Ain't It Cool News. Does this mean AICN varies between being a reliable and unreliable source depending on the positive/negative nature of the review? Malamar 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A journalist on AICN counts as reliable, but whenever they decide to sample reviews from e-mails, I consider that unreliable. Alientraveller 18:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so how about I summarize the situation? I added a paragraph to the article saying that some people had commented on racism in the film. I included some (but not all) references to this that I had come across. Alientraveller, who very obviously is much more experienced editor of wikipedia than I, having worked on a large number of very well-constructed pages, says that there a problem with one of my sources (I will not make any further comments about Vern's status on AICN since I would rather prefer a reply to the bulk of this message than one particular point I make) and that the criticism of Transformers on discriminatory grounds is not widespread. What I would like to see come from this, and what I would feel is more in the spirit of wikipedia, is for Alientraveller, or another similarly-experienced editor, to do a search for the material which I am talking about. Maybe one of you, with your greater experience, would be able to choose from the results and select some references more in keeping with wikipedia guidelines. Or... you would find that Alientraveller's viewpoint is indeed correct and the matter would be settled. Malamar 09:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course all the actual BLACK HUMANS survived the movie, and the only actual black robot (Ironhide) survived. so I don't see the point. One robot who acted like a bad racial stereotype died. Mathewignash 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for digging up this issue, and noting the real black robot survived. Alientraveller 20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph of synopsis
The first paragraph of the synopsis is chronologically correct but does not follow the events of the film as they unfold. It should be reworked to follow the film properly. Mcr29 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Plot don't have to be followed in the event that they take place. Says so in the MOS.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bigs is right. The direct link is WP:MOSFILMS. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that's meant more for films that are shown largely out of chronological order, such as Pulp Fiction (which is used as an example in the MOS) or Memento. But if that's the consensus then that's fine. Mcr29 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not restricted to any film. It reads better to have chronological order as well; you don't have to worry about clarifying which timeframe you're in each time. Batman Begins makes use of that style as well.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it: it's for "Development" to discuss the human perspective at how the plot is revealed. Alientraveller 15:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent year?
Under the Autobots heading, it says that Bumblebee is a 1977/2007 Camaro, but on Bumblebee's individual page, it says 1977/2008. Which one is correct? Roarke Stratton 06:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Camaro doesn't actually come out until 2009, so neither one could be right. I think Bumblebee is actually based on the 2006 Camaro Concept. V-train 07:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So should the information on both pages be changed for (1) consistency (2) accuracy? Roarke Stratton 08:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. V-train 18:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot
Can someone fix the box under plot. I would do it bu I do not know how to fix it.Brett 91091 21:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Toy line page?
I know this page isn't the place to list the non-movie toys, but I noticed there doesn't seem to be a page for the "movie" toy line, like the other toy lines have pages devoted to them. Should a seperate page be started to the "expanded" universe of the movie toys? user:mathewignash

Cast
The entire cast section contains a whole bunch of unnecessary details summarizing the 'purpose' and actions of each character in the movie. I'm going to be taking a whole bunch of it out, I'll try to do it in one fell swoop in case anyone wants to revert me. I thought about re-writing the sections, but there's not much to work with there. As is, it sounds like an advertisement or gushy fanboi film review, and a bunch of it is redundant with the plot summary in my mind. Not very encyclopedic. WLU 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The plot summary is very succint: Lennox isn't mentioned. Now please look at most FA/GA film articles' cast sections. Alientraveller 18:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, turns out you're right, the WP Films does allow for that; I prefer the example found in the Halloween (1978 film) where it's not a list. However, if there's a guideline, who am I to argue? I do think it's a bit clunky and gushy, and lends itself to some iffy wording, what do you think of some of the following tweaks:

Sam's parents in to a single entry: "Kevin Dunn and Julie White as Ron & Judy Witwicky: Sam's parents". I particularly think that the entry about Judy is POV/OR as I didn't find her to be repressive or overprotective in the movie.

Take "wise and powerful" out of Optimus Prime's entry, "friendly" out of Bumblebee, the final sentence out of Jazz's entry and the pheromones bit out of Ratchet.

I'd also prefer to integrate what can be integrated into the plot summary and remove it from the character list. However, that's most an aesthetic preference. What're your thoughts on some of the wording changes? I'd rather make them direct to the article, but at this point I'd rather have an indication of others' thoughts first.WLU 18:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. WLU

"Map"
There is a edit war about calling Witwicky's glasses a "map" for the allspark. Instead of little comments in the edit summary or unanswered messages in talkpages, I think this talk is the right place for this discussion as it is leaving to no end. I think you can call a glass with information about the location of something a "map", even if you need a holographic projection of this information for discover that location. The glasses had not single "coordinates". The way a holographic projection like that one works indicates that a whole world map where inscribed in the glasses. And, if my memory don't fail, didn't anybody used the word "map" in the whole movie while talking about the so seeked glasses?  wildie ·  wild dice  ·  will die  12:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this really an issue? It's not a map in the physical sense, like a piece of paper, but in the conceptual sense that it shows them where to go to find the Allspark.  To include details about the coordinates ingrained in the glasses seems unnecessary for the lead section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But seeing Bignole's edit, "coordinates" will work in place of "map" for me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above mentioned edit is agreeable, though, is this information a spoiler to some of the films plot? I just mention this as it is in the introduction paragraph. Would it be helpful to include a different introductory summary of Shia LaBeouf's character, if there is consensus that this may be a spoiler? ...just a thought. Thanks. J. T. Lance 01:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly a spoiler: a spoiler is detailing who dies in the cast list. Alientraveller 11:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It just says he has the coordinates on his person, doesn't go into detail of where they are.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For some reason I accidentally read it as listing the location of the coordinates. It reads fine though as it is currently. Thanks. J. T. Lance 02:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Bumblebee isn't a beetle
The caption on the picture says he is a Chevy instead of a VW "to avoid comparisons with Herbie". My understanding is that the real reason is that the movie had a product placement deal with GM and thus all of the cars that they turn into are GM cars. If someone has a reference for that, please change the caption. Bobbyi 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The article says that Bay picked Bumblebee's form before the product placement. Bay's choice in the Camaro caused the rest of the vehicles to be GM vehicles, except for Optimus.  So the caption is correct.  —   Scottjar   →   Talk   16:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Who turned the critical reception to bullet form?
?? Looks like a list. It was already in prose form. Why the change? Berserkerz Crit 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Some crazy mofo named User:Anthony Appleyard. I don't know why, but I've corrected it. Joking about the "crazy mofo" part, in case anyone cares.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Holographic face
Who is the actor in Barricade (he also is the same in Starscream F-22 mode and in Blackout in helicopter mode)?--Arado 20:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He isnt an actor he was just the pilot that landed the helicopter that stood in for blackout. They just got him to put a fake moustache on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiseDarthVader (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Effects Changes
Bignole - Hopefully my changes (additions) were self-explanatory with the references included. The first problem was the prior use of the word 'minor' when describing the work of others. The FXGuide reference that was originaly used to back up that concept did not use the word 'minor'. The article mentioned visual effects shots produced by Digital Domain and Asylum. These shots may have been less in number, but there was no suggestion in the article that they were minor. Other periodicals and blogs, such as those included in my citations, refer to siginificant and memorable sequences (and character robots) that were completed by Digital Domain that contributed materially to the film. The industry does consider '2-D clean up and fixes' minor work and those shots, and the parties responsible, are now properly differentiated in the article. The article now reads accurately and fairly for al parties involved in the effects side of the film. The two firms with 'clear space' credits in the film are ILM and DD. Asylum also has a significant number of credits in the film as well. Ultimately, the film's credits (amount of names and 'clear space' preceding those names) stand as the most reliable source in determining contribution to the film. The effects portion of this article now reflects the balance depicted in the film's credits...which is a strong move toward accuracy.

Does this make sense?...Jtextor 02:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the problem was on my end. I was looking at the wrong side of the screen, and thinking (for some odd reason) you removed information. Then, I noticed that "I" removed info and that was when I rechecked what I did and what you did and saw that you were really adding info. I didn't pay attention to the green number the first go round...but that red number stands out much better.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveler - I agree with your changes related to the Artic circle reference. By referring to the same opening sequence in two pieces, my sentence was obviously longer than necessary. I don't really agree with the elimination of the asteroid descriptive in referring to the arrival of the protoforms...though I do like the use of the protoform reference. The problem with the new sentence is that it really only speaks to people that are already familiar with Transformers. Wikipedia should serve as a reference for all audiences/readers. The Transformers article (and obviously the movie) are of interest to a much larger audience than just Transformers loyalists. The asteroid description is simply more informational than just the protoform reference on its own. The 'asteroids' were a significant part of the trailers and a memorable part of the film, Dodger Stadium being the best example. The film did not explain the 'protoform' concept, leaving the visual to tell the story. So, the article (as you have last edited) now requires that one access another page just to understand the sentence. Rather than the link providing an opportunity for deeper research, the link is a necessity if one wants to understand which visual effect sequence is being discussed. Even worse, the protoform page is not the easiest to read for those that have no Transformers base. To this point, even the visual effects editors that referred to these sequences in the press used the 'asteroid-like earthly arrival' language...in fact, I selected that language directly from those articles. Does it make sense to change the end of the sentence to say the protoforms' asteroid-like earthly arrival? I left it alone for now in deference to your input. ThanksJtextor 12:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Decepticons Escape
I noticed that in the "Plot" section, it says that Starscream escapes into space (true, true) but does not say anything about Barricade surviving. Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't Barricade survive the fight at the end? We see him on the motorway, but not actually in the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * What's important is Starscream is seen flying off to get back-up. Barricade's death scene may have been cut: wait until the IMAX version. Alientraveller 12:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If I record well, in the end of the film we see something that could be the Barricade police car mode among the decepticon trash leaved in the sea.
 * We also don't see Scorponok die, just running severely injuried - and he don't answer the calling. Damaged communication device? Posterior death by the injuries? How can we say?
 * The article says that Starscream is "one of the surviving decepticons". That's enough for the information we have - we can't say if the survivors count is 1, 2 or even 3.  wildie ·  wilđ di¢e  ·  wilł die  12:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Transformers 2 Cancelled Once
I Know Michael Bay hasn't signed onto the Film....yet But though he most likely will at one point this week he did actually say "No Transformers 2 for me!" Seeing that Paramount Pictures wanted to release every movie under their contract in HD-DVD.

Bay quotes
 * "I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks! They were progressive by having two formats. No Transformers 2 for me!"

Latter On that exact same night, it was Bay Quoted
 * "Last night at dinner I was having dinner with three Blu-Ray owners, they were pissed about no Transformers Blu-Ray and I drank the kool aid hook line and sinker. So at 1:30 in the morning I posted - nothing good ever comes out of early am posts mind you - I over reacted. I heard where Paramount is coming from and the future of HD and players that will be close to the $200 mark which is the magic number. I like what I heard. As a director, I'm all about people seeing films in the best quality possible, and I saw and heard firsthand people upset about a corporate decision. So today I saw 300 on HD-DVD, it rocks! So I think I might be back on to do Transformers 2!"

I Was Wondering Can We add this source to the article or the Transformers 2 section of the article?


 * IGN:Paramount and DreamWorks Drop Blu-ray
 * IGN:Bay Rejects Transformers 2?
 * Michael Bay's Official Site (Where He Announced all of this)
 * --Mithos90 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not relevant at the moment. Bay doesn't have the job. No one has said Bay has the job, or that Paramound is interested in Bay taking the job. Bay has explicitely stated that he is only signed for one movie so that he can negiotiate later. At the moment, Bay's remarks have no impact on the actual sequel, as no one has even discussed another movie beyond a couple prospects they had while filming the first movie. If Paramount says they are going to pass on Bay because of his tantrum, then sure, it will be relevant to explain what he said then. But, since he doesn't have the job, and no one has asked him to take the job, his little "i'm not doing Trans 2" has no bearing on the article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Movie prequel
I read in the news that the Walmart movie DVD will include an animated prequal based on the IDW comic and voiced by the movie actors. Once this is released should this additional plot be added to the movie page? user_talk:mathewignash —The preceding  signed but undated.

I think somebody has already added it over at the Transformers: Movie Prequel page in the future section. Could probably be worked nito the merchandising section in this one. SMegatron 08:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's best to add it there, as this article is very long already. Alientraveller 09:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Brawl/Devastator name controversy
Okay, for the past few days I've been trying to find a solid source for a statement on Bay's behalf regarding the issue, as there's been two contrasting rumors circulating around the fandom.

Here's what I found:

Screenwriter Roberto Orci expressed his hopes that the "Devastator" error would get fixed (for the DVD). Source When reiterated on fan websites, Orci's name would soon get replaced by "Bay", due to a combination of wishful thinking and fans not really paying attention to detail.

Orci also confirmed that he and cowriter Alex Kurtzman had been pointing out the error twice in the editing room. Source

After a screening of the movie at BotCon 2007, Hasbro representatives declared the name "Devastator" a "continuity error". Source

Now comes the bummer.

An Australian fan named griffin-of-oz attended the Australian press conference and allegedly asked Bay for the reason behind the name hiccup. According to "griffin", Bay had always preferred the name "Devastator". Source

Now, there's two things to consider. On the one hand, I know griffin a bit and he's not the kind of guy to make things up on the spot. On the other hand, a transcript of the press conference doesn't include the topic at all.

So it's still unclear whether the alleged Bay statement is to be taken at face value or not.

Furthermore, Bay officially stated back in May 2006 that "Devastator" was not the final name. Source

So the question remains: Is it an error that slipped through, or did Bay intentionally ignore the decision previously reached with Hasbro?--80.141.92.234 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing all this to our attention. I'll source this into the article: Bay ignored Hasbro and the writers. Alientraveller 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)