Talk:Transformers (Movie)

High-res movie model renders
Are we allowed to use the ultra high-res renders of the actual movie CG models of Prime, Bumblebee and Megs that were released to the press a few days ago? Shrunken down so they're not huge files, obviously. I noticed enewsi.com was using them for their Making of the movie article. --FFN 18:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie nav
Is there any way to put it underneath the main picture? Its screwing up the formatting and makes the page look really haphazard. --FFN 08:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we want it under? It seems to... really not serve it's purpose if it's not on top. -Derik 08:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If its purpose is to make the page look fucking terrible, then yeah, I don't want it to serve that purpose, because that's what it DOES. There has GOT to be someplace better to put that. --M Sipher 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that putting it somewhere other than top-left limits its usefulness. I've been using it to snap back and forth between pages, and it's really awfully handy. -Derik 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is the main picture should not have to cut into the main body of the article merely because of the nav. Regardless of screen real estate, it bunches up the text to one side. Plus, pictures are typically wider than the nav, so they should be above it. Or above the introductory text. --FFN 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, either the image goes, the nav thing goes, or we have to completely redo the navbar to work with pages and not fucking destroy them. Walky has spoken. --ItsWalky 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed solution - a horizontal bar across the top. Smaller footprint. -Derik 01:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's still not layout-friendly, though it's better. Wikipedia seems to work fine with all its intra-series navigation at the bottom.  Is that not a worthwhile solution here?  --ItsWalky 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Got an example? (And yes, my proposed solution isn't layout friendly, merely low-impact.) -Derik 02:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Was changing the Movie nax box found to be unworkable? Because the vertical box we have really is like a big scar at the top of the page. --Rotty 07:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No consensus was reached on a new design, so no changes were made. (I agree the current design is ugly... but we could just wait until July 8th when Paramount announces there's going to be a sequel, then we can banish the franchise navigation to a page for the movie series, and leave the pages for the individual movies clear.) -Derik 07:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be alright to put the navbox under the main image, personally. At least as a temporary fix.  I agree that we need a more permanent solution, though, so that the nav can work with pages that have a main image in the first place.  --Steve-o 14:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Officially released pictures
Now that Hasbro has put up some renders of Barricade, Bumblebee and Prime on their site, can we use those for the character articles? --FFN 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the picture of Prime and Megatron belong on this page already? -EricMarrs 01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we've seen any officially released pictures of Megatron. EDIT: Oh wait, the poster. Doh. --FFN 08:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For the love of God
Can we PLEASE not have "argh the movie sucks and the designs blow and it's ruining my childhood" plastered all over these pages?

for the love of God, part 2
Can we also please wait until things are actually published to start throwing movie stuff in here and there? I imagine quite a few of us are avoiding reading spoiler-intensive reviews of issues that are due merely weeks later. --ItsWalky 21:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Characters?
I'm unsure as to whether I consider, say, new movie Bonecrusher to be the same character as G1 Bonecrusher in the sense that he should like to Bonecrusher (G1) and be written up in that entry like any other continuity. I kinda feel like he, and probably Scorponok and maybe Brawl, aren't "the same guy" in the sense that Megatron, Starscream, and the Autobots seem to be. On the other hand, it's probably impossible to really make a good judgement on that until the movie actually comes out. --Steve-o 04:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the gist of the comment I put on my update, yes. --ItsWalky 05:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be a good idea to just set up a (Movie) category or sub-category unless something super G1-specific happens. MCRG 04:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Chances are, we'll end up having to do (Movie) pages for all of these characters anyway, so I wouldn't really worry about it until the movie's been released. - Dark T Zeratul 05:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We'll have to worry about it sooner! The IDW prequel comic comes out next month.  I had a discussion about this with Steve-o in person a while back, but I figger I should give my idea here.
 * I think everyone from the movie should be given their own page, under X (Movie) if they require the (Movie) tag for disambiguation purposes. This is not to say that they will be considered separate characters.  For obvious carry-overs like Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, they will simply have Movie sections on their G1 pages that have, for example, "See Bumblebee (Movie)" under the header, like Optimus Prime's toy section.  (Stuff like this will especially come in handy on Prime's page, which is too long for more material already.)
 * My reasoning for doing this to all the characters? The Movie is a huge franchise, and something that will be THE most prominent and pervasive Transformers media, probably of all time, and so separating them will increase ease of use, especially for more casual browsers.  This will also allow us to focus exclusively on these versions of characters in a better way, with concept design stages, once the Art of" books come out, maybe even have a "Differences between the movie version and previous versions of the characters" section, again which would be beneficial to more casual browsers.  --ItsWalky 17:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That all makes good sense to me. I am wondering, though, about what the continuity notes for the Movie-character articles should say. Would the Movie and its related fiction be a labeled as a portion of G1, or would it be called a new continuity family of its own? --KilMichaelMcC 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That I'm not 100% sure on. Though if Bumblebee, Prime, Megatron, Starscream, and Jazz are considered versions of the G1 character, I would say that probably necessitates it being considered in the G1 continuity family based on that technicality.  If it's its own continuity family, then it can't share any of another continuity family's characters without some dimension-hopping.  --ItsWalky 17:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this begs the question of what qualifies as "G1." From the sound of things, the movie has about as much in common with G1 as Armada did; in that it was definantly INSPIRED by G1 and definantly shapes a lot of things around what came in G1, but it also treads a lot of new ground and sort of does it's own thing.  I mean, there's not a whole heaping lot fo different between Optimus in Armada and Optimus in G1.  Likely there is going to be about the same ammount of difference for Optimus in the movie.  I vote we give the movie it's own continuity family.  Of course, that means we need to name it.  Transformers (2007 Film) Continuity Family?--UndeadScottsman 17:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Dreamworks continuity"? --M Sipher 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that hs a similar issue as calling it the Film continuity, as Dreamworks isn't responsible for all the content for it. Heh, if we wanted to be real smartasses, we could call it "Michael Bay Continuity Family."  Honestly though, after looking at it, the most central thing to this new continuity is the movie, as much as I don't want to wind up with that one, I can't think of a better option.  The others are probably right in that we should wait and see if a good tagline pops up.  (Had Aaron Archer not come up with the Unicron Trilogy, I wonder if we'd stil be calling it A-E-C. :D) --UndeadScottsman 01:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So, should we replace Bonecrusher by Wreckage?--GUIGUI 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? --M Sipher
 * GUIGUI, Wreckage is not Bonecrusher. Wreckage is a toyline-only character.  --ItsWalky 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Say now, toyline-only characters. Should that be a category, since we've got *-only categories for pretty much everything else? --KilMichaelMcC 19:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Frenzy
When Movie Frenzy's picture goes up, I demand the quote be "They are all laser-guided and I get CRAZY if you touch them!" or similar Ghost of Christmas Past from the Future shenanigans.--MCRG 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have it on good authority that Frenzy survived the quickening of the Dragonoids. - Chris McFeely 21:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done Hunter-113 02:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Movie is not G1
My recommendation is that when the Michael Bay/Steven Spielberg movie is out, we should not treat it as being part of the G1 continuity family. G1 are characters from 1984-1992 and any continuity that spins out of or reboots either cartoon or comic.

It would be a mistake to label the Movie as part of this G1 tree. The writers themselves have said that they took inspiration from G1 but also from other storylines. It's the same with the X-Men movies: the Phoenix was really Ultimate Marvel though the cure plot was from Astonishing X-Men. And then Spider-Man 2 had stuff from the 50th issue where Spider-Man gives up being a superhero, but Doc Ock isn't in that issue, Kingpin is.

All I have to say is the movie is a new universe, something very new, a different interpretation of Transformers. It is like somebody just really liked the Autobots and Decepticons and made a movie of it. We may get nods here and there, and there are G1 characters there, but we shouldn't treat it the same.


 * I'm not sure it's appropriate to make a final decision either way at this time. We'll call it when we see it.  --Andrusi 20:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We already have a split:
 * Optimus Prime (Movie)
 * Bumblebee (Movie)
 * Jazz (Movie)
 * Ironhide (Movie)
 * Blackout (Movie)
 * Barricade (Movie)

The above argument is that it's confusing universes and continuity families. yes, clearly we now that Spider-man 2 isn't int he same UNIVERSe as the Spider-man comics...but tha characters in it are Spider-man, and Doc Ock, and Harry Osborn. They are the 'classic' Spider-man versions. They're not the Japanese Spider-man who is a reporter (I think) with a talking car, or the Danish one who throws canal-salt, or the Indian one who has Krishna-given powers. THOSE character, using this analogy, would be like the ARMADA versions of Optimus Prime. We know there are like 20 or 30 versions of Gen 1 Optimus Prime that all represent the same character, but whose backstory and adventures do not occur in the same universe. They 'are' all G1 Prime. On the other hand, we have 2 or 3 Optimsu Primes we recognize to be 'Armada Prime,' whose backstory and adventure ae ALSO irreconcilable, but we also recognize to still 'be' the same guy, albeit fundamentally different from G1 Prime. You are arguing about universes. We are talking about continuity families.

You may be right that Movie Prime should be spun off (I haven't seen any proof of it) but your argument is mis-framed. You're saying Earth 615 Captain America isn't Captain America. (10 points to whoever gets that one!) when you mean 'he isn't the same individual as Earth 616 Captain America.'

(I just assume that supplementary materials from the movie are goign to give Movie Optimus Prime so many shared life experiences and universe elements with regular G1 Prime, that we'll live to regret placing him in a separate category, and conclude he is the same character. It seems a safe bet, given how TF is written.) -Derik 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, the fun part is that apparently Japan considers the movie as part of their mainstream G1 continuity happening in 2007. That should either be some fun dubbing or it's going to require some huge suspension of disbelief. --ItsWalky 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's probably no more difficult that shoehorning Cybertron into the Armada-Energon continuity.... Anyway, I would argue (as someone else did earlier) that Movie Prime will probably resemble (and differ from) G1 Prime about as much as Armada Prime did.  I vote for new continuity family.--G.B. Blackrock 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Title
Shouldn't this be at either Transformers (film) (there's no other films by that name) or Transfomers (2007 film) (the current name implies that this is about Transformers in general in 2007)? Interrobang 00:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Or Transformers (live movie)--GUIGUI 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Keith David
YEsterday, Keith David was confirmed as Barricade's VA

SCARCASM!
If this an alien concept to people?

Yes, I do indeed think the movie is going to rock out loud. I am foaming at the gash at the prospect of seeing it! The storyline section of the article is intended to POKE FUN AT THE PEOPLE who say that it is "Not Transformers" for various reason, by LISTING THE WAYS THAT IT IS. That'd be a completely shit story summary if it was supposed to be actually telling you anything about the movie, rather than just describing all the ways it's like G1.

AAAAAAAAA - Chris McFeely 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I feel that this whole entire wikia is too full of sarcasm and smart-alecky-ness. Wikis are meant to report facts about a subject, not for nerds and fanboys (for that's what all of us here are) to act like wise-ass jerks about what we love. I'm new here, and I came here looking for information, which is what wikis are for. Instead, I get smart-aleck articles chopped full of sarcasm and pictures with annoying captions instead of saying WHAT the picture is of. I love Transformers, people, but this is a POORLY run wiki.--72.66.73.224 04:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Megatrong1.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Art of Generation 1 Megatron!]]On G1 Megatron's page, the caption to the right would be insultingly redundant. If a photo's subject does not need additional clarification, a straightforward caption is absolutely unneeded.  If the captions that are there annoy you, then you can feel free to not read them! --ItsWalky 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Official Star Wars people love our wiki's tone. Also, if humor and facts can coexist as they do here, why, exactly, shouldn't they? The information is all there regardless. --M Sipher 06:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To add, I reject the idea that wikis are supposed to present information in a very set, certain way that is unified across all wikis. Because that's false.  There are plenty of wikis that don't present information just like Wikipedia does.  Count us one of them.  (This discussion needs to be moved somewhere else.  Probably under the 30 other identical discussions from the other anonymous hi-then-bye folks.)  --ItsWalky 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, all that aside, what about the original subject here, about using sarcasm in the plot desciption in order to poke fun at the haters of the film? Firstly, it's a twisted version of the truth, and wikis are about facts, secondly, since wikis are freely editiable, it's a vandalizing fight just waiting to happen. A hater will edit it in a way to bash the supporters, the supporters will edit back to bash the haters, and it'll go on and on. And quite frankly, ever since the announcement trailer last year, I have been sick and tired of all the fighting i've been seeing on the web.--72.66.73.224 20:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, that entire summary's going to be replaced once the film's officially out. It's just a placeholder.  And until then, I think it's fine.  --ItsWalky 21:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's just what I was going to say myself. I wrote the thing, only intended for it to be a bit of snarky filler material until an ACTUAL summary can be added in. Indeed, a goodly portion of the wiki's snark tends to steadily be filtered out as articles are filled in more and more. But, really, I've got no problem with people not liking the film for reason x, or reason y - but "It's not Transformers" is twaddle. - Chris McFeely 21:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dight, if Beast Machines is Transformers, thant his is Transformers. And I don't debate that BM is Transformers- it's just bad Transformers.  Fortunately, its badness was subsequently eclipsed by the Unicron Trilogy, so we can now look back on Beast Machines fondly. -Derik 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Way to get totally butthurt over a wiki, dude. -hx 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Welker
Editor assumption? "GameSpot chats with Frank Welker, the voice of Megatron in the original animated series and upcoming Transformers game and movie."


 * That, or my elaborate conspiracy theory is right and Hugo Weaving as Megs is a trick to suprise us with Megs actually being voiced by Welker. -- Hunter-113 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Voice Actors Revealed
Optimus - Peter Cullen

Megatron - Hugo Weaving

Bumblebee - Mark Ryan

Ironhide - Jess Harnell

Barricade - Jess Harnell

Ratchet - Robert Foxworth

Bonecrusher - Jimmie Wood

Jazz - Darius McCrary

Starscream - Charlie Adler

Frenzy - Reno Wilson

Source: http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/showthread.php?t=137541


 * The post that this "news" originated from: http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/showthread.php?t=137530. Note that while it's said this came from an Australian press conference, credit is given to an anonymous source. Seems rather dubious to me, given the lack of Keith David. --KilMichaelMcC 21:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I heard David's only doing Barricade in the game -- Hunter-113 21:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Except this doesn't match up with the voice actors we know for the game either (Welker, for instance). I doubt it'll be long before we have corroborated list, however.--MCRG 02:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At this point, we need more than "heard," no offense. :) We need some solid info before we take any of this information to heart.  --ItsWalky 21:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The post in that link I posted above has been edited, and now cites a source. Looks like this may be legit, although I'm still wondering about Barricade/Keith David. --KilMichaelMcC 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And taking a look at the now cited original source I'm thinking: Lists Jess Harnell twice + posted from an airport = possible mistake on who Barricade's VA is. --KilMichaelMcC 02:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "news"? Was that tone really necessary? --FFN 05:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In light of later developments that does seem harsh. When the original post was made at TFW, it said the info came from a press conference via an annoymous source. Combining that with the contradiction of Barricade's previously reported VA, it made the whole list seem highly dubious. --KilMichaelMcC 06:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Griffin adds some more info --FFN 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like Keith David really may not be in the movie after all. Hard to imagine a press book with bios on all the VAs leaving him out. --KilMichaelMcC 07:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A guy posted in the same thread stating that David had signed his Legends Barricade and said he was only playing the character in the game. Since there's no proof, its not really 'evidence', but it suggests that the press book is right. --FFN 07:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

David is confirmed for the game, but, according to the pople who saw the australian version, only Megaron and Starscream speak english. So I'm not sure if that va list is reliable
 * Other people who were at that same screening say otherwise, as seen in the "Griffin adds some more info" link above, in which the writer gives his best recollection as to how much each Decepticon says. Also, just because a character doesn't speak English doesn't mean he won't have a voice actor. If he speaks Cybertronian or makes grunts and groans and other noises, those may all have real voices behind them.  --KilMichaelMcC 21:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm... Bonecrusher's not a bulldozer. I mean, sarcastic half truths are rad and all, but outright inaccuracies, when they don't add to the humor, don't seem like a good idea.

This is NOTHING like Transformers
I normally like the humour on this site, but this is pure bullshit. It purposely selectively picks the things that they have in common with G1, while ignoring the other vast differences, such as Ironhide, Ratchet, Megatron and Starscream looking nothing like any canonical version, Jazz being a cocky trendy "hip hop" guy instead of the blues musician type he was in the cartoon, the sheer human focus, the fact that the Decepticons are barely even CHARACTERS, the fact that Bumblebee doesn't speak, the fact that Optimus Prime has a hideous mouth. You can list as many differences as you can similiarities.

This sarcasm reminds me too much of Redsquadron and it pisses me off. It's not even funny in the least, it's obviously such ass launching yet another attack at people who are barely allowed have an opinion in theTF community.

The more vicious pro-movie crowd are the ones that need the mick taken out of them.


 * I was unaware that movie Ironhide, Ratchet, Megatron and Starscream are non-canon :-O
 * The fact that you got so infuriated over the fact some people here made fun of other people who got infuriated over the movie is circular and now I've gone all cross-eyed and need to lie down.


 * Without actually addresing the above: it is time for the sarcasm to be removed entirely from this article, and replaced with a straightforward summary. Especially with that big "Looking for information about the movie?" banner on the main page. --KilMichaelMcC 17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the body of the article does need to be desnarked now that the movie is actually out. But we shouldn't forget that the anonymous guy we're responding to is completely hilarious.  --ItsWalky 18:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair thee well, my glorious, most-controversial snark! You... sure caused a lot of trouble! - Chris McFeely 19:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"the anonymous guy we're responding to is completely hilarious."

Hah, so says Walky, the guy who almost always deals with people who wants but isn't quite capable of arguing with by mocking and snarking them, usually by means of a poor author surrogate getting angry at a strawman of a particular fan archetype he dislikes, with no real reasoning as to how the real life equivalent is improper behaviour.

But I expect you find this hilarious too - after all, if someone is hilarious or insane, you don't have to answer them. Of course I'm bloody "hilarious" to you, given your views on "Fanboys".

Nice to see the article was cleaned up, though.


 * Re: "I expect you find this hilarious too" -- yeah, more or less. --Steve-o 00:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Full summary
Okay, so who's up to the task of writing the full-ass scene-by-scene summary of the movie? --ItsWalky 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I staked down a start there. If we want to go scene-by-scene, I can start pounding that out tonight. -Rotty 18:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Production staff
Is there a reason that "YAAAY!" for Spielberg and "BOOM!" for Bay got nixed? I didn't think those were too lighthearted for this article, given that we go so far as to reference a song most people didn't hear for the caption snark. -Rotty 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather we keep the jokes to the captions. Little commentaries behind the names on the cast and crew strike me as bleh.  --ItsWalky 19:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Transformers are awesome./No, I DON"
My summary box was supposed to say "No, I DON'T feel like being useful right now. It's past my bed time." However, in the midst of my uselessness, I developed fat fingers and hit "enter" too early. I quickly hit Escape, hoping to cancel the edit before it posted, but it posted anyway. I intended to continue on, hoping what happened would be obvious by the two successive Recent Changes listings, but my second submission did not seem to actually submit at all. All in all, I've actually contributed nothing anyway, so I wish to publically apologize to you all for deciding not to refrain from being silly and stupid. --Sntint 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)