Talk:Bumblebee (Tyran)

So, like I said, this is just to kick around a movie character page until we figure out how we're going to organize everything. There's a few areas I think need adressing.


 * First is the disambiguation description. Currently I have it as (Movie) but do we want to change it?  I think we should, in at least because we actually have another Transformers movie floating around.  Additionally, while the movie is the main focus, there is other content within the canon that is non-movie.


 * Continuity Family description. While "Transformers (2007)" is probably the best we have, it'll kind of sound a bit weird if we ever get a further stuff in this unverse at a later date.  (Movie) would also a bad term IMO.  Not sure if there's a better option though.

The second is the Prequel novel, which is listed on amazon 1 here. It's labeled as just "Transformers: Ghosts of Yesterday" but I'm not sure if we should point out that it is also a prequel to the movie. The third, of course, is the film.
 * Fiction Descriptions. There's at least three key areas of fiction that will be relevant (four, perhaps, if the IDW movie adaptation has stuff that isn't in the movie).  The first is the prequel comic.  According to the comic cover (a copy of which can be found here, it's called the "Transformers Official Movie Prequel."  Sounds a bit pretentious..  IDW Prequel Comic would be sufficant?

So, anywho, that's everything I think that needs to be addressed at this moment. Any ideas/opinions/comments/complaints? --UndeadScottsman 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and we also need actual pics of the Bee at some point. For the prequel comic, the cover for the first issue should do nicely. (Available at the above link) The only problem is I'm not sure if it's kosher to just snag it off that guys page. As for the main picture, a screencap from the trailer might work; though a picture of that prop that was floating around would be better (but I really doubt it would be kosher. :D) --UndeadScottsman 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for my recent edits. Am in a weird mood today. --Autobus Prime 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How can you apologize in advance for something you've already did? :D --UndeadScottsman 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See the continuity section of "Earthforce" for a detailed explanation. --Autobus Prime 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I move that the debate about the best way to suffix these articles be shelved until the movie prequels are out- in the hopes that: -Derik 19:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The characters 'read' as another iteration of the G1 characters, rendering this debate unnecessary.
 * The prequels themselves present some handy blanket catchphrase for referring to their continuity.
 * This was prompted by a review of the first issue of the prequel comic being released. Like I said, it comes off as different as G1 as Armada was.--UndeadScottsman 19:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And really, to answer whether or not this is "another iteration of the G1 characters" would require just what that entails. Where is the line drawn between "reimagining" and "new version?"  As I mentioned elsewhere, what's the big difference between Armada Optimus Prime and G1 Optimus Prime?  They're pretty much the same character. At least as similar as G1 toon Optimus was to G1 IDW Comic Optimus--UndeadScottsman 19:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fundamental universe construction.
 * And I wasn't aware there was a review out-- where? -Derik 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I posted a link above but I guess I didn't point out it also had a review.  Here ya go again. SPOILERS AHOY!


 * I would second the sentiment that sorting out a lot of this stuff should be put on hold until the prequel materials actually start being released, and we can get a somewhat more clear look at the shape of the movie-verse. --KilMichaelMcC 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers
I'm somewhat handicapped by not reading the article because I choose to, but I can't help that notice that we have a fiction summary from an issue that is not out yet without a spoiler tag. For the love of God, why are we doing this? I asked almost nicely. --ItsWalky 17:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The main reason I didn't spoiler-tag the article is that I completely made up the whole fiction section. --Autobus Prime 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's what I get for not reading it, I guess. I have been punk'd.  --ItsWalky 17:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So what I did was basically like leaving a ticking alarm clock in a case of Twinkies and leaving it at the baggage check, but without the feds knocking on my door? Never intended to do such a thing but it still makes me chuckle.  --Autobus Prime 17:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I cleared out the misinformation and added a direct link to the main Bumblebee article. I'm not even sure which other pages link to this movie specific one.


 * And in the process, you completely obliterated the entire reason this page was created in the first place (see the top of this talk page), and added a real spoiler to the beginning of the article! Brilliant!  --Andrusi 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Time For a Real Page
When is it going to be time for a REAL BB (Movie) page? All the other characters pretty much have them now and we know how things will be set up. It was a good joke, but I think it may be time to let it go and give him a real, useful entry. Opinions?
 * I'm honestly surprised it hasn't already been fixed. :D--209.193.18.195 11:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree - there's plenty of officially-released info and stuff from the IDW comics and novel to form the basis of a half-decent serious article. --FFN 11:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Car geekings
I noticed Bumblebee's identified as a 1967 Camaro. Is this model year stated anywhere officially? He looks more like a second-generation body style, which ran from 1970 to '81.

I guess this is as good a place as any to say (argue?) that the Camaro can concievably still fit with Bumblebee's original "economic" character traits. If he is indeed a second-gen, that seems to be the model that ran during the beginnings of the 1980s fuel crisis, and thus lost power in favor of economy (implied from the Camaro's Wiki entry.) The upcoming fifth-generation has at least one modern fuel-saving technology, cylinder-cutoff.

If, you know, that even needed to be said. The Camaro's a great car for Bumblebee to pick to make good with human youth anyway.-Sntint 10:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe its actually a 1974 Camaro. Walky made a mistake, methinks. --FFN 10:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the prequels handy, and Sector 7 says he's either a '75 or a '76. -Derik 22:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm dyslexic! Fix it!  --ItsWalky 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambig suffix
Is there a reason (Movie) is capitalized when things like (planet) are not?
 * I would assume because "Movie" has been what we're calling the continuity family. Come to think of it, I'm kinda not sure whether it oughta be capitalized or not. --KilMichaelMcC 20:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, a continity family would logically be a Proper Name, so it works.
 * (Man, I can't WAIT 'til we figure out a better name for this continuity family and we get to change all the links...) -Derik 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:DiagnosticDrone will do it. He likes that kind of thing. --Steve-o 20:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)