Talk:Transformers (Movie)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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