Talk:Bonecrusher (Transformers)

Revenge of the Fallen

A robot with Bonecrusher's vehicle form can be seen in the desert at the end of the film, but is there any confirmation that this is actually meant to be Bonecrusher? A robot similar to Blackout appears but this is known to be Grindor so is this just a case of mistaken indentity? --86.157.212.138 (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added it only because in the previous film, Michael Bay declared that the vehicle that Bonecrusher changes into is called The Bonecrusher rather than the buffalo because of the additions they made to the fork.

I've also added Mikela's dog to the page as its name is Bonecrusher. She calls it "Bones" throughout the film, but in the credits the last member in the cast, above the voice cast, is "Bonecrusher the Mastiff as Himself". --TriPredRavage (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I seperated the dog Bonecrusher from the Decepticon, since they are different characters. Mathewignash (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to present it as if it was Bonecrusher who appearedin the desert in ROTF. We have no information at all supporting the idea that it's merely another character who looks like Bonecrusher, and all the supporting fiction made says Bonecrusher was alive. So unless a single other source says it's some new robot, it's Bonecrusher there. We can't assume the existence of a new robot. Mathewignash (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Do what you gotta do. But where did you seperate the Dog Bonecrusher too?--TriPredRavage (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just went through the edit history, some one removed it without reason. I replaced it.--TriPredRavage (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The dog is mentioned in the section for the 2007 film, which is when it first came out, and when the dog got its name. There's no sense in creating a RotF section just to mention a dog having the character's name. Then again, I reinstated the RotF section with the mention of the Bonecrusher lookalike in RotF which serves the purpose of informing anyone wondering whether it's him in the film or not. Also, his toy bio deserves mention since it poses an open end for him after the first movie. --uKER (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"all the supporting fiction made says Bonecrusher was alive. " What, just one toy bio meant to sell a repaint? This idea isn't even supported by the IDW or Titan comics (the later because his survival was entirely dependent on a splinter timeline). Face it, THERE IS NO REASON WE CAN POSITIVELY SAY THAT BONECRUSHER WAS IN ROTF!!! 209.106.203.252 (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why the text says it POSSIBLE it may be him, not that it IS him. It's a very neutral statement. Mathewignash (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

With Bonecrusher the dog now being mentioned in the first film's section, I have removed the RotF section because we technically do not know if the look-alike is Bonecrusher or not. After all, there was Blackout and Grindor, so we don't know if it is Bonecrusher or not. However, with the DVD coming out soon, I'd expect we'll be finding out very soon.--TriPredRavage (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Going by your reasoning, what would Wikipedia provide for someone who just saw the movie and wants to know whether that was Bonecrusher or not? How would they know Wikipedia's editors didn't just omit to mention him? Which also has the wonderful side effect of getting us wave after wave of not-so-informed people adding it into the article saying it's in fact him. Also, your removal loses the mention of the outcome described for Bonecrusher in his toy bio that mentions him surviving the first movie. --uKER (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My response is, how are we supposed to give an answer to someone who just saw the film if we do not officially know ourselves? Also, we all know that the movie toy bios aren't exactly the best examples to hold basis on. Just because the toy bio says he survived, doesn't prove his existance in the film. I hope that Bay will mention the cameo in the commentary and that will answer to whether or not it is or is not Bonecrusher. But until then, we do not know for sure that it was Bonecrusher. We know someone looking like Bonecrusher was in the film, but we don't know if it was him. There were tons of 'Cons in the film that all looked alike becasue they were just generic nameless characters. Plus, with the Blackout/Grindor look-alike, we don't know if it was actually him. --TriPredRavage (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And my response is, did you really read what I wrote? Does this ever say it was Bonecrusher? The point is saying "yes, we know there was a bot that looks like him but we don't really know whether it's really him". If you were able to think outside of the box, you'd realize it does constitute information, it is indeed related to Bonecrusher regardless of it really being him or not, and it is in fact undeniable, so I don't see your problem with it. And no, there were certainly not "tons of lookalikes" as you say. In fact, Grindor is the only character with an earth mode that resembled some other character. --uKER (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. But seeing as we don't know if it is Bonecrusher or not, it doesn't merrit him having his own section. In truth, his appearance is no different than any of the other Decepticons that arrive in that part of the film. We don't know it's him officially. Do I think it's him; yes. Do I know it's him; no. I'm just saying, it's not worth giving its own section. I think it could/should be mentioned along with the other information in the first film's plot section, or a sub-section title RotF, but the (currently) nameless character does not merit his own page.--TriPredRavage (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do I think it's him? No. Do I give a damn about it being him? No. Am I a fanboy? No. I just want a better article. I just don't want people to come here and only be able to wonder why there's no mention of Bonecrusher in Revenge of the Fallen when they could swear they saw him. I guess it's not too hard to understand. --uKER (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I understand that. But we don't know it is him. People would swear that they saw Blackout in RotF, too. But they didn't. My point is, the best article will not say what we don't know for sure. We don't know it is him, and until we do, the best article will not claim that the character in RotF is the same from the first film.--TriPredRavage (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Will you let me know if there any way in which I can make you understand I-am-not-implying-it-to-be-Bonecrusher-himself? I just intend people who watch the movie and swear they saw Bonecrusher, to be able to come here and have something to indicate we're not morons who just missed him being there. There's a clone of him here, for Christ's sake. Do you consider that too far fetched to deserve mention? And no, there's not tons of clones of other characterized robots. --uKER (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I do. The point is, because we do not know that it is Bonecrusher for sure, we can't say that Bonecrusher appeared in the film. Seeing as he is an unnamed character, and did very little of importance, he does not merit his own section of the page. I have edited the Movie Plot section of the 2007 film to include the clone and describe that he is a look-alike. I hope this satisfies you.--TriPredRavage (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet Mathewignash refuses to follow the consensus. He wants to insist that the character is Bonecrusher. What do you propose to do then? --72.186.97.147 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ROTF Toy?

When and where was this supposed Hasbro Q&A session that they confirmed a new Bonecrusher toy with a blaster gun added? This hasn't been mentioned in any panel from Botcon, SDCC, etc. that I've seen, nor is there a link to give it any credibility. This is on the main ROTF toyline page too. While I don't doubt the possibility of a repaint, has anyone actually seen anything that suggests there'll be such a figure? I think this should be removed unless it's got a reliable source.AristosRietze (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Some guy keeps making up this and the "Leader" class Grindor. They are both fake rumors. Mathewignash (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dog

Why is that there he has nothing to do with him at all this is a transformers page its not needed to mention a dog called bonecrusher in something thats about a transformers it makes no sense The Movie Master 1 (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If anything, the comment belongs in the Bonecrusher article. --uKER (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's just an added sentence describing a character in Transformers. He wouldn't justify a page, but he does got one sentence on a page already talking about Transformers characters named Bonecrusher. Mathewignash (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I messed up. I thought this was the discussion for RotF. Disregard my previous comment in this discussion. I do support the mention of the dog here. The reference is an established fact. Michael Bay himself has said the dog is named after the Transformer. BTW1, the dog had already appeared in movie 1 as Miles' dog. BTW2, Bonecrusher is the dog's real name and Bones is just his name in RotF. --uKER (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the RoTF section at the bottom where the dog had the section all to himself with like one sentence-I deleted it though The Movie Master 1 (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The dog's name in the movie is Bonesrucher, it's mentioned in the novel. Bones for short. He wasn't Bonecrusher in the 2007 movie, he was the unnamed dog of Sam's friend. He should be in a seperate section that the Decepticon Bonecrusher as he's a different character. Mathewignash (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

As I told you in your talk page, it doesn't make any kind of sense to create a Revenge of the Fallen section just to say "hey, in this movie there's a dog called the same as the robot". As The Movie Master 1 told you, this article is about the robot, not the dog. The mention is only fitting as a comment in the first movie, as the relevant thing is the robot giving its name to the dog, not the dog being featured in a movie in which the robot doesn't even officially appear. Keep in mind: this article is about BONECRUSHER THE ROBOT. NOT THE DOG CALLED LIKE HIM, so a section to mention a movie in which the dog called like the robot appears has no merit here. --uKER (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This page is about Transformers characters named Bonecrusher. The dog is one, the Decepticon is another. They should not share a section. Mathewignash (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, this article is NOT about the dog, no matter what it's called, and Revenge of the Fallen doesn't merit a section only to talk about about the dog being in it. --uKER (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's one sentence, and it shouldn't be in the wrong section. We have pleanty of single line sections in other articles, like when a character has a Japanese name that corelates to a page. Mathewignash (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Bay named the dog after the robot. Great. Now, THAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE FIST MOVIE CAME OUT IN 2007. Now why on earth should the mention of that be in a RotF section? --uKER (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Because that's where Mikaela's dog Bonecrusher the dog appeared. We list all the character by their FIRST appearance. Mikaela's dor first appeared in ROTF, unless you are arguing that it's the same character as the dog from the first film. Mathewignash (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, then your mistake is turning the article to be about the dog. The dog and the robot sharing their name doesn't make the dog the subject of the page. --uKER (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ, to quote the first line of the article "Bonecrusher is the name of several fictional characters in the various Transformers universes." It doesn't say robot characters, just characters. Mikaela's pet, Bonecrusher the dog, is a (very minor) character in the Transformers fiction. This isn't any difference than say, Ricochet, where there is a Nebulan named Ricochet and an Autobot with the same name. Mathewignash (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mathewignash. The article is about several fictional characters, not several Transformers. There are pages about the Witwickys, Mikaela, and other human and non-Transformer characters. There is no reason why the dog can not be mentioned.

Also, look at characters like Rad. There is Rad the Transformer and Rad human character. Why shouldn't we include the dog?--TriPredRavage (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we just add the dog into the Mikaela Banes article about her dog I just dont think it makes sense to be talking about the transformer then just some dog has a one sentence section-I mean we could mention the dog I just dont think its deserving to have its own section and isnt the dog Michael Bays dog he had it named Bonecrusher so it isnt really named after the transformer The Movie Master 1 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's just it. Because it appeared in the film under the name Bonecrusher, it is officially a TF-Universe character with the name. Like I said, there are humans with the same names as TFs, there's no reason to not include it. We can include the info about him being in the film and actually being Bay's dog.

While I can see the appeal to adding the dog to Mikaela's page (and by all means, go ahead; it wold be relevant), it deserves to be on the Bonecrusher page as well because it is an official TF character named Bonecrusher.--TriPredRavage (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats slightly true but I dont think its important enough to have its own section by any means he was in like 3-8 scenes The Movie Master 1 (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See, but that's just it. He's officially a character of that name. This is the Bonecrusher page. There is no reason to not have the dog mentioned. I think maybe instead of having it's own section, as in a new header, why don't we list it under the 2007 Film until the subtitle "Dog" or something. I think it is important enough to be mentioned, but clearly the dog doesn't do anything worth it's own section, but it should have a subsection to keep it seperate from the TF.--TriPredRavage (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That could work...or maybe just under 2007 movie which ever one just not his own section completely The Movie Master 1 (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The character of Bonecrusher the dog didn't appear in the 2007 film though, which is why I put him in the ROTF section. Mathewignash (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)