Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Just a reminder...

The production team of TF2 is throwing out so much false information (in hopes of engulfing any true leaks that may get out to the public) that it may be difficult to know what is fact and what is fiction. Keep your ears open! Ms. Sarita (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware, but rest assured I adhere highly to WP:RS, so it's not an issue. Alientraveller (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done!

I applaud Alientraveller for a job well done. You've lifted this article from a redirection into a great article, and it hasn't even been on for a week yet. Bravo. Evilgidgit (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Alientraveller (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And just a note: considering someone took this as an opportunity to bash me, just note: compliments or criticism goes to user talkpages. This applies to all talk pages. But it is nice. Alientraveller (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if that's the case, then shouldn't you remove Evilgidgit's remarks from this page? 75.90.149.78 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not imperative to do so. It's more preferable to remove forum-esque comments if they are becoming frequent on a talk page or if there is reason to believe it might draw additional forum-esque comments. With the release of this film so far in the future, discussion on this talk page isn't excessive. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but what I see is a certain lot of you making editing rules as you go along. Who determines what "if they are becoming frequent" or "far in the future" means? You? I'm sorry, but it's very frustrating knowing this article and others is monopolized by very smart and crafty editors, who often censor others simply because they don't agree with them. I've looked through the comments here, and many of them are downright disrespectful. 75.90.149.78 (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We try to follow guidelines. WP:TALK says, "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." There's no set rule for this, but ideally, we try to avoid showing too many off-topic discussions on the talk page since it may be a sign of encouragement for additional inappropriate topics like how badass the movie was. I'm not sure what you mean by censorship, though... looking at the page history, two irrelevant discussions were removed by two separate editors going back to June 2008. If you have an issue with the civility of an editor, though, just ask nicely if they could be more polite. It may just work. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily dispute what you have written. Still, seasoned editors who know how to "work" the system often bend the rules in their favor. The lack of examples here on this talk page does not extend to other articles. I value your work as an editor Erik, but you must agree, even if only slightly, that there is a ring of truth to my accusations. As for asking nicely for others to be polite, I've researched one tenured editor in particular, and he has an extensive past of blatant disrespect and hostility to those who challenge his opinions. He has been warned numerously, yet to no avail. I won't mention names, though his is other worldly in nature. I must add Erik, the greatest threat to Wikipedia is not vandalism, nor poor editing, but those who would stymie others from expressing themselves in trying to enhance an article or topic. Nothing pushes someone away quicker than a know-it-all, and that ends up affecting us all – those who love this website, because everyone has an equal share here. 75.90.149.78 (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Jazz is dead

Michael Bay said so himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.89.185 (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Could have been lying, but we will not know until an official announcement or when the film is out. Thus, I removed these rumours from the article. Alientraveller (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

3-D

So it's gonna b 3-D like Bewoulf?90.149.58.120 (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So who's seen Beowulf in 3D? We don't know, because it's never been discussed beyond being listed by the distributors. When info arrives, it'll be in the article. Alientraveller (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this has been misinterpreted. The robots are created in 3D CG programs. I have not read anything about this being in 3D. And Beowulf in 3D was the only way to see it, in normal theatre presentation it would have been a very boring film. But back on topic, unless Paramount have signed an agreement of sorts with IMAX and Real D cinemas to show certain scenes in 3D (like some Harry Potter movies in IMAX), I think this should be removed, so it is a science-fiction action film instead of science-fiction 3D film. Movieman2000 (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2008 (AEST)

Read the citation. It will be in 3D. Alientraveller (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't see the citation, that's cool that it will be in 3D though, let's hope it has the same amount of story than the first one instead of being bland like Beowulf as I described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieman2000 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rumoured title

Head's up: this blog reports this film will be subtitled Revenge of the Fallen. A USA Today blog also reports it, although whether their source is this blog or if it's the other way round, remains to be seen. Secondly, will it be called Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen or contain the number? I will keep waiting for a press release or a Bay forum post. Alientraveller (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is confirmed.

• http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=45714
• http://www.superherohype.com/news/transformersnews.php?id=7298
• http://seibertron.com/news/view.php?id=13247

Kalas Grengar (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply because many sites report a rumour doesn't mean it is confirmed. Alientraveller (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And now it is confirmed by Hasbro. Jeez, what a bizarre way to announce a title: putting it on a blog, then announcing it. Alientraveller (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Paramount sent a note to a fansite, saying there is no 2 in the title. Reading the Hasbro PR again, they changed the title too. Alientraveller (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Call sheet

I've removed all statements apparently sourced only from a purported call sheet that was posted to a forum. This is an encyclopedia, it isn't a place for gossip, speculation and dodgy references. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A call sheet is not a dodgy reference. Alientraveller (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the call sheet is authentic? I think it looks real but is there coclusive proof? If not, the first editors removal of all refs seems apprpriate. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.32.31 (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's it. It's just something posted by somebody to some board or other. Even if it comes from the production company, it could be a sample sheet or the cast could have been changed after it was produced. We have no way of authenticating it at all. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It was taken off the set, and TFW2005 is a reliable source: it's shown on the DVD, and Bay and Brian Goldner noted they and other fansites found every piece of concept art etc. and they would even receive feedback. A callsheet is much more reliable than any rumour, and considering fans now know Jetfire, Arcee, the Twins and the Constructicons are in the picture, fighting it'd be futile. Alientraveller (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

According to a note on the home page, TFW2005 is simply "the largest fan community related to Transformers toys." This doesn't sound to me like anything resembling a reliable source. Moreover the actual document cited seems to be an attachment to a forum post. I could register at the forum myself and post a document. Would that mean you could cite my document on Wikipedia?

What DVD is this call sheet shown on? Obviously we don't want a fight, but unless we get a reliable source for this claim it (and the puported call sheet posted on a fan forum) will have to go. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No obviously this call sheet isn't on the DVD, if you mean what DVD Bay discusses the Transformers fandom then obviously...

Anyway, I won't bother, but I won't revert IPs adding the info either as it is correct. Alientraveller (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

More stuff sourced from forum postings

I've just noticed people adding more stuff that seems to be sourced solely from postings to internet forums [1] . This really isn't acceptable. Please stop. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you're being silly: how is the writer himself an unreliable source? Alientraveller (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of calling someone "silly" could you not make your point sensibly? Are you capable of commenting on users posts without resorting to sarcasm or insults? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.151.245 (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Now where's your jolly gone? Alientraveller (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My 'jolly' disappeared when I noticed you insulting another Editor - you insult others at will! Please stop that and believe you me, pal, I'll have no issue with you as by and large, you do fine work on articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.151.245 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't intended, but sorry. Alientraveller (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

AT-- again, we have no proof that it actually is the writer. Typically, forum postings are not even considered as a possible reliable source. So I think a valid concern is being raised here. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Because he's posting on Don Murphy's website and if he were a fraud he'd be blocked. Alientraveller (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

How would we know this? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What proof do you have he's not Roberto? Filmmakers blogging and posting on forums is nothing special. Alientraveller (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Don Murphy personally vouched for Orci when he first signed up there. Or was that when Rogers signed up? Other than that, would any inside knowledge first posted by Orci at the DM boards and then later confirmed by other sources be evidence enough?--87.164.107.155 (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Here Don Murphy directly responds to a post by Roberto Orci and addresses him as if he were the real deal. I doubt Don would willingly support a fraud. Unless you were to imply that the entire site was a fake and Don was a fraud as well.--87.164.107.155 (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So you personally attest that this guy is who he says he is. That's interesting but it doesn't make the forum a reliable source. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me? One of the movie producers confirms that a user posting under one of the screenwriters' names is indeed said screenwriter. So this information is coming from the screenwriter. Just out of curiosity, are you against using this information because you have considerable reason to doubt the veracity of this information, or is it just because forums are excluded in the rules, and the rules are set in stone no matter the circumstance?--87.164.70.34 (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then again, even assuming that it is the real Orci, this post at the TFW2005 boards suggests that anything he says in public could be deliberate misinformation...--87.164.51.92 (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is him posting at TFW2005. [2][3] He's a funny chap for making us glance at two posts, but that's what you get for suspecting the obvious. Alientraveller (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Scorponok

Is scorponok going to appear again because he didn't die in TF1. Rodimus Rhyme (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind WP:TALK, but I will just say it's not confirmed. The general audience is left to assume he died. Alientraveller (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, since Barricade didn't die on screen either and he is set to return, it might be possible. But this hasn't been confirmed or denied, so we'll just have to wait before putting it in the article. Moccamonster Talk 13:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Here Roberto Orci states that Scorponok's fate is something for the sequel. However, since he answered my question here confirming that Scorpnok is something in between a symbiont and a drone, his survival chances now that Blackout is dead are questionable.--87.164.107.155 (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note on Jetfire

Jetfire was an F-14 not an SR71 Blackbird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.30.171 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jetfire's original toy was a Macross Valkyrie. The cartoon character (named Skyfire) turned into a made up design. However, in the movie this article is about, he is said to turn into a Blackbird.--87.164.70.34 (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Frenzy-like Bot

I think should this[4] get a mention in the bot section? Has at least as much (if not more) veracity than some of what's in the paragraph following the list of "confirmed" bots.Oosh (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• This should be considered as a confirmation, unless of course statements by the movie's director at his official message board are not considered "reliable sources" for some extremely by-the-letters reason.--87.164.96.140 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's in the article already, and of course, as with Frenzy Bay is using a puppet. Alientraveller (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Real or Not Real

What do you make of this? http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1694/9803465601550889528rssu3.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.46.138 (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait for an official release, it's officially a fake for now. Alientraveller (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, Roberto confirms it's not real. Alientraveller (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed fake here.--87.164.90.101 (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wheeljack!

I am personally elated to report that according to the Saab History site, Wheeljack is going to be in TF2 as a Saab Aero-X! The Martyr ^{(converse with the Martyr)} 20:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an April Fool's Day joke. Alientraveller (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and Michael Bay is dead. If an article is started here on Wikipedia on April 1st, does that make it an April Fool's Day joke? No. And this isn't a joke. Wheeljack is confirmed. The end. The Martyr ^{(converse with the Martyr)} 21:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was too brusque: what makes this blog reliable? The end. Alientraveller (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it is an official one. The Martyr ^{(converse with the Martyr)} 23:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? What's this on the site then? "Saab History © is owned and operated independently from General Motors, Saab Automobile and any other affiliates." Let's wait for reliable sources. Alientraveller (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation of No Dinobots - Reinstate in to Article?

I see the justification for this removal of "if they're not in it..." but they're mentioned twice in the article before that point (the very first sentence in the Production section), they're a fan favourite and iconic group from the cartoons, and I believe this warrants a mention. I say pull together all three references, at at least the second one to them and put it to bed ie. "Orci was dismissive of the Dinobots, although after filming began he became fonder of those characters, because of their popularity. However, they were later confirmed as to be not appearing with the writers unbale to justify a robot that would pretend to be a dinosaur[insert orci ref].Oosh (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK Alientraveller (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Fallen actually confirmed?

I'm a little skeptical about the Fallen being "confirmed" by Simon Furman at SDCC. He's had very little input in the movie franchise, so why would it be any different in this case? Considering the false info-leaking policy, I'm not buying this just yet. AristosRietze (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Right... so the guy who is writing the comic based on the film is wrong. Read your sources. Alientraveller (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say he was wrong? I said he didn't have a ton of input in the film franchise (I should have said the first film, as opposed to franchise), but really, he didn't - excluding the UK Magazine comic (not canon) and the prequel comic. Saying something like The Fallen is definitely the main villain at something like SDCC - where it was first confirmed - is a perfect way to put people on the wrong track. Good enough of a reason for me to take anything said with a grain of salt. Chris Ryall having confirmed it further, as well as saying TF: Destiny will flesh out the obscure character's background makes me somewhat more inclined to take it as true, however (and this was put on news sites earlier today, before I started the discussion).AristosRietze (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And just to further my original point: Michael Bay has confirmed that much of what's been leaked about the movie thus far is false. So yeah, I wouldn't go about confirming The Fallen as a character just yet. AristosRietze (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, Furman and Chris Mowry has confirmed the Fallen is in the film. Now stop denying it: they are writing the comic book prequel and adaptation. Alientraveller (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And Bay - the guy who's directing the thing and has arguably the most creative control outside of the SCRIPT writers (not the comic writers who have zero input as to the actual film) - said the only real scripts are in the hands of him, Orci and Kurtzman, and a select few crew members, as well as some of the leads. And in case you missed it, both the prequel comic and the last comic adaptation were inaccurate in places that completely contradicted the movie, just as the novelization did.AristosRietze (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, can you both practice a little more civility here? I think more could be accomplished this way... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Struck out since comment was edited. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt IDW would be given a script draft so inaccurate it has an entirely different villain from the actual film. The comics will explore the movieverse's Fallen and his past. Alientraveller (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, both interviews appear to have been recently edited (one of them actually more than once). Not only does neither interview contain a single line about a character named "The Fallen" anymore - Arcee is also no longer mentioned, and even references to IDW having been provided with a copy of the script have been removed. Also, one of the interviews suddenly doesn't touch the topic of IDW's involvement with movie-releated comics at all anymore. The previous incarnations of both interviews are currently still accessible via Google Cache, so it's not like numerous people are mass-misremembering major details from these interviews. How does Wikipedia deal with retroactively altered sources?--87.164.75.141 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want, you can replace the links with urls of those caches. However, I've also linked TFW2005's reports of those original reports, to show how Paramount has tampered with the information. And lastly, is that you Nevermore (a prolific German Transformers message board visitor for those who aren't transfans). Alientraveller (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's me. :) I haven't registered an account on the English Wikipedia yet, though I'm probably responsible for about 90% of the current version of the article for the first movie (and about 95% of the sources cited) under the alias "Farrokh Bulsara" on the German Wikipedia.--87.164.75.141 (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mark Ryan

The cited article for Bumblebee's voice doesn't confirm that Mark Ryan is voicing him, merely that he's done some studio work. Strikes me this cannot be considered as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.151.245 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan: "I can confirm that I am working on Transformers 2: [sic] Revenge Of The Fallen and have been given the same job on set, voicing the Autobots for the actors, and have already done some voiceover work in the studio as well. It’s a privilege to work with the cast and crew again, it's very exciting and we are having a great time." This doesn't indicate at all that Bumblebee has been recast. Alientraveller (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Vehicles

One quick thing I noticed - since the Chevrolet Beat is also shown in the production photos/movies, shouldn't it also be included in the section mentioning the ice cream van and the Chevy Trax? Or was only the Trax confirmed to be a character (which seems odd, since they're both around on set)?AristosRietze (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

True, only one of the cars with Bumblebee has been revealed as having the Autobot insignia on its wheels. The other could just be a human's car, as unlikely it is. Alientraveller (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, never noticed. Thanks for the heads-up.AristosRietze (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Starscream

An anon editor made an edit, but it was reverted. Looking at it, I think the former version was more appropriate. The current version states "He flew into space after fleeing the climactic battle in the first film, betraying his leader.". This seems innacurate to me as Starscream is seen attacking ground troops early in this battle, and attacking fighter jets near the end of the battle. At what point did he flee the battle? I don't know that leaving after megatron was dead constitutes betrayal. CPitt76 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See in the the ending. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He leaves Megatron for dead: he got shot at, fled, and left his commander to be downed by the Raptors. Maybe it's a little too much detail, and can be removed now we have Chris Mowry's quote about how Movie Starscream compares to his other incarnations. Alientraveller (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Megatron was already dead when he left. And in the battle, he initiated combat with the jets, and returned fire. I don't remember him fleeing combat. I prefer the previous edit than the current revision (or just taking it out completely), but I'll leave it up to you. You've put considerable effort into these articles and are more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. CPitt76 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Alientraveller (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

IP adds

Looking at the history, there's an inordinate number of "undid revision by IPaddress"

Could we perhaps get semi-protection of this page?

I think that's not unheard-of for movies prior to release.

It would alleviate a lot of work on this article.

And no more "maybe they're bringing back Jazz!"

Just a thought...Before I approached an admin about it, though, wanted to see what others - Alientraveller, you especially - thought about it.

Till all are one!   Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime  ^{20:34, 13 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Ask, and you have received. Alientraveller (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's happening again... Oosh (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording

"The Bethlehem Steel site in Lehigh Valley represents a Chinese city." -- ?? The single site represents an entire Chinese city?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Humans listed before Robots

Why humans are mencioned first that Transformers in characters? They're more importants adnd the reason of the film--146.83.152.8 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you see the last film? Alientraveller (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Because actors that actually appear in the film in body are given higher billing than those that just do voiceover work. The ONLY exception to this I've ever seen is Andy Serkis as Gollum in Lord of the Rings, but even then he was like the last sole cast member listed in the end credits for Return of the King before going into "the rest of the cast." So the human characters will be mentioned before the CG characters. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Question...

Maybe I'm too much of a newbie to this whole Wikipedia thing...but why would 2009 be more relevent to a film than 2009 in film? Ms. Sarita (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Because where it was linked, you wouldn't click "2009" looking for "2009 in film". As part of an actual date, you link just the date. Now, if we said, "Revenge of the Fallen is a 2009 film", then we would link 2009 to "2009 in film", as the context of "2009" is relevant to those films made in 2009. If that makes any sense.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for the response. I kinda get it. I just figured that since the specific year in question was listed under "Release date", it would be more relevant to link it to "2009 in film" (as that has a list of all the dates of films set for a 2009 release and "2009" seems to list important political/scientific advances), thus my confusion with Alientraveller reverting someone's edit. But your explanation makes sense. Ms. Sarita (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wal-Mart DVD mention

As a bonus feature for the first film, there was a code that allowed customers to go to Wal-Mart's website and view video from the first day of filming for the sequel. I wasn't sure if this was appropriate to put under marketing? I got the information from TFormers.com[5]Eyehut (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I linked it in external links. I don't think we should mention it in the article, but these videos could be a good resource (could = the first video didn't even confirm the three bikes combine into Arcee or not). Alientraveller (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ice Cream Van a Decepticon?

If everyone that reads this can look at the picture to this url [6], zoom in on the picture and look at the symbol on the van.... it should be under the serving window near the right corner. Is this another decepticon or is it just a horribly distorted autobot logo? And, If it is another decepticon, then should we move it to the decepticon section of the article with a link to the photo? ShermanT My Talk Page 23:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Blurry fan photo's don't constitute a reliable source.Oosh (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Jetfire/Devastator rumours

I've noticed Jetfire's been changed from a Decepticon to an Autobot on the listing. The source, which seems to be the "TFW2005 TF2 Insider" also reports that Devastator is in the movie (as a seven-robot combiner), and that the art shown a while ago as a concept design for Long Haul is legitimate. I didn't want to change the report about Jetfire outright, but since there's nothing in the article regarding Devastator - and I would assume it's being treated as little more than rumour and hearsay - should this be changed? After all, it's not like it's Bob Orci or Bay himself confirming it.AristosRietze (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If there's a source, and it's legitimate and verifiable, then I don't see a problem with it. Is Jetfire normally a Decepticon? If he is, then that would put some suspicion on the edit. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Jetfire isn't really either. He's one of the Transformers who will be on either side on each new series. Recently thought, he's been an Autobot.GENERALZERO (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Insiders" do not meet WP:RS. While I trust TFW2005 and recognize the filmmakers wouldn't pass up the chance to put the real Devastator on-screen or acquired the rights to fan art, or make Jetfire a Decepticon for the entire film, we should still wait for something else to confirm it. The only misinformation on this project by the way, is that Bay could create an elaborate misinformation campaign, and his lie that the leaked callsheets (which confirmed Arcee, the Twins, Jetfire, the Audi and the names "Stinger", "Wheels" and "Tracks") were fake. Alientraveller (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Josh Nizzi is a freelance artist, not a fan artist. Alientraveller (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Devastator, Megatron's tank form, Ravage, and Sideswipe as the Corvette Centennial have been confirmed at Hasbro's Licensing Summit, as shown here. Would it be agreed upon that this can be added to the page?--AristosRietze (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Galvatron

The reference for Megatron's comeback has been speculated to be Galvatron instead of Megatron. Anyone else could see this happening seeing as Galvatron is Megatron remade...? SE KinG (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the place for speculation, sorry. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

First I've heard of a "reference" stating he'll be Galvatron. Sounds more like fan speculation based on the 1986 movie than anything reliable.AristosRietze (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Shooting in Tucson, AZ

Why were my additions deleted? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transformers:_Revenge_of_the_Fallen&oldid=241429864).

I posted info about a casting call in Tucson, AZ as well as the fake working title for the movie, "Prime Directive." Shouldn't that be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeFootSeven (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly hate it when people say why were their contributions deleted, when they weren't: the cite was kept, and the information was filed down to fit in with the rest of the paragraph. Alientraveller (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You did keep the info about shooting at the airport and the boneyard when you 'filed it down,' but you also deleted the part about DreamWorks using a fake working title ("Prime Directive") which is a nice bit of trivia for fans. I re-added the working title info into the filed-down paragraph. Hope it's ok with everybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeFootSeven (talk • contribs)

Isn't the fake title for Revenge of the Fallen "E7" (or "E7²")? "Prime Directive" was already the working title for the first movie.--132.252.185.42 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Jazz

I REALLY hate to bring this up, but I hadn't seen this TFW2005 story[7] despite it being 4 months old, but was there a good reason to refute it? Coz there's a lot of other TFW2005 sourced information being used in this article. Oosh (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, a person claims he saw Jazz and his voice actor on set. When we use TFW2005 or any TF-fansite as a source, it's when they have a reliable claim eg. Orci posts, concept art or a toy conference. Alientraveller (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Megatron?

What's the story behind Megatron returning? One of the supplied link shows pictures, the other one is a dead link. Can we really go by pics that do not state anything about Meg being in the new film? Looks like a blog to me, but that's just me. 204.198.77.87 (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No story behind how he returns as of yet, but Hasbro revealed his toy at their licensing summit in Malaysia. That's pretty valid for the purposes of the article. As for the link being dead, it's likely TFW2005 was simply asked to take it down.AristosRietze (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the link with Seibertron.com by the way. So once again the Transfans can show the finger at Paramount. :D Alientraveller (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite what the toy packaging says, I think that's going to be Galvatron. Michael Bay said no Megatron in the Empire magazine interview, so that tank is probably Galvatron.

That´s what I also thought, but is there any source for maybe just the slightest of a clue that this will be a resurrection as Galvatron?! The first movie had already a few hommages to the 1986 Movie and with that claims for Megatron not returning, maybe it´s a hint that it will be in that way?! Before adding something stupid, false and would be deleted, I just wanted to ask. Would appreciate an answer...!

Chevrolet Volt

I'll just be pasting this article ("Chevy Volt Unmasked on Transformers 2 Set Is "Not Production Vehicle," but Close". Edmunds.com. 2008-08-29.) here for future use. The Chevrolet Volt has been spotted on set a few times, indicating it will be an Autobot, but the official word in this source was that it was just a product placement cameo. So when the Volt's robot mode or name etc. is revealed, I can sow this in as another example of the hilarious misinformation campaign. Alientraveller (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This sounds more like an impromptu attempt at damage control than part of an actual elaborate misinformation campaign.--132.252.185.42 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Purged sources

Thus far, the following sources have been retroactively cleansed (or entirtely removed):

• Comic Book Resuorces interview with Simon Furman (removing any references to Revenge of the Fallen-related comics, plus the character "The Fallen" appearing in the movie)
• MTV interview with Chris Mowry (removing any references to IDW having the script to Revenge of the Fallen, plus Arcee and The Fallen as characters in the movie)
• TFW2005 story about Hasbro licensing summit in Malaysia (entirely removed; confirmed Sideswipe as the Corvette, plus Ravage, plus a bunch of other stuffs)

From experience, silent retroactive removal of information from sources only happens at explicit request, and then only when it actually reveals delicate information. I can't recall a single instance (using the pre-release period of the first movie for comparison) where things were removed that would later turn out to be not true.--132.252.185.42 (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Soundwave

Have the internet gods posted anything about who is voicing Soundwave? This would be an interesting bit of info for the article. His voice is so iconic, I'm wondering if they'll treat it like Prime and bring back the original voice actor, or Megatron and go in a new direction. 75.90.146.89 (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a report on the main news sites yesterday that Frank Welker - Soundwave's original voice actor - received a package from Paramount; however, since Welker's a highly prolific voice actor, there's every chance that this may have been for another movie simply needing animal noises. So, to answer your question, no, there hasn't been, though Welker may not be out of the question.AristosRietze (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The claim came from this podcast, which gives an anonymous source for Welker receiving a letter from Paramount (who, for the record, do not produce animated films, but just distribute them). As such, it is unreliable. When the voice cast are officially announced (which unfortunately, the majority of them were announced at the premiere press conference for the first one), it will be noted, and hopefully Welker reprising the role of Soundwave may be announced sooner. Alientraveller (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Megatron leaked images.

Awesome. Is that a Cybertron tank?.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Jazz returning

I think that Jazz will return, put him in the article. Even Qrci stated he will return. 151.205.169.183 (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source that Jazz will return, we can add him to the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he didn't. Orci has only confirmed Soundwave, and indirectly, Arcee. Alientraveller (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

IMAX 3D

I have restored my correction about IMAX 3D from several days ago. There simply is no evidence, apart from the producer's comment in an online interview in August, that the IMAX sequences will be 3D. Many people mistakenly think that all IMAX films are 3D. But when a project is 3D, Imax Corporation never fails to mention the fact, so the absence of any mention of 3D in the Sept. 30 press release means it will be 2D.

It's possible that much earlier plans to shoot in IMAX 3D turned out to be too expensive and were canceled. If anyone has an authoritative recent cite that the IMAX sequences will be 3D, link to them. I couldn't find any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commasense (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Dolby confirmed the movie would have 3D scenes. If 3D was cancelled, wait for a reliable source to confirm as such. Alientraveller (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Imax's press release is a reliable source with respect to the IMAX version of the film. Dolby has nothing to do with Imax. There could conceivably be a digital 3D release, but that wouldn't necessarily mean there would be an Imax 3D release. Where and when did Dolby confirm this? If you've got a link, post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commasense (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments, and here is the article about the Dolby report. Alientraveller (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Toyline article

Has anyone started a page specifically for the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (toys)? I know there was one for the first movie, but how about this? I'm guessing there WILL be a large toy line for it, considering the last movie's line. Mathewignash (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much up to you Mathew. Alientraveller (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Leaked toys as sources

Considering what happened to Devastator in the first movie, how can we be sure that the names on Hasbro's toys' packaging (e.g. Jolt) are the correct ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.164.82.128 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Because they're correct for now. If Bay chooses to revoice/subtitle each line to change a character's name, we'll change it and write about it. Alientraveller (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If there ends up being an inconsistancy in the toy and movie material, or additional non-movie story in the toy's bios, we can probably mention it on the upcoming Transformers: Revenger of the Fallen toy page. There was a lot of material released on the toys bios that didn't fit into the 2007 film. Like Barricade disguising himself as a security car to sneak into Hoover Dam, or how Bonecrusher and Brawl survived and got away after the battle in Mission City, or how Optimus Prime later traveled to Mars to trace back the Decepticon's ship. All this and more was toy-line only plot, so while it wouldn't be worth mentioning in the movie page, it might be worth mentioning on the toy page. Mathewignash (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hound?

When/where was Hound confirmed a character? There's no source cited and to my knowledge, none of the major news sites have said anything. If I somehow missed it, my bad, but I haven't seen anything about him.AristosRietze (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

IMDB's trivia section claims he's one of the jeeps NEST (the human footsoldiers for the Autobots) use. We know how reliable they are. Alientraveller (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Article and pics

Here is an article and pictures from Foxnews and Huffington Post. Didn't know if we could use any of this info on the main page. I'll leave it up to you guys. 1. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,474124,00.html 2. http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,6144,00.html 3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/transformers-sequel-first_n_154161.html 98.19.148.216 (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing new, but thank you. Alientraveller (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Toy line link

Since tht eoty line shares a name with the movie (and this is a movie based on toys), shouldn't there be a disambig link in the beginning of the article to the toy line page? Mathewignash (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Barricade on poster ?

Is it just me or does the character in the fallen poster look like Barricade, just watch the original film and there is a scene of a close up that looks similar to the poster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.170.62 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, all the bayformers look a lot alike. However, It should be noted that after seemingly dying in the comic book adaption, the comic writers (who it has been stated are in communication with the movie writers) deliberately retorconned Barricade's demise to state he's alive and sending information to Starscream. I'm guessing this is because the movie writers plan to have him be alive in movie 2. We will see. Mathewignash (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just looks like the decepticon logo to me, turned into a robot. Pretty cool, but probably nothing. Anyway, nothing here adds anything to the article. 98.19.158.204 (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

TFW's insider (http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/face-on-revenge-of-the-fallen-poster-is-the-fallen-166573/) reported that the face on the poster is The Fallen, for what it's worth. Not official, but as it isn't the face of any Decepticon we've seen thus far, and we've seen the same face on both the recently revealed Defiance comic covers and the packaging pics, it seems likely. Again, unconfirmed by a reliable source though.AristosRietze (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Transformers poster revealing more?

The poster (when lightened reveals a character "The Fallen" (drawn in the comic prequels) as confirmed by: http://4outof10.com/transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-poster-more-than-meets-the-eye/ and http://www.themovieblog.com/2009/01/transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-prequel-comic-defiance.

The first link describes the similarity to the Decepticon logo but it is conjecture. Shouldn't there be a mention in this article regarding this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truegent (talk • contribs) 10:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's encyclopedic to put a brightened version of the official poster in the infobox. Alientraveller (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Devastator Source

This all seems a bit bit thin, TFW2005 showing an image dug up from what as best as I can tell is a Japanese toy forum, is this really WP:RS and warrant inclusion in the article? Oosh (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Two things will either happen; Bay will say Devastator will look slightly different when rendered on screen, pleased fans have responded well to his 120 feet tall robotic gorilla; or Hasbro will request TFW2005 remove the image or risk their unofficial ties. I have yet to see a truly fake piece of concept art; this confirms and validates (or, as some may see it, validated by) the rumours that Devastator was a multi-coloured behemoth shaped like a gorilla, formed by a red excavator, a yellow crane, a massive turbine formed by a concrete mixer, and a green dump truck designed by Josh Nizzi for a leg. :) Alientraveller (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, all the concept art seems to play out, but at the risk of being a pedant it doesn't make it reliable. Oosh (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What's that motto, "verifiability, not truth, is the threshold of Wikipedia"? According to all news sites, this is a leaked promotional image of Devastator, and the same pic of him is being used on a background with Megatron and the Fallen. It doesn't matter who found it first, there's an image of Devastator and we don't know the filmmakers rejected this design (like Soundwave's Silverado form, or Megatron's original narrow head that appeared on all the merchandise for the first film). Alientraveller (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

SEVEN Constructicons officially named now?

The licensed Transformers Collectors Club has boxed pictures of Constructicons named Demolishor (the red Terex excavator, body) and Rampage (the yellow Caterpiller bulldozer, left leg) on their web site. So we seem to have verifiable names for these two guys. Also, these vehicle modes and colors match that "leaked" list from a while ago. This site is licensed by Hasbro, so it seems official enough to be a source. Mathewignash (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had implemented that but for some reason it got reverted, probably got lost in a revert to other edits adding rumours. Alientraveller (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any official source on the four Constructicion names? I know some TF sites have called them Mixmaster, Long Haul, Hightower and Scrapper, but I don't recall seeing it from an OFFICIAL source yet. Mathewignash (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Long Haul's Robot Heroes figure is named as such in TFCC's site. The other three though, there's an issue, it seems TFormers might have assumed they would have their G1 names but it's verifiable per Wikipolicy as the article was Toy Fair related. Might be worth keeping until a better source contradicts it, I doubt the mixer truck will have a different name. Alientraveller (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I was doubting that they will use the name Mixmaster because Hasbro's legal department hasn't okayed the use of Mixmaster on a toy name since 1993. They keep calling homages to Mixmaster in other lines by the name Quickmix (the Universe Constructicons 2004), or leaving Mixmaster out of the set (like Classics 2007). I'm hoping maybe they got permission to use something like "Decepticon Mixmaster" Mathewignash (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We have photos of a toy for 'Long Haul" now , which isn't much of a surprise, he's been the name of a member of every Construction group except Energon (where he was Long Haul in Japan, but the US toy was renamed Duststorm and painted blue for no apparent reason.) Mathewignash (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hasbro has posted a page with the Constructicons on it, and they list Hightower, Mixmaster and Scrapper as the remaining three limbs, but oddly they also call Demolishor by the name "Scavenger". I wonder if t his is another case like movie Brawl/Devastator where there was a name change or somesuch, and some people got the memo, others didn't, or ignored it. Also, probably for Trademark purposes, the combined for is called "Constructicon Devastator". This maybe seperates him from the first movie's "Devastator". Mathewignash (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots on focus on the Decepticons eh

There seems to be a lot of attention going onto the bad guys here(granted it may have something to do with me being a bit messy(doing loads of links at once wasnt such a great idea) Behellmorph (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Alientraveller (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not like there's all of a sudden a huge flood of information on the Decepticons with no attention being paid to the Autobots, if that's what you mean. In the last week there's been confirmation of Mudflap and Skids as the Trax and Beat, and Wheelie for the Autobots; the names of the individual Constructicons and the Audi R8 were confirmed for the Decepticons. I wouldn't call that undue attention to the Decepticons, just adding new characters as they've been revealed, which has been pretty much the standard for this article since day 1.AristosRietze (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What should be done regarding Barricade and Sideways. A lot of people believe Barricade renames himself and becomes Sideways. If this revelation is revealed to be true, how would this effect the two characters and their respective articles? Would the two characters be kept in their separate articles or fused into one, or would it be like how Megs and Galvatron are the same characters as they have different articles - but this is only important if Barricade and Sideways are the same person. Evilgidgit (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If fact come out in the film on the two characters being one then the articles would probably be merged under the latest name of the character, but until it's proved it's just fan speculation and probably isn't worthy of mention. Mathewignash (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for the response Evilgidgit (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wheeljack

can anyone confirm he will be in the movie as an Saab Aero-X AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Doubt it. Mathewignash (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Near as I can tell nothing has changed since this was last discussed (See archive). Oosh (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey

This is Jal11497 speaking. Hey, who erased my addition? After all, Ian Bryce is one of the producers of both films. But why take off the other executive producers? Come On! Jal11497 (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I created an article for Ian Bryce and linked him, but listing all of them is indiscriminate. Alientraveller (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AlienTraveller. I also was told (but that someone had a point) that the unkonwn puppet on set was, well, Laserbeak. I also created two pages, Spider-Man: Back in Black and Marvel Adventures Avengers (which was created long ago). This is Jal11497 speaking. Signing out!Jal11497 (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it was reliable, and if you have an account, please stay logged in at all times. Alientraveller (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I will probably list down the official credits of the movie in my talk soon. Jal11497 (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What's an SS?

Since it was asked.. the 2010 Chevy Camaro SS seems to be a final production version of the car, not the mock up prototype of the car which Bumblebee was in the first film. Mathewignash (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

[8] Interesting, should be implemented. Alientraveller (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Fallen and teaser trailer

Interesting, as it might explain The Fallen's nature and how he's portrayed in this film: Did anyone notice in the teaser how The Fallen seems to "appear" in a bolt of lighting when confronting the American desert troops? I understand the character, especially in regards to his description in this article, is somewhat of a Lucifer inspired being, but does he have any cosmic powers not listed here? I'm wondering if the Facebook fan club trailer is different than the main website, so here is the link: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/video/video.php?v=1094345163819 Veracious Rey (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Veracious, long time no see! :D It's been speculated the Fallen can teleport or has a cloaking device, but that's not appropriate to the article for now. In the comics and it seems in the film, he's a fiery being though. Alientraveller (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How have you been Alien? Yeah, I kind of see my self as someone who throws a few tidbits towards the article once and a while, and lets everyone else sort it out :) If the speculation is true, Fallen should be an exciting addition to the film. Kudos to you and others who have made this an excellent article. Veracious Rey (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

megatron

so is he in the film as a tank or not i dont get it AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

what don't you get? 98.19.144.163 (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

First Michael Bay officially announced he's not in the movie, also also officially announced he's going to lie about the movie to throw people off the plot. Then the toy line has leaked with several "tank" Megatron toys, then Roberto Orci said he is just a few says ago "Megatron returns." So all signs point to him coming back and Bay being a liar. Mathewignash (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit dispute with user Bold Clone

This user keeps editing back some changes I've made to the Autobots section.

First, he keeps setting the voice actors as the headings for each bot's listing, which I have to disagree with. It's supposed to be a list of robots, not a list of people who play robots' voices in a movie.

Secondly, I removed the 'fifth generation' specification for Bumblebee's alt mode, leaving it just at 'Chevrolet Camaro', as the 5th gen model is not the only alt mode he adopted in the first movie. If the statement refers to its current form, i.e. in the second movie, the sentence should be changed to present tense. Uker (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, present tense for your latter point. But you are wrong about listing characters before cast. Only Cullen and Ryan are confirmed. Alientraveller (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you somehow justify your saying that the voice cast's names should go before the names of the bots, or why they sould be in bold text? Again, the list is about the robots and the information is supposed to be about them. The name of the voice actor is meant to be information about the robot they voice, not the other way around. Uker (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the film style guide lists the correct format: "ACTOR as CHARACTER". -Oosh (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jazz

y do people keep putting him in and out of the article u could just put at the bottom that he might return AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not. Pehaps you can direct your question at someone making an edit you don't agree with, yes? Mathewignash (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, he's dead. Sideswipe is the real silver Autobot in the second film. Alientraveller (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

laserbeak

isnt he in the film AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not according to any reliable source I've seen so far. -Oosh (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

he was in the article before then he got removed AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Because no reliable source was given. -Oosh (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Jal11497 (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Appearences

we should try to find their appearences and their weapons to put in the article AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Detailed information on the abilities of each Transformer might be better placed on the individual page for each character. I might suggest you add it there. Mathewignash (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah thats what i meant not in the article but indivisually i messed up AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironhide

is somebody named corey burton voicing him it says he succeeded jess harnell AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Corey Burton voiced Ironhide in Transformers Animated. Alientraveller (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

New Autobot Cast member

Amazon.jp has listed the toys for pre order and they listed that blue unicucle robot/motorcycle as "Chromia". We have seen there are multiple female robots in the trailer, so it seems one of them is named Chromia. 207.181.17.24 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't read Japanese, could someone else verify whether this describes the blue Autobot girl as Chromia? Frankly it makes more sense to me than having Arcee as a hive-mind but that's my speculation. Alientraveller (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it could be that the three motorcycle bots are Arcee, Chromia and (unknown fembot 3) who combine, or that the three bots (Chromia, fembot#2 and fembot#3) combine into Arcee. Either is possible. As of right now it seems that at least the blue fembike will be named Chromia in the toy line. Moreover no toy named Arcee is listed anywhere in the first few waves of ROTF toys. In the original cartoon series Chromia's two female Autobot partners were named Firestar and Moonracer. I remember that Hasbro had trouble getting the legal rights to the names for Firestar and Moonracer in 2005 when they tried to make toys of them (they renamed Firestar into Flareup and called Moonracer's toy by the name Chromia), so who knows if they can use the names now. 207.181.17.24 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Using babelfish, the word "クロミア", from the title, translates to Chromia. Moreover in 2005 Hasbro released a convention exclusive toy named Chromia. It was a blueish motorcycle. Sounds strikingly similar to this toy. http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Chromiatoydie.jpg Mathewignash (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) is this Chromia the blue motorcycle? Alientraveller (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ravage as minion of Soundwave confirmation

Looks like the Deluxe Soundwave toys fires/ejects a "Ravage Missile" [[9]] Mathewignash (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a Tank just a Cybertroian vechicle

http://www.superherohype.com/news/transformersnews.php?id=8143 http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?p=66825#post66825

And yes that is the real micheal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.165.197 (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Bay is not a reliable source. :P (well for Megatron at least) Alientraveller (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He's the director last time I checked and what the director says pretty much goes onto film. what is excatly more reliable then the director of the movie, then? and don't give me that stupid :P face and if your going off the toy you know that toys aren't excatly canon right? and that APC vehicles aren't considered tanks but like the LAV-25 have tank like weapons 24.6.165.197 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually the toys are just as "canon" as the movie in their own worlds, as both are official, and Hasbro actually owns them not Bay, but more to the point on official information on the movie Bay has stated he's a liar. He will lie to keep the movie a surprise. So in this case he is not a reliable source at all for this subject on Wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down there IP, nothing wrong with tongue-in-cheek :) To be more serious, Mathew's got it right that Hasbro's main wave of toys have to be accurate to what kids see in the film, whereas the director can, and has, lied. Alientraveller (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

John Turturro is not Jetfire

I don't know if that's a joke that no one else caught, or what...but he's just reprising Agent Simmons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alleywaykrew (talk • contribs)

It's not a joke. Maybe Turturro just had to voice Jetfire on location because they didn't have Mark Ryan in Egypt, but quite simply, Bay has revealed Turturro is voicing the film's rust bucket robot. Alientraveller (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

legions

exactly who and what are they AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A legion. Alientraveller (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant Megatrons legions AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what about his soldiers? Alientraveller (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

who are they are they just his soldiers AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Release date

how come the poster says 6/26/09 while the article says 6/24/09 AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It was moved up to 24 June. Alientraveller (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What types of motorcycles are Arcee, Chromia and "female TF #3?"

We have films of the motorcycles in action. Has anyone identified the types of motorcycles used? Perhaps ask some cycle experts? Mathewignash (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Where are the videos of the bikes? Uker (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

are we sure thats the 3rd motorcycle and those are the voice actors cuz im not so sure AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

USA Today April 1st Article

This article seems to contradict a lot of what we know about the movie. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-04-01-transformers-first-look_N.htm I"m wondering if maybe it's either an April Fool's joke by Bay, misinformation, or just out of date. It mentioned 7 Constructions, and Demolishor isn't one of them, he's a seperate 8th Decepticon. It says Arcee is the ONLY female Transformer. It says there is a character called "The Doctor", which it has a picture of, but this character looks identical to the recently leaked toy called "Scalpel" http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-04-01-transformers-first-look_N.htm Mathewignash (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Need a link to Scalpel, as for Demolishor it seems like it's the whole Scavenger confusion again. This official list of robots (which is still keeping some secret, like Megatron and Alice) also popped up on Yahoo. Alientraveller (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point I'm thinking we need to take this article with a grain of salt. It sounds more like misinformation or an April Fools joke than news about the movie. They source Bay in it, and Bay is an admitted liar, so can we ignore the things in it that contradict the stuff we know? Mathewignash (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, I've done that. At least we know Scalpel is in the film (he looks awesome, sue me, I liked Frenzy too). Alientraveller (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is NO evidence that this article is an April Fool's joke. Enough with the conspiracy theories.

Wheelie

HOLD ON! Wheelie isnt a permante decepticon! He starts as a decepticon and then becomes an autobot so shouldn't wheelie be in the autobot list??-69.118.78.130 (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah actually, is there any reason he was moved other then to follow some official list that doesn't mention the majority of robots in the film? Alientraveller (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I swear if its because "Wheelie is anyoing." I'm gonna puke besides I LOVE Wheelie hes cute in the cartoon and he is still loveable to me in the movie like mabe wheelie has a cute personality? I mean Wheelie is a child in the cartoon mabe he is a child in the movie as well!-69.118.78.130 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Um ok, I'm not sure what that was supposed to relate to the subject but I'll go and put Wheelie back as an Autobot. Alientraveller (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :D-69.118.78.130 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"List of Robots Revealed"

I'm not sure we can arbitrarily throw out previously referenced characters based on one article that appeared on April Fool's Day and is missing most of the bots that appear in the movie, notably Megatron. [10] It seems that this may be only a partial list. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 22:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

April fools? Are you fucking stupid? That's not an April Fools joke. The article mentions Scorponok returning even though his fate was not revealed in the movie. Why would Barricade not be mentioned then? He's not as important as Megatron after all. Megatron returning is supposed to be a surprise even though people thought he died. I'll remove the list but Barricade returning has NOT been confirmed. Orci only said that his fate will be explained. And police cars returning could mean anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.54.153 (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2009

About Barricade

I know we don't consider the preview comic (Alliance) book a great source for info, but the writer stated on his web site that he was very limited in on how he ended the series and where each character was. They had Barricade appear, and he got away alive again. Sorta indicating that the movie writers wanted him alive for the movie. They also had Sideswipe, Arcee Chromia, the third motorcycle fembot and the ice cream van arrive on Earth and join the Autobots in response to Optimus Prime's signal from the end of the 2007 film, Demolishor arrived in Shanhai, and Soundwave was in orbit, sending a wave of Decepticons to Earth. So I'm guessing this is how the movie opens. Mathewignash (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read Alliance, but I've looked at Orci's posts on Murphy's forum and he's refused to confirm whether Barricade is in the film. To be honest, I'm partly wondering if they'd intended Sideways to be Barricade until Hasbro slapped another name on him (and I've asked Orci this on the forums but he only said "We'll see"). Alientraveller (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Could be that Sideways is the new identity/upgrade for Barricade once he reveals he's not loyal to Megatron, but to the Fallen. Mathewignash (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Who knows. Also, we've seen Barricade toy that finally includes his hood claws and telescopes, but we've also seen a deluxe desert decoed Brawl from the first film, so that's not a good indicator either. Alientraveller (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally I just saw they are re-packaging the Universe Bruticus Maximus combiner set as a Target store ROTF exclusive, and it has a limb named Brawl in the set. So that means we are getting two Brawl toys in ROTF's toy line. Of course in the toy bio fiction Brawl survived, went to the desert and painted himself tan. Evedently he then joined up with 4 other Decepticons and became part of a combiner group, OR some new Decepticon, thinking he was dead, took his name. Mathewignash (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, we need to know whether a toy is actually depicting what happens in the film. I personally believe Barricade is in the movie considering we've seen so little footage, but again it's unverifiable. Alientraveller (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt he's in the movie. We would have seen him in the trailers like Scorponok and Starscream by now. However, if I'm proven wrong. I will apologize. That I promise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.41.181 (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

IF the suits wanted to spare barrics then there has to be a reason, soemone would never spare a character unless they have plans for them and they did say that the comic is in cannon so unless Barrics died in the 4th issue of Allience so it does make scense for him to come back, unless what Mathewignash appears to be correct which would be pretty goodBehellmorph (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Las Vegas sighting

So, I was in Vegas this past week, and saw some cool things. Outside Paris Las Vegas, there were the car forms of Bumblebee, Skids, and Mudflap. They also had a full-size replica of the transformed Bumblebee. Worth mentioning? 67.183.168.172 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really, but it'd be nice if you donated some photographs to Wikimedia Commons. The Chevrolet Trax article doesn't have a picture of the car. Alientraveller (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Soggy, we only took pictures of Bumblebee. 67.183.168.172 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Voice of The Fallen

Not sure is it also on other news source, but according to <a href="http://sanitarium.fm/">sanitarium.fm</a>, it said it will be voiced by Leonard Nimoy (Spock in Star Trek if you don't reconize this name at all ... lol.)
So, someone please add him to the actors list =) 76.252.140.53 (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an unreliable source. The official story is they want him to play the voice, he hasn't been signed on to play it yet. Mathewignash (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Robot Problems

In the toy, Wheelie is a reformed Decepticon. In Yahoo! Movies and an official list released, he is a Decepticon. Chromia and Barricade are not in the list. Demolisor is not part of Devastator. That sums up the six Constucticons, eh? They also did not include Megatron but Yahoo! Movies said,

Noticeably absent from the list is the Decepticon leader, Megatron, who was killed at the end of the previous movie and last seen being dumped in the ocean. Michael Bay denied that Megatron is in the movie, but actor Hugo Weaving said in an interview that he had recorded dialogue for the part. We'll see if and how he returns when "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" opens on June 24th.[11]

The list is here:
Autobots:
Optimus Prime, Ironhide, Bumblebee, Ratchet, Arcee, Sideswipe, Jetfire, Jolt, Skids & Mudflap (The Twins)
Decepticons:
Starscream, Scorponok, The Fallen, Sideways, Soundwave, Ravage, The Doctor, Wheelie, Demolishor (is a Constucticon but not part of Devastator), and Devastator (Scrapper, Mixmaster, Hightower, Longhaul, Rampage and Overload)

Jal11497 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several conflicting lists of official characters, and Bay released those lists. Bay said he was going to purpusly lie about things to keep surprises in the film, so most lists are probably wrong. We do our best to source the characters who will appear, and will probably be correcting the list when the movie gets released and we know the truth. Mathewignash (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Barricade Removed?

Why was Barricade removed from the Decepticon list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.152.83 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Barricade did appear in the film, but for a short time? If that's the case, here is my opinion of why Barricade may appear in a short time or not appear at all.

1. Barricade did die off-screen during the first film.
2. Barricade died during the beginning or middle of the second film.
3. Baricade cameos in any part of the film.
4. Barricade will survive the second film and will become the leader of the Decepticons in a possible third film.

Jal11497 (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Look for previous discussions please: Orci has not confirmed whether Barricade will actually appear, and according to The Veiled Threat Optimus buried him alive in Rome. Alientraveller (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Decepticon Demolishor and Constructicon Scavenger are officially different characters

Hasbro put a cast list on their web site with Demolishor listed as a seperate Decepticon, and the 7 Constructicons listed as Scavenger, Scrapper, Hightower, Longhaul, Rampage, Overload and Mixmaster. [12] Mathewignash (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we agree the list was inaccurate? Alientraveller (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when it was from a shakey newspaper article. Now it's from Hasbro on their web site. Correct em if I'm wrong, but I've never seen a single source that said Demolishor is a Constructicon besides fans just assuming it from the toy box of the Demolishor being a Terex Excavator. They ALWAYS call him Scavenger. The Demolishor toy box never makes reference to the word "Constructicon", and every picture of the combining toy says "Scavenger". Besdies the fact that they are both red Terex Excavators is there ANY proof Demolishor is a Constructicon? Also, there have been bots who share an alternate mode before. It's not unpresidented, or it's possible Demolishor BECOMES Scavenger, but that's fan theory, and shuldn't be mentioned on the page. Mathewignash (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to err on the side of not trusting the Hasbro site. Hasbro (the company) may be intimately involved with the movie, but that doesn't mean that any statement from anyone or anything associated with Hasbro is reliable. An interview with Aaron Archer would be pretty pretty definitive. A list that's an exact copy of one from a poor news article in a poorly populated news section of Hasbro's website? Not so much. Especially when one of the only other articles in the section explicitly states that Devastator is composed of six Constructicons, directly contradicting this article. Until a better source gives evidence of either a seventh Constructicon or two Decepticons both using the Terex Excavator (which logically seems like way too much of a stretch for a movie that won't even follow the LONG tradition of Megatron renaming himself to Galvatron upon a major upgrade for fear of confusing the audience), I'd suggest we consider the list an unreliable source and ignore it. Most likely, it's either just a Devastator/Brawl style name goof-up or a new twist on Hasbro's long tradition of creating multiple characters that don't exist in the corresponding fiction from a single mold. Teratron (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether it endsup being true or not, isn't it the OFFICIAL information, and therefore the only information worth citing until we learn otherwise? Mathewignash (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur, verifiability not truth is the threshold of Wikipedia, and for the record Demolishor and Scavenger aren't even the same colour. Alientraveller (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that verifiability is the threshold, and it's certainly easy enough to put a link to this page and call it verified. My only objection is reliability. Even ignoring all original research/speculation matters, the same news section with this article listing seven Constructicons has another article explicitly stating Devastator is composed of six Constructicons. On that basis alone, Hasbro's news site has, at best, questionable reliability. I think it's worth mentioning both Demolishor and Scavenger in the article, as there are verifiable references to both. But I think there needs to be a note that there is a lot of contradictory official information. E.g., it was worth noting that Michael Bay claimed Megatron wouldn't be back, but his statement wasn't reliable enough to delete his character entry. Likewise, I argue that this list isn't reliable enough to include Demolishor and Overload as movie chracters without a note that the source is questionable. Teratron (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this clear first off: a USA Today interview with Orci and Kurtzman and Paramount poster listing some of the robots in the film have both stated Demolishor and Scavenger are separate characters, and the former is not a Devastator component. Alientraveller (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've seen the article you mention - "First look: Robo-brawlers big, small in new 'Transformers'". However, it should be noted that it does not contain the writers listing off characters, and listing Demolishor separately from Scavenger. It just lists the characters, and happens to have a few quotes from the writers throughout, though none on either Demolishor or Scavenger. As for the poster, the article on Hasbro's site simply shows a picture of this poster, yes? Meanwhile, there's an article linked in Demolishor's entry where the writers confirm that Demolishor is one of the Constructicons that form Devastator. Of course, in this same interview, they also refer to him as Wheelbot. Given the multiple names that every character had in the first movie, I can't see how anyone would be surprised that even the people most intimately involved in the movie flub some of the names every now and then. Also, while the toys for Demolishor and Scavenger are different shades of red, that's hardly conclusive proof of anything. Ultimately, this all goes back to my main point from my last post. We should list both Demolishor and Scavenger, but there needs to be a note that there IS contradictory evidence as to whether they're different bots or different names for the same bot. Maybe I should refine my previous statement to say it's an NPOV issue rather than a reliability issue. Teratron (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they are brothers User:Dark Warrior D 15:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not noticing before Alientraveller, but I see you changed the description for Demolishor to say he's predominately white on the day you stated he's not the same color as Scavenger. Do you have a verifiable source for this statement? Looking through the references listed for Demolishor, I see that the slashfilm story uses a picture of a white Terex Excavator for a comparison, highlighting the visible RN 400 to prove it's the same vehicle. However, this is just a picture of a random Terex Excavator, not any material from the movie. The lighting in the trailer referenced is so poor, I'm not seeing how you can reliably conclude what color his vehicle mode is in the movie. Clearly, the section with the RN 400 is white. But the multiple verifiable Demolishor toy phots clearly show a red excavator with white trim in exactly that portion of the vehicle. In fact, most of the clearly visible white portions of the wheelbot in the trailer that I can make out are also white on the predominately red Demolishor figure. The Scavenger figure is extremely similar, also being predominately red with white trim in the same locations. Given the highly reliable and verifiable identification of Demolishor as a predominately red excavator, I think your statement that he's predominately white and usage of that statement as evidence of Demolishor being a separate character from Scavenger really needs some strong backup. On a similar note, is there any source for your statement that Overload is a red Constructicon? So far, I can only find contradicting evidence for his very existence, much less any clear source for his color scheme. I seem to recall references to an unknown red Constructicon a while back. Are you just assuming that this must be Overload? If so, that strikes me as the sort of unsourced speculation that you are normally quick to delete from this page... (Oh, and apologies for practically writing an entire article every time I post. I'm not very good at being concise. >_<) Teratron (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they are both red excavators. They toys are both certainly red. Mathewignash (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with Mathewignash that for now we should list them as separate characters due to multiple (non-film) sources listing them as separate characters. However, I really doubt that the movie will reflect the toys or the "cast list poster." Rather, Demolishor and Scavenger are one character (whichever his in-film name will be remains to be seen), fought by Prime in Shanghai and then surviving to form Devastator's torso in Egypt. — JGoodman (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Budget

I have no problem with it, but shouldn't we mention that it is almost the same as that of The Titanic? The Titanic's budget, and this film's are almost the same, and The Titanic's was also the largest film budget in history. Altenhofen 05:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Titanic was topped long ago. Bay's films have always been relatively low budget and cost effective. Alientraveller (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What film topped the titanics Budget? The War of the worlds article stated that they where planning to top the 198 Million dollar budget set by the titanic, and become the most expensive film EVER. If that's true, and this film lived up to it's budget, then it will obtain the title of "Most expensive film ever made" (even though War of the Worlds was only $132 Million) Altenhofen 19:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

King Kong, Spider-Man 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End... Alientraveller (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Man, 'Titanic' is a movie. 'The Titanic' as you call it is a boat. Uker (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Humans and Transformers

Uhh, who moved the humans below the Transformers?

I know relatively no one cares about the humans, besides Megan Fox, but why? I liked the way it was because it was like they were saving the best for last. Aw well. I hope someone puts em back where they were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.184.230 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Randommman29 (talk · contribs) apparently wants the sectioning to be in alphabetical order, but he's also stated he believes the humans aren't important, when clearly they are the protagonists in the films. People should just accept things are different from the comics and cartoons. Alientraveller (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jetfire walking on a cane

Man, I don't want to sound rude, but asking for a source on Jetfire walking on a cane is like asking a source for Skids being green. I think it was the first thing ever that was known about Jetfire, dating as far back as the first trailer (not the teaser), with the scene with Scorponok jumping over him. Then there's the scene of him in the Boneyard on the ShoWest footage, where he is seen walking with it as clearly as you could ask for, and there's the scene in the theatrical where you see him approaching Sam, where you can also see the cane as clear as it could get. Also, you can take a look at his toys. I don't think any additional source citations are needed, since he is seen with the cane in ref named 'trailerbreakdown2', already referenced in Jetfire's section. Anyway, I leave this for ya: Jetfire's cane. Uker (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Constructicon Error

There's something wrong here :

Demolishor,[95] a predominantly white Terex O&K RH 400 hydraulic mining excavator, who is the protector of a small Decepticon community in Shanghai.[107][108] The writers simply called him "Wheelbot".[19] The Constructicons / Devastator, a 100 to 120 foot tall warrior formed by several combining construction vehicles, who walks in a four-legged fashion resembling a gorilla.[103] His jaws can open up to form some sort of suction vortex, and he seems to have grappling hooks he is seen using to climb a pyramid.[2] In the first film, the name "Devastator" was mistakenly given to Brawl, a tank. In the theatrical trailer for the movie, Long Haul, Mixmaster, and two unidentified Constructicons are seen heading down to the bottom of the ocean in hunt of Megatron's corpse, ultimately reactivating their fallen leader. Scavenger,[95] a Terex O&K RH 400 hydraulic mining excavator. He forms Devastator's torso.[109]

Are "Demolishor" and "Scavenger" The same thing or is this a mistake?

Also "Overload" doesn't have a write up of what it turns into, or what part it plays in the forming of "Devastator"

Thanks in advance 210.215.75.3 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the official material has been listing Scavenger and Demolishor as seperate bots, but yeah, they sure look alike. Until the movie comes out to correct this, we went with the "official" information. Mathewignash (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Demolishor is beheaded, probably by Prime, in Shanghai, which we know is towards the beginning of the movie. Scavenger is there to form Devastator in the final scene in Egypt. They're separate characters, so stop removing either of the two. Uker (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For my own curiosity's sake, is there any source for that information? I've seen speculation about whether the wheelbot from the trailer is killed in that scene or escapes, but I haven't seen anything with any degree of reliability to it. Also, is there any source that says Devastator is definitely formed from a second Excavator bot? Given that we already know that at least two bots get resurrected in this film, it's no stretch to believe the wheelbot in the trailer could get killed at the start of the film and still show up to help form Devastator at the end. Teratron (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Uker came to his conclusion based off the Showest footage. He had a post on this over at the TFW2005 boards. Personally, I don't think an unclear one-second clip is sufficient to establish the fate of Demolishor and/or determine whether or not there will be two identical RH400 excavator wheel-bots in the film. While the film is superior canon to everything else in the live-action continuity, it hasn't been released yet, so we should stick to referring to them as separate characters since we only have access to inferior canon material, i.e. the toys.

Also, semi-related to this as well as to last week's exchange about Overload, it seems a new Devastator toy is out, and this time it's an actual combiner and it's composed of seven Constructicons. The seventh is Overload, and as excpected he's red. However, the toy portrays him as a dump truck rather than a tread-bot. Of course, the trailer establishes the two red Constructicons as a wheelbot and a smaller treadbot. But once again, though the toys are inferior canon we must go by them until the movie comes out and clarifies things. — JGoodman (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Uker, I know this "Demolisher gets decapitated" thing is a pet theory/speculation of yours. I saw the thread. However, I'm not convinced. I just re-watched that part of the Showest footage several times over just a minute ago, and I don't see anything falling or flying off of Demolisher, much less anything clearly displaying decapitation. I see an explosion, and I see the robot move a bit, but that's about it. In fact, while it does vaguely look like him, I can't be 100% certain that it is Demolisher, but I'll assume it is since it doesn't really look at all like anyone else. The whole scene lasts at most only one second. It is not clear what exactly happens to Demolisher. It's certainly not sufficient evidence to claim as fact that he gets decapitated. Therefore, until the movie comes out to clarify things, the whole "Demolisher gets decapitated" claim should be considered original research. — JGoodman (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Man, I'm not being a child here. Look at Demolishor's mandibles in the screenshot of him destroying the overpass and then look at the top of that chunk of metal in the ShoWest trailer. It's not speculation. It's a matter of realizing what it is and then it becomes clear as day. I leave the link again just in case here. BTW, I don't know what you expected to see fall off Demolishor. The only things we have is Optimus Prime jump hanging off his head when he breaks the overpass, and then that shot that coincidentally looks like a HUGE head with mandibles IDENTICAL to those seen in Demolishor, exploding on a street in Shanghai. Sure, we could get Pastafarian and say it may not be Demolishor that just got his head chopped off, but hey... Uker (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said you were being a child. In any case, I've looked at the Showest footage and the corresponding screenshot ad nauseam. I've seen your thread already (saw it last week). I'm not convinced. You think it's clear that Demolishor gets his head cut off. You think it's "clear as day" and therefore not speculation. For me, if you or anyone else claims as fact that a character gets his head cut off, I except clear-cut (no pun intended) evidence showing a head being removed from a body, not some <1 second flash where you can't tell for sure what happens. Said snippet of footage does not unambiguously show that Demolishor gets his block knocked off.

I have my own pet theory regarding the Constructicons that we discussed last week. For me, I think it's clear who functions as what, the key word there being "think." I think Overload is the red treadbot and he functions as Devastator's face. You think Demolishor gets his head lopped off. The difference between our claims is that I'm not sticking mine into the article as if it were fact. However correct I think I am, I still regard my claims as mere speculation. You should do so as well in regards to your own claims. — JGoodman (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did put it in the article. You just accepted it being removed, as I will also have to, seeing that you (and I guess others) doubt what I consider to be fact. No hard feelings then. Uker (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I put what in the article? All I've done in the four edits I've made to it was remove unconfirmed/unconfirmable material. Things that aren't properly sourced or are based on vague, ambiguous sources don't belong, and any theories & speculation belongs here in the discussion page or in online forums. — JGoodman (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody did add Overload being red and forming the face, which I removed. I though it had been you. Sorry if it wasn't. Uker (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's okay. I never saw that edit. Of course, I'm not the only one to come to the conclusion that Overload forms Devs' face. Out of curiosity, I did some Googling after I thought of my idea and I found a post by one of your fellow posters over at the TFW2005 boards that said pretty much the same thing. Odds are, someone saw either my post here or his post there or came to the same conclusion independently, and then insisted on making the wiki article reflect the "Overload is Devastator's face" theory as if it were fact, when of course it's still speculation. — JGoodman (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced voice credits.

It appears that some of our anonymous contributors insist on adding voice credits to several Transformers without providing a source. This nonsense needs to stop. Whoever keeps doing this needs to either provide sources or desist with those edits. I think that we should move to make this article semi-protected if these sort of edits persist. We shouldn't have to keep going in an deleting stuff that shouldn't have been added in the first place. — JGoodman (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Um. You must have missed when one of these people said that they know they're not the real actors, but they were adding them in order for Michael Bay to take them into consideration. Go figure. Uker (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw what they wrote, and it doesn't belong in the article. Only confirmed voice talent belongs there. — JGoodman (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, besides if you listen to the third movie trailer closely, you'll hear that Mudflap already has a voice actor due to a shout that comes from the character. The voice actors will likely be revealed sooner or later. Evilgidgit (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, JGoodman, I'd dare to say I do have a clue of what belongs in Wikipedia and what does not. I wasn't defending the people adding those voice credits. Contrarily, I was remarking that the edit was more pathetic than just adding unsourced information. It was deliberately adding false information for a silly personal cause. The 'Go figure' part at the end of my post should have told you that. Uker (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I should've asked for clarification on what you meant. I'm not particularly good at reading people and/or their intentions and sometimes misinterpret what they meant to convey. :( — JGoodman (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Things will be fine as long as they're discussed in civilized terms. ;) Uker (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mudflap

it looks like devastator sucks him into his mouth at the end of a trailer do u think we should mention it AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would we? This page isn't here to post intricate details about the trailers when we have no idea where they will figure into the plot. So in other words, no.AristosRietze (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no point. The scene is not relevant in any way to the generality of the movie. Uker (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

i meant it looks like he dies AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

However we don't know if he dies, it's just a snippit. Mathewignash (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Arcee redefined

Well, it seems like the conception of Arcee has changed. She's now an entity composed of three bikes, which probably don't even have their own names in the movie. In any case, we only know the name for Chromia, from her toy. Maybe it's better to remove the bulleted list with the characters and maybe mention Chromia as an exception for having got a name. This would imply the deletion of her bio data. If everyone's OK with that I'll do it sometime soon. Uker (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

From the looks of it Arcee's bikes were given indivudual names and characteizations in the toy line, but in the comic and novel it's all just Arcee. Mathewignash (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't go looking for a source right now, as all the relevant sites are filtered here at work, but I do remember older news that stated Arcee was the combined robot. Now the newer information seems to confirm this, so it's definitely worth noting in the article. Just one note of caution: the related books and comics for the first film had several (sometimes critical) plot points that were directly contradicted by the actual movie (e.g. when Megatron was moved to the dam, which was critical to the prequel novel), along with several others that weren't contradicted, but also weren't supported (e.g. Barricade's fate). As in other situations where there are multiple contradictory sources of official information, I suggest both be pointed out. I.e., list Arcee as the combined bot for now, but still note that the pink motorcycle toy is named Arcee. Teratron (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I'm wary about using novels & comics as information sources as they often contradict each other and may end up contradicting the film despite any "Official" status they may have. For example, Barricade has had several different fates. We have no clue whether or not he'll be in the film. While they may be very similar, the RotF novel & comic adaptations may not reflect the events of the film. In fact, I've read the novelization spoilers, and there seem to be inconsistencies between it and what's been shown in the trailers and even some things that appear to be omitted. I also doubt that any adaptation would be exactly like the film (novelizations rarely are exactly like the film), or else where's the surprise? While Arcee might be one character capable of splitting into three independent components (sort of like the reverse of the Twins and the Constructicons), the three cycle-bots might end up being separate characters. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks. In any case, unless there's some policy against having novelization material in an article about a film, I have no problem in having said material in the article so long as it's mentioned as being as such. — JGoodman (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Jolt

does he hold his whips in his hand or are they retractable like optimus's blades AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Alice revealed in the books

Alice seems to be a Decepticon who scanned an animatronic Alice in Wonderland amusement part character for her alt mode. So she transforms into a human-looking animatronic robot from her true Decepticon form. She is indeed the stick-puppet robot seen on Sam's window in early footage. That's her real form. Mathewignash (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jetfire and Optimus

Seems less then combine as much Ratchet uses the parts of the dying Jetfire to upgrade Optimus into a form that can fight the Fallen. Mathewignash (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Breakaway

Is Breakaway in the film, tough question. He's been confirmed to be playable in the game and he has a toy in the movie line. BUT... no one has confirmed or denied that he will actually BE in the film... so it remains to be seen whether or not he will actually feature in the film. User:Dark Warrior D 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Another character to watch for is Springer. He has an upcoming Legends and Robot Heroes toy, and in the 2007 movie they only gave those toys to character appearing in the film (and Cliffjumper, since he was an easy repaint). Mathewignash (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Transformers Universe Preview

I reverted some edits that added information based on the so called 'Transformers Universe Preview'. This information is TERRIBLY wrong in every imaginable aspect. First off, the images of Devastator don't match his current depiction in the trailers (no red face, Scavenger writings don't match). Then, his figures are ridiculous. 46 foot tall? Optimus Prime is about 30 feet tall and he is a puppet near Demolishor, let alone Devastator. Devastator is easily 90 feet tall. Then 24 tons? You've got to be kidding. The RH-400 alone weighs 790 tons! Devastator must be around five times that, ie about 4000 tons!!! Then Megatron a triple changer? Showing the same jet design he had in the first movie? Where do his massive treads go now? Sure they aren't just calling for hype using a picture from the first movie? I could go on but I don't think I have to. Uker (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. — JGoodman (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As unrealistic as it may seem, it would seem to be official, therefore sourced and Wiki-appropriate. Also, it should be noted that Demolishor IS NOT Scavenger, so you can't compare size. Also, 46 feet is basically how high it is to his back on all four limbs, Hee'd be 120 feet tall if he stood up straight. Also, for Megatron, the comic book adaption has him turning into a jet AND tank, and the Universe writeup says jet and tank. The only info we have of tank-only is the toy. Are you saying the TOY is a better source than the official guidebook and the comic book adaption of the script? Mathewignash (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it official? I looked up the product page on DK's website and did some Googling, but found nothing indicating that the book is official (though it's obviously a legitimate, licensed product). Does anyone have a copy, and if so, does it say whether it's official or not? Of course, we have several "official" resources (comics, novels) that openly contradict each other and probably won't exactly reflect what we see in the film.

In any case, some of the info in the "Movie Universe" book is suspect. Devastator's mass in particular has to be a typo. 24 tons? That's a bit more than a third the mass of the nearly 70-ton M1 Abrams tank and well under the combined mass of the vehicles that compose him (around 1400 tons). It's also only about 2-½ times the mass of The Fallen, who is a bit scrawny for his height. Most of the Constructicons are a a lot bulkier and are similar in height to The Fallen, so they'd have to weight a lot more than his 9 tons. Now, you could argue that a Cybertronian won't weigh the same as the basis of their Earth alt-modes, but the book says the Twins weigh 1.2 tons, which is close to that of the basis of their alt-modes. We can see in the trailer that Devastator is much, much more than 20 times the size of tiny ol' Mudflap. Devastator has to weigh hundreds of tons. In addition to the mass problem, the book also states that Devastator is composed of only six Constructicons, while multiple sources indicate he's composed of seven.

Given the problematic nature of the information provided in the book, I say that we either A) shouldn't include it unless there's something that explicitly stating the book is official or is corroborated by another source (comic, novel, movie personnel statement, etc.), or B) include it, but with the caveat that it's from a source whose official status is unknown. — JGoodman (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

JGoodman: you're saying that Devastator must be in the hundreds of tons. You must have skipped the fact that I cited the Terex O&K RH-400 weighing NINE HUNDRED TONS. Also, I can imagine Long Haul and Rampage having a similar weight, so there's no way Devastator can be under THREE THOUSAND tons. I'd say around four, if not more. Uker (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because it makes no sense in real world physics does NOT mean it's unofficial. Remember that last film said Frenzy weighed 110 kilograms according to official info from the writers, but then he turned into a radio that a woman picked up with little effort on air force one.... so it seems that while it may be a glaring movie error, it's official. Sometimes writers don't do the math. I do agree however that it should be noted that these facts don't make a heck of a lot of sense in the article. I say list the facts, then point out the problems from a neutral point of view. Mathewignash (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you're stretching it. The source in itself screams 'inaccurate' to the point of ridicule. I'd say we're better off ignoring it, but let's hear what other people say. BTW, here's my source stating the RH-400's operating weight: RH-400 @ Terex. Uker (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

@Mat. As far as we know, the book isn't official. Not even DK Book's website makes that claim. Even if it were, it doesn't make it canonical. Same for the claims of the writers (actually, the 110 kg claim for Frenzy was from some tech spec card handed out at Botcon '07; those cards were inconsistent even in regards to character heights, much less weights). Unless otherwise stated by Bay & Co., the film itself is the highest level of canon. Any "official" material — novels, comics, books, tech spec cards, etc. — is inferior canon and often outright contradict each other and the film. They should be regarded as canonical only if they're not contradicted by the film. Even if it's reflected in official material, the material in the (perhaps not even official) "Movie Universe" book should be taken with a grain of salt. — JGoodman (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

@Uker. Yeah. Hundreds. Fourteen hundreds. I looked up the weight of all his known components, and here's what I found:

Terex RH400 Excavator: 980 tons

Cobelko CK2500 Crane: 238 tons

Caterpillar 992G Wheel Loader: 105 tons

Caterpillar D9 Bulldozer: 49 tons

Caterpillar 773B Dump Truck: 43 tons

Mack Granite Truck: at least 8 tons

Of course, Overload will add a bit more to that total. Now, other Decepticons have heavy alt-modes as well.

F22 Raptor: 20+ tons (empty), 30+ tons (loaded)

Buffalo Mine-protected Vehicle: 24 tons

MH-53J Pave Low Helicopter: 16 tons (empty)

M1 Abrams Battle Tank: 60+ tons

By comparison, Prime should weigh around 8 tons, Ironhide around 5 tons, Ratchet 3 tons and Bumblebee, Barricade, and all the other small guys should weigh under two tons. The idea that Devastator weighs only three times more than a Peterbilt truck is ridiculous. — JGoodman (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, I would have thought the 773B or the D9 would weigh a lot more, but yeah, I checked and your figures are about right. This now means Scavenger makes up for more than half of Devastator's weight. Cool. Uker (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's possible the book simply has a typo. Maybe they meant 24 kilotons instead of "metric tons"? Mathewignash (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

24000 tons? WTF? I'd buy it if it was 24 HUNDRED tons, but there's no way in hell he weighs 24 kilotons either. Uker (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Triple changer

i thought soundwave and mixmaster where also AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The boxes for Soundwave and Mixmaster do call them Triple Changers. Rampage had a third "Jackhammer" mode, but it's not listed as a "Triple Changer" on the box - why is only Hasbro's guess. The Megatron toy box does not list him as a Triple Changer, and the toy only has 2 modes (robot and tank), but the comic and the Universe guide both claim he can still go into jet mode, so it calls him a Triple Changer in the fiction, even if the TOY lacks this ability. Additionally in the first movie's video game Shockwave was a Triple Changer. So in the entire movie continuity we have 4 official Triple Changers, plus Rampage, who has a "third mode." Mathewignash (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The writers said (it is in the article) that they'd like to introduce triple changers in the third movie so I wouldn't expect to see any triples in this one. Uker (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Rank wrong for Robert Epps/Inconsistencies in Lennox's Attachment

Rank of Robert Epps is not Master Sgt. There is a total of 8 stripes which makes him a Chief Master Sgt.--99.144.84.116 (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Dirte D

Also, Captain Lennox is shown in the first movie to be attached to Central Command Special Operations Command-Central(CENTCOM - SOCCENT) and is thus Special Forces qualified and possesses the Special Forces tab and Airborne tab. (Interestingly enough though, he lacks the typical Green Beret. Lending further credence to his Special Warfare origins and that of his team, he sports the Crye Multicam fatigue set and plate carrier that is typically only available to those in Special Warfare units.

Megatron Retains Jet Form?

According the new Transformers: The Movie Universe Preview, Megatron retains his jet form. Check out the page on transformers.moviechronicles.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandongilbert (talk • contribs) 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look halfway up on the page you'll see there's already a topic on that (mis)information source. Uker (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Megatron also retains the jet form in the comic adaptation which was released this week. So we have two scources saying it. Mathewignash (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Title edit wars

I was surprised to see that the article title was edited quite a number of times yesterday, for those still confused on how it should be reflected I suggest that you see Wikipedia's naming conventions. Thanks. --Maverx (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Was edited once to a new title; I moved it back. the new editor didn't know the conventions as relate to the 'The' usage in titles. ThuranX (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"The" in the title isn't confirmed to be The Fallen character. It could just be the fallen of the first movie (Megatron). SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 01:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it has a double meaning. Mathewignash (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And that would be SYNTH or OR to use it as the basis for any change, which, again, we don't do. See Batman, instead of The Batman. ThuranX (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

From the official site, they're using 'the', you can't get a better reference point than that, or could you? --Maverx (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The official title has 'The' capitalized (see MichaelBay.com). Also, Batman doesn't refer to himself as 'The Batman', nor do we. I, for one, agreed to the name change. Uker (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sideways Death

Where is this statement that Sideways is killed by Sideswipe coming from? I haven't been able to find any other evidence that supports this claim, yet it's still on Sideways's page? Any thoughts on this? User:Dark Warrior D 23:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, it's from either the comic or novel adaptation of the movie (or both), which can be considered canon unless the film, which is superior canon, contradicts them. If Sideways does end up having a different fate in the film, then the article should be changed to reflect it. — JGoodman (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually both are equally valid, even if the novel or comic contradicts the movie. We will just have the film plot on the film page, the comic plot on the comics page and the novel plot on the novel's page. The page for Sideways will mention all variants of the plot, including movie, novel, comic and video game uses of Sideways. Mathewignash (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. That works, too. — JGoodman (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

New TV spots

Did anyone catch the new TV spot yet? Pure, concentrated win! — JGoodman (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's three of them. They're linked in the MichaelBay.com front page as downloadable QuickTime HD files on Vimeo. Uker (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the "Forms" one during Monday Night RAW. The others were pretty cool as well. Five weeks to go. Can't wait (though I guess I have to). — JGoodman (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I caught one of them on the TV at Applebee's last night, though from a fair distance and at a bad angle. Looked great from what I could see. Good to know where to find them online. Thanks Uker. I'll have to check that out when I get home. Teratron (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to help, I've been taking the TV spots and trailers, and re-editing them, using the comic books as a guideline for what order the scenes appear in the film. What I have done so far is up here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tcwpRRYgfg So take a look at it and suggest any additional scenes I could place in it. Issue #2 is under way next. Mathewignash (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Silver car

sam is seen hanging onto a silver car in egypt that doesnt look like a stingray concept could it be another autobot it looks nothing like the stingray concept AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A silver car is seen being sawn in half by Starscream in the Showest footage, so it can't be an Autobot. Dark Warrior D 18:42 25 2009 (UTC)

That is a normal car that Sam, Mik and Sam's college roommate escape from Alice in, and then are attacked by Blackout/Grindor, who lifts the car up on a cable. When he delivers it to Megatron and Starscream the car is sawed in half to get the humans out. Mathewignash (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a Saturn Astra, and it's not a bot. It's the one seen in the scene where Alice in bot mode (aka 'Frenzy-like puppet with dreads and beak') is on the hood trying to go through the windshield. Uker (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Scavenger's robot mode.

According an image of the EZ Collection Devastator posted in the latest article over at the Transformers Live Action Movie Blog, Scavenger's robot mode is shown to be the same as Demolishor's. This toy was shown a couple of weeks ago as well, showing the same robot mode. Therefore, the article should reflect this information.

As for my personal opinion as to what this entails, I think this lends further evidence to Demolishor and Scavenger being the same character in the film (unless they're twins like Skids & Mudflap). — JGoodman (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Until we know for sure that two characters with two different names are actually the same character, we should not post fan speculation about them being the same guy. Might as well say that Sideways is Barricade in disguise, or that Sideswipe is the resurrected Jazz. It's all fan speculation. What we know from the comics, novel and trailer is that there is one excavator that is killed in the beginning of the movie, and that there is a second one who forms part of Devastator. If they are connected more than that, we will learn by watching the movie when it is released, and THEN we will add that information to the page. Mathewignash (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, and I didn't add that speculation to the article. They are still listed as seperate characters, as they should be until the film comes out and clarifies if they are the same guy or not. All I did was revert Uker's edit where he deleted your statement that Demolishor and Scavenger have the same robot mode. — JGoodman (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

While that toy seems somewhat accurate, it is not official, and should not be taken as such. In the official toylines there is no Scavenger toy that transforms into its robot mode. The only one is the one that forms Devastator, and that one has no robot mode. The best possibility is that Scavenger does have the same robot mode as Demolishor, but there's no official source clearly stating it. Uker (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The children's book adaption has Scavenger with a wheelbot mode http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m239/RalphSkywalker/constructiconsmegatron.jpg the comic book adaption depicts Scavenger has ALSO having a wheelbot mode that looks like the Demolishor toy http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h214/Scaleface/ROTF%20comic/rf64.jpg here, and the recently shows Legends Scavenger combiner toy has a Wheelbot robot mode http://i396.photobucket.com/albums/pp43/spadaman/Robots/LegendsDev.jpg here. Scavenger as a Wheelbot identical to Demolishor is pretty much established. Mathewignash (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}}

Welcome to wikipedia and thanks for wanting to improve this article. The {{editsemiprotected}} template is used to attract attention to a change a non-autoconfirmed user wants to make to a semiprotected page. You need to specify the change and any autoconfirmed user can make the edit for you. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

prime

i hear its a posibility he dies as his vehicle mode isnt set in cairo but i thought i saw him battling megatron in egypt 70.56.21.230 (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If that happens, it's not in the novel or comic book adaption. He does go into a coma after his fight with Megatron, Starscream and Grindor, but is later revived. Mathewignash (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get that. "his vehicle mode isn't set in Cairo"? What is that supposed to mean? Prime is seen battling The Fallen in Egypt, so what gives? Uker (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

His vehicle mode isn't seen because he never takes on vehicle mode in the fight. He parachutes in as a robot while still in a coma, then they bring him online with the Matrix and he fights. No vehicle mode needed for filming. It's all CG. The other Autobots mostly drive in or Transform in battle, so they need vehicles on set. Mathewignash (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Was that a response for me? My point is he IS seen in Cairo. I don't care if it's in vehicle mode or not. Uker (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

novelization

someone says that prime defeats the fallen after being revived by the matrix and that megatron,starscream,and soundwave escape the battle or so iv'e been told AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Demolishor and Scavenger possibly two names for one bot?

Orci & Kurtzman attended a Q&A session at Botcon. Report is available at http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-toys--products-30/botcon-2009---revenge-of-the-fallen-writers-qa-session-167758/ Demolishor/Scavenger was addressed with a cryptic answer: "Demolishor & Scavenger is not an accident, there is a reason for being two names." With the adaptations and toys already out there seemingly showing two different wheelbots, it's odd that they comment that there are two names, not two bots. Especially when they seemingly state that Blackout and Grindor are both there. It's way too vague to be worth noting in the article at this point, but I figured everyone here oughta be aware of it. Teratron (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there are multiple of each body style, which is why a lot of Transformers look alike. They might not even all get individual names, except in the toy line. Also, they addressed the issue of Devastator being 6 or 7 Constructions combined. They basically said they just link up into one body with whoever is present. So Devastator can be any number of Contructicons. Mathewignash (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I sorta wondered if that might be the way they were going to handle Devastator. Given how ludicrously adaptable movie bots' bodies are, I sorta wonder if it's a situation where any bot could combine with any other bot if they really wanted or needed to. The writers mentioned they had done a lot of "robot biology" type work that wouldn't necessarily make it into the movie. I'd love to know the full story on combining for this universe. Is there some "biological" predisposition to being able to combine? Or perhaps some psychological/programming reason why most TFs could combine but don't? Wonder if Prime & Megatron might have to literally combine forces to fight off some greater threat in the third movie... Teratron (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that you noticed them saying there's two NAMES and not two BOTS. Uker (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

concept

there some concept art on [13] of optimus and jetfire combined and mixmaster just scroll down AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

theres also the sth tv spot and pictures of sounwave and sideswipe in some of the vids if u wanna see AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is only for discussion about the article. Please keep it at that. Unless you want to discuss something about the article itself, a forum is the place to go. Uker (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom Kenny as the Twins

Don't you think we should put up on the cast list that Tom Kenny voices the Twins? He's definatly voicing Skids, and it's been posted on Mudflap's page that he voices Mudflap as well? Dark Warrior D 17:11 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still not officially announced. Mathewignash (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

jolt and sideswipe

we should try to get more details on them we hardly know anything about them especially jolt AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Hasbro biography for the Jolt toy says "JOLT loves to cause trouble. More than one group of DECEPTICONS has watched in confusion as JOLT, all alone, raced around them in circles, taunting them. They're not used to AUTOBOTS acting crazy. Little do they know that it really is just an act - part of a plan to lure his enemies in close where he can deliver a crippling blow with his electro-whips." the one for Sideswipe reads "Sideswipe was built to fight. He is sleek, fast, and accomplished in battle. Focusing on his enemies with absolute attention, his blades are a shining blur as he leaps through the air, twisting to avoid enemy fire. Converting to his vehicle to drive at blazing speed, he uses every trick in the book to get close to his opponent, and put his powerful swords to work." Feel free to put those in your own words and add some personality to the bios. Mathewignash (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Demolishor details

I was somewhat rewriting the section on Demolishor and it got me wondering whether it's worth mentioning that he's the one running through the overpass. Also, in that note, when I mentioned him ending up beheaded (given that his head is seen exploding in a Shanghai street), it got removed for supposedly being unsourced. I think both are as relevant (or irrelevant for that matter) since both are sourced on simple observation of the trailers. Uker (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the comic and the novel both have Optimus killing him in the end of the second scene in the story. Moreover in the novel he makes a cryptic mention that the Fallen is coming before he dies. Mathewignash (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there's enough significance to the overpass scene to make it worth mention. The first teaser trailer really didn't show very much. Demolishor tearing through the overpass and being attacked by Optimus was really the focal point of the trailer, and was thus basically the world's introduction to the film. Also, given that there are apparently two nearly identical wheelbots, it makes sense to distinguish their appearances thus far by what little we concretely know - that one is seen on his own in the trailers, while the other is seen as a part of Devastator. Regarding his being beheaded, I think I remember there being some debate on that issue. Wasn't there disagreement over whether whatever you said was exploding was his head or not? Unless it's either blatantly obvious or sourced, that seems like original research territory to me. Although there is plenty of source material to say that he's killed by Prime thanks to the comics and novel. Teratron (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, here. I guess this is as clear as it can get. I don't know about you, but this does qualify as blatantly obvious in my book. Image Uker (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Uker, in one of the tv spots for the film Optimus is seen with Ironhide in Shanghai pointing his blaster at the ground and firing, in the showest footage for the film a chunk of metal that does look like Demolishor's head is seen exploding. My theory is that those two scenes occur back-to-back and are basically Optimus and Ironhide finishing Demolishor off. Dark Warrior D 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

True. That's at the end of the 'Wanted' trailer, should anyone care, which can be seen here. I didn't mention it since that scene being when Demolishor gets killed is indeed arguable, but I'd say there's no denying it's his head exploding in the ShoWest footage. Seeing as nobody actively disagreed, I'll add the info back in the article. Uker (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally got to take a look at the picture. Damn filters at work... I can definitely see the head in the picture since you called it out. The fact that you have to pull a couple screen shots together like that and specifically label what's what still puts it squarely in the realm of original research in my mind, but I'm certainly not going to start an edit war over it. (Besides, I'm not always too crazy about the OR policy anyway. =P ) Teratron (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Original research is kinda hard to define. For average trailer watchers, perhaps stating something that is only noticed by freeze-framing constitutes OR. This, I'd say is only one step beyond. It's not trivial to find out what's going on in the scene, but it only takes someone to point out what it is that you're seeing. Once you know what to look for, I'd say it gets pretty evident. For the sake of exemplification, I leave you this image. If you hadn't had it pointed out to you, you probably wouldn't have noticed Isabel Lucas (Alice) in the trailers, but as soon as you know it, it's glaringly obvious it's her. Uker (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just say "He is killed by Prime". I still consider your theory that he's decapitated — a very specific form of death — to be O.R. as it really isn't clear. I still don't see it, despite having looked at all the pics and comparisons. It's obviously Demolishor in the Showest footage, and he's obviously dying or getting severely wounded, but I don't think we can be more specific than that. Is his head still attached or not? Exactly what part of him is exploding? We don't know for sure, and can't clearly tell from some quick half-second flash of an explosion-occluded Demolishor. I think a more generic "He is killed" comment should be used, perhaps also with the caveat that this is only certain in the comic and novel adaptations, though I didn't add said caveat to the article. — JGoodman (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not sure what part of him is exploding? Are you suggesting he has mandibles in some other part of him? I don't get it. Anyway, when the movie launches, and you're in the theater and see his head roll and explode in the street, you'll ask yourself how you couldn't notice it before. I'll think of you people too. :) uKER (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not his head that's exploding, at least not from my perspective. The explosion seems to be located on his main body. We need a larger context (i.e. the actual film) to determine the exact cause of death. — JGoodman (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

couldnt it be his chest his weak spot Baller449 (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Are you telling me you see THIS PICTURE and you see what's exploding is his chest? I mean, WTF? Uker (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

probably not just an idea calm down Baller449 (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Decepticon third modes and Scrapper's 'personality'

First of all, there's nothing indicating any of the Constructicons will be featuring any of these 'extra' modes seen in the toys. Also, about the statement saying that Scrapper 'lives to pound his enemies into submission', it's like adding a statement saying 'he's aggressive'. I mean, he's a Decepticon. What could you expect? That's not saying much really. Also, I don't think quoting toy bios belongs here unless it reveals something clearly relevant. Uker (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's all the personality we have, and Wheelie and Jetfire were Decepticons and not aggressive, it's not a personality trait common to all Decepticons. We have no idea what modes are in the film, all character bios we have are based on toy bios and novel/comic, why stop with Demoishor's bio (needs a leader, protects other Decepticons) and not include others? Mathewignash (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the third modes' information as there's NOTHING suggesting they're in the movie (trailers, pictures, adaptations, interviews, you name it) and toy info does not belong here. About Scrapper's bio, in my opinion, that statement is flat out dumb and adds nothing to the article, given that you're talking about a 10-ton evil hulk, but let's hear what other people have to say. I kept it there for the time being. BTW, I wonder how you know the way Jetfire was in the movieverse when he was young and a Decepticon. Uker (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all the personality they have, and doesn't the novel make reference to a jumping Constructicon? Perhaps Rampage as a jackhammer? Anyways, it's an ability they have, and until we learn they don't have it in the film, they toy bios and abilities are all we can go by. Mathewignash (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

i think its ok for now until we see the movie it gives scrapper and the others some personality AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

First screening reports

Reports are coming out from the Japanese premier of ROTF and it seems there are two different bots who share the Rampage body design. One is yellow, and is part of Devastator, the second is red and doesn't combine, but is the one who fights Bumblebee. I'm told there are many Constructicons, and lots of duplicate forms. Mathewignash (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

that would make a little sense because i was wondering how they killed off rampage and still showed devastator as a whole Baller449 (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

According to reports the ONLY Connstructicon to get a name mentioned in the film in Rampage, who is the Red Rampage, not the yellow. Mathewignash (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the people are saying there is no naming of the Grindor/Blackout character in the dialog or in the credits. He just suddenly shows up and fights along side Megatron, no explanation. Since they don't show Blackout being ressurected, and this new character seems to show up after Megatron has been back from the Nemesis on Mars, I'm guesing it's a protoform he brought back and gave Blackout's form... Grindor. Mathewignash (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Todd is in the credits as voicing the Fallen according to people who attended the Japanese advanced screening. Frank Welker is credited as voicing Soundwave AND Devastator. Mathewignash (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

why dont you add frank welker into devastator then Baller449 (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, these reports from the Jap screenings are bullcrap. Sideways not transforming? Soundwave not having the classic voice? I'm not buying it. Uker (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Other than the transformation to break through the wall in the trailer, Sideways does not assume robot mode in the comic or novel, so the reports from the advance screening are exactly the same as the novel and comic. How is this hard to believe? Mathewignash (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

yeah but when sideways gets cornered by the autobots and NEST doesnt he have to transform to fire those pulse blasts and he cant get killed by gettting hit through the neck if he hasnt transformed but i can believe the soundwave voice thing it might not sound cool enough to michael bay so he changes it Baller449 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Don murphy says rampage is the only name constructicon and he is red and sideways doesnt transform hes cut in half in car mode by sideswipe and blackout or grindor is never named in the credits hes just their Baller449 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think we would should wait on adding stuff until we hit the theaters on June 25. Can we? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Soundwave's voice is the same, it just isn't vocoder altered like in G1. Dark Warrior D 15:57 23 June 2009

Megatron

how do you know he got captured at the end of the film it seems like a lot to handle for the NEST Baller449 (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to request semi-protected status?

It seems like 90+% of all the edits in the past several weeks have involved anonymous contributors adding content that shouldn't be there (unconfirmed voice credits, random nonsense, and sometimes even vandalism) and regular contributors having to revert those edits. Since almost every anonymous contributor seem to not have any worthwhile content to add and the rest of us have been mostly having to police this article to revert bad or unnecessary changes, I move that this page should be placed in semi-protected status for the time being. That way, we won't have to change or add to the article unless there's some new information regarding the movie that comes out from a legitimate resource and don't have to waste our times reverting pointless or improper edits.

Does anyone second this motion? — JGoodman (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

well that seems logical =^-^=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Uker (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll put in the request after I eat dinner. EDIT: I have just placed the request for semi-protection status. Hopefully it'll be approved so we don't have to waste our time policing the article for bogus edits. — JGoodman (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The protection seems to have gone away and I'm already removing anonymous people's false posts about Laserbeak being in this film. Can we get the protection again? Mathewignash (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

semi protection

its time to request it for all the transformers they get vandalized alot and it would make it easier for us with out having to revert all those edits AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No kidding, but I don't think mode mods would consider these page as important. I think we do need to report the users and non-use ISP as serial vandalizers, and then as they get blocked one by one we can then spend less time reverting their work. Mathewignash (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

that would work to i guess AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked for the article to be placed under semi-protection status at least until the movie came out, but apparently they decided only to have it as such for a couple of weeks. EDIT: It looks like it's been granted semi-protected status again, but for how long? — JGoodman (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

we mean the individual transformers AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

i got sideways and the fallen protected dont know if theyll accept the rest AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

some have to have recent high vandalism or they wont be accepted like sideswipe and soundwave AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

megatron jetfire and optimus all protected AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

SERIOUSLY, do you need to report back here everytime one of the characters' pages are semi-protected? We can look for it ourselves, thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Plo Koon 1

How can we request him getting banned from editing the article? All he does is brainlessly keep adding Blackout and Barricade into the article. Uker (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I left him a polite note about it on his talk page. I hope he responds. I'd rther make a friend and get him moving in the right direction than simply ban him. We need more good Transformers editors on wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's apparent that he's going to continue with his edits. If his talk page is any indication, he either a) doesn't ever bother reading messages placed on it, or b) he does read them, but doesn't care what others have to say. Apparently, he has a track record of disruptive editing, and not just on this article. I say give him one more chance, but next time he re-adds Barricade or some other unsourced material, it'll be time to get an admin or mod to give him the boot. — JGoodman (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that, PK1 needs to get in line.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, he added just added Blackout again. uKER (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Take him down! He's worn out our patience. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I just put a level 3 vandalization warning on his talk page. I think this is the best way to do it. Just keep warning him the normal way, then if he continues, you can show he ignored the warnings. Mathewignash (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

hes been blocked for 31 hours it should get him inline otherwise he should get blocked permanently AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There, he added Blackout again... Twice. Still have any patience left? EDIT: I see he has already been blocked again, so ignore this. uKER (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead link that a registered user should note

This footnote (#16):

Adam B. Vary (2007-07-04). "Optimus Prime Time". Entertainment Weekly. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20035285_20035331_20044598,00.html. Retrieved on 2007-12-16.

goes to an unrelated page. Doing a site search at EW for "Optimus Prime Time" does not turn up the article.

Also footnote #9, to TFW2005, goes to a forum page. This isn't allowed -- anyone can use any identity and claim to be anyone on a forum page. Even if we have confidence that this really is Robert Orci (and not, say, an assistant or a hoaxer), it's important to adhere to Wikipedia policy, since if you allow forum postings for one person, then you have to allow them for everybody. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Roberto Orci confirmed on Don Murphy's forum that he is posting at TFW2005, and Don Murphy confirmed that the Roberto Orci posting on his site is the real deal. Unless you were to suggest that an imposter is posting as Don Murphy on his own site.--87.164.105.156 (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Another dead link

1. 138 IMAX Corporation.. "Michael Bay to shoot select scenes of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with IMAX(R) cameras". Yahoo Finance. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080930/to317.html?.v=44. Retrieved on 2008-11-16. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Theatrical or International Poster?

I've seen a mini edit war going on over the poster image in the infobox. It keeps getting swapped between the US theatrical poster and the international poster. Is there a general Wikipedia policy for which is preferred? I took a quick look at other major American films for the year, and found examples of each. Teratron (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with international posters being used but believe that there needs to be a specific reason as to WHY it is being used over the release poster of the country of origin of the film, here being the US. There is usually more than one international image for a film whereas the country of origin poster is unambiguous. In this case, the US release poster is also the poster for the UK release campaign, plus it has echoes of the poster for the original film. (Quentin X (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

I, also, have no problem with the use of international images and see no reason why the international poster should be used in place of the US one, seeing as how it's an American film. If someone wants to add the international image to the page, I see no problem with that, but it shouldn't replace the US version. For example, as far as I know, the U.S. is the only country to use American English, but just because the movie's released in other countries doesn't mean we write the article in British English. (See MOS).--Flash176 (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

headings

for the transfomers in the original movie i changed the heading to "Transformers Films" should we leave it like that or use "Live Action Films" which one do you guys think works better Baller449 (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with "Transformers films" because there was a 1986 film. Mathewignash (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

so should i put "live action films" instead, im not going to disagree or should we get the opinion of others and i disagree with 2007 transformers film because of the upcomig movie which plus it has info on the upcoming movie Baller449 (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Transformers Films" is incorrect because "Films" isn't a proper noun, it should be lower case if you did you use. I also disagree with "Transformers films" because there was a 1986 film, which cannot be included in the series, but did exist. I disagree with "Live Action Films" because it both upper case non-nouns, and it's also inconsistant with the established way of listing versions of Transformers characters. In all Transformers articles the section headers are listed by the name of the series a Transformers first appeared in. For instance Prowl may have appeared in Generation 1, Machine Wars, Transformers Universe and Beast Wars, but he's listed as "Transformers: Generation 1" Prowl. Therefore a character who appeared in the 2007 movie would be listed as "2007 Transformers film" or possible "Transformers" and a character who appeared in the 2009 film would be "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". If they were in both the first one sets presidence. Please remember there are several instances of reused names in the live action universe already. There was a Jolt in the 2007 film, and another Jolt in the 2009 film. There was a Nightbeat in the 2007 film and another in the 2009 film. So we can't reall call them both "Live action Transformers series" Nightbeats and Jolts. Mathewignash (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

i think i understand thanks it just sounded like it was only talking about the 2007 film Baller449 (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

N.E.S.T new acronym

I just went to tformers.com and found out that NEST has a new acronym which is cooler than the current acronym. according to the website, the new NEST stands for Nonbiological Extraterrestrial Species Team. Personally, I think it's better that Network Elements: Supporters and Transformers. This is the link: http://www.tformers.com/transformers-revenge-tie-in-lg-versa-nest-site-now-online-w-never-before-seen-pics/11709/news.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.7.166 (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

we cant change thing just because their cool AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this link is to a legitimate liscensed web site promoting the TF movie and LG cell phones. http://www.lgnest.com/ They used this alternate name for the NEST group. So both are official. Mathewignash (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

so it doesnt matter which one we use right AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We only know the first one because it was mentioned in the Veiled Threat novel. Now we got a second acronym from a ROTF movie tie-in web site. We should probably mention both. Mathewignash (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, are we going to make a page for NEST. I mean, we could just name it NEST then when the oficial name is cleared up we could note it. Just a thought, cuz I found some NEST pics that would work.Enryū6473 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom Kenny as Wheelie - Any actual proof?

Besides people saying Wheelie soundlike like Tom Kenny in the clip, is there an actual source for that info? Mathewignash (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears there isn't in terms of actual confirmation by third party sources - but I suppose gut instinct doesn't count. However, it is obvious that Tom Kenny does indeed voice Wheelie if one listens when he speaks in the clip - he sounds like a ticked off Spongebob. But since there is no confirmation source, perhaps it should be kept out. Evilgidgit (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How 'bout check this exclusive clip with Wheelie? It sounds like Tom Kenny. [14]

"It sounds like Tom Kenny" isn't very encyclopedic. Just wait until it's official, it shouldn't be more than a couple days before we see proof in way of an announcement or someone sees the film and can confirm it in the credits. Mathewignash (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Autobots/Decepticons

Ok I don't know about everyone else but I'm getting sick of all these rumors about who is in th film. So I'm only going to do this once whether you believe the roster or not oh well just watch for yourselves. Here is a roster of who is in the film as far as we know for sure.

Autobots Optimus Prime Ratchet Ironhide Bumblebee Jolt Mudflaps Skids Sideswipe Jetfire Arcee Chromia Purple bike- name unconfirmed

Decepticons Starscream Sideways The Fallen Scorponok Soundwave Ravage The Doctor Wheelie Demolishor Devastator= Scavenger+Scrapper+Hightower+Longhaul+Rampage+Overload+Mixmaster Insecticons Alice- which turns into a bird beak thing Megatron Grindor- it's true Blackout is not in this movie they look almost alike but, the helicopters are different

There was a rumor that Breakaway would be in the movie, but that rumor is not true.Xmotox (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of this? I think we know better than anybody else who is in the movie and who is not. The people that add unsourced info don't care about what you can say here. Uker (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Overload in Devastator

In the picture in which Devastator was revealed, linked in the reference named 'devrevealed', the blueprint for Devastator shows a component in the top left listed as forming his back. Since we know the correspondence for all the other robots to his bodyparts, we know it is Overload. Uker (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the blueprint picture that appeared when Devastator was first revealed showing an obscured "back" component, it makes sense that Overload would be this component. I think it's still original research / speculation to just say that he is the back piece though, especially given contradictory evidence that Overload even exists. I'd think a sourced statement that Overload is listed as a seventh Constructicon and a sourced statement that the blueprint pic shows an as-yet-unrevealed back component along with the six known components is strong enough backup to then conclude that Overload likely is this component. Agreed? On a side note, I wonder if perhaps Overload was possibly either an early concept that was scrapped but still keeps popping up or a late addition after the Devastator toy was finalized. The latter especially would really clear up a lot of the inconsistencies regarding his existence. Teratron (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: upon closer inspection, the blueprint says 'BACK HOE' and not just 'BACK'. This doesn't imply that he's not the back. He probably is. Also, I haven't found any source that says he's red. Contarily, from the concept picture, I'd guess he's the yellow thing coming out of his back. BTW, my money is on him being a JCB 3CX back hoe. Uker (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The concept art of Devs with all the silhouetted contruction vehicles in the background isn't an entirely accurate presentation of how he looks in the movie (though it's close), but I do think it's accurate in that it portrays him as being composed of 7 Constructicons. While you can say it's corroborated by the "poster" listing the robots in the film, that source, while legit, is obviously incomplete and IMO not 100% accurate. There's other, better evidence, visual and otherwise, that suggests there are 7 Contructicons and could give us a clue as to the nature of this "Overload" character.

First off, it is safe to assume that Demolishor — or Scavenger, if you assume there's two Decepticons with Terex O&K RH400 excavator alt modes (I don't. I think "Scavenger" and Demolishor are one and the same.); we can see the excavator's name printed near Devs' right shoulder — forms Devastator's torso. Also, it's clear who composes Devastator's limbs: Scrapper, Long Haul, Rampage, and Hook Hightower. We've seen two of them in their robot forms in the new trailer. Scrapper is seen in the scene where Starscream shoots at Sam & Mikaela, while Long Haul can be seen underwater along with Mixmaster and an unidentifiable tread-bot (looks like the red one, in which case it's not Rampage). As components of Devastator, it's clear from the trailer that all four "limb" characters are as they've been described in the past. We can clearly make out Scrapper and Hightower as the arms, and we can see the green Long Haul and yellow, treaded Rampage as the legs.

Now, the confusion about the remainder of Devastator's makeup is the nature of the red tread-bot in the new trailer. Some people assume that he's either Rampage or Scavenger, either because he has tread-whips like the former or is red like the latter. However, he's the wrong size and color to be either. He can't be Rampage as I've already pointed out that Rampage is yellow, not red, as can be seen in the ShoWest footage and the new trailer (look closely at Devs' left leg; yellow and treaded). He can't be Scavenger because he's too small. He's similar in size to Bumblebee, while Demolishor towers over Optimus. If Scavenger is indeed a separate character from Demolishor (I doubt it), then he must be as big as Demolishor as they share the same alt-mode, and that particular model excavator is far bigger than a Camaro. So, Rampage is ruled out on color grounds and "Scavenger" is ruled out on size grounds.

So, who is he? Odds are, he's a seventh Constructicon, likely this "Overload" guy. Some people assume he forms Devastator's back. However, I think he forms the face. Mixmaster is all grey/silver. The concept art of Devs shows his head to be all grey, in which case we'd assume Mixmaster comprises the entirety of his head. However, he has a red face in the trailer. Where's this red come from, though? It has to be the red tread-bot. So, while Mixmaster does form most of Devastator's head, Overload serves as Devastator's jaws and optics ("sensory Overload"?). Obviously, there was a change to Devastator's design after that concept art was created, that change being making the 7th Constructicon into Devastator's face by attaching him to the from of Mixmaster. It's the only thing that makes sense. As to Overload's alt-mode, he's obviously some kind of treaded vehicle (are there treaded backhoe loaders?) since he has the same tread-whips Rampage has.

So, let's review:

Demolishor (or Scavenger): Torso, red
Long Haul: Right Leg, green
Rampage: Left Leg, yellow
Scrapper: Right Arm, yellow
Hightower: Left Arm, yellow
Mixmaster: Head (excluding face), grey/silver
Overload: Face, red

And thus ends my pointlessly long but most likely correct theory about the number and identities of the Constructicons. — JGoodman (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How's this for Overload, ie the red bot fighting Bumblebee, ie the top left component in the Devastator blueprint? http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/4854/27700333662c51a0d09a.jpg Back hoe... CHECK! Red/black... CHECK! Car-like scale... CHECK! Treads... CHECK! Uker (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here I am again with a new update. It seems like Overload (assuming he exists), does form the back of Devastator and may not be a back-hoe. Upon closer inspection, in the Devastator blueprint, each component always has the vehicle type at the bottom, with the bodypart in some of the other three sides, followed by a number. Well, the bottom label isn't seen for the top left component, and the 'BACK' thing is on the right side, so it is indeed the bodypart designation. What looked to be an E, is in fact a 7. So there, we're back to not knowing what vehicle he is. I did ad the colour since the blueprint poster shows some yellow mass protruding from his back which we don't know what it corresponds to. Uker (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, the concept art (or "blueprint," as you call it) of Devastator revealed earlier this year is somewhat outdated. While it's correct in stating that Devastator is comprised of seven Constructicons, it's clear from the new trailer than his overall design has changed somewhat from that earlier concept. Devastator now has a red face, implying that Mixmaster no longer forms the entirety of his head. It also implies there are two red Constructicons now. Beforehand, the only known red Constructicon was Demolishor/Scavenger. Now we have another red Constructicon, which is the red tread-bot fighting Bumblebee in the trailer. The red tread-bot cannot be Scavenger since he's too small; he is, however, just the right size to serve as Devastator's face. He also cannot be Rampage, as Rampage is yellow; we see him as Devastator's left leg in the trailer. Therefore, there are two tread-bots. So, by process of elimination and by analyzing differences between Devastator's appearance in the concept art and how he looks in the trailer, we can see that the mysterious seventh Constructicon "Overload" is indeed the red tread-bot seen in the trailer, and that he most likely serves as the face.

Finally, we cannot be certain that the tread-bot seen underwater is Rampage. It's clear that there are two tread-bots, one being Rampage, who is yellow, and the other being "Overload," who is the red one (Hightower may also be a tread-bot, but we haven't seen his robot form in either the toys or the trailer). Since we cannot clearly discern the color of the tread-bot seen underwater, he must be considered unidentifiable at this point. I changed a line in the section on the Constructicons to reflect this. We should continue to regard him as unidentified until either the movie is released or some reliable source clears the tread-bot's identity up between then and now. — JGoodman (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. First of all, I disagree with your line of thinking about the red colour in Dev's face implying a new bot. For all we know, the red could come out of Mixmaster's mixer. Also, even if there was another bot forming the face, there's nothing that implies against the existence of a bot forming the back as stated by the concept art. For all we know, if we're free to imagine, Dev could now be formed of eight bots then. One unseen one in the back and another one in the face. About the bot in the bottom of the sea, I'd say there is no doubt. The scene shows a robot design that undoubtedly matches the toy we've seen for Rampage. We've already seen all major constructicons. In the event that we were missing some (Overload exists and whatnot), I'd say there's NO WAY it could be one that could even compare to the scale range of Long Haul. Uker (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's probable that the red tread-bot, who is almost certainly Overload, doesn't form Devastator's face. After all, I did say "most likely," which means probable but by no means certain. However, what is certain is that he is the seventh Constructicon. We know Demolishor (or Scavenger, if you will) forms the torso, Long Haul and Rampage form the legs, Scrapper and Hightower the arms, and Mixmaster the head. We can tell this from the trailer, and is consistent with the toys and concept art. However, given the fact that Devastator's design is NOT identical to the concept art, that the concept art is vague when it comes to the seventh Constructicon (both the silhouette of the alt-mode and the labelling are obscured), and that we don't know what part of Devastator "Red-tread"/Overload serves as, we should simply have the entry on Overload consist either of his name with no description or a description that uses conditional language (i.e., "May be the red Constructicon seen in the trailer," "May form Devastator's back," "Possibly the red Constructicon seen fighting Bumblebee"). Now, it is possible that the red tread-bot is not Overload, in which case he's an eighth Constructicon, but there is no evidence that Bay & Co. have increased the Contructicon count from seven to eight. Since we do have sources listing seven Constructicons but none indicating eight, we should assume that there are only seven, in which case "Overload" is the red tread-bot.

As to the identity of the tread-bot seen underwater, it is most certainly NOT "undoubtedly" Rampage. Both Rampage and "Overload" have the tread-whips on their arms, though the former is yellow (we see him as Devs' left leg in the trailer and the Showest footage) and the latter is red. While the treadbot seen underwater could be Rampage, it's just as likely it could be the red tread-bot. In fact, there are sufficient similarities between the red tread-bot and the tread-bot seen underwater to believe that they are the same character. I can provide some images if you want. In any case, it's not clear, and we can't assume one way or the other as to who it is we saw. — JGoodman (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaving Overload at just the name is fine with me. I guess it's the fairest thing to do. I don't think adding 'probably' statements is very encyclopedic, so I'd rather leave it at that. About the underwater bot, I have two issues. 1. Size. The red treadbot is about half as big as Rampage, who comes from a monster-sized bulldozer. 2. Body shape. Rampage has this spider-like stance, with its front legs bent forward in way balance wouldn't allow for a two-legged bot. This doesn't seem to fit the tread bot fighting BB, who seems to walk on two legs, or (call me crazy if you wish) have a snake-like body. Uker (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the new TV spot and the Mixmaster and 7-bot Devastator toys and seeing spoilers from the novel, comic, and children's book, I'm no longer quite convinced that the "Red Rampage" forms Devastator's face or is even Overload. In the "Forms" TV spot, Mixmaster is revealed to have red internal components. His Voyager-class toy (the triple-changer one) also has red internal components with white stripes that look like those on Devastator's face. Furthermore, the novel mentions a 'Con that fights Bumblebee in Egypt, which sounds suspiciously like the fight scene between BB and Red-Tread. Finally, every visual depiction of Overload seen so far shows a biped with either four or two arms and a tail-like protrusion arching up over his back, quite unlike the snake-like tread-bot seen fighting Bumblebee. So, my original theory is most likely false. It seemed plausible at the time. — JGoodman (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just stop arguing. Most merchandise say that Demolishor is a regular Decepticon, not a Constucticon, thus saying that Demolishor is ABSOLUTELY NOT PART OF DEVASTATOR, so let's summarize:

• Mixmaster (head)
• Scavenger (front torso)
• Overload (back torso)
• Hightower (left arm)
• Scrapper (right arm)
• Long Haul (right leg)
• Rampage (left leg)

Jal11497 (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

their trying to get it to be like the original series right? wont they base whose who on the G1 transformers so mixmaster probably will be the head Baller449 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In Generation 1 and Generation 2 Mixmaster was a leg, Hook was the head. Mathewignash (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

really i thought he was the head oh well Baller449 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, this thread seemed dead, but here I am with some new info. Remember some time ago (read up) I said I was seeing Rampage as having a snake-like body? Well here he is. It seems like his toy's jackhammer mode wasn't just a gimmick after all. uKER (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

in a tv ad you can see mixmaster as the head the inside of the concrete mixer is the head as seen here [15] he forms the entire head —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Movie Master 1 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Devastator is formed by unnamed Constructicons with the same models that Mixmaster, Long Haul, Rampage, Demolishor and Scrapper. In the film we can see the robots that form Devastator (8 already) and have the same alt mode that Mixmaster, Long Haul, Rampage, Demolishor and Scrapper, but in the next scene we can see it figthing in solo mode. So, there are several identicals models of constructicons? (KeP, June 26)

Sideways killed in car mode

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9qBKY324Jk71.108.231.50 (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, I'll put that as source.Enryū6473 (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Except isn't that Sideswipe killing Sideways in the video? In exactly the same way as was reported by the person who attended the premiere in Japan? Mathewignash (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How about just leaving it out until after the movie is released so it's not a spoiler?--Flash176 (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, because Wikipedia doesn't hide "spoilers" - it's an encyclopedia, you come here to finds facts, so facts are not hidden. Wikipedia:Spoiler Also, tThe movie has been released in some areas already, and this death is in a COMMERCIAL released by the film maker, it in the comic book and novel adaptations, and seems to happen in the first few minutes of the film. It's not a shocker. 68.61.240.172 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah my bad got the names mixed up --71.108.231.50 (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Wikipedia's policy and never suggested we hide spoilers, only that we wait a bit. As for your reason about the movie being released already, not in any English markets. The only people who are trying to find out about the plot right now quite likely don't care about spoilers and will probably go somewhere else since there's not a complete synopsis here. Oh, and not everyone is intimately familiar with Transformers enough to recognize characters that they don't know about yet in previews.--Flash176 (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems counter productive to add material we know is accurate, then remove it and return it a couple days later. Mathewignash (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Video Game

I just saw some videos of the game's online play, and I must say I'm impressed with what I am seeing. It looks amazing but the only question in my mind right now is, how is the gameplay?Xmotox (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

shouldn't this go under the game page and not the film? =-_-=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Jazz

several people seem to think hes in the movie does anybody think he could at least appear in a flashback Baller449 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

and these people are who exactly?--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

the fans and several people on youtube say they have a source that hes back plus darius mcrary was spotted on set with a pontiac solstice Baller449 (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

and he is not mentioned in the autobot section why?--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

i dont know it was before but was taken out because it wasnt confirmed and i dont know why its not mentioned ask somebody who contrbutes to it regularly Baller449 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Man, no. Jazz is NOT in the movie. Asking that question in a TF-related forum is probably the best way to earn yourself a truckload of facepalms. uKER (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

i didnt really think he was in it but there a lot of people saying so especially fans of his who really liked the character Baller449 (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're gonna take their word for it? Why not wait for the first day of showing, THEN your questions on jazz could be answered.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Movie plot

shouldnt we wait for the 24th when its out worldwide and IMAX and it doesnt ruin it for some people AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree but I'm not sure the others would i have to exercise myself not to read it I dont want to spoil the movie for myself The Movie Master 1 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER. If you don't want the movie ruined, don't read the section. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 19:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I didnt read it know since its an encyclopedia it wont get moved The Movie Master 1 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ejector

Should Ejector really be listed as a Decepticon? His toy is identified as such, but if he's just a toaster brought to life by the Allspark, he's no more a Decepticon than the Mountain Dew bot or Nokia bot from the first movie. He's already mentioned in the minor bots paragraph after the Decepticons (though not by name). It seems to me that adding his toyline name to the toaster bot mention is the more appropriate place for him. Teratron (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Decepticon. Mathewignash (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Teratron. The fact that the toaster bot got a toy doesn't make him more notorious than any other of the ten kitchen bots appearing in the movie. uKER (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Jason Griffith as Sideswipe?

According to various sites, Jason Griffith voices Sideswipe. However they have actually have no links or sources of this. I presume this should be left out here unless proper resources apppear, right? Evilgidgit (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Mathewignash (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's official today the 15th of June. http://transformerslive.blogspot.com/2009/06/arcee-and-sideswipe-voice-actors.html Mathewignash (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jason griffith doesnt voice in the film its André Sogliuzzo as sideswipe the film was in cinemas in the UK yestrday and jason wasnt in the creadits it was André Sogliuzzo as sideswipe. 14:48 June 20th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.220.242 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Blackout or Grindor?

I saw they added Blackout to the movie cast list, I'd assume it's because you seen a robot who looks like him in the trailer from ShoWest. I was just curious do we have any confirmation it's Blackout, because a toy from Hasbro just leaked in box, and he's a Similar looking helicopter named Grindor. [16] Just thought it might be worth mentioning since we have no official name confirmation. Mathewignash (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked Orci both thanking him/asking him about resurrecting Blackout, he didn't deny it or plant a seed of doubt about Megatron's right hand man being resurrected alongside him. Alientraveller (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Grindor has been confirmed to be playable in The ROTF video game, so he could be a replacement for Blackout. User:Dark Warrior D 16:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The novel also calls the helicopter Grindor, and describes him as a Russian helicopter. Since Megatron was saved with an Allspark fragment, and they only had one, so they can't have brought Blackout back the same way. I think we should change it to Grindor, or at least mention the possibility. Mathewignash (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, the current mention leaves it open for readers to interpret the novelization as being inaccurate because it was based on a current script. Definitely Blackout in the final film. Alientraveller (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, unless they went cheap and the so called Grindor is visually IDENTICAL to Blackout. Uker (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's now the game's creative director in person here saying it's Grindor. I'm changing it in the article. Uker (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing is on a message board one of the creative team of the comic adaption said that in the script they used it was Blackout, with no explanation as to why he was alive. Mathewignash (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was Blackout all the way, but they never got around to making up an excuse for him being alive, so they went the lazy way and say 'Meh, let's change his name and get done with that'. Uker (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a new Q&A with Orci & Kurtzman from Botcon. Report is at http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-toys--products-30/botcon-2009---revenge-of-the-fallen-writers-qa-session-167758/. Blackout/Grindor was addressed and given a cryptic response: "Grindor – reason for him being there as well as Blackout." Seems they might both be in the movie? Teratron (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I bring to everyone's attention that there's this user called 'Plo Koon 1' that seems to be a Blackout fanboy, which has only interveined in the article to keep adding him back instead of Grindor, with a rather 'poetical' (ie fanboyish) exposition I'd say. I now added mention of the writers mentioning Blackout being back. Let's see if that calms him down. Uker (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is there even a debate going on? The character is clearly Blackout, hes visually identical to Blackout and covered in rust from being at the bottom of the sea. If Grindor is a seperate character why is he the same exact visual? Why is he covered in sea rust? DUH! Hes Blackout! Grindor is a toy repaint, and obviously a misinformation cover up to try and keep at least one spoiler in question. Why is everyone so ignorant and stupid. Take Grindor out of the article, it is BLACKOUT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.74.130 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

we cant not until its been confirmed exactly who it is AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok it is true folks. That is Grindor and not Blackout, the helicopters are different for one. Two, it seems he has better weapons. Three, how could Blackout be brought back anyway. He didnt have an allspark in him DUH.Xmotox (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Its Grindor. There is a Grindor ROTF toy, and Grindor is suposed to be a clone of Blackout. I'm convinced it's Grindor.Enryū6473 (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm convinced you are all incredibly misinformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.74.130 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

fine, to you its blackout, to us its grindor.Enryū6473 (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Boo hoo anon...'incredibly misinformed', please. Plo Koon 1, is that you? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jolt's voice

Several users say he doesn't talk in the film but several sources said Anthony Anderson voiced him has anybody here actually seen the movie i mean he was in a crucial part if he helped upgrade optimus he must have said something otherwise he would be the only autobot that doesn't say anything The Movie Master 1 (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Jolt doesn't say anything. Quite a few of the voice actors listed in the article are wrong, actually, but oooh, no reliable "secondary source" to correct them with, save the thousands of UK editors who saw the movie and read the credits. - 81.157.155.181 (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yep, there, see, added the info from the UK screenings, and down it comes, to be replaced with information that's just as uncited, but completely wrong. Oh, and I see the gentleman responsible has gone around adding Jolt to Anthony Anderson's page, and Sideswipe to Jason Griffith's, and so on, when everyone at least had the common sense not to do it before... yeah, he's going to look particularly fucking stupid in like four days. - 78.32.44.57 (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen the IMAX "longer cut" version of the movie yet, but in the theatre version, at least here in the UK, no, Jolt doesn't have any lines. Also, Rampage is red and is not a part of Devastator, while the Blackout "clone" appears unexplained and unnamed. However, I think you guys who form the main line of editors of this article should wait until the 24 June release. The editing of the second half of the film goes haywire and I won't be surprised if Bay releases a slightly alternate edited version on the 24th. The editing is so chaotic because you can see Long Haul and Mixmaster fighting solo even after Devastator has formed in the ultimate battle. There's so much of reused animation in the last scene that even a 12-year-old can point it out. I hope the filmmakers have a logical explanation for that. Glaeronius (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Devastator/constructicon thing was explained at Botcon (Transformers convention). There are literally a lot of constructicons in the movie, each having one of seven body types (Scavenger, Mixmaster, Rampage, Long Haul, Scrapper, Hightower, and Overload). Devastator is simply formed by how many constructicons are available at the time, be it 15 or 7.72.128.60.173 (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would presume protoforms from the nemesis that scanned the same vehicles as the constructicons ala "Grindor"?--71.108.231.50 (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What? Devastator with more than 7 constructicons? How would that come to be? uKER (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems that there are a dozen or so "Constructions", seemingly two or so of each alt mode. Only 6 or 7 combine into Devastator, and those are just the ones near Scavenger when he initiates the combining process. Perhaps combining is a power he has, and he just pulls other into it, whoever and however many are handy. Mathewignash (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)