Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

release dates

on the box on the right it says the release date is june 24 for north america, new zealand & australia, and it is listed as june 19 for the uk and ireland, a quick google search will reveal that the june 19 release date is actually for the whole of europe and not just those two countries, so i think that should be changed, and instead of writing out both new zealand and australia, couldnt it be simply classed as oceania —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.62.222 (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

no it not here is a link to the official release date list [1]

disambig page

Why is there a disambig page for "revenge of the fallen" when the only other item listed is a novel for which there is no wikipedia article? Isn't a disambig page only required when multiple articles may have the same or a similar title? CPitt76 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

its a good idea to have one. The idea of them is to see the different things that could mean what you are looking for. If there is a novel, then it should stay.Enryū6473 (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What he said. uKER (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Grindor alt mode

Has anyone identified Grindor's helicopter mode as definitely a Pavelow? The novel described him as a Russian transport helicopter. The toy is just a quick redeco of the Blackout toy. Looking at the live footage from the trailer with him in vehicle mode, is that a pavelow or a russian helicopter? Or something else? Mathewignash (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Going by the "We're Gonna Die" video, it's the same helo as Blackout. uKER (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing Ban until the 24th

I may not have a real Wikipedia profile or account, but I know this is getting out of hand. In just a few moments, the voice actors for Sideswipe, Jolt, Wheelie, and the Twins keep getting switched and changed irresponsibly.

I suggest we put this article under lock from editing until June 24th, and only senior Wikipedia administrators can edit it until then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.179.105 (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

wait, what?! That is erratic. How about we agree to talk about them in here before we post them. That way they are verrified.Enryū6473 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If we lock it how do we fix it if it's locked with the wrong information? Also, this page isn't the only one to have problems, as every individual character page is being rewritten every few hours. I say warn people making false edits as being vandalizers and getting them suspended for a day or two if they keep it up. Mathewignash (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, some people like that Blackout repeat offender don't even care about consensus. As for keeping things tight until June 24, I've stressed it earlier that we just can't work on the article even when it already premiered in Japan and South Korea. Hell, some of the individual character articles already have sections on their appearances in the movie. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And since yesterday, it's been released here in the UK too. Akata (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

SOMEONE SEMIPROTECT THIS AT LEAST UNTIL THE END OF THE MONTH!!! uKER (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I requested semiprotection and it only took them like five minutes. WAY TO GO!!! :) uKER (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Uker, do you really have to shout? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the semi-protection is not removed on the 24th, as it is likely there will be similar edits when the film comes out in America. Evilgidgit (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Eaglestorm, it would be you shouting had it been you the one that had to be here reverting the evergoing tide of ridiculous edits. Uker (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Chromia's toy bio

I have said it before, but I'll bring it to discussion again. Is Chromia's toy bio really relevant to this article? For what is known, the bikes aren't given any character in the movie, so citing the toy's bio says nothing about their movie selves. IMHO, the relevance of the toys goes only as far as to provide a name to each bike, that extraoficially allows easy reference to each individual one. uKER (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

All the characters deserve at least one line of personality. If the movie writers are lacking, I save give the privilidge to the toy makers. While this may be a bit odd for a movie article, I'd say this is a special circumstance since in this case it's a movie based on a toy line, not the other way around, like Star Trek or Star Wars. Hasbro actually owns the characters in this case. Mathewignash (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to hear other people's opinions given you were the one who added that info in the first place. I disagree with that urge of yours that all characters MUST have at least one line of personality. I mean, if the character isn't given personality in the movie I don't see why it should be given one here. If the toy was given personality, IMHO it belongs in the toy article unless there's something in the movie that suggests otherwise, eg some particular relationship between her and Ironhide, which obviously isn't the case. Same goes for that meaningless quote from Rampage's bio. uKER (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I say what does it hurt to leave them, but I'll abide by the decision of others if there great deal of disagreement with my position. Thanks for taking the time to ask politely rather that just deleting it. Mathewignash (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. About the harm in leaving them, I guess it's not a matter of harm, but more like background noise. I'd be happy if what's said here about them is strictly what is said in the movie: they're three female bike bots that share a single consciousness, each with a different color and transforming into different bike models. Not much more to say IMHO. If people really care that much, they can always click the wikilink in each bike's name and learn about the character's background, toy, whatever. But that's just me, so people, we want to hear you. uKER (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion (having not seen the movie yet) is that if they don't really have any on-screen character presented, the info from the toys should be placed on each character's article, not here; this is about the film, not the characters of the film. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If we TOTALLY remove all the data from the toys and only go by the movie, then we even have to remove things like the names Scalpel and Ejector, and probably even the information on which Constructicon is which name, since in the material in the film doesn't tell us. Do they ever even say Jolt's name? Mathewignash (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Jolt's only major scene in the film is when he combines Optimus with Jetfire's remain's by connecting his whips to them, Ratchet does say his name beforehand. Dark Warrior D (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2009

Why would you want to remove their names? Save for some exceptions (maybe Scalpel and Ejector) the bots were all referenced by these names in production interviews and promotional material. For the time being, until more people give their opinions, I'm rephrasing Chromia's bio, lightening it on information that reaches out as far as G1. uKER (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rampage reviving Megatron

This issue was brought up once, but I guess it's safe to add now. Is there consensus in adding Rampage as the third Constructicon reviving Megatron at the bottom of the ocean? There's no source that explicitly says it but neither is there for Long Haul and Mixmaster and we know it's them. Perhaps now that time has gone by and we know it can't be anyone else, it can be considered safe for adding. Notice, there is still a fourth unidentified bot. uKER (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, just a guess, but given Overload and Hightower not having alt modes, and Scavenger being not only out of scale, but also kinda stand-still-handiccapped, I'd say the fourth one can be no other than scrapper. But I'll add it tomorrow after I see the movie and know for sure. uKER (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Barricade

so is he confirmed to be in the movie because if he doesnt transform we cant be sure its actually him and if hes not why is he in the article Baller449 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeez! He's not meant to be in the article. If you ever see Barricade again in the article, please REMOVE HIM. Same with Blackout. uKER (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Death spoilers in character descriptions.

I just created this account to mention that I now know exactly who is going to die, when they're going to die, and who is going to kill them in a movie I've been looking forward to for over a year. I just prefer not knowing that until I've seen the film for myself. Mostly Decepticon deaths, but still, I wanna find out when I see it.

I understand the desire to be as informative as possible and do really appreciate it, but that aspect of mentioning who dies in such a new movie is, in my opinion, a little unnecessary.

I'm not totally pointing fingers at this specific article, several other Transformers related ones had death spoilers (specifically the worst of all, letting me know in advance that a major Autobot dies. Fantastic) that you just kind of glance at and go, "...Dammit."

I just don't think those facts are necessary until long after everyone has had a chance to even see the movie, it comes out tonight/tomorrow (June 24 2009) at midnight where I am.

Thanks! 281 luv (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia's policy is not to remove spoilers, I agree with you that they don't belong in the characters' descriptions, but only in the film's plot, which one wouldn't obviously read if they didn't want to be spoiled. I am so removing them. Thanks for pointing it out and pity you had to get spoiled. Happy moviegoing! BTW, I haven't seen the movie either. :) uKER (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So Barricade isn't in the movie

LOL, I knew it. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.45.230 (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody and their old grandma knew it. Uker (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a scene where police cars chase Bumblebee? Is that implied to maybe be Barricade? Or was that a red herring? Mathewignash (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that was just a bunch of Egyptian police cars.--75.44.146.95 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Numerous Constructicons/Decepticons

Honestly, watcing the film I was surprised at the number of reused models. Should there be mention of (for instance) the two different Mixmasters and Rampages (one who combined the other who didn't) or the background Bonecrusher who drove by early in the fight? Mathewignash (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the films are reaching the point where some of the Transformers qualify as mere extras, rather than characters worth noting in the article. The movies may be titled Transformers, but that doesn't mean every single Transformer that pops up on the screen for a few seconds deserves discussion. The article is first and foremost an encyclopedic entry on a film. Specific robots only really merit being specifically mentioned if they're significant to the film.

Having said that, I think the fact that there are duplicate robots is worth noting for a couple of reasons. First, disambiguation. Someone who isn't much of a Transformers fan seeing the film could easily be confused by seeing robots that are supposed to be dead, robots in two places at once, robots randomly changing colors, etc. If an star actor played a role in a movie of someone who had hundreds of clones, each one of those wouldn't be individually notable, but it would be worth noting why so many characters in the film are all played by the same actor. Similarly, I think it's worth explaining the appearance of multiple similar robots. Second, all the duplicate bots changes the nature of the conflict that's central to the movies. In the first film, the stakes were high due to the presence of the leaders of each army and the Allspark, but it was a very small-scale conflict in terms of the number of bots involved. A list of only the major characters in the second film would imply a similarly small scale. The presence of the additional bots indicates that the scale is increasing from a small skirmish to a war on Earth.

The bigger question is, where do we draw the line? Some random Bonecrusher clone in the background clearly isn't notable. But what about characters like Jolt or Sideways? They have unique character models and may be notable outside the scope of the film, but they don't speak and have trivial parts in the film itself. They're more than extras, and humans playing a similar role in a movie would make the credits list. But do they really warrant character entries on the Wikipedia page for the film? I'd compare their roles to characters like the bounty hunters other than Boba Fett in The Empire Strikes Back. They're cool, the fans get into it a lot, and they have tons of appearances in the Star Wars Expanded Universe, but they're really not notable within the film itself. Teratron (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting a second character if the first character has en entry. Two Mixmasters and two Rampages at the same time are worth noting. Also, Bonecrusher was a major cast member in the last film, so his appearance in this film is worth noting. Mathewignash (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How was Bonecrusher a major cast member? He only appeared in the last hour of the film and died with in 5 minutes..--71.108.231.50 (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonecrusher was noteable because he returned from the last film. Mathewignash (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the treatment this has been given also. It's fine mentioning there's multiple copies of each constructicon, but what scene each is seen in is irrelevant. Also, adding Bonecrusher as a main character and not just a cameo mention is ridiculous. First of all, he only has a background appearance, never transforming into robot mode. Besides, he can't have survived the first movie as he got his face chopped off (don't come telling he's still alive because his spark wasn't removed, because in that case no characters would have been killed in any of the two movies). Relocating Bonecrusher alongside Frenzy as a cameo appearance. uKER (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You can maybe move him to cameos. Remember though that beheading doesn't always kill a Transformer (movie Frenzy?). Why would it have killed Bonecrusher? You must destroy the spark. Mathewignash (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but doesn't Frenzy die when his razor saw thing beheads him and isn't that how Grindor and the Fallen the Fallen gets the spike stuck through his head and Grindor gets his face torn up The Movie Master 1 (talk)

The Fallen gets his spark ripped out by Optimus. Watch: Optimus punches his fist through The Fallen's chest. I didn't see the spark, but that's obviously what happened.--75.44.146.95 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mathewignash, it's funny how I say "don't come telling he's still alive because his spark wasn't removed" and you just jump in and say that exact same thing. Way to go.
And Movie Master, no, Frenzy's head is still on the run after getting chopped off. After that he scans Mikaela's phone, and I really don't recall if he is ever seen again in the movie. I recall something like him being restored when he gets near the Cube, but... uKER (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

i meant when he was attacking simmons and keller he launches one of those saw things that flies around then comes back and beheades himself The Movie Master 1 (talk)

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)

Fandango

Should we include in the reception section that it's currently rated at 4.6/5 on Fandango.com out of 1,000+ ratings? http://www.fandango.com/transformers:revengeofthefallen_111307/movieoverview 71.108.231.50 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If we did that, we would be negligent in also including the (subjective) ratings from hundreds of other websites. For this reason, Wikipedia does not post movie ratings.Erpbridge (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but fandango is not just any website..--71.108.231.50 (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Scavenger's robot mode (AGAIN)

Mathewignash, are you kidding me? I just stated that Scavenger's bot mode is the same as Demolishor and you delete it? It was you who added that info in the first place. I even deleted it, and <HERE> is a discussion with you supposedly justifying you adding it back. Asides from the toy, now we know there's several Constructicons of each class, and there's nothing indicating that there can be several bots that sharing same alt mode, but having different bot modes. uKER (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The write up was based on the comic and novel. Now I saw the film and they didn't show the robot mode, so I removed it. We had agreed to use the novel and comic as a guide until we saw the film. Now I saw the film. No robot mode. Mathewignash (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

semi-protection

there seems to be a raid right now, somebody should conside semi-protect --Overthinkingly (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC) {{editsemiprotected}}

I had requested it, and it seems to have gone into effect. We are semi-protected for a month now. Mathewignash (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Rotten Tomatoes Community Rating

Someone has stated that the rotten tomatoes user community gave this film a 57% negative when actually they gave it a 68% postive rating in the bottom of the reception page here is proof . Also they state that audience reaction has been mixed when after wards they clearly post numbers suggesting positive audience reception (not critical) and not so much mixed. Can someone correct these errors please. --Inflataman (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, when I check on RT, I see a rating of 21%....http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen/ Why is that? My mistake. I realized that you're referencing the RT Community rating.

Yes so can someone fix it because 57% is the first movies tomameter rating so It's obviously wrong.

Megatron's "jet" mode?

We see Megatron fly in the film, at least he seems to be in robot mode, but when he arrives in Egypt we see him fly in in the background (but can barely see him), then we hear him transform then see him land on the pyrimid as a robot. Either he was flying as a tank or he still has a jet mode. Mathewignash (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was already confirmed that he was a triple changer?--71.108.231.50 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The article currently states "He is resurrected by the Constructicons with dead robots' parts as a Cybertronian tank, while retaining his jet mode.", and it has been that way for as long as I remember. What are you suggesting we do? uKER (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who put the jet mode into the article, based on the preview of the book and on the comic book depiction. I'm just confirming now he seems to have it, but sadly we don't really ever see it. He may be a jet, or may be a flying tank. He can definitelt transform into SOMETHING that flies. The novel said it was a "terrestrial" jet, the comic had the first movie's Cybertronian jet. Mathewignash (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't have a problem with it. uKER (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I got to see the movie earlier this evening. Megatron pretty clearly has the flying tank form seen in various concept images and the Voyager-class toy. I can't remember which scene it was, as he was shown flying in vehicle mode a few times, but in one of the scenes I very distinctly saw the flying tank's distinctive shape with the four short wings protruding from the tank treads. He does not retain his original jet mode in the film. I didn't notice if the wings were hidden when he drives in tank mode, but even if they are, it would be a pretty big stretch to call him a triple changer in this film. Teratron (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no such jet mode. It's more like a tank that can somehow fly. BTW, I think the article is fine as it currently is. uKER (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Public reviews?

Is there any precedent for citing sources of public opinion of films like IMDB users, RottenTomatoes users, IGN users, etc, which are prone to rapid flux and quite frankly, academic irrelevance. Plus, as far as I'm aware, we don't quote IMDB, PERIOD. Is anyone monitoring this page? Briguy7783 (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Per WP:MOSFILM, user ratings should not used. - kollision (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You know that I am a member on IMDb. Have been for the past year or around that time. Philipnova798 (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Demolishor and The Doctor's voices

Who provides their voices? Or are their actors uncredited for them? I would like to know so that I can update the Decpticon voice credits. Philipnova798 (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I were you, I would go to see the movie again. Better than do nothing in vacation. Then watch the final credits. It should be there. I left the movie before the cast credits. It's just my suggestion. Forestlicious (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just saw it the first time and I think the vocie credits page needs to be updated...Again. And no, I still didn't see who played Demolishor due to how fast they were going. Though I did notice two new actors that played voice roles in the movie.

And who the hell is Skipjack anyway? (Sorry about the language, but it had to be said) Philipnova798 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just a quickie here. The voices on the page (that I added) were confimed in the end credits. I also added the Primes into the cast. So edit the info, but don't edit them out. They are confirmed in the credits and that's that. Philipnova798 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Volvo back-hoe in the cargo freighter

What was up with that? It was a Transformer but the weirdest thing is it had the Decepticon logo BEFORE the protoforms fell. Uker (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There were transformers already on earth. --71.108.231.50 (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers

I think the fate of Demolishor should be removed. It is a spoiler. --SCSI Commando (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPOILERS so there was no requirement to remove but conversely there was no requirement to include the detail in the plot summary so it now (last I checked) nicely states with minimal spoilers that his 'last words' were that that Fallen will return. Good to see the editors showing restraint when it comes to spoilers and only including the most relevant details. -- Horkana (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't understand any of what you said. Were you being cynical or was it serious? Uker (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Morshower

Since i am not an admin so i cant edit it, can someone who can edit it please change "Glenn Morshower, having cameoed in the 2007 film's opening action sequence as a soldier killed by Blackout," to "Glenn Morshower, having cameoed in the 2007 film's opening action sequence as Colonel Sharp who was killed by Blackout,". here is the reference : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Morshower. thanks.

Another wiki page is not a valid reference. Uker (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Arcee

Hey, you have pretty much the end results of all the Autobots and all the Decepticons already up on this page, but it is so unclear with Arcee. The red one dies? There was no red one, right? So was it the pink one or the purple one (I'm assuming either could be mistaken for red given the sunlight in the desert)? The Wikipedia page for Arcee was no better. At one time, it even conflicted saying at one point that all three died but later on in the page that only two died. Now it says that only two died and the last one became Mikaela's bike. Can people clarify what exactly happened to Arcee, which colored bike(s) survived, and perhaps confirm the Mikaela thing at the very end, even if only in the discussion page and not on the actual wiki page? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's quite unclear. Since Michael Bay claimed that he doesn't like Arcee, and decided to kill her. It means that she dies in the movie, but further info is unclear, whether the Sisters are dead or not. The movie only shown that the blue got shot first, then the pink. Then it's unclear if they die or not. But they could possibly alive since they just got shot, not torn apart like Jazz in the 1st movie. The blue one got shot from behind, but still in shape, and the pink one just got shot on the left shoulder, and it's not broken at all. So, it could be possible that the Sisters are alive, but severely injured, as they still accompanied by Ironhide, it's possible that Ironhide takes them to safety. And some media say that the Purple Sister is Moonracer, while some only state it as "another unnamed sister." Is it true that the purple one is Moonracer? Forestlicious (talk) ??:??, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The comic for the movie shows the blue and purple bikes arriving to the site of the final battle in Egypt, so I'd say it's safe to assume it's the pink one that dies. And, no, there's nothing remotely believable saying it's Moonracer or Elita 1 or any name for that matter. As of today, any name you may hear is just fanboys' wishful thinking, and it will most probably stay that way until the toy for the purple bike is released. Uker (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you see it clearly, they are all arrive in the Egypt battle. See, when Lennox brings the Autobots, we clearly see that they were 3 motorcycles, and Arcee even moves before jumps to the site. And when Galloway faces Optimus, Galloway asks Optimus why Optimus brings "friends from outer space". It's clear that Galloway asks Optimus after the battle in Shanghai, means that they're safe. And after Chromia got shot when was trying to escort Sam, we clearly see that two of the Sisters are alive, and soon after the pink one got shot. After that, it's offscreen, and the Sisters were only presumed to be dead. Forestlicious (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

See, I didn't get a word of what you said, but let's get consensus on this and not just edit our minds into the article. My take, not having seen the movie (I'll see it in five hours), going by what Bay said, is that the pink one should die. Bay said Arcee would get killed, but he said it when the bikes were still supposed to combine and they would get separate names, that is, the ones they have in the toys, so Arcee is the pink one. Uker (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you were to ask my opinion (which granted isn't much since I have yet to see the movie) it should be made clear that unlike the toyline, Arcee is actually all three motorcycles in the movie. While there may be a Chromia and a Moonracer in the toyline, they were not in the movie. So technically, as long as one bike survives, Arcee survives. I think we should clarify which Arcee motorcycles get destroyed (and we could leave it that it is unclear whether they were destroyed or just damaged) but we should most definitely clarify that because one motorcycle was not shown being hit, Arcee was not "completely" killed off. (Michael Bay could have lied when he said that he killed Arcee off, or if you go by my logic, he told a partial lie.) And so the end scene where Mikaela owns the last Arcee motorcycle as described in the Arcee Wikipedia article was completely made up? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the movie the Sisters are known as a single mind Autobot named Arcee. And finally Bay made two of three Sisters got shot. Like PegasusHoplite28 says, as one bike survives, Arcee survives. And it's unclear if they were truly dead, as it's not shown in the movie furthermore. They just got shot, but not torn apart. I think Mikaela's bike at the end of the movie is the same bike she used before. It's obviously red colored, not pink, purple, or even blue. Forestlicious (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What I was going to say. Mikaela's bike is a red Aprilia. It's not any of the Arcee bikes. Uker (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the argument that they were just shot and not torn apart is legitimate because Brawl and Blackout were both shot to death in the first movie, and Arcee's motorcycle bodies are much more fragile that the two Decepticons. But yeah, if they aren't seen again, the argument can go both ways that those two motorcycles were destroyed. I think, however, that it should be confirmed that Arcee was not killed given how the third motorcycle was not shown taking any damage. There is one caveat though, if the final scene shows all the surviving Autobots but Arcee isn't there, then she's dead. However, if for example, the final scene only shows Optimus Prime, we should argue that Arcee lives given my previous arguments of what was not shown. As for the Mikaela's bike not being Arcee... if it is very clear that that bike was not any of the ones that Arcee used, that comment really needs to be removed from the Arcee page. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, who decided to say that "Arcee was mortally wounded" and can be "presumed dead" in this page and the Arcee page? I mean, am I completely wrong with the thing about the third motorcycle surviving equals Arcee surviving? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not wrong at all. There is no further information about her. Bay said, Arcee is dead, but the movie shows the possibility that she is alive. As you say, that only Optimus was shown in the final scene. Blue Arcee could be dead but the Pink one was shot on her left shoulder, the it went offscreen. As long as her spark or head isn't destroyed, and as long as most of her parts aren't destroyed either, it's possible that she's alive. Don't forget that she fought along with Ironhide, which is also possible that Ironhide escort her safety after defeating the Decepticon. Forestlicious (talk) 2:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And the purple one made it entirely. The purple one is still Arcee, in the movie at least. Just trying to figure out why someone decided to write otherwise in the synopsis of the Revenge of the Fallen article. Someone want to change/revert that? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I just saw the movie and two of the bikes get shot and right after the military comes and bombs the location and since they were wounded I doubt the escaped that explosion so therefore they are dead..--71.108.231.50 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove that they failed to make it? If not then you're not sure 74.207.208.6 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just for the sake or argument, let us say the two bikes were destroyed in the aerial bombardment. We could even say that the Decepticons killed the two bikes before the aerial bombardment even came. There is still one bike unaccounted for, which would mean Arcee is still alive. That last bike, even though it may be purple, is still Arcee as discussed earlier. And granted I have not seen the movie yet, you cannot make an argument that the aerial bombardment killed the last bike; it would be like assuming that Ironhide also got killed in the aerial bombardment. I think the last bike unaccounted for proves that Arcee is still alive. Say that two of the three bikes that make up Arcee were destroyed if you would like, but it would also be nice if you clarified that the third Arcee bike was still alive by the end of the film. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There. I wrote that the bikes get hurt but Arcee's fate is unclear. DO NOT CHANGE UNLESS YOU HAVE PROOF THAT INDICATES OTHERWISE. Uker (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to further clarify, yes two of the three motorcycles are destroyed, and the third actually is never seen again. But from what I hear, there are other Autobots, such as Ironhide and Sideswipe who are not seen in the final scenes after the final battle, right? And it is assumed that they live. Therefore, and maybe I am just playing with semantics here, but Arcee's survival, resting in the last motorcycle that did not get destroyed, SHOULD be as clear as the fate of Ironhide and Sideswipe. I guess I just do not understand why Arcee surviving is so heavily contested (given the numerous changes back and forth in the Wikipedia article) whereas the fates of the other lesser Autobots are not. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, two of the motocycles were shot during the final battle, no confirmation if they were destroyed, its possible they were caught in the explosion, however its also possible that they were outside the blast from the aerial bombardment, as they were about half a mile away when shot 74.207.208.6 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The last "Arcee" was seen running with Ironhide before the explosion and is not seen after. So she is still alive because she was right next to Ironhide and he survived.--71.108.231.50 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There we go. That answers that. I mean, I would be totally okay with the Wiki synopsis saying that two of Arcee's motorcycles are destroyed and leave it at that. But do not go saying that Arcee (in the general usage of the name for all three motorcycles) was mortally wounded because clearly Arcee survives in one motorcycle. Just out of curiosity, if Arcee's last scene is running with Ironhide before the explosion, is that Ironhide's last scene as well? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well even then one can't be certain if the other two motocycles were destroyed, remember we've seen that transformer bodies can be repaired as long as they can obtain parts, if even one of the Arcee's survived the other two bodies can be rebuilt 74.207.208.6 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Arcee was not seen after but Ironhide was there when they were trying to revive sam after the aerial bombardment.--71.108.231.50 (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So I finally watched the movie. The purple bot is hit in the back talking to Sam. The pink bot is hit in the ensuing fight, and the blue bot takes cover and isn't hit. However, I could not see the blue bot running with Ironhide to escape the aerial bombardment. There were plenty of scenes of the lesser Autobots after the bombardment such as the revival of Sam and Optimus, but none of Arcee was present. So very unconfirmed; Bay does not show the blue Arcee being killed or surviving, unintentionally leaving it up to the viewer to have to decide for himself or herself if Arcee lives or not something that I will personally deplore him for. Ultimately, I like how the article is right now stating that two of Arcee's modes are destroyed and just leaving it ambiguous about the third and Arcee's overall fate. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Arcee, the purple bike, died in the movie. She was shot by Megatron while talking to Sam to come with her. The blue and orange motorbikes were last seen in the scene were Optimus Prime transformed in to jet convoy super mode. I think the other two motorbikes, along Jetfire's parts, were merged to Optimus Prime.

I agree with you on the purple. I really didn't see the blue and pink (I am assuming you meant pink) motorcycles when they were combining Optimus Prime with Jetfire, but if others confirm that they were there, so much the better. I plan on watching it again to see, but right now, I think Bay really just left it very unclear. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

From Bay's point of view that he didn't like Arcee at all, it can be assumed that it was not necessary to make a small blue female autobot run with Ironhide. Maybe it's pointless for Bay to make Arcee alive, as he stated that he would make Arcee die, and it's hard to see blue Arcee as Ironhide was way too large than her. As 74.207.208.6 said, Arcee can be repaired as long as she can obtain parts, and the blue one (Chromia) managed to escape from Megatron's shot. After the purple one got shot, the scene went to Megatron chasing blue and pink Arcee with Ironhide, and Megatron shot the pink one on her right shoulder. But it's still unclear and no further information if two of the bots were totally destroyed by the shot. Forestlicious (talk) 2:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Bay probably just decided not to make Arcee run with Ironhide or in the scenes afterward for filming reasons; she was notably absent in the forest scene while everyone else was there. As for the aerial bombardment, the theory could also be made given Arcee's choppy appearances post-director-editing that the last blue Arcee evacuated from the targeted area long before Sam, Mikaela, Lennox, Epps and Ironhide start running. Interestingly enough too, the twins disappear long before Devastator is killed. So Bay gives his favorite Mudflap and Skids the same uncertain fate that he gives his hated Arcee. Under this rationalization it ought to be assumed that Bay just doesn't show Arcee or the twins any further for filming reasons, nothing else. Back to Arcee presumed alive. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Skids and Mudflap fate is uncertain also. Though Mudflap seems managed to destroy parts of devastator face, their fate is unknown. And yes, blue Arcee did escape from Megatron far from Sam's with the Primes scene. So we can conclude that all the Autobots are alive, even mortally wounded. Except Jetfire of course. Forestlicious (talk) 2:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"conclude all...are alive, even mortally wounded"? Slight contradiction, but I understand what you mean. Jetfire is the only one clearly killed; the rest (twins and Arcee included) can safely be presumed/concluded to have survived. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I finally watched the movie for the 2nd time. This time, I'll explain the details of it: After Sam & Mikaela get closer to Optimus, purple Arcee approached them and told them to "follow her, she'll get them to Optimus". After said that, she turned back only to get shot on the face. Then the scene changes to blue & pink Arcee with Ironhide (on slow motion). Blue Arcee managed to hide herself behind a large building site, along with another soldier. While the pink Arcee trying to cover herself but got shot on her upper right body, resulting the weapon on her right hand got destroyed, but her body is totally fine. She fell soon after, but slightly managed to get up a bit, then the scene changed. Although there's a scene of the bombardment, where Sam, Mikaela, and Ironhide ran from it, but no Arcee. It can be concluded that purple & pink Arcee survived but severely injured, and the blue one was totally fine. It means, Arcee is still fine and alive.Forestlicious (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Devastator redefined

There, I fixed the Devastator/multiple identical Constructicons thing. The good news: now that I think about it, as far as I remember there are no multiple 'main' robots with the same alt mode in the movie. There is then only one Mixmaster and one Rampage (red). The bad thing (for some maybe): Devastator is NOT made up of other robots. Like it or hate it, it was only the toys that led us to think so. Also, there is no such Hightower, Overload and Scavenger in the movie. Now, take a deep breath, read it carefully and you will see the article now happily matches the movie and it all makes sense. :) uKER (talk) 01:28, 26 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)

Correct, there are multiples of each type of Constructicon, which was the issue leading to Uker changing the section. Originally, everyone had assumed there would be only one of each type, and the article was written accordingly. It eventually became known that Demolishor was a separate bot from the identical excavator that helps form Devastator in the movie, so he was listed separately from the Constructicons. This became an issue when the movie was released, and we found that there are many Constructicons, some of which form Devastator in the movie. It wasn't clear how to address this since the bots that form Devastator are all given the same names in the toyline that their non-combining duplicates use, aside from Demolishor/Scavenger. The fact that both yellow bulldozers in the toyline are called Rampage while that name is specifically used for a red bulldozer in the movie only helped make things more complicated. Teratron (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Demolishor's Voice

The main article says Calvin Wimmer but the Demolishor article says crispin Freeman which is actually correct The Movie Master 1 (talk)

Correct as in "I personally saw it credited in the movie" correct? uKER (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes,which is the right one The Movie Master 1 (talk)

Feel free to change it then. uKER (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually seen the movie and it is indeed, Calvin Wimmer. Not Freeman. Philipnova798 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

other decpticons

somebody needs to add the other random decepticons onto the article(i cant do it coz im not a member)

-the hatchlings inside the decepticon ship

-the protoform decepticons that showed up at the final battle

-the one that looks like grindor who kidnapped sam's parents(wasn't grindor coz he was dead)

-the random bot they sacrifice to bring back megatron

The one who kidnapped Sam's parents didn't look a thing like Grindor. Looked like Sideways or Barricade. Mathewignash (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Those bots aren't worth adding to the listing and are fine getting mentioned in the Plot section. Uker (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Plot detail

I reverted what was done to the plot. That was not sensible condensation as it removed major information. I'll see to do it properly later. Uker (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to condense the Plot section. Feel free to help. IMHO, we should not remove:

• Major plot points.
• The action switching locations.
• Data about which character is where.
• Characters getting killed, severely injured or revived.
• Any kind of valuable data not directly coming from the movie itself.

Please exercise common sense. Uker (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the whole second shard subplot could be almost be removed but it might be necessary to mention it in a small way since it allows Mikaela to capture Wheeljack and he is needed to lead them to Jetfire. -- Horkana (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here I tried to remove as much as I could, but yes, it cannot be removed entirely because it is a key plot point to Wheelie (who, BTW, is never said to be Wheeljack) and Jetfire. Uker (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the plot is currently at 1000 something words, which is only 100 words over the suggested limit. Almost there. Will keep working on it. Uker (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit dispute over plot section

I have gone into an edit dispute with user User:BIGNOLE over what has to be done with the plot. He has repeatedly replaced the plot with an oversimplified version that only explains at large the events in the movie. As I have already stated, I'd intend the plot to at least list all the major visited locations, state all major characters participating, and listing any deaths/injuries so that anyone who reads the article can know what was the fate of each character. I turn to you to decide what you think should be done. Take a dumbed down plot and add what is missing, which will most probably end up growing back out of control? Or trying to trim down the current plot, and put it into size? Make yourselves heard. Uker (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that in my attempts to trim it down, I have taken the section from 3000 words as it was in the last revision yesterday ([see here]), to the 1000 words it is now, and I don't think we've lost any major events. Uker (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone trimmed it already, down to below 800 words (where it should be). It wasn't me, I was merely reverting back to an earlier version. My suggestion is you take the version that currently passes WP:MOSFILMS and add/subtract what needs to be done. I haven't seen the film, I'll see it Sunday. When I do see the film, the first thing to go will be the "The film..." stuff, because that's not appropriate writing style. I can tell you that you don't need to list locations, unless absolutely necessary. Listing them simple because you think they are "major" isn't the why it should be. Listing the specific fate of every character is also needless detail. My suggestion would be to read the plot summary written for the first film, as that would give you an idea of how to summarize character fates without extraneous information. A plot summary should be terse, succinct, to the point.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Clearly I'm not the only one that disputes your additions. I believe when someone trimmed it down to what is accepted by the Wiki Film Community for length, you assumed some rather bad faith by telling them what they did were "greatly destructive ones". Then you told them not to do it again. At what point did this page become Uker's? Curious. I'd like to quote something we see every time we edit: "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest sticking with Uker's plot synopsis for now. It is still a bit long, as Uker himself has already pointed out, but it is well written. The version Bignole has tried reinstating is more concise, but is considerably less polished. I believe it would take considerably less time and effort to trim Uker's version to an appropriate length than it would to fix up the shorter synopsis to something that everyone would be happy with. It's a worthy goal to meet the MOS, but there's no need to throw out a lot of good work just to reach one particular goal a little bit earlier. A few points from Uker's version that I feel could easily be trimmed away include things like the details about how Ravage retrieves the shard, the several lists of characters, irrelevant details about Mikaela's bike model, etc. Teratron (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Teratron, believe me I'm seeing into slimming it down. We only need to shave 150 words and we're there. The details about Ravage retrieving the shard I only kept because of the mention of that 'metal fin' bot. Also, Mikaela's bike model was gone some revisions ago. Uker (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw you're working on it. That's part of the good work I was saying there's no need to throw out. =P The bike info was still there on the version I popped open to compare when I saw this topic. I'm just a slow writer... Teratron (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese voice actor credits

A list of Japanese voice actor credits was posted here http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/revenge-of-the-fallen-japanese-dub-voice-credits-168020/ As expected the Japanese managed many more classic Transformers voices than the U.S. version gave us. Mathewignash (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Random decepticons

I'm a bit confused, was the fallen trying to harvest the energon from the sun to summon those 'hatchling' things on his ship or were they just random characters

The hatchlings were only a device to show the Decepticon's urge for energon. They're probably like their offspring, and no, I don't think any hint was given about using them for battle. uKER (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Voices

Someone put up several voice actors/actresses for the Transfomers last night, saying Jason Griffith voices Sideswipe, Susan Blu, Liz Ortiz and Tara Strong voice the sisters, Anthony Anderson voices Jolt, Amy Palent voices Wheelie, and Mark Hamill voices Scavenger. Who added those onto the page and why? Dark Warrior D 12:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transformers:_Revenge_of_the_Fallen#Unsourced_voice_credits. Uker (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This page has been rife with rumored voice actors being added by anonymous users. We try to revert them as quickly as possible, but they are coming in fast and furious lately. They come in on this page and on the pages devoted to individual characters. Mathewignash (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

if its practically known why do we have to wait for comfirmation Baller449 (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, not a fan gossip site. Only when things get at least one reliable source it gets added. Mathewignash (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

oh i see thanks Baller449 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arcee and Sideswipe's voices are officially announced, and added to the page. http://transformerslive.blogspot.com/2009/06/arcee-and-sideswipe-voice-actors.html Mathewignash (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth noting that Frank Welker's voice for Soundwave is the unaltered "Dr. Claw" voice used for the cartoon before the pitch and effects were added for the cartoon? Technically it is the same voice as used in the cartoon, and in one episode there was an instance where you can hear the unaltered voice (Soundwave says "Excellent, Ravage!" with the effects not put on the voice in the final mix). It's minor, obviously, but it could be mentioned in the part about the voices under Soundwave. UncleThursday (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Remove "The Nostalgia Critic also gave a good review on the movie. Although he obviously pointed out major holes in the movie, he thought it was great and "adequately satisfying"." That review isn't necessary and has no citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.15.8 (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

hey i fond some reviewa do you think we should put them in the article AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

IGN UK (3/5)

View full review

It’s a fine set-up that is forcefully established in the movie’s superb opening hour. Bay masterfully zips between events at Cybertron (the Transformers’ homeworld), Sam’s opening day at college, the drama on a variety of military bases, and throws in several robot-on-robot battles for good measure, all at a breakneck pace that leaves you breathless.

“The film reaches its pinnacle with one such action set-piece that takes place in a forest - a brilliantly crafted sequence that is kinetic, emotional and genuinely thrilling. Unfortunately however, it is a climax that comes only an hour or so into the movie - the remaining 80 or so minutes just never quite scale the same heights.”

That’s the one BIG problem with ROTF; the movie stops dead halfway through, and then spends the rest of its overlong run-time building up a head of steam again, painstakingly setting up the eventual climax.

Bay takes an age meticulously manoeuvring all the film’s protagonists into place for a vast, epic confrontation in the middle of the Egyptian desert. But by the time this all-in royal rumble between the Autobots, Decepticons and US Army finally arrives, you are too numbed, exhausted and inured to actually give a damn about the outcome.

It is just kind of inexcusable that with such a ridiculously enjoyable formula, viewers of ROTF still spend the movie’s final half hour nursing a numb head and arse, and willing the noise to stop. Transformers 2 proves that sometimes less is more.

Total Film (4/5) View full review

Fallen so frequently approaches the first pic’s all-out awesomeness, and even occasionally surpasses it - notably in an opening blitzkrieg in Shanghai and a forest face-off between Optimus Prime and three Decepticons impressive enough to merit comparison with King Kong’s multiple T-Rex smackdown - that it’s this close to being the perfect summer flick.

The problem is, it’s the parts you remember, not the whole.

Bay may have upped the ante, taking his ’bots on the road (New York, Paris, the Pyramids), into space and even back in time (courtesy of an Apocalypto-like prologue set in 17,000 BC), but he hasn’t managed to assemble his components into a coherent mechanism.

Nor does his inability to keep his camera still or go two minutes without blowing shit up help, the hyperactivity reaching its nadir during a drawn-out climax in the Egyptian desert.

[...]

For all its faults, Fallen is genuinely more enjoyable than the summer’s other giant-robot picture Terminator Salvation. In contrast to McG’s portentous, po-faced tone, Bay works in a likeable strain of knowing humour that makes the two hour-plus running time fly by.

and their more at [2] AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

AUMS, let's just wait until the movie is released before putting up reviews in the main page. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rampage

Rampage needs to be mentioned in this article under the Decepticons. He was the red one in the movie that Bumblebee killed before killing Ravage. User:ARCViper 12:23, 25 June 2009

He's already listed under the Constructicons (who obviously are Decepticons). The Devastator toys list Rampage as taking part in him, so I'd say listing Rampage outside of the Constructicons would only add to the confusion. Uker (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as far as we can tell there are two guys named Rampage. Mathewignash (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, um no. Only one guy is named Rampage and it's the one that kidnaps Sam's parents and is fought by BB after releasing them in Egypt. I do agree however that there are several guys with the same mold. The problem is that the character named Rampage does not take part in the formation of Devastator.
The best solution I can suggest, which would also serve to somewhat clear up the mess that is the relation between Scavenger and Demolishor, is taking the Constructicon list out of Devastator and then listing the Constructicons based on their vehicle modes only and not their names.
Then in each class we would list any named characters in that class, if any. Scavenger and Demolishor would then be mentioned under a same item, under the Constructicons transforming into the RH-400 excavator.
Also, in Devastator's description, we would specify the components seen to form him in the movie, which would tie in well to what was said about him having the ability to be formed by different combinations of components.
If everyone's OK with this, I'll do it and see it turns out right. Uker (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was actually considering proposing something similar. Due to all the duplicates, and name confusion far beyond Brawl/Devastator from the first film, something definitely needs to be done differently. Listing them by unique body types is really the only thing I can think of that makes sense. What I've been struggling with is trying to come up with a way to simultaneously address the other duplicates, like Blackout/Grindor, Bonecrusher and his RotF clone, and (to a lesser extent) Barricade/Sideways. Any thoughts? Teratron (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go over the whole Barricade thing? He was not in the movie ok? Sideways, is someone completely different. Now I do have something that could solve maybe what happened to Barricade. Remember Optimus saying they hunted down 6 previous decepticons in the whole 2 year timeline thing. So think Demolishor, Sideways, Barricade perhaps. The other 3 I wouldnt know but maybe Barricade was one of them hunted down.Xmotox (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course Barricade isn't in the movie. That's not the point of what I was saying. Sideways, while slightly more differentiated than the others I listed, is a body-type clone of Barricade from the first movie. I think the article could really use some sort of explanation of the long-standing Transformers practice of redecos, as it would help alleviate some of the confusion from those who aren't long-time Transformers fans. It was fairly easy to ignore when it was just Sideways/Barricade, but with Grindor, a random Bonecrusher clone, and numerous Constructicons, anyone who isn't familiar with Hasbro's redeco practices is bound to get confused watching this movie. Teratron (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WHo is the guy who kidnapped Sam's parents then? Because he was black, not red, from what I saw. Looked like Barricade. Red Rampage held them in Egypt. Problem is pre-movie promotional material say Rampage was part of Devastator. Mathewignash (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

See new discussion topic about Devastator. uKER (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am almost sorry to revive this nonsense, but here's proof of it being Grindor who kidnaps Sam's parents. And, no, it wasn't me who made that image. uKER (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Modifications to the Plot section

As you may know, the "Plot" section is under works in an attempt to bring it down to ~800 words, to comply with the guidelines provided by WP:MOSFILMS. For this reason, I encourage everyone considering modifying this section, to think not in how to make it clearer, but strictly in what is awfully missing or unclear in it. Clarifying it will most surely result in an increase in word count, which is against the interest of the article. So if you want to improve it, the best thing you can do is think of sections that can be somehow summarized without losing the cause-effect traceability of the events in the movie. Also, as I said before, it would be nice if we could keep track of where each character is at a given time, and the eventual fate of each one of them (at least the major ones). I know I'll be working on this, and any of you who wish to collaborate will be welcome. Thank you. uKER (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I shall assist in this, but hopefully it won't get mowed down by tons of edits because some users believe every single detail needs to be mentioned! Evilgidgit (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was you the one who did what was done to it, my props to you. I guess I couldn't have done it better. I did throw in a couple of touches, but overall it was what it was needing. uKER (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

17,000 B.C.

17,000 Years prior to the film's events, ancient Transformers called the Dynasty of Primes arrived on Earth with the intention of draining the planet's sun to create Engeron and power the AllSpark, the lifesource of the Transformers. One of the Primes betrayed the others and constructed a machine called a Sun Harvester to charge the AllSpark, against the other Primes' wishes to protect life. A battle broke out which resulted in the Dynasty sealing themselves away, dying the process, in order to hide the Matrix of Leadership, the key used to power the Sun Harvester. The treacherous Prime was dubbed the Fallen, and he vowed to seek revenge upon Earth.

I just watched it and according to the movie, the ancient Transformers decided to harvest stars to power the All Spark. The "Primes" agreed to it with the condition that if a life form is found on a planet of a particular star, they will leave it. When they saw the ancient Humans, one of the Primes betrayed them and a war broke out. The betrayer was called "The Fallen" then and was defeated. All the other Primes decided to sacrifice themselves to hide the Matrix of Leadership. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 15:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Plot Summary

The plot summary is incorrect. Sam isn't killed by the blast from the bombs, he's killed by Megatron shooting at him.--68.202.139.56 (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Fallen?

So why no mention of The Fallen in this article?

Arcee bikes' models

Although ATM it constitutes OR, I've figured out the bike model for Arcee. She's a Ducati 1198 Superbike. See bike image here and toy image here. uKER (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Followup: I just figured out Chromia too. Here's Chromia's Deluxe toy and concept art. She's a 2008 Suzuki B-King. The toy bike seems to have custom faceplate, gas tank and exhaust pipes, but compare the headlight in the concept and the real bike. If you look closely at the headlight, the concept artist even seems to have used that very same pic of the bike I posted. uKER (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I just found the Suzuki logo on the right side of her chest in the concept, thus I'm adding the brand for Chromia as well. I'd also suggest adding the models for the bikes that don't have it listed yet (especially the B-King in which it's evident that they used that pic for the concept), but I'm not sure if that would somehow need sourcing besides the blatantly obvious. uKER (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the bike model for Chromia. Also, notice the ref for her bike mode now includes two links, one for her concept pic, and a comparison between the concept and the bike. Hope that makes it sufficiently evident. I would do something similar for Arcee's bike, but there's three visually identical Ducati bikes and there's no way I can tell what bike the concept is based on, since their promotional images are also identical. Should anyone care, they're the Ducati 898, 1098 and 1198. uKER (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to check the three brands of motorcycles that are listed for Arcee. I think one is a Buell. Concept drawings are not always true to the finished product. It is also possible that the toy is different from the actual bike used in the movie.

There's no Buell in this movie. The Buell Firebolt was used for Arcee's alt mode in the first movie's concept, and it's the bike Lennox rides when he slides under Blackout to shoot him. I saw Revenge of the Fallen twice and I can assure the bikes are the ones. Note I still couldn't figure out which of the three (identical) Ducati bikes I mentioned is the pink bike. BTW, the Agusta F4's F4 logo if clearly seen on several occasions. Also, the Ducati's distinctive headlights are visible several times in the movie; also the B-King's distinctive triangular tailpipes are seen in a shot where the three bikes are seen from behind. For the sake of assurance, I couldn't even notice any modifications in the bikes. Save for the paint jobs, the three of them looked pretty stock. Uker (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There. Arcee's bike models confirmed. Arcee turned out to be an 848. uKER (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

total gross dosnt add up

if it had a 16 million midnight and a 55 million wenseday shouldnt it have grossed 71 million? the vh1 link is inaccurate. --72.185.122.200 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

16 million is part off the 55 million. If you didn't already know midnight is part of Wednesday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflataman (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

BUDGET update

{{editsemiprotected}}

Budget - $194 Million. Bay: "We were able to make this for $194 million.." http://michaelbay.com/newsblog/files/b7f044df56ae3317b4b36abb77c88f9b-546.html

Done Welcome and thanks for improving the accuracy of this article. Celestra (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, someone made the budget 250 million. Should I revert the edit? Philipnova798 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you should it is wrong as previously stated by Michael Bay the director. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflataman (talk • contribs) 16:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Voice Actor and Director defend Twins

{{editsemiprotected}} I think in order to show the most unbiased view on the twins we should incorporate Michael Bay's quote and what Reno Wilson (a black man who voiced Mudflap) said. Reno said that "It's not fair to assume the characters are black. It could easily be a Transformer that uploaded Kevin Federline data. They were just like posers to me." full quote is here. Michael also stated "It's done in fun, I don't know if it's stereotypes — they are robots, by the way. These are the voice actors. This is kind of the direction they were taking the characters and we went with it."

I do think this deserves mention. I'll see into adding it later. uKER (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Question: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the article. It is not clear why the {{editsemiprotected}} template was added above. The comments above are OK for starting a discussion, but aren't detailed enough for an edit request. Another editor already joined the discussion and agreed to work out the details and add it to the article. If you would rather use the template, you need to decide on the wording and state your request in a "please change X to Y" level of detail. Then any auto-confirmed user, like myself, can stop by and do the actual insert for you. Celestra (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Box Office Estimates

{{editsemiprotected}} The box office receipts being reported for the 5 day are just estimating Sunday's total. As today is Sunday and it has obviously not ended yet. Could it be stated in the article that this is an estimate and not a fact. this article states that it is an estimate in the first sentence

Done Celestra (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also in this category, it is unclear in the first paragraph what statistic it is comparing when stating that the Dark Knight made a higher $67.8 million. This is for the first day gross, but it is not stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.187.219 (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Rampage's centaur/spider mode

It was me who recently added that mode into the article, but now I'm not sure he features that in the movie. It could be just another toy line hack, made for the sake of poseability. This is the clearest shot I could get of him underwater, which is where I thought he appeared in his 'spider' mode, but now I don't think that's the case. What do you people think? uKER (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

France

I just saw the film, and unless i have some serious amnesia, there wasnt any France in the film... maybe someone got mixed up with GI JOE?

Sam's parents are in France when Judy gets the phone call from The Fallen. uKER (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, wasnt that Soundwave?--TitanOne (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Soundwave? In France, which is located on Earth? You've got to be kidding me, right? uKER (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the phone call. --TitanOne (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, sorry. My bad. I got confused with the discussion about Sam's parents being kidnapped. I assume it was The Fallen since he was the one on TV, but it may have been Soundwave, yeah. uKER (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Grindor Voice question

Does Grindor really have a voice actor. I never saw one credited for him in the end credits. Philipnova798 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't remember him saying much if at all--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I heard Frank Welker provides the death shriek The Movie Master 1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

Same here, though it's more of a vocal effect as Grindor had no speaking role in the movie. Fractyl (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but why isn't Grindor credited with Welker though in the end credits? Philipnova798 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Second fastest grossing movie? WTF?

Where's the sense in that? Fastest movie to achieve a certain sum? If so, which? uKER (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Knight is the fastest grossing movie which means it got the most money in the least amount of time. So compared to the Dark Knight Revenge of the Fallen got less money in that same amount of time. So to reach the same amount that The Dark Knight got it would have taken Revenge of the Fallen a longer amount of time. Second fastest grossing movie is pretty much self explanatory..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_(mathematics) --71.108.231.50 (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. You're trying to be a smartass and you're just embarrassing yourself. Keep it on. Anyone really care to explain what period of time this is referred to, or what sum of money was used as a target? Otherwise, I'll remove it. uKER (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he was trying to be a smartass, I just don't think he understood what you were asking. I don't know the answer to your question, but agree with removing the info if it can't be clarified. To the anon user, the question is second fasted to how much money? $200M? $203M? Or for opening three days? Opening weekend? CPitt76 (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, to me, the linking to the 'Rate' article was kinda like saying 'go to school', but never mind... uKER (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I was trying to be a smart ass. I was just checking how mad you would get and also stating that you are a dumbass at the same time. I don't see how my post would embarrass myself, I was answering to an embarrassment of a question. Learn how to type out full sentences that actually make sense if you want an answer. The correct answer to your question is five days and The Dark Knight's 201.2 Million was used as a target by the way. Every time they talk about gross they are talking about the five day gross. Have a nice day! --71.108.231.50 (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is now corrected. You have been disproven. Now get lost. uKER (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How did the Witwickys get to Egypt?

Okay, so Ron and Judy are in France, and seemingly get kidnapped by a crashing "protoform entry mode" Decepticon who looks amazingly like Barricade. Then later 13 more protoforms crash in in Egypt and they have Ron and Judy as hostages. Are we to assume that the Decepticon who took Ron and Judy captive blasted back into space (with them inside!) and then re-landed in Egypt? Mathewignash (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Egypt is not that far from France, you know? You would worry about bigger issues, like how in hell Lennox managed to go from the US to Egypt in such a short time, or how in hell the twins got to Egypt, since they were not in the Smithsonian when Jetfire teleported everyone. uKER (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That was explained in the novel. Lennox took a fast plane and Jetfire's space bridge released a shock wave that also transported Bumblebee and the Twins. --Bold Clone (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheap asses. XD uKER (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well hey, Ravage went back into space and blasted back down, like, twice. - Chris McFeely (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

When did that happen? uKER (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Grindor

In the information below the helicopter title is wrong for Grindor, he is acctually a CH-53 which is a United States Marine Corps helo. The one in the movie was used from Squadren HMH-465 located at Camp Miramar in San Diego,CA. Which is why the color and head model is different.

Frank Welker[citation needed] provided vocal effects for Grindor, a robot greatly similar to Blackout from the 2007 movie. Grindor shares both Blackout's MH-53 Pave Low helicopter alternative mode, and his robot model, being only differentiated by a lighter paint job and different head model —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.157.160.79 (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No he is not The Movie Master 1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

You are absolutely right. I had heard him being a Sikorsky helicopter, but thought it had been dropped. When I read your info, I remembered the game having a mention to Sikorsky helicopters in a disclaimer screen, so I just checked, and it mentions the "Sikorsky Super Stallion", which is just the helo you mention. Great info. Added. uKER (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the source for this? I brought up the possibility that he was different here, but never got a satisfactory answer. He was described as a Russian transport helicopter in the novel, but the toy just reuses the Pavelow model (right down to actually noting that it's a liscensed replica of a Pavelow on the box!)Mathewignash (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I heard that in the ROTF video game credits it says the Super Stallion. Can anyone confirm that? Mathewignash (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I just sourced it minutes ago. BTW, him being russian in the novel says nothing. Blackout's helicopter is a Sikorsky too, thus russian. I just added his brand into the Blackout article and I've made a query about Wikipedia style guidelines on article titles, since there are lots of articles on machinery and aircrafts without their brand mentioned. For example, Starscream should be a Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor. uKER (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

About his similarity to Blackout, it's because the helicopters seem to basically be the same, with some Sea Stallions (a variant of the Super Stallion) having even been upgraded to Pave Lows. uKER (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Transformers has had similar vehicles with completely different transformations before. In the movie line they have Blackout, Evac, Grindor and Whirl all with the same basic model. Seems to be a bit of overkill. Mathewignash (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about our previous conversation about it being Blackout in the movie and me saying it looked the same. They could well have given him a robot mode, but the whole point of the chopper model/color/head/name change is to save time and money and effortlessly add a supposedly new character, reusing a previous one without making deaths meaningless. uKER (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

5 day grossing $

how come you guys said it came behind the darknight on the 4th day on saturday, wenesday was day 1, thursday was day 2, friday was 3, and saturday was 4, and sunday 5 so y was it put on saturday it came slightly behind dark night if it wasnt even day 5 yet AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

simmons

is it reggie or seymour the first film page says reggie and this 1 says seymour which 1 is actually correct Baller449 (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that its Reggie. Philipnova798 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Movie adaption Novels, for the first and the second movie, as well as the prequel novel for Revenge of the Fallen have his name as Seymour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.51.221 (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Box Office

The box office section is not up to date. The movie made $60.6 million on Wednesday link here, followed by $28.6 million on Thursday link here, and $36.7 million on Friday for a total of 125.9 million dollars domestically in 3 days link here. Foreign wise the movie made $80.1 million for a worldwide the movie has made $200.6 million both according to box office mojo link here. Thank you if someone could update it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflataman (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a Comment

The critics in the Reception section said that it was the end of the an era for CGI action flicks, it should pro'lly denote that its the end of the era for the accuracy of critic's reception of CGI action flicks, they were wrong about the last one, and even more wrong of Transformers II, hopefully some more enthustically Wikipedian can adequately research for quotes (hopefully someone quoteable noticed this) and add this to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.152.198 (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

would love to know who these people are and also 200's are an ear of comic book movies =^-^=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

First film to use Ad-Deyr at Petra?

This source seems to suggest that this film was the first to use Ad-Deyr at Petra as a location ("the top of a mountain"), rather than the similar but better-known Al-Khazneh seen at the end of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Does anybody have anything firmer on that?

I was at Petra a few months ago, and I would assume that's what's meant since Ad-Deyr ("The Monastery") can otherwise only be reached by a not-inconsiderable hike (or camel or donkey ride, if you're willing to make the Bedouins a little richer) from the restaurants at the bottom of the main canyon where most of the things you go to Petra to see are (And that's on top of the mile walk from the Main Gate down the Siq into Petra, then another mile downhill to the restaurants). I like how the film suggests you could just drive right up to it. Hah! Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Skipjack

A member at the TFW2005 reported the movie credits some Kevin Michael Richardson guy as voicing (or playing) an unknown character called "Skipjack". Just thought I'd let you guys know. uKER (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

yeah he was one of the 13 originals right =^-^= Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

edit: hey Uker, I tried looking up that name and found no known link and that name wasn't among the 13 originals. are you sure that his character?--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What? It was you not me the one who said it was one of the originals. BTW, the originals are 7, not 13. And, I really couldn't imagine one of them being called 'Skipjack'. I mean... no. And I don't have a clue who he is, nor did I see his name in the credits. I just saw a guy who mentioned having seen it. BTW, don't copy/paste your signature, man!!! To sign your posts, enter four tildes (~~~~) into the post or use the editing toolbar below. uKER (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I said he was one of them, but I never said he was skipjack. also if it is seven why are we saying 13? and I didn't copy and paste my sig, I edited my post =-_-=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Who's saying they're 13? And you did mess the sig. First there's this revision in which you added the 'yeah' comment. Then 19 hours later you make this one and your first post's signature passes on to the second one. The current signature in your second post was added by me here (BTW, seems like I missed a digit in the process). uKER (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

this page claims to be 13 originals--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Skipjack was the original name for Rampage on-set, they must have changed it during post-production. Dark Warrior D (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.72.201 (talk)

that would make sense now why his name wasn't on the list =^-^=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Triple changers

You may have noticed there's this user Kozmik Pariah being a knucklehead about there being triple changers in the movie, and Megatron being the first one of them, as if there had been an official announcement about it. It's not me who has been reverting his changes, but I for one, tend to disagree with there being triple changers. Sure, there's Megatron, Mixmaster and Rampage with three different modes if you wish, but they're not proper triple changers in the sense that they don't have two vehicle modes. Mixmaster's 'gun emplacement' mode and Megatron's 'flying tank' mode are lousy hacks. They're not proper vehicles. I mean, Megatron's jet wasn't even a proper vehicle mode in 2007, let alone his new tank mode, and god forbid his 'tank with seal flippers and thrusters' mode. About Rampage, see next section. uKER (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In the toy line Mixmaster and Soundwave are the only ones called "Triple Changers" on the boxes, but Soundwave never even takes on humanoid form in the movie does he? Still, it's official he becomes a robot, a jet or a satellite. While Mixmaster may also have a poor third mode, he does have one, and it's assumed in the film, and it's labeled as such on the toy box. What more do you want from a "Triple Changer"? There have been lame Triple Changers in Hasbro's past. In the Cybertron they had a "Triple Changer" who turned into a dragon or a three headed dragon. Basically two extra heads popped out of his back. Lame "third mode", but it was official. Mathewignash (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, well. If Mixmaster is labeled a triple changer in his toy, I guess we'll have to live with it, as in the movie he has all his toy's modes. uKER (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that Mixmaster could legitimately be called a triple changer. It may not be a classic triple changer with two vehicle modes, but he does have three distinct modes that are all used in the movie. I still have a problem with the current Megatron statements though. Komik Pariah is insisting Megatron has his former jet mode in the movie, which he clearly doesn't. He has the flying tank mode used for his Voyager toy. Like I said the last time this came up, I didn't notice whether the wings are hidden when he drives in tank mode - a detail I'm certainly going to watch for the next time I get to see it. If the wings are hidden, you could make a case for calling him a triple changer, albeit a pretty weak case. But whether the wings are hidden on the ground or not, he clearly does not possess his jet mode from the first movie. My suggestions are as follows:

• Remove the incorrect info about Megatron retaining his old jet mode. Possibly explicitly state that he doesn't despite the fact he does retain the mode in some movie-related media to help avoid confusion.
• Confirm whether Megatron's tank mode has a non-flying variant in the movie without the wings.
  • If he doesn't, delete any statements claiming Megatron is a triple changer of any kind.
  • If Megatron does hide his wings in tank mode when he's not flying, come to a consensus about whether this qualifies him as a triple changer. Some points to consider:
    • G1 Tracks was not labeled a Triple Changer despite his flying car mode.
    • The Energon Decepticons' Hyper Power modes did not qualify them for Triple Changer status. Only Scorponok, with three distinct modes, was advertised as a Triple Changer.
    • Contrary to an earlier statement, Cybertron Scourge was not advertised as a Triple Changer. However, his repaint Cryo Scourge was.
    • Within the RotF toyline, Rampage is not advertised as a Triple Changer despite his jackhammer mode.
    • Several other Transformers figures with three distinct modes have not been advertised as triple changers. E.g., the G1 city bots, G1 Doubledealer, the Armada Mini-Cons with weapon modes (although they were called Triple Changers in the Dreamwave profile books), etc.
• Decide whether Soundwave qualifies as a triple changer within the context of the film article based on the toy being advertised as a Triple Changer.
• Qualify the statement from the writers regarding introducing Triple Changers in the next movie. Presumably they either didn't know about Mixmaster and Soundwave, or didn't consider them to be true Triple Changers. Either way, they make a statement that's apparently contradicted by the facts. Komik Pariah keeps twisting the statement to make it sound like they acknowledge there currently are a few triple changers and want to bring in more, but the article cited clearly discusses how RotF wouldn't feature Triple Changers. That's just not acceptable.

Personally, I think it makes sense to refer to Mixmaster as a Triple Changer, maybe noting him as a possible oversight in the sequel statement. While the Cryo Scourge argument could be used to label anything with the slightest possible variations within a mode a triple changer, the evidence is overwhelmingly against considering something like flip-out wings being grounds for Triple Changer status. Megatron in this movie doesn't qualify. Soundwave is debatable based on whether toyline info is deemed usable for providing additional information not found in the movie. The movie doesn't contradict the toy label, so I have no problem including it, but I think it should be noted that the info comes from the toy with Soundwave not transforming at all in the movie. Teratron (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The final word on who is or is not a "Triple Changer" is whether Hasbro or some Hasbro liscensed company calls it such. Mixmaster and Soundwave say "Triple Changer" on the box. It's official. Cryo-Scourge says it on the box. It's official. Rampage does not say it, so he's not one. Mathewignash (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, maybe. However, 1) Hasbro isn't the primary creative force behind the movie, so their word isn't necessarily the final word for movie characters, and 2) Hasbro isn't the least bit consistent about what is or isn't a Triple Changer. Cybertron (Cryo) Scourge makes the latter abundantly clear. But regardless of whether Hasbro's say is the final word or not, that doesn't answer the question of how to handle Megatron or Soundwave within this article at all, with Megatron in particular being the main point of contention here. This article is about just the movie itself, not the toyline or the overall franchise. Within the movie. Soundwave does not transform, Arcee is apparently one consciousness controlling three bodies, etc. Just as the individual bikes' names from the toyline may be worth noting but can't be directly applied to the bikes in the movie, the fact that Hasbro decided to rearrange some of Soundwave's parts and call it a third mode doesn't mean the Soundwave seen in the movie qualifies as a Triple Changer. Like I said above, I'm fine with including mention of the toy being labeled a Triple Changer, but I think it would be incorrect to make a definitive statement along the lines of, "Soundwave in the movie is a Triple Changer." I think the current statement in the article, "He transforms into a Cybertronian craft with a jet mode and a satellite form," may be misleading, since he doesn't actually transform in the movie at all, much less into two separate alt modes. It's vague enough that it could be let go, but I'd rather see it go something more like, "He appears as a Cybertronian craft capable of interfacing with Earth's satellites. The Soundwave figure in the movie's toyline is a Triple Changer, featuring both a jet mode and a satellite form." Hasbro's labels for Megatron are even less meaningful, since every Megatron toy either has wings on the tank or doesn't. Assuming Megatron does actually vary the wing configuration in the movie, we'd need to see an actual toy from Hasbro that features this functionality to see whether they would consider it a Triple Changer or not. Since there's no figure that does this, they essentially haven't said anything on the matter at all. If anything, you could take the lack of an official Triple Changer Megatron figure to indicate Hasbro doesn't consider him to be one. But, like Soundwave, that's essentially analysing what Hasbro has or hasn't said and trying to apply it to the movie where it may or may not be appropriate. Teratron (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

At no point in the film do they ever say the words "Triple Changer" So by the movie there are none. Some guys have three forms. Not the same thing. "Triple Changer" is a term created by Hasbro. We have two Triple Changers in the ROTF toy line so far, Mixmaster and Soundwave. If you want to mention Megatron's tank/jet modes go ahead, but it's a thrid mode, not a "Triple Changer" Heck, by the movie alone The Fallen has no vehicle mode. Mathewignash (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly confused now whether you're arguing against me or agreeing with me. My main points are that Mixmaster fairly clearly is a triple changer (albeit not a very good one), Soundwave is claimed to be a triple changer in the toyline but doesn't transform in the movie itself, and Megatron shouldn't be called a triple changer since at most he has a tank mode with flip-out wings. I also think the article should rectify the apparent appearance of triple changers with the writers' statements that the film wouldn't feature any. Do you agree or not? Teratron (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bonecrusher in the movie

A statement has been made in the article that Bonecrusher is in the movie. In the mess that is the battle in Egypt, everyone is seeing what they want to see, being Bonecrusher the second in popularity after duplicate constructicons, which there aren't any. I know his vehicle mode is there, but I'd like to know where it is that he is said to appear in robot mode so that tomorrow, when I see the movie for the third time, I can really verify him being there. uKER (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good god, third time. I havn't even seen it once yet (been on vacation and buisy, plus preparing for college, etc. Not sure when I'm going to see it actually...groan).Enryū6473 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at tfwiki.net, they are claiming that it was Bonecrusher that disabled the purple and pink Arcee components. I can't confirm that, as the past couple of times my eyes were focusing on the blue Arcee component taking cover in the upper left hand corner of the screen and not at the Decepticon attacking them from the upper right hand corner of the screen. Best of luck with that confirmation. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I saw his robot form, but it was a pretty quick shot and I've only seen it once, so I can't say with absolute certainty. During the final battle, at one point there's a shot looking up at a Decepticon standing behind a wall, with his head and chest visible above the wall. It sounds about right that it's when the Arcees get shot. Anyway, the head and claws behind his shoulders looked distinctly like Bonecrusher. Another thing that might help pick it out is he looked impossibly huge to me in that shot. Maybe it was just the perspective, or maybe it's that I was still adjusting to not having my glasses shrink everything since switching to contacts the day before, but it really surprised me, both because I wasn't expecting to see a Bonecrusher robot and he seemed way too big for a Bonecrusher clone. Teratron (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The coloration and head were identical to Bonecrusher. He was on-screen for only a few seconds and he looked like he had slight differences (guns on his right hand, maybe a bit taller, too), but there are no other 'Cons in the live-action series besides Bonecrusher that look anything like him. I'm going to see the movie again later this week, so I'll pay closer attention just to make double sure. — JGoodman (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All of my money on you people mistaking Scrapper for Bonecrusher. Similar coloration, similar head, similarly long arms, much bulkier. It all fits. BTW, I couldn't see the movie today but I certainly will before the weekend. uKER (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some similarities for sure, but I'm still pretty sure it was a Bonecrusher clone, not Scrapper. The main things that jumped out at me were the claws from the minesweeper behind his shoulders. Those are a very distinctive feature unique to Bonecrusher. It's hard to be truly definitive after only one viewing since it was such a quick shot, but I'm pretty confident the robot is the Bonecrusher clone we saw in vehicle mode a little bit earlier. Teratron (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

By "clone" do you mean an actual cloning, or simply another robot with a similar look? Also, there is outside fiction supporting the idea that Bonecrusher survived the end of thr 2007 film, so without ANY other explanation, I'd guess we have to go with the idea that the toy box was right when it said Bonecrusher actually survived the film and limped away when no one was looking. Mathewignash (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply any actual cloning, but just a virtually identical robot, along the lines of Blackout/Grindor. Sorry for not being clear. I would say we shouldn't simply assume that the robot seen in the film is the actual Bonecrusher from the first film. Even if the filmmakers have decided to incorporate the idea from the toyline that Bonecrusher somehow survived, there's no indication at all in the film of who that robot is. It could be Bonecrusher returning to action, or it could just be some other robot with the same body type. Without any suggestion at all from the film and no RotF Hasbro figure suggesting one or the other, we're left to make our own assumptions. Really, the only bit of evidence that he could actually be Bonecrusher actually suggests he's probably not Bonecrusher. The toy that suggests Bonecrusher survived also shows he took on a military green color scheme, unlike the robot in the film. Teratron (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Without explicit sourcing that says he is in the movie, then we cannot put it in the article. It doesn't matter if anyone "thinks" they saw him, we already know Bay has a tendency to not get names right (*cough*Devastator*cough*), so that could be any Decepticon that is being seen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception

Based on user reception from Rotten Tomatoes, IGN UK and the IMDB, fans (not professional critics) have given the film mixed to positive reviews. I think that this should be mentioned and cited in the article (it was partially present and then removed), as IMO, the current information gives the impression that TF2 is generally accepted as a terrible movie.--172.131.14.188 (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSFILM, user ratings should not be used. Follow the aforementioned link for the rationale behind this. - kollision (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition of cameo

I think something needs to be pointed out here in the CAST section. Frenzy does not make a cameo. The fact that someone has his head in a jar doesn't equate to a cameo appearance. It's a piece of trivia, that has no encyclopedic value. Also, we cannot insinuate that Bonecrush or Barricade are in the film, not even by pointing out that there are vehicles that resemble them in the film. That's original research anyway you slice it, and OR is not allowed at all (see WP:NOR).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree. ThuranX (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Frenzy's head being seen in the jar does have encyclopedic value since it clarifies the character's fate in the first movie, which is never stated clearly. About Bonecrusher, his vehicle is seen there plainly as day (notice I'm not implying it's him), and it's among Decepticons, so I don't see why it wouldn't be worthy of mention. BTW, I don't know why, but I start to get the feeling that isn't a movie you're particularly interested in, being you here only as a participant of WikiProject films. I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't even seen it. Am I right? uKER (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't discuss editors, discuss articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, never mind about that. I was just speaking out of the top of my head. Anyway, I still sustain that the info is worth mentioning. uKER (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't clarify the character's fate, because his fate was clear at the end of the first movie. He was dead. Your personal observation of "that's clearly Bonecrusher" when no source says it was Bonecrusher is original research. Please read WP:NOR very carefully, because you'll see that you cannot post personal speculation. You are not the creator of the film. What you believe is irrelevant, unless you have a reliable source to back it up. P.S. I have seen the film, as I wouldn't touch the plot of a film I've never seen (most of your corrections to the plot were problems that were there before I touched it). Clearly others agree that Frenzy is not a "cameo" in this film, and that the inclusion of "this looks like Bonecrusher" is original research. We can poster a message at WP:FILMS, if you like, to gain a wider opinion, but per WP:NOR that information needs to stay removed until consensus can suggest that it isn't original research (given that it has no source to prove that it isn't).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, should Deep Roy's cameo be included in the cast section? Evilgidgit (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd mention Frenzy in the article; calling it a cameo is a bit of an exaggeration. Hell, the Witwicky dog has more screen time than Frenzy... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Breakaway

I saw breakaway in the movie the part where they were pointing the guns at the autobots u could see breakaway near sideswipe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris56o (talk • contribs) 06:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

thats jolt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.95.76 (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Robot formed by Ravage's metal marbles

hey guys. Not prolong this even more, but wasn't that frenzy when Ravage spewed out all the nanites? =O-o=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. If you read the article you'd see that that one was credited as 'Reedman' and the only similarity it shares with Frenzy is both being small silver robots who steal stuff. --uKER (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

okay then =^-^=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit dispute again. This time over mention of Frenzy's head, and Bonecrusher's vehicle mode.

I have gone into an edit dispute again with user BIGNOLE. I say again because I had already had one here, being him the one who insisted in substituting the Plot section for a mere overview of the film, and just like the last time, he doesn't seem interested in seeking consensus even on edits that turn out to be controversial, instead just brute-forcing his liking into the article. This time it's over the mention of Frenzy's head and Bonecrusher's vehicle mode being added to the article. The last time he removed it can be seen here, and that was after I edited it to remove any speculation or subjectivity. His argument is it being original research, which I flatly disagree with. So the issue is, does anyone think it can be argued that it's Frenzy's head in the jar? Is there any trace of doubt it's the Buffalo mine sweeping vehicle among the Decepticons? Please give your opinions. uKER (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Because there is a dispute on the content, the use who wishes to add the information must provide a reference as it is now controversial. BOVINEBOY2008 03:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, why did you just create a new section when we were already having one just above this one? Do you think having the first say in the discussion sways it in your favor? Frenzy's head in a jar is trivial, it has no value to an encyclopedic article. Now, let's look at the other argument. Let's say that there is a Buffalo Mine Sweeping Vehicle in the Decepticon fleet. Ok. So what? If you say, "this vehicle looks like Bonecrusher" then you're making a personal observation which is not encyclopedic (see WP:SPECULATION#3). If you say "there is a Buffalo Mine Sweeper in the movie", then you're just pointing out cars and that's irrelevant. I might as well say "there's a dodge stratus in one scene". If you try and say that "this vehicle is Bonecrusher" then you need a source, because no where in the movie do they identify the character as Bonecrusher (especially after the first film showed he was dead...regardless of what a book says), and as such any attempt to say that the character is Bonecrusher would be original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

BovineBoy: Does ONE user questioning it make it controversial? I mean, I could start a dispute about it being OR that Ravage comes out of Soundwave's chest. Would that make it controversial? This is ridiculous. And Bignole: First, I start a new discussion because this is not about the definition of 'cameo'. Simple as that. Second, do you even read stuff or you just jump in, get all pissy that your text was modified and just hit revert? MY TEXT DID NOT SAY IT WAS BONECRUSHER, AND I CLARIFIED THAT IN MY EDIT SUMMARY. Third, Frenzy's mention is relevant because it states as fact that the character is dead, which wasn't properly established in the first movie. Also, your argument for removing the mention of Frenzy still seems to be it not being a cameo, which was reworded several edits ago, so what's your point again for the removal of that? uKER (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

First, calm down. the CAPS are not necessary. Second, your edit says "Buffalo mine-protected vehicle —which served as Bonecrusher's vehicle mode in the 2007 film— makes an appearance among the Decepticon forces in Egypt" - as I stated, you're insinuating a connection. We aren't listing every variable Transformer that appeared in the film, so I ask, why point on this specific one? Is it because it's Bonecrusher's vehicle mode? If so, then you're only reasoning for including it is because....it looks like a character killed in the last film? That's up there with people that want to say there is a guy that looks like Wilem Dafoe in the night club while Peter dances in Spider-Man 3. As for Frenzy. You clearly see his head get cut off in the first film, how was that not properly established that he died?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Going by your logic, why don't you go ahead and remove Grindor from the article also? I mean, he's not named, and we can't even mention him as being similar to Blackout because Blackout's dead, so that makes Grindor a random throw-in. About Frenzy, you mean he died when he got his head cut off by Mikaela or the second time around, when he cut it off himself? Where's your source on Transformers dying when they get their head cut off for the second time? uKER (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Difference is between having your head separated, and having a blade slice through the whole thing. Given that he was immediately alive after the first instance, and you don't hear anything after the second, it's clear he's dead. Even if it wasn't, he isn't a plot point in this movie. He's a trophy on a wall. That's trivial mentioning. There wasn't any controversy surrounding his supposed death. Speaking of Grinder, I'm curious how we even know that name. Where is the source for this? What's listed there doesn't say "Grindor" anywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if I went through the list and found that quite a few of them don't have real sources for that is being published here. For instance, did you know the source being used for Sideswipe's name is based on a random user's comments and not on the author of the article? I say we probably need to go through the entire list and see who isn't reliably sourced (I'm going to bed at this time, but that's something to think about).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but it is Sideswipe as mentioned by film critics and because his names sideswipe in the toy line as seen here with the same alt. mode in the film [3] and Grindor well its not all reliable but he isnt Blackout and he does resemble him just slightly different but thats what all the critics and but their a grindor in the toy line that resembles him just lighter and different head The Movie Master 1 (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, this has gone way too far. Your questioning the characters' names now only goes to show how not versed on the subject of the article you are. These names have been known for two years now, and they're EVERYWHERE. Toys, novels, comics, interviews, official games, you name it. For starters, you're naming "Grinder" a character that's named "Grindor". About Sideswipe, in the cited source he's named that by General Motors' vicepresident of global design, Ed Welburn. I mean, I assume you're not trying to be destructive, but as with the discussion about the plot, you're getting in the way of the publication of information that could well prove valuable to people wanting to know about the subject. Frenzy's appearance constitutes information whether you like it or not. In these movies, characters are often revived, and people tend to speculate with that. Seeing him in that jar seals his fate. Also his appearance wasn't just a random object in the background. It got main characters reacting to it, and dialogue referring to it, so its relevance is not that of a random car parked on the road. Summing it up, IMHO you're not being constructive to the article by popping in once every four or five days, randomly deciding to remove information at your will just because YOU THINK it's not relevant. uKER (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

First, there is no source for the information. Just because there exists a source somewhere doesn't mean that it's ok to put whatever you want in an article. If there is a reliable source for Sideswipes name, then go make sure it's next to the first instance of his name in the Cast section. Second, you're getting pretty petty in your debate (pointing out a typo...did I not spell it right the second time I used it?). Pointing out that GrindOR looks like Blackout is original research. Since you're having trouble with original research I'll help out. OR is when you come up with your own personal observations that are not supported by reliable sources. Pointing out the similarities between two characters is OR, no matter how obvious it may be. Seeing Frenzy in a jar doesn't seal any fate. Anyone could easily recreate his body with the right stuff, it's called being in a movie. His head in a jar is fan trivia, nothing else. I guarantee, no one reading this article will go "why isn't Frenzy mentioned". Save it for IMDb. Lastly, you do not own this article, though you seem to be trying to guard it like you do. I'd point to Wikipedia's editing slogan again, "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I've already put in a request for additional opinions, so you need not waste any energy debating what I'm sure neither one of us will change our minds on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that Bignole is nitpicking this article to death, much to it's disadvantage, and doesn't seem to know much about the film. A lot of qualified editors are making this article, and they deserve some level of trust. Calling "original research" at every sentence is not being helpful. Saying Grindor looks like Blackout because there is no cite to source is no more original research than saying Sideswipe was silver is original research - how do you know he's silver? Was it actually stated in the film? You can see it with your eyes! When Grindor first appeared in the commercials all we heard if "Blackout is back" from the fans because they look almost identical. We have seen movie posters with Grindor's name, toys, video games. It's official. If you have to state something like "A Decepticon helicopter appeared, and in official tie-in media he was called Grindor." maybe that will satisfy complainer? I'd also say that ANY reappearance of a star (including a robot) from the previous film is noteworthy because it's information on what happened to that character from the last film. People will come to Wikipedia and read this article to get answers to questions like "was that Bonecrusher in the battle scene or was I seeing things?" They should be able to find a line in the article saying a character lookling like Bonecrusher appeared in the battle scene. Mathewignash (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how does my knowledge of said film (which you obviously know nothing about) has anything to do with my knowlege of WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS? When you are implying that one character could be the other, then you are doing original research. Talking about a Mine Sweeper and then saying "just like Bonecrusher" is insinuating that the two are the same. That's original research. You are trying to synthesize an answer. It would probably be nice to note that Mathew is part of UKER's Canvassing operation, to which he was reprimanded for. You're placing undue weight on a single scene, and trying to play it up like it was some major cameo. His head appeared, they touched the jar, the end. That's all there was. The character himself does not appear in the film. If you saw Megatron's arm dangling on the wall you wouldn't say that Megatron appeared in the film. This is not IMDb, this isn't the home for unnecessary trivia regarding past characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't discount my opinions based on your opinions of another methods. Also, please stop talking about a vehicle as if it was just a vehicle. This is a CHARACTER and should be treated as such. If a character seemingly died or was wounded in one film, then reappears in it's sequel, it should be mentioned. We are not talking about a car being smashed in one film and then that same model car appearing in the sequel. Any information telling us what happened to STARS of the last film in this one is relivant to the plot of the movie series. Mathewignash (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Frenzy doesn't "reappear". Frenzy's head does. The head is not a character. It's a head. Frenzy is not a "STAR" either. I think you have a misconstrued definition of what "movie star" is. Optimus is a star of the film. Frenzy is not a star of the film, even if you liked the character when he appeared in the 2007 original. You are letting your fan bias cloud your encyclopedic judgment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Frenzy was big enough of a character to be listed in the cast list for the last movie. I believe he got more lines/screen time in the last film than any other Decepticon - doesn't that sorta make him a main character? Simply mentioning what happened to him for the next film seems like something obvious. What do you insist on trying to sabotage an article by removing obvious material? You are NOT being helpful, you are being disruptive. I don't know what your agenda is here, do you think you are making the article better by stripping it of content? Mathewignash (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because he was a character in the last movie (Megatron had more. Barricade had more. Frenzy had quick one-liners for most of his scenes, and his scenes were generally not that prolonged). He even had a voice actor for him. You're trying to attribute starring role status to a supporting character. Mentioning that his head is in a jar is irrelevant to this article. And I quote from the 2007 article: "The Decepticons attack; Bonecrusher, Frenzy, Jazz, Devastator and Blackout are all killed during the ensuing battle." It's pretty clear that we even think he's dead in the 2007 article. I think if I remove fannish information that has no encyclopedic value that I'm bettering the article. Maybe not to the Transformer fans, but this article isn't meant for them, it's meant for everyone. Wikipedia is not IMDb, we are not here to host every minor tidbit of trivial we see.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think you can make the call as to what is important enough to be mentioned, but there are other editors who disagree. I don't think we can argue this much more because I clearly think a characters appearing again in a sequel is worth mentioning as a cameo, you do not. Anyone else have an opinion on how the rules are best interperted here? Mathewignash (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

BIGNOLE, you accuse me of assuming ownership of the article, but I'd say it's you who is going against WP:OWN —specifically on the point that declares assumption of ownership when "Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not."— and unilaterally deciding what is good for the article, without seeking any approval from the rest of the people contributing to it, as suggested by the policy. Also, according to these edits: 1 2 3 4, you're in violation of WP:3RR, having reverted the same changes four times in the space of 24 hours, with them coming from three different editors. If nobody else disagrees, I will soon add this data back in. If you again disagree, we can post a request for assistance on Wikipedia:AN/EW. uKER (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no proof that it's Bonecrusher. It should be taken out. Perhaps a section with "references to the first film" or something similar would keep everyone happy? --93.96.19.132 (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We're saying its his vehicle mode not Bonecrusher himself which made a brief appearence for the decepticons, as for frenzy it should be mentioned his head is kept in jar by Simmons hidden from his mother, Simmons probably examines it from time to time The Movie Master 1 (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, having re-read I think it's just the wording, perhaps change "Bonecrusher's vehicle mode" to "a transformer with Bonecrusher's vehicle mode"? --93.96.19.132 (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's where we've been trying to get all along. See here. Given the nature of these movies, unless he had been named in the movie or some other tie-in media, we wouldn't be able to state as fact it being Bonecrusher even if he appeared in robot mode (see Grindor/Blackout). BTW, we do know it was a Decepticon (not just a Transformer) since he was among the Decepticon horde seen coming after the protoforms fell in Egypt. --uKER (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we to completely discount the two different liscensed novels that say it is Frenzy's head? It was mentioned in The Veiled Threat and the ROTF novel. Mathewignash (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring Frenzy for a moment, if we are saying that it was not Bonecrusher, then why go out of our way to say that there is a Buffalo Mine Sweeper in the film? Saying "Bonecrusher's vehicle mode" means nothing to someone who doesn't remember who Bonecrusher was in the first film. Saying "Bonecrusher's Buffalo Mine Sweeper mode is in the film" suggests that you mean it was Bonecrusher himself. Saying "A robot who also had Bonecrusher's Mine Sweeper mode" becomes irrelevant, because they obviously didn't care enough to name said robot, but chose to give him the same vehicle. If you cannot tie it to Bonecrusher then you're dealing with a Transformer that is beyond mentioning because they were merely a background bot for a single fight. If you try and tie it to Bonecrusher you're treading the original research waters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, how can we have so much discussion over a single vehicle that wasn't even given a character name or definitive Decepticon character? It isn't important, to either the film itself or our article about it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't know who the character is, may be Bonecrusher, maybe not. Point is though is that they intentionally used the model again for this scene. He was a character from the last film who may or may not have died (there is official media saying he survived off camera, which was printed after the first movie came out!), so it's being mentioned as a cameo. It is important to readers, and I know so because I've seen dozens of people on message boards saying "did I see Bonecrusher in one scene?" They can read this article and learn that yes, his model was reused, but there is no confirmation as to whether it was him, rather then keep them guessing. Mathewignash (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're claiming you know their intentions? Unless you have a source for that, you cannot claim what their "intentions" are. Maybe they did, and maybe they didn't intend to include that with an agenda. What happens in a book and what happens in the film are not the same thing. It's official because the studio produced it. That has no bearing on his fate in the films. Rather than keep them guessing? You just said you've seen people asking if they've seen Bonecrusher. The fact is, they did not see Bonecrusher because there is no source confirming his appearance. They might have seen the Buffalo, but that's irrelevant. Again, you're letting fan bias cloud your encyclopedic judgment. You're making a call based on your personal opinion that since you read a message board that had people asking that it must be important. If we looked to message boards for our information then we'd include them when discussing fan reaction to a film. We dont', so we don't. Wikipedia is not a trivia house. That is what IMDb is for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Something that should be taken into account is that such vehicle wasn't just lying in the background in a military base, or even used as a filler among marine troops. It was among a Decepticon horde. It's clearly intentional on behalf of the film makers. What they were trying to convey we don't know but it's there and it's not an accident. uKER (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot make that statement. You cannot say "it's clearly intentional", because you don't know. For all anyone knows they included it because they already had a digital model of the Buffalo on their computers and it's typically easier to use what you got then try and waste the money to create something new. Since we all know how Bay loves to save money, that's not actually a longshot of a possibility. Without a source, you cannot insinuate that it was their intention to use the Buffalo, that it was their intention to put Bonecrusher in, or really anything other than there is a Buffalo in the film. That makes it's mentioning trivial, and unnecessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think something that causes as much of an uproar among people who saw the movie itself must be addressed, if only to explain when they come here looking for answers. Deleting any mention of it is not helping explain it. Mathewignash (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your personal observation that there an uproar is original research. You have no source to back up this "uproar", and no, witnessing some people on a message board is not a reliable source to constitute an "uproar".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

FWiW, things appearing in the background are trivial. The head, and maybe Bonecrusher are trivia, but more importantly they are not backed up. Everything else has a reference, this trivia does not (at least no RS). Bignole is correct and accusations of OWN don't make UKER right, trivia is trivia is trivia, and unsourced trivia is the worst type of trivia and falls over into OR. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, everything else doesn't have a reference. There are large portions of this article without a source. The plot section, for example, does not cite any references. I'm not disputing any of the info in that section, and I'm not suggesting that it needs to be sourced. But if you're going to be so rigid as to say that something that was observed by everyone who watched the movie cannot be included if there's no source, then a large percentage of this article would need to be deleted. Hopefully no one is going to take it to the extreme. I'm not supporting or opposing the inclusion of the bonecrusher or frenzy info, I just want to make sure we are consistent in how we apply the rules, and not just use them to our advantage when someone tries to add info that everyone doesn't agree with. CPitt76 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference is the plot doesn't (shouldn't) contain anything subjective, insinuative, or really anything but basic facts about the film. There is no need to put a citation in the plot for that (but I see your point). Saying there was a Buffalo vehicle in the film is trivial. It has no value. Trying to say it is Bonecrusher is where the source is required. When editors try and attribute a value to the mentioning, a value based on personal opinion, that is when a source is necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was speaking more towards the frenzy issue. I interpreted Darrenhusted's comment that the head was trivia but was not 'backed up' as him saying that we don't know that it's frenzy's head (Darren, I apologize if I've misinterpreted). Hopefully this info is being scrutinized based on the fact that it may be trivial, and not the fact that there's no source documenting it's Frenzy's head. I'll leave the discussion on the merit of inclusion of this info to you guys. CPitt76 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bignole, regarding your statement, "Also, we cannot insinuate that Bonecrush or Barricade are in the film, not even by pointing out that there are vehicles that resemble them in the film. That's original research anyway you slice it, and OR is not allowed at all," I'd suggest re-reading WP:NOR. Motion pictures are clearly stated to be primary sources. To quote from the policy, "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Concluding that the vehicle seen in the film either is or isn't Bonecrusher would be original research. Stating that it is a Decepticon using the same alt mode that Bonecrusher used in the first film clearly is not. It is a simple descriptive claim, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge who refers to the two appropriate primary sources: the films themselves. Likewise, it wouldn't be OR that the head in the jar is Frenzy's, even if we didn't have multiple official sources to cite. I haven't paid attention to see if appropriate sources are actually cited in the article, but at worst they need a citation added, not deletion per NOR.

Regarding triviality, I'd agree that Frenzy's appearance is pretty trivial. It's easy enough to assume he was truly killed at the end of the first film, which would make his head showing up in the sequel not worth mentioning. However, the fact that he already survived beheading earlier in the film opens the door to speculation. The small appearance in this film does indeed provide valuable information regarding his status. However, given that it's not relevant to this film, I believe this belongs on Frenzy's character page, not the page for this film.

When it comes to the Bonecrusher-type Decepticon, I believe a brief mention is warranted. Applying Wikipedia's NOR policy to real-world observations is completely asinine. Robots who look identical to robots killed in the first movie appear in this movie. Robots who seemingly should be in one location (like a Constructicon being part of Devastator) show up in another (seemingly identical Constructicon attacking the Autobots while Devastator is elsewhere). People are clearly confused, and for good reason. This page is one of the places people will look to for information clarifying this situation. Including such information would considerably improve this page. Per WP:IAR, that trumps any concern about whether he individually is particularly relevant to this film.

Having said that, the article isn't there yet. I've been campaigning to include a section that discusses all the duplicate robots. I haven't had the time yet to come up with a good, well-sourced explanation myself. Damn kitchen remodeling... The characters section would be appropriate, probably at the end where the contested statements are. Mention of the Bonecrusher-type bot would be very appropriate in such a section. Teratron (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Teratron, you're missing the point. It isn't original research to say "this character has the same alt mode as this character". It's original research to insinuate that they are the same character. If you're merely pointing out the reuse of an alt mode, then you're pointing out trivial information. The character isn't named, he appears briefly in a single scene, that's pretty trivial. The fact that you have to point out that it is Bonecrusher's alt mode just proves how far you have to stretch a connection to find any semblence of relevance to the article. By trying to talk about the reuse of alt modes, you are creating original research. Right on the NOR page: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." - You are creating your own analysis of the character, and thus you are creating original research. It's one of two things. Either you're trying to attribute a connection to the other character for the purposes of saying they could be the same (which would be original research without a source discussing said connection), or you're merely pointing out various vehicles that appear as Transformers, in which case Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and including trivial characters that basically do nothing in the film but appear in a single scene is indiscriminate information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Will you ever get it through your head that we're not implying it's Bonecrusher himself, but just a Decepticon with his same alt mode? It's then left to people's interpretation to decide whether it's supposed to mean Bonecrusher is alive, or the possibility of there being another Decepticon with the same alt mode as was the case with Grindor. --uKER (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

First, Uker you really need to check out WP:ETIQUETTE and WP:CIVIL. Second, it's not Wiki's job to put stuff here and then "let the reader make up their mind". We're an encyclopedia, not a fanhouse. You're basically disguising the original research by saying, "We're not really saying it's him, just pointing out the similarity". You cannot do that. We even have a section about pointing out the differences and similarities between two source materials in our film guidelines. You cannot take it upon yourself to be the person to say "hey, these two things are alike...I"ll let you decide if they are the same or different". That's unprofessional writing, and borderline original research with the way you are trying to word it. Either you're insinuating the character's are the same, or you're including something that's irrelevant to the article for no real reason. Which is it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to understand why uKER's getting so frustrated. You keep going back to talking about how claiming the bot in the movie is Bonecrusher is OR. Frankly, it gives the impression you're completely blowing us off without bothering to pay any attention to what we're saying, which would be a far greater violation of the policies you cited than anything uKER has said. In particular, please reread my statement and your response to it. I very clearly stated that making any conclusions about the bot's identity would be OR, and therefore shouldn't be included. However, I stated that the bot's presence would be appropriate to mention in a section explaining the seemingly nonsensical appearance of bots that should be dead or elsewhere, with him being a particularly relevant example. You responded with yet another statement that we can't conclude he is or isn't Bonecrusher due to NOR and that mere mention of his presence wouldn't be relevant, while completely ignoring what I actually said should be there or the reasons why it should be there. If you wish to be involved in a civil discussion, please do us the courtesy of at least responding to the points we're trying to make rather than simply dismissing us out of hand. Teratron (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, another successful case of "following the rules to the most preposterously nitpicky, detrimental, asinine degree" versus "using some common bloody sense", I see. That'd be why I spend most my time on the Transformers Wiki, rather than roundabout these parts. - Chris McFeely (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That does happen a lot, but to be fair I truly believe that both sides of this debate genuinely believe they are making this article the best possible article on wikipedia. One seems to want a minimalistic streamlined article, the other a fully informative article. Both have good intent. Just don't insult each other, and lay your cards on the table people. I believe the information does add something to legitimate to the article, but I'm sure to someone who doesn't care about the subject as much it must seem somewhat trivial a point. I'm going to keep on the side of keeping the information in because I have been convinced that some portion of readers of the article would want to know these things, and they fall within legitimate information on the film for an article. However, as this is a talk page, please talk about it more if you think otherwise, so we can all reach an informed decision. Mathewignash (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If the buffalo did not transform then it was not Bonecrusher so therefore not a cameo. Simple as that.--71.108.231.50 (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you posted in the wrong conversation. Then, the Buffalo is among a horde of Decepticons, so it would be hard to find a reason to justify that Buffalo not being one of them. Also, you don't seem to have read any of the countless times when we've said we're not implying it to be Bonecrusher, so nobody is trying to call it a cameo. --uKER (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are not implying its Bonecrusher and are not saying its a cameo then what is the point of adding in that information to the article? The army was there they could have brought it and it just happened to be right there when the decepticons landed, either way that is irrelevant because it did nothing and did not reappear. The event was not of any importance only a fanboy would care that Bonecrushers alt mode was there.. --71.109.7.165 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your claim is as valid as saying only a fanboy would care whether a character is dead or not, or bother reading this article altogether. --uKER (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked when you smash a computers "brain" it is no longer of any use.. Everyone who went to go see that movie believed what they saw on screen. Robot gets knife through face. Robot dead. As I said before only a fanboy would care that a vehicle having Bonecrushers alt mode was in egypt because there can only be one buffalo vehicle in the whole wide world..You are also contradicting your self. You said no one said it was Bonecrusher but you just said "only a fanboy would care whether a character is dead or not" so therefore you are implying it could be Bonecrusher. Make up your mind. --71.109.7.165 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is not sufficient info to make a statement. The mention of the Buffalo is only meant to inform of the possibility of either suggesting Bonecrusher may not be dead, or there being a robot with the same alt mode. I have already repeated this to death, and had well enough of it, so I declare myself out of this discussion until outside arbitration comes into play. --uKER (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly there is not sufficient info to make a statement so don't make one at all. --71.109.7.165 (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Devastator, 7 o 8 robots?

We already now about Devastator, he is a masive robot form of multiple parts:

• Mixmaster as the head
• Scavenger as the main torso
• Scrapper as the right arm
• Hightowel as the left arm
• Overload as other part of the torso
• Longhaul as the right leg
• Rampage as left leg

But during the transformation of Devastator, 2 unknown transformers apear in the scene, one is a dump truck and the other one is a backhoe, so far no one has noticed than the backhoe is actually the left "hand" of devastator. So, does that mean that devastator is the combination of 8 robots? and what hapened with the other dumb truck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.137.197.240 (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'd see that Devastator is made of 7 parts, but they aren't shown to be robots, so we can't assume they are. The names you mention were given to Devastator's components just for the toy line, similarly to what was done with Arcee's components. I agree there are more than seven vehicles during Devastator's transformation, but there's nothing indicating they actually take part in him. BTW, LOL@"Hightowel". --uKER (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)ss

I believe Rampage wasn't apart of Devastator, since he was with ravage fighting Bumblebee. trying to save the witwickys.--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said right above your message, no robots are seen to take part in Devastator, only vehicles. --uKER (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

wait a minute, wasn't rampage red in the movie? =^-^=;--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He is. Who said otherwise? --uKER (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought as much on the page decepiticons section. Seeing how the toy is yellow and in the movie he is red =^-^=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The toy calls Devastator's leg Rampage, which is in discrepancy with what is depicted in the movie, ie Devastator's components never transforming into robots. --uKER (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Then the question rises who was it in the movie that transformed with the rest of the constructicons?--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, you're asking questions that you could answer to yourself if you read the article. I would advise you to do so. --uKER (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

are you going to talk about the unknown veicles, or about rampage colors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.44.83 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

in other words, devastator is no longer the combination of the constructicon members,and he is now a single robot formed by multiple parts, am i right? or are you going to discuss again about rampage colors and not about the main plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.44.83 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Although this is a vandalism of this page, you've got to smirk about this *diot's edit as one of the funniest vandalisms done for this page. --TitanOne (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say this guy takes it away. --uKER (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So, Arcee is one bot with three bikes?

Just to make sure, Arcee is one robot made of 3 bikes, right? Each bike has a different name, so I have a feeling that it is 3 robots that combine into Arcee rather than 3 bikes forming 1 robot. I could be wrong, but I just have a hunch.Enryū6473 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the transformers movie site (transformersmovie.com) has new stuff, but it doesn't have pics of robots that I can find yet. When that comes up (I'll be cheaking as often as I can) I'll try to get them on the pages for the repective robots.Enryū6473 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, if you check the article, you'll see that Arcee is simply three bikes with a single mind. No combined robot mode, at least not in the movie. Uker (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, thats why I was asking. I just have that hunch...Enryū6473 (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just checking our facts here, but what is the proof that Arcee is a single mind in the movie? Do they ever actually say it? In the toy bio they say Arcee (the red/pink one) commands a "strike team, made up of robots similar to her in attitude and design." Is there any reason wy she can't just be in charge of the other two? Mathewignash (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it has been explicitly said by the writers. uKER (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OKay, I just wanted to cite something specific. I havn't found it. Just sitting down and watching the film by itself, is there anything that would indicate that Arcee is one entity with three bodies, and not just one one of the bikes who commands the other two as her troops? Mathewignash (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

By any chance, didn't you read the post right above yours? uKER (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the question I had. I asked for a source, saying "I think" isn't an answer I wanted to cite a source one way or the other. Moreover I want to know if there is anything in the film itself that points one way or the other. Mathewignash (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I may be incorrect, but even you specifically said, Mathewignash, that info from the toybio should be listed in the toybio section and info on the movie should be listed in the film section. What's stated in the toybio isn't necessarily translated into the film. Anyways, I listed a few things in the film at the bottom of this discussion page that would indicate that Arcee is a hive mind. The writers, who were overridden by Bay, are clearly not the last say on what happens in the film; Bay is. But because Bay never specified his intentions (and if it were his intentions that they were three separate bots, he did a terrible show portraying it like that), shouldn't we be not relying on speculations of intentions and relying solely on what is seen in the film, that Arcee was all three bikes? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested plot corrections

Hi, I'm following instructions to not edit the page directly, but rather, contribute to the discussion.

My main concern is with the section in the plot that deals with the forest battle.

Firstly, there is a typo: "persue" is not a word. It is correct to say that Sam and Optimus are "pursued" by Megatron.

Secondly, I agree with the summary of the battle, although stylistically, I must interject that the phrase "ensuing battle" is used twice, and the first time, redundantly. Optimus Prime engaged Megatron in battle. "Ensuing" better describes the battle's condition upon the appearance of Starscream and Grindor.

Finally, an analytical point. I agree with those who summarized the battle as one in which Optimus Prime appears to have the upper hand: he is clearly superior to Starscream and Grindor, and in all one-on-one situations with Megatron, he is the one to inflict greater damage. At the moment of his death by posterior impalement, Megatron says "you are so weak". This is consonant with Megatron's accusation in the first film (where, as many will remember, he was never troubled by Optimus Prime in battle): "you fight for the weak and that is why you lose." Many have speculated that Prime's drastically improved performance in belligerence and aggressiveness is due to the absence of humans in the forest fight, allowing Prime to focus solely on combat. Prime's demise comes from his one moment of "weakness": calling out for Sam. I consider this to be crucial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latinoeuropa (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed content from the Human cast section

I removed the bits about Nolasco and the dog. Nolasco isn't in the movie, so it doesn't make much sense for him to be mentioned in the cast, and the dog... well, the dog isn't human, so it doesn't need to be in the "Human" heading.

Relevant diffs in case the content (complete with references) can be worked back into the article elsewhere:[4][5] EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording and Grammer

Some of the wording and grammer at the moment is terrible. "Suddenly Mudflap and Skids argue," .... some parts look like they've been written by a small child, and probably have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.136.12 (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you got a problem with that, why don't you edit it? --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree here. I've experienced people on message boards who deride Wikipedia as having some wrong pit of information or bad grammer, but then they spend all their time posting about it, instead of simply CORRECTING it. If you see something that can be improved be useful and try to do it better. We all appreciate people who help. Mathewignash (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's "grammar", not "grammer". People who want to be picky about English wording and grammar should learn how to spell.

Bathrobe (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Toy "waves"

This article refers to Hasbro's toys as being released in large "waves" spanning multiple price points, and applies specific types of toys to those "waves". However, "waves" are traditionally used in the toy industry to refer to specifically sorted shipments of specific price points. For the Transformers lines, those price point waves typically ship independently of each other, so you can have six waves of "Deluxe" toys out in stores but only three waves of "Voyager" toys. In fact, there are currently three or four officially numbered waves of Deluxes, two to four waves of Voyagers, two waves of Leaders, three waves of Scouts and three waves of Legends out at US retail. Also, it is implied that some toys are specifically part of certain "waves" that are yet to be released, even though Human Alliance Bumblebee is already available in stores, just to name one. Lastly, there is a specific release date listed for Devastator, although normally those release dates are merely estimates on the manufacturer's behalf, and Devastator has already been found in some smaller stores. Basically, implying that specific toys are part of perceived larger "waves" is OR, unlike official wave numbering for price points found at online retailers such as Entertainment Earth.--87.164.73.197 (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Roberto Orci Arcee has her two sisters, she isn't a three part Transformers, even if that's what he wanted

On the Don Murphy Message board Roberto Orci said he wrote Arcee as one character with three bodies, but Bay went with them being three individuals like the Hasbro bios. http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showpost.php?p=1379637&postcount=22916 Seems worth mentioning Mathewignash (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? That is original research. --71.108.238.203 (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not OR. Adding into the article with proper sourcing. --uKER (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's quoting the film writer about what the producer did with a source, actually. Mathewignash (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think what Orci says has very little weight when compared to what Bay actually has happen in the movie, especially since Orci clearly admitted that Bay overruled him. But even then, I don't think that Orci can really speak for Bay, and Bay never specifically commented on his intentions for the motorcycles. That being said, if Orci was correct and if Bay wanted to portray the motorcycles as three individuals like the Hasbro bios, he did a very very poor job of portraying it as such. If he really thought of them as Arcee, Chromia, and Moonracer/Elita-One, why is it that when Lennox calls for Arcee and only Arcee (twice), all three motorcycles respond? Why is it that only the purple motorcycle (supposedly Moonracer) the only motorcycle given a spoken line and then credited as Arcee at the end? Never are they called "Sisters." What I am basically saying is that I don't think that we can rely on Orci for Bay's intentions regarding the motorcycles (and by the way, I'm not arguing one way or another on original research because I have no idea what OR is), and rather than speculate on intentions, we should only be running on what we see in the movie that Arcee is all three motorcycles. But that's just my opinion; not going to start an edit war over it, especially if no one else agrees with me. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. The movie is largely inconclussive in the nature of Arcee, as is in Devastator's. Maybe tomorrow Bay comes up and invalidates what Orci is now saying, but for the time being it's the best we have. BTW, for the sake of your own image, I would stop naming the purple bike. It only makes you look like a fanboy. No offense. --uKER (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been looking at the video of the film and it is very open to interpertation. If I recall we went from Arcee being 1 characters with 3 bodies initially, then swapped to 3 characters when the Chromia toy bio leaked, then swapped back based on infrom from the writers saying it was one characters (still looking to source that). Now the writers say the wrote it as one, but Bay changed it to three. That seems to be the latest info available. I think we should write the article as it being three to the best of out knowledge, but acknoledge that there is some confusion on the matter because of the differences between the writers and producer. Mathewignash (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

HA! I KNEW IT. THE SECTION AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE (by me) ASKED THAT!!!!!!! I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT!!!!! (ok, sry.)Enryū6473 ^Talk 23:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

At uKER, no offense taken. I really don't care what image I have, and I'm not a fanboy. My emphasizing the whole Moonracer/Elita-One thing is that it's all speculative, no one even really knows her name and the guessing is pointless. I think that we are all on the same page that the movie is being inconclusive, and that we just do not have (and probably will never have) an official statement from Bay himself explaining the motorcycles. I do think that it's a good idea to mention this ongoing dispute on the page, and the low probability of it ever being clarified. What I do have a problem with is leaving the pages as "the Sisters" because there is no mentioning of "the Sisters", "Chromia" or any of the other names in the movie itself. I feel that we should be relying solely on what we see in the movie, namely only Arcee, when describing the movie. Yes the movie is infuriatingly inconclusive, but all of the other stuff, and I don't know if you call it original research or what not, just does not seem appropriate given that it isn't in the movie. I mean, honestly, how can it be right to credit Grey DeLisle with voicing "the sisters" when Bay's own credits say she voices "Arcee"? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought about the voice acting when I changed the section but couldn't make up my mind about it. Can anyone confirm whether any bike besides the pink one are seen talking in the movie? If it is so, it would somewhat go with Arcee being only the pink one. If more of the bikes spoke, it would somewhat go with the idea that they are all Arcee. --uKER (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The pink didnt speak it was the purple only The Movie Master 1 (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The pink motorcycle never speaks; it was only the purple motorcycle speaking. Do we now need to speculate that Arcee was the purple one to satisfy those who still argue the three motorcycles were three Autobots? Rolls eyes. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the thing to go by here is the fact that Grey DeLisle is not credited as three characters or as "The Sisters" or as anything like that - she's credited as Arcee. I think it's pretty dang silly to go making up a group name for them and presenting the info in this way. - Chris McFeely (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am respectfully requesting a rollback on the Revenge of the Fallen, Arcee, Chromia, and Ironhide pages to reflect that Arcee is a single entity made up of three motorcycles. Especially when describing what goes on in the movie, the only thing that we should rely on is what we SEE in the movie, and I think that we (emphasis on the we part) have done a pretty good job of showing how the movie portrays Arcee as a single entity made up of all three motorcycles. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But for the individual pages we don't take ONLY the movies into account, but all fictional appearances, including toy bios. If you want to add a note that the interpertation of Arcee/Chromia/Other is confused, I'll back that up. Mathewignash (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There was an interview where bay said that he didn't like arcee so he killed her off. There is your proof right there 2 of the motorcycles wounded presumed dead and bay only said arcee not arcee and moonracer.... --71.108.238.203 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

They were reffered to as the Arcee twins at the beginning of the movie hence their sisters The Movie Master 1 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a popular misconcepticon. I think they didn't say "Arcee twins" it was "Arcee, twins", as in Arcee, Mudflap and Skids. Still doesn't answer the question though, as it's possible that where Arcee lead, her sisters followed, as she was their leader. Mathewignash (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)\\

It was definitely, "Arcee, twins" with the twins meaning Mudflap and Skids. Otherwise, there would not have been any scenes with Mudflap and Skids chasing after Sideways. But can someone PLEASE give me some official source where they are called "Sisters"??? Until then, will you please stop calling them that on the Wiki page? 71.141.228.68 (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Chromia's toy box. Mathewignash (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And it's been decided that we're going to use the toy box description to describe what happens in the movie? Sounds like a terrible idea, and I thought you specifically said that should not happen, but if that's the general consensus, just let me know. 71.141.228.68 (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

PK1 returns

Plo Koon 1 is back after his blocking by Jauerback lapsed a few hours ago. I reverted his edit concerning Bonecrusher (didn't you guys talk this over already, right Uker?). Editors, beware. --Eaglestorm (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He just added out of nowhere that Megatron and Starscream would be returning for a "third sequel" (they're just planning the second sequel and this guy has info on the third one; he's a god) --uKER (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The making of Transformers 2

Techradar has a great article on the making of Transformers 2: (http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/the-making-of-transformers-2-618865).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Transformers Movie Blog says the Purple Motorcycle is called Flareup.

The title speaks for itself.

http://transformerslive.blogspot.com/2009/07/san-diego-comic-con-2009-transformers.html

Evilgidgit (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too. I'll add it for the time being, but we should improve the source as soon as we get a better one. --uKER (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception

From the article
"In contrast to the views of critics, audiences appear to have responded better, with exit surveys estimating that 91% of moviegoers consider it to be as good as, or better than, the 2007 film"
This is inaccurate and misleading, regardless of if it carries a source. Because if the people surveyed thought the original movie was good or bad, this does not give an indication of actual responses

Geejayoh (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Bonecrusher

I almost feel embarrassed to start this, but I saw the movie for the FOURTH time in the theater, and I thought I would ever get caught saying this, but it's in fact Bonecrusher shooting the Arcee bikes in the movie. --uKER (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, it is Bonecrusher shooting Arcee and her Sisters.

now thats weird, wasn't he killed in the first movie? becuase I remember Optimus killing him=-_-=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah. So was Blackout and they added him back selling him as a new character. Perhaps this is the case, but Bonecrusher is there unmodified in both vehicle and robot modes. He appears standing behind a wall that covers him up to the waist, shooting from his fists, his face clearly visible. --uKER (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would asume that it is another clone=^-^=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I guess we'll have to wait for something official indicating whether it was him (toy, Blu-ray/DVD extras, interview). --uKER (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To make matters murkier Hasbro released a toy which said on the box that Bonecrusher was only injured by the beheading, and limped away to heal from his wounds. This isn't specifically contradicted by the movies, since we don't see Bonecrusher's parts among those being dropped in the trench with Megatron, Blackout and Brawl. In fact even in the comic story Alliance they make sure we only see Megatron, Blackout and Brawl are dumped in the ocean (along with Jazz). So while Bonecrusher seemingly died, there is pleanty of supporting fiction that indicated he got away, so this COULD be him as easily as someone who shares his form. I side with saying either is possible, since it is unexplained. Mathewignash (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In the battle scene in Egypt I recall one of the solders saying that there were 13 deceptions. Now, just counting, there are the 7 constructicons (Mixmaster, Long Haul, Scrapper, Hightower, Overload, Rampage, and Scavenger), Megatron, The Fallen, Starscream, Ravage, and Scorpionok. That makes 12. Now, presuming Bonecrusher survived and was in the movie, that makes 13. But is it possible that was really Barricade rather than Bonecrusher? We know for a fact that Barricade survived because he disappeared from the first movie and is still alive. Now, I haven’t seen the movie billions of times (only once, in which I was in a fit about how Devistator was screwed up), but it seems more plausible that Barricade would partake in the attack rather than Bonecrusher. After-all, Grindor and Demolisher both died after having their head blown off, so why is it that Bonecrusher survived? Plus, Bay said that Barricade’s disappearance would be something for the second movie, so it is possible. I think it might be Barricade instead, since all evidence points to Bonecrusher being dead and Barricade alive. But that is just from theory, I’ll take a closer look when I buy Trans 2 on dvd. Enryū6473 Talk 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the soldier would have mentioned the seven constructicons, since at least a couple of them were just sitting around by the pyramid before the military showed up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, the guy says something along the lines of there being "at least N" incoming enemies. In any case, I don't think that what a soldier says could be taken as an accurate indicator of the amount of robots in the scene unless there was indication that he should know the exact amount, which I think isn't the case. For the record, the soldiers' statement about the number of Decepticons getting in and out of the Abyss is also wrong. --uKER (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That is true; obviously, the military in the Transformers universe doesn't know how to count. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I went back and re-watched the Transformers 1 movie in detail. Bonecrusher is completely decapitated, yet there is no indication that he died. When Megatron died there was a sparking noise, as with the other robots. That noise did not happen for Bonecrusher, nor did it look like he was incapacitated. In my opinion, Bonecrusher did survive and was (presumably) carried away by Barricade (he is still alive and was at the scene) where they met back up with Starscream and reorganized for the second movie. That is what I gather, so now it seems entirely possible that Bonecrusher is in-fact in the movie. Also to note, Scorpionark re-grew his tail, so Bonecrusher must have re-grown his head. Enryū6473 Talk 05:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Or simply reattached it. Mathewignash (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Carried away by Barricade and met with Starscream"? That's called fan fiction, you know? You're trying to look into the movie FAR DEEPER than the even the filmmakers do. This film is plagued by plot inconsistencies out of carelessness writing/editing. You can't infer such a thing and remotely intend to pass it as truth. --uKER (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I do that to try to connect the dots. Cuz it seems really odd that a decapitated robot can get up and find its way around on it's own (considering its eyes is on it's head). Enryū6473 Talk 02:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Just for the record, I just requested it. This has been hell since July 25. --uKER (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wheelie's faction

I just relocated Wheelie to the Decepticons. First reason is he starts the movie as a Decepticon. Jetfire, on the other hand, despite still bearing the Decepticon insignia, had switched over before he was revived. --uKER (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fallen part of the Dinasty?

I mentioned The Fallen as "once part of the Dinasty" but I am not sure if it is correct to say that or him just being part of them. --uKER (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ur correct he is part of the dynasty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.68.197 (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

President

Is this the first movie to ever reference Obama as President? Also, how did they do the filming for part of the President if the filming began in May 2008? Did they just wait until after the election or did they film two alternate scenes (one with McCaina and one with Obama)? Also, when did the filming end? One of my friends said she actually saw a news flash with the real Obama in the background. Emperor001 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama was only mentioned in a voice-over, which is easily done in post-production, and the "news flash" is similarly done post-production. There's really nothing spectacular about it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But is this the first film to reference him as President? If so, isn't that significant? Emperor001 (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter; stop bringing up trivial stuff in here.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just like how they referenced Swine Flu with Simmons in the meat locker. Simple changes. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 20:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Individual article names

There has been a proposal for splitting the Optimus Prime, Megatron and Starscream articles up and giving the live action film characters their own pages. The proposal is for the articles to be called Megatron (films) for Megatron. etc. I didn't like this name because this character has been in other media (novels, comics, etc) and Generation 1 Megatron has been in film (the 1986 film), so I didn't think this was particularly descriptive or accurate. Does anyone have alternate ideas for IF they get individual articles, what would be a good title? Mathewignash (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe something like Megatron (Michael Bay films)? Akata (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

IMHO it's really not worth it. There's not enough to be said about the particular incarnation of the character for it to deserve a separate article. I'd say it's OK as it is today, as a section in the character page. --uKER (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair though the pages for individuals like Megatron or Optimus have to include information from the various comics prequals, sequals, novels and toy bios, not JUST the events of the two films. So they are quite large. Mathewignash (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I originally proposed the idea; for people who have problems with the names, I can suggest Megatron (film continuity), Megatron (live-action film continuity), Megatron (Michael Bay film continuity), etc. In my opinion, there is enough information on the characters for them to deserve individual articles; if Megatron had only made his minor appearance in the first movie and then in no other media, I'd say that he wouldn't deserve his own article.--Eh! Steve (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Any more opinions? If none then I'll move the pages (to new pages with the disambiguator "live-action film continuity") and wait for a response since there doesn't seem to be significant opposition.--Eh! Steve (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Grindor

I repeat here what I said in Blackout's discussion: Let's cut the fanboy nonsense. It's Grindor in ROTF, not Blackout. If you like to argue that the difference in coloring is due to different lighting, then look at the new helicopter lacking the radar bulb on the nose. The helicopter is different. It's another character. I thus exhort you to revert whoever adds any consideration of it being Blackout in the movie. --uKER (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Another trick of the Grindor=Blackout theorists is that they seem to be editing the 2007 movie and Blackout pages crediting Frank Welker as the vocal effects of Blackout, despite the fact that Welker didn't do anything in the 2007 film and didn't voice Blackout EVER. I removed it again, but it has happened several times. Mathewignash (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I reported that in the first movie's article about an hour ago, but wasn't sure so I didn't edit. --uKER (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt

I think the story page should mention the sinking of the USS U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt , it was important enough.All you have is "After Prime's death, Megatron orders a full-scale assault on the planet." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.39.41 (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but we don't have to mention everything that happened in the movie, just the important plot points. The Roosevelt's sinking is not that worth mentioning. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Mathewignash (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This off subject....but you ever noticed the terrible editing in regards to the carrier scenes? flight op footage (non CGI footage) before the sinking of the TR is of the USS Stennis. Its quite a turnoff when it comes to folks like me who are in the military and have an eye for accuracy.. --Ryanyomomma (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If this unimportant aspect of the movie is added, then it should be added that blowing a hole like that throught the deck of a modern (post WW2) aircraft carrier will not cause it to sink. 68.148.123.76 (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Geography

This article is chock-a-block with all kinds of information about the movie and its making, some enlightening and relevant, some pure extraneous trivia.

However, having seen the movie, I'm wondering why the rather confusing geography of Egypt is not mentioned. If I remember rightly, the rendezvous point was the Gulf of Aqaba at the head of the Red Sea. We have Sam and his group crossing some kind of guard post (presumably not a border post) to get to the place where the Matrix of Leadership is to be found. The body of Optimus Prime is delivered to this rendezvous point, which is later vaguely identified by military command back in the US as somewhere in the Egyptian desert (not Sinai). The next thing we know, the battle is taking place at the pyramids at Gizeh, with the city visible in the background! And the Sun Harvester turns out to be concealed inside one of the pyramids!

Perhaps I'm missing something (I did miss a lot while watching the movie), but the completely stuffed-up geography of Egypt is surely notable enough for inclusion in the article.

Bathrobe (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's VERY frequent that movies make all kinds of factual mistakes, but I don't think they deserve mention in an encyclopedic article. --uKER (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the films have whole fictional cities added to the geography of the U.S., it's possible that the layout of Egypt is different in this world too. Mathewignash (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it is different, Egypt and Jordan share a border (which is where the Great Pyramids and the ruins of Petra are appearently located). In our world Israel is in between Egypt and Jordan, the great pyramids are just west of Cairo, and Petra in in central Jordan. 68.148.123.76 (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Mrbean1000 user page

Anyone noticed this weirdo has a copy of this article on his userpage and he even edits it? WTF? Maybe he went for broke and got his own version of the article where he can add Blackout without him getting bashed. XD --uKER (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be that s/he intends to copy-paste his/her "version" of the article over this one once the block is lifted. Someone should talk to him/her about his/her intentions. BOVINEBOY2008 00:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated. :S Diff here. --uKER (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I somehow have a feeling that Plo Koon 1 and this guy are the same person. See this diff by Plo Koon 1 and the diff I posted in my previous message from Mrbean1000's user page. --uKER (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked him and the answer was "I'm not sure I just felt like doing it lol :)". Go figure. --uKER (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he has done it in case Wikipedia loses some of its data - it's happened to other wikis. Evilgidgit (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And that guy even whines on his talkpage that he's not being allowed to edit the article? Seems like he's being bitter because he was brought to heel over his Grindor-is-Blackout-with-different-parts edits. PK1's "I'm not sure I just felt like doing it lol :)" comment is just plain shallow reasoning when he has not even behaved after the warnings given to him. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

See here Wikipedia: sock puppetry and here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations it could be useful I'd do this myself but you guys have more experience with this and him and I have to go big day tomorrow The Movie Master 1 (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Flareup alternate name for Firestar

According to the Hasbro people at Botcon a while back they tried to get a trademark on the name Firestar as a Transformer, but were unable, so they used Flareup instead, which they could trademark. Firestar was an original Generation 1 character from the cartoon. Should this be mentioned on the page or is it too trivial? Mathewignash (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good information as long as there is a source for it. --uKER (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The only source seems to be the guys standing at a panel at Botcon who were speaking to the Hasbro designers, who then posted it on a Wiki. Not like they video taped it or an official letter was released saying "Flareup was Firestar after legal department finished with her" Sadly. Mathewignash (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I could see, that Botcon thing happened in 2005, where they presented a repaint of the Energon Arcee and presented it as Timelines Flareup. BTW, the name was lost to Marvel (see Firestar). --uKER (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's where the name fame from. It's a replacement for Firestar. Mathewignash (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the Revenge of the Fallen character was never meant to be called Firestar, as the change happened even before Michael Bay became involved with the Transformers universe, so there's no reason to mention Firestar here. --uKER (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sequel

I think the sequel should have a separate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightwyrex (talk • contribs) 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A film generally has to be in production in order for there to be a separate article for it. See WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF for more information. BOVINEBOY2008 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I second BOVINEBOY here. Not enough information yet. --uKER (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)