Talk:Transformers (film)

Archives
September 15, 2005 - February 19, 2007

Citations for use

• Kellvin Chavez (2007-02-21). "On Set Interview: Producer Don Murphy On Transformers". Latino Review. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Kellvin Chavez (2007-02-21). "On Set Interview: Producer Tom De Santo On Transformers". Latino Review. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Kellvin Chavez (2007-02-21). "On Set Interview: Producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura On Transformers". Latino Review. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Kellvin Chavez (2007-02-21). "On Set Interview: Producer Ian Bryce On Transformers". Latino Review. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Wiki-newbie 22:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Per WP:LEAD, the lead paragraphs are supposed to be a concise overview of the article's body. However, I do not see anything in the body that reflects this statement: "Due to the new complex design aesthetic of the Transformers, the film has had intense Internet speculation." Is such a notion even measurable? Vocal minorities can often seem to present a larger audience than what would normally perceived. I suggest that if this statement is not going to be backed by valid citations of the so-called speculation, it should be removed. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. WikiNew 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

can someone fix the grammer of the first paragraph specifically "However, this film is an intended as a reboot"? that was bothering me ForwardtothePast 06:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How's it now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

New edits

Blackout's rotor weapon isn't a shield--there's nothing to base 'that' off of. And more importantly, Frenzy doesn't "launch out of Barricade's chest ala Soundwave." That's a feature *only* in Barricade's toy; the script makes 'no' mention of Frenzy and Barricade even having any relationship. In fact, we really need to stop using the toys as a reference point for the abilities of the TFs from the movie in general--the toys can probably do a ton of crap we're 'not' going to see in the movie. 72.72.229.127 15:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

really? i read some of the script and i couldve sworn that it mentioned Barricade and Frenzy working together at some point Thontor 17:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what version of the script you read. Michael Bay said on his blog that the versions of the script doing the rounds on the 'net have some differences to what will actually be in the film. JediLofty 08:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No. As cited, Hasbro worked a lot with the Art Department on the designs. As of now, these are the characters unique to the film universe. WikiNew 15:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

According to an IGN interview with Acclaim, who will be publishing the official video game for the movie, Megatron's earth form is a Stealth Bomber. Originaldave77 01:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's in the article already. Not the "alien jet" nonsense that came before. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look here you'll see it specifically states his alt mode as Cybertron Jet. -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 08:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you've read the comic, you know about Megatron's unique circumstances on Earth. But what matters is what mode they take up on Earth, (eventually in Megs' case): we don't go specifying that Starscream is say, a million tonne spaceship with 42 million energon cubes in storage for one second of the film. Alientraveller 08:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't he stay in his Cybertron form for most of the film? Obviously no-one's seen it, but that's the impression I get. -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 08:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Louis reed 21:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Why was the sector seven mobile command unit information removed from the Marketing section of the main article?

WARNING - QUIT PUSHING POV'S IN THIS ENTRY

This message is for several of you "idiot fans" - either get on the same page or get the f***ing hell off of Wikipedia! Henceforth, I WILL be checking this entry from time to time throughout the day, and ANY mention of biased forums or other non-official sites WILL be deleted!

Being a moderator does NOT mean you use that post to push your own agenda. Either keep is NPOV or supply info both pro AND con..... you CANNOT have it both ways.

Anonymous user, please keep your language and your personal attacks in check. If you want to edit constructively, great, but your fowl mouth, your personal attacks against other editors (e.g. "idiot fans") and your lack of complete knowledge about the 5 pillars of Wikipedia need some work. Removing "blog and forum updates" from the description for the link to Michael Bay's official site has nothing to do with NPOV or a violation of external links. Lastly, stop casting blame on everyone when you don't know who did what. Most of the time it's anonymous users, like yourself, that are placing inappropriate links to the article. So, in the future, please just edit and if you have a problem with something, address it nicely and in a civil manner.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not pushing anyone's pov here considering these are the people making the film. WikiNew 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I added an entry for the novel Transformers: Ghosts of Yesterday, a prequel novel to the movie, but there seems to be no way to edit this page so that it will link to it. --EndrilRM 19:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There should be some type of reaction to the choices made as far as vehicle changes when they become official. As movies do tend to take artistic license, I expected the changes. I'm sure criticisms will be an issue with this movie, as they are with most movies with such a fanbase. --Ben414 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I will personally admit my own biases, being a "traditionalist" in a lot of the fan debates. However, I do think that some mention of the controversies amongst the fan reactons can be mentioned while both adhering to NPOV and being written as relevant to the subject of the article. 24.6.97.27 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can cite them, which I think we can when there are critic reviews, and maybe some articles discussing positive and negative fan reaction. Alientraveller 12:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Most fan reactions are in the form of thousands of forum posts across multiple Transformers fansites and movie sites. They have been in reaction to everything from early development announcements, to concept character designs, final designs, to the teasers and trailers, and interviews/posts from various production members. I'm not sure how something that broad should be cited. It just occurs to me that the Wikipedia articles for various others films use language like, "strong praise" or "mixed reactions" or "negative reactions from fans" without citing any references. So I guess my question is: why should this article be any different? Granted that fan bias may impede journalistic (encyclopedistic?) integrity, but how would that be different from the articles of other films? --71.134.252.225 07:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ie. those films were released and reviewed by professional critics. Alientraveller 07:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

MySpace

Didn't know if you guys wanted it, but they just released the official MySpace page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Awesome posters for Optimus and um, is that Megatron or Starscream? The former is missing-in-action for most of the film and this Decepticon doesn't have his razor sharp mouth. WikiNew 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone with Megs. WikiNew 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is Megatron - the image is displayed with a count-down on Michael Bay's site and the image name is primemegs1920_sm.jpg JediLofty 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Weaving

According to this article, Hugo Weaving is stated to be the voice of Megatron. However, according to the Transformers entry in the IMDb, the voice of Megatron is credited to Frank Welker, the original voice actor. There is nothing in this article to back up the claim of Weaving being the official voice of Megatron. (128.118.100.49 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

Oh yes there is. A gazillion news articles is more reliable than IMDb. WikiNew 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't they be cited? (128.118.100.49 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

It is. WikiNew 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The only source cited on the Wiki is from Ain't It Cool News--not the most reputable Internet news source available.

After doing some digging, however, I found an article from USA Today which states quite plainly "The Matrix's Hugo Weaving will voice Megatron." This, however, took me quite some time to find, and right after I had written a whole rant about fanboys and IMDb.

Anyway, I think it would make sense to replace the ainitcool article with the USA Today article, as the latter is much more reliable than the former. (128.118.100.56 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Done. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

However, Sector7 first posted the announcement, and AICN's Quint verified it by calling Dreamworks. Alientraveller 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think these details are ancillary. Latino Review was the first to announce Heath Ledger as the Joker, but we didn't cite them. AICN does not have the strongest reputation in these parts, so I think that the USA Today citation makes the information clear-cut. Not saying AICN shouldn't be permitted at all, but I believe it's been generally agreed that reliable sources that are more visible in the public scope are more acceptable than those that are limited to the Internet. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Login Passwords for SectorSeven.org

There is an additional password that will work for SectorSeven, "fwiffo".

If there are any others than the ones currently on the page, and that one, maybe we ought to list them here so that we can share them?

Actually I tried all of the passwords on the page and only "byebyepowers" allows access the others require a "retinal scan" and fail to log in.67.165.54.93 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC) WHAT THE?? IS THIS ALL ABOUT?

The link is not appropriate for Wikipedia due to the limited nature of its access, so I removed it. ^(H) 19:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, this is a viral marketing site that had passwords handed out in the trailers. Alientraveller 11:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It only allows certain IPs to connect(even with a password), and it requires a password, it is not for Wikipedia. ^(H) 13:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it again, because it does not work for every IP, only certain ranges. I am not sure what their gimmick is, but they are simply not accessible to the average reader. Please stop reverting me. ^(H) 13:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Q&A sessions

• Brian Ekberg (2007-04-05). "Q&A: Truckin' with Optimus Prime". GameSpot. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Brad Shoemaker (2007-04-05). "Q&A: Shooting the breeze with Megatron". [{GameSpot]]. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Not sure if these have been seen. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I added them to Transformers: The Game. Alientraveller 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Decepticon Names

I added in a small bit saying that the names were reused. Last time I put some rubbish about the names, but I hope this time it's ok ;) UltimateNagash 11:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Marketing

Should Marketing be branched into its own page? -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering the page for each Transformer also discusses their toys, I don't think so. As it is, the Movie Prequel, prequel book and game have their own articles. Alientraveller 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

The plot synopsis is, at this point, a disjointed mess obviously pieced together from what little has been officially revealed. I know it's fun to do some detective work, but I think this should be left to the fansites and message boards. It would benefit the encyclopedic value of the article article to leave a synopsis out of it for now and rewrite it as soon as the entire, complete movie can be used as a source and all events can be brought into context. --R. Wolff 13:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is a major issue, take a look at the proposal that was implemented at Talk:Spider-Man 3#Scaling back plot detail in the article. We're using only the official synopsis at Spider-Man 3 until the film comes out. I would suggest, though, exploring a possible rewrite to improve the flow. If it's still disjointed, then maybe a similar proposal can be implemented. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just that the official synopsis on the official site gives little on the actual plot. The comic book prequel has been so good though in spilling out details however. Alientraveller 09:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How much of what's in the comic book will be in the actual film, though? I remember reading the Aliens book before seeing the film and wondering why so much was missing. I had to wait for the Special Edition for the film to accurately reflect the novel! -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 09:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a prequel, but it considering IDW publishing read the final draft of the script, they retro-engineered a story. So we got ourselves an icicle-Megatron and the Allspark in the Colorado river, with the map burnt into the Allspark. Alientraveller 09:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As an aside... isn't icicle Megatron in his Cybertron Jet form? And doesn't he stay like that for most of the movie? ;-D -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 10:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but the Cybertron form doesn't really matter compared to what design Bay has given him as a Stealth bomber. It's more interesting to know what they build out of real vehicle pieces as it were. Alientraveller 10:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - I'd have thought that the Cyberton jet form should be mentioned, as it is the form Megs takes for the majority of the film. It's like saying Darth Vader is a good guy in the Star Wars films. Well, yes, he becomes a good guy, but for the majority of the movies, he's a villain! :-D -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 10:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, the film's not even out yet. How do you know Megatron spends most of the film in his Cybertronic form? For all we know, Blackout the loyalist could free him from his icy prison thirty minutes in, setting off all the other Decepticon attacks. When we know for sure, we'll make a note of it that Megatron spends most of his time as an alien weapon. Alientraveller 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair point! -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 10:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Have the official plot and have typed up proper synopsis with spell check and human checking aid, request permission to post to better the article in full on the "Transformers Movie". This article will complete the page, reach me at windu588@yahoo.com for questions, answer, and comments. -- Hokage Benefactor ^{User:Hokage Benefactor submitted 6:00 PM 29 May 2007}

The problem I have with Megatron in this movie is that it doesn't follow the television series where Megatron is a handgun. MEGATRON IS SUPPOSED TO BE A HANDGUN- NOT A JET- NOT A STEALTH BOMBER. Frenzy in the cartoon series was a cassette that turns into a robot- not a cd player. Scorponok didn't show up in the animated series until the rebirth episodes after the hate plague when Optimus Primne returns. I have been with the series since the beginning and I consider myself a purist when it comes to Transformers. The main deceptions in this movie are supposed to be Soundwave, Skywarp, Thundercracker, Skywarp, Ravage, Laser Beak and Rumble. Frenzy was hardly used in the animated series. The autobots follow the original with a few exceptions. The humans in the series was Spike and his father.

At least the movie has Starscream and this movie is for a new generation- while the old generation is left behind.

Megatron - Stealth Bomber

Just a quick comment.

I had a look at Michael Bay's site (trying to find a citation to back up SS-Schatz's claim that Welker wouldn't voice Megatron because his "voice didn't fit this new Megatron it wasn't about his age or his voice") when I saw that:

The writers don't want to reveal yet what machine Megatron becomes.

We know he'll be an Alien Jet as we've seen the annotated designs, but are we sure he's also going to be a Stealth Bomber? -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 22:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A citation from an IGN journalist, who played the video game, and said that he was a stealth bomber. Alientraveller 07:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any others? IGN aren't particularly reliable. I'd also prefer to hear a citation about the film, rather than the game. -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 13:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's the best we got. Alientraveller 13:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Advance screening report from AICN confirms Megatron doesn't have an earth mode - he's only an alien jet. This is consistent with the fact all announced toys of it are of the alien jet variety, as is all of the concept art or renders seen so far. It's also worth knowing Megatron wasn't included in the game demo shown to journalists - only Bumblebee and Blackout were implemented as player characters. The IGN journalist likely assumed Megatron was a stealth bomber from an earlier interview with Shia Labouf, who apparently confused Starscream (who is a F22, arguably a stealth plane), and Megatron. -- Bobbington ^{User | Talk} 27 April 2007

That AICN review is an unreliable source. As it is, the film is unfinished, as shown by the fact the reviewer doesn't mention the Artic prologue. Alientraveller 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What arctic prologue? Are you still basing opinions on the comics? -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, in the interview in the plot section Bay discussed the Artic prologue. Alientraveller 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Roberto Orci said the review was reliable on the official movie site's forum. Certainly gives more credibility to it than IGN's mention of a stealth plane. -- Bobbington ^{User | Talk} 28 April 2007

Link please. Alientraveller 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How's this? -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 10:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

References

WOW - 116 references ! (More than in Alfred Hitchcock, well, that one has actually: none). You can overdo it! It doesn't make a movie "more important". --Wittkowsky 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Kind of like overdoing the header you just placed (that I've sence adjusted)? Is there actually a constructive concern about the references, or are you just criticizing the thoroughness of these editors? You cannot claim original research if it's cited everywhere. Secondly, the film isn't out yet, and once it is, you can be assured that a good portion of the sources will be removed. We won't need any for the plot, or the cast, because a lot will be verifiable by the film itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is quite clearly trolling. Clearly Wikipedia is neutral and every article should be good. As it is, this is the live-action debut of the greatest toys ever created, so I'm putting extra care into it. Alientraveller 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said! I'm glad the talk pages don't require NPOV!;-D -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 15:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would get the joke. Alientraveller 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vector Sigma

I was looking through StopSectorSeven.org when I saw mention of http://www.vector-sigma.org (login with MEGAMAN (all caps)). Are either of these sites official, would you think? I know the StopSectorSeven one is mentioned in one of the e-mails on the SectorSeven site. -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Interviews

Interviews from a set visit. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

UK Release Date

Hmmm... The UK version of the Transformers website says the release date is 29^th June, while the Paramount UK website says it's the 27^th July (as does IMDb and The Guardian). I've e-mailed Paramount UK for confirmation but (what a surprise) I've had no reply! Does anyone have anything concrete? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Its much more likely the july one is correct, as its hardly going to be released in uk before us PLAYWERT 19:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that? It's going to be released in Australia before the US. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

transformersmovie.com's UK release date is wrong. You can read a full list of confirmed (By Paramount Pictures international offices) list on [1]Transformers At The Moon. The whole release section need to be updated as its missing many dates and others are wrong

Images of the Autobots and Decepticons

I found these on the Superherohype forums in the middle of this page, which have combined official pictures of the Autobots and Decepticons into cohesive wholes. Would it be a good idea to add them to the cast, without permission of the fan artists who themselves haven't got legal right to combine these images? Alientraveller 12:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no. We can't upload other people's work unless they give permission to use it under the right license, which we would need to verify that if they do. Plus, as you stated, those are copyrighted images, and merging them doesn't change that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rating

Just wanted to mention that a Lunch'able commercial airing on Cartoon Network during Naruto and One Piece said the movie is PG-13. DeathWeed 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And to list any rating would be biased, and to list all would be trivia. Only the initial controversy is worth mentioning. Alientraveller 08:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You do know that the rumor about the rating was false. It was for disturbia, not this

Cite? Alientraveller 12:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nelson Lauren, who runs the director's official site, for one thing: [2]

All this R rating crap is down to one mistake Shia LaBoeuf gave in an interview; he confused Transformers with Disturbia--another Dreamworks picture in which he's the star and Spielberg's the exec producer--and that's it. I'm getting a little tired of seeing this bit in the article, but I'm also aware of WP:V, and probably wouldn't be able to competently rewrite the section anyway. Maybe someone else can take a crack at it. - DoubleCross 03:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on Bay's site, I'll remove it. Alientraveller 10:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Viral marketing with fake UFO pictures?

Can someone say whether these photos are viral marketing for the movie? [3] [4] [5] (a "Space Bridge"?) 75.18.208.222 01:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No. In this incarnation of the mythos anyway, Transformers fly themselves. Alientraveller

AUS Release Date

The Australian release date is the 28th of June and not the 29th. Sources are Hoyts and Greater Union Websites. Aus movies are released on a thursday for some odd reason.. maybe wikipedia has the answer to this.60.240.112.244 07:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Real Gear and Josh Duhamel's comments

Jumping the gun abit, aren't we? I think Duhamel was referring to Frenzy (who is indeed a kind of killing machine and had the working name of Soundbyte), while the any other electronic device Transformers are most likely just part of a scene to show the life-giving power of the Allspark. Its highly likely that none of the Real Gear toy characters are in the movie (as their device modes are made up), and in any case, for the purposes of categorization, the Real Gear guys are either Autobots or Decepticons. The full cast of Transformers has already been confirmed. - FFN

Template:Spoilers

Yes, indeed, but we have Real Gear characters too. But Duhamel didn't name the iPod character, and of my knowledge of the leaked February 2006 draft, the Allspark is shown to create transformers from ordinary objects. Alientraveller 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I've gathered from visiting various boards and seeing a LOT of spoilers (dammit), the secret agent guys from Sector 7 demonstrate the Allspark's powers by bringing one of the characters' mp3 player to life in a secure containment room, it promptly tries to break through the bulletproof wall while playing some violent music or something, and gets destroyed by a laser beam. That's probably what Duhamel referred to. Its allegiance is never established, and it probably didn't have any since it's pretty much a "hi-and-die" character. - Hiryu84

Either way, those electronic gizmo TFs in the movie aren't characters, and its going to end up silly if you list each and every single Transformer that appears, especially ones that don't have names and are likely just there to as visual aids. And honestly, shouldn't their be official confirmation before people start listing anything and everything said by the actors (who, as demonstrated by Shia LaBeouf comments over the past year, aren't the most reliable of sources). - FFN

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph ends with the text It will premiere on 20 June 2007 worldwide before being released across the world. I want to change this, as it doesn't make any sense, but I don't know what to change it to! Alientraveller... help!!! ;-) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. How do people often approach multiple-release dates? Alientraveller 11:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well my comment really was that it says it "will premiere on 20 June 2007 worldwide before being released across the world." Worldwide and across the world mean the same thing - surely it's not being premered worldwide is it? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just state the very first commercial release date then the United States release date. If they're the same, then just say that the worldwide release date is that particular date. Specific release dates for either English-speaking countries or otherwise can be explored in the Release section if there is a reason to that specific date, such as Spider-Man 3 released in Japan on a particular date to coincide for Japan's Golden Week. 155.91.28.231 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Frenzy

Are there any sources for Frenzy being "attached to Barricade" other than the toy? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it would nice to see a source other than a toy. I don't think that's really appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Mcr29 16:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about a movie based on toys and has its own merchandise made by designers involved in the film. Alientraveller 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically it's a movie based on several generations of cartoons and comic books. And that still doesn't justify using a toy as a reference. Mcr29 17:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I just said, the toy of the movie, which the designers worked on both. Alientraveller 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that this is synthesis because I doubt that the toys are going to be absolutely equal to the computer-generated Transformers. Do toys really have the thousands of parts that will move during a transformation? I think that this is unnecessarily assumed detail since we do not know how the film will unfold. If there is no information about Frenzy being attached to Barricade in the film itself, I don't think it's appropriate to make the comparison of features from toys to the computer-generated robots at this point. I would suggest exclusion because it's not clearly verifiable, at least not until we see the film or if there is a film-based report of Frenzy and Barricade being connected. 155.91.28.231 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The toys are the most verifiable thing about this film. Alientraveller 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because designers worked on both does not mean that everything will be the same. Like I mentioned above, the toys don't have thousands of moving parts. Thus, they are not exactly going to be like their computer-generated counterparts. It cannot be evidenced that all features from one portrayal will copy over to the other portrayal, or vice versa. Two other editors dispute your claim, which is not verifiable and only based on the questionable logic that because the designers worked on both the CG models and the toys, that the features in both will be absolutely identical. I would suggest letting the information be removed until there can be attribution about this detail directly tied to the film and not the toy. 155.91.28.231 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but that doesn't mean their packaging biographies don't describe the same character, they don't look alike, albeit simplified, that they don't have similiar gimmicks ie Megatron's morning star, Ironhide and Starscream's arm cannons, and so on and so forth... Alientraveller 18:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are similarities. However, if there is a feature that exists in the toy that does not exist with the computer-generated counterpart, or vice versa, then the 100% match between the two figures would be immediately questionable. If evidence of a difference in features is shown, would you agree that the verifiability of matching features could be questioned? Obviously, the fact that we even have to explore this path means that the assumption is not immediately verifiable for the film. 155.91.28.231 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, the toys are our primary sources. Got a better idea? Because right now, there is nothing wrong with using the toy to know Frenzy attaches to Barricade. Because everything on the toys is what we've based our knowledge of the characters in the cast list (and don't ask me to cite toy packaging). Alientraveller 18:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It just strikes me that far more verifiable sources could be found than toy packaging about the robots in this film. I don't believe it's been shown in the trailers, but I recall reading Michael Bay talking in an interview about Optimus Prime using a weapon in the film. Something like that is unquestionably verifiable, as opposed to citation of toy packaging. 155.91.28.231 19:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Optimus' arm cannon? Yes, the Leader Class toy can transform his hand into a cannon. Alientraveller 19:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that it is not unquestionably verifiable that a toy's features will be reflected in the film. The interview of Bay mentioning the weapon is directly connected to the film and obviously can't be doubted. Using toy packaging can be. How about this: Is there a citation that says, "All the computer-generated models' features will be completely reflected in the toys?" Or are you just working off the logic that because the designers worked on both, the features will be the same? 155.91.28.231 19:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So far, the film's toy line has been completely show accurate, apart from the fact that obviously they're not-to-scale or made of millions of pieces. There is no reason to doubt the toy line, because it is official merchandise of a film based on Hasbro trademarks. Everything was confirmed early on by the toys, most relevantly to this discussion, that Scorponok is Blackout's drone. Alientraveller 19:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"...not unquestionably verifiable that a toy's features will be reflected in the film." I think it might be better to look at it from the perspective that the film character's features might be reflected on the toy. Where else would the designers get that feature from??? Glazios 09:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Weaving is a decepticon?

This is the first I heard about him doing the voice... My only concern is that Hugo is listed as a Decepticon and not "Megatron (voiced by Hugo Weaving)". The same thing looks wrong for Peter as Optimus. Peter is an Autobot? I'm pretty sure that Optimus is the Autobot.

It doesn't say "Peter Cullen is an Autobot" it says he is the voice of Optimus Prime. He IS Prime, but by voice only. There is no physical presence to play, it's a CGI character. It only looks odd because we don't know who is voicing the rest of the transformers. Once we know that the layout may possibly change, but we aren't going to turn it into an in-universe format by acting as if Megatron portayed himself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

What will happen with the cast list if it turns out most of the Decepticons don't speak? Alientraveller 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cast List

I really think that going with a Character (played/voiced by actor) format suits this movie better. Surely the characters are more important than the actors, especially considering that some of the characters aren't even going to have voice actors. I'm not going to revert, but I'd like to generate a discussion here. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just started it above. The thing is, Actor as Character is the general format, so I'm fine with it as it is. When the credits roll, we'll know who did the voices. Maybe we should use a box ala Gladiator, if some character won't speak though. Alientraveller 15:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the look of the table in the Gladiator article, but that's just personal preference. While I agree with rules for formats, there are times when they don't work, like here. For a strict cast list, Bumblebee and maybe Frenzy and Scorponok (just guessing here) would just not appear in the cast list, as there is no actor associated with them. For this film I think it's more a character list than a true cast list, as it's the "huge freakin' robots" that we're all really interested in, after all! ;-) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the Fox... I notice on many Pixar film articles tables are done to show what a character looks like, being that they're animated so a user isn't going to click on an actor's article for a free image of their appearance. Maybe we can do the same thing given the uniqueness of the 'formers. Still, there's a reason I titled it "Cast and characters". Alientraveller 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that we're going to have this issue with increasing regularity now that a number of films are having CGI characters that have no actors at all. I was thinking that mentioning R2-D2 would have had the same problem in the Star Wars articles, but was fogetting about Kenny Baker. Oh, and The Fox? Not a fan. I've not seen Rachael Taylor before, but she looks like she'd be my pin up of the movie! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cast lists are not mandatory, but when you are dealing with a huge cast, like this, they are necessary. So when they are used, per style guidelines it should be "Actor as Character". If they don't have a physical actor then list the "Actor voicing". The other way "Megatron (voiced by Hugo)" suggests that we are referring to a real person, it comes across as in-universe. It's something you would see in the plot itself, but not a cast and characters list. Notability goes to the actor, not the character. Hugo Weaving is Megatron; just because he isn't physically playing the character doesn't detract from the fact that he is the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so by that reasoning the transformers who don't speak shouldn't be in that section at all as they don't have voice actors.

I still think a character list, rather than a cast list is more relevant to this type of film. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Who doesn't speak? Do we know who doesn't speak, or do we just not know who is voicing the character. In the trailer I clearly heard Bumblebee respond to Sam. I would think that all would speak, with the exception of maybe Frenzy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The only sounds we've heard Bee make in the trailer have been electronic noise (the "It's you and me line" is thought to be either Prime or Megs) and I believe (although I could be wrong) that neither Frenzy nor Scorponok have "true" voices. The others, i would imagine, will speak, we just don't know who's voicing them. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's Optimus then he must be whispering or something, because it didn't sound like Peter Cullen. My point is that we won't know what's going on with that until the movie comes out (or someone talks and tells us everything). Right now we are in the dark.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree - we don't know much about the voices (other than for the main Transformers), which I think lends weight to my main point here, which is that, in this film (for the Transformers themselves, especially) the actors are less important then the characters, and so the characters should be listed first. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like given precedence to any fictional character over an actor. Hugo Weaving is a very prominant actor, and not less significant than Megatron. Same with Keith David. One wouldn't say "Jason Voorhees (performed by John Doe)". That character has always been more important than the people that played him, and they didn't talk, just performed stunts. There wasn't "acting" involved. We still don't put the character ahead. I don't think I've seen too many articles that give precedence to the characters. Look at the Shrek films, they are all voiced acted. Shrek 2 doesn't put the character first.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Shrek 2 isn't a fair comparison because all the major characters have voice actors, and the Friday the 13th film article on here doesn't even have a cast list. Suppose they made Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope with R2-D2 being purely CGI - would you not list him in the cast because he doesn't have a voice actor? I still maintain that, for this film, the characters should be listed first

Scanning down the Autobot and Decepticon cast list as it stands gives prominence to:

• Actor
• Character (who may or may not actually ever have an actor to list)
• Character
• Character
• Character
• Actor
• Character
• Character
• Actor
• Character (who may or may not actually ever have an actor to list)
• Character (who may or may not actually ever have an actor to list)
• Character
• Character

which is confusing. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I know F13 doesn't have a cast list, I removed it. But the original "Jason" was a child, check out the sequels (especially when you get to Jason X, where there character has been around for 20 years). If they have a voice actor, then the style is "Actor as Character"...if they don't then they don't. Maybe it could be subbed to say "Characters without actors". Look at Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace#Cast, here's a film with live people, CGI characters, and muppet characters... still the same format. The actor is still the character, even if they don't physically fill the shoes themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm obviously not really making myself understood. My point is that there may well be main characters that don't have actors. Where will they go? They are part of the cast, albeit only digital, so should go with the rest. This is going to result in the mismatch I mentioned above which could be solved by making an exception for this film and listing them as Character played by Actor -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the only ones without actos will be the transformers. We'll have to wait and see who doesn't have a voice actor. It may come that we have to reorganize the cast section when the movie comes out. It's fine right now, because we don't know enough to make a choice about organization. At best, I'd keep all the Autobots with actors together, and tall the Decepticons with actos together, and put the no actor known ones at the bottom of their respective subsections. I think Keith David is the only other one we know...so I'd just move him up next to Hugo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep it the way it is now, but we have to remember that even if Bumblebee doesn't speak, he certainly is going to be most prominent of all the robots. Alientraveller 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the criteria for a character being included in the cast list? I don't think it should be anyone other than major characters since complete cast lists can be found elsewhere. Mcr29 17:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

AUS premiere

Australian premiere is on June 12.

http://www.empireonline.com.au/news/story.asp?NID=1000000848

Reboot?

Is the movie really a reboot? The given source labels it as one, but consider that the Transformers universe is comprised from dozens of series which range from direct and indirect sequels to non-related, disparate series (see Transformers (fiction)). --Stratadrake 03:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That was my concern, and the site itself didn't really say that Bay called it a reboot. It seems more like people are simply associating it as a reboot since it's been 20 years since there was a movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. It would be more appropriate to call it a reboot if there were a series of theatrical films featuring the same continuity but that's not the case here. Mcr29 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Poster Date

Why is the release date on the poster say that it releases on the 27th of July when it really releases on the 3rd of july?

Welcome to the UK version of the international poster. And it's out in your country at 8pm July 2. Whoop-di-doo for you lot. Alientraveller 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jess Harnell or Keith David?

So, is Keith David doing the voice of Barricade in the movie or is Jess Harnell pulling double duty as Ironhide and Barricade? The additional bit here is that Keith David actually did the voice for Barricade for the game and not the movie. I'd tend to see it the other way around but either way - can anyone confirm? LK Thurisaz 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The IMDB entry still lists Keith David as the voice of Barricade. --SilverHawk7 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

IMDb is an unreliable source and slow to update. Keith David was probably a rumor: Jess Harnell was announced at the Sydney press conference during the preview screening. Alientraveller 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

New Player

• I'm just checking on the casting for the movie. Today, I saw the toy for a new Decepticon named Wreckage. Has there been any mention of him as a character in the movie or is he just coming out as a toy? I only ask because the others are in toy form as well. Monksbane 7:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Check him out on his Wikipedia page Wreckage (Transformers). user:mathewignash

• Thank you. :)

No, there are several toys so far that are not in the film, and more to come.

Music Section

I updated what Stan Bush was up to in regards to the soundtrack. Looks like he submitted two songs but the producers didn't put them on there. So he's going to re-release his album "In This Life" (already available in Europe/Japan) in the US with two bonus songs which are the two songs he submitted to the producers. It will be released on July 3rd, 2007. LK Thurisaz 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Devastator", not "Brawl"

I am not a Transformers expert by any stretch so I don't want to edit the article myself. However, I am 100% sure that in the final version of the movie the evil tank Transformer refers to himself as "Devastator", not "Brawl". Fuxoft 22:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Debatable. But the toy based on the movie is certainly named "Brawl".... --Stratadrake 00:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? I am translating Transformers movie for local release, I already saw it three or four times, I came here for some information to get the translation right and I wanted to help you to get the facts right. When all the "evil" Transformers announce themselves to Megatron, the tank's noises are subtitled as "Devastator reporting" - I'm looking at that scene right now. Paramount's final version of subtitle/spotting list clearly states:

1826.10	1828.10/	2.0	DEVASTATOR) (in alien language)
				Devastator reporting.
(Devastator  :  name of one of the Decepticons - derived from the word, 'Devastate')

What exactly is "debatable" about this? Fuxoft 00:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

no debate- in the final film the subtitles, the tank calls itself DEVASTATOR ColScott 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the source you are using published? ^(H) 00:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Further, how ethical is it for you to discuss this here in the public arena? I doubt your bosses would be happy to see you discussing it here, and I further suspect that anyone actually working on the project would know that. Beyond that, you've got nothign you can cite, as the material you're working on is proprietary, and uncitable. ThuranX 00:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My contract requires me "not to divulge any information which is not yet known to general public". Taking into account that the movie was already officially shown to hundreds (if not thousands?) of members of general audience, I think it's safe to assume that "general public" already already has access to names of the characters in the movie. If I was in any doubt about legality of me posting this, I wouldn't be doing that. Of course I could "cite" the info by making a screenshot of the mentioned scene but that's something my bosses probably wouldn't be happy about and you could claim I photoshopped it or whatever. And if you doubt that I am indeed the movie's translator, have a look at František Fuka at this very site. Fuxoft 01:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Premiere is in two days. Only people who've seen it are test audiences. Yeah, at this point, I'm going to go with 'You are a troll', because anyone who actually had these questions and worked for a company related to the film would have contact numbers of people actually connected to the production who they could call for help. and they wouldn't come to wikipedia. You're a troll, and that's that. ThuranX 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:) You obviously have no idea how subtitling works. The only phone number I have is phone number of the boss of local translation company. This number is not very helpful because he is not exactly sure what is the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek. I know e-mails of some Paramount/Dreamworks people but I shouldn't use them directly. I have to contact the local distribution office, which in turn contacts the European / U.S. branch (via e-mail), which then (maybe) replies to the local distribution office, which then forwards their reply to me. Sometimes it even takes less than a week... However, this is completely moot point beacuse I was looking for some information about the exact model of yellow Camaro used in the movie, which I found here at Wikipedia page, thank you very much. I could be arguing that movie's translator is rather citable source and pointing you to this page, for example, but why bother? I don't require Wikipedia page to have the accurate name of some tank and, in two days, everyone will see... Fuxoft 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To FUXOFT - I am surprised the busy admins here have not caught your name yet- seems questionable to me. Maybe try StonedinEurope or something. Anyways, do not try to convince these people of the truth - as you say, the mistake is there, hopefully it can be fixed before release, but the one that played this weekend in LA, last week in NYC, and in Australia and Korea mistakenly calls the tank Devastator. This is only in a subtitle not verbal. Anyways, don't let the name callers here upset you. ColScott 04:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My real-life name is "Fuka". How "questionable" is that? :) "Fuxoft" is name of my software company ("fuka + software") and I used it 25 years ago, long before I learned English. As for "fixing" the subtitle - that's an interesting point but it is taken from final print which will be shown in our theaters so even if they manage to fix it, some countries will still show "Devastator". But I will try to ask the relevant people about possibility of that. 62.24.71.33 09:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My contract requires me "not to divulge any information which is not yet known to general public".

Is it just me, or are there no promotional images of Brawl/Devastator, Ironhide, and Starscream (like there are for the rest of the robot cast)? Anyway. The toy labels him 'Brawl', but I hear the official book labels him 'Devastator'. If this is "already known to the general public", then you should easily be able to find a reliable source to back up your claim. And then you can include it, otherwise it's an uncited claim and may be subject to questioning and removal. --Stratadrake 03:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Devastator was a working name for Brawl, as he was officially announced at the August 18 2006 Yahoo webcast with the screenwriters. When we all see the film, present and correct in July, we can make a note of any error. Alientraveller 08:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so if we cannot confirm the name with reliables sources we should not mention either until it is verifiable. ^(H) 13:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)