This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bumblebee (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
A fact from Bumblebee (film) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 September 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Prequel or reboot or both? Could we get some consensus on this so people quit slow edit warring over it? [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.165.193 ( talk) 16:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Since no one has bothered to discuss this let alone provide sources and the tedious back and forth continues, I finally went and looked for myself. In an interview with SlashFilm producer Lorenzo Di Bonaventura rejected the term reboot [7] [8] so unless someone makes some effort to discuss this and produces some compelling sources this article should not say reboot. -- 109.79.172.66 ( talk) 18:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Not again. It might be better if the intro avoided using the terms prequel and reboot entirely since it gives them WP:UNDUE weight, because it doesn't really tell readers anything useful and despite all the back and forth about the terminology in the intro, no one has cared enough to add anything about it to the main article (the development section most likely). There's the fact that Di Bonaventura rejected the term reboot, but there wasn't much information about the director Travis Knight thought about it. Even if we can get a decent source about what Hasbro actually said at New York ToyFair it is all so much speculation that isn't really about this film but about the next film. -- 109.79.184.195 ( talk) 04:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
So I prefer and Support option 1, based on the sources currently available. I'd settle for option 4 over either of option 2 or 3. (I will ping both EkoGraf and Fradio71 for comment.) -- 109.77.237.77 ( talk) 00:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
109.77.237.77, first, you should be made aware that you made 4-5 reverts within a period of 24 hours on this article. Per Wikipedia's policy, if an editor makes more than 3 reverts within 24 hours, in violation of Wikipedia's 3RR policy, it can lead to a block of the said editor. So I would kindly ask that you cancel your revert of my edit and stick to the talk page instead of cancelling out any editor who attempts to add info on the "reboot". Otherwise, if you don't roll back your actions or if you continue with the edit warring, you could be blocked for the violation. You should read up on the 3RR policy. As for the options you mentioned, numerous sources are at the moment citing Hasbro that its a reboot, while none are contradicting it, and thus it is option 2. That said, I will wait for the opinion of other editors. EkoGraf ( talk) 08:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
According to a report by Transformers World [TFW2005] from the Hasbro Product Presentation at the 2019 New York Toyfair, Hasbro officially declared the Bumblebee movie to be “a new storytelling universe” [maybe ref TFW2005 here] which other sources have called a reboot of the franchise.[other][refs][here].
I see User:Drmies has restored the changes by EkoGraf (verbatim) but unfortunately has not added anything to the discussion here yet. For some reason his talk page appears to be locked User_talk:Drmies so I can't even add a talkback request. EkoGraf was bold, I reverted, and EkoGraf discussed ( WP:BRD). I thank EkoGraf for his good faith efforts and engaging in discussion, despite my disagreement. I feel it is necessary for Drmies to comment to to show he is at least aware of this discussion, and that he doesn't just think reverting to the version by EkoGraf was the article status quo. . -- 109.79.95.247 ( talk) 12:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
As I said before you could call this film a prequel, a spin-off, or a reboot just depending on what sources you pick. It seems even reputable sources like critic
Scott Mendelson at Forbes.com are interpreting it as a reboot (his article
about Bumblebee in China, points to an article from
ScienceFiction.com which as with all these stories points right back to
TFW2005). It is a house of cards, sources all based on a
WP:FANSITE, ugh, I give up. However
-Fnlayson made a good point that this should be detailed in the article body, the film is was developed as a spin-off and a prequel, and critics described it as effectively a soft reboot, only later did Hasbro (or so it seems based on the weak sources currently available) declare that it was “a new storytelling universe” that everyone seems to be interpreting as reboot.
It seems
WP:UNDUE to emphasize reboot in the intro when it isn't properly explained anywhere in the article body. --
109.79.91.196 (
talk)
13:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This shit keeps happening [10] and it gets reverted [11]. This is why I made the extra effort to try and find consensus but Wikipedia failed hard. This dumb slow edit war will probably continue because too many people will not discuss. -- 109.79.91.196 ( talk) 01:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the wording again I realize it is a little bit stilted but I still think that slightly awkward wording is necessary to discourage people from arguing about it and changing it over and over again. -- 109.78.217.150 ( talk) 16:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
We still have editors messing with the compromise wording and saying "prequel" and other editors obsessing about calling it reboot which unfortunately shows we need to continue to call cover all bases and describe it as prequel, spin-off and reboot. Compromise, means we get this unhappy mess. -- 109.79.171.171 ( talk) 05:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
And it continues [15]... what does soft reboot even really mean and why is it so important for some editors to insist on using that term, based on what sources is this distinction necessary? The series has never been a stickler for continuity anyway. Ultimately this is all arguing semantics, it is just another film in the series, by definition it is a sequel and people are arguing over what type of sequel it is. I remind editors that Di Bonaventura rejected the label "reboot" and it is not clear that Hasbro ever used the term but we ended up using the word "reboot" because almost everyone else called it that anyway. If anyone believes a different wording is necessary please discuss, explain, and show reliable sources to support your argument. -- 15:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.200.34 ( talk)
Thank you for reopening the discussion, I wish I had noticed it sooner and do wish you had mentioned in your edit summaries that a new discussion had occurred on the talk page and that new sources had been introduced. I have some minor concerns, I do not think this is as all quite clear as NoobMiester is asserting it to be. The Collider article [20] the author uses the term "soft reboot" to describe Rise of the Beasts (a term Bonaventura has long avoided [21] and several films in the series changed things around a bit). It is not clear which specific part exactly of the article you think absolutely refutes the "reboot" claims that people applied to Bumblebee. (I ask for clarity, and to get a firm conclusion, not because I have any desire to keep that term in the article.) I also see an article from The Hollywood Reporter [22] where the director Director Steven Caple states that Rise of the Beasts "doesn’t mess up any of the timeline in 2006, 2007" and "We’re actually going in a direction that allows us to protect that side of the universe" which seems to strongly imply it is all just one continuity. This would seem to be enough to exclude the term disputed "reboot" term but again it is not as clear and conclusive as I would like. It might be helpful to clarify, and quote which specific lines of the article you think are most important. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I think things should be very clearly supported by the sources. -- 109.76.136.61 ( talk) 23:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Years of churn, and discussions such as this one and the one on the Rise of the Beasts page show this not simple undisputed information from reliable sources but contentious unreliable information that cannot be reliably established. (The tenuous consensus was based on a mere three editors hashing this out and that was frequently ignored, it only slowed and did not stop the slow dumb edit war.) This is not simple continuity information [24] and it has been a slow edit war for years now. Try and establish the facts and gain consensus before including this continuity trivia in the lead section. Stick to the undisputed facts: Bumblebee was the 6th film in the series; it was the one after Last Knight, it was the one before Rise of the Beasts. Highlighting minor continuity issues does not serve serve readers of an encyclopedia and only raises questions and complicates matters that are best explained in the article body, ie it is WP:UNDUE to put them in the lead section. Please cut it out. -- 109.255.172.191 ( talk) 09:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
the director called it a reboot" where exactly did you see that? if you have a source please show it, provide a link. I understand that the failure of this series to be careful about continuity or canon has resulted in some people interpreting that as a reboot, but please read the above discussion and note carefully that journalists reporting on this have called it just about everything you can think of, and there have been misleading headlines but I haven't seen a source where Knight himself is directly quoted as calling it a reboot (and DiBonaventura has been conspicuously avoiding calling a reboot because he doesn't want to risk turning off any protentional customers). Knight actually made some efforts to maintain continuity (for example by deliberately not including Megatron in the Cybertron sequence) but ultimately none of it really matters because if you are describing it to an ordinary reader (who isn't already a Transformers fan) like an encyclopedia should, then the most important details are that it is the one released after The Last Knight and before the Rise of the Beasts. -- 109.76.200.127 ( talk) 02:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Slow dumb edit war continues 5 years on. [26] -- 109.76.132.42 ( talk) 18:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
This edit removed a song from the soundtrack without any explanation. I could (and might) revert it for failing to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain the deletion but the the source provided (and other sources [27]) does not include any song from Creed, so the delete might be in WP:GOODFAITH (despite the failure to update or delete the total runtime). Track 16 is listed as "Back to Life (80s Remix) [Bonus] – Hailee Steinfeld (3:13)". I could add that track instead but albums are often released with different bonus tracks, so someone with an interest in Soundtracks should check this. -- 109.78.219.98 ( talk) 13:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Deadline Hollywood had an article [28] that quoted social media analysis company RelishMix [29]. RelishMix noted superfans agreed Bumblebee "is the Transformers movie they’ve been waiting and yearning for, which means a more authentic look at some of their favorite characters and dosing down of the super-action in previous, Michael Bay-directed chapters."
I was thinking of including this note from RelishMix in the Critical response section after CinemaScore and PostTrak. Any comments? -- 109.77.205.163 ( talk) 04:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor keeps adding to the plot section, without any explanation. WP:FILMPLOT requires brevity, 400-700 words which leaves little room for any unnecessary words.
It is not helpful to claim that Charlie's Father's death is "recent", because we don't know if it was recent in any meaningful sense, and to claim it is recent requires guesses based on the flashback scenes. [30] The word "recent" is often subjective and better avoided in any writing but particularly in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia specifically has guidelines warning against using relative time words such as recent. (From a story perspective it seems it could be years since he died.) Using vague phrases such as "sometime later" are not helpful either. We don't know how much time passes between Bumblebee landing on earth and being found by Charlie, we only know that the year is 1987 and that is already stated. If these phrases are added again I will continue to revert them, and any other changes should take care not to unnecessarily bloat the wordcount. -- 109.76.137.43 ( talk) 02:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Found a reference from the special effects company that provided two huey helicopters [33] for the film. Might be possible to fit it into the article somewhere eventually if it was expanded to include more details about the filming and practical effects. -- 109.76.212.43 ( talk) 16:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I hate having to reference videos so I'm not sure if I'll add this to the article or not but as part of a panel discussion GalaxyCon Richmond 2020 Peter Cullen expressed his dissatisfaction at the film (or you could say his own performance in the film) because an inexperienced actor had been hired to provide a temporary voice track and the animators worked off that temporary track as a reference. Cullen then had to then match the details of his performance and inflections to the existing flawed animations. [34] -- 109.77.216.201 ( talk) 01:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
A redirect hatnote was recently added to this article. [35]
The series has never emphasized the numbers in the titles. As a result very few people search for the films based on numbered title. [36] Despite this, there seems to be a vanishingly small minority of fans who quibble over whether or not Bumblebee is the 6th film. I do not believe that there is a significant use of "Transformers 6" to begin with or that there is enough confusion to merit including a redirect hatnote. [37] The intro/lead already points to the franchise article and the sequel section points to the next film. I do not believe anyone looking for the upcoming Transformers: Beast Wars film are unintentionally ending up at this article, and in the unlikely event anyone does there are links to even if they do. I simply do not believe people trying to find out about the latest film are navigating that way and accidentally ending up here.
If you honestly believe this Redirect is necessary or that it really is helpful to a significant amount of readers please explain why. -- 109.79.78.84 ( talk) 19:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
widely?? Factually it is the seventh film, but I would say that that the "Transformers 7" is only occasionally used to refer to RotB, and that Bumblebee was almost never referred to as Transformers 6, but that the common name of both films is clear, numbered titles are rarely used for the series, and that there is no real ambiguity here.
The title of this film is clear, no significant confusion exists.It is not "Bumblebee" that's ambiguous, it's "Transformers 6". "Transformers 6" can mean two things: one, the sixth overall installment in the Transformers series, i.e. Bumblebee; or, it could mean the sixth mainline film in the Transformers series bearing the name Transformers in the title, i.e. Rise of the Beasts. Because someone might be looking for Rise of the Beasts when they type "Transformers 6" into the search bar, it is necessary for us to point them to the right direction on this page. This hatnote is not unwarranted. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 14:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe pageviews data comparing the Transformers 6 and Transformers 7 redirects would help? It does not seem significant to me compared to the numbers of pageviews the film articles are getting. -- 109.255.172.191 ( talk) 20:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
An anon editor added China to the country list for this film [39] and this was reverted because no sources were provided. But sources such as (the films credits and) Variety say the film was produced in association with Tencent Pictures. [40] so could editors please clarify for the record why China should not also be listed if this was part financed by a Chinese company? -- 109.76.203.242 ( talk) 15:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor deleted a large chunk of information from the Sequel section without any explanation. [42] Summarizing more succinctly might be an improvement, but it is relevant to this article that Knight was reluctant to direct another but still had some ideas for a sequel and also that Hodson had initially planned to return. Those details, which I think are relevant here, are less relevant to the development section of the next film. -- 109.255.172.191 ( talk) 19:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Some editors in the past have disputed the title of this film. The lead section previously included references to support the alternative names but these have been removed ( diff) by an editor who did not understand why those references were there, so I am writing this to make it clear that those references were added to WP:VERIFY those alternative titles. (I don't think this was even the first time similar references to prove the alternative titles have been removed from the lead section.)
I don't think anyone actually disputes that the primary common name of this film is "Bumblebee".
Some toys and merchandising included the longer title "Tranformers: Bumblebee". The title was stylized on the poster and various other places to to use CamelCase as "BumbleBee". I don't think any of this is important or relevant but some editors seemed to feel it was important to include it in the lead section anyway so I left it alone, despite the fact that it is so inconsequential that it is not mentioned or explained anywhere else in the article body (the WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize not supplant what is in the article body). If anyone wants to argue for adding or removing alternative titles then feel free to discuss the issue here, but the information was previously referenced so please don't use the lack of references as a reason. -- 109.79.69.222 ( talk) 14:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
tiresome and meaninglessFor the record it's been that way since this film released, a long slow dumb edit war, see above. I wish I'd stood my ground instead of conceding to a compromise wording that didn't make anyone happy either. I should have been more forceful about the WP:FANCRUFT being WP:UNDUE from the start, but people love to argue about canon and continuity and declaring that something is a "reboot", forgetting that this does not best serve the ordinary reader (because for all intents and purposes it is all one series, albeit with sloppy and contradictory continuity). The disruptive edits don't fit the strict definition of vandalism so hopefully setting this article to flagged edits will be sufficient. Thanks. -- 109.79.70.49 ( talk) 15:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bumblebee (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
A fact from Bumblebee (film) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 September 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Prequel or reboot or both? Could we get some consensus on this so people quit slow edit warring over it? [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.165.193 ( talk) 16:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Since no one has bothered to discuss this let alone provide sources and the tedious back and forth continues, I finally went and looked for myself. In an interview with SlashFilm producer Lorenzo Di Bonaventura rejected the term reboot [7] [8] so unless someone makes some effort to discuss this and produces some compelling sources this article should not say reboot. -- 109.79.172.66 ( talk) 18:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Not again. It might be better if the intro avoided using the terms prequel and reboot entirely since it gives them WP:UNDUE weight, because it doesn't really tell readers anything useful and despite all the back and forth about the terminology in the intro, no one has cared enough to add anything about it to the main article (the development section most likely). There's the fact that Di Bonaventura rejected the term reboot, but there wasn't much information about the director Travis Knight thought about it. Even if we can get a decent source about what Hasbro actually said at New York ToyFair it is all so much speculation that isn't really about this film but about the next film. -- 109.79.184.195 ( talk) 04:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
So I prefer and Support option 1, based on the sources currently available. I'd settle for option 4 over either of option 2 or 3. (I will ping both EkoGraf and Fradio71 for comment.) -- 109.77.237.77 ( talk) 00:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
109.77.237.77, first, you should be made aware that you made 4-5 reverts within a period of 24 hours on this article. Per Wikipedia's policy, if an editor makes more than 3 reverts within 24 hours, in violation of Wikipedia's 3RR policy, it can lead to a block of the said editor. So I would kindly ask that you cancel your revert of my edit and stick to the talk page instead of cancelling out any editor who attempts to add info on the "reboot". Otherwise, if you don't roll back your actions or if you continue with the edit warring, you could be blocked for the violation. You should read up on the 3RR policy. As for the options you mentioned, numerous sources are at the moment citing Hasbro that its a reboot, while none are contradicting it, and thus it is option 2. That said, I will wait for the opinion of other editors. EkoGraf ( talk) 08:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
According to a report by Transformers World [TFW2005] from the Hasbro Product Presentation at the 2019 New York Toyfair, Hasbro officially declared the Bumblebee movie to be “a new storytelling universe” [maybe ref TFW2005 here] which other sources have called a reboot of the franchise.[other][refs][here].
I see User:Drmies has restored the changes by EkoGraf (verbatim) but unfortunately has not added anything to the discussion here yet. For some reason his talk page appears to be locked User_talk:Drmies so I can't even add a talkback request. EkoGraf was bold, I reverted, and EkoGraf discussed ( WP:BRD). I thank EkoGraf for his good faith efforts and engaging in discussion, despite my disagreement. I feel it is necessary for Drmies to comment to to show he is at least aware of this discussion, and that he doesn't just think reverting to the version by EkoGraf was the article status quo. . -- 109.79.95.247 ( talk) 12:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
As I said before you could call this film a prequel, a spin-off, or a reboot just depending on what sources you pick. It seems even reputable sources like critic
Scott Mendelson at Forbes.com are interpreting it as a reboot (his article
about Bumblebee in China, points to an article from
ScienceFiction.com which as with all these stories points right back to
TFW2005). It is a house of cards, sources all based on a
WP:FANSITE, ugh, I give up. However
-Fnlayson made a good point that this should be detailed in the article body, the film is was developed as a spin-off and a prequel, and critics described it as effectively a soft reboot, only later did Hasbro (or so it seems based on the weak sources currently available) declare that it was “a new storytelling universe” that everyone seems to be interpreting as reboot.
It seems
WP:UNDUE to emphasize reboot in the intro when it isn't properly explained anywhere in the article body. --
109.79.91.196 (
talk)
13:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This shit keeps happening [10] and it gets reverted [11]. This is why I made the extra effort to try and find consensus but Wikipedia failed hard. This dumb slow edit war will probably continue because too many people will not discuss. -- 109.79.91.196 ( talk) 01:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the wording again I realize it is a little bit stilted but I still think that slightly awkward wording is necessary to discourage people from arguing about it and changing it over and over again. -- 109.78.217.150 ( talk) 16:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
We still have editors messing with the compromise wording and saying "prequel" and other editors obsessing about calling it reboot which unfortunately shows we need to continue to call cover all bases and describe it as prequel, spin-off and reboot. Compromise, means we get this unhappy mess. -- 109.79.171.171 ( talk) 05:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
And it continues [15]... what does soft reboot even really mean and why is it so important for some editors to insist on using that term, based on what sources is this distinction necessary? The series has never been a stickler for continuity anyway. Ultimately this is all arguing semantics, it is just another film in the series, by definition it is a sequel and people are arguing over what type of sequel it is. I remind editors that Di Bonaventura rejected the label "reboot" and it is not clear that Hasbro ever used the term but we ended up using the word "reboot" because almost everyone else called it that anyway. If anyone believes a different wording is necessary please discuss, explain, and show reliable sources to support your argument. -- 15:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.200.34 ( talk)
Thank you for reopening the discussion, I wish I had noticed it sooner and do wish you had mentioned in your edit summaries that a new discussion had occurred on the talk page and that new sources had been introduced. I have some minor concerns, I do not think this is as all quite clear as NoobMiester is asserting it to be. The Collider article [20] the author uses the term "soft reboot" to describe Rise of the Beasts (a term Bonaventura has long avoided [21] and several films in the series changed things around a bit). It is not clear which specific part exactly of the article you think absolutely refutes the "reboot" claims that people applied to Bumblebee. (I ask for clarity, and to get a firm conclusion, not because I have any desire to keep that term in the article.) I also see an article from The Hollywood Reporter [22] where the director Director Steven Caple states that Rise of the Beasts "doesn’t mess up any of the timeline in 2006, 2007" and "We’re actually going in a direction that allows us to protect that side of the universe" which seems to strongly imply it is all just one continuity. This would seem to be enough to exclude the term disputed "reboot" term but again it is not as clear and conclusive as I would like. It might be helpful to clarify, and quote which specific lines of the article you think are most important. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I think things should be very clearly supported by the sources. -- 109.76.136.61 ( talk) 23:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Years of churn, and discussions such as this one and the one on the Rise of the Beasts page show this not simple undisputed information from reliable sources but contentious unreliable information that cannot be reliably established. (The tenuous consensus was based on a mere three editors hashing this out and that was frequently ignored, it only slowed and did not stop the slow dumb edit war.) This is not simple continuity information [24] and it has been a slow edit war for years now. Try and establish the facts and gain consensus before including this continuity trivia in the lead section. Stick to the undisputed facts: Bumblebee was the 6th film in the series; it was the one after Last Knight, it was the one before Rise of the Beasts. Highlighting minor continuity issues does not serve serve readers of an encyclopedia and only raises questions and complicates matters that are best explained in the article body, ie it is WP:UNDUE to put them in the lead section. Please cut it out. -- 109.255.172.191 ( talk) 09:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
the director called it a reboot" where exactly did you see that? if you have a source please show it, provide a link. I understand that the failure of this series to be careful about continuity or canon has resulted in some people interpreting that as a reboot, but please read the above discussion and note carefully that journalists reporting on this have called it just about everything you can think of, and there have been misleading headlines but I haven't seen a source where Knight himself is directly quoted as calling it a reboot (and DiBonaventura has been conspicuously avoiding calling a reboot because he doesn't want to risk turning off any protentional customers). Knight actually made some efforts to maintain continuity (for example by deliberately not including Megatron in the Cybertron sequence) but ultimately none of it really matters because if you are describing it to an ordinary reader (who isn't already a Transformers fan) like an encyclopedia should, then the most important details are that it is the one released after The Last Knight and before the Rise of the Beasts. -- 109.76.200.127 ( talk) 02:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Slow dumb edit war continues 5 years on. [26] -- 109.76.132.42 ( talk) 18:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
This edit removed a song from the soundtrack without any explanation. I could (and might) revert it for failing to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain the deletion but the the source provided (and other sources [27]) does not include any song from Creed, so the delete might be in WP:GOODFAITH (despite the failure to update or delete the total runtime). Track 16 is listed as "Back to Life (80s Remix) [Bonus] – Hailee Steinfeld (3:13)". I could add that track instead but albums are often released with different bonus tracks, so someone with an interest in Soundtracks should check this. -- 109.78.219.98 ( talk) 13:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Deadline Hollywood had an article [28] that quoted social media analysis company RelishMix [29]. RelishMix noted superfans agreed Bumblebee "is the Transformers movie they’ve been waiting and yearning for, which means a more authentic look at some of their favorite characters and dosing down of the super-action in previous, Michael Bay-directed chapters."
I was thinking of including this note from RelishMix in the Critical response section after CinemaScore and PostTrak. Any comments? -- 109.77.205.163 ( talk) 04:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor keeps adding to the plot section, without any explanation. WP:FILMPLOT requires brevity, 400-700 words which leaves little room for any unnecessary words.
It is not helpful to claim that Charlie's Father's death is "recent", because we don't know if it was recent in any meaningful sense, and to claim it is recent requires guesses based on the flashback scenes. [30] The word "recent" is often subjective and better avoided in any writing but particularly in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia specifically has guidelines warning against using relative time words such as recent. (From a story perspective it seems it could be years since he died.) Using vague phrases such as "sometime later" are not helpful either. We don't know how much time passes between Bumblebee landing on earth and being found by Charlie, we only know that the year is 1987 and that is already stated. If these phrases are added again I will continue to revert them, and any other changes should take care not to unnecessarily bloat the wordcount. -- 109.76.137.43 ( talk) 02:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Found a reference from the special effects company that provided two huey helicopters [33] for the film. Might be possible to fit it into the article somewhere eventually if it was expanded to include more details about the filming and practical effects. -- 109.76.212.43 ( talk) 16:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I hate having to reference videos so I'm not sure if I'll add this to the article or not but as part of a panel discussion GalaxyCon Richmond 2020 Peter Cullen expressed his dissatisfaction at the film (or you could say his own performance in the film) because an inexperienced actor had been hired to provide a temporary voice track and the animators worked off that temporary track as a reference. Cullen then had to then match the details of his performance and inflections to the existing flawed animations. [34] -- 109.77.216.201 ( talk) 01:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
A redirect hatnote was recently added to this article. [35]
The series has never emphasized the numbers in the titles. As a result very few people search for the films based on numbered title. [36] Despite this, there seems to be a vanishingly small minority of fans who quibble over whether or not Bumblebee is the 6th film. I do not believe that there is a significant use of "Transformers 6" to begin with or that there is enough confusion to merit including a redirect hatnote. [37] The intro/lead already points to the franchise article and the sequel section points to the next film. I do not believe anyone looking for the upcoming Transformers: Beast Wars film are unintentionally ending up at this article, and in the unlikely event anyone does there are links to even if they do. I simply do not believe people trying to find out about the latest film are navigating that way and accidentally ending up here.
If you honestly believe this Redirect is necessary or that it really is helpful to a significant amount of readers please explain why. -- 109.79.78.84 ( talk) 19:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
widely?? Factually it is the seventh film, but I would say that that the "Transformers 7" is only occasionally used to refer to RotB, and that Bumblebee was almost never referred to as Transformers 6, but that the common name of both films is clear, numbered titles are rarely used for the series, and that there is no real ambiguity here.
The title of this film is clear, no significant confusion exists.It is not "Bumblebee" that's ambiguous, it's "Transformers 6". "Transformers 6" can mean two things: one, the sixth overall installment in the Transformers series, i.e. Bumblebee; or, it could mean the sixth mainline film in the Transformers series bearing the name Transformers in the title, i.e. Rise of the Beasts. Because someone might be looking for Rise of the Beasts when they type "Transformers 6" into the search bar, it is necessary for us to point them to the right direction on this page. This hatnote is not unwarranted. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 14:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe pageviews data comparing the Transformers 6 and Transformers 7 redirects would help? It does not seem significant to me compared to the numbers of pageviews the film articles are getting. -- 109.255.172.191 ( talk) 20:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
An anon editor added China to the country list for this film [39] and this was reverted because no sources were provided. But sources such as (the films credits and) Variety say the film was produced in association with Tencent Pictures. [40] so could editors please clarify for the record why China should not also be listed if this was part financed by a Chinese company? -- 109.76.203.242 ( talk) 15:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor deleted a large chunk of information from the Sequel section without any explanation. [42] Summarizing more succinctly might be an improvement, but it is relevant to this article that Knight was reluctant to direct another but still had some ideas for a sequel and also that Hodson had initially planned to return. Those details, which I think are relevant here, are less relevant to the development section of the next film. -- 109.255.172.191 ( talk) 19:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Some editors in the past have disputed the title of this film. The lead section previously included references to support the alternative names but these have been removed ( diff) by an editor who did not understand why those references were there, so I am writing this to make it clear that those references were added to WP:VERIFY those alternative titles. (I don't think this was even the first time similar references to prove the alternative titles have been removed from the lead section.)
I don't think anyone actually disputes that the primary common name of this film is "Bumblebee".
Some toys and merchandising included the longer title "Tranformers: Bumblebee". The title was stylized on the poster and various other places to to use CamelCase as "BumbleBee". I don't think any of this is important or relevant but some editors seemed to feel it was important to include it in the lead section anyway so I left it alone, despite the fact that it is so inconsequential that it is not mentioned or explained anywhere else in the article body (the WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize not supplant what is in the article body). If anyone wants to argue for adding or removing alternative titles then feel free to discuss the issue here, but the information was previously referenced so please don't use the lack of references as a reason. -- 109.79.69.222 ( talk) 14:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
tiresome and meaninglessFor the record it's been that way since this film released, a long slow dumb edit war, see above. I wish I'd stood my ground instead of conceding to a compromise wording that didn't make anyone happy either. I should have been more forceful about the WP:FANCRUFT being WP:UNDUE from the start, but people love to argue about canon and continuity and declaring that something is a "reboot", forgetting that this does not best serve the ordinary reader (because for all intents and purposes it is all one series, albeit with sloppy and contradictory continuity). The disruptive edits don't fit the strict definition of vandalism so hopefully setting this article to flagged edits will be sufficient. Thanks. -- 109.79.70.49 ( talk) 15:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)