In the decepticons cast section where are Blackout, Devastator/Brawl and Scorponok? Each had parts in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.56.215 ( talk) 14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
They did speak when Frenzy/Starscream told them to go to Frenzy's location as he found the Allspark but that itself is debatable. What about Bonecrusher he didn't speak and died in the next fight scene with Optimus, yet he is included. And regardless of that, they are characters of the film just because a person doesn't speak doesn't mean they should be removed because of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.56.215 ( talk • contribs)
Perhaps instead of a "Cast" section, it would be better served by a "Characters" section, since several major characters had no one cast to play their parts, they were completely CG creations with electronic voices. Scorponok was a character, but he wasn't in the cast Mathewignash 20:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Although he didn't speak, shouldn't the guy who played the hologram pilot for Blackout be listed as playing Blackout? Mathewignash 00:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should have something at the bottom of the decepticons list saying Blackout,Scorponok and Devestator are decepticons. These decepticons played major roles in the films plot without Scorponok attacking the US soldiers they would never find out SABOT rounds are their weakness. RiseDarthVader 09:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I'll add this sooner or later, maybe later, when the article goes under much revision when the DVD is released. Alientraveller 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Why don't some members let me add this parts to the Critical Reception section? These are the truth.
The film is full of e-bay ads and US military shows. It's idea is based on mixing Terminator and Independence Day. Transformers is not a recovery of the old characters, sorry for the developers; specially CGI; It's is just a propaganda. An example: "Nokias are really nasty. You will have to respect Japanese. They know the way of Samurai." (Sector 7 Agent) Japanese sponsors?
Is this guy serious? Did you even watch the movie? And what propaganda, would you rather the movie talk about how evil America and the western world are? Yeah, they should of been anti-U.S. Military so that way the Military wouldn't of donated all of those C130s, Blackhawks, M1Abrahms. etc. Oh and F.Y.I, smart guy, this isn't a discussion board about the movie. This should be deleted, try IMDB. Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.142.210 ( talk) 04:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you shouldnt call the section "over sponsorized", but take a look at the german version for example. There is really a big section about sponsoring and you surely cant deny that the military used the film trying to cast a positive light on itself making it look cool and dynamic and so on. It doesnt have to be criticized as this is an encyclopedia and not a personal comment and they surely couldnt buy all those aircrafts for the film themselves but i think its worth mentioning. Its also not only about the military, i just havent seen a movie with so much product placement for a long long time. Then theres also the thing about Hasbro and how much / how they influenced the film... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.68.244 ( talk • contribs)
I don't have a source for it, but if you read the leaked full script that came out months before (dated February 26, 2006 written by John Rogers), it has literally dozens of products mentioned by name, Snickers Bar here, Blackhawk helicopter there, Sector Seven driving Surburbans, Bumblebee yodeling the "Yahoo!" jingle, crashing near a "National League Baseball Stadium", using an "American Express" card with the phone operator. It's all mentioned in bold letters on the script - of course some changed along the way, including them using "I-Chat" for the web cam talk and the Nokia phone that came to life was an "I-Pod" in this script. They seem to have removed all Apple references in the final film. I'd look forward to them officially released the final script so we can reference it. Mathewignash 00:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-Scorponok stays out of the village when it attacks Qatar base survivors. Why didn't he go to the village and put all of them on skewer?! Maybe then they couldn't set up an air support deployment show. -Nobody notices Frenzy when he sneaks out of the aircraft after attempting to steal data. -Megatron cuts the statue that Sam has been holding and causes him to fall off the skyscraper. Why didn't he go and get the Allspark properly? -How did Sam survive the fall with Optimus Prime and not being crushed or kicked by Megatron later?
It won't be added because it's all from your POV, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Haven't you learned anything from
Bignole's advice on
WP:NOR and
WP:AVTRIV? You're taking the film too seriously IMHO.
Before I forget, would you mind signing your entries here so everyone will know who you are? Thank you. Eaglestorm 07:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
What about the goofs? Aren't they "purposeful"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Maxx ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know this is my point of view. I was disgusted when I watched it and saw my childhood favorite characters; not even them, they should be grateful to be brought back to life after 20 years; more than that annoyed for such an amazing and outstanding CGI used to create a military show off. So there are no more than two ways to add content to wikipedia: -Anything you add is your POV. -You discuss, vote and decide on every word you put in wikipedia. Is that possible? Or perhaps the "Over-Sponsorized" part has some political content that may be hazardous for wikipedia? the truth is bitter. All right, I'm going to add only "Goofs" to the article and please don't undo or delete it. By the way, If Goofs hold no encyclopedic value, why other movie articles have it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.151.131 ( talk) 05:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I got it, Wikipedia is for getting knowledge not others' personal comment. I'm sure every one can realize those so many stupid aspects of the film. Additionaly to the parts above, the movie is also advertising some cars and flash memories. I haven't seen so many ads even in a cheap, sponsor powered soap opera! max 06:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
IMAX Poster of the film Was Released today on IGN. I Was wondering how can we add it into the article If it is possible Or is it possible create a separate section on the article for the IMAX version of the Film with the poster on the side?
Transformers IMAX Poster -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 22:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Variety says here that "Bay has not yet inked a deal to helm the follow-up but is in the final stages of negotiation" which slightly conflicts with the sources cited in the article. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 08:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
For those who don't know, Simon Furman and Benson Yee are two highly respected Transformers writers: Furman's been writing for the characters since 1985 at Marvel UK, Marvel, Dreamwave and IDW. Yee was a story consultant on Beast Wars and is collaborating with Furman on a new BW profile book. The article would benefit from their reactions to the film, but I'm not so sure where to place it. I'd place them in "Reaction", but would others feel they should go under "Critical reception"? Here's their reactions for people to look at. [1] [2] Alientraveller 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Just glancing over the article for something else linked in this page, and I noticed the little "notes" below each actors blurb. Do I really want to know that 75% of the film's cast were Transformers fans? Um, no. Should I have known that Bumblebee was going to ad lib lines from other movies? I dunno, does that affect the plot somehow or does Megatron die by the utternace of said words or something else (like "Do a barrel roll?") in a cut scene?? You Trans-fans might consider it relevant, but to someone who's underlying interest in the film is a good family DVD viewing time, probably not relevant. -- 293.xx.xxx.xx 09:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The lead section states that Steven Spielberg was EP. It's correct, but misleading, as he was one of the EPs. IMDB lists four of them: Michael Bay, Brian Goldner, Steven Spielberg and Mark Vahradian. - ntennis 04:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be at least one line mentioned of the early script that leaked on the internet in 2006? It ended up being more or less accurate, besides a few name changes and other small details, and was commented on by Michael Bay's web site. Seems worth mentioning in one line, perhaps in the development section. Opinions? Articles about it can be found in various place, like here: http://theubergeeks.net/2006/05/18/transformers-script-leaked/ http://www.slashfilm.com/article.php/20060825transformers-script http://www.filmjunk.com/2006/08/26/transformers-movie-script-review/
Additionally 5 pages of a leaked script were posted on the internet and removed by legal action from Dreamworks, after the uspposed writer claimed it wasn't real, which is odd, if it's not their work then how can they demand it be removed? http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/news/transformers-movie-exclusive-first-five-pages-of-transformers-script-199846.php Mathewignash 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
When I watched the amazon video clip preview of behind the scenes transformers footaged michael bay said Digital Domain did a third of the movies CGI so I just think we should update the special effects section to say that. Because ATM it says Digital Domain did frenzys severed head but in the video it shows Digital Domain actually did all of frenzys body for the scenes it is in. RiseDarthVader 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Bignole, therefore his fate is not decided in Transformers. Shall I rv your rv or will you? Rick- Levitt Contribs 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Does nobody relize that when Barricade made his second appearance, he was never shown being destroyed. Maybe he went into space with Starscream. I think it should at least mentioned somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.76.123 ( talk) 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Why was my information deleted on the 3 trailers after the credits?. SethSYLAR 14:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh. All this to-ing and fro-ing over something which takes approximately 13.2 seconds to find on Google. Here is just one of several billion sites which confirms the US release date as July 2nd. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
you missing a plane,the one that shot the sabot rounds to help the survivors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.54.125 ( talk) 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, um, I am considering an FA push for this article. I am going to put this article up for peer review for now. Any comments to help on this FA push should be very much appreciated. Thanks. Greg Jones II 02:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, serious to those who know cars and/or watched this movie because of the Camaro in it. In the theatrical release, mikaela is talking to sam about the engine bay of the car. HERE is what is shown, and what should be shown, as it has a "high rise double pump carburetor", or something to that effect. I can see that, as it definitely has a high-rise intake manifold, and the air cleaner covers the carburetor. However, in the DVD version, THIS is the image that is shown - obviously not a carbureted engine at all, and obviously not what came in the car. If you look closely, the surrounding engine bay looks more like it belongs in the concept Camaro - which I think it does. The only reason I considered this "serious" is that when I was watching the DVD, I thought "wow, the car's engine just transformed itself into that!?" and "people in Hollywood don't know fuel injected engines from carbureted engines" (hint: carbureted engines usually have a round air filter on top), but I later discover that the scene must have been mistakenly placed in there, as the engine with what mikaela describes is actually pictured in the first link I posted. I was told the first was from the theatrical release, though I never actually saw it in theaters. Either way, I got a completely wrong impression from the movie (as I'm just now watching it from the start, I've only seen the 2nd half) because of this error. I know it may not mean much to some people, but it seems quite worth being noted. Zchris87v 06:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The scene wasnt changed for the DVD its always shown that engine. RiseDarthVader 09:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the plot needs to be rewritten as it jumps around all over the movie. I can tell this as I've only seen half the movie and 75% of the plot makes no sense to me what-so-ever.--04:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The following is the suggestons from AndyZ's automated peer reviewer suggestions
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. [?]
- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article. [?]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 10 pounds, use 10 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 10 pounds. [?]- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006. [?]
- As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day. [?]
- This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. [?]
- Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), favorite (A) (British: favourite), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), any more (B) (American: anymore), programme (B) (American: program ).
- The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, isn't, don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 16:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Any of these suggestions should be very much appreciated. Thanks,
Greg
Jones
II
21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone identify the clip from the movie Explorers for Bumblebee? It's mentioned in the film credits, but i'm not sure where it's used. Mathewignash 15:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking on the movie and Hasbro web sites, there are numerous official instances of all three spellings for "all spark". http://www.hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=browse&product_id=19451 http://www.hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=browse&product_id=20148 http://www.hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=ps_results&product_id=19711 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewignash ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
According to the toy bio for Jungle Bonecrusher, just revealed, Bonecrusher didn't die, he was only severely injured, and he crawled off to do repairs and now hides in the South American jungles. http://www.seibertron.com/news/view.php?id=11950 While it's never said if he lived or died specifically in the movie (heavily implied he was dead though, I admit), maybe the plot should chage to Optimus "defeated" Bonecrusher, instead of killing him? Mathewignash 20:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
After Bumblebee "took out" Barricade, we saw him again "en route" to free Megatron, as you recall. Why would Bumblebee leave Barricade alive? They are not so easy to kill. Mathewignash 02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of Barricade, what happened to him? I saw him heading to the fight, but after Bonecrusher transforms, you don't see Barricade again. Did Bonecrusher just get careless and flip him over? 69.130.25.75 ( talk) 18:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What about scorponok? What happened to him?-- Dlo2012 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3if4dd78b5e8cb03906e2e7fb5e3f535ee Special THR report]. Any ideas of where to include? It's pretty obvious, but an interesting read if the sequel is more bot-focused. Alientraveller 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:SoundWave from the 2009 movie.jpg
Should the leaked SoundWave image for the 2009 TransFormers 2 movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.51.152 ( talk) 09:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't belive you!-- Gretnablues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretnablues ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have watched the movie in theaters, on DVD, and on Blu Ray. When Star Scream goes to space in his ending credit sequence he says something, but between the audio fx and the Linkin Park Song i cant hear it, even in surround sound. I think someone should find out what he says and post it in the main page so that those of us with OCD can die happy knowing what he said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.57.152 ( talk) 19:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
JimDunning ( talk · contribs) is now taking care of my request. Alientraveller ( talk) 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
What about Blackout? How come he doesn't have his own biography like everyone else in the "Decepticons" section? -JasonQ87
Why are you still arguing over this? He's in the cast section now. Alientraveller ( talk) 19:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Why tank Devastator is not in Decepticons section? Cofi ( talk) 05:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think a mistake many of us editors and Transformers fans have made is that the voice actor is be all and end all to the performance of a 20-foot robot. It's not: this totally disrespectful to the animators and the prop makers who bring the characters to life via computers and vehicle driving. So my proposal is to start rearranging the article, so the newly-renamed "Cast and characters" section ultimately supplements Production. What say you? Alientraveller ( talk) 10:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
What about an alternative way of presenting information about the Transformers? The Actor as Role setup doesn't apply, clearly. Why not just have a table containing three columns -- Transformer, vehicle type, and voice actor? It wouldn't put the voice actor at the forefront. As for in-universe detail about each Transformer in the film, what is being suggested about that? I don't think we really need to detail what a Transformer specifically does in the film to back its real-world context. The general role seems enough -- e.g., leader of the bad guys, one of the good guys. For the real-world context, I agree with Bignole about having the information segmented where it's relevant -- Casting, Special effects, Writing, etc. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Every time I put the Category:Live-action/animation films thing on the Transformers (film) page, they delete it. Why? Transformers is a live-action/animated film. All the Transformers are computer animated. - Dpm12
“ | I can't do the movie without my writers, but I have been prepping. I'm not in the guild, but I've been writing every day. This strike (is) insane, and a director's responsibility is to the 50 crew members who depend on you for their livelihoods. We've got battle plans ready for the possibility of an actors strike. Somehow, you've got to keep the ball rolling. | ” |
I'm confused. Does this mean Michael is writing the script now? Alientraveller ( talk) 10:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
These are questions and issues raised during the copy-edit process.
Jim Dunning |
talk
05:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to re-add the bit in the intro about it being Academy Award nominated, its notable. Numerous articles for actors and actress' on wikipedia who were nominated and didn't win an academy award and/or golden globe award have the same note in the intro. The Academy Awards are arguably for film what the Hall of Fame is for baseball or any other sport. Just being nominated for an Academy Award denotes excellence in the field of cinema. WalterWalrus3 ( talk) 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Also
this.
TheBlazikenMaster (
talk)
11:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
So... I see nothing in the critical reception or reaction section about the movie's portrayal of black people, as with Anthony Anderson and Bernie Mac's characters. In the movie, (probably jokingly, but nonetheless) they are shown as being extremely rude and profane with their mothers or grandmothers, and the maternal figures are the same with them. I suppose it's not listed because no one reputable made a big deal of it, but it seems not to be appealing at that point, especially then to me as a black person, or as I'd say brown. ?
~
GoldenGoose100 (
talk)
17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just accept the fact that blacks will be a target no matter how many wonderful things they do for the world, such as 72.49.148.17 ( talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds so wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.97.38 ( talk) 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Any particular reason why it was removed in early December last year? TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 13:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Captain Lennox: Mission City is 22 miles away. We're gonna sneak that key outta here and we're gonna hide it somewhere in the city. Secretary of Defense: Good!
Alientraveller just commented: "I just don't want the military to look like idiots for putting the Cube in a populated area, it's just Lennox never originally mentioned that"
The part of the movie where they escape the base is amazingly like the events of operation redwing. A failed operation in afganistan i think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.132.136 ( talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting fact needs to be included. This also is a yardstick of computer CGI in movies. Someone include the number of polygons it took to model Optimus prime. Here's the website. 1.8 million polygons for one model. Amazing.
http://www.design-engine.com/feature.php?feature=71 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.32.238 ( talk) 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You keep deleting extremely relevant information. Do you not understand that people want to know how the movie was made and know how many polygons were used ? -- 70.243.74.186 ( talk) 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of the article is unnecessary. We don't need information on how much money it grossed. You obviously don't understand or care how the movie was made. Why are you even moderating this page? -- 70.243.74.186 ( talk) 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Nobody cares about ironsides guns. 2. Who mentioned length of polygons? I didn't. 3. Who cares where information comes from as long as it's correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 ( talk) 22:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Polygons for this film are mentioned in a lot of messageboards about this film. Telling people how many in one sentence shouldn't be a problem. It's also a benchmark of Cgi films.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 ( talk)
I was trying to explain that the public doesn't understand how many polygons it takes to create one model and that it's a common topic about this on messageboards. How is it a problem to mention it in one sentence. And i don't care if it's plagarized if it's factual. Hello? facts are facts aren't they ? The links don't matter to me. Are we going around in circles? Were is the so called duplicate information? I don't see it. -- 69.152.37.243 ( talk) 04:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-- 70.243.75.66 ( talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Once again you mist the gist of my comments. Do you speak english? I said on 3d and CGI messageboards that this a regular question. I thought this page was for ANSWERING questions. Bumblebees wrists and Ironsides guns referenced in the 'design' section doesn't do an adequate job. Both those descriptions are weak to people who understand 3d design. 1.8 million polygon models is better. And my edits are INFORMATIVE. They are NOT VANDALISM. To claim so is LIE.
Who are all these people who want to know how many polygons were used? After the movie, I didn't hear anyone asking "Did you SEE the polygons on that Autobot?" "Oh, man! Those were some nice polygons on that police cruiser!" I'm not sure the notability is there, especially based on one link. Considering every news source reports on the earnings of all the big movies, the money grossed is notable. ~ QuasiAbstract ( talk/ contrib) 09:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC) -- 70.243.74.188
Thats not true at all. I can use the original source of the facts. Thats not the issue. A small sentence on how the main characters were created in cgi by adding polygon count is 'informative' for computer knowledgeable people. Polygons ARE PARTS. If you want to then add an entry on 'computer animation' or cgi. -- 70.243.74.188 ( talk) 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Can some of you email or notify other moderators about Alientraveller. He seems to think how the Cgi or polygon for one model in this movie is unnecessary to mention. We only want one sentence mentioning the polygon count. Alien'whatever' thinks it's not relevant for some reason. He's obviously uneducated little boy.
He referenced me as 'boy'. LOL. I am no boy son.
We need to kick this guy Alientraveller off this page or remove his priviledges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 ( talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What he said is wrong. He gave a list of awful examples. The polygon count is what made the film. It's the centerpiece. How could you not include in one little stinking sentence. Obviously your just protecting him. THERE IS NO MENTION OF POLYGON COUNT IN THE ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 ( talk) 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
10,000 parts is not clear to me. 1.8 million polygons is better and more accurate on how difficult the project was. Adding one sentence is going to hurt this article how? -- 70.243.75.66 ( talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you can not understand what a polygon then add a reference to polygons in the article. Polygons are big part of what made this movie great to look at. They are the building blocks of each character for this film. Including the number is informative to people involved in the CGI business too. Does an article have to be dumbed down for little children? Have you looked at some math and scientific articles with all the equations on wikipedia? Adding a small blurb on polygon count shows the state of the art at this moment for a film like this. It can't hurt to add it when you look at all superfluous stuff in this article. -- 70.243.74.188 ( talk) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=2161640&enterthread=y
Math here is correct. Most movies use 6-10 hours per frame. 38 hours would mean one minute = 54,720 hours =152 days for one minute. Not accurate.
Under 'Effects'- "Such detail needed 38 hours to render each frame of animation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.188 ( talk) 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It says under Plot: "Sam, who is ordered to get the All Spark to a rendezvous point for it to be taken to a safe location," but at that point he is actually ordered to push the All Spark into Optimus Prime's chest. Should this be corrected? Sparrer ( talk) 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice the first sentence in the Sequel section reads "Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg are expected to return as director and executive producer respectively for Transformers 2". I think it's pretty certain that both Bay and Spielberg are involved in the sequel - Bay's own blog implies that he's directing (and given that he's written the draft story, I think that's a given) and Spielberg has been quoted talking about the film. Does anyone have a reliable source that we can quote to confirm these facts? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Bignole ( talk · contribs) changes introduced by 68.167.191.26 ( contribs) with the comment "let's try it again without turning everything into 2 sentence paragraph": the reversion lost interesting and relevant detail about the film's success in the U.S. market. The changes reverted can be seen here. I don't understand why the introduction of three two-sentence paragraphs is a problem, and suggest that the issues be identified here instead of handled via a reversion. Thanks 67.101.5.198 ( talk) 09:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
ask when you get to heaven. ThuranX ( talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Now I havn't actually seen the movie, but this has been bugging me. The plot spoilers describe Sam as 'killing' Megatron. How can this be? Megatron is a machine, surely we should replace that with the word 'destroy' instead? Or is Megatron and the other machines technically considered as living beings? A Prodigy Talk 15:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
No, really. Stop. This is getting REALLY forum-ish. It doesn't matter, they're fake. There aren't any Transformers (except the electrical kind). don't pander to the user. I would've deleted the entire section, but Evula answered. ThuranX ( talk) 22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Transformers_(film)&diff=next&oldid=236001684
I disagree with this edit. Why? Because Transformers is an American movie, which is why I believe the dates should be the American way. (June 21 instead of 21 June.) I am willing to discuss this, furthermore I looked at the this in the manual of style and according to that both formats are ok. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 13:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
(After edit conflict)
i tried updating the total gross (which was incorrect) and adding the dvd sales in the title box but it did something bad. Here is what I did. help?
What is the rationale for going against community practice of NOT including executive producers in the inforbox and deciding to include Spielberg? Why don't Brian Goldner and Mark Vahradian get listed? Why aren't any executive producers listed in the infobox for other films? Saying it's because Spielberg was so "hands on" isn't reason to ignore the accepted practice of not listing the executive producers in the box (or any other producer for that matter). You cannot say that Goldner and Vahradian didn't have hands on experience in the film, just that Spielberg was the one people talked about. We cannot give special treatment to Spielberg just because of who he is. If any other no-name individual had "hands on" experience in any other film they still wouldn't be listed in the infobox. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned somewhere that early reports of the film had it announced that the film was called "Transformers: Prime Directive" for instance here http://www.hollywoodnorthreport.com/article.php?Article=3049 It was even mentioned in interviews with some actors, for instance here: http://www.mania.com/transformers-prime-directive_article_102997.html The leaked script that was about 95% accurate to the movie was also titled "Prime Directive" http://www.millenniumfalcon.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=7059 Seems worth mentioning as a dropped title or working name, at least. Mathewignash ( talk) 17:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I figured it was worth mentioning (it was a point of contention earlier) that Robert Orci has confirmed that the leaked early script was real, and he wrote it early on before Michael Bay was even hired. So anything in it might be worth mentioning as part of the development of the characters/plot. [1] When was bay hired on again? That would help place when this puppy was written. Mathewignash ( talk) 13:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I've removed some of this content. These aren't awards and this qualifies as trivia under Wikipedia's guidelines. My edits of trivia from this article and the Titanic (1997 film) article have pissed off User:Alientraveller for some reason. Possibly because they think Wikipedia is a fan forum. It's not. MiltonP Ottawa ( talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Right now, Jim Wood redirects to Dishwalla, which I find very dubious. It seems highly unlikely that the Jim Wood in that band is indeed the one doing the voice here. Main issue though, is that the right Jim Wood seems to be a somewhat obscure and scarcely known actor and does not have his own Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.178.246 ( talk) 08:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
"The military of the United States provided significant support, enhancing the film's realism: the film features F-22s, F-117s, and V-22 Ospreys, the first time these aircraft were used for a film; soldiers served as extras, and authentic uniforms were provided for the actors.[1] A-10 Thunderbolt IIs and Lockheed AC-130s also appear. " It's obvious there was a Boeing E-3 Sentry . the one that directed the A-10s. zzkaelzz 11:50 April 4 2009 UTC
Can ANYONE tell me the name of the actress that plays the air hostess on Airf Force One that goes down to storage??? Also, what else has she been in??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.204.104 ( talk) 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
My sincerest and most humble of apologies... :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.204.104 ( talk) 03:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
When the military is driving away from Hoover Dam and towards the city, what type of vehicles were they driving? Were they actual vehicles the military uses, or just something made up by filmmakers? They almost looked like ATVs. 64.136.26.230 ( talk) 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
John Tutturo's character is named Regiie Simmons in this but in the new film he's called Seymour does that call for a name change or no? GOBLUE56 ( talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Where's the blurb about how critics thought of the film? All I see in the "Reception" box is how fans of the Transformers were divided about the portrayal of the characters. Fruckert ( talk) 05:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
User Plo Koon 1, known for ceaselessly adding unsourced fan fic, added Welker voicing Blackout. Is there any truth to this? AFAIK Welker didn't participate in the first movie in any way. If no one can confirm, I will check the movie's credits later today. -- uKER ( talk) 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The page says $150,000,000 but Bay says in the commentary that they spent $151,000,000. Is this worth changing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by H4eafy ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Damn, guys. Good job. I'm happily surprised and impressed. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
While it may have been in the wrong place, I think there is some place an MPAA rating should be in the article, along with other ratings board... if only in the reviews section, since they do, basically review the film and rate it. No different than any other film rating/review group. Mathewignash ( talk) 15:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that this myth (which was spread on magazines and blogs) should be mentioned in the article because of how much it is known. It is not just something someone mentioned on a forum. There are three versions, one that she physically seduced him while wearing a bikini, another is that she came to his house in the bikini and they had sex in Bay's Ferrari. Another one is that Bay ripped off her top in the car and they embraced while kissing passionately. This was not just mentioned once but was mentioned many times. 74.108.143.82 ( talk) 14:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It was a back-up story in an issue of National Enquierer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.143.82 ( talk) 16:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried to add comments made by one of the original show voice biggest actors (he did a half dozen voices), Michael Bell, in the films Reviews but was told he wasn't a professional critic. I think response from someone involved with the original show this is based on is based on is a legitimate point of information in this section. Other opinions? Mathewignash ( talk) 22:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
In the decepticons cast section where are Blackout, Devastator/Brawl and Scorponok? Each had parts in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.56.215 ( talk) 14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
They did speak when Frenzy/Starscream told them to go to Frenzy's location as he found the Allspark but that itself is debatable. What about Bonecrusher he didn't speak and died in the next fight scene with Optimus, yet he is included. And regardless of that, they are characters of the film just because a person doesn't speak doesn't mean they should be removed because of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.56.215 ( talk • contribs)
Perhaps instead of a "Cast" section, it would be better served by a "Characters" section, since several major characters had no one cast to play their parts, they were completely CG creations with electronic voices. Scorponok was a character, but he wasn't in the cast Mathewignash 20:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Although he didn't speak, shouldn't the guy who played the hologram pilot for Blackout be listed as playing Blackout? Mathewignash 00:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should have something at the bottom of the decepticons list saying Blackout,Scorponok and Devestator are decepticons. These decepticons played major roles in the films plot without Scorponok attacking the US soldiers they would never find out SABOT rounds are their weakness. RiseDarthVader 09:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I'll add this sooner or later, maybe later, when the article goes under much revision when the DVD is released. Alientraveller 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Why don't some members let me add this parts to the Critical Reception section? These are the truth.
The film is full of e-bay ads and US military shows. It's idea is based on mixing Terminator and Independence Day. Transformers is not a recovery of the old characters, sorry for the developers; specially CGI; It's is just a propaganda. An example: "Nokias are really nasty. You will have to respect Japanese. They know the way of Samurai." (Sector 7 Agent) Japanese sponsors?
Is this guy serious? Did you even watch the movie? And what propaganda, would you rather the movie talk about how evil America and the western world are? Yeah, they should of been anti-U.S. Military so that way the Military wouldn't of donated all of those C130s, Blackhawks, M1Abrahms. etc. Oh and F.Y.I, smart guy, this isn't a discussion board about the movie. This should be deleted, try IMDB. Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.142.210 ( talk) 04:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you shouldnt call the section "over sponsorized", but take a look at the german version for example. There is really a big section about sponsoring and you surely cant deny that the military used the film trying to cast a positive light on itself making it look cool and dynamic and so on. It doesnt have to be criticized as this is an encyclopedia and not a personal comment and they surely couldnt buy all those aircrafts for the film themselves but i think its worth mentioning. Its also not only about the military, i just havent seen a movie with so much product placement for a long long time. Then theres also the thing about Hasbro and how much / how they influenced the film... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.68.244 ( talk • contribs)
I don't have a source for it, but if you read the leaked full script that came out months before (dated February 26, 2006 written by John Rogers), it has literally dozens of products mentioned by name, Snickers Bar here, Blackhawk helicopter there, Sector Seven driving Surburbans, Bumblebee yodeling the "Yahoo!" jingle, crashing near a "National League Baseball Stadium", using an "American Express" card with the phone operator. It's all mentioned in bold letters on the script - of course some changed along the way, including them using "I-Chat" for the web cam talk and the Nokia phone that came to life was an "I-Pod" in this script. They seem to have removed all Apple references in the final film. I'd look forward to them officially released the final script so we can reference it. Mathewignash 00:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-Scorponok stays out of the village when it attacks Qatar base survivors. Why didn't he go to the village and put all of them on skewer?! Maybe then they couldn't set up an air support deployment show. -Nobody notices Frenzy when he sneaks out of the aircraft after attempting to steal data. -Megatron cuts the statue that Sam has been holding and causes him to fall off the skyscraper. Why didn't he go and get the Allspark properly? -How did Sam survive the fall with Optimus Prime and not being crushed or kicked by Megatron later?
It won't be added because it's all from your POV, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Haven't you learned anything from
Bignole's advice on
WP:NOR and
WP:AVTRIV? You're taking the film too seriously IMHO.
Before I forget, would you mind signing your entries here so everyone will know who you are? Thank you. Eaglestorm 07:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
What about the goofs? Aren't they "purposeful"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Maxx ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know this is my point of view. I was disgusted when I watched it and saw my childhood favorite characters; not even them, they should be grateful to be brought back to life after 20 years; more than that annoyed for such an amazing and outstanding CGI used to create a military show off. So there are no more than two ways to add content to wikipedia: -Anything you add is your POV. -You discuss, vote and decide on every word you put in wikipedia. Is that possible? Or perhaps the "Over-Sponsorized" part has some political content that may be hazardous for wikipedia? the truth is bitter. All right, I'm going to add only "Goofs" to the article and please don't undo or delete it. By the way, If Goofs hold no encyclopedic value, why other movie articles have it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.151.131 ( talk) 05:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I got it, Wikipedia is for getting knowledge not others' personal comment. I'm sure every one can realize those so many stupid aspects of the film. Additionaly to the parts above, the movie is also advertising some cars and flash memories. I haven't seen so many ads even in a cheap, sponsor powered soap opera! max 06:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
IMAX Poster of the film Was Released today on IGN. I Was wondering how can we add it into the article If it is possible Or is it possible create a separate section on the article for the IMAX version of the Film with the poster on the side?
Transformers IMAX Poster -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 22:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Variety says here that "Bay has not yet inked a deal to helm the follow-up but is in the final stages of negotiation" which slightly conflicts with the sources cited in the article. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 08:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
For those who don't know, Simon Furman and Benson Yee are two highly respected Transformers writers: Furman's been writing for the characters since 1985 at Marvel UK, Marvel, Dreamwave and IDW. Yee was a story consultant on Beast Wars and is collaborating with Furman on a new BW profile book. The article would benefit from their reactions to the film, but I'm not so sure where to place it. I'd place them in "Reaction", but would others feel they should go under "Critical reception"? Here's their reactions for people to look at. [1] [2] Alientraveller 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Just glancing over the article for something else linked in this page, and I noticed the little "notes" below each actors blurb. Do I really want to know that 75% of the film's cast were Transformers fans? Um, no. Should I have known that Bumblebee was going to ad lib lines from other movies? I dunno, does that affect the plot somehow or does Megatron die by the utternace of said words or something else (like "Do a barrel roll?") in a cut scene?? You Trans-fans might consider it relevant, but to someone who's underlying interest in the film is a good family DVD viewing time, probably not relevant. -- 293.xx.xxx.xx 09:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The lead section states that Steven Spielberg was EP. It's correct, but misleading, as he was one of the EPs. IMDB lists four of them: Michael Bay, Brian Goldner, Steven Spielberg and Mark Vahradian. - ntennis 04:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be at least one line mentioned of the early script that leaked on the internet in 2006? It ended up being more or less accurate, besides a few name changes and other small details, and was commented on by Michael Bay's web site. Seems worth mentioning in one line, perhaps in the development section. Opinions? Articles about it can be found in various place, like here: http://theubergeeks.net/2006/05/18/transformers-script-leaked/ http://www.slashfilm.com/article.php/20060825transformers-script http://www.filmjunk.com/2006/08/26/transformers-movie-script-review/
Additionally 5 pages of a leaked script were posted on the internet and removed by legal action from Dreamworks, after the uspposed writer claimed it wasn't real, which is odd, if it's not their work then how can they demand it be removed? http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/news/transformers-movie-exclusive-first-five-pages-of-transformers-script-199846.php Mathewignash 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
When I watched the amazon video clip preview of behind the scenes transformers footaged michael bay said Digital Domain did a third of the movies CGI so I just think we should update the special effects section to say that. Because ATM it says Digital Domain did frenzys severed head but in the video it shows Digital Domain actually did all of frenzys body for the scenes it is in. RiseDarthVader 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Bignole, therefore his fate is not decided in Transformers. Shall I rv your rv or will you? Rick- Levitt Contribs 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Does nobody relize that when Barricade made his second appearance, he was never shown being destroyed. Maybe he went into space with Starscream. I think it should at least mentioned somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.76.123 ( talk) 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Why was my information deleted on the 3 trailers after the credits?. SethSYLAR 14:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh. All this to-ing and fro-ing over something which takes approximately 13.2 seconds to find on Google. Here is just one of several billion sites which confirms the US release date as July 2nd. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
you missing a plane,the one that shot the sabot rounds to help the survivors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.54.125 ( talk) 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, um, I am considering an FA push for this article. I am going to put this article up for peer review for now. Any comments to help on this FA push should be very much appreciated. Thanks. Greg Jones II 02:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, serious to those who know cars and/or watched this movie because of the Camaro in it. In the theatrical release, mikaela is talking to sam about the engine bay of the car. HERE is what is shown, and what should be shown, as it has a "high rise double pump carburetor", or something to that effect. I can see that, as it definitely has a high-rise intake manifold, and the air cleaner covers the carburetor. However, in the DVD version, THIS is the image that is shown - obviously not a carbureted engine at all, and obviously not what came in the car. If you look closely, the surrounding engine bay looks more like it belongs in the concept Camaro - which I think it does. The only reason I considered this "serious" is that when I was watching the DVD, I thought "wow, the car's engine just transformed itself into that!?" and "people in Hollywood don't know fuel injected engines from carbureted engines" (hint: carbureted engines usually have a round air filter on top), but I later discover that the scene must have been mistakenly placed in there, as the engine with what mikaela describes is actually pictured in the first link I posted. I was told the first was from the theatrical release, though I never actually saw it in theaters. Either way, I got a completely wrong impression from the movie (as I'm just now watching it from the start, I've only seen the 2nd half) because of this error. I know it may not mean much to some people, but it seems quite worth being noted. Zchris87v 06:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The scene wasnt changed for the DVD its always shown that engine. RiseDarthVader 09:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the plot needs to be rewritten as it jumps around all over the movie. I can tell this as I've only seen half the movie and 75% of the plot makes no sense to me what-so-ever.--04:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The following is the suggestons from AndyZ's automated peer reviewer suggestions
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. [?]
- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article. [?]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 10 pounds, use 10 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 10 pounds. [?]- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006. [?]
- As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day. [?]
- This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. [?]
- Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), favorite (A) (British: favourite), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), any more (B) (American: anymore), programme (B) (American: program ).
- The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, isn't, don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 16:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Any of these suggestions should be very much appreciated. Thanks,
Greg
Jones
II
21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone identify the clip from the movie Explorers for Bumblebee? It's mentioned in the film credits, but i'm not sure where it's used. Mathewignash 15:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking on the movie and Hasbro web sites, there are numerous official instances of all three spellings for "all spark". http://www.hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=browse&product_id=19451 http://www.hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=browse&product_id=20148 http://www.hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=ps_results&product_id=19711 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewignash ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
According to the toy bio for Jungle Bonecrusher, just revealed, Bonecrusher didn't die, he was only severely injured, and he crawled off to do repairs and now hides in the South American jungles. http://www.seibertron.com/news/view.php?id=11950 While it's never said if he lived or died specifically in the movie (heavily implied he was dead though, I admit), maybe the plot should chage to Optimus "defeated" Bonecrusher, instead of killing him? Mathewignash 20:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
After Bumblebee "took out" Barricade, we saw him again "en route" to free Megatron, as you recall. Why would Bumblebee leave Barricade alive? They are not so easy to kill. Mathewignash 02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of Barricade, what happened to him? I saw him heading to the fight, but after Bonecrusher transforms, you don't see Barricade again. Did Bonecrusher just get careless and flip him over? 69.130.25.75 ( talk) 18:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What about scorponok? What happened to him?-- Dlo2012 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3if4dd78b5e8cb03906e2e7fb5e3f535ee Special THR report]. Any ideas of where to include? It's pretty obvious, but an interesting read if the sequel is more bot-focused. Alientraveller 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:SoundWave from the 2009 movie.jpg
Should the leaked SoundWave image for the 2009 TransFormers 2 movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.51.152 ( talk) 09:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't belive you!-- Gretnablues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretnablues ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have watched the movie in theaters, on DVD, and on Blu Ray. When Star Scream goes to space in his ending credit sequence he says something, but between the audio fx and the Linkin Park Song i cant hear it, even in surround sound. I think someone should find out what he says and post it in the main page so that those of us with OCD can die happy knowing what he said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.57.152 ( talk) 19:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
JimDunning ( talk · contribs) is now taking care of my request. Alientraveller ( talk) 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
What about Blackout? How come he doesn't have his own biography like everyone else in the "Decepticons" section? -JasonQ87
Why are you still arguing over this? He's in the cast section now. Alientraveller ( talk) 19:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Why tank Devastator is not in Decepticons section? Cofi ( talk) 05:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think a mistake many of us editors and Transformers fans have made is that the voice actor is be all and end all to the performance of a 20-foot robot. It's not: this totally disrespectful to the animators and the prop makers who bring the characters to life via computers and vehicle driving. So my proposal is to start rearranging the article, so the newly-renamed "Cast and characters" section ultimately supplements Production. What say you? Alientraveller ( talk) 10:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
What about an alternative way of presenting information about the Transformers? The Actor as Role setup doesn't apply, clearly. Why not just have a table containing three columns -- Transformer, vehicle type, and voice actor? It wouldn't put the voice actor at the forefront. As for in-universe detail about each Transformer in the film, what is being suggested about that? I don't think we really need to detail what a Transformer specifically does in the film to back its real-world context. The general role seems enough -- e.g., leader of the bad guys, one of the good guys. For the real-world context, I agree with Bignole about having the information segmented where it's relevant -- Casting, Special effects, Writing, etc. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Every time I put the Category:Live-action/animation films thing on the Transformers (film) page, they delete it. Why? Transformers is a live-action/animated film. All the Transformers are computer animated. - Dpm12
“ | I can't do the movie without my writers, but I have been prepping. I'm not in the guild, but I've been writing every day. This strike (is) insane, and a director's responsibility is to the 50 crew members who depend on you for their livelihoods. We've got battle plans ready for the possibility of an actors strike. Somehow, you've got to keep the ball rolling. | ” |
I'm confused. Does this mean Michael is writing the script now? Alientraveller ( talk) 10:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
These are questions and issues raised during the copy-edit process.
Jim Dunning |
talk
05:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to re-add the bit in the intro about it being Academy Award nominated, its notable. Numerous articles for actors and actress' on wikipedia who were nominated and didn't win an academy award and/or golden globe award have the same note in the intro. The Academy Awards are arguably for film what the Hall of Fame is for baseball or any other sport. Just being nominated for an Academy Award denotes excellence in the field of cinema. WalterWalrus3 ( talk) 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Also
this.
TheBlazikenMaster (
talk)
11:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
So... I see nothing in the critical reception or reaction section about the movie's portrayal of black people, as with Anthony Anderson and Bernie Mac's characters. In the movie, (probably jokingly, but nonetheless) they are shown as being extremely rude and profane with their mothers or grandmothers, and the maternal figures are the same with them. I suppose it's not listed because no one reputable made a big deal of it, but it seems not to be appealing at that point, especially then to me as a black person, or as I'd say brown. ?
~
GoldenGoose100 (
talk)
17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just accept the fact that blacks will be a target no matter how many wonderful things they do for the world, such as 72.49.148.17 ( talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds so wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.97.38 ( talk) 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Any particular reason why it was removed in early December last year? TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 13:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Captain Lennox: Mission City is 22 miles away. We're gonna sneak that key outta here and we're gonna hide it somewhere in the city. Secretary of Defense: Good!
Alientraveller just commented: "I just don't want the military to look like idiots for putting the Cube in a populated area, it's just Lennox never originally mentioned that"
The part of the movie where they escape the base is amazingly like the events of operation redwing. A failed operation in afganistan i think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.132.136 ( talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting fact needs to be included. This also is a yardstick of computer CGI in movies. Someone include the number of polygons it took to model Optimus prime. Here's the website. 1.8 million polygons for one model. Amazing.
http://www.design-engine.com/feature.php?feature=71 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.32.238 ( talk) 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You keep deleting extremely relevant information. Do you not understand that people want to know how the movie was made and know how many polygons were used ? -- 70.243.74.186 ( talk) 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of the article is unnecessary. We don't need information on how much money it grossed. You obviously don't understand or care how the movie was made. Why are you even moderating this page? -- 70.243.74.186 ( talk) 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Nobody cares about ironsides guns. 2. Who mentioned length of polygons? I didn't. 3. Who cares where information comes from as long as it's correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 ( talk) 22:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Polygons for this film are mentioned in a lot of messageboards about this film. Telling people how many in one sentence shouldn't be a problem. It's also a benchmark of Cgi films.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 ( talk)
I was trying to explain that the public doesn't understand how many polygons it takes to create one model and that it's a common topic about this on messageboards. How is it a problem to mention it in one sentence. And i don't care if it's plagarized if it's factual. Hello? facts are facts aren't they ? The links don't matter to me. Are we going around in circles? Were is the so called duplicate information? I don't see it. -- 69.152.37.243 ( talk) 04:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-- 70.243.75.66 ( talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Once again you mist the gist of my comments. Do you speak english? I said on 3d and CGI messageboards that this a regular question. I thought this page was for ANSWERING questions. Bumblebees wrists and Ironsides guns referenced in the 'design' section doesn't do an adequate job. Both those descriptions are weak to people who understand 3d design. 1.8 million polygon models is better. And my edits are INFORMATIVE. They are NOT VANDALISM. To claim so is LIE.
Who are all these people who want to know how many polygons were used? After the movie, I didn't hear anyone asking "Did you SEE the polygons on that Autobot?" "Oh, man! Those were some nice polygons on that police cruiser!" I'm not sure the notability is there, especially based on one link. Considering every news source reports on the earnings of all the big movies, the money grossed is notable. ~ QuasiAbstract ( talk/ contrib) 09:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC) -- 70.243.74.188
Thats not true at all. I can use the original source of the facts. Thats not the issue. A small sentence on how the main characters were created in cgi by adding polygon count is 'informative' for computer knowledgeable people. Polygons ARE PARTS. If you want to then add an entry on 'computer animation' or cgi. -- 70.243.74.188 ( talk) 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Can some of you email or notify other moderators about Alientraveller. He seems to think how the Cgi or polygon for one model in this movie is unnecessary to mention. We only want one sentence mentioning the polygon count. Alien'whatever' thinks it's not relevant for some reason. He's obviously uneducated little boy.
He referenced me as 'boy'. LOL. I am no boy son.
We need to kick this guy Alientraveller off this page or remove his priviledges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 ( talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What he said is wrong. He gave a list of awful examples. The polygon count is what made the film. It's the centerpiece. How could you not include in one little stinking sentence. Obviously your just protecting him. THERE IS NO MENTION OF POLYGON COUNT IN THE ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.186 ( talk) 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
10,000 parts is not clear to me. 1.8 million polygons is better and more accurate on how difficult the project was. Adding one sentence is going to hurt this article how? -- 70.243.75.66 ( talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you can not understand what a polygon then add a reference to polygons in the article. Polygons are big part of what made this movie great to look at. They are the building blocks of each character for this film. Including the number is informative to people involved in the CGI business too. Does an article have to be dumbed down for little children? Have you looked at some math and scientific articles with all the equations on wikipedia? Adding a small blurb on polygon count shows the state of the art at this moment for a film like this. It can't hurt to add it when you look at all superfluous stuff in this article. -- 70.243.74.188 ( talk) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=2161640&enterthread=y
Math here is correct. Most movies use 6-10 hours per frame. 38 hours would mean one minute = 54,720 hours =152 days for one minute. Not accurate.
Under 'Effects'- "Such detail needed 38 hours to render each frame of animation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.74.188 ( talk) 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It says under Plot: "Sam, who is ordered to get the All Spark to a rendezvous point for it to be taken to a safe location," but at that point he is actually ordered to push the All Spark into Optimus Prime's chest. Should this be corrected? Sparrer ( talk) 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice the first sentence in the Sequel section reads "Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg are expected to return as director and executive producer respectively for Transformers 2". I think it's pretty certain that both Bay and Spielberg are involved in the sequel - Bay's own blog implies that he's directing (and given that he's written the draft story, I think that's a given) and Spielberg has been quoted talking about the film. Does anyone have a reliable source that we can quote to confirm these facts? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Bignole ( talk · contribs) changes introduced by 68.167.191.26 ( contribs) with the comment "let's try it again without turning everything into 2 sentence paragraph": the reversion lost interesting and relevant detail about the film's success in the U.S. market. The changes reverted can be seen here. I don't understand why the introduction of three two-sentence paragraphs is a problem, and suggest that the issues be identified here instead of handled via a reversion. Thanks 67.101.5.198 ( talk) 09:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
ask when you get to heaven. ThuranX ( talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Now I havn't actually seen the movie, but this has been bugging me. The plot spoilers describe Sam as 'killing' Megatron. How can this be? Megatron is a machine, surely we should replace that with the word 'destroy' instead? Or is Megatron and the other machines technically considered as living beings? A Prodigy Talk 15:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
No, really. Stop. This is getting REALLY forum-ish. It doesn't matter, they're fake. There aren't any Transformers (except the electrical kind). don't pander to the user. I would've deleted the entire section, but Evula answered. ThuranX ( talk) 22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Transformers_(film)&diff=next&oldid=236001684
I disagree with this edit. Why? Because Transformers is an American movie, which is why I believe the dates should be the American way. (June 21 instead of 21 June.) I am willing to discuss this, furthermore I looked at the this in the manual of style and according to that both formats are ok. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 13:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
(After edit conflict)
i tried updating the total gross (which was incorrect) and adding the dvd sales in the title box but it did something bad. Here is what I did. help?
What is the rationale for going against community practice of NOT including executive producers in the inforbox and deciding to include Spielberg? Why don't Brian Goldner and Mark Vahradian get listed? Why aren't any executive producers listed in the infobox for other films? Saying it's because Spielberg was so "hands on" isn't reason to ignore the accepted practice of not listing the executive producers in the box (or any other producer for that matter). You cannot say that Goldner and Vahradian didn't have hands on experience in the film, just that Spielberg was the one people talked about. We cannot give special treatment to Spielberg just because of who he is. If any other no-name individual had "hands on" experience in any other film they still wouldn't be listed in the infobox. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned somewhere that early reports of the film had it announced that the film was called "Transformers: Prime Directive" for instance here http://www.hollywoodnorthreport.com/article.php?Article=3049 It was even mentioned in interviews with some actors, for instance here: http://www.mania.com/transformers-prime-directive_article_102997.html The leaked script that was about 95% accurate to the movie was also titled "Prime Directive" http://www.millenniumfalcon.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=7059 Seems worth mentioning as a dropped title or working name, at least. Mathewignash ( talk) 17:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I figured it was worth mentioning (it was a point of contention earlier) that Robert Orci has confirmed that the leaked early script was real, and he wrote it early on before Michael Bay was even hired. So anything in it might be worth mentioning as part of the development of the characters/plot. [1] When was bay hired on again? That would help place when this puppy was written. Mathewignash ( talk) 13:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I've removed some of this content. These aren't awards and this qualifies as trivia under Wikipedia's guidelines. My edits of trivia from this article and the Titanic (1997 film) article have pissed off User:Alientraveller for some reason. Possibly because they think Wikipedia is a fan forum. It's not. MiltonP Ottawa ( talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Right now, Jim Wood redirects to Dishwalla, which I find very dubious. It seems highly unlikely that the Jim Wood in that band is indeed the one doing the voice here. Main issue though, is that the right Jim Wood seems to be a somewhat obscure and scarcely known actor and does not have his own Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.178.246 ( talk) 08:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
"The military of the United States provided significant support, enhancing the film's realism: the film features F-22s, F-117s, and V-22 Ospreys, the first time these aircraft were used for a film; soldiers served as extras, and authentic uniforms were provided for the actors.[1] A-10 Thunderbolt IIs and Lockheed AC-130s also appear. " It's obvious there was a Boeing E-3 Sentry . the one that directed the A-10s. zzkaelzz 11:50 April 4 2009 UTC
Can ANYONE tell me the name of the actress that plays the air hostess on Airf Force One that goes down to storage??? Also, what else has she been in??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.204.104 ( talk) 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
My sincerest and most humble of apologies... :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.204.104 ( talk) 03:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
When the military is driving away from Hoover Dam and towards the city, what type of vehicles were they driving? Were they actual vehicles the military uses, or just something made up by filmmakers? They almost looked like ATVs. 64.136.26.230 ( talk) 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
John Tutturo's character is named Regiie Simmons in this but in the new film he's called Seymour does that call for a name change or no? GOBLUE56 ( talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Where's the blurb about how critics thought of the film? All I see in the "Reception" box is how fans of the Transformers were divided about the portrayal of the characters. Fruckert ( talk) 05:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
User Plo Koon 1, known for ceaselessly adding unsourced fan fic, added Welker voicing Blackout. Is there any truth to this? AFAIK Welker didn't participate in the first movie in any way. If no one can confirm, I will check the movie's credits later today. -- uKER ( talk) 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The page says $150,000,000 but Bay says in the commentary that they spent $151,000,000. Is this worth changing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by H4eafy ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Damn, guys. Good job. I'm happily surprised and impressed. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
While it may have been in the wrong place, I think there is some place an MPAA rating should be in the article, along with other ratings board... if only in the reviews section, since they do, basically review the film and rate it. No different than any other film rating/review group. Mathewignash ( talk) 15:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that this myth (which was spread on magazines and blogs) should be mentioned in the article because of how much it is known. It is not just something someone mentioned on a forum. There are three versions, one that she physically seduced him while wearing a bikini, another is that she came to his house in the bikini and they had sex in Bay's Ferrari. Another one is that Bay ripped off her top in the car and they embraced while kissing passionately. This was not just mentioned once but was mentioned many times. 74.108.143.82 ( talk) 14:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It was a back-up story in an issue of National Enquierer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.143.82 ( talk) 16:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried to add comments made by one of the original show voice biggest actors (he did a half dozen voices), Michael Bell, in the films Reviews but was told he wasn't a professional critic. I think response from someone involved with the original show this is based on is based on is a legitimate point of information in this section. Other opinions? Mathewignash ( talk) 22:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)