Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Just a reminder...

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

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

Well done!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jazz is dead

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

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

3-D

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

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

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

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

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

Rumoured title

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

It is confirmed.

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

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

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

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

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

Call sheet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More stuff sourced from forum postings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scorponok

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

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

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

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

Note on Jetfire

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

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

Frenzy-like Bot

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

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

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

Real or Not Real

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

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

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

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

Wheeljack!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirmation of No Dinobots - Reinstate in to Article?

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

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

The Fallen actually confirmed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Ryan

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

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