Jump to content

Talk:Transformers: Rise of the Beasts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.79.167.143 (talk) at 13:03, 16 January 2023 (→Sequel: stand-alone sequel?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mentioning "Beast Alliance"

Is the Illuminerdi considered a reliable-enough source to put their "exclusive" on the working title of Transformers: Beast Alliance to be mentioned in the article? Comic Book Movie even talked about it, and we have one of their articles as a source, so maybe we can source CBM'S article for extra support? Iamnoahflores (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel

What does "direct sequel" actually mean? How exactly is it any different from a sequel. Does the distinction need to be given weight in the intro even though it has not been made clear in the article body. More importantly what reliable sources are saying direct sequel? -- 109.79.84.219 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editors persist in pushing this "direct sequel" nonsense[1] like as if it actually means anything or as if this series was ever strict about continuity. No explanation was provided and no new sources were provided to support the change. Even when we get to see the film it will likely still be a subjective opinion how directly a sequel follows or not. -- 14:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.204.119 (talk)
The mention of sequel in the lead section has since been changed to claim this is a "stand-alone sequel". The claim that it somehow "stands alone" is subjective, original research (how can we possibly know until the film is released), and at worst it is fancruft speculation about canon, none of which needs to be given attention in the lead section.
I fear this unsourced claim may have already been in the article too long and will lead to WP:CITOGENESIS if it is not promptly removed. As Variety said[2] the films "weren’t exactly sticklers for the laws of time and space, either". Fans will be fans and debate this but an encyclopedia should not be encouraging dubious subjective claims that a film is somehow a stand-alone sequel or that is somehow a detail that is even important. -- 109.79.167.143 (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

change the Scourge section so that it says "he could possibly have 2 vehicle modes. Shall we play a Game? (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the seventh movie. It's the second.

It is clearly not the seventh film in the Bayformers series, since Bumblebee was 100% confirmed to be a straight hard reboot when it released. This is thus Transformers 2 and Bumblebee Transformers 1 of a brand new series. Doesn't matter if Bay is still involved or not. It's a 100% new continuity. --87.72.89.8 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources such as Deadline Hollywood say otherwise: Transformers 7. Di Bonaventura never put much weight on the term "reboot" [3] and Variety magazine said the films[4] "weren’t exactly sticklers for the laws of time and space, either". -- 109.78.197.54 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Super late reply, but thank you. NoobMiester96 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skydance

@Indagate, @2pou has removed Skydance over vandalism and crediting. I was asking a question if we can credit Skydance as either Skydance or Skydance Media when he thinks it shouldn't be credit due to it executive producing it. Skydance must stay on Rise of the Beasts because it's part of their involement. Removing it wouldn't make no sense at all. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um... there is no vandalism involved here. Did you read the linked discussion? Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 32#Executive producer(s). The removal was based on established norms as I linked them. Searching the archives for "Financier" will give you similar results. If there is a consensus to leave it in some form of exception, that is fine, but there was absolutely no vandalism. -2pou (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That company is part of the film. It doesn't need to be removed from the infobox. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transformers:_Rise_of_the_Beasts&oldid=1133987237"