Jump to content

Talk:The Transformers: The Movie

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

Alternate versions shown in theatres

"The fact of Transformers dying so easy to a few shots or one shot is itself a controversial subject. In the television series many of the Transformers are shown to be able to survive multiple shots with little or no after-effects."

The version of the movie I saw, in NYC, actually had hound do some exposition while he and Prime were standing outside the ship, before Prime took off to fight Megatron. He offers the theory that Megatron had finally succeeded in acquiring a new source of energy that made him much more powerful. He continued that if they could just stop Megatron that it would "turn the tide" of the battle. Prime then states his intention to fight Megatron, to which Hound replies that it's certain death and that it's not worth Prime's life (which is weird considering how many had died that day). Prime replies: "Megatron must be stopped...no matter the cost". I suspected that Prime would die after that talk, which is maybe why it was omitted in later versions...it wasn't nearly the shock to me as some people have told me it was to them. I guess it also explains away the "Brawn" controversy as just about anyone Megatron shot would get a hole blown through them, while also adding significance to the exchange where Prime dodge's Megatron's shot and knocks the cannon off his arm.

Of course this is all from memory (I was 7 years old at the time) and not to be thought of as what was said verbatim, but I'm absolutely sure Hound DOES speak and that this is the jist of what he says. --JamalB

I'd have to say that I think your memory decieves you. No such scene was in the original script for the film, or the storyboards, and Ken Sansom is not credited for Hound, even though other characters with lines cut from the finished film (Dirge, Prowl, Inferno) are. People occasionally claim to remember Ultra Magnus being quartered and things like that, but those WERE in the script, storyboard and comics adaptation. This one's a new one on me. - Chris McFeely, 16th May 2006
Concurring with Chris McFeely, there were not alternate versions shown in U.S. theaters. This scene you 'remember' also doesn't appear in the UK, Canadian or Japanese releases of the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.166.50.194 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I have a storyboard where Hound speaks. However, its earlier in the film when Hot Rod is on Lookout Mountain shooting at the stolen shuttle. After Kup has his line "What's that darn fool doing?" Hound points at the sky and shouts "Decepticons!" This is the only dialogue I've seen Hound being given. It does confirm that at least Hound was earthbound before Optimus got there. EMFreyre (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)--EmFreyre[reply]

I also remember a scene which was not on the VHS tape released by FHE, in which some Decepticons are offered Energon and say they can't beat the Autobots no matter how much Energon they have, (No, not the scene with Energon where Kup uses the universal Greeting and offers them a few Energon shards) Anyone else remember this? I guess they gave up on Energon, as it was a big deal in the series, always trying to make it. The snare (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's from Five Faces of Darkness, the 5-episode story that follows the movie. regards, Sic Coyote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.98.74 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Im new-ish to Wiki so im not sure how this goes.

Since the film is actually titled, The Transformers: The Movie... should this page be renamed? - UnlimitedAccess 01:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's popularly abbreviated TF:TM or TFTM (as on the Lighting Their Darkest Hour CD), so I'd stick with Transformers: The Movie --JohnDBuell | Talk 04:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Orson Welles

IMDB reported, after one of the Botcons (don't remember which year, sorry), that Susan Blu (voice of Arcee) discredited the "Orson Welles didn't live long enough to finish all his lines" story. Can someone independently verify this? --JohnDBuell | Talk 04:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was at Botcon 1998, during the voice actor panel.


When he died he had already recorded all his lines

Does anyone at all remember a page from about 3-4 years where someone actually used sound processing software on Unicron's last line and provided wavs? You can form your own opinion, but the creator of that page noted that it definitely sounded like Nimoy with voice distortion (and I must admit I somewhat agree).
But even more interesting, I vaguely remember two references the site also provided. The first was a quoted interview (possibly Starlog) in which Nimoy basically states he doesn't remember much about his voice work for TF:TM. The second were some interview snippets--one presented a online Susan Blu interview where she got some facts wrong about a cartoon she was involved in, Jem (I think the source used to authenticate her incorrect answers was Christy Marx, who was also quoted). I assume this was put up to indicate that Blu (unintentionally) forgot some facts about some of her voice acting projects.
Does anyone remember this page, have it archived, or can provide the sources for any of the quotes it contained?
Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but also keep in mind most people only ask if Welles finished his lines before he died. Finishing all his lines is not synonymous with using all his lines in the movie. You only need to look to the Sunbow eps of G.I. Joe for a few cases of one-off voice actor substitutions.
A quick Google search of all names involved yields the following useful document from 1999, which warns that information presented may be dated or otherwise incorrect. Scroll down to "Who did the voices?" in the movie section: As noted, the claim regarding Nimoy was first forwarded by TF fan Tim Browne, who was reporting on his own pitch-shifting experiments, along with similar demonstrations subsequently performed by Burt Ward. (By the way, the link therein to the wave files, "http://beavis..", is dead.)
An older version of this same FAQ from 1997 had misstated the claim as factual (from whence the rumour was popularized), corrected in the later version due to Sue's emphatic denial at Botcon '98. Although I don't know the full story regarding her truly truly truly outrageous memory slip on Jem, there's no other 'inside source' claiming differently in this case. Nimoy's inability to recall the details basically negates his usefulness as a witness on the matter, so the Starlog reference doesn't help.
From what I can tell of the TF FAQ description, it was all mere speculation to begin with. I'm also left wondering whether pitch-shifting applied to other lines of undisputed Orson dialogue would end up sounding similar to Nimoy as with the line in question, which wouldn't bode well for this fan theory. From my own experience in audio remixing, manipulating pitch can easily mislead the listener if judging by ear alone; secure voice recognition technology relies on more complex criteria for positive identification. (Late-breaking News: To the surprise of TF fans everywhere, CIA analysis confirms that the voice on the recording belongs to Bin Laden.) 172.131.192.253 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know of the source for the statement that "Welles hated the film." He died before it was released so he actually never seen it and in his biography he states only that he hated going to work on the film because he was so sick, but not the film itself.

GALVATRON resolves the Matrix

The main page was sloppy, so pardon my stepping on everyone's toes with a trimming rewrite. The first synopsis was too factually bland, lacking dramatic interest; the second had redundancies and parts tended to mirror movie lines too slavishly. But the third bowl of porridge was just right! haha. ...Seriously, the previous synopsis duplication was ridiculous; splitting the difference, I merged parts of both and added some clarity for the (non-TF fan) lay readers, removing the following clutter of extraneous details:

  • "...featuring a humorous scene where Devastator hits Sludge on the back, causing his eyes to pop out in a cartoony fashion..."

— This is literally a half-second comedy-relief shot, hardly worth mentioning here (or anywhere, hopefully).

  • "...when Hot Rod intervenes in a misguided attempt to aid him."

— It is not "misguided", only unsuccessful. It illustrates Hot Rod's daring and selfless nature, and this failure instills guilt so that his later transformation to Rodimus also serves as his personal redemption, giving the metamorphosis an emotional purpose.

  • "...the tide of battle is turned..." (...and several other examples.)

— I don't care for synopsis points that borrow verbatim from movie dialogue: it's lazy, lacking originality, and renders the article redundant alongside the DVD.

  • "...reciting a prophecy which says that one day, an Autobot will use the power of the Matrix to light their darkest hour."

— This is not a prophecy per se but simply foreshadowing dialogue -- ie., prophetic words in hindsight, whereas "reciting a prophecy" would be pre-established in legend.

  • " As Prime dies, the Matrix slips from his hands and is caught by Hot Rod, glowing brightly in his hands before he gives it to Magnus."

— Edited, I moved this to the accompanying image caption.


From the (now renamed) "Characters killed" section:

  • Unicron refers to “Cyclonus and his armada,” but one duplicate does not an armada make.

— I've considered that perhaps the "armada" in question was referring to the fleet of five flying platform-thingies that sweep into frame (from who knows where!) alongside the two transforming Cyclonus bots; at first glance, these are assumed to be Scourge and the Sweeps, but their numbers don't add up by that reckoning. Their number disappear (to who knows where!) in the subsequent shot where Galvatron et al circle to board their shiny new spaceship.

  • "There are those that consider Bombshell to be Cyclonus, simply because that’s what the animation shows (of the two on-screen at that moment, Bombshell is the one closer to us and therefore appearing more prominent), while Skywarp supporters see being turned into a mere expendable Sweep as an ill-fitting end for one of the original Decepticons. Individually, the two characters possess certain personality traits that make them suited to being Cyclonus - for example, Skywarp's blind loyalty to Megatron, mirrored in Cyclonus's own, and Bombshell's occasional leadership of the Insecticons, mirrored in Cyclonus's position as second-in-command of the Decepticons. However, this can largely be argued to be irrelevant, as neither Cyclonus nor any of the other Unicron-reformatted characters ever displayed any knowledge of their past lives."

I have seen the movie countless times and it is SKYWARP THAT BECOMES CYCLONUS. CYCLONUS HAS ALWAYS BEEN SKYWARP. THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT CYCLONUS IS SKYWARP AND THAT SHARPNELL, BOMBSHELL AND KICKBACK- BECOME THE SWEEPS. ALL THE INESTICONS BECOME THE SWEEPS. MEGATRON BECOMES GALVATRON, THUNDERCRACKER BECOME SCOURGE AND SKYWARP BECAME CYCLONUS. I WON'T BE CONVINCED OTHERWISE. SKYWARP IS CYCLONUS.

JCH




— The bulk of this dizzying tract amounts to: "Character X deserved a better fate, according to Fanboy#419!" ...Honestly, how many paragraphs of fan speculation and pet theories is the reader expected to slog through in an encyclopedia entry? Too much space was devoted to this trivial debate, none of which was offering anything concrete. Here's the short version to surprise the would-be rationalizations of fans: The animators erred, or changed their mind halfway through. The end. — Shocking, isn't it? No need to fabricate elaborately apologetic continuity excuses. The real reason for so many Sweeps in season 3 is because the stories required disposable cannon fodder.

Calling these "Controversies" sounded too pretentiously political or academic, so they've been renamed as well.

Other than that, I moved the cast list higher up, stuck the leftover Optimus pic off to the side (reformatted to true 4:3 ratio with color correction and at a lower resolution), and rearranged the character lists into tables to shorten the vertical scroll of the page.


GALVATRON 10:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The illustrator of TF's Japanese theatrical poster

I've read several TF VHS/LD scans through internet sample, his name should be "Yoshiyuki Taka...". I can't clearly see his last name, but I spent the whole day searching in Japanese websites, there's a anime/model illustrator named "Yoshiyuki Takani" (He's infamous in US). He has a similar style to his drawings, I'm 95% sure that's him. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

-- Red Kid 14:12:55, May 27, 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed via Transformers Generations Deluxe, p.95 Evan1975 (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT NOTES to user 198.111.167.130 :

  • Questions regarding Decepticons altered by Unicron

— It's not necessary to include Unicron's role in the subheading title; it becomes too unwieldy.

  • ...and the Insecticons appear at several points in the thrid season of the tv series...

— This info doesn't belong there; the topic of that opening paragraph is only about trying to determine who's become who as seen in the reformatting scene of the movie, NOT general continuity errors relative to the TV show. Insecticon TV appearances are fully noted in a later paragraph, no need for repetition.

  • Also of note is that Thundercracker is identified as Scourge as he is altered by Unicron, and then Shrapnel and Kickback are identified as the Sweeps as they are altered.

— Redundancy: Info regarding transformations of Thundercracker and Bombshell was already stated in the first paragraph of this section.

  • However, Skywarp and Bombshell both become Cyclonus-style robots at exactly the same time.

— Redundant: Already denoted by your earlier addition of the word "simultaneously" to the first paragraph.

  • At the same time, Galvatron clearly possesses Megatron's memories, and implies that he killed Optimus Prime ("First, Prime. Then, Ultra Magnus. And now, you.")

— That direct association is not necessarily the intent of said dialogue. Galvatron may simply be listing the prominent Autobot deaths to intimidate his opponent in their fight, and also for dramatic effect by signalling to the audience that there's a real chance Rodimus could lose. I think the idea with Galvatron's schizophrenia in the third season (especially evident in WEBWORLD) was to show his increasingly distancing himself from his old identity following his 'rebirth'. ie., Even though perhaps rationally aware that he was once Megatron, he feels that his old life is far removed from his new form, or now regards himself so superior that the old identity is beneath his acknowledging, leading to his mental schism.

  • Also of note is the fact that Frank Welker, Megatron's voice actor, took over from Leonard Nimoy as Galvatron in the tv series.

— This performance switchover has nothing to do with making any sort of deliberate character statement but stems more practically from the fact that the TV series could not afford to keep a movie star in the character's role full-time. (...Spock has places to go, people to see, and commands a hefty fee.$) Frank Welker was the natural replacement from the existing cast, being the man of a thousand voices and already adept at playing the villain.

~ GALVATRON 04:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


EDIT REVISIONS:
  • " shortage of fuel in the spacefaring Astrotrain "

~ Omitting this qualifying statement leaves the lay reader (anyone who hasn't viewed the film) with no distinct way of knowing that the event occurred in interstellar transit rather than just in flight. I'm assuming you're taking issue with the asserted "fuel shortage", inferred from Astrotrain's erratic flight path and dialogue in that scene. If you prefer, you can change it to read "Elsewhere, damage to the spacefaring Astrotrain...", but the former explanation is more viable given that fuel (ie., accelerant /thrust) is the only factor in space travel, where there are no aerodynamic considerations to be affected in a vacuum — ie., a cracked wing (or whatever external damage) wouldn't affect trajectory outside of atmosphere — and Astrotrain openly states his concern is excessive mass.

  • " ... are greeted by..."

~ I don't like this alteration. It sounds too welcoming when in fact Unicron is imposing his god-like presence. (Yes, I know he introduces himself with the word "Greetings...", but it takes on a different context in prose, and a synopsis transcription doesn't have to directly lift movie wording unless your aim is to bore us with echos.)

  • "... in exchange for hunting down Ultra Magnus and destroying the Autobot Matrix of Leadership"

~ It is not an "exchange" (which makes it sound too equitable) so much as it's an ultimatum. The word "threat" was specifically included in my synopsis to indicate that the Matrix is a danger to Unicron's goals — that's his entire motive for wanting it destroyed, and this shorthand way of expressing that fact was more economical than the previous synopsis which basically regurgitated Unicron's exposition about wanting to consume Cybertron.

  • "Given the choice of either accepting Unicron's offer or being destroyed..."

~ You're using the word "destroy" too often — it's already in the preceding sentence — and you're over-explaining. Unicron's extortion is clear enough by saying Megatron was "tortured" into compliance. Readers can go watch the DVD if they want to more details about the scene — this is supposed to be a summary, not an essay. Your other additions to this paragraph were specious filler material: WHY pointlessly add "Galvatron and his new warriors" when there's no one else to speak of in that scene, so it's perfectly obvious who we mean by "them"?? WHY would you redundantly say "finally...", when "conclusive" is already specified??

  • "Questions regarding the Unicron-created Decepticons"

~ Your objection to the term "reformat" is unwarranted; the word is not exclusive to computer drives, if that's what you're mistaking. (Check a dictionary.) Nor were the characters "created"; they were redesigned from their original parts. Unicron's name is not required in the section title since there are no Decepticons modified by any other means IN THE MOVIE, which is the topic of the article; this is not an all-inclusive "Transformers universe" article where it would be necessary to distinguish Unicron's involvement. Besides which, his name pops up at the beginning of the first paragraph, if there were any outstanding confusion.

  • "... (identifiable by the fact that he is the only Sweep whose head is sticking out in vehicle mode)"

~ Uh, that's what "head assembly" means. Saying "sticking out" sounds like a childish description, and the text has already specified "Sweeps" and "vehicle mode" immediately before the bracket. It's also not necessary to call the figures "Decepticons" again: there were no new character arrivals in the interim from the preceding sentence. [eyeroll]

  • "At the conclusion of the scene, we see Cyclonus and Scourge..."

~ You're wondering why I changed that sentence? Do not use the phrase "we see" — it's self-referential and too coloquial, better suited to a newspaper column or magazine editorial. Encyclopedia text should be more formal, not making reference to the writer/reader/audience — you're not going to find "we see" (or other personal pronouns) in Britannica.

  • "At the same time, Galvatron clearly possesses Megatron's memories, and implies that he killed Optimus Prime ("First, Prime. Then, Ultra Magnus. And now, you."). Also of note is the fact that Frank Welker, Megatron's voice actor, took over from Leonard Nimoy as Galvatron in the TV series."

~ This edit was explained earlier: First, notice that Galvatron's lingering memory has already been cited in the previous sentence of the paragraph. (I'll add your Optimus reference there, since you insist, but he only witessed Prime's injury, not the death itself.) Second, Galvatron does not (quote) "clearly" possess that information as his own personal experience, if evidenced by his distant personality beginning right from the start of season 3, where he's become so spacy and self-absorbed in his own mad little world that the Decepticons seriously wonder whether he's a stranger. (Significantly, Cyclonus and the other reborn characters don't suffer these same mental problems. And if it were as "clear" as you pretend, this entire debate would not exist.) The change of voice actor is really an irrelevant point because the same argument can be reversed: if what you're implying were actually the producer's intention (ie., claiming that they're attempting to reinforce character continuity by choice of actor), they could have just stuck with Welker all the way through the film and not bothered using Nimoy. The simple reality is that Nimoy was brought in for box office draw while Welker was the more affordable option for the ongoing TV series. (Likewise, you can bet that Don Johnson would not have carried on playing Lt.Falcon if Sunbow's G.I. Joe cartoon had continued after the movie.)

  • ("Well, they were the same guy.").

~ Can't you see that it's awkward to have two periods at the end here? That's why I got rid of the parentheses. You seem to be under the misimpression that I'm messing with your entries just for the hell of it rather than for improvement.

  • ...claiming to "know you too well, Galvatron" despite having had...

~ That statement makes no absolutely sense as it stands: a sentence cannot shift frame from third person to first person and then back again. And it's common practice in writing quotations to replace ambiguous pronouns with bracketed specifics (thereby indicating the author's edit and speaker's intent) to clarify the subject if a conversational quote is otherwise hopelessly out of context.

~ GALVATRON 04:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Many of your points are vaild. Here are mine:

"Reformatted" is an incorrectly applied term that originated with Beast Machines, and has nothing to do with Galvatron's warriors.

There should be no emphasis on the "were" in Astrotrain's "Well, they were the same guy!".

It seems all too concidental that Megatron's voice actor took over as Galvatron for the series. It is a coincidence readers should be made aware of. We need to present facts (and occasional speculation), and let the readers form their own opinions.

"Head assembly" is unclear to casual readers. More detail is required for clarity.

Megatron was not tortured into accepting Unicron's offer. Unicron was about to consume him. The script makes that clear. It just so happens that the same "energy" effect is used in the Galvatron torture sequences later on.


Okay...
  • Yes, I figured that potential confusion over the Beast Machines "reformatting" was also your reason for inserting Unicron's name in the title, but you're interpretting it too widely from your own familiarity with all Transformers properties rather than the specific topic of this Wiki-page. Anyway, I changed the wording to "modified" in consideration of that fact.
  • The italics assigned to Astrotrain's "Well, they were the same guy..." come only from his inflection in that line's delivery (as with the trailing ellipsis dots), not in any way meant to stress an exclusively past-tense "were", nor to suggest that it is presently untrue, which you're apparently misconstruing was my emphasizing intent there. As I remember it, Astrotrain was offering this line up for consideration to whoever he was responding to in that scene, not simply pronouncing a statement of unchallenged fact. The implication from his intonation is that he's not at all surprised by Galvatron's behaviour, even while the other Decepticons in FFOD seem to think Megatron's mind was somehow corrupted by Unicron during the refabrication. (I always got the impression that Galvatron had perhaps been contaminated by Unicron's personality, hence the suddenly grandiose, regal attitude, and his own baffling references to "Megatron" as if that were some other person.) ...In any event, I don't have a problem if you want to remove those inflective italics, though it leaves the context misleadingly declarative.
  • The point about the common voice actor is fairly absurd: Frank Welker has literally voiced over a thousand cartoon characters, yet I'm sure no one would attempt to draw fictional connections between them from that tenuous real-world basis. By the same rationale, I don't expect anyone would argue (for instance) that "Cyclonus isn't Bombshell because they have different voice actors." ...Even when voiced by Welker, Galvatron's voice is not the same as Megatron's, although it easily could have been made so. Back when it aired in 1986, I simply took this vocal distinction as part of the deliberate marketing attempt to "sell" Galvatron as a character independent enough from Megatron that kids would dish out for the new toy. Consider that the movie could have killed Megatron off completely (if they really wanted to,) and then introduced Galvatron as an entirely new leader (perhaps arriving from some other planet, or baked from scratch by Unicron). But from a marketing perspective, that move would have undermined their interests by throwing away the fanbase's existing emotional investment in Megatron. So instead, he was given a faux 'death' to lend the movie some "must-see" gravitas and then simply rebranded in the new shell. ...Basically, I'm judging things from a production angle: short of examining the credits, viewers of the TV show (particularly kids) wouldn't be expected to know backstage facts about actors in order to infer supposed hidden meaning about the story. If they're doing they're job convincingly, the voice actors should ideally become invisible and their characters should exist as believable entities unto themselves within the self-contained story world, not demand the audience to provide external research about what's going on inside the sound booth. Off-stage info about actors (by definition) isn't meant to enter a story, except perhaps in Pixar CGI comedies where the script may dare at "breaking the fourth wall" by poking fun with parodying references to a participating actor's history (assuming they're famous stars in that case — eg., the cast of "ANTZ"). ...In short, don't conflate the character with the actor.
  • "Head assembly": Your original parenthetical statement was too long, disrupting the flow of the sentence and repeating details already leading into that item. I've made a slight alteration to your current wording. It might instead be made to read "(uniquely identifiable by his protruding head when transformed)", if you prefer.
  • "Tortured into accepting": I preserved that phrase from the previously existing synopsis in an attempt to be fair to that author, and because "tortured" is fairly attention-grabbing. I've changed it to read "Forced into accepting" since the grammar of your latest revision didn't make sense; if you still want, you might further alter it to some variation of, "Forced into accepting on penalty of death"...or "Forced into accepting or facing death", although I think it's more effective to tease with the shortest version than to blatantly spell things out. ...I would advise against using the word "reborn" there because that almost makes it sound like a change initiated by Megatron's own accord (ie., found the strength from within) whereas "remade" informs us that it's being imposed from outside, and the more glorifying term "reborn" is already applied below for Rodimus Christ. :p (Also, it's best to avoid reusing conspicuous words too often within a single article.) ...Just to clarify, in my earlier edit, I removed your other descriptive additions for the ultimatum scene because they were throwing the synopsis out of balance by disproportionately devoting too many sentences to that single event.
  • Although I didn't change it, I don't especially care for the "in 2005" added to the top of the page. It seems a patronizing repetition since the year is already plainly stated in the synopsis... and in the movie... and readers could connect the dots by doing their own basic math. But I suppose an argument can be made to leave it there for the sake of hypothetical readers who haven't seen the film AND might choose not to read beyond the spoiler warning.
  • For your sentence regarding the Insections, I'd recommend changing it to read The Insecticons are also seen in varying states of health at different points (...etc.), but I'll leave it to your own discretion.

...Well, I don't want you to think I'm picking on you with this long rant, I just wanted you to know that none of my edits were arbitrary.

~ GALVATRON 06:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Too many terms from that later series (such as "spark" and "reformatted" have retroactively worked their way into the original series).

In the episode, Astrotrain does not place emphasis on "were".

Your revised description of Scourge's "head aseembly" is fine. A casual reader just won't know what "head assembly" refers to.

"Forced into accepting" works well. Orginaklly, Unicron's "torture" and "consuming" effects were supposed to be different. He would have used a mist that dissolved objects to consume his prey, and Galvatron would quake and scream uncontrollably when tortured. In the final film, the reddish energy-effect was used for both.

Thank you for your consideration.


Alright, I'll take your word for it about the wrongly italicized "were" — I may have some other Decepticon's drawling voice incorrectly stuck in my memory there, haven't watched it in a while. I've added your comment about Galvatron's voice change as the third point in the NOTES section; my argument was that where you had originally inserted this information in the "Decepticon controversies" section (and labelling it "of note" or a "suspicious coincidence"), it was introducing bias by implying some kind of underlying story agenda in the voice casting rather than that the role was simply assigned based on acting merit. ...Someone might also add the following as the first sentence of the "Commerical releases" section, which I'm refraining from adding myself since I don't know the company name: The film was first made available on VHS in (1987?) by [insert name of video company here], and was offered by mail-in coupon as a promotional tie-in with the purchase of certain toys. ~ GALVATRON 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Shrapnel later joins in the attack on Ultra magnus and company on Junkion, I think it's safe to assume that the Shrapnel that was converted by Unicron was a clone.

Region 4/AustralianMadman Entertainment DVD release

Does anyone know of what transfer it used, (horrible and dark btw) It can probably be mentioned in the commercial release section, it's noteable for having a custon dreamwave cover, the touch music video , movie trailer ( the only decent footage of the movie in the entire dvd) and many tv spots for the toys and the promo reel containing the unused footage.

Theme Song mispronunciation

I would like to submit that I don't think "Unicron" is mispronounced in the theme song. I think that due to the singers having accents it is easy to hear both "Unicron" and "Unicorn".

I don't think it's either one. It sounds more like "when there's evil, you can call... Transformers! More than meets the Eye!" DeathWeed 05:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unicron is only mentioned in the line "When your caught within the grip of the evil Unicron"

Synopsis section

Am I the only one who finds the "Synopsis" section, in its current form, to be strangely worded and not quite encyclopedic in tone? Redeagle688 05:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been as you see it for 6 months without complaint, so I guess it's just you. :p List specific areas of concern. Wording of a summary should assume the reader has not seen the film. To my understanding, a "review" tag implies that advocacy or weaseling criticisms are embedded in the text, which I fail to see anywhere in this case.
If you're only going to be ambiguous in your comments, your request for revisions can't be assisted. I'm removing the "review" tag until you come up with concrete reasons to support your allegation that the synopsis is somehow slanted. And I should hope your complaint is not with the use of adjectives imparting moral qualities, because the character teams are explicitly labelled "valiant" and "treacherous" in opening narration: the bad guys 'wear black hats' without being secretive about it. 172.151.216.37 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Universal greeting

Please merge relevant content, if any, from Universal greeting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal greeting. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:04Z

Cast Information Error

The cast notes under the listings cite Walker Edmiston as Inferno, but Inferno didn't appear inthe movie at all. The character was reportedly seen when Perceptor (and mysteriously enough, Swoop), are firing back at the Decepticons before Prime lands. But if you look at the back rigging of the character model, you can tell it's Grapple, and not Inferno. So while Edmiston is listed in the credits, he had no character in the movie to have been credited for.

Scramble City

Isn't this supposed to bridge seasons 2 and 3, not season 2 and the movie? The Japanese didn't show the movie until '89, so Scramble City was made to supplant it, not supplement it. Apparently the continuity error regarding Trypticon's appearance was explained in the Japanese dub of season 3 by saying that the decepticons merely reactivated him.

Sigh. Scramble City was never meant to "bridge" anything. I mean, aside from Ultra Magnus, no "Movie" character even appears in it, so how exactly is it supposed to bridge seasons 2 and 3? Its main focus is on the combiners, who barely ever appear in season 3, plus Metroplex and Trypticon. It's merely an advertising vehicle to sell the "Scramble City" toys, not bridge anything story-wise. That's just one of those immortal fan legends from the stone age of thew internet.--87.164.82.153 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Angel and Ramjet

Hey, I notice Jack Angel is only credited as Astrotrain. Isn't that Ramjet saying "Make room for others!" when the Decepticons toss the wounded Decepticons out of Astrotrain? Anyone with the DVD or a VHS copy take a listen, please; I do believe that it's Jack Angel as Ramjet. Thanks. Fiction Alchemist 08:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe right. However, the line is an ad-lib so that may be why he doesn't credited. EMFreyre (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC) [[User: EMFreyre]|EMFreyre]][reply]

Reborn Decepticons

The scene depicts Thundercracker becoming Scourge (the only uncontested transformation). You know, that's a very bold statement considering that one of the sentences before it said, "The script does not specify the characters transformed by name and the animation is open to some interpretation." Also, both the Skywarp and Thundercracker characters were colored in steel gray during the entire sequence thus eliminating the chances of identifying who's who. Doesn't anyone think this might be violating NPOV rule? --Destron Commander 14:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, maybe OR rules, maybe not as it's been looked at to death. When Unicron pulls the other five Decepticons towards him there are two clear groups - Thundercracker, Shrapnel &b Kickback and Cyclonus & Skywarp - and the colours can still be seen. So Thundercracker becoming Scourge, and Shrapnel & Kickback the Sweeps is consistent. It's only really which of the two Cyclonuses is the real one that's an issue. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction

I added a uncited tag to the Reaction section (18:09, 27 June 2007), there are many claims about critics and audiences at the time in that section which need citations. 156.34.216.106 18:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of Ramjet, Thrust, and Dirge

While it is true that the three were killed by Unicron near the end of the movie (the Wiki article left Ramjet off the casualty list), they show up again in the third season of the show, and NOT just as background characters either. Does anyone think that's notable? Fiction Alchemist 16:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the deaths of the three are highly dubious in nature anyway, and since they appear in the post-movie episodes in ways where the possibility of mere animation errors can be counted out, I'd say they survived. Takeshi357 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you slow down the movie during Unicron's battle with the Decepticons, you can see the 85 jets get pulled into Unicron's mouth and him biting down. I suppose you could say they weren't killed but simply wounded. In their adaptation of the movie, IDW shows the jets being blast to atoms by Unicron. However, I doubt we should take this as proof that they're killed. EMFreyre —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Questions regarding modified Decepticons

I'm moving this section here because there are no citations, the tone is inappropriate (phrases like "as should be obvious"), weasely (passive voice/unattributed assertions about "speculation") and, in general, seems pretty unencyclopedic. There's as much about the follow-up TV series as about the movie. *Maybe*, given citations, some of this could go to character pages. But this should be left lingering the article itself. --EEMeltonIV 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions regarding modified Decepticons

It is unclear exactly which Decepticons become which characters when Unicron rebuilds them. The script does not specify the characters transformed by name and the animation is open to some interpretation. The scene depicts Thundercracker becoming Scourge, with Kickback and Shrapnel being remade as Sweeps (the only uncontested transformations), while Bombshell and Skywarp then simultaneously become Cyclonus-style robots (though animation errors would see all five of these characters reappear at various points later in the film).

While Bombshell stands dominant in frame foreground of the scene, Unicron refers to the pair as "Cyclonus... and his armada" — but, as should be obvious, one individual does not make an armada. This line is, in fact, a dialogue carry-over from the original script of the film, in which Cyclonus was to have a group of identical subordinates, in the same style as Scourge has his Sweeps. The idea would appear to have been aborted - it is only partially realized by this one shot, and the second Cyclonus permanently vanishes before the scene even concludes, since the sequence ends with only Cyclonus, Scourge, and three Sweeps. Multiple Cyclonus-type robots would later appear in the third-season episodes Five Faces of Darkness, Part 5 and The Quintesson Journal, but the error-riddled animation of these episodes makes them circumspect at best.

Following the creation of these new Decepticons, Bombshell (Cyclonus #1) then transforms to jet mode, and the others — the second Cyclonus, Scourge and four Sweeps, as opposed to the two created on-screen immediately prior — are seen entering the shot. Then, at the conclusion of the scene, the angle shifts again, and the fourth Sweep and the second Cyclonus have disappeared, leaving Cyclonus, Scourge and three Sweeps, returning the Decepticon group to their original number from the beginning of the scene. Hence, the question is left open - who truly became that single Cyclonus, Bombshell or Skywarp? Profiles included in the R2 and R4 DVD releases of the movie claim that Cyclonus is Skywarp, but said material was written by fans and cannot be considered canon.

Some confusion arises regarding the role of the Insecticons - despite their apparent alteration by Unicron, the characters continue to make appearances in a small number of post-movie episodes, and Shrapnel even appears later in the movie itself as designated by the script. The Insecticons are also seen in varying states of health at different points during the battle for Autobot City early in the film. This has led to speculation that the "Shrapnel" transformed by Unicron may have been a duplicate, given that the Insecticons are known to possess a cloning ability (although more likely, this was a simple production oversight). Throughout the third season, the number of Sweeps increases without explanation, perhaps suggesting that the altered Insecticon characters retained their cloning talent - indeed, this explanation could also implicate Bombshell as the one-robot "armada" of Cyclonus, if there were indeed supposed to be more than one of him. Despite the movie's stated purpose of culling the earlier production line, however, the Insecticons were still available in toy shops in 1986.

Another debate concerns how much of Megatron's original personality is retained by Galvatron. In the movie (and prior to his plasma-induced insanity of the TV show's third season), Galvatron is not especially dissimilar to Megatron and clearly has memories of Starscream's betrayal. He also makes a reference to his final duel with Optimus Prime; yet on one occasion, Galvatron refers to Megatron in the third person: "I, Galvatron, shall crush you just as Megatron crushed Prime!" In the third season's Five Faces of Darkness mini-series, Cyclonus is adamant in making a distinction between Galvatron and Megatron, whereas Astrotrain more plainly regards them as one and the same: "Well, they were the same guy." Likewise, Optimus Prime does not differentiate when returning at the close of the third season, claiming to "know [Galvatron] too well" despite having had only one prior encounter with him (under Quintesson control in a zombified state, no less, during the episode Dark Awakening).

Screenwriters Ron Friedman and Flint Dille have both said that Galvatron was intended to simply be a more powerful version of Megatron in a new body,[citation needed] and in the film itself, Unicron says, "I will provide you with a new body, and new troops to command", which strongly indicates that Galvatron is simply Megatron in a new physical form.

In the Marvel Comics series, meanwhile, Galvatron is shown to possess memories of his time as Megatron but behaves markedly different in all other respects. Galvatron's insanity in the comics is declared to be not of his own making, instead created as a result of Megatron's irrepressible madness boiling up from the tiny remaining kernel of his being. In an attempt to purge himself of this internal conflict, Galvatron initially seeks to destroy Megatron but later comes to realize that their coexisting personalities are inextricably connected. Galvatron and Megatron are allowed to coexist due to the occasional use of time-travel in the Marvel Comics continuity. While the events of the movie still occur in that continuity, they are not as central to the storyline as they were for the animated series.

Though not a modified character, it is worth mentioning that Shockwave was killed in the original script and in storyboards, but the scene was cut from the finished film. IDW Publishing's 4-part Movie Adaptation series also depicts Shockwave's death; via one of Unicron's eye-laser blasts. This removal of the Shockwave character is at odds with the continuation of the Shockwave toy in the post-movie catalogue.

I've read the original script and It doesn't mention any wounded/damaged/dead Decepticons by name both when they're tossed out of the shuttle and when Unicron changes them into Scourge/Sweeps and Cyclonus/Aramada.
Something I noticed that should be pointed out. One of the Sweeps goes down in flames after being blasted by Grimlock when the Autobots are trying to leave Autobot City in the shuttles. In "Five Faces of Darkness", another Sweep is shot in the face and gets pulled into a storm on I think the planet Jupiter. In both cases it looks like those Sweeps die. This could be used as proof that the Sweeps at least were reformatted Insecticon clones. Otherwise, Scourge would out of Sweeps by the begining of Season 3.EMFreyre (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)EMFreyre[reply]

Critcal Reception?

I noticed that the "critical reception" part of the article has just a bunch of stuff about the widescreen errors! Can anyone fix this?--Autobotx1010 04:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Why is the "Anime and Manga" Project notice on the talk page?! All you Naruto-Happy jerks stay away from G1! Your place in our world is in armada or RiD!

Please be civil in your comments. WikiProject tags are meant as a way to help bring more editors to an article in an effort to improve it. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autobotx1010, you refactored, i.e. deleted some discussion in this section, which I have restored Please don't do that, it can be considered vandalism.

Your post re. the applicability of the anime & manga wikiproject to the TF movie on the wikiproject's talk page were addressed here. Again, please remember to be civil. BrokenSphereMsg me 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I`m terribly sorry. I spend alot of time on the transformers wiki. Our rules are slightly different there.--Autobotx1010 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TF1995DVDcover.jpg

Image:TF1995DVDcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


BetacommandBot 02:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alls I got say is I love this movie-even more than the new '07 we had. Thank you.-Anthony Cromartie.

Arblus/Orbilus

Different sources seem to claim one of the Lithonians is named either Arblus or Orbilus. Sort of confusing. Gringo300 (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Transformers Universe handbook by Marvel Comics lists his name as Arblus. Its also shown as such in the original script. EMFreyre (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)EMFreyre[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Transformers-DVD3.gif

Image:Transformers-DVD3.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Snarl-movie.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any Actual References At the Time For the Controversy Over Optimus Prime's Death?

Under "Character Deaths" and "Reception", there are references to the "controversy" over Optimus Prime's death, and neither one had any references. I'm wondering if there actually was a decision made by the producers of the G.I.Joe Movie where the death of Optimus Prime affected the fate of Duke, or if this is based on speculation.

Are there any documentation in the 80s supporting the "controversy" behind Optimus Prime's death?

I own several TF comics from the 80s and there are a few letters from fans outraged over the death of Prime in the Movie. Also, the producers do talk about the backlash they got in interviews in the 20th Anniversary DVD. EMFreyre (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)EMFreyre[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for move.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Transformers: The Movie → Transformers: The Movie — The official title is just "Transformers: The Movie". This is the title on the poster, used in the trailer, the VHS cover, the on-screen title. The only ones that say "The Transformers" is a couple of movie sites (although others use the correct title). — TJ Spyke 21:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
It has a edit history, meaning an admin needs to make the actual move. TJ Spyke 22:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I should have seen that...-- WORMMЯOW  08:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. You obviously did not look carefully, the "The" is visible in the poster in the infobox. DO NOT MOVE THE PAGE. Some guy (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The on-screen logo, VHS box , DVD box don't have the first "The". TJ Spyke 23:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And it is listed as "The Transformers: The Movie" on IMDB. The soundtrack art also includes "The": [1]. The DVD is for sale on Amazon as "The Transformers: The Movie." Some guy (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rotten Tomatoes does not. The external links are split. Since the movie itself doesn't have it, and the official VHS and DVD releases (including the 20th anniversary one from Sony in 2006) don't use it. It looks like only the people in marketing use it, and some move sites (IMDb has other titles with slightly wrong names). TJ Spyke 04:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, fine. I jumped the gun - sorry. I saw that the poster included the "The" and thought you were just making up your basis. I think it's more likely the official name is "The Transformers: The Movie" and sometimes the "The" is just dropped because it is awkward, and I still oppose the change, but on the other hand the original Star Wars film was released in 1977 as "Star Wars" but the Wikipedia article uses the full name "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" that wasn't created until after the original release. Some guy (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's difficult isn't it. I've always known it as Transformers: The Movie, which is why I lean that way. However, there's a redirect on Transformers: The Movie (and Transformers: the Movie for that matter), so I'd be happy if the status quo was maintained. It might be worth mentioning that the original cinema release was under The Transformers: The Movie and the VHS/DVD release was under Transformers: The Movie? -- WORMMЯOW  08:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Due to the poster being The Transformers: The Movie, I oppose this change. Redirects are already there for people who drop the "the". And IMO thats all there is to it. It should stay as it is. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The movie itself does not have "The", meaning the people who made the movie did not see that as part of the title. It was the people in marketing who added it. When it got released on VHS (and later on DVD), they followed the producers intent and did not have the "The". I think it's clear the official title is just "Transformers: The Movie". TJ Spyke 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now you're just speculating. You have no sources or actual information on what the producers or marketing people did or intended to do. It is possible the titlecard was modified for the VHS release, as with Star Wars. Some guy (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The trailer for the movie lacked the "The" too. The only official sources that include it are the poster and the soundtrack. Far more official sources don't include it. TJ Spyke 00:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Move Proposal additional discussion

The "the" is also visible in the trailer See 1:27, so I return to my original opinion that TJ Spyke actually just made up his basis without doing any actual research. Some guy (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your YouTube link is dead, but anyways, in all the movie trailers I've seen (like this one, the narrator calls it "Transformers: The Movie. Evan1975 (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orson Welles' Final Film

The second paragraph of this article contains the words: It was also the final role for ... Orson Welles. Under Cast it says: The Transformers: The Movie was Orson Welles' final film. (The Yahoo link about this has expired.)

However, his filmography page states that Someone to Love is his final film, which is repeated on the Some to Love page.

So - which is it? --Robinson weijman (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately, it says "final film appearance" (he didn't appear in TF, he merely lent his voice), it was released after TF, but filmed before TF, so Transformers was his final film. It really depends on whether you class filming or release. magnius (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because in the filmography Someone to Love is 1987, TFTM is 1986. So the text under cast should be changed to something like, "last move he filmed". --Robinson weijman (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine as it is, TF is his final film...widely sourcable, even Welles is quoted as saying it's his final film. If anything, someone needs to find a source and rewrite the "Someone to Love" article. magnius (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is fine as it is, why did you change it? Good change by the way. (I made a minor grammatical correction.) --Robinson weijman (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mulitple Characters inconsistencies

Hound and Sunstreaker appear to be in 2 places at once. a: When Hot Rod attacks the Autobot shuttle, b: When Optimus Prime arrives.

Thundercracker, Skywarp and the Insecticons appear after they have been reformatted. a: At Starscream's coronation, b: Shrapnel and Scavenger attack Daniel on the Planet of Junk.

I feel these are note worthy production errors and should be recognised. Doniago disagrees and feels it's just trivia. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevUrban (talk • contribs) 03:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No only is it trivia, but it is also a violation of Wikipeida's prohibition against original research. Without a reliable source, it is merely someone's interpretation. —Farix (t | c) 12:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is both trivia and trivial and has no place in the article. Beach drifter (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your observations Kevurban are correct. I have noticed those inconsistencies for thirteen years. It is not an interpretation TheFarix...the characters are visibly on screen in scenes where the plot dictates they shouldn't be there.---MDFinley (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major new magazine feature

SFX Magazine has a large feature on the film in its August 2011 issue (#211), including an interview with director Nelson Shin. During the feature they reveal the following facts:

  • The film's budget was $6 million. Normally the animators would have less than $1 million to make 90 minutes' worth of episodes.
  • The TV series took a team of 100 people three months to make one episode (with multiple episodes being worked on simultaneously), so the movie with its superior animation took a lot longer and was more complex to animate, which was an enormous hurdle for the production team.
  • Hasbro dictated which news characters would appear and which old characters could be killed off or removed. Shin had little freedom to change the story, so focused on the animation.
  • Shin created the idea of Transformers turning grey upon death. He suggests this was to show their 'spirits' leaving their body.
  • According to Shin, Leonard Nimoy was cooperative, professional and excellent to work with. He says Orson Welles was much more positive at the time about the project then later biography claims suggested. Shin confirms the story that Welles' voice had to be manipulated with effectors since it was weak in places.
  • The movie was initially released on 990 screens and grossed $1,779,559 on its opening weekend, between a quarter and a third that of Top Gun a few months earlier. However, takings rapidly plummeted and the film's eventual gross was slightly under budget. There are speculations why, but no hard facts about reasons for the drop.

I hope that was of some use in improving the article.--Werthead (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly pedantic but I'd recommend citing the budget in the infobox; if nothing else that could make verification easier if/when someone decides to change it. Doniago (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add An Section

Can A Person On This Wiki Add An Article called intro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.220.78 (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colon

Should their be a colon in the title because there is none on all the DVD versions I have, nor is there one on the intro f the movie.--Primus1x (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cast alterations in the infobox

Will editors please abide by the guidelines at {{Infobox film}} which states Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. Changing the order to reflect personal preference misrepresents the film's credit order and is not acceptable. If the source is erroneous then please include an alternative source. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

Given the adolescent target audience of the original television series and toy line, Transformers the Movie deals with considerably more mature themes. Daniel Witwikcy deals with loneliness because his father Spike is gone on mission with the Autobots. Both Kup and Arcee speak to the inherent folly of youth when speaking to and about Hot Rod.

In addition to the (relative)graphic deaths of certain Autobots, the theme of death very prominent. When Devestator attacks the last stronghold of the Autobots, Springer remarks, "I got better things to do tonight than die." Megatron derides Optimus Prime during their final battle, asking him, "Why throw away your life so recklessly?" As Perceptor examines Prime's wounds after his battle with Megatron, he diagnoses, "I fear the wounds are...fatal", and Daniel Witwicky, in tearful denial, protests, " Prime, you can't die!". While arguing with a verbal challenge from Unicron regarding the manner by which Optimus Prime was defeated, Megatron pronounces, "The point is he's dead, and the Matrix died with him". When Galvatron attacks the Autobot survivors of the Battle of Autobot City, Galvatron boasts to Ultra Magnus that he "..will crush you just as Megatron crushed Prime". Ultra Magnus replies, "And you'll die trying, just like Megatron".

The Autobots flee Earth enroute to Moon Base 2, and are again attacked by the Decepticons. As Kup tries to recall how he escaped a similar situation, he remarks, "I'm trying to remember. There were an awful lot casualties that day". Once captured by the Sharkticons, and as they witness the erxecution of Kranix, Kup remarks to Hot Rod, 'Not the end I'd wish for lad". As the Dinobots rescue Hot Rod and Kup from the Sharticons, The Quintessons issue the command, "Sharkticons, execute them!". Grimlock stomps the ground in a display of Alpha-ism and points to the Quintessons and counters , " Me Grimlock say, Execute them!"

On the planet of Junk, as Ultra Magnus is attacked by the Sweeps, Galvatron chants, "Die, die!" As Hot Rod and Galvatron battle over the Matrix inside the body of Unicron, Galvatron remarks philosophically, "Come out Autobot! We all must die sometime", and again when he is choking Hot Rod, he first proclaims, "Die, Autobot", and then remarks that if Autobots didn't die so easily, he might have a sense of satisfaction.

Finally, as Optimus Primes lays on his death bed, he speaks in terms of an afterlife and a soul, when he says, "Do not grieve. Soon I shall be one with the Matrix". This is later referenced when Optimus's voice proceeds from the Matrix, commanding Hot Rod to become Rodimus Prime. Hot Rod recognizes and acknowledges the voice as belonging to Optimus Prime.

The movie also employs more mature language than most, if not all, of the television series. The words slaughter, kill, extermination, rip-open, stalk, tear-apart, dismemberment, as well as expletives shit and damn.

MDFinley (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Section is Missing Context. (1) Most Theaters Did Not Carry It. (2) It Wasn't Released Until "Back To School" Time in August. (3) It Was a Successful VHS Rental.

The real reason that Transformers: The Movie was not successful in theaters was that many theaters didn't carry it due to the fact that 1986 was a summer for blockbuster movies like Crocodile Dundee, Top Gun, and Aliens. Theater owners did not want to lose money on a kiddie film (regardless of the PG rating). As a VHS rental, Transformers: The Movie consistently sold out nationwide and was one of the most heavily pirated VHS tapes at that time. I don't know where the article gets this "990 theaters", but I'd guesstimate there were at least 3000 theaters in the US at the time (there are around 30,000 now), so even 990 would be an indication that most theaters skipped it.

You can't "bomb in theaters" if most theaters refuse to carry your movie. The argument that parents didn't take their kids to see the Transformers because fictional robots were killed in a film about action figures is beyond ridiculous. Most parents in the 80's didn't know the difference between Transformers, Gobots, Robotech, or Volton and frankly could have cared less if the movie wiped out the entire cast in a nuclear explosion. Less toys they would hear their children begging for around Christmas.

In the summer of 1986 I was able to see Transformers in exactly ONE theater in two states out of at least three dozen theaters. The only reason that theater played it is that the owner's son loved the Transformers and for that reason the movie had top billing and consistent show times at that theater only.

Another problem is that the movie wasn't released until August of 1986, the beginning of the school year and the worst possible time to release a kid's movie. Families were preoccupied with the expensive endeavor of putting their kids back into school and seriously didn't want to take their kids to see a 70 minute long advertisement for some of the most expensive and fragile toys ever sold. No broke parent wants to hear their kids constantly whine about getting a sold out Ultra Magnus action figure that would be almost $70 in today's dollars.

A little truth in this article wouldn't kill anyone. That's all I'm going to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.80.1 (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Transformers:_The_Movie&oldid=745599399"