Talk:Transformers (film)

Archives
September 15, 2005 - February 19, 2007 February 19, 2007 to July 2007 June 28, 2007 - July 21, 2007 July 28, 2007 - August 30, 2007 September 2007 - December 2007

Copyedit

JimDunning (talk · contribs) is now taking care of my request. Alientraveller (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cast

Blackout

What about Blackout? How come he doesn't have his own biography like everyone else in the "Decepticons" section? -JasonQ87

Blackout was not voiced by anyone. Likewise with Devastator and Scorponok. Alientraveller (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of weather or not he had a human voice, he is still an important character in the story and should be included in the list of other characters. I am adding him. Andrew (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The section is "cast", not "characters that appear in the film". He's mentioned in the plot section. There is no need to mention him again in the "cast" section when he isn't part of the "Cast".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow... Responded quickly... I decided against adding him myself... but I still think digital characters should be added in the cast list. Andrew (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Alientraveller and Bignole -- if there is to be real-world context about Blackout, it would be more appropriate in Production instead of Cast. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no point in having Blackout in the cast list when nobody voiced him. Production fits better. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Andrew that Blackout and Devastator should be in the characters list or cast characters list. Technically or academically they are not "cast". But most viewers won't know until they read it. To disobey people's instinct logic and hide the fact somewhere else won't help people know it quickly or at all.Cofi (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your instinct is to assume that a CGI character, that does not speak, would be listed in a section for characters that were represented physically or verbally by an actual actor? You cannot make a blanket statement about what "most viewers" will assume, unless you actually have statistical data to support such a theory. If readers are only interested in "what Transformers are in the movie", they can read the plot, that's why it is there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit I don't have any statistical data to support my theory. I am not sure the burden of proof has to be on my side since neither side has the data. My point is that I agree your technical definition of "cast", but not itemizing non-speaking transformers with other voiced transformers would probably cause confusion. (again, no statistically significant data to prove it, only me and my friends got confused when we read it the first time) My suggestion is to list non-speaking CGI with the others and tell the reader there instead of in some other section. I didn't find any "what Transformers are in the movie" section and am not sure what you refer to Cofi (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you still arguing over this? He's in the cast section now. Alientraveller (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Devastator

Why tank Devastator is not in Decepticons section?Cofi (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See above discussion on Blackout Quetzilla (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

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)

I think I have advocated it be a character list for some time, so I agree, add all the Cybertronian characters to the list, even if they didn't have a voice actor. Mathewignash (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on cast lists has been that they shouldn't exist. I believe in "Casting" sections under "Production". To me, a cast list does nothing but open the door to IU information that should really be in the plot section. Having a casting section is better because you stick to the essentials.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's not my point: what I'd like to do is start extrapolating and displaying specific information on the creation of each character. Similar to Jurassic Park, except clearly, the robots had dramatic roles too. Alientraveller (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not see things suppliment production sections. I think having the cast mentioned in a casting section, and the robots mentioned in both a special effects section and probably a writing section. SFX covers their design, while writing covers how their individual personalities were created for the film itself. The voice actors can be discussed on the casting section as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:51, 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)

Here's a draft of what I've imagined in my head User:Alientraveller/Transformers (film)#Cast/Production redraft Alientraveller (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Implemented now due to approval from Bignole and Liquidfinale (talk · contribs) on my talk page. Alientraveller (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Live-action/animation

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 think that's because it isn't an animated film, but a live action film with some animation in it. Just about any film with CGI would be considered "live action/animation" when you think about it, no matter how minute the CGI was. Plus, in this day and age, when you say "animation" you initially think of things like Bugs Bunny or the Little Mermaid, you know, something that is more cartoon. At least, that is my first thought, and possibly the thought of those that are removing the category.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the examples at the category. The category refers to traditional animation, not computer-generated effects. If this were the case, films like the Matrix sequels would belong. This is the threshold that exists, and Transformers doesn't fall in that category. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bay on sequel script

“ 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. ”

[1]

I'm confused. Does this mean Michael is writing the script now? Alientraveller (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. To me, it more implies that he's throwing some story ideas together or something, in order to plan and prep his action scenes and ready for the writers to work with when they come back off strike. Steve ^{T • C} 10:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kurtzman, Ehran, and Orci wrote an outline and submitted it to Bay the day before the strike began. Bay's "template" is basically a fleshed-out version of said outline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.66.253 (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit issues

These are questions and issues raised during the copy-edit process.

• There's a passage in the Production>Effects section that references the animators using Prime and Megatron's weapons from the show —

"Bay instructed the animators to observe footage of two martial artists and numerous martial arts films to make the fights look graceful. Many of the animators were big Transformers fans and were given free rein to experiment: a scene where Jazz attacks Devastator is a reference to a scene in The Transformers: The Movie where Kup jumps on Blitzwing."

The second sentence seems out of place, a non sequitur. It may support Bay getting the desired fight style, but some additional context would be helpful to enhance the cohesiveness of the section. Can anyone provide more info?
Jim Dunning | talk 14:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I rearranged it and took a cue from the DVD: they actually discuss how many fans animated the movie after discussing ILM and Digital Domain's work load. Alientraveller (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The first line of the Plot section states that Optimus Prime is explaining Cybertron's destruction. Is this a voiceover? To whom is he explaining this? Is this straight-forward exposition? The sentence should have an object, but I haven't seen the film so I can't add context. Also it says, "and his quest to obtain the All Spark." Is this OP's quest or Megatron's? I want to break up this long sentence, but need to understand the context.
  • Optimus narrates the beginning, middle and end of the film, so the movie's always had this context being about Optimus's discovery and appreciation of humanity. I'll see what I can do, as "The film begins with" is rather redundant.
• In the same paragraph there's a reference to "Cube". Should there be additional context? Is the Cube the name of the facility at Hoover Dam? Also, it says Sector 7 discovers the All Spark; should it location on Earth be mentioned here?
  • The All Spark is nicknamed the Cube by every character. This should be removed or fleshed out.
• In the fourth paragraph there is a statement, "Locating the All Spark, he sends an alert to the other Decepticons." What is the antecedent of "he"? Who sends the alert? Is it Frenzy or Megatron?
  • Frenzy alerts all the other Decepticons.
• Also fourth paragraph, the sentence, "Frenzy's virus has shut down government communications, so the Autobot-human convoy goes to nearby Mission City to get a radio that can communicate with the Air Force into taking the All Spark away." is confusing. Are only certain radios able to contact the Air Force and are they few and far between? Is it supposed to say something like "the Autobot-human convoy goes to nearby Mission City to radio the Air Force to ask it to take the All Spark away", or something to that effect?
  • Even after repeatedly viewing the film, I'm unclear on this myself. Essentially Frenzy's virus planted on Air Force One evolves to take down military communications, bar a basic non-digital line the hackers and the secretary of defense use to eventually call the F-22 Raptors into action.

• In the end I count four Decepticons dead and Starscream escapes to Space. That appears to leave Scorponok and Barricade unaccounted for. What is their status? Who dumps the dead Decepticons into the ocean?
  • Keller orders the Decepticons killed in the climactic battle to be dumped in the Laurentian Abyss. Indeed, Scorponok and Barricade's fates were left open to the sequel.

• Again fourth para, it says, "Optimus takes a fragment of the All Spark from Megatron's corpse, but realizes that with it destroyed . . . ." Does "it" refer to Megatron or the All Spark?
  • Maybe a good time to use the Cube nickname. Alientraveller (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk 05:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Academy Award Nomination

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)

And that's more important than being a live action film adaptation of the toy line? I rephrased it so as not to be so biased. Alientraveller (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sentence order can indirectly cause bias. By putting the Academy Awards in the first sentence you are indirectly saying that the AA are better than any other award, because no others are listed. Second, the first thing a person reads when they come to the page is about how good the film must be, because it won awards. Per WP:LEAD the first paragraph should contain all the basic information about the film, and the second paragraph (or really the last paragraph if you have more than two paragraphs) should contain the information that makes it notable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, check this out please.

Resolved

Also this. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception

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)

My thoughts would have to be that no one talked about it, in which case you should blame the critics and not the Wiki article. Now, if you can find some reliable critiquing of such elements, then I would say it would be a shame not to include it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If a white person had played Glen, would people cry "racism"! No. The argument is pretty void. Alientraveller (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Alientraveller, I don't know what you're trying to get at there, but fact is 1. A white person did not portray Glen 0 he told his Grandmother to shut up and drink prune juice come on now, and 2. There is also Bernie Mac's character. So that's two instances. And let's not forget the emergency call that was transferred through the presumed Indian telecommunications guy. The movie seems to play on stereotypes purposefully probably as a joke. But don't start playing race games here. I was just wondering if it was mentioned anywhere. I'm not that good at finding new citations anyway ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the telecommunications scene, that was based on a real-life incident. I wonder where I should place that. Alientraveller (talk) 11:36, 28 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)

The hidden message near the plot

Any particular reason why it was removed in early December last year? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As the film has been out for ages and most drive-by editors (who searched for the article after seeing the film) got the point. Alientraveller (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Some Dialog

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!

That was part of their mission, they were also looking for a way to communicate with the airstrike. That is why this section is a "summary" and not a play-by-play.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they want to grab some ice cream, but the dialog above is all they tell us about their reasons to go to the city. The airstrike is supposed to be called by the SOD and the other guys from the old radio.

A summary shouldn't contain wrongness. --87.189.121.82 (talk)

First, please don't say "wrongness", that's not even a word. Second, the summary contains their actions. What do they do when they get to Mission City? They try and find radios that will work so that they can contact the Air Force and get a strike team in, as well as get a transport out for the All Spark. Hiding the All Spark is just the initially phase of their plan. The SOD called them initially, but it was the ground force that guided them to the correct location (something the SOD couldn't do since he had no idea where exactly they were).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The article currently says that they go to the city to hide the allspark and obtain a radio; the second part is not mentioned in the movie; it's simply not verifiable, because it is wrong. (They do obtain radios while in the city though.) --87.189.121.82 (talk)

You mean the part where Josh Duhamel's character picks up the short wave radios and says -- (and I quote), "I want planes for air cover and get a Blackhawk helicopter to extract the Cube." -- isn't verifiable information that they are doing what I just said they are doing?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean; but they are in the city already, so it's no reason to go to the city. (Does it make sense? Nope, but that's not the only thing that doesn't in the script.) Can't you just find a sentence to bring both facts together? (I can't think of anything.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.117.71 (talk)

As the plot is a summary, it doesn't entirely matter what order events are: yes, Lennox and Epps improvised during the battle, but at the end of the day, they were in Mission City and got a shortwave radio to communicate with the Raptors and helicopters for defense and extraction. And please sign your comments. Alientraveller (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That same MOS that you're citing at "The Incredible Hulk" is the same one that says events don't have to take place in the plot section in the same order as they do in the film itself. If people want to know precisely what happens, they should watch the movie. As far as the summary goes, they simply go to Mission City to hide the All Spark and retrieve some communication equipment so that they can coordinate with the planes and helicopters. You are basically removing that last bit-which is more important then the "hiding the All Spark"-the entire battle is interrupting them extacting that All Spark, not hiding it. Did they ever get to Mission City and say, "ok, go hide this some where"...no, they were in battle from the moment they left the dam, and as soon as they got to Mission City they grabbed radios to communicate with the Air Force.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There. Alientraveller (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That's what I couldn't think of before! Thanks! (And I hope you don't mind my detail change.) --87.189.93.245 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not talk about order; the radios were simply not given as a reason to enter the city. Why do you think the summary would be better if the false statement is added?

I suspect that you try to interpret my version of the summary and come up with a blank; so did I; that's the fault of the script though. Wikipedia should not fix faulty scripts in its summaries.

So, please, don't try to write in your version of what the script should have been. Wikipedia relies on verifiability; script-doctoring is not an option.

Again, Why do you think the summary would be better if the false statement is added? --87.189.93.245 (talk)

Whatever, it's been settled. Alientraveller (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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"

It's not the military that are the idiots, it's the script writers. Yes, they explicitly mentioned to move into the most populated area they could reach to hide there, see dialog excerpt at the top of the section. Yes, this is very, very stupid. So is using visible light for laser designators. So is waiting for a pair of Thunderbolts when a Spooky is nearby. The list goes on. Again, please don't try to fix the movie's script in Wikipedia's summary. --87.189.93.245 (talk)

Actually, at BotCon 2007, the writers said their point was for Mission City to be a rendevouz point. And it still is that during the final battle, even if Lennox doesn't mention that reason to the silly secretary. So another piece of Bay bashing, courtesy of me. He doesn't mind.

Now enough off-topic joking around. Alientraveller (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Redwing

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)

Unless you can provide a reliable source, we're not going to make a whacked comparison of real life to a giant robot attack. And Blackout and Scorponok's attack was in Qatar. Alientraveller (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

3d design of characters

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)

Design Feature's so called "news" article stole that info from VFXWorld, which I worked in ages ago. Alientraveller (talk) 17:56, 25 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)

1) Optimus's number of mechanical pieces is unnecessary, reader already understands how complex Ironhide's cannons alone are.

2) Length of polygons is trivial.

3) Article is stolen from another website (which is already cited in the article) and should not be linked.

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)

Messageboards don't matter here. They aren't reliable sources for information, nor are they really likely to be a good gauge of the overall notability nor popularity of a topic. The Polygon counts have been discussed in detail already, we do not need to belabor the point with more of it, especially since it turns out that one of the major links you keep trying to include turns out to be plagarized from an article we already use. So if you would kindly STOP trying to add copyright violating materials to the article, and read the article through, you'd be in a much better position now. ThuranX (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

once again, message boards are irrelevant. Plagarism trumps 'accuracy', as well. This has already been used in the article, using the original, NON-plagarized article. This has all been explained both in article edit summaries and here on talk. I told you where to look, so go look. Look at the material on Optimus prime and some 20K polygons and so on. Once the information's stated in one manner, it doesn't need even more. ThuranX (talk) 04:11, 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

You don't think people want to know of how the effects are made? The polygons are what made the movie into a blockbuster. And yeah they did say 'The computers effects were good'. Ever ask yourself why? Rendering and polygon count matter. Get it yet?--70.243.74.188 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I do have a problem with include a non-notable, trivial fact, if this fact is non-notable or trivial. So, again, is this fact notable in a worldwide view, or only among a small circle? ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 21:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I could see including it if there was context. "Optimus Prime's had 10,108 parts, there are also 1.8 million polygons and 2,000 texture maps" doesn't tell the average reader much. "1.8 million polygons" seems an impressive number, but how can we tell? I looked at the article the anon-IP referenced and all it says is, "Transformers indeed represents a new watermark in ultra realistic hard body surfaces. 'This had to be rendered and it's terribly complicated,'" and goes into little detail to put the "new watermark" statement in perspective. Was the previous achievement 1.5 million? 1 million? And what are polygons? The one line tells most readers nothing useful, whereas the statement "Ironhide's guns are made of ten thousand parts" seems to adequately convey a general idea of sophistication or complexity. (Maybe we add that OP had 10,000 parts, too? With a valid source, of course.)

Since the contributor says, "Most of the article is unnecessary," perhaps that indicates that a film article is the wrong venue for the information. Maybe it needs to go in Computer-generated imagery or Computer animation? Or an article just about CGI in Transformers?
Jim Dunning | talk 02:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming sour grapes for the editor. He seeks to use a plagarized article as a source, which is a problem. The original article was already used in the article, so his inclusions are generally redundant. He feels we should have emphasized other material in that article, and wants HIS view of it used in addition to the existing view. On top of that, he is dismissive of other real-world aspects of the film, like box office take and critical review, showing him to be a one issue editor. He's not willing to listen to any of this. This article's fine for covering the CGI in this film, but he just wants, effectively, two from Column A. His claims to be an expert on the subject are also problematic, as they border on 'arguments from special knowledge'. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

No, we write articles for everyone, not a select group of people. We cannot write articles that contain things that the average reader wouldn't understand. The average reader of a film article needs context as to what a polygon, in reference to the CGI, actually is and does for the image. If the last CGI character had 1.5 million polygons, why is Optimus so special with 1.8 million? What are the advances that makes 1.8 million so special? We cannot write an article for the average reader, and then have a single sentence that caters to only those that understand the concept. If the entire article was about CGI creations and polygons, when sure that's one thing, because you'd write the article and in the process explain what all that means...but it isn't, it's about the film. We need to know what it means to be able to use it beyond a trivial capacity.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Moderator problem. edit war. Need your help.

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)

Or, you could just pay attention to what's been said and supported by others. We don't need duplication of the information in the article, and we don't need a bad link stinkin up the joint. Alientraveller's actions in the last few days are correct as far as I can see, and demanding his "priviledges" (privileges) be revoked isn't likely to get you anywhere. ThuranX (talk) 23:01, 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)

Look at Transformers (film)#Effects and you will see, very clearly, the text "Due to the intricate designs of the Transformers, even the simplest notion of turning a wrist needs 17 visible parts; each of Ironhide's guns are made of ten thousand parts." The article you are trying to add as a reference stole its text from another website which is already cited. There is no need to link to the same information twice. If we appear to be defending Alientraveller it's because he is an extremely skilled editor and, along with Bignole and others, has made this article what it is today (a featured article, no less). -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My problem with it is context. Everyone and their mothers knows what a "part" is. Saying something has 10,000 parts is clear as a bell, but I have no idea what 1.8 million polygons and 2000 texture maps is--or if that is significant. I'm not a CGI animator, so those numbers mean nothing to me. Unless the readers are, they probably mean nothing to them as well. Unless someone can provide some context to what a "polygon" is (not the general definition, I had geometry back in middle school so I know what it is) and "texture maps" and how they relate to creating Prime, then I don't see a reason to include the information. As for the stolen information, if one person reports on it you'll probably find others that have and hopefully they are more reliable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:57, 27 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)

1.8 millions polygons is not clear to me. So, the problem comes down to notability. How notable is it to mention this information? That's my question. I can try to imagine what that means with the limited CGI knowledge I have. I imagine the same for a majority of visitors. Adding one sentence of trivial or false information can hurt this article (not that I'm accusing this information of being false, possibly trivial). Adding something that is notable to a small group of people, but is not notable to a worldwide view, would be trivial and hurt the article. So, what is the notability of adding the number of polygons? ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 21:55, 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)

I agree with the above post to a point: if some new information about the significance of the CGI complexity can be added to this article so that it makes sense to the typical audience of this article, then go ahead (and "Adding one sentence" is not going to provide the necessary context). I have, however, four concerns about assertions the "add" supporters have made:

• They make statements that place all the weight on the CGI at the expense of other topics treated in the article ("Most of the article is unnecessary. We don't need information on how much money it grossed." / "I don't think people care how much it made in europe. Thats for imdb.com")

• Statements that focus on adding the "fact" with disregard for key Wikipedia policies about Verifiability ("And i don't care if it's plagarized (sic) if it's factual.")

• Statements that actually support the argument that their proposed contribution is more appropriate to a technical article about CGI ("superfluous stuff in this article" / "Including the number is informative to people involved in the CGI business" / "Have you looked at some math and scientific articles with all the equations?")

• Even after seeming to agree that additional context may be helpful, instead of just crafting a grammatical, clearly written, properly cited statement from a reliable source that does not duplicate existing information and adding it to the article, they keep "telling" other editors – who don't agree with the need for the change – to make the change for them.

Every edit made adding the polygon information has lacked sufficient context, duplicated existing info, and has not referenced a reliable source. Instead of just complaining to everyone about their removal – after numerous editors have pointed out very specific concerns – find a reliable source that can provide more information for context (and an acceptable citation) and write a few sentences that clearly communicate the CGI achievement to the typical audience of a film article. Also, ensure it doesn't duplicate existing information (this may require more writing). And make the change. Or try something more challenging (and possibly rewarding) by starting (or adding to) an interesting article about the current state of CGI in films where the technical content and tone are appreciated and appropriate to that article's audience. Just some suggestions.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

38 hours to render one frame?

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.

It says that it took 38 hours to render a single frame with ALL the transformers in it. It did not say that it took 38 hours to render every single frame of the movie. You're taking this out of context. Once they get them all in frame, they don't have to re-render them for each succeeding frame...they're already there. By your theory, it would take a 120 minute movie 172,800 hours to render all the frames (given that 24 frames per second is what the human eye processes...though that varies depending on slow motion or sped up shots.)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

you're right. But wiki article gives the wrong impression that it takes 38 hours for each frame.

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 only gives the wrong impression if you take it like you're taking it. To me it says that whenever they had scenes that required that much detail it took them a day and a half to render a frame with all the Transformers in it. I guess any reader could take that a step further and assume that ALL the frames required 38 hours, but we can't help how readers interpret the sentences, and we cannot re-interpret the sentence if it isn't supported by the source material. What I've done is gone in an used Bay's exact quote from the source, this way if readers misunderstand what is being said at least they misunderstand it with the exact words used by Bay.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Because context is lacking from the reffed article I could be wrong about this interpretation, but "project" hours are different than "chronological" hours. That is, each frame may have required 38 hours of total effort, but real-time passage could have been significantly less. For example, if you have 20 CGI artists working on the scene, (assuming all contribute equally) each frame requiring 38 hours to create would actually take less than 2 hours of real time to render.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's another good point that I didn't think of. One person didn't work on the entire film by themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

152 days could easily have been allowed to render the shots after animation was done, considering the limited screentime of the 'bots and 'cons, and previsualization began in 2005. A film which was hamstrung by a $150 million budget like this meant pre-viz would have become the first stage in animation (like 2005 King Kong: the pre-viz was practically the finished product in terms of shots and movement). But anyway, nice use of the quote Bignole, for some neutrality. Alientraveller (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sam killing Megatron

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)

No, he's sent to a rendevouz point before being attacked by Megatron, which makes Prime order Sam to push it into himself. Sam choses to kill Optimus's "brother" instead. Alientraveller (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it reads like Sam chose to kill Megatron rather than get the All Spark to safety, whereas really he did obey Optimus (and almost succeeded) but Megatron caught up to him. It just seems to be missing a bit. Sparrer (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

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)

It's just a choice of wording. Alientraveller (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just that, while they likely signed their respective contracts ages ago, no-one has seen fit to report the fact, so the article is relying on a story with the most up-to-date reliable information available. I'll have a trawl to see if I can find anything more recent. Steve ^{T • C} 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bignole's reversion and the problem(?) of two-sentence paragraphs

[[::User:Bignole|Bignole]] ([[::User talk:Bignole|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Bignole|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)