Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Barricade Removed?

Why was Barricade removed from the Decepticon list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.152.83 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Barricade did appear in the film, but for a short time? If that's the case, here is my opinion of why Barricade may appear in a short time or not appear at all.

1. Barricade did die off-screen during the first film.
2. Barricade died during the beginning or middle of the second film.
3. Baricade cameos in any part of the film.
4. Barricade will survive the second film and will become the leader of the Decepticons in a possible third film.

Jal11497 (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Look for previous discussions please: Orci has not confirmed whether Barricade will actually appear, and according to The Veiled Threat Optimus buried him alive in Rome. Alientraveller (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Showest

Has anyone seen the Showest footage for the film, for those who haven't, there's a preview scene with Sam, Mikeala and BB (Bumblebee). Then there's a montage of clips revealing bots not seen in the first 2 trailers for the film including Mudflap and Skids, Sideswipe, the mighty DEVASTATOR (and 2 Constructicons, Mixmaster and Rampage), Jetfire, Megatron(well, everone knew he was coming back, so it's not that much of a surprise), and........BLACKOUT!!!!!???? User:Dark Warrior D 22:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Decepticon Demolishor and Constructicon Scavenger are officially different characters

Hasbro put a cast list on their web site with Demolishor listed as a seperate Decepticon, and the 7 Constructicons listed as Scavenger, Scrapper, Hightower, Longhaul, Rampage, Overload and Mixmaster. [1] Mathewignash (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we agree the list was inaccurate? Alientraveller (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when it was from a shakey newspaper article. Now it's from Hasbro on their web site. Correct em if I'm wrong, but I've never seen a single source that said Demolishor is a Constructicon besides fans just assuming it from the toy box of the Demolishor being a Terex Excavator. They ALWAYS call him Scavenger. The Demolishor toy box never makes reference to the word "Constructicon", and every picture of the combining toy says "Scavenger". Besdies the fact that they are both red Terex Excavators is there ANY proof Demolishor is a Constructicon? Also, there have been bots who share an alternate mode before. It's not unpresidented, or it's possible Demolishor BECOMES Scavenger, but that's fan theory, and shuldn't be mentioned on the page. Mathewignash (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to err on the side of not trusting the Hasbro site. Hasbro (the company) may be intimately involved with the movie, but that doesn't mean that any statement from anyone or anything associated with Hasbro is reliable. An interview with Aaron Archer would be pretty pretty definitive. A list that's an exact copy of one from a poor news article in a poorly populated news section of Hasbro's website? Not so much. Especially when one of the only other articles in the section explicitly states that Devastator is composed of six Constructicons, directly contradicting this article. Until a better source gives evidence of either a seventh Constructicon or two Decepticons both using the Terex Excavator (which logically seems like way too much of a stretch for a movie that won't even follow the LONG tradition of Megatron renaming himself to Galvatron upon a major upgrade for fear of confusing the audience), I'd suggest we consider the list an unreliable source and ignore it. Most likely, it's either just a Devastator/Brawl style name goof-up or a new twist on Hasbro's long tradition of creating multiple characters that don't exist in the corresponding fiction from a single mold. Teratron (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether it endsup being true or not, isn't it the OFFICIAL information, and therefore the only information worth citing until we learn otherwise? Mathewignash (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur, verifiability not truth is the threshold of Wikipedia, and for the record Demolishor and Scavenger aren't even the same colour. Alientraveller (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that verifiability is the threshold, and it's certainly easy enough to put a link to this page and call it verified. My only objection is reliability. Even ignoring all original research/speculation matters, the same news section with this article listing seven Constructicons has another article explicitly stating Devastator is composed of six Constructicons. On that basis alone, Hasbro's news site has, at best, questionable reliability. I think it's worth mentioning both Demolishor and Scavenger in the article, as there are verifiable references to both. But I think there needs to be a note that there is a lot of contradictory official information. E.g., it was worth noting that Michael Bay claimed Megatron wouldn't be back, but his statement wasn't reliable enough to delete his character entry. Likewise, I argue that this list isn't reliable enough to include Demolishor and Overload as movie chracters without a note that the source is questionable. Teratron (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this clear first off: a USA Today interview with Orci and Kurtzman and Paramount poster listing some of the robots in the film have both stated Demolishor and Scavenger are separate characters, and the former is not a Devastator component. Alientraveller (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've seen the article you mention - "First look: Robo-brawlers big, small in new 'Transformers'". However, it should be noted that it does not contain the writers listing off characters, and listing Demolishor separately from Scavenger. It just lists the characters, and happens to have a few quotes from the writers throughout, though none on either Demolishor or Scavenger. As for the poster, the article on Hasbro's site simply shows a picture of this poster, yes? Meanwhile, there's an article linked in Demolishor's entry where the writers confirm that Demolishor is one of the Constructicons that form Devastator. Of course, in this same interview, they also refer to him as Wheelbot. Given the multiple names that every character had in the first movie, I can't see how anyone would be surprised that even the people most intimately involved in the movie flub some of the names every now and then. Also, while the toys for Demolishor and Scavenger are different shades of red, that's hardly conclusive proof of anything. Ultimately, this all goes back to my main point from my last post. We should list both Demolishor and Scavenger, but there needs to be a note that there IS contradictory evidence as to whether they're different bots or different names for the same bot. Maybe I should refine my previous statement to say it's an NPOV issue rather than a reliability issue. Teratron (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they are brothers User:Dark Warrior D 15:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not noticing before Alientraveller, but I see you changed the description for Demolishor to say he's predominately white on the day you stated he's not the same color as Scavenger. Do you have a verifiable source for this statement? Looking through the references listed for Demolishor, I see that the slashfilm story uses a picture of a white Terex Excavator for a comparison, highlighting the visible RN 400 to prove it's the same vehicle. However, this is just a picture of a random Terex Excavator, not any material from the movie. The lighting in the trailer referenced is so poor, I'm not seeing how you can reliably conclude what color his vehicle mode is in the movie. Clearly, the section with the RN 400 is white. But the multiple verifiable Demolishor toy phots clearly show a red excavator with white trim in exactly that portion of the vehicle. In fact, most of the clearly visible white portions of the wheelbot in the trailer that I can make out are also white on the predominately red Demolishor figure. The Scavenger figure is extremely similar, also being predominately red with white trim in the same locations. Given the highly reliable and verifiable identification of Demolishor as a predominately red excavator, I think your statement that he's predominately white and usage of that statement as evidence of Demolishor being a separate character from Scavenger really needs some strong backup. On a similar note, is there any source for your statement that Overload is a red Constructicon? So far, I can only find contradicting evidence for his very existence, much less any clear source for his color scheme. I seem to recall references to an unknown red Constructicon a while back. Are you just assuming that this must be Overload? If so, that strikes me as the sort of unsourced speculation that you are normally quick to delete from this page... (Oh, and apologies for practically writing an entire article every time I post. I'm not very good at being concise. >_<) Teratron (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they are both red excavators. They toys are both certainly red. Mathewignash (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with Mathewignash that for now we should list them as separate characters due to multiple (non-film) sources listing them as separate characters. However, I really doubt that the movie will reflect the toys or the "cast list poster." Rather, Demolishor and Scavenger are one character (whichever his in-film name will be remains to be seen), fought by Prime in Shanghai and then surviving to form Devastator's torso in Egypt. — JGoodman (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Blackout or Grindor?

I saw they added Blackout to the movie cast list, I'd assume it's because you seen a robot who looks like him in the trailer from ShoWest. I was just curious do we have any confirmation it's Blackout, because a toy from Hasbro just leaked in box, and he's a Similar looking helicopter named Grindor. [2] Just thought it might be worth mentioning since we have no official name confirmation. Mathewignash (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked Orci both thanking him/asking him about resurrecting Blackout, he didn't deny it or plant a seed of doubt about Megatron's right hand man being resurrected alongside him. Alientraveller (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Grindor has been confirmed to be playable in The ROTF video game, so he could be a replacement for Blackout. User:Dark Warrior D 16:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Budget

I have no problem with it, but shouldn't we mention that it is almost the same as that of The Titanic? The Titanic's budget, and this film's are almost the same, and The Titanic's was also the largest film budget in history. Altenhofen 05:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Titanic was topped long ago. Bay's films have always been relatively low budget and cost effective. Alientraveller (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What film topped the titanics Budget? The War of the worlds article stated that they where planning to top the 198 Million dollar budget set by the titanic, and become the most expensive film EVER. If that's true, and this film lived up to it's budget, then it will obtain the title of "Most expensive film ever made" (even though War of the Worlds was only $132 Million) Altenhofen 19:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

King Kong, Spider-Man 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End... Alientraveller (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Man, 'Titanic' is a movie. 'The Titanic' as you call it is a boat. Uker (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Overload in Devastator

In the picture in which Devastator was revealed, linked in the reference named 'devrevealed', the blueprint for Devastator shows a component in the top left listed as forming his back. Since we know the correspondence for all the other robots to his bodyparts, we know it is Overload. Uker (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the blueprint picture that appeared when Devastator was first revealed showing an obscured "back" component, it makes sense that Overload would be this component. I think it's still original research / speculation to just say that he is the back piece though, especially given contradictory evidence that Overload even exists. I'd think a sourced statement that Overload is listed as a seventh Constructicon and a sourced statement that the blueprint pic shows an as-yet-unrevealed back component along with the six known components is strong enough backup to then conclude that Overload likely is this component. Agreed? On a side note, I wonder if perhaps Overload was possibly either an early concept that was scrapped but still keeps popping up or a late addition after the Devastator toy was finalized. The latter especially would really clear up a lot of the inconsistencies regarding his existence. Teratron (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: upon closer inspection, the blueprint says 'BACK HOE' and not just 'BACK'. This doesn't imply that he's not the back. He probably is. Also, I haven't found any source that says he's red. Contarily, from the concept picture, I'd guess he's the yellow thing coming out of his back. BTW, my money is on him being a JCB 3CX back hoe. Uker (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The concept art of Devs with all the silhouetted contruction vehicles in the background isn't an entirely accurate presentation of how he looks in the movie (though it's close), but I do think it's accurate in that it portrays him as being composed of 7 Constructicons. While you can say it's corroborated by the "poster" listing the robots in the film, that source, while legit, is obviously incomplete and IMO not 100% accurate. There's other, better evidence, visual and otherwise, that suggests there are 7 Contructicons and could give us a clue as to the nature of this "Overload" character.

First off, it is safe to assume that Demolishor — or Scavenger, if you assume there's two Decepticons with Terex O&K RH400 excavator alt modes (I don't. I think "Scavenger" and Demolishor are one and the same.); we can see the excavator's name printed near Devs' right shoulder — forms Devastator's torso. Also, it's clear who composes Devastator's limbs: Scrapper, Long Haul, Rampage, and Hook Hightower. We've seen two of them in their robot forms in the new trailer. Scrapper is seen in the scene where Starscream shoots at Sam & Mikaela, while Long Haul can be seen underwater along with Mixmaster and an unidentifiable tread-bot (looks like the red one, in which case it's not Rampage). As components of Devastator, it's clear from the trailer that all four "limb" characters are as they've been described in the past. We can clearly make out Scrapper and Hightower as the arms, and we can see the green Long Haul and yellow, treaded Rampage as the legs.

Now, the confusion about the remainder of Devastator's makeup is the nature of the red tread-bot in the new trailer. Some people assume that he's either Rampage or Scavenger, either because he has tread-whips like the former or is red like the latter. However, he's the wrong size and color to be either. He can't be Rampage as I've already pointed out that Rampage is yellow, not red, as can be seen in the ShoWest footage and the new trailer (look closely at Devs' left leg; yellow and treaded). He can't be Scavenger because he's too small. He's similar in size to Bumblebee, while Demolishor towers over Optimus. If Scavenger is indeed a separate character from Demolishor (I doubt it), then he must be as big as Demolishor as they share the same alt-mode, and that particular model excavator is far bigger than a Camaro. So, Rampage is ruled out on color grounds and "Scavenger" is ruled out on size grounds.

So, who is he? Odds are, he's a seventh Constructicon, likely this "Overload" guy. Some people assume he forms Devastator's back. However, I think he forms the face. Mixmaster is all grey/silver. The concept art of Devs shows his head to be all grey, in which case we'd assume Mixmaster comprises the entirety of his head. However, he has a red face in the trailer. Where's this red come from, though? It has to be the red tread-bot. So, while Mixmaster does form most of Devastator's head, Overload serves as Devastator's jaws and optics ("sensory Overload"?). Obviously, there was a change to Devastator's design after that concept art was created, that change being making the 7th Constructicon into Devastator's face by attaching him to the from of Mixmaster. It's the only thing that makes sense. As to Overload's alt-mode, he's obviously some kind of treaded vehicle (are there treaded backhoe loaders?) since he has the same tread-whips Rampage has.

So, let's review:

Demolishor (or Scavenger): Torso, red
Long Haul: Right Leg, green
Rampage: Left Leg, yellow
Scrapper: Right Arm, yellow
Hightower: Left Arm, yellow
Mixmaster: Head (excluding face), grey/silver
Overload: Face, red

And thus ends my pointlessly long but most likely correct theory about the number and identities of the Constructicons. — JGoodman (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How's this for Overload, ie the red bot fighting Bumblebee, ie the top left component in the Devastator blueprint? http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/4854/27700333662c51a0d09a.jpg Back hoe... CHECK! Red/black... CHECK! Car-like scale... CHECK! Treads... CHECK! Uker (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here I am again with a new update. It seems like Overload (assuming he exists), does form the back of Devastator and may not be a back-hoe. Upon closer inspection, in the Devastator blueprint, each component always has the vehicle type at the bottom, with the bodypart in some of the other three sides, followed by a number. Well, the bottom label isn't seen for the top left component, and the 'BACK' thing is on the right side, so it is indeed the bodypart designation. What looked to be an E, is in fact a 7. So there, we're back to not knowing what vehicle he is. I did ad the colour since the blueprint poster shows some yellow mass protruding from his back which we don't know what it corresponds to. Uker (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, the concept art (or "blueprint," as you call it) of Devastator revealed earlier this year is somewhat outdated. While it's correct in stating that Devastator is comprised of seven Constructicons, it's clear from the new trailer than his overall design has changed somewhat from that earlier concept. Devastator now has a red face, implying that Mixmaster no longer forms the entirety of his head. It also implies there are two red Constructicons now. Beforehand, the only known red Constructicon was Demolishor/Scavenger. Now we have another red Constructicon, which is the red tread-bot fighting Bumblebee in the trailer. The red tread-bot cannot be Scavenger since he's too small; he is, however, just the right size to serve as Devastator's face. He also cannot be Rampage, as Rampage is yellow; we see him as Devastator's left leg in the trailer. Therefore, there are two tread-bots. So, by process of elimination and by analyzing differences between Devastator's appearance in the concept art and how he looks in the trailer, we can see that the mysterious seventh Constructicon "Overload" is indeed the red tread-bot seen in the trailer, and that he most likely serves as the face.

Finally, we cannot be certain that the tread-bot seen underwater is Rampage. It's clear that there are two tread-bots, one being Rampage, who is yellow, and the other being "Overload," who is the red one (Hightower may also be a tread-bot, but we haven't seen his robot form in either the toys or the trailer). Since we cannot clearly discern the color of the tread-bot seen underwater, he must be considered unidentifiable at this point. I changed a line in the section on the Constructicons to reflect this. We should continue to regard him as unidentified until either the movie is released or some reliable source clears the tread-bot's identity up between then and now. — JGoodman (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. First of all, I disagree with your line of thinking about the red colour in Dev's face implying a new bot. For all we know, the red could come out of Mixmaster's mixer. Also, even if there was another bot forming the face, there's nothing that implies against the existence of a bot forming the back as stated by the concept art. For all we know, if we're free to imagine, Dev could now be formed of eight bots then. One unseen one in the back and another one in the face. About the bot in the bottom of the sea, I'd say there is no doubt. The scene shows a robot design that undoubtedly matches the toy we've seen for Rampage. We've already seen all major constructicons. In the event that we were missing some (Overload exists and whatnot), I'd say there's NO WAY it could be one that could even compare to the scale range of Long Haul. Uker (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's probable that the red tread-bot, who is almost certainly Overload, doesn't form Devastator's face. After all, I did say "most likely," which means probable but by no means certain. However, what is certain is that he is the seventh Constructicon. We know Demolishor (or Scavenger, if you will) forms the torso, Long Haul and Rampage form the legs, Scrapper and Hightower the arms, and Mixmaster the head. We can tell this from the trailer, and is consistent with the toys and concept art. However, given the fact that Devastator's design is NOT identical to the concept art, that the concept art is vague when it comes to the seventh Constructicon (both the silhouette of the alt-mode and the labelling are obscured), and that we don't know what part of Devastator "Red-tread"/Overload serves as, we should simply have the entry on Overload consist either of his name with no description or a description that uses conditional language (i.e., "May be the red Constructicon seen in the trailer," "May form Devastator's back," "Possibly the red Constructicon seen fighting Bumblebee"). Now, it is possible that the red tread-bot is not Overload, in which case he's an eighth Constructicon, but there is no evidence that Bay & Co. have increased the Contructicon count from seven to eight. Since we do have sources listing seven Constructicons but none indicating eight, we should assume that there are only seven, in which case "Overload" is the red tread-bot.

As to the identity of the tread-bot seen underwater, it is most certainly NOT "undoubtedly" Rampage. Both Rampage and "Overload" have the tread-whips on their arms, though the former is yellow (we see him as Devs' left leg in the trailer and the Showest footage) and the latter is red. While the treadbot seen underwater could be Rampage, it's just as likely it could be the red tread-bot. In fact, there are sufficient similarities between the red tread-bot and the tread-bot seen underwater to believe that they are the same character. I can provide some images if you want. In any case, it's not clear, and we can't assume one way or the other as to who it is we saw. — JGoodman (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaving Overload at just the name is fine with me. I guess it's the fairest thing to do. I don't think adding 'probably' statements is very encyclopedic, so I'd rather leave it at that. About the underwater bot, I have two issues. 1. Size. The red treadbot is about half as big as Rampage, who comes from a monster-sized bulldozer. 2. Body shape. Rampage has this spider-like stance, with its front legs bent forward in way balance wouldn't allow for a two-legged bot. This doesn't seem to fit the tread bot fighting BB, who seems to walk on two legs, or (call me crazy if you wish) have a snake-like body. Uker (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Humans and Transformers

Uhh, who moved the humans below the Transformers?

I know relatively no one cares about the humans, besides Megan Fox, but why? I liked the way it was because it was like they were saving the best for last. Aw well. I hope someone puts em back where they were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.184.230 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Randommman29 (talk · contribs) apparently wants the sectioning to be in alphabetical order, but he's also stated he believes the humans aren't important, when clearly they are the protagonists in the films. People should just accept things are different from the comics and cartoons. Alientraveller (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jetfire walking on a cane

Man, I don't want to sound rude, but asking for a source on Jetfire walking on a cane is like asking a source for Skids being green. I think it was the first thing ever that was known about Jetfire, dating as far back as the first trailer (not the teaser), with the scene with Scorponok jumping over him. Then there's the scene of him in the Boneyard on the ShoWest footage, where he is seen walking with it as clearly as you could ask for, and there's the scene in the theatrical where you see him approaching Sam, where you can also see the cane as clear as it could get. Also, you can take a look at his toys. I don't think any additional source citations are needed, since he is seen with the cane in ref named 'trailerbreakdown2', already referenced in Jetfire's section. Anyway, I leave this for ya: Jetfire's cane. Uker (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Constructicon Error

There's something wrong here :

Demolishor,[95] a predominantly white Terex O&K RH 400 hydraulic mining excavator, who is the protector of a small Decepticon community in Shanghai.[107][108] The writers simply called him "Wheelbot".[19] The Constructicons / Devastator, a 100 to 120 foot tall warrior formed by several combining construction vehicles, who walks in a four-legged fashion resembling a gorilla.[103] His jaws can open up to form some sort of suction vortex, and he seems to have grappling hooks he is seen using to climb a pyramid.[2] In the first film, the name "Devastator" was mistakenly given to Brawl, a tank. In the theatrical trailer for the movie, Long Haul, Mixmaster, and two unidentified Constructicons are seen heading down to the bottom of the ocean in hunt of Megatron's corpse, ultimately reactivating their fallen leader. Scavenger,[95] a Terex O&K RH 400 hydraulic mining excavator. He forms Devastator's torso.[109]

Are "Demolishor" and "Scavenger" The same thing or is this a mistake?

Also "Overload" doesn't have a write up of what it turns into, or what part it plays in the forming of "Devastator"

Thanks in advance 210.215.75.3 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the official material has been listing Scavenger and Demolishor as seperate bots, but yeah, they sure look alike. Until the movie comes out to correct this, we went with the "official" information. Mathewignash (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Demolishor is beheaded, probably by Prime, in Shanghai, which we know is towards the beginning of the movie. Scavenger is there to form Devastator in the final scene in Egypt. They're separate characters, so stop removing either of the two. Uker (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For my own curiosity's sake, is there any source for that information? I've seen speculation about whether the wheelbot from the trailer is killed in that scene or escapes, but I haven't seen anything with any degree of reliability to it. Also, is there any source that says Devastator is definitely formed from a second Excavator bot? Given that we already know that at least two bots get resurrected in this film, it's no stretch to believe the wheelbot in the trailer could get killed at the start of the film and still show up to help form Devastator at the end. Teratron (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Uker came to his conclusion based off the Showest footage. He had a post on this over at the TFW2005 boards. Personally, I don't think an unclear one-second clip is sufficient to establish the fate of Demolishor and/or determine whether or not there will be two identical RH400 excavator wheel-bots in the film. While the film is superior canon to everything else in the live-action continuity, it hasn't been released yet, so we should stick to referring to them as separate characters since we only have access to inferior canon material, i.e. the toys.

Also, semi-related to this as well as to last week's exchange about Overload, it seems a new Devastator toy is out, and this time it's an actual combiner and it's composed of seven Constructicons. The seventh is Overload, and as excpected he's red. However, the toy portrays him as a dump truck rather than a tread-bot. Of course, the trailer establishes the two red Constructicons as a wheelbot and a smaller treadbot. But once again, though the toys are inferior canon we must go by them until the movie comes out and clarifies things. — JGoodman (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Uker, I know this "Demolisher gets decapitated" thing is a pet theory/speculation of yours. I saw the thread. However, I'm not convinced. I just re-watched that part of the Showest footage several times over just a minute ago, and I don't see anything falling or flying off of Demolisher, much less anything clearly displaying decapitation. I see an explosion, and I see the robot move a bit, but that's about it. In fact, while it does vaguely look like him, I can't be 100% certain that it is Demolisher, but I'll assume it is since it doesn't really look at all like anyone else. The whole scene lasts at most only one second. It is not clear what exactly happens to Demolisher. It's certainly not sufficient evidence to claim as fact that he gets decapitated. Therefore, until the movie comes out to clarify things, the whole "Demolisher gets decapitated" claim should be considered original research. — JGoodman (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Man, I'm not being a child here. Look at Demolishor's mandibles in the screenshot of him destroying the overpass and then look at the top of that chunk of metal in the ShoWest trailer. It's not speculation. It's a matter of realizing what it is and then it becomes clear as day. I leave the link again just in case here. BTW, I don't know what you expected to see fall off Demolishor. The only things we have is Optimus Prime jump hanging off his head when he breaks the overpass, and then that shot that coincidentally looks like a HUGE head with mandibles IDENTICAL to those seen in Demolishor, exploding on a street in Shanghai. Sure, we could get Pastafarian and say it may not be Demolishor that just got his head chopped off, but hey... Uker (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said you were being a child. In any case, I've looked at the Showest footage and the corresponding screenshot ad nauseam. I've seen your thread already (saw it last week). I'm not convinced. You think it's clear that Demolishor gets his head cut off. You think it's "clear as day" and therefore not speculation. For me, if you or anyone else claims as fact that a character gets his head cut off, I except clear-cut (no pun intended) evidence showing a head being removed from a body, not some <1 second flash where you can't tell for sure what happens. Said snippet of footage does not unambiguously show that Demolishor gets his block knocked off.

I have my own pet theory regarding the Constructicons that we discussed last week. For me, I think it's clear who functions as what, the key word there being "think." I think Overload is the red treadbot and he functions as Devastator's face. You think Demolishor gets his head lopped off. The difference between our claims is that I'm not sticking mine into the article as if it were fact. However correct I think I am, I still regard my claims as mere speculation. You should do so as well in regards to your own claims. — JGoodman (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did put it in the article. You just accepted it being removed, as I will also have to, seeing that you (and I guess others) doubt what I consider to be fact. No hard feelings then. Uker (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I put what in the article? All I've done in the four edits I've made to it was remove unconfirmed/unconfirmable material. Things that aren't properly sourced or are based on vague, ambiguous sources don't belong, and any theories & speculation belongs here in the discussion page or in online forums. — JGoodman (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody did add Overload being red and forming the face, which I removed. I though it had been you. Sorry if it wasn't. Uker (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's okay. I never saw that edit. Of course, I'm not the only one to come to the conclusion that Overload forms Devs' face. Out of curiosity, I did some Googling after I thought of my idea and I found a post by one of your fellow posters over at the TFW2005 boards that said pretty much the same thing. Odds are, someone saw either my post here or his post there or came to the same conclusion independently, and then insisted on making the wiki article reflect the "Overload is Devastator's face" theory as if it were fact, when of course it's still speculation. — JGoodman (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced voice credits.

It appears that some of our anonymous contributors insist on adding voice credits to several Transformers without providing a source. This nonsense needs to stop. Whoever keeps doing this needs to either provide sources or desist with those edits. I think that we should move to make this article semi-protected if these sort of edits persist. We shouldn't have to keep going in an deleting stuff that shouldn't have been added in the first place. — JGoodman (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Um. You must have missed when one of these people said that they know they're not the real actors, but they were adding them in order for Michael Bay to take them into consideration. Go figure. Uker (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw what they wrote, and it doesn't belong in the article. Only confirmed voice talent belongs there. — JGoodman (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, besides if you listen to the third movie trailer closely, you'll hear that Mudflap already has a voice actor due to a shout that comes from the character. The voice actors will likely be revealed sooner or later. Evilgidgit (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, JGoodman, I'd dare to say I do have a clue of what belongs in Wikipedia and what does not. I wasn't defending the people adding those voice credits. Contrarily, I was remarking that the edit was more pathetic than just adding unsourced information. It was deliberately adding false information for a silly personal cause. The 'Go figure' part at the end of my post should have told you that. Uker (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I should've asked for clarification on what you meant. I'm not particularly good at reading people and/or their intentions and sometimes misinterpret what they meant to convey. :( — JGoodman (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Things will be fine as long as they're discussed in civilized terms. ;) Uker (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mudflap

it looks like devastator sucks him into his mouth at the end of a trailer do u think we should mention it AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would we? This page isn't here to post intricate details about the trailers when we have no idea where they will figure into the plot. So in other words, no.AristosRietze (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no point. The scene is not relevant in any way to the generality of the movie. Uker (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

i meant it looks like he dies AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

However we don't know if he dies, it's just a snippit. Mathewignash (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Time to request semi-protected status?

It seems like 90+% of all the edits in the past several weeks have involved anonymous contributors adding content that shouldn't be there (unconfirmed voice credits, random nonsense, and sometimes even vandalism) and regular contributors having to revert those edits. Since almost every anonymous contributor seem to not have any worthwhile content to add and the rest of us have been mostly having to police this article to revert bad or unnecessary changes, I move that this page should be placed in semi-protected status for the time being. That way, we won't have to change or add to the article unless there's some new information regarding the movie that comes out from a legitimate resource and don't have to waste our times reverting pointless or improper edits.

Does anyone second this motion? — JGoodman (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

well that seems logical =^-^=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Uker (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll put in the request after I eat dinner. EDIT: I have just placed the request for semi-protection status. Hopefully it'll be approved so we don't have to waste our time policing the article for bogus edits. — JGoodman (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Arcee redefined

Well, it seems like the conception of Arcee has changed. She's now an entity composed of three bikes, which probably don't even have their own names in the movie. In any case, we only know the name for Chromia, from her toy. Maybe it's better to remove the bulleted list with the characters and maybe mention Chromia as an exception for having got a name. This would imply the deletion of her bio data. If everyone's OK with that I'll do it sometime soon. Uker (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

From the looks of it Arcee's bikes were given indivudual names and characteizations in the toy line, but in the comic and novel it's all just Arcee. Mathewignash (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't go looking for a source right now, as all the relevant sites are filtered here at work, but I do remember older news that stated Arcee was the combined robot. Now the newer information seems to confirm this, so it's definitely worth noting in the article. Just one note of caution: the related books and comics for the first film had several (sometimes critical) plot points that were directly contradicted by the actual movie (e.g. when Megatron was moved to the dam, which was critical to the prequel novel), along with several others that weren't contradicted, but also weren't supported (e.g. Barricade's fate). As in other situations where there are multiple contradictory sources of official information, I suggest both be pointed out. I.e., list Arcee as the combined bot for now, but still note that the pink motorcycle toy is named Arcee. Teratron (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I'm wary about using novels & comics as information sources as they often contradict each other and may end up contradicting the film despite any "Official" status they may have. For example, Barricade has had several different fates. We have no clue whether or not he'll be in the film. While they may be very similar, the RotF novel & comic adaptations may not reflect the events of the film. In fact, I've read the novelization spoilers, and there seem to be inconsistencies between it and what's been shown in the trailers and even some things that appear to be omitted. I also doubt that any adaptation would be exactly like the film (novelizations rarely are exactly like the film), or else where's the surprise? While Arcee might be one character capable of splitting into three independent components (sort of like the reverse of the Twins and the Constructicons), the three cycle-bots might end up being separate characters. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks. In any case, unless there's some policy against having novelization material in an article about a film, I have no problem in having said material in the article so long as it's mentioned as being as such. — JGoodman (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

New TV spots

Did anyone catch the new TV spot yet? Pure, concentrated win! — JGoodman (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's three of them. They're linked in the MichaelBay.com front page as downloadable QuickTime HD files on Vimeo. Uker (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the "Forms" one during Monday Night RAW. The others were pretty cool as well. Five weeks to go. Can't wait (though I guess I have to). — JGoodman (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Breakaway

Is Breakaway in the film, tough question. He's been confirmed to be playable in the game and he has a toy in the movie line. BUT... no one has confirmed or denied that he will actually BE in the film... so it remains to be seen whether or not he will actually feature in the film. User:Dark Warrior D 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)