Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

So, Arcee is one bot with three bikes?

Just to make sure, Arcee is one robot made of 3 bikes, right? Each bike has a different name, so I have a feeling that it is 3 robots that combine into Arcee rather than 3 bikes forming 1 robot. I could be wrong, but I just have a hunch.Enryū6473 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the transformers movie site (transformersmovie.com) has new stuff, but it doesn't have pics of robots that I can find yet. When that comes up (I'll be cheaking as often as I can) I'll try to get them on the pages for the repective robots.Enryū6473 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, if you check the article, you'll see that Arcee is simply three bikes with a single mind. No combined robot mode, at least not in the movie. Uker (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, thats why I was asking. I just have that hunch...Enryū6473 (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just checking our facts here, but what is the proof that Arcee is a single mind in the movie? Do they ever actually say it? In the toy bio they say Arcee (the red/pink one) commands a "strike team, made up of robots similar to her in attitude and design." Is there any reason wy she can't just be in charge of the other two? Mathewignash (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it has been explicitly said by the writers. uKER (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OKay, I just wanted to cite something specific. I havn't found it. Just sitting down and watching the film by itself, is there anything that would indicate that Arcee is one entity with three bodies, and not just one one of the bikes who commands the other two as her troops? Mathewignash (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

By any chance, didn't you read the post right above yours? uKER (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the question I had. I asked for a source, saying "I think" isn't an answer I wanted to cite a source one way or the other. Moreover I want to know if there is anything in the film itself that points one way or the other. Mathewignash (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I may be incorrect, but even you specifically said, Mathewignash, that info from the toybio should be listed in the toybio section and info on the movie should be listed in the film section. What's stated in the toybio isn't necessarily translated into the film. Anyways, I listed a few things in the film at the bottom of this discussion page that would indicate that Arcee is a hive mind. The writers, who were overridden by Bay, are clearly not the last say on what happens in the film; Bay is. But because Bay never specified his intentions (and if it were his intentions that they were three separate bots, he did a terrible show portraying it like that), shouldn't we be not relying on speculations of intentions and relying solely on what is seen in the film, that Arcee was all three bikes? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

President

Is this the first movie to ever reference Obama as President? Also, how did they do the filming for part of the President if the filming began in May 2008? Did they just wait until after the election or did they film two alternate scenes (one with McCaina and one with Obama)? Also, when did the filming end? One of my friends said she actually saw a news flash with the real Obama in the background. Emperor001 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama was only mentioned in a voice-over, which is easily done in post-production, and the "news flash" is similarly done post-production. There's really nothing spectacular about it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But is this the first film to reference him as President? If so, isn't that significant? Emperor001 (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter; stop bringing up trivial stuff in here.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just like how they referenced Swine Flu with Simmons in the meat locker. Simple changes. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 20:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Protectobots

Anyone noticed a Protectobot (search and rescue, fire department vehicle) in the desert scene? It is olso shown in one of the Gallery photos on the official Transformers movie site.

U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt

I think the story page should mention the sinking of the USS U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt , it was important enough.All you have is "After Prime's death, Megatron orders a full-scale assault on the planet." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.39.41 (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but we don't have to mention everything that happened in the movie, just the important plot points. The Roosevelt's sinking is not that worth mentioning. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Mathewignash (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This off subject....but you ever noticed the terrible editing in regards to the carrier scenes? flight op footage (non CGI footage) before the sinking of the TR is of the USS Stennis. Its quite a turnoff when it comes to folks like me who are in the military and have an eye for accuracy.. --Ryanyomomma (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Roberto Orci Arcee has her two sisters, she isn't a three part Transformers, even if that's what he wanted

On the Don Murphy Message board Roberto Orci said he wrote Arcee as one character with three bodies, but Bay went with them being three individuals like the Hasbro bios. http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showpost.php?p=1379637&postcount=22916 Seems worth mentioning Mathewignash (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? That is original research. --71.108.238.203 (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not OR. Adding into the article with proper sourcing. --uKER (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's quoting the film writer about what the producer did with a source, actually. Mathewignash (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think what Orci says has very little weight when compared to what Bay actually has happen in the movie, especially since Orci clearly admitted that Bay overruled him. But even then, I don't think that Orci can really speak for Bay, and Bay never specifically commented on his intentions for the motorcycles. That being said, if Orci was correct and if Bay wanted to portray the motorcycles as three individuals like the Hasbro bios, he did a very very poor job of portraying it as such. If he really thought of them as Arcee, Chromia, and Moonracer/Elita-One, why is it that when Lennox calls for Arcee and only Arcee (twice), all three motorcycles respond? Why is it that only the purple motorcycle (supposedly Moonracer) the only motorcycle given a spoken line and then credited as Arcee at the end? Never are they called "Sisters." What I am basically saying is that I don't think that we can rely on Orci for Bay's intentions regarding the motorcycles (and by the way, I'm not arguing one way or another on original research because I have no idea what OR is), and rather than speculate on intentions, we should only be running on what we see in the movie that Arcee is all three motorcycles. But that's just my opinion; not going to start an edit war over it, especially if no one else agrees with me. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. The movie is largely inconclussive in the nature of Arcee, as is in Devastator's. Maybe tomorrow Bay comes up and invalidates what Orci is now saying, but for the time being it's the best we have. BTW, for the sake of your own image, I would stop naming the purple bike. It only makes you look like a fanboy. No offense. --uKER (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been looking at the video of the film and it is very open to interpertation. If I recall we went from Arcee being 1 characters with 3 bodies initially, then swapped to 3 characters when the Chromia toy bio leaked, then swapped back based on infrom from the writers saying it was one characters (still looking to source that). Now the writers say the wrote it as one, but Bay changed it to three. That seems to be the latest info available. I think we should write the article as it being three to the best of out knowledge, but acknoledge that there is some confusion on the matter because of the differences between the writers and producer. Mathewignash (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

HA! I KNEW IT. THE SECTION AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE (by me) ASKED THAT!!!!!!! I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT!!!!! (ok, sry.)Enryū6473 ^Talk 23:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

At uKER, no offense taken. I really don't care what image I have, and I'm not a fanboy. My emphasizing the whole Moonracer/Elita-One thing is that it's all speculative, no one even really knows her name and the guessing is pointless. I think that we are all on the same page that the movie is being inconclusive, and that we just do not have (and probably will never have) an official statement from Bay himself explaining the motorcycles. I do think that it's a good idea to mention this ongoing dispute on the page, and the low probability of it ever being clarified. What I do have a problem with is leaving the pages as "the Sisters" because there is no mentioning of "the Sisters", "Chromia" or any of the other names in the movie itself. I feel that we should be relying solely on what we see in the movie, namely only Arcee, when describing the movie. Yes the movie is infuriatingly inconclusive, but all of the other stuff, and I don't know if you call it original research or what not, just does not seem appropriate given that it isn't in the movie. I mean, honestly, how can it be right to credit Grey DeLisle with voicing "the sisters" when Bay's own credits say she voices "Arcee"? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought about the voice acting when I changed the section but couldn't make up my mind about it. Can anyone confirm whether any bike besides the pink one are seen talking in the movie? If it is so, it would somewhat go with Arcee being only the pink one. If more of the bikes spoke, it would somewhat go with the idea that they are all Arcee. --uKER (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The pink didnt speak it was the purple only The Movie Master 1 (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The pink motorcycle never speaks; it was only the purple motorcycle speaking. Do we now need to speculate that Arcee was the purple one to satisfy those who still argue the three motorcycles were three Autobots? Rolls eyes. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the thing to go by here is the fact that Grey DeLisle is not credited as three characters or as "The Sisters" or as anything like that - she's credited as Arcee. I think it's pretty dang silly to go making up a group name for them and presenting the info in this way. - Chris McFeely (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am respectfully requesting a rollback on the Revenge of the Fallen, Arcee, Chromia, and Ironhide pages to reflect that Arcee is a single entity made up of three motorcycles. Especially when describing what goes on in the movie, the only thing that we should rely on is what we SEE in the movie, and I think that we (emphasis on the we part) have done a pretty good job of showing how the movie portrays Arcee as a single entity made up of all three motorcycles. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But for the individual pages we don't take ONLY the movies into account, but all fictional appearances, including toy bios. If you want to add a note that the interpertation of Arcee/Chromia/Other is confused, I'll back that up. Mathewignash (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There was an interview where bay said that he didn't like arcee so he killed her off. There is your proof right there 2 of the motorcycles wounded presumed dead and bay only said arcee not arcee and moonracer.... --71.108.238.203 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

They were reffered to as the Arcee twins at the beginning of the movie hence their sisters The Movie Master 1 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a popular misconcepticon. I think they didn't say "Arcee twins" it was "Arcee, twins", as in Arcee, Mudflap and Skids. Still doesn't answer the question though, as it's possible that where Arcee lead, her sisters followed, as she was their leader. Mathewignash (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)\\

It was definitely, "Arcee, twins" with the twins meaning Mudflap and Skids. Otherwise, there would not have been any scenes with Mudflap and Skids chasing after Sideways. But can someone PLEASE give me some official source where they are called "Sisters"??? Until then, will you please stop calling them that on the Wiki page? 71.141.228.68 (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Chromia's toy box. Mathewignash (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And it's been decided that we're going to use the toy box description to describe what happens in the movie? Sounds like a terrible idea, and I thought you specifically said that should not happen, but if that's the general consensus, just let me know. 71.141.228.68 (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested plot corrections

Hi, I'm following instructions to not edit the page directly, but rather, contribute to the discussion.

My main concern is with the section in the plot that deals with the forest battle.

Firstly, there is a typo: "persue" is not a word. It is correct to say that Sam and Optimus are "pursued" by Megatron.

Secondly, I agree with the summary of the battle, although stylistically, I must interject that the phrase "ensuing battle" is used twice, and the first time, redundantly. Optimus Prime engaged Megatron in battle. "Ensuing" better describes the battle's condition upon the appearance of Starscream and Grindor.

Finally, an analytical point. I agree with those who summarized the battle as one in which Optimus Prime appears to have the upper hand: he is clearly superior to Starscream and Grindor, and in all one-on-one situations with Megatron, he is the one to inflict greater damage. At the moment of his death by posterior impalement, Megatron says "you are so weak". This is consonant with Megatron's accusation in the first film (where, as many will remember, he was never troubled by Optimus Prime in battle): "you fight for the weak and that is why you lose." Many have speculated that Prime's drastically improved performance in belligerence and aggressiveness is due to the absence of humans in the forest fight, allowing Prime to focus solely on combat. Prime's demise comes from his one moment of "weakness": calling out for Sam. I consider this to be crucial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latinoeuropa (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed content from the Human cast section

I removed the bits about Nolasco and the dog. Nolasco isn't in the movie, so it doesn't make much sense for him to be mentioned in the cast, and the dog... well, the dog isn't human, so it doesn't need to be in the "Human" heading.

Relevant diffs in case the content (complete with references) can be worked back into the article elsewhere:[1][2] EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording and Grammer

Some of the wording and grammer at the moment is terrible. "Suddenly Mudflap and Skids argue," .... some parts look like they've been written by a small child, and probably have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.136.12 (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you got a problem with that, why don't you edit it? --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree here. I've experienced people on message boards who deride Wikipedia as having some wrong pit of information or bad grammer, but then they spend all their time posting about it, instead of simply CORRECTING it. If you see something that can be improved be useful and try to do it better. We all appreciate people who help. Mathewignash (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's "grammar", not "grammer". People who want to be picky about English wording and grammar should learn how to spell.

Bathrobe (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

PK1 returns

Plo Koon 1 is back after his blocking by Jauerback lapsed a few hours ago. I reverted his edit concerning Bonecrusher (didn't you guys talk this over already, right Uker?). Editors, beware. --Eaglestorm (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He just added out of nowhere that Megatron and Starscream would be returning for a "third sequel" (they're just planning the second sequel and this guy has info on the third one; he's a god) --uKER (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Toy "waves"

This article refers to Hasbro's toys as being released in large "waves" spanning multiple price points, and applies specific types of toys to those "waves". However, "waves" are traditionally used in the toy industry to refer to specifically sorted shipments of specific price points. For the Transformers lines, those price point waves typically ship independently of each other, so you can have six waves of "Deluxe" toys out in stores but only three waves of "Voyager" toys. In fact, there are currently three or four officially numbered waves of Deluxes, two to four waves of Voyagers, two waves of Leaders, three waves of Scouts and three waves of Legends out at US retail. Also, it is implied that some toys are specifically part of certain "waves" that are yet to be released, even though Human Alliance Bumblebee is already available in stores, just to name one. Lastly, there is a specific release date listed for Devastator, although normally those release dates are merely estimates on the manufacturer's behalf, and Devastator has already been found in some smaller stores. Basically, implying that specific toys are part of perceived larger "waves" is OR, unlike official wave numbering for price points found at online retailers such as Entertainment Earth.--87.164.73.197 (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Individual article names

There has been a proposal for splitting the Optimus Prime, Megatron and Starscream articles up and giving the live action film characters their own pages. The proposal is for the articles to be called Megatron (films) for Megatron. etc. I didn't like this name because this character has been in other media (novels, comics, etc) and Generation 1 Megatron has been in film (the 1986 film), so I didn't think this was particularly descriptive or accurate. Does anyone have alternate ideas for IF they get individual articles, what would be a good title? Mathewignash (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe something like Megatron (Michael Bay films)? Akata (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

IMHO it's really not worth it. There's not enough to be said about the particular incarnation of the character for it to deserve a separate article. I'd say it's OK as it is today, as a section in the character page. --uKER (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair though the pages for individuals like Megatron or Optimus have to include information from the various comics prequals, sequals, novels and toy bios, not JUST the events of the two films. So they are quite large. Mathewignash (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I originally proposed the idea; for people who have problems with the names, I can suggest Megatron (film continuity), Megatron (live-action film continuity), Megatron (Michael Bay film continuity), etc. In my opinion, there is enough information on the characters for them to deserve individual articles; if Megatron had only made his minor appearance in the first movie and then in no other media, I'd say that he wouldn't deserve his own article.--Eh! Steve (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Any more opinions? If none then I'll move the pages (to new pages with the disambiguator "live-action film continuity") and wait for a response since there doesn't seem to be significant opposition.--Eh! Steve (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Geography

This article is chock-a-block with all kinds of information about the movie and its making, some enlightening and relevant, some pure extraneous trivia.

However, having seen the movie, I'm wondering why the rather confusing geography of Egypt is not mentioned. If I remember rightly, the rendezvous point was the Gulf of Aqaba at the head of the Red Sea. We have Sam and his group crossing some kind of guard post (presumably not a border post) to get to the place where the Matrix of Leadership is to be found. The body of Optimus Prime is delivered to this rendezvous point, which is later vaguely identified by military command back in the US as somewhere in the Egyptian desert (not Sinai). The next thing we know, the battle is taking place at the pyramids at Gizeh, with the city visible in the background! And the Sun Harvester turns out to be concealed inside one of the pyramids!

Perhaps I'm missing something (I did miss a lot while watching the movie), but the completely stuffed-up geography of Egypt is surely notable enough for inclusion in the article.

Bathrobe (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's VERY frequent that movies make all kinds of factual mistakes, but I don't think they deserve mention in an encyclopedic article. --uKER (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the films have whole fictional cities added to the geography of the U.S., it's possible that the layout of Egypt is different in this world too. Mathewignash (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it is different, Egypt and Jordan share a border (which is where the Great Pyramids and the ruins of Petra are appearently located). In our world Israel is in between Egypt and Jordan, the great pyramids are just west of Cairo, and Petra in in central Jordan. 68.148.123.76 (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bonecrusher

I almost feel embarrassed to start this, but I saw the movie for the FOURTH time in the theater, and I thought I would ever get caught saying this, but it's in fact Bonecrusher shooting the Arcee bikes in the movie. --uKER (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, it is Bonecrusher shooting Arcee and her Sisters.

now thats weird, wasn't he killed in the first movie? becuase I remember Optimus killing him=-_-=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah. So was Blackout and they added him back selling him as a new character. Perhaps this is the case, but Bonecrusher is there unmodified in both vehicle and robot modes. He appears standing behind a wall that covers him up to the waist, shooting from his fists, his face clearly visible. --uKER (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would asume that it is another clone=^-^=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I guess we'll have to wait for something official indicating whether it was him (toy, Blu-ray/DVD extras, interview). --uKER (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To make matters murkier Hasbro released a toy which said on the box that Bonecrusher was only injured by the beheading, and limped away to heal from his wounds. This isn't specifically contradicted by the movies, since we don't see Bonecrusher's parts among those being dropped in the trench with Megatron, Blackout and Brawl. In fact even in the comic story Alliance they make sure we only see Megatron, Blackout and Brawl are dumped in the ocean (along with Jazz). So while Bonecrusher seemingly died, there is pleanty of supporting fiction that indicated he got away, so this COULD be him as easily as someone who shares his form. I side with saying either is possible, since it is unexplained. Mathewignash (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In the battle scene in Egypt I recall one of the solders saying that there were 13 deceptions. Now, just counting, there are the 7 constructicons (Mixmaster, Long Haul, Scrapper, Hightower, Overload, Rampage, and Scavenger), Megatron, The Fallen, Starscream, Ravage, and Scorpionok. That makes 12. Now, presuming Bonecrusher survived and was in the movie, that makes 13. But is it possible that was really Barricade rather than Bonecrusher? We know for a fact that Barricade survived because he disappeared from the first movie and is still alive. Now, I haven’t seen the movie billions of times (only once, in which I was in a fit about how Devistator was screwed up), but it seems more plausible that Barricade would partake in the attack rather than Bonecrusher. After-all, Grindor and Demolisher both died after having their head blown off, so why is it that Bonecrusher survived? Plus, Bay said that Barricade’s disappearance would be something for the second movie, so it is possible. I think it might be Barricade instead, since all evidence points to Bonecrusher being dead and Barricade alive. But that is just from theory, I’ll take a closer look when I buy Trans 2 on dvd. Enryū6473 Talk 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the soldier would have mentioned the seven constructicons, since at least a couple of them were just sitting around by the pyramid before the military showed up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, the guy says something along the lines of there being "at least N" incoming enemies. In any case, I don't think that what a soldier says could be taken as an accurate indicator of the amount of robots in the scene unless there was indication that he should know the exact amount, which I think isn't the case. For the record, the soldiers' statement about the number of Decepticons getting in and out of the Abyss is also wrong. --uKER (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That is true; obviously, the military in the Transformers universe doesn't know how to count. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I went back and re-watched the Transformers 1 movie in detail. Bonecrusher is completely decapitated, yet there is no indication that he died. When Megatron died there was a sparking noise, as with the other robots. That noise did not happen for Bonecrusher, nor did it look like he was incapacitated. In my opinion, Bonecrusher did survive and was (presumably) carried away by Barricade (he is still alive and was at the scene) where they met back up with Starscream and reorganized for the second movie. That is what I gather, so now it seems entirely possible that Bonecrusher is in-fact in the movie. Also to note, Scorpionark re-grew his tail, so Bonecrusher must have re-grown his head. Enryū6473 Talk 05:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Or simply reattached it. Mathewignash (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Carried away by Barricade and met with Starscream"? That's called fan fiction, you know? You're trying to look into the movie FAR DEEPER than the even the filmmakers do. This film is plagued by plot inconsistencies out of carelessness writing/editing. You can't infer such a thing and remotely intend to pass it as truth. --uKER (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I do that to try to connect the dots. Cuz it seems really odd that a decapitated robot can get up and find its way around on it's own (considering its eyes is on it's head). Enryū6473 Talk 02:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The making of Transformers 2

Techradar has a great article on the making of Transformers 2: (http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/the-making-of-transformers-2-618865).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Transformers Movie Blog says the Purple Motorcycle is called Flareup.

The title speaks for itself.

http://transformerslive.blogspot.com/2009/07/san-diego-comic-con-2009-transformers.html

Evilgidgit (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too. I'll add it for the time being, but we should improve the source as soon as we get a better one. --uKER (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception

From the article
"In contrast to the views of critics, audiences appear to have responded better, with exit surveys estimating that 91% of moviegoers consider it to be as good as, or better than, the 2007 film"
This is inaccurate and misleading, regardless of if it carries a source. Because if the people surveyed thought the original movie was good or bad, this does not give an indication of actual responses

Geejayoh (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Grindor

I repeat here what I said in Blackout's discussion: Let's cut the fanboy nonsense. It's Grindor in ROTF, not Blackout. If you like to argue that the difference in coloring is due to different lighting, then look at the new helicopter lacking the radar bulb on the nose. The helicopter is different. It's another character. I thus exhort you to revert whoever adds any consideration of it being Blackout in the movie. --uKER (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Another trick of the Grindor=Blackout theorists is that they seem to be editing the 2007 movie and Blackout pages crediting Frank Welker as the vocal effects of Blackout, despite the fact that Welker didn't do anything in the 2007 film and didn't voice Blackout EVER. I removed it again, but it has happened several times. Mathewignash (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I reported that in the first movie's article about an hour ago, but wasn't sure so I didn't edit. --uKER (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Just for the record, I just requested it. This has been hell since July 25. --uKER (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wheelie's faction

I just relocated Wheelie to the Decepticons. First reason is he starts the movie as a Decepticon. Jetfire, on the other hand, despite still bearing the Decepticon insignia, had switched over before he was revived. --uKER (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fallen part of the Dinasty?

I mentioned The Fallen as "once part of the Dinasty" but I am not sure if it is correct to say that or him just being part of them. --uKER (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ur correct he is part of the dynasty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.68.197 (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mrbean1000 user page

Anyone noticed this weirdo has a copy of this article on his userpage and he even edits it? WTF? Maybe he went for broke and got his own version of the article where he can add Blackout without him getting bashed. XD --uKER (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be that s/he intends to copy-paste his/her "version" of the article over this one once the block is lifted. Someone should talk to him/her about his/her intentions. BOVINEBOY2008 00:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated. :S Diff here. --uKER (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I somehow have a feeling that Plo Koon 1 and this guy are the same person. See this diff by Plo Koon 1 and the diff I posted in my previous message from Mrbean1000's user page. --uKER (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked him and the answer was "I'm not sure I just felt like doing it lol :)". Go figure. --uKER (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he has done it in case Wikipedia loses some of its data - it's happened to other wikis. Evilgidgit (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And that guy even whines on his talkpage that he's not being allowed to edit the article? Seems like he's being bitter because he was brought to heel over his Grindor-is-Blackout-with-different-parts edits. PK1's "I'm not sure I just felt like doing it lol :)" comment is just plain shallow reasoning when he has not even behaved after the warnings given to him. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

See here Wikipedia: sock puppetry and here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations it could be useful I'd do this myself but you guys have more experience with this and him and I have to go big day tomorrow The Movie Master 1 (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)