User talk:Alientraveller

Archives: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10

Re: Citizen Kane

I've no problem with it, but J.D.'s been adding to the draft so far. Might be better to check with him, considering he's the one doing production details. I've read the "Heart of Darkness in Citizen Kane" journal article, but it's midterm season for me at the moment. Hopefully, I can add some critical analysis to it soon enough -- the stuff for the film isn't as bad as for Fight Club, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and question -- what's the commented out stuff that you added to the subpage from the DVD? Is that the draft you mentioned? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought so, I was meaning to ask, but I've been touch-and-go with Wikipedia lately. I think that happens when I have too much stuff on my plate at the moment. Anyway, at the moment, you could bring the draft forward and maybe have a supersection of your own separate of J.D.'s for now (I suspect he's not online too frequently) and bring up the issue of combining details. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

G.I. Joe (film)

On 26 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article G.I. Joe (film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, that's awesome to see. Admittedly, I've checked the IMDb boards once in a while to see if Wikipedia articles on upcoming films are mentioned. Haven't really looked beyond the topic titles, but you're right, it's nice to know someone enjoys your work. If I found one for a personal contribution, I'll probably add it to my "Miscellaneous" section to show off. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Crystal Cannes

Because no-one expected Sith to be any good. :) There's a lot of expectation behind Indy 4, and the Cannes lot are notoriously (and often unfairly, IMO) judgemental, even for films such as this which won't be in competition. I worry that should the film not meet expectations even the tinyest bit, it'll result in bad word-of-mouth which it (hopefully!) doesn't deserve. Steve ^{T • C} 12:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bolding in Transformers

I don't know about that. Is that actually written? I thought bolding should be done to these transformers - when you scroll down to the autobots/decepticon section usually you are looking for the Transformers in the movie, and possibly the actors who voice them. It was not conspicuous before and I had to separate into paragraphs each for the last two Decepticons on the list. They should be bold though; just because they don't have speaking roles is not a reason not to bold them. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll take your word for it. Good night! (I don't know why I'm still awake) ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Same effects house too. I was surprised at the result to be honest. Convincing interaction between CGI beasties and the 'real' surroundings is what I tend to judge these things on, and the gold standard for me is still the original Jurassic Park. While some of the effects sequences and vistas in Golden Compass were very good and detailed, few showed a distinctive vision or art beyond the undeniably-impressive processing power used to create them. Everything I've seen of Transformers' effects suggests a good deal more work and invention, especially when it came to that real-world interaction. Steve ^{T • C} 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Doc Doom

We just need sources for some of the biography, and to correctly format in {{cite comic}} all the comic references. I'm also a bit concerned with the flow of the character biography- it's slowly becoming longer and longer, which I admit I cut it down perhaps a bit too much, but it would be better to consolidate it into a paragraph or so for each decade. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Empire

I don't know if you're a regular reader of Empire, or if you just pick it up now and again, but this month's issue (out today) apparently has some extensive Hulk coverage, as well as some Iron Man stuff (judging by the cover), which might be of some use to you. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 14:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered using a web archive link to replace dead cites? Here's the Iron Man one, for example. Steve ^{T • C} 12:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hulk

You just beat me to the rv, it certainly was no improvement. Any idea how to remove the white blob without opening a bigger one? --87.189.61.218 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alientraveller, are you planning on discussing your changes anytime soon? --87.189.61.218 (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you. --87.189.61.218 (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

One last try: The MOS you pointed out backs me up. What is your point? --87.189.121.82 (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Read MOS:FILM! --87.189.121.82 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Watchmen

Hey, thanks for that batch! Definitely will check them out. By the way, also left a comment at J.D.'s user talk page with some congratulations and an excuse for why I haven't been pitching in. :-P It's been midterms last week and this week, but spring break is coming up, which could be good or bad for editing. As for Watchmen, are you gonna be like me and read the whole book with annotations right before the film and get giddy over all the Easter eggs in Snyder's work? I really am hoping that the film will be at least somewhat decent. I saw both Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley in Little Children, and if Wilson got pudgy for the role, both of them should be great. I guess I'm a little more concerned about Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Malin Akerman, a couple of unproven actors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's too bad. A fat suit would be fine, too -- I just think it adds to the washed-up and impotent look. The dynamics of Manhattan, Veidt, and Rorschach should be interesting, though I've read that Moore disliked how Rorschach had such a large fan base where he believed that there was a lot more to Manhattan and Veidt in their worldly schemes. The interpretations I've read questioned the validity of Rorschach's intent to expose Veidt's awful secret, since the damage was done, and exposing the secret would harm what could provide the world some benefit for a while. Still, it's really hard to envision all this live-action, especially Manhattan's scenes. I'm looking forward to the alternate-history news reel, though -- I'm just picturing a god-sized Manhattan walking through Vietnam laying waste to the V.C. through a 1970s TV screen. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you... see!?!! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion template

The idea with that rough template I've got isn't really to do a cut-and-paste job each time an AfD comes up (though I have done that); it's more so I've got all the arguments in one place so in the future I can pick and choose which ones to deploy in a given situation. But that's a good idea you've had about mentioning those long-running developments; Superman Returns is one I'd completely forgotten about. It seemed every month for about fifteen years before the film came out, I'd pick up a magazine to be told "filming will be going ahead next year." Still, at least what we ended up with was probably better than most of the ideas bandied about in that time (coughgiantspiderscough). Steve ^{T • C} 11:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaws

Please stop cutting relevant/important information that I am trying to add to the Jaws article regarding its distribution. I am trying to add to the material and properly source it—it's annoying when you keep messing with it as I am working on it. Thank you. --TallulahBelle (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Buffy

Well, the Scoobies aren't really known for their maturity. I imagine Xander will be the funniest, he'll probably be a mixture of "huh, what just happened?" (as was I) and finding it a turn on. Giles will be awkward but accepting (his reaction to Willow was a hilarious drunken "Bloody hell!") Apparently there's going to be awkwardness between Willow and Buffy, which should be fun. Joss Whedon has promised to deliver "the funny" but I'm sure Buffy's friends will be supportive once they get over the shock. Willow's coming out was well-handled; humour, followed by tension, followed by total acceptance.  Paul  730 22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The "outing" was hilarious, as I predicted. The writers basically turned it into a comedy farce, with each of Buffy's friends walking in on her in bed with Satsu. Andrew's was the funniest reaction; "Hi, Buffy. Hi, Nude Asian Girl. ...how much dramamine did I take?" I'm sure there will be serious emotional turmoil down the line, but as Buffy funny goes, this was classic. Loved it.  Paul  730 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lincoln (film)

An editor has nominated Lincoln (film), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln (film) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia

I hope you're right. I think he got the same ugly feeling as I did when it happened to me. I did consider just quitting at that time, mostly because I had heard about other instances like what happened with H. While I never truly believed it could be that extreme, I was more concerned about how it would be exploited. I'd rather not have a web page of tirades (however false they may be) launched against me that could be found via Google. Some people know I edit Wikipedia, but it's relatively secure knowledge. I don't parade around that fact, lest I get a "Hey, Erik (last name), what's up!?" on my user page. :-P

I assessed the situation at the time and cleaned up my page history -- there were a few items where I edited outside of the realm of film that could potentially be pieced together, so I took care of these with the help of an admin. I hope Steve can do the same, so we ensure invincibility to the likes of Don Murphy and his posse. I don't know much about Murphy, only briefly reviewed the AFD of his article to understand his resulting behavior. It's really a bit of a disappointment to see such an attitude from a grown man. I can somewhat understand his beef with Wikipedia regarding his article, but it's childish for him to stoop to such techniques. And hey... I see a return! :-D —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I hope Steve doesn't stay away. Maybe he'll just take a break for awhile and then return. As far as Don goes, I wouldn't worry about him all that much. I understand Erik's concern about a bunch of webpages popping up listing you in negative light can never look good if someone does a search for some reason (i.e. like a background check for employment), but as long as we don't give out our real information we'll be fine. "Bignole" pops up in a lot of places on the web, not all of them are me, and which ones are I don't typically devulge my real identity. Short of hacking any site that contains the user "Bignole" (or some variation, which would be illegal anyway), I don't think any of us have anything to worry about as far as Murphy's minions finding info on us and posting it on the internet. Even if they did, if they post anything negative that isn't true (and judging from my experience with the two of you, I doubt there's any real skeletons in your closets) then they'll be held for libel (as will Murphy for coordinating the effort to defame any Wikipedian's character on the internet)...or slander if they call up our schools and jobs, as they so threatened. I just want to remind everyone (whoever reads this) that most of the time Don does nothing but make idle threats, and we shouldn't allow him the pleasure of thinking that we fear him or his actions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I'm still here. :) And I think that our friend's break has been relatively short, if you notice his old hunting grounds... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I gotta admit, the disambiguation link made me chuckle. :) Steve ^{T • C} 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This-"This article is about the film producer. For the vicious killing machine that feels no sympathy and no remorse, see Majin Zarak."-is priceless. LMAO.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wolf Man

Seeing what Ain't It Cool News is reporting, filming of the remake seems to have begun. Should we resurrect the film article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WALL-E

I know you're on top of the movie stuff, but for the WALL-E article, we've been fairly clear about 2 things: (a) Ben Burtt is not a voice actor in the film so he is always removed from the infobox (it would be like Burtt getting credited as R2-D2 in the credits of Star Wars instead of Kenny Baker); and (b) for any advance info on Ratz appearing in a Pixar film, we really need the proper citation to keep the fanboys at bay. SpikeJones (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because Burtt uses his voice as a basis for the computer chirps, doesn't mean he's a voice actor. SpikeJones (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I could justify including him in the infobox based on what those definitions have been set as. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with including him in the intro paragraph if you think that his participation warrants that level of inclusion.SpikeJones (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

X-Men 2

In addition I copyedited the plot section. I'll finish with the DVD stuff, then see if the IMDB news articles have anything worthwile or useful. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the photos. If you go the Danger Room article, that's the concept art shown on the X-Men 2 DVD. Think that might work?Wildroot (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hulk 2

So, what did you think of the trailer? I was personally underwhelmed by what I saw. The CGI didn't appear to be that much better than Ang Lee's Hulk. Some of the cinematography looked a little cartoonish in spots.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Edward Norton looks great as Bruce Banner! Tim Roth looks nicely sleazy as well. Both Hulk and Abomination look awesomely grotesque, especially the latter. It's nice to see that the Hulk isn't as "pretty" as his 2003 incarnation. I've never been thrilled about the choice of the director, but the trailer definitely looks fun. As for the last shot -- The Matrix Revolutions, anyone? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The last shot made me think of Clark and Bizarro running at each other in the final moment of season six's "Phantom", but that's more because it is most recent in my head. I certainly like the look of the Hulk more in this film than in the first, but to me the CGI could have been better. There was just certain aspect that looked painfully obvious that they were CG. The Abomination made me think of the Locusts from Gears of War. That, and something out of a Todd McFarlane drawing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply. The Hulk trailer looked alright, it wasn't a total fangasm moment but that's probably because I'm not a big fan of the character. I agree with everyone else that Edward Norton looks great. I like the bit where he drops out of the helicoptor, very Ultimates (of course, in that, he was thrown against his will, but still...). The effects are okay, a bit cartoony as Bignole said. Maybe they're not finished but I think it's difficult to make a big green man of Hulk's physique look real. The current effects are adequate, and so long as the story's good, that's what matters. I'm really hoping Iron Man and Incredible Hulk bring it back for Marvel movies, god knows we haven't had any really good ones in a while.  Paul  730 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers mister, and thanks for your kind words while I was gone. Anyway, this Hulk trailer. I've seen numerous comments around the 'net saying the look is a little too TV-ish, and I have to say that I do concur with that. I don't know if it's deliberate or not; the article does mention certain intentional similarities with the TV show after all. Still, almost everything I've heard or seen about the film has been encouraging, and I could watch Norton recite the phone book without getting bored. I wouldn't worry about the CGI either; they render this stuff right up to the last minute. Just take a look at one of the earlier Iron Man trailers compared to the latest; definite improvement in my eyes. So yeah, it's just Leterrier's involvement which fills me with dread. Oh well, hopefully Norton's going to get his own way in the edit suite; while he was criticised at the time for his behaviour on American History X (probably resulting in his not bagging the Oscar that year), many people now agree that his version was the better film. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 11:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read where Leterrier was defending the look of Abomination. I think he looks pretty good in the screenshot that is on his Wiki page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole; the still of the Abomination looks more detailed than the trailer lets on. To respond about noticing Norton's mannerisms in the Hulk, I'm not sure if I do... I don't see anything special in how the Hulk gears up for battle and charges at the Abomination. Do you see something similar between Norton and Hulk? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, primitive hottie, ain't she? :) In any case, I just felt like working on a film article that wouldn't be heavily trafficked. Any chance you can make sure there's UK spelling throughout? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks! It's harder to notice what needs UK spelling as opposed to what needs US spelling, being an American. :) Oh, and another reason I chose the survivor picture was because most of the production stills available for Doomsday were kind of boring. Even the car chase one seemed like the best one available to illustrate the content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

USD-GBP

113.4 million pounds (converted at a rate of 1 dollar = .4931 UK pounds) - X201 (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Superman Return sequel

Thanks for working on that. I was going to as soon as I got home from school but I see you did it. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Goldfinger (film)

[1] "Isn't Casting a part of production?" Ultra! 19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer casting because it creates space for sources about characters. Some are in The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day (though they don't have casting). Ultra! 16:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Matrix franchise

Just because it's based on a film series means nothing. See Indiana Jones franchise, Friday the 13th (franchise), A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), Terminator (franchise) etc for other examples. Series gives the wrong impression considering there are other media which doesn't necessarily go in sequential order. Alientraveller (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because you and User:Bignole (presuming that you're different people) believe it, doesn't make it the naming convention.

Noting the following moves of your examples:

• Terminator
• Indiana Jones
• Friday the 13th
• A Nightmare on Elm Street

That said, I'm not entirely adverse to the idea, but I feel there should be a broader discussion, since this affects more than just these 4 movies (Peanuts, Superman, Star Wars, and a zillion other examples.) - jc37 21:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What's so wrong with the word franchise? Alientraveller (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your talk page is the best place for a "broader discussion". Any suggestions for such a venue would be welcome. Especially since (imo) this could affect naming conventions for articles which would be under several WikiProjects. - jc37 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just dropping a note, wondering if any further discussion regarding this has occurred anywhere. - jc37 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Justice League

I was wondering if you could rewrite this page. You did a good job on the Superman Returns sequel. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

POTC

Since you are the contributor with most edits in Pirates of the Caribbean (film series), which passed the GA process recently, I wanted your opinion or collaboration on expanding the Reception - do something like in Spider-Man and X-Men, with some selected reviews for all movies. igordebraga ≠ 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

TWBB Milkshake

Thanks for the links. They helped.
Jim Dunning | talk 13:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Lindy Hemming

Argghh! You beat me to that article's creation by literally seconds. If only I hadn't got sidetracked asking a stupid question about The Bill. :) Steve ^{T • C} 12:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re The Lord of the Rings film trilogy

Alientraveller writes:

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page.

Thank your for your time and attention to this article. I don't see the need to cite sources in this respect as the implied sources of the original novel and the movie trilogy are all that's necessary to see the differences between the two. Nor, dare I say, are elaborations on the changes at all 'controversial'.

Even so, some of the already cited sources also address the aspects of the changes I've noted. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrsw (talk • contribs)

I think some of the edits you suggest are good. Go ahead and make them. I don't see the need to do a wholesale undo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrsw (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Raiders of the Lost Ark

An editor has nominated this article for FA at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raiders of the Lost Ark. As the principle contributor to the article, you can opt to have the nomination withdrawn if you feel the article is not ready or you are unable to participate in the FAC at this time. Your input would be appreciated. Maralia (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood/Terminator

I don't really like it when the Whoniverse tries to go supernatural rather than sci fi; episodes like "Tooth and Claw", "The Shakespeare Code", and last night's TW just feel like a different series. The TW ep was particularly flawed because I just don't understand what the "aliens" were or how the characters defeated them. It started creepy, but became really dull nonsense IMO. I've barely worked on the John Connor article, but thanks for your help, I'll have a look when I'm more focused (I'm always busy lately and when I do get online I lack the concentration to seriously edit). I didn't know Reese was returning, but I heard his brother was appearing in the TV show, which I've yet to see. He's probably my favourite Terminator character, bar Robert Patrick's T-1000. I hope whoever plays him can do Michael Biehn justice.  Paul  730 15:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, you're not distracting me. I'm not studying or anything, I just meant that I've been working a lot lately and I'm usually too tired when I get home to concentrate properly on wiki. A reboot... I'm kinda happy and kinda wary. Don't get me wrong, that cast needs flushed ASAP, but are we going to have to sit through another origin story? And who will they get to play the Thing? Hopefully the new version will feature Dr Doom in all his glory, that was always one of the most disappoitning aspects of the series. Do you think it'll be a pseudo-sequel like Hulk?  Paul  730 05:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the movies had a good theme tune. I think the problem with the movies is that they're just not fun enough. I'm not asking for a dark, political drama, I'm asking for a fun, memorable children's film like the Incredibles. The FF are imaginauts, exploring the universe, there's so much potential going untapped. I want to see Mole Man and Subterranea, the Inhumans and New Attilan, or Namor and Atlantis. I know I defended cloudly Galactus before, but I think RotSS could have been more indulgent with the cosmic-y aspect of things. It was pretty bland in restropect.  Paul  730 12:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that's more interesting, and makes me care more about the character.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 08:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, in theory it would be a canon continuation of the TV series (like Serenity) that would ignore the comics, which are in themselves a canon continuation of the TV series. He's basically saying he would trample over the comics with a movie, which is pretty insulting to the people who have paid money for and invested emotionally in the comics for the past two years. It probably won't happen, I think it was just his way of conveying how much he'd like to do a movie. Still really rude, though.  Paul  730 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree with you. I love the Marvel Universe, flaws and all, everything is canon no matter what. Even stories which don't Earth-616 continuity still "count" in some alternate universe. But with Buffy, the canon is so confusing and messy. You have the original movie (non-canon), the TV shows (canon), the novels (non-canon), and the comics (most non-canon, elite few canon). There's constant debate over what qualifies; I have two Buffyverse canons, the official one, and my own "personal" one. I count some of the non-canon stuff because I like them and they follow continuity, but I like knowing there's an official canon. It's as much about quality-control as anything, almost all of the "offical" Buffy canon is written or plotted by Joss Whedon, whereas most of the non-canon stuff is glorified fan fiction. I'm jealous of the Star Wars franchise, where Lucas keeps an eye on all the expanded universe stuff and it's all really well-defined.  Paul  730 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, how cool does the werewolf in the new Wolf Man look? Normally I prefer my werewolves with more of a snout, like the early Buffy werewolf [2], but this looks very natural and impressive, I'm so sick of CGI werewolves. It's nice they're sort of keeping the original Lon Chaney look. Looking forward to it.  Paul  730 12:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First Contact

Thanks. The DVD has been really useful, and there's still a lot of stuff left on it. Obviously if you can find anything else (particularly marketing/release info, I suck at that for past films) then that'd be great. Gran² 16:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gone through it with a fine-toothed comb yet, but must of it seems to just be talking about the in-universe stuff. But there is something about the space walk scene which I'll try and use. Gran² 16:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that's the DVD done with, and the production section is pretty much finished. I think I'll merge Music into filming or something, because I can't find much information on it. Now it's really just the reaction section left, and possibly some marketing (although I might just leave that out for now). The Memory Alpha article for the film is really good, but that doesn't use any sources, so I can't use any of the information from it. But ah well, I looks good anyway. Gran² 17:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Transformers (film)

• In Transformers (film) I have again inserted the information about Optimus's polygon count etc, and its reference. I could not find this information elsewhere in the article. I am prepared to discuss whether or not to include this information. CGI users (which includes me) would find this information to be relevant. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is the entry on polygon count for the models? I can't find it. Did you delete it?