Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

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. [1] 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)

The novel also calls the helicopter Grindor, and describes him as a Russian helicopter. Since Megatron was saved with an Allspark fragment, and they only had one, so they can't have brought Blackout back the same way. I think we should change it to Grindor, or at least mention the possibility. Mathewignash (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, the current mention leaves it open for readers to interpret the novelization as being inaccurate because it was based on a current script. Definitely Blackout in the final film. Alientraveller (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, unless they went cheap and the so called Grindor is visually IDENTICAL to Blackout. Uker (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's now the game's creative director in person here saying it's Grindor. I'm changing it in the article. Uker (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing is on a message board one of the creative team of the comic adaption said that in the script they used it was Blackout, with no explanation as to why he was alive. Mathewignash (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was Blackout all the way, but they never got around to making up an excuse for him being alive, so they went the lazy way and say 'Meh, let's change his name and get done with that'. Uker (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a new Q&A with Orci & Kurtzman from Botcon. Report is at http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-toys--products-30/botcon-2009---revenge-of-the-fallen-writers-qa-session-167758/. Blackout/Grindor was addressed and given a cryptic response: "Grindor – reason for him being there as well as Blackout." Seems they might both be in the movie? Teratron (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I bring to everyone's attention that there's this user called 'Plo Koon 1' that seems to be a Blackout fanboy, which has only interveined in the article to keep adding him back instead of Grindor, with a rather 'poetical' (ie fanboyish) exposition I'd say. I now added mention of the writers mentioning Blackout being back. Let's see if that calms him down. Uker (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is there even a debate going on? The character is clearly Blackout, hes visually identical to Blackout and covered in rust from being at the bottom of the sea. If Grindor is a seperate character why is he the same exact visual? Why is he covered in sea rust? DUH! Hes Blackout! Grindor is a toy repaint, and obviously a misinformation cover up to try and keep at least one spoiler in question. Why is everyone so ignorant and stupid. Take Grindor out of the article, it is BLACKOUT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.74.130 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

we cant not until its been confirmed exactly who it is AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok it is true folks. That is Grindor and not Blackout, the helicopters are different for one. Two, it seems he has better weapons. Three, how could Blackout be brought back anyway. He didnt have an allspark in him DUH.Xmotox (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Its Grindor. There is a Grindor ROTF toy, and Grindor is suposed to be a clone of Blackout. I'm convinced it's Grindor.Enryū6473 (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm convinced you are all incredibly misinformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.74.130 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

fine, to you its blackout, to us its grindor.Enryū6473 (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Boo hoo anon...'incredibly misinformed', please. Plo Koon 1, is that you? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:01, 22 June 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)

After looking at the new TV spot and the Mixmaster and 7-bot Devastator toys and seeing spoilers from the novel, comic, and children's book, I'm no longer quite convinced that the "Red Rampage" forms Devastator's face or is even Overload. In the "Forms" TV spot, Mixmaster is revealed to have red internal components. His Voyager-class toy (the triple-changer one) also has red internal components with white stripes that look like those on Devastator's face. Furthermore, the novel mentions a 'Con that fights Bumblebee in Egypt, which sounds suspiciously like the fight scene between BB and Red-Tread. Finally, every visual depiction of Overload seen so far shows a biped with either four or two arms and a tail-like protrusion arching up over his back, quite unlike the snake-like tread-bot seen fighting Bumblebee. So, my original theory is most likely false. It seemed plausible at the time. — JGoodman (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just stop arguing. Most merchandise say that Demolishor is a regular Decepticon, not a Constucticon, thus saying that Demolishor is ABSOLUTELY NOT PART OF DEVASTATOR, so let's summarize:

• Mixmaster (head)
• Scavenger (front torso)
• Overload (back torso)
• Hightower (left arm)
• Scrapper (right arm)
• Long Haul (right leg)
• Rampage (left leg)

Jal11497 (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

their trying to get it to be like the original series right? wont they base whose who on the G1 transformers so mixmaster probably will be the head Baller449 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In Generation 1 and Generation 2 Mixmaster was a leg, Hook was the head. Mathewignash (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

really i thought he was the head oh well Baller449 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, this thread seemed dead, but here I am with some new info. Remember some time ago (read up) I said I was seeing Rampage as having a snake-like body? Well here he is. It seems like his toy's jackhammer mode wasn't just a gimmick after all. uKER (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

in a tv ad you can see mixmaster as the head the inside of the concrete mixer is the head as seen here [2] he forms the entire head —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Movie Master 1 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 18 June 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)

The protection seems to have gone away and I'm already removing anonymous people's false posts about Laserbeak being in this film. Can we get the protection again? Mathewignash (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the fate of Demolishor should be removed. It is a spoiler. --SCSI Commando (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Demolishor details

I was somewhat rewriting the section on Demolishor and it got me wondering whether it's worth mentioning that he's the one running through the overpass. Also, in that note, when I mentioned him ending up beheaded (given that his head is seen exploding in a Shanghai street), it got removed for supposedly being unsourced. I think both are as relevant (or irrelevant for that matter) since both are sourced on simple observation of the trailers. Uker (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the comic and the novel both have Optimus killing him in the end of the second scene in the story. Moreover in the novel he makes a cryptic mention that the Fallen is coming before he dies. Mathewignash (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there's enough significance to the overpass scene to make it worth mention. The first teaser trailer really didn't show very much. Demolishor tearing through the overpass and being attacked by Optimus was really the focal point of the trailer, and was thus basically the world's introduction to the film. Also, given that there are apparently two nearly identical wheelbots, it makes sense to distinguish their appearances thus far by what little we concretely know - that one is seen on his own in the trailers, while the other is seen as a part of Devastator. Regarding his being beheaded, I think I remember there being some debate on that issue. Wasn't there disagreement over whether whatever you said was exploding was his head or not? Unless it's either blatantly obvious or sourced, that seems like original research territory to me. Although there is plenty of source material to say that he's killed by Prime thanks to the comics and novel. Teratron (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, here. I guess this is as clear as it can get. I don't know about you, but this does qualify as blatantly obvious in my book. Image Uker (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Uker, in one of the tv spots for the film Optimus is seen with Ironhide in Shanghai pointing his blaster at the ground and firing, in the showest footage for the film a chunk of metal that does look like Demolishor's head is seen exploding. My theory is that those two scenes occur back-to-back and are basically Optimus and Ironhide finishing Demolishor off. Dark Warrior D 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

True. That's at the end of the 'Wanted' trailer, should anyone care, which can be seen here. I didn't mention it since that scene being when Demolishor gets killed is indeed arguable, but I'd say there's no denying it's his head exploding in the ShoWest footage. Seeing as nobody actively disagreed, I'll add the info back in the article. Uker (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally got to take a look at the picture. Damn filters at work... I can definitely see the head in the picture since you called it out. The fact that you have to pull a couple screen shots together like that and specifically label what's what still puts it squarely in the realm of original research in my mind, but I'm certainly not going to start an edit war over it. (Besides, I'm not always too crazy about the OR policy anyway. =P ) Teratron (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Original research is kinda hard to define. For average trailer watchers, perhaps stating something that is only noticed by freeze-framing constitutes OR. This, I'd say is only one step beyond. It's not trivial to find out what's going on in the scene, but it only takes someone to point out what it is that you're seeing. Once you know what to look for, I'd say it gets pretty evident. For the sake of exemplification, I leave you this image. If you hadn't had it pointed out to you, you probably wouldn't have noticed Isabel Lucas (Alice) in the trailers, but as soon as you know it, it's glaringly obvious it's her. Uker (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just say "He is killed by Prime". I still consider your theory that he's decapitated — a very specific form of death — to be O.R. as it really isn't clear. I still don't see it, despite having looked at all the pics and comparisons. It's obviously Demolishor in the Showest footage, and he's obviously dying or getting severely wounded, but I don't think we can be more specific than that. Is his head still attached or not? Exactly what part of him is exploding? We don't know for sure, and can't clearly tell from some quick half-second flash of an explosion-occluded Demolishor. I think a more generic "He is killed" comment should be used, perhaps also with the caveat that this is only certain in the comic and novel adaptations, though I didn't add said caveat to the article. — JGoodman (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not sure what part of him is exploding? Are you suggesting he has mandibles in some other part of him? I don't get it. Anyway, when the movie launches, and you're in the theater and see his head roll and explode in the street, you'll ask yourself how you couldn't notice it before. I'll think of you people too. :) uKER (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not his head that's exploding, at least not from my perspective. The explosion seems to be located on his main body. We need a larger context (i.e. the actual film) to determine the exact cause of death. — JGoodman (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

couldnt it be his chest his weak spot Baller449 (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Are you telling me you see THIS PICTURE and you see what's exploding is his chest? I mean, WTF? Uker (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

probably not just an idea calm down Baller449 (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ejector

Should Ejector really be listed as a Decepticon? His toy is identified as such, but if he's just a toaster brought to life by the Allspark, he's no more a Decepticon than the Mountain Dew bot or Nokia bot from the first movie. He's already mentioned in the minor bots paragraph after the Decepticons (though not by name). It seems to me that adding his toyline name to the toaster bot mention is the more appropriate place for him. Teratron (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Decepticon. Mathewignash (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Teratron. The fact that the toaster bot got a toy doesn't make him more notorious than any other of the ten kitchen bots appearing in the movie. uKER (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Voices

Someone put up several voice actors/actresses for the Transfomers last night, saying Jason Griffith voices Sideswipe, Susan Blu, Liz Ortiz and Tara Strong voice the sisters, Anthony Anderson voices Jolt, Amy Palent voices Wheelie, and Mark Hamill voices Scavenger. Who added those onto the page and why? Dark Warrior D 12:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transformers:_Revenge_of_the_Fallen#Unsourced_voice_credits. Uker (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This page has been rife with rumored voice actors being added by anonymous users. We try to revert them as quickly as possible, but they are coming in fast and furious lately. They come in on this page and on the pages devoted to individual characters. Mathewignash (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

if its practically known why do we have to wait for comfirmation Baller449 (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, not a fan gossip site. Only when things get at least one reliable source it gets added. Mathewignash (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

oh i see thanks Baller449 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arcee and Sideswipe's voices are officially announced, and added to the page. http://transformerslive.blogspot.com/2009/06/arcee-and-sideswipe-voice-actors.html Mathewignash (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Decepticon third modes and Scrapper's 'personality'

First of all, there's nothing indicating any of the Constructicons will be featuring any of these 'extra' modes seen in the toys. Also, about the statement saying that Scrapper 'lives to pound his enemies into submission', it's like adding a statement saying 'he's aggressive'. I mean, he's a Decepticon. What could you expect? That's not saying much really. Also, I don't think quoting toy bios belongs here unless it reveals something clearly relevant. Uker (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's all the personality we have, and Wheelie and Jetfire were Decepticons and not aggressive, it's not a personality trait common to all Decepticons. We have no idea what modes are in the film, all character bios we have are based on toy bios and novel/comic, why stop with Demoishor's bio (needs a leader, protects other Decepticons) and not include others? Mathewignash (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the third modes' information as there's NOTHING suggesting they're in the movie (trailers, pictures, adaptations, interviews, you name it) and toy info does not belong here. About Scrapper's bio, in my opinion, that statement is flat out dumb and adds nothing to the article, given that you're talking about a 10-ton evil hulk, but let's hear what other people have to say. I kept it there for the time being. BTW, I wonder how you know the way Jetfire was in the movieverse when he was young and a Decepticon. Uker (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all the personality they have, and doesn't the novel make reference to a jumping Constructicon? Perhaps Rampage as a jackhammer? Anyways, it's an ability they have, and until we learn they don't have it in the film, they toy bios and abilities are all we can go by. Mathewignash (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

i think its ok for now until we see the movie it gives scrapper and the others some personality AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

N.E.S.T new acronym

I just went to tformers.com and found out that NEST has a new acronym which is cooler than the current acronym. according to the website, the new NEST stands for Nonbiological Extraterrestrial Species Team. Personally, I think it's better that Network Elements: Supporters and Transformers. This is the link: http://www.tformers.com/transformers-revenge-tie-in-lg-versa-nest-site-now-online-w-never-before-seen-pics/11709/news.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.120.7.166 (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

we cant change thing just because their cool AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this link is to a legitimate liscensed web site promoting the TF movie and LG cell phones. http://www.lgnest.com/ They used this alternate name for the NEST group. So both are official. Mathewignash (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

so it doesnt matter which one we use right AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We only know the first one because it was mentioned in the Veiled Threat novel. Now we got a second acronym from a ROTF movie tie-in web site. We should probably mention both. Mathewignash (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, are we going to make a page for NEST. I mean, we could just name it NEST then when the oficial name is cleared up we could note it. Just a thought, cuz I found some NEST pics that would work.Enryū6473 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

semi protection

its time to request it for all the transformers they get vandalized alot and it would make it easier for us with out having to revert all those edits AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No kidding, but I don't think mode mods would consider these page as important. I think we do need to report the users and non-use ISP as serial vandalizers, and then as they get blocked one by one we can then spend less time reverting their work. Mathewignash (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

that would work to i guess AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked for the article to be placed under semi-protection status at least until the movie came out, but apparently they decided only to have it as such for a couple of weeks. EDIT: It looks like it's been granted semi-protected status again, but for how long? — JGoodman (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

we mean the individual transformers AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

i got sideways and the fallen protected dont know if theyll accept the rest AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

some have to have recent high vandalism or they wont be accepted like sideswipe and soundwave AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

megatron jetfire and optimus all protected AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

SERIOUSLY, do you need to report back here everytime one of the characters' pages are semi-protected? We can look for it ourselves, thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

First screening reports

Reports are coming out from the Japanese premier of ROTF and it seems there are two different bots who share the Rampage body design. One is yellow, and is part of Devastator, the second is red and doesn't combine, but is the one who fights Bumblebee. I'm told there are many Constructicons, and lots of duplicate forms. Mathewignash (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

that would make a little sense because i was wondering how they killed off rampage and still showed devastator as a whole Baller449 (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

According to reports the ONLY Connstructicon to get a name mentioned in the film in Rampage, who is the Red Rampage, not the yellow. Mathewignash (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the people are saying there is no naming of the Grindor/Blackout character in the dialog or in the credits. He just suddenly shows up and fights along side Megatron, no explanation. Since they don't show Blackout being ressurected, and this new character seems to show up after Megatron has been back from the Nemesis on Mars, I'm guesing it's a protoform he brought back and gave Blackout's form... Grindor. Mathewignash (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Todd is in the credits as voicing the Fallen according to people who attended the Japanese advanced screening. Frank Welker is credited as voicing Soundwave AND Devastator. Mathewignash (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

why dont you add frank welker into devastator then Baller449 (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, these reports from the Jap screenings are bullcrap. Sideways not transforming? Soundwave not having the classic voice? I'm not buying it. Uker (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Other than the transformation to break through the wall in the trailer, Sideways does not assume robot mode in the comic or novel, so the reports from the advance screening are exactly the same as the novel and comic. How is this hard to believe? Mathewignash (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

yeah but when sideways gets cornered by the autobots and NEST doesnt he have to transform to fire those pulse blasts and he cant get killed by gettting hit through the neck if he hasnt transformed but i can believe the soundwave voice thing it might not sound cool enough to michael bay so he changes it Baller449 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Don murphy says rampage is the only name constructicon and he is red and sideways doesnt transform hes cut in half in car mode by sideswipe and blackout or grindor is never named in the credits hes just their Baller449 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think we would should wait on adding stuff until we hit the theaters on June 25. Can we? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Soundwave's voice is the same, it just isn't vocoder altered like in G1. Dark Warrior D 15:57 23 June 2009

Megatron

how do you know he got captured at the end of the film it seems like a lot to handle for the NEST Baller449 (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Plo Koon 1

How can we request him getting banned from editing the article? All he does is brainlessly keep adding Blackout and Barricade into the article. Uker (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I left him a polite note about it on his talk page. I hope he responds. I'd rther make a friend and get him moving in the right direction than simply ban him. We need more good Transformers editors on wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's apparent that he's going to continue with his edits. If his talk page is any indication, he either a) doesn't ever bother reading messages placed on it, or b) he does read them, but doesn't care what others have to say. Apparently, he has a track record of disruptive editing, and not just on this article. I say give him one more chance, but next time he re-adds Barricade or some other unsourced material, it'll be time to get an admin or mod to give him the boot. — JGoodman (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that, PK1 needs to get in line.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, he added just added Blackout again. uKER (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Take him down! He's worn out our patience. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I just put a level 3 vandalization warning on his talk page. I think this is the best way to do it. Just keep warning him the normal way, then if he continues, you can show he ignored the warnings. Mathewignash (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

hes been blocked for 31 hours it should get him inline otherwise he should get blocked permanently AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There, he added Blackout again... Twice. Still have any patience left? EDIT: I see he has already been blocked again, so ignore this. uKER (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead link that a registered user should note

This footnote (#16):

Adam B. Vary (2007-07-04). "Optimus Prime Time". Entertainment Weekly. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20035285_20035331_20044598,00.html. Retrieved on 2007-12-16.

goes to an unrelated page. Doing a site search at EW for "Optimus Prime Time" does not turn up the article.

Also footnote #9, to TFW2005, goes to a forum page. This isn't allowed -- anyone can use any identity and claim to be anyone on a forum page. Even if we have confidence that this really is Robert Orci (and not, say, an assistant or a hoaxer), it's important to adhere to Wikipedia policy, since if you allow forum postings for one person, then you have to allow them for everybody. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Roberto Orci confirmed on Don Murphy's forum that he is posting at TFW2005, and Don Murphy confirmed that the Roberto Orci posting on his site is the real deal. Unless you were to suggest that an imposter is posting as Don Murphy on his own site.--87.164.105.156 (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Another dead link

1. 138 IMAX Corporation.. "Michael Bay to shoot select scenes of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with IMAX(R) cameras". Yahoo Finance. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080930/to317.html?.v=44. Retrieved on 2008-11-16. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom Kenny as Wheelie - Any actual proof?

Besides people saying Wheelie soundlike like Tom Kenny in the clip, is there an actual source for that info? Mathewignash (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears there isn't in terms of actual confirmation by third party sources - but I suppose gut instinct doesn't count. However, it is obvious that Tom Kenny does indeed voice Wheelie if one listens when he speaks in the clip - he sounds like a ticked off Spongebob. But since there is no confirmation source, perhaps it should be kept out. Evilgidgit (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How 'bout check this exclusive clip with Wheelie? It sounds like Tom Kenny. [3]

"It sounds like Tom Kenny" isn't very encyclopedic. Just wait until it's official, it shouldn't be more than a couple days before we see proof in way of an announcement or someone sees the film and can confirm it in the credits. Mathewignash (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Theatrical or International Poster?

I've seen a mini edit war going on over the poster image in the infobox. It keeps getting swapped between the US theatrical poster and the international poster. Is there a general Wikipedia policy for which is preferred? I took a quick look at other major American films for the year, and found examples of each. Teratron (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with international posters being used but believe that there needs to be a specific reason as to WHY it is being used over the release poster of the country of origin of the film, here being the US. There is usually more than one international image for a film whereas the country of origin poster is unambiguous. In this case, the US release poster is also the poster for the UK release campaign, plus it has echoes of the poster for the original film. (Quentin X (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

I, also, have no problem with the use of international images and see no reason why the international poster should be used in place of the US one, seeing as how it's an American film. If someone wants to add the international image to the page, I see no problem with that, but it shouldn't replace the US version. For example, as far as I know, the U.S. is the only country to use American English, but just because the movie's released in other countries doesn't mean we write the article in British English. (See MOS).--Flash176 (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

headings

for the transfomers in the original movie i changed the heading to "Transformers Films" should we leave it like that or use "Live Action Films" which one do you guys think works better Baller449 (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with "Transformers films" because there was a 1986 film. Mathewignash (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

so should i put "live action films" instead, im not going to disagree or should we get the opinion of others and i disagree with 2007 transformers film because of the upcomig movie which plus it has info on the upcoming movie Baller449 (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Transformers Films" is incorrect because "Films" isn't a proper noun, it should be lower case if you did you use. I also disagree with "Transformers films" because there was a 1986 film, which cannot be included in the series, but did exist. I disagree with "Live Action Films" because it both upper case non-nouns, and it's also inconsistant with the established way of listing versions of Transformers characters. In all Transformers articles the section headers are listed by the name of the series a Transformers first appeared in. For instance Prowl may have appeared in Generation 1, Machine Wars, Transformers Universe and Beast Wars, but he's listed as "Transformers: Generation 1" Prowl. Therefore a character who appeared in the 2007 movie would be listed as "2007 Transformers film" or possible "Transformers" and a character who appeared in the 2009 film would be "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". If they were in both the first one sets presidence. Please remember there are several instances of reused names in the live action universe already. There was a Jolt in the 2007 film, and another Jolt in the 2009 film. There was a Nightbeat in the 2007 film and another in the 2009 film. So we can't reall call them both "Live action Transformers series" Nightbeats and Jolts. Mathewignash (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

i think i understand thanks it just sounded like it was only talking about the 2007 film Baller449 (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Fallen?

So why no mention of The Fallen in this article?

Jason Griffith as Sideswipe?

According to various sites, Jason Griffith voices Sideswipe. However they have actually have no links or sources of this. I presume this should be left out here unless proper resources apppear, right? Evilgidgit (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Mathewignash (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's official today the 15th of June. http://transformerslive.blogspot.com/2009/06/arcee-and-sideswipe-voice-actors.html Mathewignash (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jason griffith doesnt voice in the film its André Sogliuzzo as sideswipe the film was in cinemas in the UK yestrday and jason wasnt in the creadits it was André Sogliuzzo as sideswipe. 14:48 June 20th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.220.242 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

hey i fond some reviewa do you think we should put them in the article AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

IGN UK (3/5)

View full review

It’s a fine set-up that is forcefully established in the movie’s superb opening hour. Bay masterfully zips between events at Cybertron (the Transformers’ homeworld), Sam’s opening day at college, the drama on a variety of military bases, and throws in several robot-on-robot battles for good measure, all at a breakneck pace that leaves you breathless.

“The film reaches its pinnacle with one such action set-piece that takes place in a forest - a brilliantly crafted sequence that is kinetic, emotional and genuinely thrilling. Unfortunately however, it is a climax that comes only an hour or so into the movie - the remaining 80 or so minutes just never quite scale the same heights.”

That’s the one BIG problem with ROTF; the movie stops dead halfway through, and then spends the rest of its overlong run-time building up a head of steam again, painstakingly setting up the eventual climax.

Bay takes an age meticulously manoeuvring all the film’s protagonists into place for a vast, epic confrontation in the middle of the Egyptian desert. But by the time this all-in royal rumble between the Autobots, Decepticons and US Army finally arrives, you are too numbed, exhausted and inured to actually give a damn about the outcome.

It is just kind of inexcusable that with such a ridiculously enjoyable formula, viewers of ROTF still spend the movie’s final half hour nursing a numb head and arse, and willing the noise to stop. Transformers 2 proves that sometimes less is more.

Total Film (4/5) View full review

Fallen so frequently approaches the first pic’s all-out awesomeness, and even occasionally surpasses it - notably in an opening blitzkrieg in Shanghai and a forest face-off between Optimus Prime and three Decepticons impressive enough to merit comparison with King Kong’s multiple T-Rex smackdown - that it’s this close to being the perfect summer flick.

The problem is, it’s the parts you remember, not the whole.

Bay may have upped the ante, taking his ’bots on the road (New York, Paris, the Pyramids), into space and even back in time (courtesy of an Apocalypto-like prologue set in 17,000 BC), but he hasn’t managed to assemble his components into a coherent mechanism.

Nor does his inability to keep his camera still or go two minutes without blowing shit up help, the hyperactivity reaching its nadir during a drawn-out climax in the Egyptian desert.

[...]

For all its faults, Fallen is genuinely more enjoyable than the summer’s other giant-robot picture Terminator Salvation. In contrast to McG’s portentous, po-faced tone, Bay works in a likeable strain of knowing humour that makes the two hour-plus running time fly by.

and their more at [4] AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

AUMS, let's just wait until the movie is released before putting up reviews in the main page. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Autobots/Decepticons

Ok I don't know about everyone else but I'm getting sick of all these rumors about who is in th film. So I'm only going to do this once whether you believe the roster or not oh well just watch for yourselves. Here is a roster of who is in the film as far as we know for sure.

Autobots Optimus Prime Ratchet Ironhide Bumblebee Jolt Mudflaps Skids Sideswipe Jetfire Arcee Chromia Purple bike- name unconfirmed

Decepticons Starscream Sideways The Fallen Scorponok Soundwave Ravage The Doctor Wheelie Demolishor Devastator= Scavenger+Scrapper+Hightower+Longhaul+Rampage+Overload+Mixmaster Insecticons Alice- which turns into a bird beak thing Megatron Grindor- it's true Blackout is not in this movie they look almost alike but, the helicopters are different

There was a rumor that Breakaway would be in the movie, but that rumor is not true.Xmotox (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of this? I think we know better than anybody else who is in the movie and who is not. The people that add unsourced info don't care about what you can say here. Uker (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Sideways killed in car mode

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9qBKY324Jk71.108.231.50 (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, I'll put that as source.Enryū6473 (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Except isn't that Sideswipe killing Sideways in the video? In exactly the same way as was reported by the person who attended the premiere in Japan? Mathewignash (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How about just leaving it out until after the movie is released so it's not a spoiler?--Flash176 (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, because Wikipedia doesn't hide "spoilers" - it's an encyclopedia, you come here to finds facts, so facts are not hidden. Wikipedia:Spoiler Also, tThe movie has been released in some areas already, and this death is in a COMMERCIAL released by the film maker, it in the comic book and novel adaptations, and seems to happen in the first few minutes of the film. It's not a shocker. 68.61.240.172 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah my bad got the names mixed up --71.108.231.50 (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Wikipedia's policy and never suggested we hide spoilers, only that we wait a bit. As for your reason about the movie being released already, not in any English markets. The only people who are trying to find out about the plot right now quite likely don't care about spoilers and will probably go somewhere else since there's not a complete synopsis here. Oh, and not everyone is intimately familiar with Transformers enough to recognize characters that they don't know about yet in previews.--Flash176 (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems counter productive to add material we know is accurate, then remove it and return it a couple days later. Mathewignash (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Jazz

several people seem to think hes in the movie does anybody think he could at least appear in a flashback Baller449 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

and these people are who exactly?--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

the fans and several people on youtube say they have a source that hes back plus darius mcrary was spotted on set with a pontiac solstice Baller449 (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

and he is not mentioned in the autobot section why?--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

i dont know it was before but was taken out because it wasnt confirmed and i dont know why its not mentioned ask somebody who contrbutes to it regularly Baller449 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Man, no. Jazz is NOT in the movie. Asking that question in a TF-related forum is probably the best way to earn yourself a truckload of facepalms. uKER (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

i didnt really think he was in it but there a lot of people saying so especially fans of his who really liked the character Baller449 (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're gonna take their word for it? Why not wait for the first day of showing, THEN your questions on jazz could be answered.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Video Game

I just saw some videos of the game's online play, and I must say I'm impressed with what I am seeing. It looks amazing but the only question in my mind right now is, how is the gameplay?Xmotox (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

shouldn't this go under the game page and not the film? =-_-=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Movie plot

shouldnt we wait for the 24th when its out worldwide and IMAX and it doesnt ruin it for some people AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree but I'm not sure the others would i have to exercise myself not to read it I dont want to spoil the movie for myself The Movie Master 1 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER. If you don't want the movie ruined, don't read the section. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 19:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I didnt read it know since its an encyclopedia it wont get moved The Movie Master 1 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So Barricade isn't in the movie

LOL, I knew it. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.45.230 (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody and their old grandma knew it. Uker (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a scene where police cars chase Bumblebee? Is that implied to maybe be Barricade? Or was that a red herring? Mathewignash (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing Ban until the 24th

I may not have a real Wikipedia profile or account, but I know this is getting out of hand. In just a few moments, the voice actors for Sideswipe, Jolt, Wheelie, and the Twins keep getting switched and changed irresponsibly.

I suggest we put this article under lock from editing until June 24th, and only senior Wikipedia administrators can edit it until then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.179.105 (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

wait, what?! That is erratic. How about we agree to talk about them in here before we post them. That way they are verrified.Enryū6473 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If we lock it how do we fix it if it's locked with the wrong information? Also, this page isn't the only one to have problems, as every individual character page is being rewritten every few hours. I say warn people making false edits as being vandalizers and getting them suspended for a day or two if they keep it up. Mathewignash (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, some people like that Blackout repeat offender don't even care about consensus. As for keeping things tight until June 24, I've stressed it earlier that we just can't work on the article even when it already premiered in Japan and South Korea. Hell, some of the individual character articles already have sections on their appearances in the movie. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And since yesterday, it's been released here in the UK too. Akata (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

SOMEONE SEMIPROTECT THIS AT LEAST UNTIL THE END OF THE MONTH!!! uKER (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I requested semiprotection and it only took them like five minutes. WAY TO GO!!! :) uKER (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Uker, do you really have to shout? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the semi-protection is not removed on the 24th, as it is likely there will be similar edits when the film comes out in America. Evilgidgit (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Eaglestorm, it would be you shouting had it been you the one that had to be here reverting the evergoing tide of ridiculous edits. Uker (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jolt's voice

Several users say he doesn't talk in the film but several sources said Anthony Anderson voiced him has anybody here actually seen the movie i mean he was in a crucial part if he helped upgrade optimus he must have said something otherwise he would be the only autobot that doesn't say anything The Movie Master 1 (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Jolt doesn't say anything. Quite a few of the voice actors listed in the article are wrong, actually, but oooh, no reliable "secondary source" to correct them with, save the thousands of UK editors who saw the movie and read the credits. - 81.157.155.181 (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yep, there, see, added the info from the UK screenings, and down it comes, to be replaced with information that's just as uncited, but completely wrong. Oh, and I see the gentleman responsible has gone around adding Jolt to Anthony Anderson's page, and Sideswipe to Jason Griffith's, and so on, when everyone at least had the common sense not to do it before... yeah, he's going to look particularly fucking stupid in like four days. - 78.32.44.57 (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen the IMAX "longer cut" version of the movie yet, but in the theatre version, at least here in the UK, no, Jolt doesn't have any lines. Also, Rampage is red and is not a part of Devastator, while the Blackout "clone" appears unexplained and unnamed. However, I think you guys who form the main line of editors of this article should wait until the 24 June release. The editing of the second half of the film goes haywire and I won't be surprised if Bay releases a slightly alternate edited version on the 24th. The editing is so chaotic because you can see Long Haul and Mixmaster fighting solo even after Devastator has formed in the ultimate battle. There's so much of reused animation in the last scene that even a 12-year-old can point it out. I hope the filmmakers have a logical explanation for that. Glaeronius (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Devastator/constructicon thing was explained at Botcon (Transformers convention). There are literally a lot of constructicons in the movie, each having one of seven body types (Scavenger, Mixmaster, Rampage, Long Haul, Scrapper, Hightower, and Overload). Devastator is simply formed by how many constructicons are available at the time, be it 15 or 7.72.128.60.173 (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would presume protoforms from the nemesis that scanned the same vehicles as the constructicons ala "Grindor"?--71.108.231.50 (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What? Devastator with more than 7 constructicons? How would that come to be? uKER (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems that there are a dozen or so "Constructions", seemingly two or so of each alt mode. Only 6 or 7 combine into Devastator, and those are just the ones near Scavenger when he initiates the combining process. Perhaps combining is a power he has, and he just pulls other into it, whoever and however many are handy. Mathewignash (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

release dates

on the box on the right it says the release date is june 24 for north america, new zealand & australia, and it is listed as june 19 for the uk and ireland, a quick google search will reveal that the june 19 release date is actually for the whole of europe and not just those two countries, so i think that should be changed, and instead of writing out both new zealand and australia, couldnt it be simply classed as oceania —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.62.222 (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

no it not here is a link to the official release date list [5]

disambig page

Why is there a disambig page for "revenge of the fallen" when the only other item listed is a novel for which there is no wikipedia article? Isn't a disambig page only required when multiple articles may have the same or a similar title? CPitt76 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

its a good idea to have one. The idea of them is to see the different things that could mean what you are looking for. If there is a novel, then it should stay.Enryū6473 (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What he said. uKER (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Grindor alt mode

Has anyone identified Grindor's helicopter mode as definitely a Pavelow? The novel described him as a Russian transport helicopter. The toy is just a quick redeco of the Blackout toy. Looking at the live footage from the trailer with him in vehicle mode, is that a pavelow or a russian helicopter? Or something else? Mathewignash (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Going by the "We're Gonna Die" video, it's the same helo as Blackout. uKER (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Arcee bikes' models

Although ATM it constitutes OR, I've figured out the bike model for Arcee. She's a Ducati 1198 Superbike. See bike image here and toy image here. uKER (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Followup: I just figured out Chromia too. Here's Chromia's Deluxe toy and concept art. She's a 2008 Suzuki B-King. The toy bike seems to have custom faceplate, gas tank and exhaust pipes, but compare the headlight in the concept and the real bike. If you look closely at the headlight, the concept artist even seems to have used that very same pic of the bike I posted. uKER (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I just found the Suzuki logo on the right side of her chest in the concept, thus I'm adding the brand for Chromia as well. I'd also suggest adding the models for the bikes that don't have it listed yet (especially the B-King in which it's evident that they used that pic for the concept), but I'm not sure if that would somehow need sourcing besides the blatantly obvious. uKER (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the bike model for Chromia. Also, notice the ref for her bike mode now includes two links, one for her concept pic, and a comparison between the concept and the bike. Hope that makes it sufficiently evident. I would do something similar for Arcee's bike, but there's three visually identical Ducati bikes and there's no way I can tell what bike the concept is based on, since their promotional images are also identical. Should anyone care, they're the Ducati 898, 1098 and 1198. uKER (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Chromia's toy bio

I have said it before, but I'll bring it to discussion again. Is Chromia's toy bio really relevant to this article? For what is known, the bikes aren't given any character in the movie, so citing the toy's bio says nothing about their movie selves. IMHO, the relevance of the toys goes only as far as to provide a name to each bike, that extraoficially allows easy reference to each individual one. uKER (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

All the characters deserve at least one line of personality. If the movie writers are lacking, I save give the privilidge to the toy makers. While this may be a bit odd for a movie article, I'd say this is a special circumstance since in this case it's a movie based on a toy line, not the other way around, like Star Trek or Star Wars. Hasbro actually owns the characters in this case. Mathewignash (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to hear other people's opinions given you were the one who added that info in the first place. I disagree with that urge of yours that all characters MUST have at least one line of personality. I mean, if the character isn't given personality in the movie I don't see why it should be given one here. If the toy was given personality, IMHO it belongs in the toy article unless there's something in the movie that suggests otherwise, eg some particular relationship between her and Ironhide, which obviously isn't the case. Same goes for that meaningless quote from Rampage's bio. uKER (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I say what does it hurt to leave them, but I'll abide by the decision of others if there great deal of disagreement with my position. Thanks for taking the time to ask politely rather that just deleting it. Mathewignash (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. About the harm in leaving them, I guess it's not a matter of harm, but more like background noise. I'd be happy if what's said here about them is strictly what is said in the movie: they're three female bike bots that share a single consciousness, each with a different color and transforming into different bike models. Not much more to say IMHO. If people really care that much, they can always click the wikilink in each bike's name and learn about the character's background, toy, whatever. But that's just me, so people, we want to hear you. uKER (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion (having not seen the movie yet) is that if they don't really have any on-screen character presented, the info from the toys should be placed on each character's article, not here; this is about the film, not the characters of the film. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If we TOTALLY remove all the data from the toys and only go by the movie, then we even have to remove things like the names Scalpel and Ejector, and probably even the information on which Constructicon is which name, since in the material in the film doesn't tell us. Do they ever even say Jolt's name? Mathewignash (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Jolt's only major scene in the film is when he combines Optimus with Jetfire's remain's by connecting his whips to them, Ratchet does say his name beforehand. Dark Warrior D (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2009

Why would you want to remove their names? Save for some exceptions (maybe Scalpel and Ejector) the bots were all referenced by these names in production interviews and promotional material. For the time being, until more people give their opinions, I'm rephrasing Chromia's bio, lightening it on information that reaches out as far as G1. uKER (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Numerous Constructicons/Decepticons

Honestly, watcing the film I was surprised at the number of reused models. Should there be mention of (for instance) the two different Mixmasters and Rampages (one who combined the other who didn't) or the background Bonecrusher who drove by early in the fight? Mathewignash (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the films are reaching the point where some of the Transformers qualify as mere extras, rather than characters worth noting in the article. The movies may be titled Transformers, but that doesn't mean every single Transformer that pops up on the screen for a few seconds deserves discussion. The article is first and foremost an encyclopedic entry on a film. Specific robots only really merit being specifically mentioned if they're significant to the film.

Having said that, I think the fact that there are duplicate robots is worth noting for a couple of reasons. First, disambiguation. Someone who isn't much of a Transformers fan seeing the film could easily be confused by seeing robots that are supposed to be dead, robots in two places at once, robots randomly changing colors, etc. If an star actor played a role in a movie of someone who had hundreds of clones, each one of those wouldn't be individually notable, but it would be worth noting why so many characters in the film are all played by the same actor. Similarly, I think it's worth explaining the appearance of multiple similar robots. Second, all the duplicate bots changes the nature of the conflict that's central to the movies. In the first film, the stakes were high due to the presence of the leaders of each army and the Allspark, but it was a very small-scale conflict in terms of the number of bots involved. A list of only the major characters in the second film would imply a similarly small scale. The presence of the additional bots indicates that the scale is increasing from a small skirmish to a war on Earth.

The bigger question is, where do we draw the line? Some random Bonecrusher clone in the background clearly isn't notable. But what about characters like Jolt or Sideways? They have unique character models and may be notable outside the scope of the film, but they don't speak and have trivial parts in the film itself. They're more than extras, and humans playing a similar role in a movie would make the credits list. But do they really warrant character entries on the Wikipedia page for the film? I'd compare their roles to characters like the bounty hunters other than Boba Fett in The Empire Strikes Back. They're cool, the fans get into it a lot, and they have tons of appearances in the Star Wars Expanded Universe, but they're really not notable within the film itself. Teratron (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting a second character if the first character has en entry. Two Mixmasters and two Rampages at the same time are worth noting. Also, Bonecrusher was a major cast member in the last film, so his appearance in this film is worth noting. Mathewignash (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How was Bonecrusher a major cast member? He only appeared in the last hour of the film and died with in 5 minutes..--71.108.231.50 (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonecrusher was noteable because he returned from the last film. Mathewignash (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the treatment this has been given also. It's fine mentioning there's multiple copies of each constructicon, but what scene each is seen in is irrelevant. Also, adding Bonecrusher as a main character and not just a cameo mention is ridiculous. First of all, he only has a background appearance, never transforming into robot mode. Besides, he can't have survived the first movie as he got his face chopped off (don't come telling he's still alive because his spark wasn't removed, because in that case no characters would have been killed in any of the two movies). Relocating Bonecrusher alongside Frenzy as a cameo appearance. uKER (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You can maybe move him to cameos. Remember though that beheading doesn't always kill a Transformer (movie Frenzy?). Why would it have killed Bonecrusher? You must destroy the spark. Mathewignash (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but doesn't Frenzy die when his razor saw thing beheads him and isn't that how Grindor and the Fallen the Fallen gets the spike stuck through his head and Grindor gets his face torn up The Movie Master 1 (talk)

Mathewignash, it's funny how I say "don't come telling he's still alive because his spark wasn't removed" and you just jump in and say that exact same thing. Way to go.
And Movie Master, no, Frenzy's head is still on the run after getting chopped off. After that he scans Mikaela's phone, and I really don't recall if he is ever seen again in the movie. I recall something like him being restored when he gets near the Cube, but... uKER (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

i meant when he was attacking simmons and keller he launches one of those saw things that flies around then comes back and beheades himself The Movie Master 1 (talk)

Megatron's "jet" mode?

We see Megatron fly in the film, at least he seems to be in robot mode, but when he arrives in Egypt we see him fly in in the background (but can barely see him), then we hear him transform then see him land on the pyrimid as a robot. Either he was flying as a tank or he still has a jet mode. Mathewignash (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was already confirmed that he was a triple changer?--71.108.231.50 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The article currently states "He is resurrected by the Constructicons with dead robots' parts as a Cybertronian tank, while retaining his jet mode.", and it has been that way for as long as I remember. What are you suggesting we do? uKER (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who put the jet mode into the article, based on the preview of the book and on the comic book depiction. I'm just confirming now he seems to have it, but sadly we don't really ever see it. He may be a jet, or may be a flying tank. He can definitelt transform into SOMETHING that flies. The novel said it was a "terrestrial" jet, the comic had the first movie's Cybertronian jet. Mathewignash (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't have a problem with it. uKER (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fandango

Should we include in the reception section that it's currently rated at 4.6/5 on Fandango.com out of 1,000+ ratings? http://www.fandango.com/transformers:revengeofthefallen_111307/movieoverview 71.108.231.50 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rampage reviving Megatron

This issue was brought up once, but I guess it's safe to add now. Is there consensus in adding Rampage as the third Constructicon reviving Megatron at the bottom of the ocean? There's no source that explicitly says it but neither is there for Long Haul and Mixmaster and we know it's them. Perhaps now that time has gone by and we know it can't be anyone else, it can be considered safe for adding. Notice, there is still a fourth unidentified bot. uKER (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, just a guess, but given Overload and Hightower not having alt modes, and Scavenger being not only out of scale, but also kinda stand-still-handiccapped, I'd say the fourth one can be no other than scrapper. But I'll add it tomorrow after I see the movie and know for sure. uKER (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Barricade

so is he confirmed to be in the movie because if he doesnt transform we cant be sure its actually him and if hes not why is he in the article Baller449 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeez! He's not meant to be in the article. If you ever see Barricade again in the article, please REMOVE HIM. Same with Blackout. uKER (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Death spoilers in character descriptions.

I just created this account to mention that I now know exactly who is going to die, when they're going to die, and who is going to kill them in a movie I've been looking forward to for over a year. I just prefer not knowing that until I've seen the film for myself. Mostly Decepticon deaths, but still, I wanna find out when I see it.

I understand the desire to be as informative as possible and do really appreciate it, but that aspect of mentioning who dies in such a new movie is, in my opinion, a little unnecessary.

I'm not totally pointing fingers at this specific article, several other Transformers related ones had death spoilers (specifically the worst of all, letting me know in advance that a major Autobot dies. Fantastic) that you just kind of glance at and go, "...Dammit."

I just don't think those facts are necessary until long after everyone has had a chance to even see the movie, it comes out tonight/tomorrow (June 24 2009) at midnight where I am.

Thanks! 281 luv (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia's policy is not to remove spoilers, I agree with you that they don't belong in the characters' descriptions, but only in the film's plot, which one wouldn't obviously read if they didn't want to be spoiled. I am so removing them. Thanks for pointing it out and pity you had to get spoiled. Happy moviegoing! BTW, I haven't seen the movie either. :) uKER (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Skipjack

A member at the TFW2005 reported the movie credits some Kevin Michael Richardson guy as voicing (or playing) an unknown character called "Skipjack". Just thought I'd let you guys know. uKER (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Scavenger's robot mode (AGAIN)

Mathewignash, are you kidding me? I just stated that Scavenger's bot mode is the same as Demolishor and you delete it? It was you who added that info in the first place. I even deleted it, and <HERE> is a discussion with you supposedly justifying you adding it back. Asides from the toy, now we know there's several Constructicons of each class, and there's nothing indicating that there can be several bots that sharing same alt mode, but having different bot modes. uKER (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The write up was based on the comic and novel. Now I saw the film and they didn't show the robot mode, so I removed it. We had agreed to use the novel and comic as a guide until we saw the film. Now I saw the film. No robot mode. Mathewignash (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Arcee

Hey, you have pretty much the end results of all the Autobots and all the Decepticons already up on this page, but it is so unclear with Arcee. The red one dies? There was no red one, right? So was it the pink one or the purple one (I'm assuming either could be mistaken for red given the sunlight in the desert)? The Wikipedia page for Arcee was no better. At one time, it even conflicted saying at one point that all three died but later on in the page that only two died. Now it says that only two died and the last one became Mikaela's bike. Can people clarify what exactly happened to Arcee, which colored bike(s) survived, and perhaps confirm the Mikaela thing at the very end, even if only in the discussion page and not on the actual wiki page? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's quite unclear. Since Michael Bay claimed that he doesn't like Arcee, and decided to kill her. It means that she dies in the movie, but further info is unclear, whether the Sisters are dead or not. The movie only shown that the blue got shot first, then the pink. Then it's unclear if they die or not. But they could possibly alive since they just got shot, not torn apart like Jazz in the 1st movie. The blue one got shot from behind, but still in shape, and the pink one just got shot on the left shoulder, and it's not broken at all. So, it could be possible that the Sisters are alive, but severely injured, as they still accompanied by Ironhide, it's possible that Ironhide takes them to safety. And some media say that the Purple Sister is Moonracer, while some only state it as "another unnamed sister." Is it true that the purple one is Moonracer? Forestlicious (talk) ??:??, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The comic for the movie shows the blue and purple bikes arriving to the site of the final battle in Egypt, so I'd say it's safe to assume it's the pink one that dies. And, no, there's nothing remotely believable saying it's Moonracer or Elita 1 or any name for that matter. As of today, any name you may hear is just fanboys' wishful thinking, and it will most probably stay that way until the toy for the purple bike is released. Uker (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you see it clearly, they are all arrive in the Egypt battle. See, when Lennox brings the Autobots, we clearly see that they were 3 motorcycles, and Arcee even moves before jumps to the site. And when Galloway faces Optimus, Galloway asks Optimus why Optimus brings "friends from outer space". It's clear that Galloway asks Optimus after the battle in Shanghai, means that they're safe. And after Chromia got shot when was trying to escort Sam, we clearly see that two of the Sisters are alive, and soon after the pink one got shot. After that, it's offscreen, and the Sisters were only presumed to be dead. Forestlicious (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

See, I didn't get a word of what you said, but let's get consensus on this and not just edit our minds into the article. My take, not having seen the movie (I'll see it in five hours), going by what Bay said, is that the pink one should die. Bay said Arcee would get killed, but he said it when the bikes were still supposed to combine and they would get separate names, that is, the ones they have in the toys, so Arcee is the pink one. Uker (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you were to ask my opinion (which granted isn't much since I have yet to see the movie) it should be made clear that unlike the toyline, Arcee is actually all three motorcycles in the movie. While there may be a Chromia and a Moonracer in the toyline, they were not in the movie. So technically, as long as one bike survives, Arcee survives. I think we should clarify which Arcee motorcycles get destroyed (and we could leave it that it is unclear whether they were destroyed or just damaged) but we should most definitely clarify that because one motorcycle was not shown being hit, Arcee was not "completely" killed off. (Michael Bay could have lied when he said that he killed Arcee off, or if you go by my logic, he told a partial lie.) And so the end scene where Mikaela owns the last Arcee motorcycle as described in the Arcee Wikipedia article was completely made up? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the movie the Sisters are known as a single mind Autobot named Arcee. And finally Bay made two of three Sisters got shot. Like PegasusHoplite28 says, as one bike survives, Arcee survives. And it's unclear if they were truly dead, as it's not shown in the movie furthermore. They just got shot, but not torn apart. I think Mikaela's bike at the end of the movie is the same bike she used before. It's obviously red colored, not pink, purple, or even blue. Forestlicious (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What I was going to say. Mikaela's bike is a red Aprilia. It's not any of the Arcee bikes. Uker (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the argument that they were just shot and not torn apart is legitimate because Brawl and Blackout were both shot to death in the first movie, and Arcee's motorcycle bodies are much more fragile that the two Decepticons. But yeah, if they aren't seen again, the argument can go both ways that those two motorcycles were destroyed. I think, however, that it should be confirmed that Arcee was not killed given how the third motorcycle was not shown taking any damage. There is one caveat though, if the final scene shows all the surviving Autobots but Arcee isn't there, then she's dead. However, if for example, the final scene only shows Optimus Prime, we should argue that Arcee lives given my previous arguments of what was not shown. As for the Mikaela's bike not being Arcee... if it is very clear that that bike was not any of the ones that Arcee used, that comment really needs to be removed from the Arcee page. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, who decided to say that "Arcee was mortally wounded" and can be "presumed dead" in this page and the Arcee page? I mean, am I completely wrong with the thing about the third motorcycle surviving equals Arcee surviving? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not wrong at all. There is no further information about her. Bay said, Arcee is dead, but the movie shows the possibility that she is alive. As you say, that only Optimus was shown in the final scene. Blue Arcee could be dead but the Pink one was shot on her left shoulder, the it went offscreen. As long as her spark or head isn't destroyed, and as long as most of her parts aren't destroyed either, it's possible that she's alive. Don't forget that she fought along with Ironhide, which is also possible that Ironhide escort her safety after defeating the Decepticon. Forestlicious (talk) 2:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And the purple one made it entirely. The purple one is still Arcee, in the movie at least. Just trying to figure out why someone decided to write otherwise in the synopsis of the Revenge of the Fallen article. Someone want to change/revert that? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I just saw the movie and two of the bikes get shot and right after the military comes and bombs the location and since they were wounded I doubt the escaped that explosion so therefore they are dead..--71.108.231.50 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just for the sake or argument, let us say the two bikes were destroyed in the aerial bombardment. We could even say that the Decepticons killed the two bikes before the aerial bombardment even came. There is still one bike unaccounted for, which would mean Arcee is still alive. That last bike, even though it may be purple, is still Arcee as discussed earlier. And granted I have not seen the movie yet, you cannot make an argument that the aerial bombardment killed the last bike; it would be like assuming that Ironhide also got killed in the aerial bombardment. I think the last bike unaccounted for proves that Arcee is still alive. Say that two of the three bikes that make up Arcee were destroyed if you would like, but it would also be nice if you clarified that the third Arcee bike was still alive by the end of the film. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There. I wrote that the bikes get hurt but Arcee's fate is unclear. DO NOT CHANGE UNLESS YOU HAVE PROOF THAT INDICATES OTHERWISE. Uker (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to further clarify, yes two of the three motorcycles are destroyed, and the third actually is never seen again. But from what I hear, there are other Autobots, such as Ironhide and Sideswipe who are not seen in the final scenes after the final battle, right? And it is assumed that they live. Therefore, and maybe I am just playing with semantics here, but Arcee's survival, resting in the last motorcycle that did not get destroyed, SHOULD be as clear as the fate of Ironhide and Sideswipe. I guess I just do not understand why Arcee surviving is so heavily contested (given the numerous changes back and forth in the Wikipedia article) whereas the fates of the other lesser Autobots are not. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)