Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Plot Summary

The plot summary is incorrect. Sam isn't killed by the blast from the bombs, he's killed by Megatron shooting at him.--68.202.139.56 (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Blackout or Grindor?

I saw they added Blackout to the movie cast list, I'd assume it's because you seen a robot who looks like him in the trailer from ShoWest. I was just curious do we have any confirmation it's Blackout, because a toy from Hasbro just leaked in box, and he's a Similar looking helicopter named Grindor. [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)

Actually, Devastator is formed by unnamed Constructicons with the same models that Mixmaster, Long Haul, Rampage, Demolishor and Scrapper. In the film we can see the robots that form Devastator (8 already) and have the same alt mode that Mixmaster, Long Haul, Rampage, Demolishor and Scrapper, but in the next scene we can see it figthing in solo mode. So, there are several identicals models of constructicons? (KeP, June 26)

Spoilers

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

WP:SPOILERS so there was no requirement to remove but conversely there was no requirement to include the detail in the plot summary so it now (last I checked) nicely states with minimal spoilers that his 'last words' were that that Fallen will return. Good to see the editors showing restraint when it comes to spoilers and only including the most relevant details. -- Horkana (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't understand any of what you said. Were you being cynical or was it serious? Uker (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Morshower

Since i am not an admin so i cant edit it, can someone who can edit it please change "Glenn Morshower, having cameoed in the 2007 film's opening action sequence as a soldier killed by Blackout," to "Glenn Morshower, having cameoed in the 2007 film's opening action sequence as Colonel Sharp who was killed by Blackout,". here is the reference : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Morshower. thanks.

Another wiki page is not a valid reference. Uker (talk) 19:01, 26 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)

Is it worth noting that Frank Welker's voice for Soundwave is the unaltered "Dr. Claw" voice used for the cartoon before the pitch and effects were added for the cartoon? Technically it is the same voice as used in the cartoon, and in one episode there was an instance where you can hear the unaltered voice (Soundwave says "Excellent, Ravage!" with the effects not put on the voice in the final mix). It's minor, obviously, but it could be mentioned in the part about the voices under Soundwave. UncleThursday (talk) 08:56, 27 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)

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)

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

Remove "The Nostalgia Critic also gave a good review on the movie. Although he obviously pointed out major holes in the movie, he thought it was great and "adequately satisfying"." That review isn't necessary and has no citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.15.8 (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

No, that was just a bunch of Egyptian police cars.--75.44.146.95 (talk) 22:19, 24 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)

Someone needs to check the three brands of motorcycles that are listed for Arcee. I think one is a Buell. Concept drawings are not always true to the finished product. It is also possible that the toy is different from the actual bike used in the movie.

There's no Buell in this movie. The Buell Firebolt was used for Arcee's alt mode in the first movie's concept, and it's the bike Lennox rides when he slides under Blackout to shoot him. I saw Revenge of the Fallen twice and I can assure the bikes are the ones. Note I still couldn't figure out which of the three (identical) Ducati bikes I mentioned is the pink bike. BTW, the Agusta F4's F4 logo if clearly seen on several occasions. Also, the Ducati's distinctive headlights are visible several times in the movie; also the B-King's distinctive triangular tailpipes are seen in a shot where the three bikes are seen from behind. For the sake of assurance, I couldn't even notice any modifications in the bikes. Save for the paint jobs, the three of them looked pretty stock. Uker (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There. Arcee's bike models confirmed. Arcee turned out to be an 848. uKER (talk) 13:18, 28 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)

The Fallen gets his spark ripped out by Optimus. Watch: Optimus punches his fist through The Fallen's chest. I didn't see the spark, but that's obviously what happened.--75.44.146.95 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Actually, Devastator is formed by unnamed Constructicons with the same models that Mixmaster, Long Haul, Rampage, Demolishor and Scrapper. In the film we can see the robots that form Devastator (8 already) and have the same alt mode that Mixmaster, Long Haul, Rampage, Demolishor and Scrapper, but in the next scene we can see it figthing in solo mode. So, there are several identicals models of constructicons? (KeP, June 26)

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)

I got to see the movie earlier this evening. Megatron pretty clearly has the flying tank form seen in various concept images and the Voyager-class toy. I can't remember which scene it was, as he was shown flying in vehicle mode a few times, but in one of the scenes I very distinctly saw the flying tank's distinctive shape with the four short wings protruding from the tank treads. He does not retain his original jet mode in the film. I didn't notice if the wings were hidden when he drives in tank mode, but even if they are, it would be a pretty big stretch to call him a triple changer in this film. Teratron (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no such jet mode. It's more like a tank that can somehow fly. BTW, I think the article is fine as it currently is. uKER (talk) 03:00, 26 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)

If we did that, we would be negligent in also including the (subjective) ratings from hundreds of other websites. For this reason, Wikipedia does not post movie ratings.Erpbridge (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but fandango is not just any website..--71.108.231.50 (talk) 01:14, 25 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)

yeah he was one of the 13 originals right =^-^= Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

edit: hey Uker, I tried looking up that name and found no known link and that name wasn't among the 13 originals. are you sure that his character?--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What? It was you not me the one who said it was one of the originals. BTW, the originals are 7, not 13. And, I really couldn't imagine one of them being called 'Skipjack'. I mean... no. And I don't have a clue who he is, nor did I see his name in the credits. I just saw a guy who mentioned having seen it. BTW, don't copy/paste your signature, man!!! To sign your posts, enter four tildes (~~~~) into the post or use the editing toolbar below. uKER (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I said he was one of them, but I never said he was skipjack. also if it is seven why are we saying 13? and I didn't copy and paste my sig, I edited my post =-_-=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Who's saying they're 13? And you did mess the sig. First there's this revision in which you added the 'yeah' comment. Then 19 hours later you make this one and your first post's signature passes on to the second one. The current signature in your second post was added by me here (BTW, seems like I missed a digit in the process). uKER (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

this page claims to be 13 originals--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 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)

Can you prove that they failed to make it? If not then you're not sure 74.207.208.6 (talk) 01:02, 25 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)

No, two of the motocycles were shot during the final battle, no confirmation if they were destroyed, its possible they were caught in the explosion, however its also possible that they were outside the blast from the aerial bombardment, as they were about half a mile away when shot 74.207.208.6 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The last "Arcee" was seen running with Ironhide before the explosion and is not seen after. So she is still alive because she was right next to Ironhide and he survived.--71.108.231.50 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There we go. That answers that. I mean, I would be totally okay with the Wiki synopsis saying that two of Arcee's motorcycles are destroyed and leave it at that. But do not go saying that Arcee (in the general usage of the name for all three motorcycles) was mortally wounded because clearly Arcee survives in one motorcycle. Just out of curiosity, if Arcee's last scene is running with Ironhide before the explosion, is that Ironhide's last scene as well? PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well even then one can't be certain if the other two motocycles were destroyed, remember we've seen that transformer bodies can be repaired as long as they can obtain parts, if even one of the Arcee's survived the other two bodies can be rebuilt 74.207.208.6 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Arcee was not seen after but Ironhide was there when they were trying to revive sam after the aerial bombardment.--71.108.231.50 (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So I finally watched the movie. The purple bot is hit in the back talking to Sam. The pink bot is hit in the ensuing fight, and the blue bot takes cover and isn't hit. However, I could not see the blue bot running with Ironhide to escape the aerial bombardment. There were plenty of scenes of the lesser Autobots after the bombardment such as the revival of Sam and Optimus, but none of Arcee was present. So very unconfirmed; Bay does not show the blue Arcee being killed or surviving, unintentionally leaving it up to the viewer to have to decide for himself or herself if Arcee lives or not something that I will personally deplore him for. Ultimately, I like how the article is right now stating that two of Arcee's modes are destroyed and just leaving it ambiguous about the third and Arcee's overall fate. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Arcee, the purple bike, died in the movie. She was shot by Megatron while talking to Sam to come with her. The blue and orange motorbikes were last seen in the scene were Optimus Prime transformed in to jet convoy super mode. I think the other two motorbikes, along Jetfire's parts, were merged to Optimus Prime.

I agree with you on the purple. I really didn't see the blue and pink (I am assuming you meant pink) motorcycles when they were combining Optimus Prime with Jetfire, but if others confirm that they were there, so much the better. I plan on watching it again to see, but right now, I think Bay really just left it very unclear. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

From Bay's point of view that he didn't like Arcee at all, it can be assumed that it was not necessary to make a small blue female autobot run with Ironhide. Maybe it's pointless for Bay to make Arcee alive, as he stated that he would make Arcee die, and it's hard to see blue Arcee as Ironhide was way too large than her. As 74.207.208.6 said, Arcee can be repaired as long as she can obtain parts, and the blue one (Chromia) managed to escape from Megatron's shot. After the purple one got shot, the scene went to Megatron chasing blue and pink Arcee with Ironhide, and Megatron shot the pink one on her right shoulder. But it's still unclear and no further information if two of the bots were totally destroyed by the shot. Forestlicious (talk) 2:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Bay probably just decided not to make Arcee run with Ironhide or in the scenes afterward for filming reasons; she was notably absent in the forest scene while everyone else was there. As for the aerial bombardment, the theory could also be made given Arcee's choppy appearances post-director-editing that the last blue Arcee evacuated from the targeted area long before Sam, Mikaela, Lennox, Epps and Ironhide start running. Interestingly enough too, the twins disappear long before Devastator is killed. So Bay gives his favorite Mudflap and Skids the same uncertain fate that he gives his hated Arcee. Under this rationalization it ought to be assumed that Bay just doesn't show Arcee or the twins any further for filming reasons, nothing else. Back to Arcee presumed alive. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Skids and Mudflap fate is uncertain also. Though Mudflap seems managed to destroy parts of devastator face, their fate is unknown. And yes, blue Arcee did escape from Megatron far from Sam's with the Primes scene. So we can conclude that all the Autobots are alive, even mortally wounded. Except Jetfire of course. Forestlicious (talk) 2:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"conclude all...are alive, even mortally wounded"? Slight contradiction, but I understand what you mean. Jetfire is the only one clearly killed; the rest (twins and Arcee included) can safely be presumed/concluded to have survived. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I finally watched the movie for the 2nd time. This time, I'll explain the details of it: After Sam & Mikaela get closer to Optimus, purple Arcee approached them and told them to "follow her, she'll get them to Optimus". After said that, she turned back only to get shot on the face. Then the scene changes to blue & pink Arcee with Ironhide (on slow motion). Blue Arcee managed to hide herself behind a large building site, along with another soldier. While the pink Arcee trying to cover herself but got shot on her upper right body, resulting the weapon on her right hand got destroyed, but her body is totally fine. She fell soon after, but slightly managed to get up a bit, then the scene changed. Although there's a scene of the bombardment, where Sam, Mikaela, and Ironhide ran from it, but no Arcee. It can be concluded that purple & pink Arcee survived but severely injured, and the blue one was totally fine. It means, Arcee is still fine and alive.Forestlicious (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

semi-protection

there seems to be a raid right now, somebody should conside semi-protect --Overthinkingly (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC) {{editsemiprotected}}

I had requested it, and it seems to have gone into effect. We are semi-protected for a month now. Mathewignash (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Rotten Tomatoes Community Rating

Someone has stated that the rotten tomatoes user community gave this film a 57% negative when actually they gave it a 68% postive rating in the bottom of the reception page here is proof . Also they state that audience reaction has been mixed when after wards they clearly post numbers suggesting positive audience reception (not critical) and not so much mixed. Can someone correct these errors please. --Inflataman (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, when I check on RT, I see a rating of 21%....http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen/ Why is that? My mistake. I realized that you're referencing the RT Community rating.

Yes so can someone fix it because 57% is the first movies tomameter rating so It's obviously wrong.

Public reviews?

Is there any precedent for citing sources of public opinion of films like IMDB users, RottenTomatoes users, IGN users, etc, which are prone to rapid flux and quite frankly, academic irrelevance. Plus, as far as I'm aware, we don't quote IMDB, PERIOD. Is anyone monitoring this page? Briguy7783 (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Per WP:MOSFILM, user ratings should not used. - kollision (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You know that I am a member on IMDb. Have been for the past year or around that time. Philipnova798 (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Demolishor and The Doctor's voices

Who provides their voices? Or are their actors uncredited for them? I would like to know so that I can update the Decpticon voice credits. Philipnova798 (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I were you, I would go to see the movie again. Better than do nothing in vacation. Then watch the final credits. It should be there. I left the movie before the cast credits. It's just my suggestion. Forestlicious (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just saw it the first time and I think the vocie credits page needs to be updated...Again. And no, I still didn't see who played Demolishor due to how fast they were going. Though I did notice two new actors that played voice roles in the movie.

And who the hell is Skipjack anyway? (Sorry about the language, but it had to be said) Philipnova798 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just a quickie here. The voices on the page (that I added) were confimed in the end credits. I also added the Primes into the cast. So edit the info, but don't edit them out. They are confirmed in the credits and that's that. Philipnova798 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Rampage

Rampage needs to be mentioned in this article under the Decepticons. He was the red one in the movie that Bumblebee killed before killing Ravage. User:ARCViper 12:23, 25 June 2009

He's already listed under the Constructicons (who obviously are Decepticons). The Devastator toys list Rampage as taking part in him, so I'd say listing Rampage outside of the Constructicons would only add to the confusion. Uker (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as far as we can tell there are two guys named Rampage. Mathewignash (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, um no. Only one guy is named Rampage and it's the one that kidnaps Sam's parents and is fought by BB after releasing them in Egypt. I do agree however that there are several guys with the same mold. The problem is that the character named Rampage does not take part in the formation of Devastator.
The best solution I can suggest, which would also serve to somewhat clear up the mess that is the relation between Scavenger and Demolishor, is taking the Constructicon list out of Devastator and then listing the Constructicons based on their vehicle modes only and not their names.
Then in each class we would list any named characters in that class, if any. Scavenger and Demolishor would then be mentioned under a same item, under the Constructicons transforming into the RH-400 excavator.
Also, in Devastator's description, we would specify the components seen to form him in the movie, which would tie in well to what was said about him having the ability to be formed by different combinations of components.
If everyone's OK with this, I'll do it and see it turns out right. Uker (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was actually considering proposing something similar. Due to all the duplicates, and name confusion far beyond Brawl/Devastator from the first film, something definitely needs to be done differently. Listing them by unique body types is really the only thing I can think of that makes sense. What I've been struggling with is trying to come up with a way to simultaneously address the other duplicates, like Blackout/Grindor, Bonecrusher and his RotF clone, and (to a lesser extent) Barricade/Sideways. Any thoughts? Teratron (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go over the whole Barricade thing? He was not in the movie ok? Sideways, is someone completely different. Now I do have something that could solve maybe what happened to Barricade. Remember Optimus saying they hunted down 6 previous decepticons in the whole 2 year timeline thing. So think Demolishor, Sideways, Barricade perhaps. The other 3 I wouldnt know but maybe Barricade was one of them hunted down.Xmotox (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course Barricade isn't in the movie. That's not the point of what I was saying. Sideways, while slightly more differentiated than the others I listed, is a body-type clone of Barricade from the first movie. I think the article could really use some sort of explanation of the long-standing Transformers practice of redecos, as it would help alleviate some of the confusion from those who aren't long-time Transformers fans. It was fairly easy to ignore when it was just Sideways/Barricade, but with Grindor, a random Bonecrusher clone, and numerous Constructicons, anyone who isn't familiar with Hasbro's redeco practices is bound to get confused watching this movie. Teratron (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WHo is the guy who kidnapped Sam's parents then? Because he was black, not red, from what I saw. Looked like Barricade. Red Rampage held them in Egypt. Problem is pre-movie promotional material say Rampage was part of Devastator. Mathewignash (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

See new discussion topic about Devastator. uKER (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am almost sorry to revive this nonsense, but here's proof of it being Grindor who kidnaps Sam's parents. And, no, it wasn't me who made that image. uKER (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Volvo back-hoe in the cargo freighter

What was up with that? It was a Transformer but the weirdest thing is it had the Decepticon logo BEFORE the protoforms fell. Uker (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There were transformers already on earth. --71.108.231.50 (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

total gross dosnt add up

if it had a 16 million midnight and a 55 million wenseday shouldnt it have grossed 71 million? the vh1 link is inaccurate. --72.185.122.200 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

16 million is part off the 55 million. If you didn't already know midnight is part of Wednesday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflataman (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Devastator redefined

There, I fixed the Devastator/multiple identical Constructicons thing. The good news: now that I think about it, as far as I remember there are no multiple 'main' robots with the same alt mode in the movie. There is then only one Mixmaster and one Rampage (red). The bad thing (for some maybe): Devastator is NOT made up of other robots. Like it or hate it, it was only the toys that led us to think so. Also, there is no such Hightower, Overload and Scavenger in the movie. Now, take a deep breath, read it carefully and you will see the article now happily matches the movie and it all makes sense. :) uKER (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Devastator is formed by unnamed Constructicons with the same models that Mixmaster, Long Haul, Rampage, Demolishor and Scrapper. In the film we can see the robots that form Devastator (8 already) and have the same alt mode that Mixmaster, Long Haul, Rampage, Demolishor and Scrapper, but in the next scene we can see it figthing in solo mode. So, there are several identicals models of constructicons? (KeP, June 26)

Correct, there are multiples of each type of Constructicon, which was the issue leading to Uker changing the section. Originally, everyone had assumed there would be only one of each type, and the article was written accordingly. It eventually became known that Demolishor was a separate bot from the identical excavator that helps form Devastator in the movie, so he was listed separately from the Constructicons. This became an issue when the movie was released, and we found that there are many Constructicons, some of which form Devastator in the movie. It wasn't clear how to address this since the bots that form Devastator are all given the same names in the toyline that their non-combining duplicates use, aside from Demolishor/Scavenger. The fact that both yellow bulldozers in the toyline are called Rampage while that name is specifically used for a red bulldozer in the movie only helped make things more complicated. Teratron (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

France

I just saw the film, and unless i have some serious amnesia, there wasnt any France in the film... maybe someone got mixed up with GI JOE?

Sam's parents are in France when Judy gets the phone call from The Fallen. uKER (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, wasnt that Soundwave?--TitanOne (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Soundwave? In France, which is located on Earth? You've got to be kidding me, right? uKER (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the phone call. --TitanOne (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, sorry. My bad. I got confused with the discussion about Sam's parents being kidnapped. I assume it was The Fallen since he was the one on TV, but it may have been Soundwave, yeah. uKER (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Demolishor's Voice

The main article says Calvin Wimmer but the Demolishor article says crispin Freeman which is actually correct The Movie Master 1 (talk)

Correct as in "I personally saw it credited in the movie" correct? uKER (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes,which is the right one The Movie Master 1 (talk)

Feel free to change it then. uKER (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually seen the movie and it is indeed, Calvin Wimmer. Not Freeman. Philipnova798 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

other decpticons

somebody needs to add the other random decepticons onto the article(i cant do it coz im not a member)

-the hatchlings inside the decepticon ship

-the protoform decepticons that showed up at the final battle

-the one that looks like grindor who kidnapped sam's parents(wasn't grindor coz he was dead)

-the random bot they sacrifice to bring back megatron

The one who kidnapped Sam's parents didn't look a thing like Grindor. Looked like Sideways or Barricade. Mathewignash (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Those bots aren't worth adding to the listing and are fine getting mentioned in the Plot section. Uker (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Plot detail

I reverted what was done to the plot. That was not sensible condensation as it removed major information. I'll see to do it properly later. Uker (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to condense the Plot section. Feel free to help. IMHO, we should not remove:

• Major plot points.
• The action switching locations.
• Data about which character is where.
• Characters getting killed, severely injured or revived.
• Any kind of valuable data not directly coming from the movie itself.

Please exercise common sense. Uker (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the whole second shard subplot could be almost be removed but it might be necessary to mention it in a small way since it allows Mikaela to capture Wheeljack and he is needed to lead them to Jetfire. -- Horkana (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here I tried to remove as much as I could, but yes, it cannot be removed entirely because it is a key plot point to Wheelie (who, BTW, is never said to be Wheeljack) and Jetfire. Uker (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the plot is currently at 1000 something words, which is only 100 words over the suggested limit. Almost there. Will keep working on it. Uker (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit dispute over plot section

I have gone into an edit dispute with user User:BIGNOLE over what has to be done with the plot. He has repeatedly replaced the plot with an oversimplified version that only explains at large the events in the movie. As I have already stated, I'd intend the plot to at least list all the major visited locations, state all major characters participating, and listing any deaths/injuries so that anyone who reads the article can know what was the fate of each character. I turn to you to decide what you think should be done. Take a dumbed down plot and add what is missing, which will most probably end up growing back out of control? Or trying to trim down the current plot, and put it into size? Make yourselves heard. Uker (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that in my attempts to trim it down, I have taken the section from 3000 words as it was in the last revision yesterday ([see here]), to the 1000 words it is now, and I don't think we've lost any major events. Uker (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone trimmed it already, down to below 800 words (where it should be). It wasn't me, I was merely reverting back to an earlier version. My suggestion is you take the version that currently passes WP:MOSFILMS and add/subtract what needs to be done. I haven't seen the film, I'll see it Sunday. When I do see the film, the first thing to go will be the "The film..." stuff, because that's not appropriate writing style. I can tell you that you don't need to list locations, unless absolutely necessary. Listing them simple because you think they are "major" isn't the why it should be. Listing the specific fate of every character is also needless detail. My suggestion would be to read the plot summary written for the first film, as that would give you an idea of how to summarize character fates without extraneous information. A plot summary should be terse, succinct, to the point.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Clearly I'm not the only one that disputes your additions. I believe when someone trimmed it down to what is accepted by the Wiki Film Community for length, you assumed some rather bad faith by telling them what they did were "greatly destructive ones". Then you told them not to do it again. At what point did this page become Uker's? Curious. I'd like to quote something we see every time we edit: "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest sticking with Uker's plot synopsis for now. It is still a bit long, as Uker himself has already pointed out, but it is well written. The version Bignole has tried reinstating is more concise, but is considerably less polished. I believe it would take considerably less time and effort to trim Uker's version to an appropriate length than it would to fix up the shorter synopsis to something that everyone would be happy with. It's a worthy goal to meet the MOS, but there's no need to throw out a lot of good work just to reach one particular goal a little bit earlier. A few points from Uker's version that I feel could easily be trimmed away include things like the details about how Ravage retrieves the shard, the several lists of characters, irrelevant details about Mikaela's bike model, etc. Teratron (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Teratron, believe me I'm seeing into slimming it down. We only need to shave 150 words and we're there. The details about Ravage retrieving the shard I only kept because of the mention of that 'metal fin' bot. Also, Mikaela's bike model was gone some revisions ago. Uker (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw you're working on it. That's part of the good work I was saying there's no need to throw out. =P The bike info was still there on the version I popped open to compare when I saw this topic. I'm just a slow writer... Teratron (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

simmons

is it reggie or seymour the first film page says reggie and this 1 says seymour which 1 is actually correct Baller449 (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that its Reggie. Philipnova798 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese voice actor credits

A list of Japanese voice actor credits was posted here http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/revenge-of-the-fallen-japanese-dub-voice-credits-168020/ As expected the Japanese managed many more classic Transformers voices than the U.S. version gave us. Mathewignash (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Modifications to the Plot section

As you may know, the "Plot" section is under works in an attempt to bring it down to ~800 words, to comply with the guidelines provided by WP:MOSFILMS. For this reason, I encourage everyone considering modifying this section, to think not in how to make it clearer, but strictly in what is awfully missing or unclear in it. Clarifying it will most surely result in an increase in word count, which is against the interest of the article. So if you want to improve it, the best thing you can do is think of sections that can be somehow summarized without losing the cause-effect traceability of the events in the movie. Also, as I said before, it would be nice if we could keep track of where each character is at a given time, and the eventual fate of each one of them (at least the major ones). I know I'll be working on this, and any of you who wish to collaborate will be welcome. Thank you. uKER (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I shall assist in this, but hopefully it won't get mowed down by tons of edits because some users believe every single detail needs to be mentioned! Evilgidgit (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was you the one who did what was done to it, my props to you. I guess I couldn't have done it better. I did throw in a couple of touches, but overall it was what it was needing. uKER (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Random decepticons

I'm a bit confused, was the fallen trying to harvest the energon from the sun to summon those 'hatchling' things on his ship or were they just random characters

The hatchlings were only a device to show the Decepticon's urge for energon. They're probably like their offspring, and no, I don't think any hint was given about using them for battle. uKER (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

17,000 B.C.

17,000 Years prior to the film's events, ancient Transformers called the Dynasty of Primes arrived on Earth with the intention of draining the planet's sun to create Engeron and power the AllSpark, the lifesource of the Transformers. One of the Primes betrayed the others and constructed a machine called a Sun Harvester to charge the AllSpark, against the other Primes' wishes to protect life. A battle broke out which resulted in the Dynasty sealing themselves away, dying the process, in order to hide the Matrix of Leadership, the key used to power the Sun Harvester. The treacherous Prime was dubbed the Fallen, and he vowed to seek revenge upon Earth.

I just watched it and according to the movie, the ancient Transformers decided to harvest stars to power the All Spark. The "Primes" agreed to it with the condition that if a life form is found on a planet of a particular star, they will leave it. When they saw the ancient Humans, one of the Primes betrayed them and a war broke out. The betrayer was called "The Fallen" then and was defeated. All the other Primes decided to sacrifice themselves to hide the Matrix of Leadership. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 15:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

BUDGET update

{{editsemiprotected}}

Budget - $194 Million. Bay: "We were able to make this for $194 million.." http://michaelbay.com/newsblog/files/b7f044df56ae3317b4b36abb77c88f9b-546.html

 Done Welcome and thanks for improving the accuracy of this article. Celestra (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, someone made the budget 250 million. Should I revert the edit? Philipnova798 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you should it is wrong as previously stated by Michael Bay the director. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflataman (talk • contribs) 16:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Voice Actor and Director defend Twins

{{editsemiprotected}} I think in order to show the most unbiased view on the twins we should incorporate Michael Bay's quote and what Reno Wilson (a black man who voiced Mudflap) said. Reno said that "It's not fair to assume the characters are black. It could easily be a Transformer that uploaded Kevin Federline data. They were just like posers to me." full quote is here. Michael also stated "It's done in fun, I don't know if it's stereotypes — they are robots, by the way. These are the voice actors. This is kind of the direction they were taking the characters and we went with it."

I do think this deserves mention. I'll see into adding it later. uKER (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 Question: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the article. It is not clear why the {{editsemiprotected}} template was added above. The comments above are OK for starting a discussion, but aren't detailed enough for an edit request. Another editor already joined the discussion and agreed to work out the details and add it to the article. If you would rather use the template, you need to decide on the wording and state your request in a "please change X to Y" level of detail. Then any auto-confirmed user, like myself, can stop by and do the actual insert for you. Celestra (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Box Office

The box office section is not up to date. The movie made $60.6 million on Wednesday link here, followed by $28.6 million on Thursday link here, and $36.7 million on Friday for a total of 125.9 million dollars domestically in 3 days link here. Foreign wise the movie made $80.1 million for a worldwide the movie has made $200.6 million both according to box office mojo link here. Thank you if someone could update it.

Critical reception

Based on user reception from Rotten Tomatoes, IGN UK and the IMDB, fans (not professional critics) have given the film mixed to positive reviews. I think that this should be mentioned and cited in the article (it was partially present and then removed), as IMO, the current information gives the impression that TF2 is generally accepted as a terrible movie.--172.131.14.188 (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Breakaway

I saw breakaway in the movie the part where they were pointing the guns at the autobots u could see breakaway near sideswipe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris56o (talk • contribs) 06:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Grindor Voice question

Does Grindor really have a voice actor. I never saw one credited for him in the end credits. Philipnova798 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't remember him saying much if at all--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I heard Frank Welker provides the death shriek The Movie Master 1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

Same here, though it's more of a vocal effect as Grindor had no speaking role in the movie. Fractyl (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but why isn't Grindor credited with Welker though in the end credits? Philipnova798 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Box Office Estimates

{{editsemiprotected}} The box office receipts being reported for the 5 day are just estimating Sunday's total. As today is Sunday and it has obviously not ended yet. Could it be stated in the article that this is an estimate and not a fact. this article states that it is an estimate in the first sentence

 Done Celestra (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also in this category, it is unclear in the first paragraph what statistic it is comparing when stating that the Dark Knight made a higher $67.8 million. This is for the first day gross, but it is not stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.187.219 (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Triple changers

You may have noticed there's this user Kozmik Pariah being a knucklehead about there being triple changers in the movie, and Megatron being the first one of them, as if there had been an official announcement about it. It's not me who has been reverting his changes, but I for one, tend to disagree with there being triple changers. Sure, there's Megatron, Mixmaster and Rampage with three different modes if you wish, but they're not proper triple changers in the sense that they don't have two vehicle modes. Mixmaster's 'gun emplacement' mode and Megatron's 'flying tank' mode are lousy hacks. They're not proper vehicles. I mean, Megatron's jet wasn't even a proper vehicle mode in 2007, let alone his new tank mode, and god forbid his 'tank with seal flippers and thrusters' mode. About Rampage, see next section. uKER (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In the toy line Mixmaster and Soundwave are the only ones called "Triple Changers" on the boxes, but Soundwave never even takes on humanoid form in the movie does he? Still, it's official he becomes a robot, a jet or a satellite. While Mixmaster may also have a poor third mode, he does have one, and it's assumed in the film, and it's labeled as such on the toy box. What more do you want from a "Triple Changer"? There have been lame Triple Changers in Hasbro's past. In the Cybertron they had a "Triple Changer" who turned into a dragon or a three headed dragon. Basically two extra heads popped out of his back. Lame "third mode", but it was official. Mathewignash (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, well. If Mixmaster is labeled a triple changer in his toy, I guess we'll have to live with it, as in the movie he has all his toy's modes. uKER (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Rampage's centaur/spider mode

It was me who recently added that mode into the article, but now I'm not sure he features that in the movie. It could be just another toy line hack, made for the sake of poseability. This is the clearest shot I could get of him underwater, which is where I thought he appeared in his 'spider' mode, but now I don't think that's the case. What do you people think? uKER (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Second fastest grossing movie? WTF?

Where's the sense in that? Fastest movie to achieve a certain sum? If so, which? uKER (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Knight is the fastest grossing movie which means it got the most money in the least amount of time. So compared to the Dark Knight Revenge of the Fallen got less money in that same amount of time. So to reach the same amount that The Dark Knight got it would have taken Revenge of the Fallen a longer amount of time. Second fastest grossing movie is pretty much self explanatory..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_(mathematics) --71.108.231.50 (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. You're trying to be a smartass and you're just embarrassing yourself. Keep it on. Anyone really care to explain what period of time this is referred to, or what sum of money was used as a target? Otherwise, I'll remove it. uKER (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he was trying to be a smartass, I just don't think he understood what you were asking. I don't know the answer to your question, but agree with removing the info if it can't be clarified. To the anon user, the question is second fasted to how much money? $200M? $203M? Or for opening three days? Opening weekend? CPitt76 (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, to me, the linking to the 'Rate' article was kinda like saying 'go to school', but never mind... uKER (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I was trying to be a smart ass. I was just checking how mad you would get and also stating that you are a dumbass at the same time. I don't see how my post would embarrass myself, I was answering to an embarrassment of a question. Learn how to type out full sentences that actually make sense if you want an answer. The correct answer to your question is five days and The Dark Knight's 201.2 Million was used as a target by the way. Every time they talk about gross they are talking about the five day gross. Have a nice day! --71.108.231.50 (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is now corrected. You have been disproven. Now get lost. uKER (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How did the Witwickys get to Egypt?

Okay, so Ron and Judy are in France, and seemingly get kidnapped by a crashing "protoform entry mode" Decepticon who looks amazingly like Barricade. Then later 13 more protoforms crash in in Egypt and they have Ron and Judy as hostages. Are we to assume that the Decepticon who took Ron and Judy captive blasted back into space (with them inside!) and then re-landed in Egypt? Mathewignash (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Egypt is not that far from France, you know? You would worry about bigger issues, like how in hell Lennox managed to go from the US to Egypt in such a short time, or how in hell the twins got to Egypt, since they were not in the Smithsonian when Jetfire teleported everyone. uKER (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That was explained in the novel. Lennox took a fast plane and Jetfire's space bridge released a shock wave that also transported Bumblebee and the Twins. --Bold Clone (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheap asses. XD uKER (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well hey, Ravage went back into space and blasted back down, like, twice. - Chris McFeely (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

When did that happen? uKER (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Grindor

In the information below the helicopter title is wrong for Grindor, he is acctually a CH-53 which is a United States Marine Corps helo. The one in the movie was used from Squadren HMH-465 located at Camp Miramar in San Diego,CA. Which is why the color and head model is different.

Frank Welker[citation needed] provided vocal effects for Grindor, a robot greatly similar to Blackout from the 2007 movie. Grindor shares both Blackout's MH-53 Pave Low helicopter alternative mode, and his robot model, being only differentiated by a lighter paint job and different head model —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.157.160.79 (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No he is not The Movie Master 1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

You are absolutely right. I had heard him being a Sikorsky helicopter, but thought it had been dropped. When I read your info, I remembered the game having a mention to Sikorsky helicopters in a disclaimer screen, so I just checked, and it mentions the "Sikorsky Super Stallion", which is just the helo you mention. Great info. Added. uKER (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the source for this? I brought up the possibility that he was different here, but never got a satisfactory answer. He was described as a Russian transport helicopter in the novel, but the toy just reuses the Pavelow model (right down to actually noting that it's a liscensed replica of a Pavelow on the box!)Mathewignash (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I heard that in the ROTF video game credits it says the Super Stallion. Can anyone confirm that? Mathewignash (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I just sourced it minutes ago. BTW, him being russian in the novel says nothing. Blackout's helicopter is a Sikorsky too, thus russian. I just added his brand into the Blackout article and I've made a query about Wikipedia style guidelines on article titles, since there are lots of articles on machinery and aircrafts without their brand mentioned. For example, Starscream should be a Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor. uKER (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

About his similarity to Blackout, it's because the helicopters seem to basically be the same, with some Sea Stallions (a variant of the Super Stallion) having even been upgraded to Pave Lows. uKER (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Transformers has had similar vehicles with completely different transformations before. In the movie line they have Blackout, Evac, Grindor and Whirl all with the same basic model. Seems to be a bit of overkill. Mathewignash (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about our previous conversation about it being Blackout in the movie and me saying it looked the same. They could well have given him a robot mode, but the whole point of the chopper model/color/head/name change is to save time and money and effortlessly add a supposedly new character, reusing a previous one without making deaths meaningless. uKER (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

5 day grossing $

how come you guys said it came behind the darknight on the 4th day on saturday, wenesday was day 1, thursday was day 2, friday was 3, and saturday was 4, and sunday 5 so y was it put on saturday it came slightly behind dark night if it wasnt even day 5 yet AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a Comment

The critics in the Reception section said that it was the end of the an era for CGI action flicks, it should pro'lly denote that its the end of the era for the accuracy of critic's reception of CGI action flicks, they were wrong about the last one, and even more wrong of Transformers II, hopefully some more enthustically Wikipedian can adequately research for quotes (hopefully someone quoteable noticed this) and add this to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.152.198 (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

would love to know who these people are and also 200's are an ear of comic book movies =^-^=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonecrusher in the movie

A statement has been made in the article that Bonecrusher is in the movie. In the mess that is the battle in Egypt, everyone is seeing what they want to see, being Bonecrusher the second in popularity after duplicate constructicons, which there aren't any. I know his vehicle mode is there, but I'd like to know where it is that he is said to appear in robot mode so that tomorrow, when I see the movie for the third time, I can really verify him being there. uKER (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good god, third time. I havn't even seen it once yet (been on vacation and buisy, plus preparing for college, etc. Not sure when I'm going to see it actually...groan).Enryū6473 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at tfwiki.net, they are claiming that it was Bonecrusher that disabled the purple and pink Arcee components. I can't confirm that, as the past couple of times my eyes were focusing on the blue Arcee component taking cover in the upper left hand corner of the screen and not at the Decepticon attacking them from the right hand corner of the screen. Best of luck with that confirmation. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)