Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

So, Arcee is one bot with three bikes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Skipjack was the original name for Rampage on-set, they must have changed it during post-production. Dark Warrior D (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.72.201 (talk)

that would make sense now why his name wasn't on the list =^-^=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

According to WP:MOSFILM, user ratings should not be used. Follow the aforementioned link for the rationale behind this. - kollision (talk) 10:38, 3 July 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)

thats jolt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.95.76 (talk) 05:46, 8 July 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)

Agreed that Mixmaster could legitimately be called a triple changer. It may not be a classic triple changer with two vehicle modes, but he does have three distinct modes that are all used in the movie. I still have a problem with the current Megatron statements though. Komik Pariah is insisting Megatron has his former jet mode in the movie, which he clearly doesn't. He has the flying tank mode used for his Voyager toy. Like I said the last time this came up, I didn't notice whether the wings are hidden when he drives in tank mode - a detail I'm certainly going to watch for the next time I get to see it. If the wings are hidden, you could make a case for calling him a triple changer, albeit a pretty weak case. But whether the wings are hidden on the ground or not, he clearly does not possess his jet mode from the first movie. My suggestions are as follows:

• Remove the incorrect info about Megatron retaining his old jet mode. Possibly explicitly state that he doesn't despite the fact he does retain the mode in some movie-related media to help avoid confusion.
• Confirm whether Megatron's tank mode has a non-flying variant in the movie without the wings.
  • If he doesn't, delete any statements claiming Megatron is a triple changer of any kind.
  • If Megatron does hide his wings in tank mode when he's not flying, come to a consensus about whether this qualifies him as a triple changer. Some points to consider:
    • G1 Tracks was not labeled a Triple Changer despite his flying car mode.
    • The Energon Decepticons' Hyper Power modes did not qualify them for Triple Changer status. Only Scorponok, with three distinct modes, was advertised as a Triple Changer.
    • Contrary to an earlier statement, Cybertron Scourge was not advertised as a Triple Changer. However, his repaint Cryo Scourge was.
    • Within the RotF toyline, Rampage is not advertised as a Triple Changer despite his jackhammer mode.
    • Several other Transformers figures with three distinct modes have not been advertised as triple changers. E.g., the G1 city bots, G1 Doubledealer, the Armada Mini-Cons with weapon modes (although they were called Triple Changers in the Dreamwave profile books), etc.
• Decide whether Soundwave qualifies as a triple changer within the context of the film article based on the toy being advertised as a Triple Changer.
• Qualify the statement from the writers regarding introducing Triple Changers in the next movie. Presumably they either didn't know about Mixmaster and Soundwave, or didn't consider them to be true Triple Changers. Either way, they make a statement that's apparently contradicted by the facts. Komik Pariah keeps twisting the statement to make it sound like they acknowledge there currently are a few triple changers and want to bring in more, but the article cited clearly discusses how RotF wouldn't feature Triple Changers. That's just not acceptable.

Personally, I think it makes sense to refer to Mixmaster as a Triple Changer, maybe noting him as a possible oversight in the sequel statement. While the Cryo Scourge argument could be used to label anything with the slightest possible variations within a mode a triple changer, the evidence is overwhelmingly against considering something like flip-out wings being grounds for Triple Changer status. Megatron in this movie doesn't qualify. Soundwave is debatable based on whether toyline info is deemed usable for providing additional information not found in the movie. The movie doesn't contradict the toy label, so I have no problem including it, but I think it should be noted that the info comes from the toy with Soundwave not transforming at all in the movie. Teratron (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The final word on who is or is not a "Triple Changer" is whether Hasbro or some Hasbro liscensed company calls it such. Mixmaster and Soundwave say "Triple Changer" on the box. It's official. Cryo-Scourge says it on the box. It's official. Rampage does not say it, so he's not one. Mathewignash (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, maybe. However, 1) Hasbro isn't the primary creative force behind the movie, so their word isn't necessarily the final word for movie characters, and 2) Hasbro isn't the least bit consistent about what is or isn't a Triple Changer. Cybertron (Cryo) Scourge makes the latter abundantly clear. But regardless of whether Hasbro's say is the final word or not, that doesn't answer the question of how to handle Megatron or Soundwave within this article at all, with Megatron in particular being the main point of contention here. This article is about just the movie itself, not the toyline or the overall franchise. Within the movie. Soundwave does not transform, Arcee is apparently one consciousness controlling three bodies, etc. Just as the individual bikes' names from the toyline may be worth noting but can't be directly applied to the bikes in the movie, the fact that Hasbro decided to rearrange some of Soundwave's parts and call it a third mode doesn't mean the Soundwave seen in the movie qualifies as a Triple Changer. Like I said above, I'm fine with including mention of the toy being labeled a Triple Changer, but I think it would be incorrect to make a definitive statement along the lines of, "Soundwave in the movie is a Triple Changer." I think the current statement in the article, "He transforms into a Cybertronian craft with a jet mode and a satellite form," may be misleading, since he doesn't actually transform in the movie at all, much less into two separate alt modes. It's vague enough that it could be let go, but I'd rather see it go something more like, "He appears as a Cybertronian craft capable of interfacing with Earth's satellites. The Soundwave figure in the movie's toyline is a Triple Changer, featuring both a jet mode and a satellite form." Hasbro's labels for Megatron are even less meaningful, since every Megatron toy either has wings on the tank or doesn't. Assuming Megatron does actually vary the wing configuration in the movie, we'd need to see an actual toy from Hasbro that features this functionality to see whether they would consider it a Triple Changer or not. Since there's no figure that does this, they essentially haven't said anything on the matter at all. If anything, you could take the lack of an official Triple Changer Megatron figure to indicate Hasbro doesn't consider him to be one. But, like Soundwave, that's essentially analysing what Hasbro has or hasn't said and trying to apply it to the movie where it may or may not be appropriate. Teratron (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

At no point in the film do they ever say the words "Triple Changer" So by the movie there are none. Some guys have three forms. Not the same thing. "Triple Changer" is a term created by Hasbro. We have two Triple Changers in the ROTF toy line so far, Mixmaster and Soundwave. If you want to mention Megatron's tank/jet modes go ahead, but it's a thrid mode, not a "Triple Changer" Heck, by the movie alone The Fallen has no vehicle mode. Mathewignash (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly confused now whether you're arguing against me or agreeing with me. My main points are that Mixmaster fairly clearly is a triple changer (albeit not a very good one), Soundwave is claimed to be a triple changer in the toyline but doesn't transform in the movie itself, and Megatron shouldn't be called a triple changer since at most he has a tank mode with flip-out wings. I also think the article should rectify the apparent appearance of triple changers with the writers' statements that the film wouldn't feature any. Do you agree or not? Teratron (talk) 15:00, 2 July 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 upper right hand corner of the screen. Best of luck with that confirmation. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I saw his robot form, but it was a pretty quick shot and I've only seen it once, so I can't say with absolute certainty. During the final battle, at one point there's a shot looking up at a Decepticon standing behind a wall, with his head and chest visible above the wall. It sounds about right that it's when the Arcees get shot. Anyway, the head and claws behind his shoulders looked distinctly like Bonecrusher. Another thing that might help pick it out is he looked impossibly huge to me in that shot. Maybe it was just the perspective, or maybe it's that I was still adjusting to not having my glasses shrink everything since switching to contacts the day before, but it really surprised me, both because I wasn't expecting to see a Bonecrusher robot and he seemed way too big for a Bonecrusher clone. Teratron (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The coloration and head were identical to Bonecrusher. He was on-screen for only a few seconds and he looked like he had slight differences (guns on his right hand, maybe a bit taller, too), but there are no other 'Cons in the live-action series besides Bonecrusher that look anything like him. I'm going to see the movie again later this week, so I'll pay closer attention just to make double sure. — JGoodman (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All of my money on you people mistaking Scrapper for Bonecrusher. Similar coloration, similar head, similarly long arms, much bulkier. It all fits. BTW, I couldn't see the movie today but I certainly will before the weekend. uKER (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some similarities for sure, but I'm still pretty sure it was a Bonecrusher clone, not Scrapper. The main things that jumped out at me were the claws from the minesweeper behind his shoulders. Those are a very distinctive feature unique to Bonecrusher. It's hard to be truly definitive after only one viewing since it was such a quick shot, but I'm pretty confident the robot is the Bonecrusher clone we saw in vehicle mode a little bit earlier. Teratron (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

By "clone" do you mean an actual cloning, or simply another robot with a similar look? Also, there is outside fiction supporting the idea that Bonecrusher survived the end of thr 2007 film, so without ANY other explanation, I'd guess we have to go with the idea that the toy box was right when it said Bonecrusher actually survived the film and limped away when no one was looking. Mathewignash (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply any actual cloning, but just a virtually identical robot, along the lines of Blackout/Grindor. Sorry for not being clear. I would say we shouldn't simply assume that the robot seen in the film is the actual Bonecrusher from the first film. Even if the filmmakers have decided to incorporate the idea from the toyline that Bonecrusher somehow survived, there's no indication at all in the film of who that robot is. It could be Bonecrusher returning to action, or it could just be some other robot with the same body type. Without any suggestion at all from the film and no RotF Hasbro figure suggesting one or the other, we're left to make our own assumptions. Really, the only bit of evidence that he could actually be Bonecrusher actually suggests he's probably not Bonecrusher. The toy that suggests Bonecrusher survived also shows he took on a military green color scheme, unlike the robot in the film. Teratron (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Without explicit sourcing that says he is in the movie, then we cannot put it in the article. It doesn't matter if anyone "thinks" they saw him, we already know Bay has a tendency to not get names right (*cough*Devastator*cough*), so that could be any Decepticon that is being seen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition of cameo

I think something needs to be pointed out here in the CAST section. Frenzy does not make a cameo. The fact that someone has his head in a jar doesn't equate to a cameo appearance. It's a piece of trivia, that has no encyclopedic value. Also, we cannot insinuate that Bonecrush or Barricade are in the film, not even by pointing out that there are vehicles that resemble them in the film. That's original research anyway you slice it, and OR is not allowed at all (see WP:NOR).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree. ThuranX (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Frenzy's head being seen in the jar does have encyclopedic value since it clarifies the character's fate in the first movie, which is never stated clearly. About Bonecrusher, his vehicle is seen there plainly as day (notice I'm not implying it's him), and it's among Decepticons, so I don't see why it wouldn't be worthy of mention. BTW, I don't know why, but I start to get the feeling that isn't a movie you're particularly interested in, being you here only as a participant of WikiProject films. I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't even seen it. Am I right? uKER (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't discuss editors, discuss articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, never mind about that. I was just speaking out of the top of my head. Anyway, I still sustain that the info is worth mentioning. uKER (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't clarify the character's fate, because his fate was clear at the end of the first movie. He was dead. Your personal observation of "that's clearly Bonecrusher" when no source says it was Bonecrusher is original research. Please read WP:NOR very carefully, because you'll see that you cannot post personal speculation. You are not the creator of the film. What you believe is irrelevant, unless you have a reliable source to back it up. P.S. I have seen the film, as I wouldn't touch the plot of a film I've never seen (most of your corrections to the plot were problems that were there before I touched it). Clearly others agree that Frenzy is not a "cameo" in this film, and that the inclusion of "this looks like Bonecrusher" is original research. We can poster a message at WP:FILMS, if you like, to gain a wider opinion, but per WP:NOR that information needs to stay removed until consensus can suggest that it isn't original research (given that it has no source to prove that it isn't).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, should Deep Roy's cameo be included in the cast section? Evilgidgit (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd mention Frenzy in the article; calling it a cameo is a bit of an exaggeration. Hell, the Witwicky dog has more screen time than Frenzy... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit dispute again. This time over mention of Frenzy's head, and Bonecrusher's vehicle mode.

I have gone into an edit dispute again with user BIGNOLE. I say again because I had already had one here, being him the one who insisted in substituting the Plot section for a mere overview of the film, and just like the last time, he doesn't seem interested in seeking consensus even on edits that turn out to be controversial, instead just brute-forcing his liking into the article. This time it's over the mention of Frenzy's head and Bonecrusher's vehicle mode being added to the article. The last time he removed it can be seen here, and that was after I edited it to remove any speculation or subjectivity. His argument is it being original research, which I flatly disagree with. So the issue is, does anyone think it can be argued that it's Frenzy's head in the jar? Is there any trace of doubt it's the Buffalo mine sweeping vehicle among the Decepticons? Please give your opinions. uKER (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Because there is a dispute on the content, the use who wishes to add the information must provide a reference as it is now controversial. BOVINEBOY2008 03:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, why did you just create a new section when we were already having one just above this one? Do you think having the first say in the discussion sways it in your favor? Frenzy's head in a jar is trivial, it has no value to an encyclopedic article. Now, let's look at the other argument. Let's say that there is a Buffalo Mine Sweeping Vehicle in the Decepticon fleet. Ok. So what? If you say, "this vehicle looks like Bonecrusher" then you're making a personal observation which is not encyclopedic (see WP:SPECULATION#3). If you say "there is a Buffalo Mine Sweeper in the movie", then you're just pointing out cars and that's irrelevant. I might as well say "there's a dodge stratus in one scene". If you try and say that "this vehicle is Bonecrusher" then you need a source, because no where in the movie do they identify the character as Bonecrusher (especially after the first film showed he was dead...regardless of what a book says), and as such any attempt to say that the character is Bonecrusher would be original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

BovineBoy: Does ONE user questioning it make it controversial? I mean, I could start a dispute about it being OR that Ravage comes out of Soundwave's chest. Would that make it controversial? This is ridiculous. And Bignole: First, I start a new discussion because this is not about the definition of 'cameo'. Simple as that. Second, do you even read stuff or you just jump in, get all pissy that your text was modified and just hit revert? MY TEXT DID NOT SAY IT WAS BONECRUSHER, AND I CLARIFIED THAT IN MY EDIT SUMMARY. Third, Frenzy's mention is relevant because it states as fact that the character is dead, which wasn't properly established in the first movie. Also, your argument for removing the mention of Frenzy still seems to be it not being a cameo, which was reworded several edits ago, so what's your point again for the removal of that? uKER (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

First, calm down. the CAPS are not necessary. Second, your edit says "Buffalo mine-protected vehicle —which served as Bonecrusher's vehicle mode in the 2007 film— makes an appearance among the Decepticon forces in Egypt" - as I stated, you're insinuating a connection. We aren't listing every variable Transformer that appeared in the film, so I ask, why point on this specific one? Is it because it's Bonecrusher's vehicle mode? If so, then you're only reasoning for including it is because....it looks like a character killed in the last film? That's up there with people that want to say there is a guy that looks like Wilem Dafoe in the night club while Peter dances in Spider-Man 3. As for Frenzy. You clearly see his head get cut off in the first film, how was that not properly established that he died?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Going by your logic, why don't you go ahead and remove Grindor from the article also? I mean, he's not named, and we can't even mention him as being similar to Blackout because Blackout's dead, so that makes Grindor a random throw-in. About Frenzy, you mean he died when he got his head cut off by Mikaela or the second time around, when he cut it off himself? Where's your source on Transformers dying when they get their head cut off for the second time? uKER (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Difference is between having your head separated, and having a blade slice through the whole thing. Given that he was immediately alive after the first instance, and you don't hear anything after the second, it's clear he's dead. Even if it wasn't, he isn't a plot point in this movie. He's a trophy on a wall. That's trivial mentioning. There wasn't any controversy surrounding his supposed death. Speaking of Grinder, I'm curious how we even know that name. Where is the source for this? What's listed there doesn't say "Grindor" anywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if I went through the list and found that quite a few of them don't have real sources for that is being published here. For instance, did you know the source being used for Sideswipe's name is based on a random user's comments and not on the author of the article? I say we probably need to go through the entire list and see who isn't reliably sourced (I'm going to bed at this time, but that's something to think about).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but it is Sideswipe as mentioned by film critics and because his names sideswipe in the toy line as seen here with the same alt. mode in the film [1] and Grindor well its not all reliable but he isnt Blackout and he does resemble him just slightly different but thats what all the critics and but their a grindor in the toy line that resembles him just lighter and different head The Movie Master 1 (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, this has gone way too far. Your questioning the characters' names now only goes to show how not versed on the subject of the article you are. These names have been known for two years now, and they're EVERYWHERE. Toys, novels, comics, interviews, official games, you name it. For starters, you're naming "Grinder" a character that's named "Grindor". About Sideswipe, in the cited source he's named that by General Motors' vicepresident of global design, Ed Welburn. I mean, I assume you're not trying to be destructive, but as with the discussion about the plot, you're getting in the way of the publication of information that could well prove valuable to people wanting to know about the subject. Frenzy's appearance constitutes information whether you like it or not. In these movies, characters are often revived, and people tend to speculate with that. Seeing him in that jar seals his fate. Also his appearance wasn't just a random object in the background. It got main characters reacting to it, and dialogue referring to it, so its relevance is not that of a random car parked on the road. Summing it up, IMHO you're not being constructive to the article by popping in once every four or five days, randomly deciding to remove information at your will just because YOU THINK it's not relevant. uKER (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

First, there is no source for the information. Just because there exists a source somewhere doesn't mean that it's ok to put whatever you want in an article. If there is a reliable source for Sideswipes name, then go make sure it's next to the first instance of his name in the Cast section. Second, you're getting pretty petty in your debate (pointing out a typo...did I not spell it right the second time I used it?). Pointing out that GrindOR looks like Blackout is original research. Since you're having trouble with original research I'll help out. OR is when you come up with your own personal observations that are not supported by reliable sources. Pointing out the similarities between two characters is OR, no matter how obvious it may be. Seeing Frenzy in a jar doesn't seal any fate. Anyone could easily recreate his body with the right stuff, it's called being in a movie. His head in a jar is fan trivia, nothing else. I guarantee, no one reading this article will go "why isn't Frenzy mentioned". Save it for IMDb. Lastly, you do not own this article, though you seem to be trying to guard it like you do. I'd point to Wikipedia's editing slogan again, "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I've already put in a request for additional opinions, so you need not waste any energy debating what I'm sure neither one of us will change our minds on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that Bignole is nitpicking this article to death, much to it's disadvantage, and doesn't seem to know much about the film. A lot of qualified editors are making this article, and they deserve some level of trust. Calling "original research" at every sentence is not being helpful. Saying Grindor looks like Blackout because there is no cite to source is no more original research than saying Sideswipe was silver is original research - how do you know he's silver? Was it actually stated in the film? You can see it with your eyes! When Grindor first appeared in the commercials all we heard if "Blackout is back" from the fans because they look almost identical. We have seen movie posters with Grindor's name, toys, video games. It's official. If you have to state something like "A Decepticon helicopter appeared, and in official tie-in media he was called Grindor." maybe that will satisfy complainer? I'd also say that ANY reappearance of a star (including a robot) from the previous film is noteworthy because it's information on what happened to that character from the last film. People will come to Wikipedia and read this article to get answers to questions like "was that Bonecrusher in the battle scene or was I seeing things?" They should be able to find a line in the article saying a character lookling like Bonecrusher appeared in the battle scene. Mathewignash (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how does my knowledge of said film (which you obviously know nothing about) has anything to do with my knowlege of WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS? When you are implying that one character could be the other, then you are doing original research. Talking about a Mine Sweeper and then saying "just like Bonecrusher" is insinuating that the two are the same. That's original research. You are trying to synthesize an answer. It would probably be nice to note that Mathew is part of UKER's Canvassing operation, to which he was reprimanded for. You're placing undue weight on a single scene, and trying to play it up like it was some major cameo. His head appeared, they touched the jar, the end. That's all there was. The character himself does not appear in the film. If you saw Megatron's arm dangling on the wall you wouldn't say that Megatron appeared in the film. This is not IMDb, this isn't the home for unnecessary trivia regarding past characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't discount my opinions based on your opinions of another methods. Also, please stop talking about a vehicle as if it was just a vehicle. This is a CHARACTER and should be treated as such. If a character seemingly died or was wounded in one film, then reappears in it's sequel, it should be mentioned. We are not talking about a car being smashed in one film and then that same model car appearing in the sequel. Any information telling us what happened to STARS of the last film in this one is relivant to the plot of the movie series. Mathewignash (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Frenzy doesn't "reappear". Frenzy's head does. The head is not a character. It's a head. Frenzy is not a "STAR" either. I think you have a misconstrued definition of what "movie star" is. Optimus is a star of the film. Frenzy is not a star of the film, even if you liked the character when he appeared in the 2007 original. You are letting your fan bias cloud your encyclopedic judgment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Frenzy was big enough of a character to be listed in the cast list for the last movie. I believe he got more lines/screen time in the last film than any other Decepticon - doesn't that sorta make him a main character? Simply mentioning what happened to him for the next film seems like something obvious. What do you insist on trying to sabotage an article by removing obvious material? You are NOT being helpful, you are being disruptive. I don't know what your agenda is here, do you think you are making the article better by stripping it of content? Mathewignash (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because he was a character in the last movie (Megatron had more. Barricade had more. Frenzy had quick one-liners for most of his scenes, and his scenes were generally not that prolonged). He even had a voice actor for him. You're trying to attribute starring role status to a supporting character. Mentioning that his head is in a jar is irrelevant to this article. And I quote from the 2007 article: "The Decepticons attack; Bonecrusher, Frenzy, Jazz, Devastator and Blackout are all killed during the ensuing battle." It's pretty clear that we even think he's dead in the 2007 article. I think if I remove fannish information that has no encyclopedic value that I'm bettering the article. Maybe not to the Transformer fans, but this article isn't meant for them, it's meant for everyone. Wikipedia is not IMDb, we are not here to host every minor tidbit of trivial we see.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think you can make the call as to what is important enough to be mentioned, but there are other editors who disagree. I don't think we can argue this much more because I clearly think a characters appearing again in a sequel is worth mentioning as a cameo, you do not. Anyone else have an opinion on how the rules are best interperted here? Mathewignash (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

BIGNOLE, you accuse me of assuming ownership of the article, but I'd say it's you who is going against WP:OWN —specifically on the point that declares assumption of ownership when "Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not."— and unilaterally deciding what is good for the article, without seeking any approval from the rest of the people contributing to it, as suggested by the policy. Also, according to these edits: 1 2 3 4, you're in violation of WP:3RR, having reverted the same changes four times in the space of 24 hours, with them coming from three different editors. If nobody else disagrees, I will soon add this data back in. If you again disagree, we can post a request for assistance on Wikipedia:AN/EW. uKER (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no proof that it's Bonecrusher. It should be taken out. Perhaps a section with "references to the first film" or something similar would keep everyone happy? --93.96.19.132 (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We're saying its his vehicle mode not Bonecrusher himself which made a brief appearence for the decepticons, as for frenzy it should be mentioned his head is kept in jar by Simmons hidden from his mother, Simmons probably examines it from time to time The Movie Master 1 (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, having re-read I think it's just the wording, perhaps change "Bonecrusher's vehicle mode" to "a transformer with Bonecrusher's vehicle mode"? --93.96.19.132 (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's where we've been trying to get all along. See here. Given the nature of these movies, unless he had been named in the movie or some other tie-in media, we wouldn't be able to state as fact it being Bonecrusher even if he appeared in robot mode (see Grindor/Blackout). BTW, we do know it was a Decepticon (not just a Transformer) since he was among the Decepticon horde seen coming after the protoforms fell in Egypt. --uKER (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we to completely discount the two different liscensed novels that say it is Frenzy's head? It was mentioned in The Veiled Threat and the ROTF novel. Mathewignash (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring Frenzy for a moment, if we are saying that it was not Bonecrusher, then why go out of our way to say that there is a Buffalo Mine Sweeper in the film? Saying "Bonecrusher's vehicle mode" means nothing to someone who doesn't remember who Bonecrusher was in the first film. Saying "Bonecrusher's Buffalo Mine Sweeper mode is in the film" suggests that you mean it was Bonecrusher himself. Saying "A robot who also had Bonecrusher's Mine Sweeper mode" becomes irrelevant, because they obviously didn't care enough to name said robot, but chose to give him the same vehicle. If you cannot tie it to Bonecrusher then you're dealing with a Transformer that is beyond mentioning because they were merely a background bot for a single fight. If you try and tie it to Bonecrusher you're treading the original research waters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, how can we have so much discussion over a single vehicle that wasn't even given a character name or definitive Decepticon character? It isn't important, to either the film itself or our article about it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't know who the character is, may be Bonecrusher, maybe not. Point is though is that they intentionally used the model again for this scene. He was a character from the last film who may or may not have died (there is official media saying he survived off camera, which was printed after the first movie came out!), so it's being mentioned as a cameo. It is important to readers, and I know so because I've seen dozens of people on message boards saying "did I see Bonecrusher in one scene?" They can read this article and learn that yes, his model was reused, but there is no confirmation as to whether it was him, rather then keep them guessing. Mathewignash (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're claiming you know their intentions? Unless you have a source for that, you cannot claim what their "intentions" are. Maybe they did, and maybe they didn't intend to include that with an agenda. What happens in a book and what happens in the film are not the same thing. It's official because the studio produced it. That has no bearing on his fate in the films. Rather than keep them guessing? You just said you've seen people asking if they've seen Bonecrusher. The fact is, they did not see Bonecrusher because there is no source confirming his appearance. They might have seen the Buffalo, but that's irrelevant. Again, you're letting fan bias cloud your encyclopedic judgment. You're making a call based on your personal opinion that since you read a message board that had people asking that it must be important. If we looked to message boards for our information then we'd include them when discussing fan reaction to a film. We dont', so we don't. Wikipedia is not a trivia house. That is what IMDb is for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Something that should be taken into account is that such vehicle wasn't just lying in the background in a military base, or even used as a filler among marine troops. It was among a Decepticon horde. It's clearly intentional on behalf of the film makers. What they were trying to convey we don't know but it's there and it's not an accident. uKER (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot make that statement. You cannot say "it's clearly intentional", because you don't know. For all anyone knows they included it because they already had a digital model of the Buffalo on their computers and it's typically easier to use what you got then try and waste the money to create something new. Since we all know how Bay loves to save money, that's not actually a longshot of a possibility. Without a source, you cannot insinuate that it was their intention to use the Buffalo, that it was their intention to put Bonecrusher in, or really anything other than there is a Buffalo in the film. That makes it's mentioning trivial, and unnecessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think something that causes as much of an uproar among people who saw the movie itself must be addressed, if only to explain when they come here looking for answers. Deleting any mention of it is not helping explain it. Mathewignash (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your personal observation that there an uproar is original research. You have no source to back up this "uproar", and no, witnessing some people on a message board is not a reliable source to constitute an "uproar".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

FWiW, things appearing in the background are trivial. The head, and maybe Bonecrusher are trivia, but more importantly they are not backed up. Everything else has a reference, this trivia does not (at least no RS). Bignole is correct and accusations of OWN don't make UKER right, trivia is trivia is trivia, and unsourced trivia is the worst type of trivia and falls over into OR. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, everything else doesn't have a reference. There are large portions of this article without a source. The plot section, for example, does not cite any references. I'm not disputing any of the info in that section, and I'm not suggesting that it needs to be sourced. But if you're going to be so rigid as to say that something that was observed by everyone who watched the movie cannot be included if there's no source, then a large percentage of this article would need to be deleted. Hopefully no one is going to take it to the extreme. I'm not supporting or opposing the inclusion of the bonecrusher or frenzy info, I just want to make sure we are consistent in how we apply the rules, and not just use them to our advantage when someone tries to add info that everyone doesn't agree with. CPitt76 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference is the plot doesn't (shouldn't) contain anything subjective, insinuative, or really anything but basic facts about the film. There is no need to put a citation in the plot for that (but I see your point). Saying there was a Buffalo vehicle in the film is trivial. It has no value. Trying to say it is Bonecrusher is where the source is required. When editors try and attribute a value to the mentioning, a value based on personal opinion, that is when a source is necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was speaking more towards the frenzy issue. I interpreted Darrenhusted's comment that the head was trivia but was not 'backed up' as him saying that we don't know that it's frenzy's head (Darren, I apologize if I've misinterpreted). Hopefully this info is being scrutinized based on the fact that it may be trivial, and not the fact that there's no source documenting it's Frenzy's head. I'll leave the discussion on the merit of inclusion of this info to you guys. CPitt76 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bignole, regarding your statement, "Also, we cannot insinuate that Bonecrush or Barricade are in the film, not even by pointing out that there are vehicles that resemble them in the film. That's original research anyway you slice it, and OR is not allowed at all," I'd suggest re-reading WP:NOR. Motion pictures are clearly stated to be primary sources. To quote from the policy, "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Concluding that the vehicle seen in the film either is or isn't Bonecrusher would be original research. Stating that it is a Decepticon using the same alt mode that Bonecrusher used in the first film clearly is not. It is a simple descriptive claim, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge who refers to the two appropriate primary sources: the films themselves. Likewise, it wouldn't be OR that the head in the jar is Frenzy's, even if we didn't have multiple official sources to cite. I haven't paid attention to see if appropriate sources are actually cited in the article, but at worst they need a citation added, not deletion per NOR.

Regarding triviality, I'd agree that Frenzy's appearance is pretty trivial. It's easy enough to assume he was truly killed at the end of the first film, which would make his head showing up in the sequel not worth mentioning. However, the fact that he already survived beheading earlier in the film opens the door to speculation. The small appearance in this film does indeed provide valuable information regarding his status. However, given that it's not relevant to this film, I believe this belongs on Frenzy's character page, not the page for this film.

When it comes to the Bonecrusher-type Decepticon, I believe a brief mention is warranted. Applying Wikipedia's NOR policy to real-world observations is completely asinine. Robots who look identical to robots killed in the first movie appear in this movie. Robots who seemingly should be in one location (like a Constructicon being part of Devastator) show up in another (seemingly identical Constructicon attacking the Autobots while Devastator is elsewhere). People are clearly confused, and for good reason. This page is one of the places people will look to for information clarifying this situation. Including such information would considerably improve this page. Per WP:IAR, that trumps any concern about whether he individually is particularly relevant to this film.

Having said that, the article isn't there yet. I've been campaigning to include a section that discusses all the duplicate robots. I haven't had the time yet to come up with a good, well-sourced explanation myself. Damn kitchen remodeling... The characters section would be appropriate, probably at the end where the contested statements are. Mention of the Bonecrusher-type bot would be very appropriate in such a section. Teratron (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Teratron, you're missing the point. It isn't original research to say "this character has the same alt mode as this character". It's original research to insinuate that they are the same character. If you're merely pointing out the reuse of an alt mode, then you're pointing out trivial information. The character isn't named, he appears briefly in a single scene, that's pretty trivial. The fact that you have to point out that it is Bonecrusher's alt mode just proves how far you have to stretch a connection to find any semblence of relevance to the article. By trying to talk about the reuse of alt modes, you are creating original research. Right on the NOR page: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." - You are creating your own analysis of the character, and thus you are creating original research. It's one of two things. Either you're trying to attribute a connection to the other character for the purposes of saying they could be the same (which would be original research without a source discussing said connection), or you're merely pointing out various vehicles that appear as Transformers, in which case Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and including trivial characters that basically do nothing in the film but appear in a single scene is indiscriminate information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Will you ever get it through your head that we're not implying it's Bonecrusher himself, but just a Decepticon with his same alt mode? It's then left to people's interpretation to decide whether it's supposed to mean Bonecrusher is alive, or the possibility of there being another Decepticon with the same alt mode as was the case with Grindor. --uKER (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

First, Uker you really need to check out WP:ETIQUETTE and WP:CIVIL. Second, it's not Wiki's job to put stuff here and then "let the reader make up their mind". We're an encyclopedia, not a fanhouse. You're basically disguising the original research by saying, "We're not really saying it's him, just pointing out the similarity". You cannot do that. We even have a section about pointing out the differences and similarities between two source materials in our film guidelines. You cannot take it upon yourself to be the person to say "hey, these two things are alike...I"ll let you decide if they are the same or different". That's unprofessional writing, and borderline original research with the way you are trying to word it. Either you're insinuating the character's are the same, or you're including something that's irrelevant to the article for no real reason. Which is it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to understand why uKER's getting so frustrated. You keep going back to talking about how claiming the bot in the movie is Bonecrusher is OR. Frankly, it gives the impression you're completely blowing us off without bothering to pay any attention to what we're saying, which would be a far greater violation of the policies you cited than anything uKER has said. In particular, please reread my statement and your response to it. I very clearly stated that making any conclusions about the bot's identity would be OR, and therefore shouldn't be included. However, I stated that the bot's presence would be appropriate to mention in a section explaining the seemingly nonsensical appearance of bots that should be dead or elsewhere, with him being a particularly relevant example. You responded with yet another statement that we can't conclude he is or isn't Bonecrusher due to NOR and that mere mention of his presence wouldn't be relevant, while completely ignoring what I actually said should be there or the reasons why it should be there. If you wish to be involved in a civil discussion, please do us the courtesy of at least responding to the points we're trying to make rather than simply dismissing us out of hand. Teratron (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, another successful case of "following the rules to the most preposterously nitpicky, detrimental, asinine degree" versus "using some common bloody sense", I see. That'd be why I spend most my time on the Transformers Wiki, rather than roundabout these parts. - Chris McFeely (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That does happen a lot, but to be fair I truly believe that both sides of this debate genuinely believe they are making this article the best possible article on wikipedia. One seems to want a minimalistic streamlined article, the other a fully informative article. Both have good intent. Just don't insult each other, and lay your cards on the table people. I believe the information does add something to legitimate to the article, but I'm sure to someone who doesn't care about the subject as much it must seem somewhat trivial a point. I'm going to keep on the side of keeping the information in because I have been convinced that some portion of readers of the article would want to know these things, and they fall within legitimate information on the film for an article. However, as this is a talk page, please talk about it more if you think otherwise, so we can all reach an informed decision. Mathewignash (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If the buffalo did not transform then it was not Bonecrusher so therefore not a cameo. Simple as that.--71.108.231.50 (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you posted in the wrong conversation. Then, the Buffalo is among a horde of Decepticons, so it would be hard to find a reason to justify that Buffalo not being one of them. Also, you don't seem to have read any of the countless times when we've said we're not implying it to be Bonecrusher, so nobody is trying to call it a cameo. --uKER (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are not implying its Bonecrusher and are not saying its a cameo then what is the point of adding in that information to the article? The army was there they could have brought it and it just happened to be right there when the decepticons landed, either way that is irrelevant because it did nothing and did not reappear. The event was not of any importance only a fanboy would care that Bonecrushers alt mode was there.. --71.109.7.165 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your claim is as valid as saying only a fanboy would care whether a character is dead or not, or bother reading this article altogether. --uKER (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked when you smash a computers "brain" it is no longer of any use.. Everyone who went to go see that movie believed what they saw on screen. Robot gets knife through face. Robot dead. As I said before only a fanboy would care that a vehicle having Bonecrushers alt mode was in egypt because there can only be one buffalo vehicle in the whole wide world..You are also contradicting your self. You said no one said it was Bonecrusher but you just said "only a fanboy would care whether a character is dead or not" so therefore you are implying it could be Bonecrusher. Make up your mind. --71.109.7.165 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is not sufficient info to make a statement. The mention of the Buffalo is only meant to inform of the possibility of either suggesting Bonecrusher may not be dead, or there being a robot with the same alt mode. I have already repeated this to death, and had well enough of it, so I declare myself out of this discussion until outside arbitration comes into play. --uKER (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly there is not sufficient info to make a statement so don't make one at all. --71.109.7.165 (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Robot formed by Ravage's metal marbles

hey guys. Not prolong this even more, but wasn't that frenzy when Ravage spewed out all the nanites? =O-o=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. If you read the article you'd see that that one was credited as 'Reedman' and the only similarity it shares with Frenzy is both being small silver robots who steal stuff. --uKER (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

okay then =^-^=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Devastator, 7 o 8 robots?

We already now about Devastator, he is a masive robot form of multiple parts:

• Mixmaster as the head
• Scavenger as the main torso
• Scrapper as the right arm
• Hightowel as the left arm
• Overload as other part of the torso
• Longhaul as the right leg
• Rampage as left leg

But during the transformation of Devastator, 2 unknown transformers apear in the scene, one is a dump truck and the other one is a backhoe, so far no one has noticed than the backhoe is actually the left "hand" of devastator. So, does that mean that devastator is the combination of 8 robots? and what hapened with the other dumb truck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.137.197.240 (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'd see that Devastator is made of 7 parts, but they aren't shown to be robots, so we can't assume they are. The names you mention were given to Devastator's components just for the toy line, similarly to what was done with Arcee's components. I agree there are more than seven vehicles during Devastator's transformation, but there's nothing indicating they actually take part in him. BTW, LOL@"Hightowel". --uKER (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)ss

I believe Rampage wasn't apart of Devastator, since he was with ravage fighting Bumblebee. trying to save the witwickys.--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said right above your message, no robots are seen to take part in Devastator, only vehicles. --uKER (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

wait a minute, wasn't rampage red in the movie? =^-^=;--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He is. Who said otherwise? --uKER (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought as much on the page decepiticons section. Seeing how the toy is yellow and in the movie he is red =^-^=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The toy calls Devastator's leg Rampage, which is in discrepancy with what is depicted in the movie, ie Devastator's components never transforming into robots. --uKER (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Then the question rises who was it in the movie that transformed with the rest of the constructicons?--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, you're asking questions that you could answer to yourself if you read the article. I would advise you to do so. --uKER (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

are you going to talk about the unknown veicles, or about rampage colors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.44.83 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

in other words, devastator is no longer the combination of the constructicon members,and he is now a single robot formed by multiple parts, am i right? or are you going to discuss again about rampage colors and not about the main plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.44.83 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Although this is a vandalism of this page, you've got to smirk about this *diot's edit as one of the funniest vandalisms done for this page. --TitanOne (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say this guy takes it away. --uKER (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

President

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

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

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

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

Protectobots

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

U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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