Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I noticed that the article states Rampage transforms into a red Caterpillar D9L bulldozer he actually transforms into a yellow one. Just thought it should be corrected.(Stonedpimp30 (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

Um, despite it not making any sense, I somehow do recall Rampage being a yellow bulldozer before releasing Sam's parents. Can anyone confirm? --uKER (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
yellow in the toyline and red in the movies. It is the toyline that confuses people.--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talkcontribs) 17:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


Am I hearing things, or when the bikes are first seen, the voice on the speakers says "Arcees, get ready to launch"? --uKER (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Flareup or Elita-one

Which is is it this page says Elita-One but I thought it was confirmed to be Flareup users are placing Elita-One everywhere so which is it The Movie Master 1 (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Althought a couple of months ago they said it was going to be Flareup, and the combination having been dropped, if this article is legitimate, they have turned all the way and now it's Elita-1 and the combination is still a go. Weird stuff. --uKER (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Cripes! Just read that. First they tell us Flareup, then Elita-1, but we have yet to actually see a figure. Mathewignash (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is it flareup now WTF make up your minds The Movie Master 1 (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
That was directed to Hasbro, I assume, isn't it? --uKER (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm still hesitant to make any changes. Have we seen anything official on a toy? So far we have 2 different Hasbro execs mentioning it at a convention (saying Flareup) and in a email (saying Elita-1). Maybe we should list both as possibilities until something official is seen, like a toy box with her named on it? Mathewignash (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Its not directed anywhere its to but no external link just the name of the site maybe it should be kept as we had it a purple motorcycle until it comes out in DVD The Movie Master 1 (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Transformers 3

  1. REDIRECT Transformers 3 will be release on July 4, 2012.
  1. New info. Transformers 3 reset to July 1, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Frenzy in the film

The mention of Frenzy was removed based on the fact that he was dead, but when I mentioned the BOOK said he was alive and watching them, I was then asked for a source for relivence. The relivence is that he's a reoccuring character from the last film and it's part of the plot. What more is needed? Mathewignash (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

He's a character that supposedly died in the last film. His head appearing in a jar doesn't merit him being listed in the cast. If what you say about the novel is true, then detail it, source it and it shall be fine. --uKER (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
He's a character who was DISABLED in the 2007 film. Found me a source from the film that says he's DEAD? He was beheaded TWICE. He returns in the 2009 film in single scene with several other major characters, who speak of him (saying how dangerout he is!), and the accompanying novels say he's still alive, he just can't move. Why is this not worth mentioning? I'd say it adds relivant material to the article, and does not detract from it. No one is going to read the article and say "I can't beleive they mentioned Frenzy! This Wikipedia article has been vandalized!" Mathewignash (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I never said it was vandalism. It's just that it doesn't belong in the cast section since he actually doesn't have a role in the movie. I'd say it could be worth adding if it could find its way into some other section. Otherwise, I'd say it's just fine being mentioned in Frenzy's article. --uKER (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a mention in the PLOT section, or list of minor characters? Mathewignash (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. It doesn't belong in the plot section since it's not really relevant to the plot. About a "minor characters" section, what else would be in it? --uKER (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking that little bit at the end of the Decepticon list that mentions the unnamed Decepticon protoforms and the Bonecrusher-look-alike, also mentioning Frenzy. Mathewignash (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd say the Bonecrusher clone is fine as it is. It's an "active" character with an alt mode and shares the appearance of a known character. You can try and add Frenzy with those minor characters you mention. I'd rather not add him as he's just a head in a jar, but give it a try. --uKER (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
He's more than a a "head in a jar" as you put it, as he's talked about by the main characters, he's a reocciring character from the last film, and as the novel proves, he's not dead, just immobile. Mathewignash (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Devastator's components revisited

Upon review, there are at least THREE previously unnaccounted for components in Devastator. The first, which I just added, is a yellow scoop loader, first seen in the freighter bearing an M930 sign (a model I can't find to match any real machinery), later seen forming Devastator's left hand. This is pretty evident since there is a dramatic shot of Devastator stomping into it to get it attached right after the Kobelco crane gets attached. Also, the concept for Devastator clearly shows a shovel in his left hand. Then there's the Volvo excavator that is seen in the freighter. The excavator turns out to be a Volvo EC700C (seen here) and believe it or not, it does appear when Devastator is about to be formed. Problem is I don't have a clue where the Volvo goes in the transformation. Finally, there's a yellow component with model B430 (apparently nonexistant too) which probably forms Devastator's upper left leg, which the concept art shows to have another pair of treads. --uKER (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Themediapot (talkcontribs) 11:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot section

As we know, the plot section is currently tagged as being too long or detailed. However, I am not seeing the plot section as that long. Anyone else? Looking at it, it is about the same size as the Transformers (film) plot section...but seemingly shorter than that one. If it is too detalied, then what is it that is too detailed? Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's fine by my reading too. Some people just want short articles so they tagged it to be cut down, but I don't think anyone who works on the page regularly wants to remove anything. If I am wrong, please chime in. Mathewignash (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, you and I are clearly okay with it. I waited a few days for more comments on this matter. Now that I see there are not any, anyone mind if I go ahead and remove it? Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed it. And I also add that if The Dark Knight (film) can get away with its current plot summary, so can this article; both are summarizing films that are considered long compared to most films that come out these days. Flyer22 (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


Why is this page locked? i doubt theres much vandalism now that its been released for around 3 months, i could understand around its release date why it may have been locked and i dont think theirs going to be persistand vandalism as the transformers 1 page is fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

How would you know, there are still IP's vandalising certain transformers pages and users vandalising this one it was protected for a year so it will be a while 9 more months The Movie Master 1 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I still revert several vandalisms a day on the related pages. It's still happening. Mathewignash (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
A lot of people have been going on how Meagen Fox had sex with Bay during the second filming (may have been first film). Private audition at his home, etc. Not necessarily vandalism, but more of material irrelevant to the movies. Leave their personal lives (however intriguing) out of it.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

G1 Homage

Could someone mention that the sun harvester appears to be homage to the G1 "Solar Needle" device(s), which are very similar to Sun Harvesters in their function? I would do it, but I don't know where in the article I'd put it. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also a G1 audio book called Sun Raid which also has the Decepticons using a machine to get energon from the sun. The Revenge of the Fallen is the THIRD use of the same plot by the Decepticons. Mathewignash (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Individual pages for movie characters

IMHO, it's well past time that the movie versions of Prime, Megatron and Starscream got their own pages. Each of their articles is long enough to warrant a full page, and the "other incarnations" pages will still be long enough after the split (which is why I'm not suggesting such a split for Bumblebee). Plus, this is just an opinion, but the Unicron Trilogy versions of the characters have their own pages and the film versions don't, despite the fact that they may well be the best-known versions of the characters at this point; don't you find this kinda weird?

As for names, maybe something like Optimus Prime (live-action films), Megatron (live-action films) and Starscream (live-action films)?

Anyone with me?-- (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I have is the irony that you'd call them "live action" when the robots themselves are computer ANIMATED figures. Mathewignash (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that they're animated doesn't stop the movie from being a live action movie. Don't really see the problem. --uKER (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It was more of a joke on the name. Another problem with the name though is it also discounts the fact that these CHARACTER pages are not exclusive to the 2 live action films, but contain info on the novels, comics books, toys, online games, etc. Also the name "Optimus Prime (live-action films)" is both long and contains a hyphenated word. Not sure about the rules on that. We already have pages like Megatron (Beast Era) or Megatron (Unicron Trilogy) Perhaps something like Optimus Prime (Paramount series) or just Optimus Prime (Paramount)? Just a suggestion. Mathewignash (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You've got a good idea there. I'm good with Optimus Prime (Paramount), anyone else?-- (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, yeah. I do agree on the inclusion of "films" in the disambig title not being the best thing. It'd be better to have a reference to the Michael Bay universe (or whatever it may be called) as a whole. --uKER (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, as of right now the articles on the characters have ceased to exist, as they were copied into place, then someone deleted the new pages. Mathewignash (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The character articles are all essentially deviations on a theme, i.e. about essentially the same character, simply re-imagined every few years/once per spin-off. The only "reason" to fork them out into separate articles is because these base articles are so huge. But, the vast majority of their content is in-universe plot summary and speculation, much of it poorly sourced. The fix is not to spread this poor content to new disambiguated areas of focus, but to take a giant axe to the content already there. --EEMIV (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the poorly done redirects that EEMIV left us with, and restored the articles he neglected to return to their previous state after blanking the new pages. Mathewignash (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So has this entire process of moving the characters off to new pages stopped because EEMIV complained, despitee everyone else seeming to support it? Mathewignash (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Number of unnamed Transformers

It has been added into the article there being thirteen or twelve unnamed Transformers. Well, I assume that's referring to the desert scene, but there were countless more in the scene when they crash into the carrier, the one who kidnaps Sam's parents, etc. And even in the desert scene, IIRC, the number is said to be an approximate. --uKER (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception

The subsection on the film's critical reception should be altered to indicate that it was "widely panned" by film critics. A mere 19% approval rate is about as low as one can fall (less than 1 in 5). "Generally unfavorable" would be appropriate if, say, the negative reviews accounted for more than 50%. More than 75% clearly indicates a stronger conviction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is Rotten Tomatoes considered to be the end all final word of movie review? It's just another webpage. The article says Metacritic gave it 35%. That's 1 out of 3 liked it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

2 out of 3 viewers saying the movie was bad is pretty telling too. It shows twice as many of those people disliked it as liked it. Mathewignash (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Final installment in trilogy

Just for the record, I added a sentence in the "Sequel" section which states the upcoming movie as being the final installment in the trilogy. Now, there's this source for it being a trilogy (with nothing to disprove it for the time being), and the upcoming movie is obviously going to be the third one, so I don't see why anobody would have a problem with it. I just wanted to go on record because there's this kid Anesleyp who went as far as putting a vandalism warning on my page for adding unsourced information to the article. --uKER (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, despite having cited sources, Anesleyp keeps reverting saying I'm claiming it's a trilogy just because a fourth movie hasn't been announced. Well, that's NOT the case. The series was announced as a trilogy right from the beginning. In case of doubt, here's another source. --uKER (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We are sure that there is going to be a 3rd Transformers movie because Megatron gets have of his face ripped of and still survives.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Transformers 3 has a new page?

Why does it have its own page theres not even enough info to be a page apparently there was a discussion on it but where The Movie Master 1 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

On the bright side it makes a nice place for people who write movie fanfic to put casting lists and plots that I can delete daily. Mathewignash (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Transformers a trilogy... AGAIN

I gave it a time for the dust to settle down on this, but upon mentioning it again, it seems like this nonsense continues. The series has been known to have been planned as a trilogy from the very beginning. Sources backing it are everywhere (the article already cites a source but you can take your pick here) and never has anything been said that could suggest otherwise. Now will we please make it stop? --uKER (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not "nonsense" to state that there are no facts for something. Nowhere, either in this article, the first Transformers article, or the film series article does it say anything about there being a "trilogy." Not one source for this article makes mention of a trilogy. In fact, that's the first source I've seen hinting that it will be a trilogy. All I've heard is that there would be "another movie" but never that it would be the third movie in a trilogy. I don't have a problem with you putting in that there will be a trilogy using that source (unless the source is unreliable), I just have a problem with saying that the writers "won't be back for the final film in the trilogy" when the source being used for that (when it was still "won't be back for the next film in the series") doesn't make a mention of it being a trilogy. Put in a sentence saying it will be a trilogy using the source you gave and THEN state they won't be back for the "final film in the trilogy." On a side, personal note, I doubt they'll stop at three, so that's the sole personal reason I have against calling it a trilogy, but considering that would be crystal balling, I won't have any more reservations about it. Anakinjmt (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
In my message right above yours I posted a link to a Google search with PLENTY of sources for it being a trilogy. If you can cite any official word on them explicitly considering the possibility to go beyond three, I'll stand corrected and get over with it. --uKER (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it, as long as it's stated first that it will be a trilogy and then say the writers won't be back "for the final film in the trilogy." Again, my whole thing has been that it doesn't state first that it will be a trilogy. And like I said before, my own PERSONAL opinion is that it will be more than 3 films, but that's not citable, now is it? Anakinjmt (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, going by common sense, sure, they could go on to milk the money cow well beyond that, but then again, so could have been done with the Matrix trilogy and it (fortunately) didn't happen. I'll see to modify the article with your suggestion of clarifying it as a trilogy first and see if that makes it better for everyone else. --uKER (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I was looking through those sources and they seem to be using the word trilogy be the author of the news article, which isn't really official. Maybe I missed it, but have the writers or producers ever used the word trilogy? Mathewignash (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
What? What do you need? A word-by-word quote from Bay, Orci or Kurtzman? That's not the only source of official information, you know? As I have said, any Google search shows the series was intended to be a trilogy even before the first movie came out, and it's LOTS of reliable sources saying it. In any case, here's one of the most cited sources, saying the cast was signed for a trilogy before the first movie was out. --uKER (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, crap. Forget about it. Browsing through I just found a quote from Bay that says he will continue to milk the cow right until he sucks it dead dry. Move on then. --uKER (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I just thought I'd ask, but yes, unless I see a source form the writers, directors or producers saying the word "trilogy", the rest is just supposition by the article writers, not official information. Being signed for 3 films is standard practice and does not mean you plan a trilogy. It is just a way to lock in actors in case you end up doing a sequel. If the first two films flopped, there would not be a third film. If the third sells records there could be a fourth. Mathewignash (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


First of all, this is not a violation of WP:FORUM. I'm starting this because I have to change the article but I'm still trying to get my head around it. The fact is that in the Blu-ray extras, it is said that Reedman and The Doctor are two forms of the same character, obviously both coming out of Ravage. So there. Take your time to digest that. I'll see to get it into the article some time soon. --uKER (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Specifically where and when is this said? Mathewignash (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It was in some segment with someone commenting on the making of the segment with Reedman. He said he hoped it came across clearly that Reedman and The Doctor were the same character. I'll tell you the name of the segment if you can't find it. --uKER (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I've talked on Transformers message boards and no one seems to know about this, and they can't find it. Can you give an exact location on the blu ray and quote what is said? Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
IIRC it's in the "vault theft" segment of the "Desconstructing Visual Bayhem" feature on the second disc. At the very end, the commentary (Yamamoto) says something like "I hope it comes clear that this is the same robot that later ..." making a reference to something The Doctor later does (can't recall what it was). --uKER (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Accroding to people on a TF message board I asked, they said "They were talking about the fact that Scalpel was supposed to be in Ravage and have the shard later. Not that him and Reedman were the same guy." Mathewignash (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Trust me, he says they're both the same. He says something to the effect of "I hope the fans understand this is the same character that later does X thing". One would have to be brain damaged to not notice Ravage is the same. I'll provide a direct transcript as soon as I get the time (I'm at work ATM). --uKER (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep. A transcript, or heck, a recording, would help a lot here. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't hold your breath for a recording. In Windows 7 There's no direct way to record what comes out of a program. --uKER (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe put a microphone up to the speakers? Mathewignash (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
There's no way I'll go to such ridiculous extent. The guy is in a voiceover speaking in plain english. I'll provide a transcription and a time code. That should be more than enough. --uKER (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Just do whatever is easiest for you. I find it more difficult to transcribe than to simply record something. Then again I have a nice dubbing set-up here I used to transfer all sorts of things. I'm just curious as to the exact wording as I have people who keep telling me it says nothing like this, you say it does, and I have never heard what he actually says for myself. Mathewignash (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I will transcribe it sometime soon. It's subtitled too, so no place for misinterpretations either. --uKER (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, here you go: "Here's the Docbot at the bottom of... And he finds the shard there. Hope it's clear that's the same Doctorbot that basically examines Sam later in the movie." The first sentence is actually cut that way. The comment is where I mentioned before and needless to say, the Doctor doesn't appear in that segment. --uKER (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you see on the screen when he says this? Because it sounds like he's saying the Doctor is both the one who fixes Megatron and who interrogates Sam. Not that he's the one who stole the shard. Mathewignash (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon second thought, I now tend to think this was an editing mess-up in the production of the Blu-ray extra. My guess is that the "Here's the Docbot at the bottom of..." was meant for the scene at the bottom of the ocean with the "Docbot" reviving Megatron, but for some unexplainable screwup it ended up there. It's also really hard to believe they would intend Reedman to be The Doctor, so I'll remove that for the time being. Now, do you people prefer The Doctor and Reedman presented as I put them now, hierarchically below Ravage or the way they were before? --uKER (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wrote my previous message before seeing your response. The segment in question starts with Ravage falling into the ocean, goes through Reedman stealing the shard and ends when Reedman rejoins Ravage outside of the facility so it's nowhere near showing the Doctor under the sea. Anyway, I just removed the statement as (despite it being actually there), I reckon it has to be a mistake. --uKER (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Something's wrong here

Unicron did not, and I repeat, DID NOT appear in Transformers Animated. (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The picture of Unicron is actually from a Simon Furman guide to Transformers book and the art was drawn by the guys who did Dreamwave comics. I think he meant animated Transformers, and someone read it as "Animated" Mathewignash (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That was my bad. I dunno, for some reason I thought that was from Animated. Thanks for the correction. --uKER (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Nemesis

Just for the record, Bay calls it by its name in the Blu-ray commentary. --uKER (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Although there is no problem with this stictly in the context of the 2 films alone, there is a problem with a movieverse stories including the comics and novels, as they already had a Decepticon ship called the Nemesis that Starscream was the commander of, and it landed on Mars, and the Decepticons then came to Earth as protoforms (seen in novels and comics), then in this movie we disocver that the Fallen is on some other Decepticon ship called the Nemesis which is ALSO on Mars. Very confusing, but proog that Bay and the writers do not feel constrained by the other movieverse fiction (books and comics) when writing new movies. In the next film they may well contradict more books and comics tied into the 2007 and 2009 films. Mathewignash (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael bay talks about Transformers 3

It's not much but I found this its on the blu-ray disc just thought to let some users see it here [1] The Movie Master 1 (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT, the info there is already mentioned in the "Sequel" section. --uKER (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, didn't see that though did you see at the bottom of what Lorenzo di Bonaventura said about unicron

"Unicron worries me because it's so big that it dwarves emotion. It's so hard, because when you're working to that scale, it sort of becomes outside any kind of human reality you have. It's obviously a great character, and one that we're definitely going to talk about, but for me personally - and I'm not the only vote here - that one scares me. Because of its size, it becomes sort of impersonal when it gets to that scale. [...] And for me that worries me because I like the human characters."

Producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura

The whole conversation is right here [2]

The Movie Master 1 (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Order of the Transformers

There has been several edits to the order of Transformers on the page and I have changed it again to the order I beleive is right, with bumblebee listed as 2nd as he is the 2nd main Autobot in the film next to optimus and Megatron is the leader the Fallen's merely his mentor and uses Megatron as a puppet to get revenge if theres any problem with the way its ordered we should discuss it here before making further edits The Movie Master 1 (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

the groos of transforemers revenge of the fallen of 918,318, 725 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Orci not knowing whether it'd be Grindor or Blackout in the movie.

I reverted your change but you still insist in adding that in. It is clear you will go to any extent to open the possibility of it being Blackout in the movie, but it is already sourced in a statement from Hasbro themselves that says it's Grindor in the movie, so Orci not knowing the name the character would carry is totally meaningless. The characters change names a hundred times during development, so it's totally unworthy of notice that Orci (the first link in the chain of making the movie) didn't know what name the character would bear when the movie came out. --uKER (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Its logical that its Grindor when Megatron was revived he was the only new target going up and they only had one all-spark shard I think thats why hasbro has him as grindoe its pure logic if you look at it The Movie Master 1 (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Megatron lives! Barricade lives! Bonecrusher lives! Brawl lives! Jazz lives! Frenzy Lives!.... now Ravage LIVES!

Seems the plot of the latest movie tie in comic is Ravage recovering in the NEST base. No one seems to stay dead in this series. I guess they learned dead mechs don't sell toys. [1] Mathewignash (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess you must have meant "tie in comic". But anyway, this only goes to show how much contradiction with the movies is in the tie-in media. --uKER (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, they are officialy licensed. Mathewignash (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I know, but that can't mean they go by the same canon as the movie. --uKER (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I would argue it is, but it does happen AFTER the movie, so therefore it doesn't go on this page. It will go on the Ravage page under IDW Publishing. Mathewignash (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hasbros updated battle bios apparently Jazz was brought back by Ratchet with a piece of the allspark and it was Barricade it says he stayed on earth after they all fled, the quotes are freakishly long now to like the one I updated for the fallen their all like that with Jazz's being he was brought back, check it out its crazy[3] The Movie Master 1 (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well what do you expect? Of course Hasbro has to make up stuff to keep selling the toys of characters that died in the movies. That doesn't mean they lived in the movie storyline. It has happened before. --uKER (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


Seems like some people are missing the point of what "we like to call him that" means. They didn't say "we've named him that" or even "we call him that". "we like to call him that" leaves room for option, meaning you can call him something else if you like. Thus, it should be noted that this is not an official name. --uKER (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Scrapmetal is a Transformers name they have used before in Transformers: Cybertron. Notice how they capitolize the name and use a single word. They don't say they call him "scrap metal" they say "Scrapmetal". It is an official name. Mathewignash (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Did I ever say it wasn't a name? I just said the overly informal tone of the sentence didn't make it sound as if the name had -oficially- been given to the character. --uKER (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You want a birth certificate or something? Mathewignash (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Is holding a civilized discussion beyond the reach of your abilities? Don't you really see a difference between "Yes, the character is named XXX" and "On our side, we like to call him XXX"? --uKER (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It was meant as a joke, but no, I don't see the difference, they gave him a name. I'm happy with it. Heck, we've had worse names, like Bumper, given by fans, and adopted by Hasbro officially. Mathewignash (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Should I replace the mottos with the quotes on the Hasbro battle bios there more like monologues but its their quotes Im not sure The Movie Master 1 (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this the 4th highest-grossing movie of 2009?

On the 2009 in films page it says it's the 4th highest-grossing movie of 2009, but here it says it's the 3rd, which is more correct? (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Union Jack

Anyone else notice the Union Jack up side down in this film? Perhaps there were other errors too and this article should have an "error" section? Isenhand (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That might be considered as trivia and would likely be removed. KLLvr283 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The Union Jack is commonly shown upside down in films - even in a few 'British' ones at that. It's hardly notable. The upside-down usage is as a distress signal, although it's so subtle I wonder sometimes how often it's acted upon. a_man_alone (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


I believe the sequel section should cover this piece of news:

While is has been denied by Bay's site as a "fake" this has happened in the past. The entire first movie, and well as aspects of the second were leaked online, and then subsequently denied as being fakes, then ended up actually showing up as the movie or being in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"negative to mixed" reception

"Mixed reception" denotes a reception with both positive and negative evaluations. To denote that the reviews were leaning towards the negative side, we use "mostly negative" which also denotes that, while most reviews were bad, not all of them were. Saying the movie received "negative to mixed" reception is not just syntactically abysmal but also borderline fanboyish. I can understand people wanting to bring that statement up that extra notch towards "mixed reviews" but you're only free to do so as long as you find a proper way to say it. --uKER (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the use of 'Mixed reception' here is misleading. According to Rotten Tomatoes the vast majority of critics gave the film a negative review. Mixed implies that the reviews are variable and neither strongly positive or negative. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
That is why I've edited the article to read "mostly negative" every time its reception is mentioned. I encourage it to be kept this way, and in any case, avoid the aberration that is the "negative to mixed" description. That's like saying you're mixing orange juice with a mixture of water and orange juice. Plainly ridiculous. --uKER (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sequel Release Date

This page has been locked for good reason, but looks like someone changed Bay's quote and it hasn't been fixed yet. I believe it originally said he wanted the date to be in 2012, not 2011, because of the prep time needed. Now obviously the date has now been officially set for 2011, but that doesn't change his original quote. I don't have verification, just thought someone else might have noticed this as well and change it. (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I heard that they were going to schedule the first day of shooting this May.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done --uKER (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Character List

In an effort to reduce the length of the article I propose breaking off the complete descriptions of the Autobots and Decepticons into a new "Characters from" type page. I've seen this done with other franchises. The Red Queen (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This change has been completed. New article is Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (characters). The Red Queen (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If I had seen this I would have beaten UKER to the reversion of the earlier cast additions. I'll keep a better eye out now. Great job on the article split. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I never mentioned it here but, while Redqueenar was the one who started it all, I put a great deal of work into the split too. It was me who created the now existing "Cast" section in this article. I also put the "characters" article back into shape as a standalone article and mended some stuff that had got broken during the split. It was also me who separated the cast in in the article for the first film. So I guess that goes to explain why I was so hasty at reverting. :) --uKER (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of place question

in the movie transformers revenge of the fallen when the decepticons revived megatron why did they kill the other robot —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, thus this is not the place to ask such question. In any case, the movie dialogue explains why it's done. --uKER (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Go Transformers


I think this is a good article and should be featured, nominate it anyone? I don't know how to. Exrain (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also removed the part saying it's the highest grossing film in China. Revenge Foreign Gross, Avatar Foreign Gross. Exrain (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


Shouldn't the title of the movie be "Revenge of The Fallen" (aka using a capital T), since the titular character is "The Fallen"? Or is that just another oversight in this crappy movie? (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The title is deliberately ambiguous, "the fallen" both referring to The Fallen, and to Megatron (or the Decepticons altogether), who had fallen in the previous film. --uKER (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Two periods

retrospect, as marking the end of an era. Of course there will be many more CGI-based action epics, but never again one this bloated, excessive, incomprehensible, long (149 minutes) or expensive ($190 million).". There are two periods here please take of the one after the parentheses. Thank you.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, homie. Millahnna (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

US Bias?

Quote from wiki page (bolding mine) "It was the second most successful film of 2009 (behind Avatar) and eleventh overall domestically, and the 23rd highest-grossing film of all time and fourth highest of the year (behind Avatar, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs) internationally."

Is wikipedia US centric only? Are people using wikipedia from outside the US supposed to guess which country domestic actually refers to? Suggest "domestic" is changed to "in the United States". Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I could be wrong when I say this, but here's what I think it's about: Since most of these films are U.S. made, domestic means "In the USA", as if you didn't already know that. So when people from other countries look up an American movie on their own Wikipedia, they know that "domestic" means "In the USA" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Someone completely messed up the plot. It needs to be fixed. I'd do it myself but I probably wouldn't be able to write it in a way that is suitable for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The current one is subliterate. Will someone who has seen the movie rewrite it? (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Other Autobots?

During the scene where Director Galloway tells Lennox that his NEST team is decativated, there is a blue autobot in the background standing with Ironhide, Sideswipe, & Ratchet. It's to large to be one of the motorcycles. It stands close to the same height as the Autobots standing next to it. Is that one of The Wreckers? In the third movie it was mentioned that The Wreckers came to Earth with the 2nd wave of Autobots (between the 1st & 2nd movies) but they weren't allowed off base because they were "A-holes." So that could be a possibility. Just wondering who blue autobot is? He only gets about 4-5 seconds of screen time.

Uhhh... Jolt? --uKER (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
uKER is right, the Autobot you're referring to is Jolt, and he gets more than 4-5 seconds of screen time, as you see him at the point you mentioned, and again after Optimus is revived by Sam where Ratchet tells Jolt to electrify so Optimus can gain Jetfires parts. BlueStars83 (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Everything is clear and spelling and grammar is correct.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The article complies with the manual of style guidelines.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Everything has reliable references.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Everything has reliable references.
    C. No original research:
    Everything has a reference and no original research was found.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    The article covered / included all the major aspects of the movie.
    B. Focused:
    Everything stays on topic.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Did not find any bias info.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    From what it looks like, within the past week a lot of "undoing" has been going on. Doesn't look like the article is stable any more.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    All images properly tagged.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Images are related to the movie and the captions "agree" with the images they support.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    As of the time I reviewed this article, there has been a lot of "undoing" info on the article. This means that the article is stable enough for GA status. Although the original nominator is now retired, I will put this article on hold for 7 days to see if the article stabilizes. After 7 days, if the article is stabilized, I will pass it. If the article is still unstable after 7 days, I will fail it.
After 7 days, the article is still not stable.--Dom497 (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


Not to mention, that this is definitely NOT a good article, as there are inconsistencies with references, the stablity (as mentioned above), the cast section requires more information, should look like this: Iron Man cast section or this Transformers: Dark of the Moon cast section. Until then, I second the your "overall" result. Fanaction2031 (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: (to Dom497) stability is based on whether or not edit wars (content disputes) are prominent in the article, and currently the malicious editing appears to have subsided. (to Fanaction2031): Reference formatting is not a requirement of good articles and reliability is pretty decent, unless you want to point out any references that aren't up to scratch in that area? Also, plenty of film GAs have cast sections that look like this one. (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I was just pointing out that the cast section SHOULD be reworked for consistency of the following and past films. Also, it would be more relevant and yes neat. Fanaction2031 (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Um, 2a is not that good - the ammount of fansite refs is unhealthy (I'm working on replacing them), so the sources aren't all reliable! igordebraga 00:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)