MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Galvatron (G1)

2021-07-18T21:15:48Z

PaMat1000: /* Galvatron == Megatron, or Unicron likes to waste time */ new section

[[File:GalvatronOhiraOX.jpg|right|200px|thumb|He has a weird tendency to aim at his own troops.]]

==Galvatron 2==
What you have cavalierly retiled 'Galvatron IV' (Rhythms of Darkness) was explicitly called Galvatron 2 in Alignment, like as an actual title or somejunk. (It's confusing.) So a specific number has meaning in reference to this character, and his numbering should not be reassigned for aesthetic reasons- doing so removes meaning.

Also, we have at least 1 explicit letters page reference (Backed up, IIRC by the Titan Compilation recap pages) saying he's the same incarnation of the character as the one from Perchance to Dream.

The 2nd Future-Galvie is difficult. I don't object toc alling him III, but since the numbers kinda have meaning for the other two (and reflect a need to label two distinct individuals who visited the past, as opposed to a 3rd individual who didn't, and instead exists in a timeline where no such disambuigation was needed) I think it'd be better to say "Also, a new Galvatron showed up int he future after Straxus died." -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 12:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
: Yeah. Who numbered all these Galvatrons? The Rhythms of Darkness one is specifically Galvatron II. None of the others officially got any numbers. (Galvatron II gets his own page, as well.) --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I requested an expert come in and rework what I wrote. I was mostly going by what Cliffy wrote at the Archive ( http://www.tfarchive.com/comics/faq/#2q ). The extent of *my* actual knowledge of Marvel Comics UK Galvatron goes no further than Target: 2006 and Perchance to Dream.--[[User:DrSpengler|DrSpengler]] 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== IDW Galvatron ==

So, not spoiling too much be IDW Galvatron has been confirmed to not only not be Megatron, but to not even have had anything to do with Megatron, ever. I knida lean toward giving him his own page. Thoughts?--[[User:71.235.136.203|71.235.136.203]] 10:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
: I'm going to say no. Galvatron II gets his own page because he's explicitly a separate entity from a world which has already had a Galvatron. I see him in the same light as I see TM2 Dinobot. IDW Galvatron may be a different concept, but he's still just a new continuity's take on the character, and that's nothing new. [[User:Chip|Chip]] 15:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::I don't know. He's got his own background, and though originally he only was in his Spotlight, he's about to get a ''lot'' more screentime. Giving him his own page would mean we could give the new character design a good central place and separate his unique backstory from his fiction appearances.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I say we keep him here for reasons that Chip stated. He '''is''' an incarnation of his G1 self, even if he doesn't evolve from Megatron. --[[User:MistaTee|MistaTee]] 20:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

===Splitting?===
Now we got [[Goldbug (IDW)]] now, I'd like to propose splitting the IDW section into "Galvatron (IDW)". --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 00:33, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
:IDW Goldbug needed a separate page because G1 Goldbug was simply an extension of G1 Bumblebee, and so he was part of G1 Bumblebee's page. Galvatron is already a separate page from Megatron. Lots of characters have contradictory backstories within a single page. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 00:31, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
::Concur. I don't see much point in splitting off another G1 Galvatron. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 01:52, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
:::I am also against split. Something else to consider. Toy Galvatron is already a different character than Megatron. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 09:24, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

:I agree with the splitting, he is a seperate character.[[Special:Contributions/71.255.161.143|71.255.161.143]] 21:24, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

== Marvel Comics x2? ==
Why is there a second Marvel Comics section after Japanese continuity? That says absolutely nothing about what happened in the comics, but is instead dilled with badly-written speculation about the events of the 'toon version of the movie? Doesn't that sort of thing belong on Wikipedia, not here? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

== Scramble City (toys) OVA (Japan-only)==

(Note: this OVA is not canon to anything in the known universe.)

WHAT??!??
HAVE EVEN SEEN THIS? Galvatron is now where in the Scramble City OVA which should be canon no problem. What I think you are talking about are the live action TOY ADVERTISMENTS that were done in conjunction of Scramble City(I guess the ad's were a continuation of Scramble City, but all it did was re tell the story)What is described in this article does happen in these toy comercials. GALVATRON IS NO WHERE IN SCRAMBLE CITY, HE IS IN THE TOY COMMERCIALS! --Unknown IP Address

:I think you're confused, Mr. Unknown IP Address. The section is titled "Scramble City (toys)" which is the name used to seperate the animated Scramble City OVA from the stop-motion OVA. Footage from the stop-motion OVA was used for toy commercials, but never the less, the footage originated in said OVA, which ISN'T canon to the animated series, though the animated Scramble City most certainly is. So, again, there is a difference between "Scramble City" and "Scramble City (toys)" as noted in the section covering Galvatron's appearance in that OVA's fiction. Scramble City (toys) was a full-length stop-motion OVA which combined stock footage from the television series with a completely new voice track, making it more than just a standard toy commercial as it is about half an hour long and tells a story. It might do you wonders to actually ''watch'' the complete Scramble City (toys) OVA before going off the handle, just so you have some semblance of a clue as to what you're talking about. You can read a detailed synopsis of the OVA [http://www.tfarchive.com/cartoons/guide.php?s=scramblecity#toys here]. Also, TALKING IN ALL CAPS!1!1! doesn't make you appear more intelligent, particularly when you're wrong. --[[User:DrSpengler|DrSpengler]] 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's just a toy commercial and isn't cannon then why should it be included in the Galvatron article? Oh and the CAPS was to indicate irritation that some NERD decided to include an actual half hour toy commercial(I say actual because, as we all know, Transformers was nothing more than a half-hour toy commercial in the guise of "cartoon"). I realize that it apparently had some sort of story, but come on it's a toy commercial...also, why the personal stab? Did you write this article? Because I wasn't trying to attack anyone, but you were, why? Are you still bitter that they killed off Optimus Prime?
PS Don't go locking yourself in your bedroom. --Unkown IP Address Guy

:It is canon (not "cannon", there's a difference) with itself and would qualify as a [[micro-continuity]] just like the various Big Looker storybooks and other ridiculous oddities that fill Generation 1. The fact that segments of it are stop-motion (while just as much is animated) does not mean it should be disqualified from inclusion. The fact that it marks the first appearance of Galvatron in Japan is most certainly notable. ''Also'', if you spent a little time perusing this wiki you might notice that we actually ''do'' include the story tidbits [[Nightbeat (G1)|revealed]] [[Horrorcon|in]] [[Gutcruncher (G1)|television]] [[Stratotronic Jet|commercials]]. The fact that the Scramble City (toys) OVA was actually ''sold in stores'' and lasted a half hour makes it even ''more'' notable than television commercials. ''Imagine that''. Furthermore, combining clips of various episodes to make new stories is something done routinely in Japanese Transformer animation, once again making the Scramble City (toys) OVA more than just a "half hour toy commercial" (though I feel like laughing every time I hear that).
The fact of the matter is, at this wiki we strive to be as comprehensive as possible, including all different continuities, large or small, whether they're canon with any primary fiction or not. That includes [[Action Master|toy packaging blurbs]], [[Rad (G1)|television commercials]], [[Decoy|pack-in comics]] and, yes, the bizarre stop-motion OVA such as "Scramble City (toys)". --[[User:DrSpengler|DrSpengler]] 05:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow.

In terms of the Marvel Continuities, should any mention be made of the characters appearances in Marvel's Transformers the Movie Adaption? Even though they are out of the normal continuity of the comics, a lot of the characters like Hot Rod, Galavtron, and Blurr were introduced there before anywhere else in the Marvel comics and the Marvel Universe profiles even make mention of this. Or would that really just confuse things? -[[User:RiddlerJ|RiddlerJ]] October 19 2007

==Weapon name==
What was Galvatron's weapon called again? A chemical-electric laser cannon? -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
:In the 1989 Annual, Megatron's and Galvatron's weapons were called "Fusion cannon" and "particle accelerator cannon" but I forget which one was which. [[User:Takeshi357|Takeshi357]] 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
::In his bio and/or TFU profile, Galv's cannon is said to be a "laser that shoots chemically-induced, direct current electricity." --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:::It was a "particle cannon" on the cover of UK #118, and the Wreckers called it a "particle accelerator cannon" in #172. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

::::IIRC it's also been called a proton rocket cannon and a proton cannon. A UK letters page suggested the tech specs are the most accurate of the five names/descriptions. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 19:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

==Universe==

Anyone know WHY galvatron's altmode is changed from a cannon/gun to a tank?--[[User:Grand-majin|Grand-majin]] 18:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
: Because Hasbro hates you. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
: That's something i know for a long time.--[[User:Grand-majin|Grand-majin]] 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
::Because Hasbro has said that part of the motivation behind the Universe line is to pick up "realistic modern vehicle modes" when the Movie line ends. Galvatron's old form doesn't fit that criteria, but a tank does. --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Considering that tank mode is hardly what I consider "realistic", I see no reason for the change...[[User:Takeshi357|Takeshi357]] 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
::::That is why we make fun of this reasoning in the toy's description.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::His cannon-on-treads mode was reasonably close to a tank anyway, and this design allows them to pull off a legitimate transformation and the grey-to-purple color swap--both of which are firsts for this character and his homages. If anything, I was mostly surprised they used a vehicle not from the U.S., E.U., or Russia. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-news-rumors/223379-takaratomy-staff-interview-generations-2009-vol-1-translation.html It's interesting that this article states that they abandoned the tripple changing aspect because shockwave from the animated line was made at the same time.--[[User:Sunjumper|Sunjumper]] 16:05, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

==The Making of the Transformers Visual Universe: Galvatron, Rodimus Prime==
:The link is dead for over a year.--[[User:Sunjumper|Sunjumper]] 12:15, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

== The number of Marvel Galvatrons ==

We say there are "between 2 and 5 different Galvatrons" but mention only four - is the fifth one assuming Aspects of Evil: Unicron features a different Galvatron to AoE: Galvatron (as the TF Archive FAQ does) or are we into the mess of whether there's yet more timeline divergences around the movie that could make the Target: 2006 Galvatron either a standalone or multiple predecessor? (My head hurts on all this.) [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 15:01, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

== IDW split proposal take2 ==

Ok now I do think we should split the idw Galvatron from this page due to his origin being completely different and that he has a completely different personality from all the other incarnation he had. I think he should ether go to "Galvatron (idw)" or "Galvatron (Dead Universe)" or something similar. I think he would benefit from that move simply for the aforementioned difference in personality and origin and his goals. [[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 17:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:IDW seems like the less unwieldy parenthetical, and it's consistent with Goldbug.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 17:06, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::Agreed. Also, "Galvatron (G1)" would then be too broad a title for this article, so it should change to something like "Galvatron (Megatron)". - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 17:14, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:The reason I was okay with IDW Galvatron staying on Galvatron (G1) is because it was already a separate page from Megatron. If Galvatron was fully integrated into Megatron's page the way Goldbug was with Bumblebee's, than a new page would be justified.
:I don't see why separate origins make any difference. Do we need separate pages for the Dinobots who were built on Earth and the ones who were from Cybertron? - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 17:24, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::It's less about "origin" and more about "identity." If the fact that a character used to be a different character is germane enough to who they are now, then an incarnation where that's not the case could be considered to have a sufficiently different identity to merit his own page. At least, that's how I read this proposal. For example, nobody has brought up the fact that different incarnations of [[Cyclonus (G1)]] show evidence of originating from different characters, because Cyclonus's personality seems totally unaffected by his previous "self." Goldbug is a lot more clear-cut in that regard, and Galvatron is kind of a fuzzy middle.
::My personal standard is the "intro test": If you find that writing a universal intro requires an excessive amount of qualifiers or paring-down to suit all the incarnations in an article, then maybe not all of those incarnations belong. But that's entirely my personal take.
::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 17:31, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:::I will enjoy splitting Grimlock into (Marvel) and (Sunbow), then. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:40, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:::FWIW, that would require splitting virtually all of the 1987 Headmaster character articles. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 17:39, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What about tech spec bio micro-continuity Galvatron? That guy is much closer to IDW Galvatron than cartoon/Marvel Galvatron. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 17:59, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::: Two words. "Cartoon Constructicons". --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 13:35, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I know I kinda brought this one up in Goldbug, but upon consideration, I don't think it needs to be split. Goldbug needed his own article because he was a separate character from Bumblebee. But IDW Galvatron doesn't need one because he's a separate character from Megatron, as are most/all of the others, to a greater/lesser degree. We need an article on Galvatron the character, who exists separate from Megatron. And we've got one. While IDW Galvatron is a completely separate being from his Megatron, the principle is essentially the same as Marvel Galvatron being separate because he existed alongside his Megatron

And Galvatron (Megatron) is pretty ridiculous.

[[User:Eire]] 22.59 Aug 11 09 (UTC)
:Here's my take on the matter: either we split all the IDW characters to their own separate articles, or we keep them all in their G1 articles. Picking and choosing which characters are the same and which are different is incredibly arbitrary and doesn't adhere at all to wiki standards, not to mention being confusing as all hell. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] 18:08, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::Being selective is ''not'' the same as being arbitrary. There ''are'' standards and tests we can apply here. Goldbug basically just Bumblebee with some cosmetic changes. Take away the Bumblebee aspect, and you've removed ''everything'' which defines the character. Galvatron is less clear-cut, but he's one of a rare handful of borderline cases. Most IDW guys follow their previous incarnations far more neatly, however. Trying to apply a one-size-fits-all standard to such a diverse set of circumstances? Now ''that'' is arbitrary. It's saying, "Well, we're going to make our rules neat and simple, no matter how messy and complex the reality we're trying to describe is!" [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 11:23, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::I'm in complete agreement with Rob here. If we've learned ''anything at all'' since this wiki went up, it's that this franchise can and will throw up ''something'' that bucks "standards", and that it is impossible to come up with an actual broad applies-to-everything rule that doesn't overcomplicate things horribly. I mean... if "different origins" is ''really'' supposed to be a standard, then are we going to have '''three''' different pages for the G1 cartoon Constructicons alone? It's not just saying "Well, we're going to make our rules neat and simple, no matter how messy and complex the reality we're trying to describe is!", it's saying "Well, we're going to make our rules neat and simple, no matter how messy and complex it's going to make finding a goddamn thing on this wiki!". Sometimes, duct tape and chewing gum ''is'' the optimum fix for a problem, no renovating the house required. We're dealing with a problem that seriously only affects like %0.1 of our character database ''if that''. Baby, bathwather, etc. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 13:34, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

:Galvatron's multiplicity is too well-established for us to start splitting this page up now. We already include Time Wars Galv and Aspects Of Evil Galv--and the latter is specifically the ''opposite'' of the former, but they're both the same character. We never see where Worlds Collide's bizarrely Unicron-asskissing Galv's came from, so maybe he's no more Megatron than IDW's was, or only as much as Henkei's was (basically just Megatron consciously cosplaying). We split off [[Galvatron II]] because [[Unicron|word of God]] comes out and says "you're not the REAL Galvatron, Mister Future Doppelganger Dude."
:''Fun fact: in that same conversation, Unicron says the Unicron that GalvII had known "was a Unicron I may or may not become," and Hook/Line/Sinker even say it was a "different Unicron." Doesn't that kinda... not mesh with the whole [[multiversal singularity]] thing? (No, there will never be an end to the shit-stirring).''--[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:00, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::I'd love to understand why Galvatron II is split off. He's just another alternate-universe version of G1 Galvatron, isn't he? Why is his identity more distinct that any other G1 Galvatron? -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 10:58, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::Because he has a toy of his own? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 11:04, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
::::But, he's still a G1 Galvatron, isn't he? So you mean, if we got a toy of IDW Galvaron, he'd get his own page? What about the new Masterpiece Grimlock who's colored like Marvel Grimlock and comes with the crown? He's different than cartoon Grimlock. Should he get his own page? -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 11:18, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:Galvatron II has a different name and was a stranger in the universe his fiction continuity came from. [[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 11:34, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
::But the universe where Galvatron II came from is still part of the G1 family, isn't it? This article covers G1 Galvatrons from the cartoon, several Marvel comic versions, as well as [[Worlds Collide]] Galvatron. And IDW Galvatron. I don't understand why Galvatron II is an exception. He was created in the same way as comic and cartoon Galvatron, and he's from a G1 universe. He has more in common with most G1 Galvatrons than IDW Galvy, but IDW Galvy is here, and GII isn't. I'm sorry if I'm causing trouble, I just don't get it. -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 12:26, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::Galvatron II has an '''official designation''', and he's the second Galvatron to appear within a single continuity, which is the entire reason he ''got'' a distint title in the first place. (Originally from Alignment... IIRC; The name stemmed from a need for characters in-universe to distinguish which Galvatron they were talking about.)
:::I'd just like to underline... this is '''not''' an either/or decision. We're not really discussing "Split to Galvatron (IDW) or keep as is." The article as-is is a mess. I'd also like to point out that [[Galvatron II]], despite originating in the Marvel comics, appears in '''at least two continuities''', which is the fundamental problem I have with a publisher-specific (IDW) designation. So if ''any'' other non-Megatron Galvatron shows up, '''he''' needs to get his own article too? Does Galvatron from "[[Worlds Collide]]" need to be "Galvatron (Dreamwave)"? We don't know ''he'' was ever Megatron. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 12:53, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
::::To build on Derik's point: If we didn't have an ''in-universe sequence of in-universe characters COMING OUT AND SAYING "this dude isn't the real Galvatron",'' Galvatron II would be treated as the real Galvatron and would be on this page. But we do have that, so he isn't here.
::::As for all the other multiples of Galvatron.... the trouble is, he really may be the exception to any rule we could come up with, just because it IS so established over so many years that there are a lot of him from a lot of different dimensions. Between "Rhythms," "Time Wars," and "Aspects of Evil" (and TWICE in that one!), the multiverse concept was demonstrated with Galvatron about 13 years before it was really applied to the rest of TF storytelling as a whole. I do not believe it would be possible--much less worthwhile--to retroactively give the CSI treatment to every little Galvatron variant and try to figure out if he was the "real" one. We cut out the one that the in-story characters say isn't the real Galvatron; but there's not much consistent ground on which to try to cut out anyone else. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 13:12, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::Looking at it the thing with Galvatron is insane, in the Marvel comics we have a whole army and then there is that DW one, who I personally don't believe is Galvatron as we know him from the 80's, he's too calm and not insane. So if we do decide to split this article I propose following designations:

*Galvatron (G1) for the cartoon and first comic version
*Galvatron (reset) for the one that is mentioned by the dyeing Rodimus Prime
*Galvatron (Earthforce) for the earthforce one
*Galvatron (WC) for the Worlds Collide one
*Galvatron (DU) for the idw one
Fuck I can see us dividing by zero. Why can't they just stick to one thing?[[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 13:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

:Now, I don't understand the idea of Galvatron II not being the real Galvatron. He's the real Galvatron from the universe he comes from, isn't he? And the universe he's from is a G1 universe, isn't it? Just because the stories he takes part in are mostly set in a different G1 universe doesn't mean Galvatron II isn't '''a''' valid G1 Galvatron. -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 19:24, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:Galvatron II is a second Galvatron in the same continuity. He's valid, but he is an independent Galvatron from the first Galvatron. [[User:Eire]] 00.52 Aug 13 09 (UTC)
::I think I understand the reason for the separate articles, but it's still a bit silly. The whole thing revolves around the two Galvatrons in Marvel comics. Both Marvel Galvatrons are G1 Galvatrons from separate G1 continuities, just like cartoon Galvatron (US, Japan), Henkei Galvatron, etc are each from separate G1 continuities, but we don't separate those articles. It seems weird that the two or three Galvatrons who have a very similar origin (Galvatrons I & II and cartoon) are separated, but dissimilar Galvatrons (like IDW) are on this page. I understand that he has been pointed out as a separate Galvatron in-fiction, but he's still a '''G1''' Galvatron. To shut myself up, I'll point out that, technically, Gavatron II ''is'' a part of the [[Galvatron (G1)]] article, but is pulled out of the article in a similar fashion as [[Optimus Prime (G1)/toys]]. Sort of a "Galvatron (G1)/II" situation. -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 21:45, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::Bingo. Your last point is ''exactly'' what the Galvatron II article is. The reason it exists, as far as I can tell, is because NOT having it would mean basically telling two different "life stories" in the same series summary. Yeah, there are multiple Galvies in the Marvel summary anyway, and the variation between them can be argued, but from the moment Galvy II was "born" (in 2005, not 2006 like the other comic Galvies), he was on a separate track. The fact that he has a canonically different designator that we can use for a title is icing on that cake. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 21:51, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I think Dead Metals proposed splits would be the best idea. We're establishing that a bunch of characters from G1 say that Galv II is not the original means that he gets a separate page,yet being created before Megatron seems to establish him as the same person as the orig, which is not possible unless he goes from G to M and then back to G.[[User:Burnout|Burnout]] 06:56, 27 February 2011 (EST)Burnout
:This proposal is from two and a half years ago. That we haven't followed through clearly indicates that common sense and logic have prevailed. Just read Crockalley and Jackpot's posts to know why this extra splitting is a dumb idea. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 07:14, 27 February 2011 (EST)

==New Disambig==
I find it a rather awkward read. Also, "Aspects of Evil" had ANOTHER Galvatron from an alternate future of the Marvel universe. I tend to think the original disambig was good enough. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 09:39, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
:While I can see the argument that a disambig3.5 fits the situation better, I have to agree that the phrasing actually used is not very good. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 10:32, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::"Aspects of Evil" Galvatron is almost certainly just [[Galvatron II]]. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 10:44, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Alternate timeline thereof, but yes. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 10:45, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::::I'm not sure how much of an "alternate of Galvatron II" you can become while still being the character, since the whole point of his existence is that he ''is'' an alternate within specific conditions. Galvatron II exists insofar as he helped Unicron destroy Cybertron circa 1986; in AoE, Cybertron still exists around 2300 and only ''then'' does Unicron try to eat it. I'm not sure what else we could use to tell II apart from I, and it seems just as likely that this is actually just a "III". And, uh, apparently he's also Straxus. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:09, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

== It looks like Galvatron was a G2 Autobot ==
Judging by [[:Image:G2merch-Galvatronwatch.jpg|his watch package]], Galvatron was a G2 Autobot. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 00:15, 18 December 2010 (EST)

==Split==
I was going to split the G1 cartoon bit out for Galvy too, but I am not sure how to do that with the whole "Who is Galvatron?" part. And as an aside, if I were to split out a part for Kup's page, should I give precedence to the toy section for being the toy section or the cartoon section for being the longest section? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 05:57, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== Split take 3 ==
I think we should split all marvel Galvatron's into seperate articles or just rewrite it so that there are 5 Galvatrons listed instead of three since that's how many there really are. That ends the Marvel conflict.

We should split or note that Dreamwave's World's Collide Galvatron may not be Megatron.

We should split IDW's Galvatron since their Galvatron is definitely a seperate character from the rest of the Galvatrons listed on this page.

Before we argue over all that, please note that the lead section of the article says that "Galvatron was once Megatron" and that he was "Born from the fires of Unicron himself".

IDW Galvatron has no relation to Unicron nor Megatron.

Dreamwave's Galvatron's identity is unknown and may be like the other Galvatron's who may or may not be Megatrons.

And even if they are, they are from parallel universes, and are seperate entities, and merit seperate articles.[[Special:Contributions/71.162.108.63|71.162.108.63]] 17:19, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:No. Stop pushing this. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:26, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::Another thing I could say is to keep track of all these Galvatrons is use a suite. But lets work this out.
::I know I'm requesting to much. So no split for now. We should atleast rewrite somethings to make them more accurate. Like the Marvel section.
::But lets wait to see what other people think of this. Then we can agree on something.[[Special:Contributions/71.162.108.63|71.162.108.63]] 17:32, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::What is there to "rewrite"? The Galvatron page has been fine for years now and the debate about whether the incarnations are the "same character" played out several times. We're not splitting (excepting cases of size) and we likely never will. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:36, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::Yeah. But as long as you do that, the lead will be innaccurate.[[Special:Contributions/71.162.108.63|71.162.108.63]] 17:41, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Because of one incarnation? We've lived with worse. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:45, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Would it be better for the anon to actually present a draft proposal? I mean, it does seem to be a major issue if inaccurate information is being presented, especially on a high-profile character like this.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 18:41, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::We have had "drafts" and numerous discussions about this. Read this talk page and find something more useful to do than rehashing old arguments. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:49, 5 December 2011 (EST)

It's not because of one incarnation, it's because of 8 (5 Marvel, 1 IDW, 1 Dreamwave, 1 Ladybird Books).[[Special:Contributions/71.162.108.63|71.162.108.63]] 20:39, 5 December 2011 (EST)
: Do something, anything, other than this, please. Find a new pet project, one that hopefully won't waste our time. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:49, 5 December 2011 (EST)

== Notes ==

Shouldn't the notes relating to the G1 cartoon Galvatron be split to that page?[[Special:Contributions/71.255.166.125|71.255.166.125]] 17:23, 9 March 2012 (EST)
:Hi, Noob saibot red. Being blocked means we don't want you here. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:33, 9 March 2012 (EST)
::While that is true, he actually has a point here. I've moved the cartoon continuity specific notes to the cartoon continuity page. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:00, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

== Marvel page? ==

Since Galvatron had a big role in the Marvel universe, shouldn't we split it into [[Galvatron (G1)/Marvel Comics continuity]]?[[Special:Contributions/71.255.163.24|71.255.163.24]] 13:59, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
:IMHO the article isn't big enough to warrant splitting more of it off. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:54, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
:I couldn't help but to notice that the section header says events taking place in the UK comics are in italics...and then the ''entire section is in italics''. Wouldn't it be better to just have the section renamed "Marvel UK"? The single US comic is already under it's own subsection anyway. [[User:Takeshi357|Takeshi357]] ([[User talk:Takeshi357|talk]]) 20:41, 27 July 2015 (EDT)

== IDW Apperances ==

Have Galvatron and Megatron ever appeared in the same story in IDW?[[User:Transfan 1992|Transfan 1992]] 18:31, 2 December 2012 (EST)
: Yes. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:52, 2 December 2012 (EST)
Name one, because I can't find one.[[User:Transfan 1992|Transfan 1992]] 15:49, 10 December 2012 (EST)
:[[Devastation issue 6]]. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:00, 10 December 2012 (EST)

== Galvatron II linkout ==

I feel like the bit that links to Galvatron II should have an image from the Marvel comic,rather than the stuff added after-the-fact to him. Anyone got any good ideas? The last page of issue 71, perhaps? [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 17:56, 24 February 2019 (EST)

== Galvatron == Megatron, or Unicron likes to waste time ==

Unicron can create new life from the dead we must assume: that or he can modify the life essences of the living/dying, giving them not only new personalities but also setting different levels of intellect.

Taking the characters seen to be reformatted:

Shrapnel -- slightly demented, verbal tic, cynical, loyal only to Insecticon cause.
Kickback -- suave blackmailer. Cynical, loyal only to Insecticon cause.
Bombshell -- sadistic mind controller, some scientific skill shown in cartoon universe, e.g. Enter the Nightbird. Cynical, loyal only to Insecticon cause.
Skywarp -- unbelievably dumb, cruel, violent.
Thundercracker -- not too bright, but has some objectivity. Arrogant, contemptuous of those that cannot fly but cynical about how the cause should be fought, pities as well as looks down upon "the inferior". Insecure.

They become:

Cyclonus -- extremely loyal to Galvatron specifically, fairly intelligent, fearless, leadership skills, supposedly emotionless but the cartoon version is a bit highly strung at times and is even shown to have a sense of humour.
Scourge -- not brave but a thinker, strong enough will to resist Starscream, ambitious (Burden Hardest to Bear), some leadership skills but Sweeps don't respect him.
Sweeps -- generally whiny, occasionally disobedient, fearful of Cyclonus.

No comparisons there. But Galvatron is Megatron, and that's that. Why would Unicron waste time negotiating with him if he could just reprogram him? Unicron wanted Megatron because he was a natural leader, cunning, hated the Autobots and had a wealth of knowledge about his enemies. He could have programmed out the ambition, treacherousness etc but didn't because he needed Megatron's mind whole. The whole "Megatron wouldn't have killed Starscream" argument has merit given the long history of forgiving even worse treachery (Countdown to Extinction, for example). But Galvatron is more powerful, it seems, and he now has Cyclonus and Scourge. Starscream had additionally thrown him out when he was dying, which is more obvious in the older scripts (e.g. the "Enshrine me!" line) and that's different to betraying him while he was at full fitness -- there would be a new leader anyway, but Starscream wasn't even going to give him a dignified end, perhaps that was the last straw.

But one way or another, he's still Megatron. [[User:PaMat1000|PaMat1000]] ([[User talk:PaMat1000|talk]]) 17:15, 18 July 2021 (EDT)

Talk:Starscream's Ghost

2021-07-18T20:59:51Z

PaMat1000: /* Octane, Blitzwing, either is wrong; the ending is a mess */ new section

==Starscream's Ghost's page==
Just wondering. Considering the amount of things he's done as a ghost (as well as the number of toys he's gotten) Could Starscream's Ghost get his own page, maybe to break down the Starscream Page? [[User:Riddlerj|Riddlerj]] 23:02, 8 January 2010 (EST)
: That only removes three episodes, really. Oh, and a Henkei! comic. That's not really going to help with Starscream's page. No, if we need to split him up, we should split him up the same way as every other page, by continuity. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:08, 8 January 2010 (EST)
:Wasn't there some Binaltech stuff and a radio play he did as a Ghost too? It seemed like he was possessing everyone for a while. [[User:Riddlerj|Riddlerj]] 23:17, 8 January 2010 (EST)
::Maybe, but this means we would have to have fiction sections zig back and forth across both Normal Starscream and Ghost Starscream's page. Should there be an empty spot on Normal Starscream's page after his death in the Animated Movie, only to pick up again when Unicron gives him a body at the end of "Ghost in the Machine"? The "See Starscream's Ghost" link in the middle is only going to remove a paragraph or two from the page. It's a weird, basically pointless band-aid solution compared to the real solution of breaking up his page more logically. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:25, 8 January 2010 (EST)

== Scourge or a Sweep? ==
"As Galvatron orders Cyclonus repaired to top working order, the obedient Scourge is revealed to be Starscream's new host body." Been awhile since I watched this episode, but are we sure it was Scourge specifically who was possessed here? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:07, 11 March 2011 (EST)

==Starscream's legs==
I'm not sure it's animator error; Starscream's statue is consistently depicted as just a pair of legs. Octane even tips one of them over, which wouldn't make sense if the rest of him was supposed to be attached to it. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] 20:55, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

==Shouldn't Octane have Autobot logos instead of Decepticon logos?==
There is no context in this episode (or past episodes) that indicates he ever became an Autobot.
All it really tells us is that:
# He's Banished from the Decepticons
# He's Flying a Junk freighter
# Hes friendly with Sandstorm (though Sandstorm sounds like he's Subtley mocking Octane for most of the Episode)
# He has at least limited access to Cybertron and Autobot City
The article, as written, even says he "takes refuge with the Autobots" this doesnt mean he joined them.
[[Special:Contributions/12.188.222.2|12.188.222.2]] 15:31, 8 November 2011 (EST)
* This was me, before I had an account [[User:Sarpiedon|Sarpiedon]] 10:27, 9 May 2012 (EDT)
:You could have just removed the error note. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:37, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::Didn't want to step on anybody's toes. I'm not a normal contributor and it was just an observation that could have been wrong :) [[Special:Contributions/12.188.222.2|12.188.222.2]] 15:43, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::It's alright. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== Decepticon markers ==

When Octane is trying to pick a marker to hide behind, he remarks "Death comes to anyone who hides behind my marker", but the marker looks nothing like Dirge. Whose marker is that supposed to be anyway? And isn't Dirge still alive? [[User:Takeshi357|Takeshi357]] 04:02, 18 May 2013 (EDT)

== Octane, Blitzwing, either is wrong; the ending is a mess ==

I'm a bit of a one for insisting on character consistency, at least a little, and this is where it really is off.

Octane is a cowardly bully, and Blitzwing is a violent psychopath that revels in destroying his enemies. Octane is unpopular even amongst his own faction, Blitzwing is a moron. Neither seems like the right choice for this storyline.

More of a forum discussion point this, I know, but this has Thundercracker written all over it, from FFOD part 5 onwards, as he's always had doubts about the cause -- Thundercracker even comments in War Dawn about being present in the "old days" and fighting Guardian robots, which would put him in a much better position to be the one to be called "older model", think he remembers the Quintessons, etc. Plus the relationship between him and Starscream needed here would be a better fit. There could even be a bit of fear on TC's part that Starscream might just possess him -- their bodies being nigh identical -- but TC's strong will prevents it being absolute, as Scourge's did. Given that the characterization and storytelling were what made the characters and franchise popular in the first place you'd think they'd have considered all that a bit more. The fact that his toy was discontinued didn't matter -- Jazz was discontinued but still cameoed a few times, Arcee didn't even have a toy on the shelves, and John Stephenson was still there voicing Kup. Oh well.

Also also, the whole "Octane just walks off when Galvatron is arguing with Cyclonus-Starscream". The strangest bit of storytelling there.

Finally, I don't reckon that it's Scourge possessed at the end. Not that it matters much. [[User:PaMat1000|PaMat1000]] ([[User talk:PaMat1000|talk]]) 16:59, 18 July 2021 (EDT)

Talk:The Transformers: The Movie

2021-07-18T20:43:18Z

PaMat1000: /* Thundercracker and Skywarp, and Daniel-sitting done right */ new section

==Another variation==
Hmm, that's odd. The version of the DVD I have has the scrolling text, the "Optimus Prime will return" voiceover, AND the part where Spike lets an "oh shit" slip.
-----------
I saw a Variation on the HUB Network in 2012, that had an extra 2-5 minute voice over that said something like the following "4 million years ago the Autobots and Decepticons crashed landed on Earth, they awoke in the year 1984, and a war started, in the years that followed the Decepticons have defeated the Autobots, it is now 2005, and the Autobots are on the verge of extinction." then the movie started as normal with Unicron eating the planet, then the opening title, then the Narrator doing the "It is the year 2005 and ....."
-------------

==aspect ratio==

When the movie was released it was in 1.78.1 widescreen, But it was animated in 1.33.1 (4:3)
I think widescreen was its original ratio in cinema.
Which is correct? [[User:Asda|Asda]] ([[User talk:Asda|talk]]) 04:02, 3 October 2015 (EDT)
:I don't know what you think you're saying. The movie was animated in fullscreen, then it was cut down from there to widescreen for cinemas. This is what the article says, this is what happened. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely|talk]]) 07:59, 3 October 2015 (EDT)

==Shockwave==
Did he die or what? I remember hearing that the original script EXPLICITLY says that he died when Unicron crushed the building he was in, but the actual finished movie is considerably more vague about this... [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 13:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
:According to the TFTM script:

ANGLE ON CYBERTRON

Unicron enters shot and grasps at Cybertron with a hideous claw...

ANGLE ON A TOWER ON CYBERTRON

Shockwave talks into a communications device, as alarms sound and troopers run everywhere.

SHOCKWAVE:
Decepticons...we're under attack...Scramble -

Then his voice is cut off as...

SHOCKWAVE'S POV - OUT HIS WINDOW

Unicron's hand reaches towards the window, squeezes, and the walls crash in.

SPACE - UNICRON AND CYBERTRON

Unicron tears off the tower and crushes it as...

A FLEET OF DECEPTICON SHIPS

streak out of Cybertron and begin firing on the enormous planet.

Here, we see the true scale of Unicron. The fighters are the size of bees as they attack.

-- While Shockwave's character model sometimes appeared in the third season (once in grey, once in Constructicon Green), I'm not sure that a properly-colored Shockwave ever showed up post-movie - not that that would necessarily mean anything in light of Evil Zombie Brawn And Huffer from Carnage In C Minor. --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 18:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

*That's pretty much what I figured. Shockwave kindasorta dies, and doesn't show up properly ever again, so you could argue that he's dead. [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't even kindasorta die in the final cut of the movie. He just has that one shot then we never see him again. No tower-crushy, no nothing. So it can really be argued either way. [[User:M Sipher|M "I'd Hesitate To Make A Call Either WAy" Sipher]]

Could those season 3 episodes Five Faces of Darkness, Part 3 and Five Faces of Darkness, Part 4 animation errors be his clones?.

==German Dub==

Does anyone know who spoke all the roles in the german dubbing? i can't find that info anywhere on the net, and neither on the german dvd :(

:You should not look for the cast of the dvd version because, first the dub is tital crap, second the voiceactors are unknown, there are no information which studio did the dub nor who directed the dub. You can find the dublist here: http://215072.homepagemodules.de/t511208f11776731-Transformers-Kampf-um-Cybertron.html

==The?==
Shouldn't this article be called "The Transformers: The Movie"? That is the film's full title, isn't it? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

==Here's a question.==

Do we really need the (1986) at the end of this? It's not like "Transformers: The Movie" redirects to a disambiguation page with this and the '07 movie, or that the '07 movie is titled something different. It just seems...redundant, don't you think? There's only 'one' TFTM, and this is it. That, and I highly doubt there's gonna be another "Transformers: The Movie" within the next five or even ten years--when this Wiki would, realistically, still be operating. So yeah. Shouldn't we can that?
:[[Transformers: The Movie (Marvel comic)]] exists. As will "The Transformers: The Animated Movie (comic)" for the current adaptation when someone gets around to it. We do need to have a disambiguation system for them though. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 02:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with the above, but am inclined to say this article still doesn't need a paranthetical in its title, it being far more prominant than the other Transformers: The Movies. Of course, the last time I moved an article that has disambiguation to the non-parenthetical location I got a bunch of people saying "WTF?" even though that's what [[Help:Disambiguation]] has said to do since I wrote it back at the dawn of time. (See "Talk:Constructicon".) --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 06:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::Walky's point: Then I don't really see the relevance of the year. On top of that, all of those have different titles; there's no real conflict. It's kinda the same principle as [[Kremzeek]] and [[Kremzeek!]]. Just note that the reader may be looking for whatever at the top. [[User:Interrobang|Interrobang]] 09:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

== Worth Noting...somewhere ==

I found my old VHS version of the movie, and it refers to the Decepticons reformatted by Unicron as the "Unicrons." Just wanted to point that out. -- [[User:Hunter-113|Hunter-113]] 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:Though officially publishedd, the Aaustralian character bios are generally ignored because-- Bwuh?
:Hasbro/Dreamworks recently put out some bios of the movie characters-- describing half the cast in terms of their cartoon versions, including events that did not occur in the movie. At some point you have to say "no, there's no point in trying to integrate that."
:I think poorly-conceived DVD extras (or VHS extras as the case may be) since they really don't stand on their own but only reflect the producer's (often limited) understanding of the source material are one of those ignored-unless-useful things. (It's also why we don't cover the Dinobots seldom-seen combiner mode. *shudder*) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::The Dinobots'... what? -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 20:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I've heard of that combiner, my friend said it had no head. Anyways, I got that info off the synopsis from the back of the VHS Case. -- [[User:Hunter-113|Hunter-113]] 20:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Yeah, this has nothing to do with "Australian character bios" Deirk. The "Unicrons" thing comes from the back of the Rhino VHS case. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I believe it was an Australian video release which tried to use its weight to assert that yes, Skywarp is definitely Cyclonus. Or maybe Bombshell. I don't remember which. But whichever way, it was totally inappropriate. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 02:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::No, seriously... Dinobots'... what?--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] 03:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I don't recall which country, or whether it was TF:TM or the cartoon, but some non-US DVD release included a comic book in which the Dinobots combined. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 03:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Metrodome's Season 3 DVD's, wasn't it? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 05:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::You got to be kidding. That's certainly worth a mention, er, somewhere. On the Dinobots page. Trivia tab. With a scan.--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] 06:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::But ti was the most vapid, stupidest, mis-concieved-idea-of-cool addition to the canon ever! -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 10:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Ugh, seriously. Kindly note that for all I did with Metrodome, I had ''nothing'' to do with that!! - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 10:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Did the story ever end? I thought it was a deliberate cliffhanger- which really reinforces how the entire concept was "wouldn't it be cool if?" and there was no story to tell. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 10:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yeah, it was a two-parter. Part 1 was in Season 2, Part 2, then part 2 was in Season 3/4. Basically, everyone runs like crap from "The Beast," and then Prime tricks it into falling off a cliff. Sigh. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 10:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::the Dinobots seem to be doing a lot of that combining these days, must be a thing going around lol [[User:Tony Spike|Tony Spike]] ([[User talk:Tony Spike|talk]]) 06:53, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

== Japanese name ==

What is it exactly? --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Not "Matrix Forever". --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::I am guessing some translation of "The Transformers: The Movie." --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Transliteration, actually. トランスフォーマーザ・ムービー, which comes out to "Toransufōmā za Mūbī". [[User:Interrobang|Interrobang]] 19:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Widescreen ==

Derik: No, the screen is definitely cut off the top for the "widescreen." Look at the scene where you see through Perceptor's ''micro''-scope at the approaching Decepticons. The bars at the top of his vision display the difference perfectly. You can count the bars to see the difference between them. Oddly enough, your picture certainly looks stretched... --[[User:70.190.251.10|70.190.251.10]] 03:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

:I've for some time wondered what aspect ratio this movie is best viewed in, and suspect that while intended as 4:3, given that widescreen presentations reveal at least a bit more edge, the film is ideally considered something between 4:3 and 1.85:1, say 1.66:1? I'll have to to rip my DVD and make a comparative study with my HD copy to see what's best, though there are some good comparisons on-line:[http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/234130-the-transformers-the-movie-1986-20th-anniversary-dvd/page-7], [http://www.cybernetspacecube.com/tftm/technical_details.shtml]. If they ever release it to Blu-ray in the US, I'd prefer they get this right once and for all. (But then why release it to Blu-ray in the States? It would of course not sell at all(?!)

1.77:1 aka 16:9 is fine. The animation while sometimes painting outside of this ratio, was animated with this ratio in mind. 99% of films that are shown on TV or in the Cinema in the 16:9 aspect ratio and weren't made in the last 10 years, were photographed in 4:3 but with the intention that they would have top and bottom of the picture cropped off. The cinematography takes this into account. The reason there is stuff outside the 16:9 border is so a 4:3 transfer would be "Acceptable" but it is not preferred. [[User:Siccoyote|Siccoyote]] ([[User talk:Siccoyote|talk]]) 16:51, 13 January 2016 (EST)

== Caption Quotes ==

The pic of Megatron with a lightsaber has a Jedi quote instead of a New Hope quote. Do we care? [[User:JW|JW]] 22:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:I care! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:"An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age". That's from ''A New Hope''. Good enough? -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 23:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[sigh] Now the pic of the Junkions dancing has a Jedi quote instead of a New Hope quote . . . [[User:JW|JW]] 13:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

== Poster Caption ==

Hm,, I'm thinking about changing the caption on the poster at the top to "If your favorite Transformers character isn't on this poster, it's best to start grieving now." The current caption is just a bit misleading, since none of the characters on the poster died (as they were all brand new toys (except for [[Arcee (G1)|the ones who didn't get toys]])). [[User:JW|JW]] 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:That's not quite true. Unicron died. And so did Ultra Magnus, but he got better. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] 01:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not sure how the suggested new caption is any less misleading. My favorite Transformers characters are Jazz and Bumblebee! Also, Hound. Probably Nightbeat. I think I'm okay. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 02:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Wanted: A caption for that poster pic that both A) points out that all the characters on the poster are brand new and never-been-seen-before (since I think that's an important bit of info), and also B) preserves the current caption's comment on how "all your favorite characters" die. Suggestions? [[User:JW|JW]] 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Who the hell are those guys and where's Prime?" Or stick with the current, honestly. - Some Guy 22 March 2008

What about a caption pointing out that the only major characters on the poster are Galvatron and Unicron? It shows Ultra Magnus in the spotlight, and while he kicked some aft at the Battle of Autobot City, he was not the hero. The heroes were Optimus and Hot Rod/Rodimus Prime. Rodimus Prime, whom we could call, "Sir Not-Appearing-On-This-Poster." So the poster is a bit misleading, and as good pedants we should point that out somewhere. [[User:ZeldaTheSwordsman|ZeldaTheSwordsman]] 12:01, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

==Colon?==
Why is there a colon in the page title? There's no colon in the movie title. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
:Because "The Movie" is a subtitle. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

== Blitzwing animation error ==

In the battle for Autobot City, when Prime drives up behind the Decepticons, Blitzwing turns his head and its color changes to purple for a split second. However, when he turns it back its tan again. Just thought we should add this under animation errors.-[[User:Proconix|Proconix]] 20:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Proconix

== more animation errors ==

Watched the Movie again today and this is what I found. In the scene where Blaster ejects his tapes, He first ejects what looks like Eject. He stays blue up until he gets to the edge of the screen. He then turns black like Rewind. Then Blaster ejects a another blue cassette, which after about a second, turns black. This one gets through half his transformation colored black, then turns blue for a split second then turns black again. And later when the cassettes are fighting each other, Eject runs in from the left and jumps over Perceptor. And then he runs in from the left ''again'' to shoot Ravage. Im gonna go ahead and add these.-[[User:Proconix|Proconix]] 17:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Proconix

== Scourge ==

Not to chat or anything, but does anyone know why Scourge pops his head up when he asks galvatron if he wants him to gut ultra magnus? Just thought that was wierd.-[[User:Proconix|Proconix]] 22:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Proconix

It is Cyclonus who says that. Scourges only line is "Remember, we belong to him!" [[User:Wavage|I am Wavage! Fear mweee!!! ]] ([[User talk:Wavage|talk]]) 04:56, 16 March 2015 (EDT)

== Cyclonus ==

<nowiki>When the Decepticons get reformatted, both Skywarp, and what might be Bombshell, become Cyclonus. Unicron refers to them as 'Cyclonus and his Armada'. And when they all fly to the ship, Galvatron goes first, followed by Scourge, two Sweeps and two Cyclonus'. There a reason for this? </nowiki> [[User:Thyunda|Thyunda]] 13:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:Does [[Cyclonus's Armada|this]] answer your question? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

==Intro quote==
I'm admittedly in kind of an orgasmic endorphin rush over this, but I'd love to use a chunk of Orson Welles' description of his own role as an intro quote: "The Japanese have funded a full-length animated cartoon about the doings of these toys, which is all bad outer-space stuff. I play a planet. I menace somebody called Something-or-other. Then I'm destroyed. My plan to destroy Whoever-it-is is thwarted and I tear myself apart on the screen." If there's a better summary of TF:TM's plot, I've yet to hear it. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 16:56, 17 July 2009 (EDT)
:Seconded. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 17:43, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

== Cast list - woefully incomplete ==

Shouldn't we have a complete list of characters on here, rather than the headline billings alone? -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 23:38, 7 August 2009 (EDT)
:Oh yea! How did that happen for so long? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 01:17, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

==Japanese TFTM==
Someone has uploaded the entire thing, in fifteen parts, to youtube.

:[http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%E3%83%88%E3%83%A9%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B9%E3%83%95%E3%82%A9%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B6%E3%83%A0%E3%83%BC%E3%83%93&search_type=&aq=f TFTM In Japanese]

If anyone who has time to kill or knows the language (preferably both!) wants to go through it to document any significant changes from the US version that we don't already have, that'd be great. I already noticed, watching the first part, that the Japanese version uses the "Star Wars" text-scroll of the UK version, though the narrator doesn't actually seem to be reading a translation of the text {{m-}} I caught him voicing a reference to Unicron the text doesn't have. And, skipping ahead, Grimlock appears to refer to his "me Grimlock kick butt" moment as his "Kick Attack". Erm.

There's also something I'd sort of like confirmed... I've heard a rumor that the Japanese-dubbed Junkions, instead of talking in TV quotes, all have Chinese accents. But I have no idea if it's true.

Adding a screenshot with someone's function and name in kanji/kana from the movie would also be neat, I think. --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 10:19, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:Immediately noticed they added speech to the Lithone part - in the original version, the Lithonians don't speak at all before the "Look, it's Unicron!" line. -[[User:Mazenoise|Mazenoise]] 10:31, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::I have to wonder if a list of every slight dialogue alteration would really be a good idea. I've owned the thing on VHS for a while and, well, there are a LOT of dialogue changes. And I don't mean anything important, like some added in line revealing Unicron is actually Motormaster's grandfather or whatever. I mean itty bitty changes, like the aforementioned "Kick attack" from Grimlock, Megatron specifically ordering the Insecticons to breach Autobot City's defenses and so on. A list of every slight dialogue change would be...massive (especially since the dub ''added'' so much dialogue during scenes that were previously silent). We currently have a handful of examples in the "Japanese release" section of the article that I think suffice. --[[User:DrSpengler|DrSpengler]] 11:17, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:::Well, bear in mind that my suggestion was ''document any '''significant''' changes''. Random yattering is one thing, yeah, but I was curious as to whether there were any major changes, such as characters talking when they didn't originally have ''any'' dialogue at all... like, the Lithones talking in the opening qualifies to me, because I think it may be the only time the Lithone scientist speaks in fiction. (Which in turn makes me wonder if he's given an official title in the Japanese credits for the film; it'd qualify him for an article.)
:::I do feel that bringing up the scrolling text is noteworthy, since we note it up in the other countries' entries. --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 12:25, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

== Voice credits ==

I filled in the voice credits in the "featured characters" chart from the film credits. I think some of them, like Gears and Brawn have voice credits, but no actual lines. There may also be some characters that have uncredited speaking roles (I don't know for sure). Just an FYI if anyone wants to adjust the chart. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:59, 18 August 2009 (EDT)
:I think the inaccurate cast listing is simply a case of whoever animated the credits confusing characters. Gears has a VA but doesn't speak, however, Scavenger (also voiced by Don Messick) clearly speaks on Junkion when he's attacking Danielle with Scrapper. Gears briefly appears in the movie on Moon Base 1, but has no speaking lines. I also wonder if this is why Prowl is credited (Bell also voiced Swopp who speaks on Quintessa), however, I believe Prowl had some lines in the original script that may have been recorded but not animated.

== Jettison some weight ==

Why is this listed as confusing? Aside from the (common) misuse of weight for mass I see nothing weird here. The more mass there was on board Astrotrain, the more fuel that would be needed to push him to Cybertron. Therefor, dumping extra mass makes sense. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 16:47, 17 September 2009 (EDT)
:I agree. Astrotrain was just using common speech. People don't often say things like "jettison some mass". If Astrotrain says he needs to lighten up, it stands to reason it is because he is still accelerating and too much weight would make it more difficult to accelerate. He is still accelerating because when they threw the bodies overboard, they quickly fell back. If they had already reached top speed, they would just float along side Astrotrain. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 23:23, 17 September 2009 (EDT)
::Plus, how close is Cybertron to Earth? If the Decepts didn't want to settle down for a multi-year trip, Astrotrain must have been going FTL, at which point all bets about moving without burning fuel are off. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 23:26, 17 September 2009 (EDT)
:::But maneuvering to land later would be made at sublight, normal inertial conditions. Less mass would be useful then. Basically, less mass is always better for movement. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 04:23, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

:::How much fuel does it take to get from Cybertron to Earth, I wonder. The whole battle of Autobot city seems to take place over one night, and Optimus' shuttle makes it from Cybertron to Earth in that time, implying that both it and the hijacked Autobot shuttle were going faster than light speed. The whole reason the hijacked shuttle was going to Earth in the first place was to pick up more energy, ergo it must take much less than one shipload of energy to get a shuttle at FTL speeds from Cybertron to Earth and back. They either have really efficient FTL drives, or really efficient energy storage. Or both.
:::Of course we've seen that [[Microbots|one energon cube is enough to get a full-sized Transformer drunk off his can]], so perhaps it's the latter. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 05:00, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

:::There were several scenes in "Apollo 13" where the stranded astronauts in the capsule and their Houston support crew had to do all those calculations about the amount of weight (or mass, whatever) they could have in the capsule versus the amount of fuel they could burn in order to get home alive. Common sense understanding actually wins in this case, I think. Also, all bets are off as to how far Cybertron is from Earth in TFTM, considering "The Ultimate Doom". --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 07:59, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
::::In Apollo 13, they did mass calculations to: 1) be able to escape Moon's gravity, 2) project a course to slingshot around the moon, 3) make any necessary course corrections. ''All'' of those are aspects of acceleration. In a constant velocity situation, jettisoning mass does not make you go any faster, as momentum is divided proportionally with mass. -[[User:Noviere|Noviere]] 11:16, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::It wasn't a constant velocity situation. If it were, when Starscream dropped Megatron out the door, Megatron would just float alongside. They were accelerating and more mass means more force needed to accelerate. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:21, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::Which was already accounted for in the page, which essentially says "here are some speculations, but we don't really know what the hell was going on here". Nothing wrong with that. I'm just rebutting Thylacine's statement above. -[[User:Noviere|Noviere]] 11:28, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::You added that they were going faster than light as a fact, but do we know that? I've never thought Transformers or even their dedicated starships could go FTL, hence the need for a space bridge. Cybertron moves around. Where was it in the Movie? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:58, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Well, of COURSE they're going faster than light. Otherwise Quintessa and Junkion and Cybertron would all be in Earth's solar system. Just because you have FTL ships doesn't mean that instantaneous transportation isn't useful. I mean, we had horses, but cars are better even they they both provide transportation over land.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:23, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::For some reason I never thought about that before. It never looks like they are doing anything special to break the light barrier. I'm thinking [[scale]] is just as loose in the astronomical sense as it is in the Transformer sense. ;) So what happens if you throw a Transformer out the door of a ship traveling faster than light? Apparently nothing much. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 12:58, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::: I thought Astrotrain was saying that because he was helping Starscream take over the Decepticons, he was the one that was putting the crown on Starscream's head -- Marc Chase

==Cast Layout==

The cast lay out has the Insecticons and Seekers listed next to their Unicronian counterpart. This is a major problem considering it lists Skywarp as Cyclonus and Bombshell as the Armada. Now, ignoring the fact that in all honesty the Skywarp is Cyclonus argument is based solely on people preferring it that way, surely the ambiguity should be recognised, and they should be listed as separate characters, but add in a note or something (especially since it gives him a VA when he didn't have any confirmed lines). Also, I think listing the Heralds next to their formers is very iffy when either the originals didn't speak in the movie or the new forms didn't speak. Now, I'd just go ahead and change it but I want to know what the official stance is here, cause it seems like an injection of fanon into a fairly major article. [[User:Eire]] 13.49 Jan 13 2010
:An anon user did that. He also went through a lot of trouble to put their order of appearance number in there, even though it is set to "nonumbering=true". Both changes could be reverted. Sorry anon guy. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:08, 13 January 2010 (EST)

==Snarl==
On the "four Dinobots" paragraph, it specifically mentions Swoop as the absent Dinobot whenever Snarl appears. However, Swoop is clearly the far-left Dinobot standing in the Quintesson ship window scene (the screen cap is actually on the page next to this paragraph). Are we sure it isn't Sludge thats missing, or maybe Sludge one time and Swoop another time?
:At the scene in Autobot City where Snarl appears, the other Dinobots present are the original trio, Grimlock, Slag, and Sludge. When Snarl next appears, Swoop is present, and you are correct, it seems to be Sludge who isn't in that shot (however, he is in the one immediately following). I believe it should be rewritten to something akin to "When he ''does'' appear, another Dinobot is missing. Hmm." Either way, it's somewhat interesting that all the Dinobots are never on screen at the same time. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 17:05, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

== Big find! Jim Sorenson has made the original Ron Friedman script available ==

At http://boltax.blogspot.com

I started this thread for discussion at tfw2005 as well: http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-news-rumors/347571-early-ron-friedman-draft-tftm-available-download.html

There is a LOT of material that could enrich this article, particularly in the "Notes" section. Not to mention Friedman's own article, since we now have a better idea of what he contributed.

It's well worth a read. Certainly wasn't suitable to be the finished film, due to extreme length, some super-clunky dialogue, and the fact that the plot just kind of falls apart toward the end.

The imagery is really something though, a lot of ideas that never made it into any future Transformers project. The battle scenes are also noticeably more graphic. Probably the biggest (and oddest) change is no Matrix, and the concept substituted is the "Life Spark" of Optimus himself. The Life Sparks of other Decepticons and Megatron also play a role (you can likely guess how). {{unsigned|97.77.78.14}}
:[[Life Spark|We]] [[Anibot|are]] [[Roboto-zoo|aware]]. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 01:37, 11 December 2010 (EST)

::It does beg the question of how the wiki is going to handle some of this information - especially some of the stuff about earlier designs or concepts for characters (all the stuff about the Junkions VERY specifically being a B-movie biker gang, down to Wreck-Gar having a "furry vest" and one of the Junkions having a "Nazi" helmet and etc. for instance). Is it rolled into the Movie page? Is it rolled into the individual character articles? both? Neither?! [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 08:48, 13 December 2010 (EST)

:::Some stuff can definitely go into character articles, but I'd also suggest going the whole hog and creating a page for the draft itself, like we did for the Toy Fair catalogue, as a sub-page of the movie article, and talk about all the differences there. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 09:24, 13 December 2010 (EST)

::::That'd make the best sense, yeah. Especially if the other early draft script eventually sees the light of day (there were two, right? The one Jim posted and the one that went for two grand?) [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 09:37, 13 December 2010 (EST)

:::::I believe there was even a third on top of that. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 09:52, 13 December 2010 (EST)

::::::Yeah, there was a "final draft." I imagine it's probably close to what Monzo posted below. [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 10:43, 13 December 2010 (EST)

:There's [http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/transformers.html this version], which has never really been written up here aside from a few tidbits. Whatever draft iteration it is, it's closest to the version used for the Marvel adaption, since a few scenes from it appear there. --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 10:14, 13 December 2010 (EST)
::By all appearances, I've always believed that was the "shooting script", as they say, the script that the actors actually worked from during recording, and that any changes to it happened subsequent to that. I may be completely wrong, of course. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 10:20, 13 December 2010 (EST)

Does anyone have a copy of this? I can’t access it at all.--[[User:Kitsune1|Kitsune1]] ([[User talk:Kitsune1|talk]]) 23:38, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

== Who gets tossed into space? ==

This article could use a list of precisely which six characters are tosssed out of Astrotrain. It's Megatron, Thundercracker, Skywarp, Bombshell, Shrapnel, and Kickback, yah? [[User:JW|JW]] 17:07, 28 February 2011 (EST)
:As far as I can tell, yeah. I always wondered who was saying "Brothers, don't," though. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 17:15, 28 February 2011 (EST)
:: the Seekers (Thundercracker or Skywarp) to Starscream and if they are in the movie Thrust, Dirge, Ramjet, since they are "brothers" of sorts.

== Doctor Who reference? ==

According to Wikipedia's article on [[Wikipedia:Jon Pertwee|Jon Pertwee]]'s [[Wikipedia:The Third Doctor|Third Doctor]], ''TF:TM'' uses the "revers the polarity" line. Looking back at the movie, Kup's line "Oh, yeah, we inverted polarities" presented itself to me as that reference. Now Wikipedia, as I understand it, is stupid when it comes to articles about Transformers that were not influenced by TFWiki. Is this a valid "Real-World Reference" (I've seen other pages here that say "This ''might'' be a reference to...") or just a coincidence that some presumptuous Whovian-Transfan decided to put on Wikipedia just because they wouldn't remove it?
 - [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 12:59 AM, 15 April 2011 A.D.
:I have a really, REALLY hard time buying the notion that Doctor Who invented that little bit of common sci-fi technobabble, and an even harder time buying the notion that this dim similarity is a direct reference. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 01:22, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
::I think wikipedia got it mixed up with "[[The Rebirth]]", where ''Doctor Who'' fan [[David Wise]] got the line in. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 01:45, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
:::I figured Wikipedia was wrong (I'll fix the page there). Just thought I'd bring it up! Also, just to fill you in, M Sipher, ''Doctor Who'' is definitely the origin of at least the popular use of "reverse the polarity of the nuetron flow", if not the original use as technobabble. Terrance Dicks wrote it in an episode script in WAAAAY back in the early '70s.
:::- [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] <strike>3:25 AM</strike> An ungodly hour of the night, 15 April 2011 A.D.
::::I'd have expected them to use wording closer to the original if they were referencing Who! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 04:17, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Fairly sure that phrase has been used on Star Trek a few times, usually through the main deflector dish, its not mutually exclusive to The Doctor .....or Kup for that matter[[User:Tony Spike|Tony Spike]] ([[User talk:Tony Spike|talk]]) 06:56, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

==Image category?==
I propose putting all screenshots from ''The Transformers: The Movie'' into their own image category because of the film's significance. Also, we have a bunch of toyline-specific image categories, and expanding that practice to fictional works only makes sense to me. --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 16:06, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:Maybe we could divide the original series by season (and movie). "Category: Generation 1 Season 1 screen captures", "Category: Generation 1 Season 2 screen captures", "Category: Generation 1 Movie screen captures", "Category: Generation 1 Season 3 screen captures" and "Category: Generation 1 Season 4 screen captures". The same thing could be done for Beast Wars, Animated and (eventually) Prime. UT shows were only 1 season each, so they wouldn't need it. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 16:24, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::I support doing it for the movie. Not sure about by season... --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:07, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I second Abates' thoughts. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 18:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::I wouldn't be opposed to dividing screencaps up by season, since they're kind of a bear to navigate right now. Or, heck, going even further and dividing everything by season and then by episode, though with how long some episode titles can be, especially Japanese ones, I'm not sure how feasible that would be. Though, it would allow Armada/Energon/Cybertron screencaps to be broken up more easily...--[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 21:59, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would kinda like there to be categories by episode, so then we could do like artist pages and have a link to the category somewhere on the episode page, but it would create a ''massive'' number of categories... --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:28, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

==Buildings in Unicron's mouth: an error?==

The flickering images of post apocalyptic buildings in Unicron's mouth is certainly neat, but is it really an "animation error"? I'd think including blinking images of ruined cities would have been done on purpose since Unicron destroys planets and all that. Citing something that elaborate as an "error" doesn't seem right. --[[User:DrSpengler|DrSpengler]] 10:59, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:No, I don't think it is an animation error. It is a deliberate special effect. It sounds like it isn't even noticeable at normal speed. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:20, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:It's fairly noticeable, you have to just look at it. It's not as prominent on the Rhino release, but the Sony DVD really makes it stand out. --[[User:Capnpwned118766|Capnpwned118766]] 23:25, 6 March 2012 (EST)

If I made add, those buildings are from the movie Hokuto No Ken (Fist of the North Star), also a Toei movie from 1986.......... so......... [[User:Protoman|Protoman]] 23:49, 5 July 2013 (EDT)

==After G.I. Joe the Movie?==
Okay here is something I just can't figure out. It has been stated in several sources that both Transformers: The Movie, and G.I. Joe: The Movie were in production at the same time, and in fact G.I. Joe was meant to be released first. However, Transformers' 1986 season took place after the movie while G.I. Joe's 1986 season predates the movie. Unless Transformers was going to postpone their season by a whole year, there is no way G.I Joe's film could predate Transformers or even be shown in the same year. It would have to wait an entire year to premiere. That is unless their entire plot was rewritten from the ground up. Does anyone have any information on this?[[User:Riddlerj|Riddlerj]] 23:36, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

they changed the GI Joe movie's ending so that Duke lives at the end, that would also force them to change the TV Show to add him to episodes (since he was one of the leaders, he would be in most if not all episodes) that might have forced a wait of an entire year to premiere GI Joe [[User:Chasemarc1701|Chasemarc1701]] ([[User talk:Chasemarc1701|talk]]) 03:31, 12 July 2014 (EDT)

== Starscream crown redesign ==

Something that I think is often missed is that when Starscream is in his corination gear, it's not just the crown, shoulder pads and cape. He's also got a much bigger chest and enlarged forearms. I'm guessing it's deliberate, but those modifications are never mentioned when that form is (in, say, his Masterpiece toy). I'm aware that we don't want this page drowning in trivia, but is that worth noting? [[User:LiamK|LiamK]] 18:18, 5 November 2013 (EST)
:Those two things just seem to be stylized elements of the animation in that particular scene. Check out Ramjet when he and Astrotrain are standing behind Starscream just as he does his cape-flourish - he's got the big pecs and swollen forearms too. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 18:42, 5 November 2013 (EST)

== Metroplex ==

Should Metroplex be added to the cast last? The consensus on his relation to Autobot City here is kinda murky [[User:Riddlerj|Riddlerj]] ([[User talk:Riddlerj|talk]]) 12:48, 21 November 2013 (EST)

== Star Wars captions? ==

[[File:ShockwaveBattleAutobotcity.jpg|thumb|left|upright=1.4|I think I can see my home from here!]]

Should we replace this with a quote from ''Star Wars''? Maybe one of these lines from when R2-D2 and C-3PO launch their escape pod:
*- Imperial gunner: "Hold your fire. There's no life forms."
*- C-3PO: "That's funny--the damage doesn't look as bad from out here."

--[[User:Rhymus|Rhymus]] ([[User talk:Rhymus|talk]]) 19:44, 18 January 2015 (EST)

== character list ==

On many articles, TFWiki lists characters sorted first by faction, then by order of appearance (with numbers indicating order of appearance regardless of faction). Is there a reason TFTM's article does not follow that pattern? Is there some other organizational method in use? Not alphabetical by character or by voice actor, clearly.

i'm fairly certain these earlier discussions are not relevant to this matter, but just in case:
*[[Talk:The_Transformers:_The_Movie#Cast_list_-_woefully_incomplete]]
*[[Talk:The_Transformers:_The_Movie#Voice_credits]]
*[[Talk:The_Transformers:_The_Movie#Cast_Layout]]

--[[User:Rhymus|Rhymus]] ([[User talk:Rhymus|talk]]) 01:07, 19 February 2015 (EST)

==Replacing screencaps==
Since the Shout Factory release of TF:TM has a Full Frame edition, hopefully one would replace those widescreen screencaps into their original full frames. [[User:FigureGunplaFan|FigureGunplaFan]] ([[User talk:FigureGunplaFan|talk]]) 22:33, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

== Old Script page? ==

Did we ever reach a conclusion about making a page for [[Talk:The_Transformers:_The_Movie#Big_find.21_Jim_Sorenson_has_made_the_original_Ron_Friedman_script_available|the Friedman script]]? Did it get made? If so, where is it? If not, how would such a page be categorized and organized? Sorry, I just have a lot of questions. About this. -[[User:TheLiegeDecado|TheLiegeDecado]] ([[User talk:TheLiegeDecado|talk]]) 15:42, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

== Grapple ==

"*Also curiously absent are the 1985 Autobot cars and Mini-Vehicles, such as Inferno, Smokescreen, Cosmos, Warpath, etc. It would seem that these characters were available at the time of the movie:
**Grapple is [[:File:BattleAutobotCity.jpg|seen ''very'' briefly]] during the battle for Autobot City."
Not sure that Grapple is really supporting evidence here, given the whole [[Hauler]] situation. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 08:16, 15 February 2018 (EST)

==Cybertron's Moons==

Hey guys, first contribution here and thought i would share some of my minor knowledge in the hopes the entry might get a possible explaination note added to it (Similar to the note that says Magnus second matrix placement was just an Adjustment)

I wouldnt class a third visible moon as a mistake, not from a pure technical standpoint at least (it probably is from a lore standpoint) but depending on a number of factors (and i apologise for turning all Perceptor here) such as orbital height, radius, apogee ect its totally possible to find moons that have not been observed yet whilst taking pictures of others

For example (and its loose ..since the planet is pretty large in comparison and the two are technically captured asteroids) Mars two moons Phobos and Deimos are rarely photographed together because they are so small and have different orbital planes

Similarly their are 4 large Julian (Jupiter) moons (Io, Europa, Calisto, Ganymede) and its rare to get them all in one shot during a flyby

Its possible the third moon is behind Cybertron most of the time or is out of shot because its orbit takes it far out,and also quite possible that it is boring, the other two moons have bases on them making them scenes in the movie,it may exist but simply not have been mentioned, after all plenty of planet shots exist in the carton that show the planet having no moons at all, moons being added for the film

Now correct me if im wrong but im sure i once heared the third moon was an unused plot point in a story (movie,comic or otherwise) once upon a time

But even if this isnt true i think an addendum should be added saying that the moon could just be out of shot most of the time ....or something along those lines

Anyways ..keep up the good work

[[User:Tony Spike|Tony Spike]] ([[User talk:Tony Spike|talk]]) 06:49, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

Edit, just read the next section where this gets addressed so my bad [[User:Tony Spike|Tony Spike]] ([[User talk:Tony Spike|talk]]) 07:04, 9 April 2018 (EDT)
==Ultra Magnus==
Back around 2015, I purchased a Korean bootleg of the film off eBay under the assumption it was the authentic one. It can be switched between Korean and English, the English versions audio is normal. The Korean audio has the music tracks awkwardly looping halfway through the song. Until this weekend, I didn’t pick up on the whole “being shot apart by the sweeps bit”, but my copy had magnus ripped apart by single laser beams. The animation was the same as the finished product, but purple laser beam thingies wrapped around his shoulders, hips, head, and elbows if I remember correctly . Sadly, the disk got lost when I moved about 6 months ago. Has anyone else found a copy like this? [[User:YourBestPal|YourBestPal]] ([[User talk:YourBestPal|talk]]) 17:57, 23 December 2018 (EST)
:If it's a bootleg, it's out of our scope, especially if you don't have a copy anymore to verify any of this. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 20:04, 23 December 2018 (EST)

== Animation errors, my cut ==

I removed the line "Arcee's arm moves to behind Daniel being lifting off." as it doesn't make any sense. If the point can be clarified it can be readded. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 15:39, 2 September 2019 (EDT)

== featured article ==
what is holding this back from being featured? I’d like to fix it. [[User:Kitsune1|Kitsune1]] ([[User talk:Kitsune1|talk]]) 23:29, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

== Thundercracker and Skywarp, and Daniel-sitting done right ==

I'm wondering at what stage Thundercracker & Skywarp were tabled to be killed off early on. It seems to be the case that the Insecticons were doomed from a very early stage despite the toys still shipping, and the 2 jets were going to die at the end in Ron Friedman's treatment (and are seen strafing Unicron in the finished film, as is already documented). Both are seen running from the Battle of Autobot City (Thundercracker is pretty easy to spot running into Astrotrain before Mixmaster, Skywarp can be seen very briefly twice (once behind Thrust as Astrotrain transforms, again sat behind Mixmaster as Starscream boards and orders the takeoff). Both seem fine, yet are both critically damaged for the "jettison" scenes, then show up again later on (as do the Insecticons). Their fate in the "jettison" scene must have been finalized at a very late stage, unless we're to presume that the production staff just didn't care about continuity (perish the thought). So strange that they didn't play it safe with generics and/or take the opportunity to be rid of Reflector, who would've been good as a basis for the Sweeps' numbers being flexible as his division abilities were not a "team strategy" as required for creating the Insecticon clones.

They certainly didn't have their eye on the ball with the importance of the good guys protecting Daniel from harm. Hot Rod's no-seatbelt policy notwithstanding -- and giving a kid a rocket-powered hoverboard notwithstanding for that matter -- the Autobots are really lousy babysitters. Arcee must know Daniel's with Hot Rod, but she's only concerned for Hot Rod and Kup when Springer's hurrying her along, and Springer couldn't care less in general (until later, when it's his turn to care and Magnus' turn to be a jerk). Then Daniel's allowed to climb a ladder to sit right next to the firing path of the rocket launcher they've just repositioned, ''then'' they leave him sitting there while they fire, and then I don't see anyone carrying him off when Devastator throws the debris their way and the room blows up. Of course ''somebody'' did, because he survived, but it's a miracle he was alive by that point. And then, of course, abandoning him to fend for himself during the Decepticon attack on Junk. Mind you, Carly's nowhere to be seen, which bothers me more than the combiners and Omega being missing. They could be in space somewhere, fighting their own battle, if you so choose -- Carly's ''where''? But we got robot fish, so that's good.

Don't get me wrong, I do like the film, even now, for its role in my childhood but it does feel like a missed opportunity in so many ways. [[User:PaMat1000|PaMat1000]] ([[User talk:PaMat1000|talk]]) 16:43, 18 July 2021 (EDT)

Talk:FIRRIB

2021-07-18T20:03:27Z

PaMat1000: /* Production Bible note: just a thought */ new section

So, what's the official position, right now?--[[User:GUIGUI|GUIGUI]] 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
: There is none. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Clever of them. But were Frenzy and Rumble featured in Dreamwave or IDW? And if yes, in wich colors? --[[User:GUIGUI|GUIGUI]] 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::: Dreamwave was inconsistent. IIRC, they were cartoon colors in the stories and toy/comic colors in the MTMTE profile books. They have not appeared yet in IDW. (Alternators Rumble is red, however.) --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: Actually, I believe that the few times that they appeared in Dreamwave's comics, they were always together and so it was impossible to tell which was which. - [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::: If we assume that the use of piledrivers indicates that it was Rumble, then the little fella was blue in the first DW G1 miniseries, but after that, Dark T's right, they were always together and were never singled out, so it's impossible to tell who's who based on colour. Then, they were done in toy colours for MTMTE. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::: The "Who's who" in the back of the War and Peace TPB identifies them as their toy colors. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 01:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This article should be moved to FIBRIR, with RIBFIR as a redirect. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 23:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

== Change To Chart ==

A whole new approach to the chart might better convey the information. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte Tufte] says that if you're trying convey info about color, and you can print in color, you'd be a fool not to use it. Maybe like so?

<table>
<tr><th></th><th>Frenzy</th><th>Rumble</th></tr>

<tr>
<th>US cartoon</th>
<td style="color:Black;background-color:Red;">Red</td>
<td style="color:White;background-color:Blue;">Blue</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<th>Japanese cartoon</th>
<td style="color:White;background-color:Blue;">Blue</td>
<td style="color:Black;background-color:Red;">Red</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<th>US toys</th>
<td style="color:White;background-color:Blue;">Blue</td>
<td style="color:Black;background-color:Red;">Red</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<th>Japanese toys</th>
<td style="color:White;background-color:Blue;">Blue</td>
<td style="color:Black;background-color:Red;">Red</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<th>Marvel Comics</th>
<td style="color:White;background-color:Blue;">Blue</td>
<td style="color:Black;background-color:Red;">Red</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<th>Dreamwave comics</th>
<td style="color:White;background-color:Blue;">Blue</td>
<td style="color:Black;background-color:Red;">Red</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<th>Devil's Due comics</th>
<td style="color:Black;background-color:Red;">Red</td>
<td style="color:White;background-color:Blue;">Blue</td>
</tr>

</table>

(We keep the words "red" and "blue" for people who are blind or just color blind, for those not using color monitors, or using text browsers, etc.) [[User:JW|JW]] 15:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, this chart is much nicer and clearer than the one in the article now. I vote for switching it in immediately.

If we want to keep the FIBRIR, we could do something like this:

<table>

<tr>

<tr>
<th>G1 toys</th>
<td style="color:White;background-color:Blue;">FIB</td>
<td style="color:Black;background-color:Red;">RIR</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<th>Marvel Comics</th>
<td style="color:White;background-color:Blue;">FIB</td>
<td style="color:Black;background-color:Red;">RIR</td>
</tr>

<th>US cartoon</th>
<td style="color:Black;background-color:Red;">FIR</td>
<td style="color:White;background-color:Blue;">RIB</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<th>Japanese cartoon</th>
<td style="color:White;background-color:Blue;">FIB</td>
<td style="color:Black;background-color:Red;">RIR</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<th>Dreamwave comics</th>
<td style="color:White;background-color:Blue;">FIB</td>
<td style="color:Black;background-color:Red;">RIR</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<th>Devil's Due comics</th>
<td style="color:Black;background-color:Red;">FIR</td>
<td style="color:White;background-color:Blue;">RIB</td>
</tr>

</table>

I also removed the Japanese Toy row since the toys were the same in all markets and put the rows in order of release.--[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not entirely certain we ''do'' want to keep FIB and RIR in the chart. I personally think "providing information" is a slightly higher priority than "being a supportive environment for Transformers fans." Actually using the words "Frenzy" and "Blue" provides the information most clearly. Using "FIB" and "RIR" where not necessary is being fannish for its own sake. (Note that I ''do'' think there is a place in this Wiki for fannishness for its own sake, most certainly, but I don't think it should be priority #1.) [[User:JW|JW]] 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think JW's table is the best option. Use wikitable markup instead of HTML, though. Simpler to look at/edit. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 01:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

:Using Fib or RiR or whatever is MUCH WORSE. The point is clarity. Using JWs original words Red and Blue is much clearer and and simpler and hence much better.

::Since I'm seeing a lot of approval, and I figured out how to do a colored table in Wiki markup, I'll implement it now. (With FortMax's suggested modification of consolidating the "toys" entries, and doing 'em in release order.) [[User:JW|JW]] 02:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good thing there was a warning, or I would have changed it to:

{| border=0 cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2
|
| '''Frenzy'''
| '''Rumble'''
|-
| '''Toys'''
| style="color:White;background-color:Blue;" | Blue
| style="color:Black;background-color:Red;" | Red
|-
| '''Marvel comics'''
| style="color:White;background-color:Blue;" | Blue
| style="color:Black;background-color:Red;" | Red
|-
| '''US cartoon'''
| style="color:Black;background-color:Red;" | Red
| style="color:White;background-color:Purple;" | Purple
|-
| '''Japanese cartoon'''
| style="color:White;background-color:Blue;" | Blue
| style="color:Black;background-color:Red;" | Red
|-
| '''Dreamwave comics'''
| style="color:White;background-color:Blue;" | Blue
| style="color:Black;background-color:Red;" | Red
|-
| '''Devil's Due comics'''
| style="color:Black;background-color:Red;" | Red
| style="color:White;background-color:Blue;" | Blue
|} -[[User:The Ultimate One|The Ultimate One]]

Not quite. See the new topic I made. [[User:RIBFIR Forever|The RIBFIR Dude]] 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

==New Chart Includes 1986 Movie==
I know most of you are against the purple, but I think we should make the chart look like this because it includes the 1986 movie where Rumble actually ''was'' blue:
{| border=0 cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2
|
| '''Frenzy'''
| '''Rumble'''
|-
| '''Toys'''
| style="color:White;background-color:Blue;" | Blue
| style="color:Black;background-color:Red;" | Red
|-
| '''Marvel comics'''
| style="color:White;background-color:Blue;" | Blue
| style="color:Black;background-color:Red;" | Red
|-
| '''US cartoon'''
| style="color:Black;background-color:Red;" | Red
| style="color:White;background-color:Purple;" | Purple
|-
| '''Japanese cartoon'''
| style="color:White;background-color:Blue;" | Blue
| style="color:Black;background-color:Red;" | Red
|-
| '''1986 Cartoon Movie'''
| style="color:Black;background-color:Red;" | Red
| style="color:White;background-color:Blue;" | Blue
|-
| '''Dreamwave comics'''
| style="color:White;background-color:Blue;" | Blue
| style="color:Black;background-color:Red;" | Red
|-
| '''Devil's Due comics'''
| style="color:Black;background-color:Red;" | Red
| style="color:White;background-color:Blue;" | Blue
|} -[[User:RIBFIR Forever|The RIBFIR Dude]] 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:Personally, I prefer it the way it is. Not least because there's a scene in the movie where they're ''both'' red, and why invite ''more'' confusion? [[User:JW|JW]] 21:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but that was just an animation glitch that was only for about two seconds. [[User:RIBFIR Forever|The RIBFIR Dude]] 21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:And if you watch, you can ''clearly'' see that Rumble is definetly blue and '''not''' purple in the movie. [[User:RIBFIR Forever|The RIBFIR Dude]] 16:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::Are they actually ''named'' in the movie? In the brief scene where they're two different colors? [[User:JW|JW]] 16:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure, but you could check the script and see who said what. ([[Rumble (G1)|The blue one]] said "uncrazimatic") [[User:RIBFIR Forever|The RIBFIR Dude]] 16:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::In the movie, Rumble is exactly the same colors he always is in the cartoon. Maybe you're overestimating how purple cartoon Rumble is. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:I don't know about that. I'd double check, but my G1 DVDs were on loan from a buddy of mine and I already gave them back. [[User:RIBFIR Forever|The RIBFIR Dude]] 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::If you can provide screenshots from the TV cartoon and the movie, showing a substantial difference in coloration, and the appropriate excerpt from the script, I'll reconsider my position on making changes to the table. Otherwise, best to leave things as they are. [[User:JW|JW]] 17:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think I'll end up ever doing that. So we may as well leave it as it is. But keep this on the talk page just in case. [[User:RIBFIR Forever|The RIBFIR Dude]] 17:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I went ahead and did it, and I don't see any difference between the two. [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 22:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[[image:G1-TVandMovieComparison-Rumble.jpg]]
::::Guy's banned, anyway. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 23:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think he was remembering the one scene where Rumble says "First we crack the shell, then we crack the nuts inside!" where he ''is'' blue instead of his usual purple. [[User:Inferno'sQueen|MR. Q (I'm a GUY)]] 16:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

==G2==
I'm pretty sure the unreleased G2 Go-Bot "Rumble" was primarily WHITE. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 13:44, 14 February 2008 (EST)
:He seems equal parts white and red. With teal and black showing up in robot mode. [http://www.allspark.com/gallery/g2gobots/RumbleCar] [http://www.allspark.com/gallery/g2gobots/RumbleBot] --[[User:74.57.3.251|74.57.3.251]] 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC) (Detour at work)

==FIRRIB==
How'd this page end up at FIBRIR, anyway? A search through ATT's archives shows that "FIRRIB" is the most common use (664 occurrences) (and personally, it's the version that springs immediately to mind for me.) FIBRIR is in second place with 346 occurrences. RIRFIB=188; RIBFIR=74. And all that notwithstanding, the original "movement" appears to have been started as FIRRIB (for the obvious purpose of debunking those silly, obviously-totally-wrong toy catalogs, natch.) See [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.toys.transformers/browse_frm/thread/7f7aa2ec041325c4/d066fdb5fb0bdaf9?lnk=gst&q=FIRRIB#d066fdb5fb0bdaf9 here].

So, short version: this page should really be moved. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 19:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:FIBRIR FOREVER!
:Or, in a more sensible mode, I wouldn't have a problem with that. [[User:JW|JW]] 15:06, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::I think it should stay as is, solely because there are more instances of FIBRIR. And RIR even when FIP or FITAA. --[[User:74.57.3.251|74.57.3.251]] 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC) (Detour)
:::But it's a ''fandom term'', regardless of whether it's accurate or not. The actual original version should be the article's name and central usage. (And anyways, "FIRRIB" flows off the tongue a bit more smoothly than "FIBRIR". : ] -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 21:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I'd rather see it at FIRRIB, myself. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 21:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::In the spirit of the article, I'm going to have to say FIBRIR to that. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:FIRRIB may have been coined first, but I would imagine FIBRIR came right on its heels. Considering that FIBRIR is... pretty obviously the more solid position to take (outside of a single albeit prominent continuity) I think it's better for the article to stay where it is. The article covers both the fandom's silly argument ''as well as'' the complete story. And as McFeely's edits put quite nicely, FIRRIB is a mistaken aberration. We shouldn't name the article after it. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 19:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::You're going on the position that there's a "right" and a "wrong" to the whole debate in the first place, which is pretty antithetical to the wiki's general approach to things. They're both right. One's right in the cartoon and a couple of other places, and the other's right elsewhere.
::If not for the FIRRIB position, the entire debate wouldn't exist. Also, the first FIBRIR shows up about 6 months after FIRRIB, in Nov. '94. I don't support naming the article after the secondary, reactionary counter-argument, rather than the position that started and popularized the whole thing, regardless of how "right" or "wrong" one or the other may be. It's like replacing [[Trukk not munky]] with <nowiki>[[PRIME=TRUCK AND PRIMAL=GORILLA]]</nowiki>. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 16:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

== So what about this? ==

[[Image:RumbleisRed.jpg|thumb|left|300px]] --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 20:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:No, that clearly says "RuNble" is red, so we're obviously dealing with a third cassette here who, uh...WHAT'S THAT BEHIND YOU!?--[[User:Apcog|Apcog]] 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::Maybe "Runble" is [[Enemy (G1)|Enemy]]'s real name. He should team up with [[Plight of the Bumblebee!|Lazerbeak]]. [[User:JW|JW]] 20:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:Teletraan's quoting the production bible. The other Decepticon screens take other quotes out of the bible, too. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 21:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::I think this pic should be included in the article, as evidence of how schizophrenic the cartoon production process was, if nothing else. I would crop it to remove the watermarks, first. Did Rumble appear elsewhere in the same episode? [[User:JW|JW]] 16:08, 14 February 2008 (EST)
:::I'm pretty sure Rumble did appear in the episode given that this is where Megatron used everyone's powers. Anyway, I was going to take a screencap of this from my DVDs when I get back to my apartment. The current image is one I yanked off my photobucket account. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 21:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::::After Megatron punches the ground to cause an earthquake, we see Rumble turn to the other 'Cons and point to himself. At least he didn't give the AREN'T YOU PROUD speeches like Starscream.... --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

==IDW==

Rumble and Frenzy do show up in ''[[The Transformers: Megatron Origin|Megatron Origin]]''. I don't have access to a scanner right now, but I have the comic in front of me. Neither of the two are named, but on page 16 of [[Megatron Origin issue 1|#1]], the little bugger who deploys his pile drivers, who I assume is Rumble, has red markings. So it looks like FIBRIR applies for IDW. If anyone could back this up with a pic, it would be appreciated.--[[User:Nightshade83|Nightshade83]] 21:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
: Who uses piledrivers is not a good way to determine who is whom. In the cartoon, both use piledrivers. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

::That's why I pointed it out on the talk page. I don't have issues 2-4 with me right now (away from home at school -- issue 1 got mailed to me by a friend), but I don't think they said which one was which anywhere in Origin. Still, I considered this little bit of trivia at least worth discussing. --[[User:Nightshade83|Nightshade83]] 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

==Devil's Due==
Where in the DD Joe crossovers does it indicate which is which? I've pored over the first one, and though both show up, neither seem to be named, unless I missed it. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:When Bumblebee punches the blue guy in #3, he says "I don't THINK so, RUMBLE!". - [[User:RolonBolon|RolonBolon]] 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::Aha. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

==Robot Heroes==
Well, going by the photos released from the Toy Fair, there's gonna be a Robot Heroes Rumble... and he's Red. [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 05:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:And the Diamond Select Toys busts have Rumble blue and Frenzy red. Also, it looks like the red Frenzy comes with Ravage and Blue Rumble comes with Laserbeak and Ratbat. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

== Movie Frenzy ==

His only coloring (besides silver, which doesn't really count as a color) is his BLUE EYES. Should that be mentioned here? [[User:Inferno'sQueen|MR. Q (I'm a GUY)]] 15:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
:This article is only about the G1 characters (despite occasional jokes elsewhere in the wiki). [[User:JW|JW]] 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
::Oh. But if Rumble is in TF2, and looks just like Frenzy except having red eyes...?[[User:Inferno'sQueen|MR. Q (I'm a GUY)]] 19:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
:::If that should happen, I certainly think it would bear mention here. [[User:JW|JW]] 19:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Of course, we've no evidence of that yet.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 19:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::We'll just have to wait and see. [[User:Inferno'sQueen|MR. Q (I'm a GUY)]] 19:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

== IDW Comics ==

Have they actually identified which is which yet in IDW? [[User:JW|JW]] 11:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:'''Warpspeed Hellscream says:''' As of AHM, Rumble is red and Frenzy is blue. Dammit. I believe in the FIBRIR side of this argument. FIBRIR 4ever! [[User:Warpspeed Hellscream|Screamer]] 05:34, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
:And here's my footage of IDW's panel at SDCC 2008. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffvrLk_6Seo At 00:28], you can hear me ask Shane who is who, and the disappointment among the FIRRIB supporters. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 07:47, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
::Er. Shouldn't the FIBRIR supporters be ''happy'' that Frenzy is blue and Rumble is red? ;) (Me, I prefer Rumble as blue, darnit...) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:33, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
Ah Crap. '''Warpspeed Hellscream'', aka me, you stupid skid plate. I'm actually FIRRIB. Sorry. Watched G1 cartoon at start of my fandom, so this why.

== Article namechange? ==

Just a tiny suggestion, but maybe this page should be renamed "frenzy/rumble controversy" or "RIBFIR and FIBRIR" to avoid the article looking biased? (like i said,just a tiny suggestion) [[User:Rhinox555|Decepticon Rhinox]] 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
:I think the less seriously we take this "controversy" the better.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

== Shattered Glass Continuity? ==
I know it's a G1 derived continuity, but I don't think it's quite the same as IDW or Dreamwave, and it certainly adds nothing to the FIRRIB argument, because their colors are based on the Autobot mini-cassettes, with no reasoning behind which cassette got which new colors. So in short, I don't think it should be on the chart. Opinions? [[User:Rideonshootingstarxx|Rideonshootingstarxx]] 00:56, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
: I don't really think it should be on the chart, either. Without looking, as I recall, there are a few on there that I think are examples of dogpiling, and not useful information. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 01:02, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
Hmmmmm. I don't know what Kids Stuff is, and I could maybe live without the few Frenzy-less sections (Alternators, Robot Heroes, and that Kids Stuff. Ladybird too?) So maybe cut it down to the sections with BOTH Rumble and Frenzy and um... I don't care for G2 on there either. None of those help with the ARGUEMENT, they just document colors of Rumble and Frenzy. So...? -[[User:Rideonshootingstarxx|Rideonshootingstarxx]] 01:10, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
: Oh, we should definitely keep the Robot Heroes and Alternators things. Those are important. They show that Rumble is red (and that Frenzy is blue is implied). But I agree on G2. G2 and Shattered Glass are irrelevant to the discussion. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 01:56, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

== The Insecticomics and Lilformers thing ==

So, uh... are we going to need a consensus on this? --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 17:42, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
:My vote in general? Only go with non-canon comics from people who've actually worked on Transformers. Saves arguments based solely on perception of quality. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:59, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
::Yeah, that's what I thought. Personally, I think Lilformers has a bit more credibility since Matt Moylan has actually worked on Transformers, and Insecticomics is (I believe) a fan comic. But let's wait for more responses before we go ahead. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 18:01, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
:::It's not just that, it's also that Moylan's comic is a single panel that gets to the point and comically "solves" the question. It's also actual art, and some nice one at that. The Insecticomics thing is 7 panels, five of which are just two characters arguing the matter... and then Inferno shows up and hangs them by their feet. Not exactly what I'd call funny, or even related to the FIRRIB debate beyond the five arguing panels. Plus... it's blurry photos of toys. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 19:41, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Lilformers yes, Insecticomics no is my vote.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 20:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Detour perfectly summed up the reasons the Insecticomics strip should go away and Lilformers should stay. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 21:14, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
All right. Five votes and all of them are for Lilformers to stay and Insecticomics to leave. Have we reached a verdict? --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 21:27, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
:We have. Innocent! --[[User:Blot|Blot]] 00:15, 12 May 2010 (EDT)
::Release the Sharkticons! --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 10:23, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

== WFC ==

Frenzy and Rumble were featured in War for Cybertron, which has now been confirmed as being a new universe. How does it belong on the article now? --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 21:54, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
: It already is in the article, is it not? At least, on the graph. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:55, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
::Yeah, it is, but I was just wondering since the rest of the article seems to be G1-based. And if we do end up including it, what about the other portrayals of the characters? Then again, since the whole debate is mostly rooted in G1, it probably should stay that way. Dragging it into other continuities might be overkill. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 21:57, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
:::I agree with this. They're not from a new continuity so not technically part of the debate (that is, unless TF:Prime stuff later on makes Frenzy blue again). --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 22:14, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

== This wiki's stance on the matter. ==

So would there be any point in mentioning why we've chosen to use the images we have for the character's articles' respective mainpics. [[User:Flydie|Flydie]] 19:24, 31 March 2013 (EDT)
:Because the Marvel Comics image for Frenzy makes for a funny caption while the storybook image for Rumble features a very toy-accurate Rumble punching a hole in Tracks. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 19:36, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

== Question about the Japanese cartoon... ==

Okay, so in the original American TF cartoon Rumble is blue and Frenzy is red while in the Japanese cartoon, Rumble is red and Frenzy is blue. My question is, is the blue robot the same character called by different names in the two markets or does a different character perform the actions of the blue robot in each version? (And, of course, the complementary question applies to the red robot.) --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:57, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
:The Japanese dub just swaps the names back (since that's infinitely easier to do than altering the animation). As a result, in Japan, Frenzy was around all the time doing earthquakes and stuff, whilst Rumble is the guy that hardly ever showed up. [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] 09:44, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
::I get what was done, I am asking about the question of identity and cross-continuity equivalence. Is the blue guy "doing earthquakes and stuff" the same being under different names in the two continuities or not? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 10:55, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
:::I think it is probably most likely that Rumble's name is "Frenzy" in Japan, and vice-versa - if they ever got bios in Japan (I have no idea) that would probably help us know. -[[User:LV|LV]] 11:26, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
:Rose by any other name and all that, if I understand your question correctly then I think the "blue robot" should be treated as a character on his page, who just happens to trade names with the "red robot" in several media. {{unsigned|KrytenKoro}}
::::I doubt Frumble would have had their bios swapped (is that what you're supposing, essentially?) in Japan just to account for the cartoon mucking up. Far more likely that they just swapped the names back for the cartoon and the Japanese just had to deal with the fact that the sonic attack guy was doing earthquakes, in the same way that the rest of the world just had to deal with the fact that the red guy was blue. [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] 15:18, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::So like how the sonic attack guy was doing earthquakes in the US as well? As far as I can recall, red-Frenzy NEVER did any kind of sonic attack thing... just did the same pile-driving earthquake stuff purple-Rumble did. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 15:49, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::And I just checked Rumble & Frenzy's Japanese techs...
:::::* Original line, Frenzy's does mention the inner drum that messes up enemy circuits. But... Rumble's makes NO mention of the earthquakes WHATSOEVER. Just a machinegun and missile.
:::::* ''TF 2010'' release, I ''only'' see Frenzy on the list, looks like Rumble didn't make it to year 2. The tech retains the inner drum... but adds "Hammer Arm" as a listed weapon.
:::::So yeah. I think that settles that. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 15:55, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
::::::Huh, so they ''did'' kind of turn Frenzy into earthquake guy. Also, I'd totally forgotten that the show's red guy had piledrivers too. G1 cartoon, you so crazy. [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] 16:05, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::::I get what Khajidha is saying. Essentially he is pointing out that the chart doesn't give the whole picture.
:::::::{|border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" style="text-align:left"
!
!"Frenzy"
!"Rumble"
|-
![[The Transformers (cartoon)|US cartoon]]
|style="color:#000;background:#f00;"|Red (rarely seen dude)
|style="color:#fff;background:#00f;"|Blue (major character)
|-
![[Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (franchise)|Japanese cartoon]]
|style="color:#fff;background:#00f;"|Blue (major character)
|style="color:#000;background:#f00;"|Red (rarely seen dude)
|-
|}
:::::::The chart flip-flops the characters around at that point. It isn't entirely comparing apples to apples. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:15, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
:So... what does this mean for their character pages? Do they need fixing? Should Rumble's Japanese name be listed as "Frenzy" and Frenzy's Japanese name be listed as "Rumble"? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 13:57, 4 July 2013 (EDT)

== Should US Masterpiece get a separate entry on the chart? ==
I feel like it's notable that Hasbro went with the FIBRIR colors since of late, they've been doing their own thing. Even though it's still the Masterpiece line, the way Hasbro handles it, it's effectively a separate entity from the Japanese MP line. [[User:Larkmarn|Larkmarn]] 09:28, 29 August 2013 (EDT)
:Since both MP lines follow FIBRIR for their Frenzy and Rumble toys, I don't see a need to add another box pair repeating the same thing already covered by a box pair neutrally named just "Masterpiece". It can and easily does cover both Hasbro's and Takara's MP toys without having to specify which versions since both versions go the same route. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 22:01, 29 August 2013 (EDT)

== WFC and Kre-O ==

I think that the WFC/Prime and Kre-O comic/toy incarnations of Frenzy and Rumble should also be listed on this page. They aren't G1 versions of the characters, but they are red and blue paired versions of Frenzy and Rumble based on their G1 versions, and thus they are relevant to the debate. FIRRIB was a purely G1 issue when the only paired-up blue and red characters called Rumble and Frenzy were the G1 versions, but I would argue that it isn't any more. [[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 12:20, 26 August 2015 (EDT)
:Did you read the notes at the bottom of the page? WFC versions are already there. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 14:08, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

== Production Bible note: just a thought ==

Looking at the production bible for the series, I noticed that it says for Rumble:

(NOTE: RUMBLE'S twin toy, FRENZY can serve as a replacement.)

I know that it's very late in this discussion's day to be saying this, but might it be that someone saw this as a kind of instruction? Since some of the notes, such as Reflector's ("NOTE: TOY DISCONTINUED: DO NOT USE CHARACTER") are pretty much instructions, perhaps someone took the phrasing of the note, "can serve as a ''replacement''", to mean substituting Frenzy for Rumble was encouraged and just went ahead and did it on his very first appearance? Contrast with the note on Laserbeak's profile (LASERBEAK'S twin toy, BUZZSAW, should be used occasionally.) It doesn't suggest replacing Laserbeak with Buzzsaw, else maybe we'd have LIYBIR to deal with as well. It might all just be a case of not choosing the wording carefully for the people that needed to follow the document.

As I said, just a thought. [[User:PaMat1000|PaMat1000]] ([[User talk:PaMat1000|talk]]) 16:03, 18 July 2021 (EDT)