Category talk:Movie characters

With Movie-universe fiction now starting to be available, I think we're going to have to come up with some standards for Movie-stuff articles. The two articles in this category have different continuity notes - Optimus Prime's uses the phrase "Transformers (2007) continuity family" while Barricade's uses "2007 movie portion of the Generation 1 continuity family." This brings up a couple of points.

First, there's the question of whether the Movie-verse should be labeled as a portion of G1 continuity family or not.

Second, there's what to call the Movie-verse itself. Any use of "2007" would be rendered inadequate by a sequel, I think. Something more like "Live action movie" would be better, IMO.

Although that brings up another question, which relates directly to this category. "Movie characters" feels wrong to me, given the animated movie, but "Live action movie characters" might be misleading, as we know there will be numerous characters in the Movie-verse that aren't actually in the movie itself. "Live action movie universe characters" seems to wordy for a category name. --KilMichaelMcC 19:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with "Movie." --ItsWalky 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Movie" is about as concise a tag as we could hope for. After all, basically everything within the continuity, from the comics to games to toys... would not exist were it not for the movie, and I don't think there's gonna be all that much confusion with the old flick. And since the odds of us getting an even quasi-official "Unicron Trilogy" name out of someone official are about one in crapdillion, well...

Also, at this point, I'm ready to declare it "new continuity family". It's as different as RID or the UT is, and likely will only get moreso. --M Sipher 22:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A part of me is dissatisfied with "movie" as a tag because A) it's not a title and B) there is probably going to be more story material regarding this continuity which is presented in books and comics than in the movie itself. Granted, the continuity wouldn't exist in the first place if not for the movie, but it could still end up being a misnomer of sorts. I don't have many alternate ideas, but personally "Dreamworks" sounds better to me than "movie" because that's at least the name of something and Dreamworks is essentially the "author" of this universe. --Steve-o 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But the problem there is that large chunks of the whole deal aren't Dreamworks. It's preyty much just as big a misnomer as "Movie". --M Sipher 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's all under some sort of a license from Dreamworks, I would think, but still -- it's no worse on that count than "movie", and better on the "being the name of some entity" count. I'm not expecting to win this; I just felt like stating a IMO marginally better option. --Steve-o 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go with the "Transformers (2007)" or (Transformers (2007 Movie)) continuity for now. Just calling it the "movie" continuity is a bit of a misnomer, as we do have two different TF movies. Anything to distinguish it from the animated one would be nice. --UndeadScottsman 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna throw out 'Grotesque' as universe-descriptor. But because some of you will incorrectly assume I am JOKING, I will also throw out the slightly-more-plausible 'Xtreme,' 'Allspark,' 'redux,' and 'ID4'.

All ill-tempered humor aside, it should be Dreamworks. We say the Legends stories sty in the DW version of G1 occur in 'Dreamwave continuity.'

On the other hand- why exactly is a movie where the Autobots are all G1 characters who are (despite some cack-handed fumbling) supposed to be some incarnation of their original selves a separate continuity family anyway? It's got Prime, and Ratchet and Bumblebee. It's got Megatron and Starscream. It has the matrix, albit renamed. It has SPIKE. HOW is this a more radical departure than Hearts of Steel was?

On the gripping hand, maybe we can just call it 'nu movie' until a term for referring to it arrives, and then fix the links.

-Derik 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, first of all, it does NOT have the matrix in any way, shape or form. We have a faction-independant cube that gives life, not an Autobot owned artifact that's ultimately supposed to destroy Unicron. (Hell, the Unicron Trilogy is closer to G1 than the movie is, as for as the matrix goes). Secondly, there's plenty of differences between G1 and the movie 'verses, despite the movie taking many cues from G1. I really don't think you can make a case for the UT being seperate from G1 and the Movie-verse not. Especially with all the cross-multiverse shenanigans that go on in this fandom. While there are a lot of G1 inspired characters, there's also plenty of non-g1 inspired characters (especially in the toyline and comic.)

As for how it's a more radical departure than Hearts of Steel? Aesthetics, origins, characters. HoS took G1, part and parcel, and just gave it a new concept. The movie only takes what it wants of G1 and then goes and does it's own thing. (For example, the Allspark and the Megatron-Prime dynamic pre-war)--UndeadScottsman 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

While I think the movie universe does qualify as a new version of G1, I think it also qualifies as a continuity family of it's own, and should be treated primarily as the latter for this Wiki's purposes. Just keep the notes such as the one on G1 Bumblebee's page that say "See Bumblebee (Movie)" as an indication that these are in some sense new versions of the G1 characters.

On what to call the Movie-verse, I would favor "Live Action Movie continuity family," with whatever capitalization scheme is deemed appropriate, myself. Or perhaps "Transformers (movie) continuity family" as that's the title of the film? --KilMichaelMcC 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that anyone is going to be misled by a "(Movie)" tag on a character page. It's not as though "Bumblebee (Movie)" would make any sense as a separate page for G1 Bumblebee. TFTM is simply not important enough an entity in terms of defining what continuity something is or is not from. -LV 02:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do think that (Movie) as a tag in article titles works fine. It's more things like this category's name, and continuity notes that read "Barricade is a Decepticon in the Movie continuity family" that feel... lacking... to me. --KilMichaelMcC 03:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

ID4! -Derik 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-movie characters category?

I'm thinking we could use a subcategory for all the prequel/toyline/Sector 7 characters who aren't in the Movie itself, although I'm not really sure what exactly it would be be named. --KilMichaelMcC 02:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Since "Movie" is what we call the Movie's continuity family, then "Movie characters" would encompass ALL characters in that continuity family, whether they're in the movie or not. --ItsWalky 04:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. I just think having such a subcategory of "Movie characters" would be helpful. --KilMichaelMcC 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to reiterate the above suggestion. I think some distinction should be made here between characters who appear in the movie itself and those that only appear elsewhere within the franchise. Either through some sub-category that covers all the non-movie Movie characters, or one for the in-the-movie Movie characters. --KilMichaelMcC 12:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We have no such category for the 1986 movie. And what do we do if there's another movie in 2009 or 2010? Do they all get seperate categories?

Can't we just have a nice comprehensive 'who appears in this' list on the article for the movie itself? (We do this for episodes already.) We can even link to that in the description of the movie characters category- "If you just want the dudes int he movie itself, check the list of characters on "its page"." -Derik 12:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The 1986 movie isn't a good comparison, since it isn't the genesis of a franchise, but existed within an extant franchise. That said, I think a note on the category page as Derik describes would probably be sufficient, and much simpler than splitting the movie characters into movie movie and nonmovie movie. On the other hand, if we do split the category and use those names, it would be funny. --Steve-o 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuity notes, again

Before I go on an editing spree, I want to check to make sure: the continuity notes for movie characters should read "...the Movie continuity family," wherein "Movie" links to Movie (franchise) and not to Transformers (2007), yes? --KilMichaelMcC 06:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. --ItsWalky 06:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

we've been talking about making a movie franchise page for awhile- and since we're startignt og et a few sub-continuities (Rise of the Chevvy Autobots, for instance) it's no longer ONE continuity so... yeah. Movie (franchise) sounds right. -Derik 06:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, "talking about making a movie franchise page"? There already is one. I linked to it right there! Movie (franchise). --KilMichaelMcC 06:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)