Talk:Brawl (Movie)

Not Megatron comment

what inspired that? USER:GWolf

Many people on various boards who can't get over the fact that movie Megs is neither a gun nor a tank. --FFN 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, the ones who are so incapable of getting over it that they form elaborate conspiracy theories about how Megatron will get a tank altmode during the movie and Hasbro decided to call the corresponding toy "Brawl" to keep it a surprise. --Andrusi 03:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

those were the days, man. Almost makes me think a "pre-release theories" section on the movie page wouldn't be all that out out of place. Fits right in there with the theory that the human cast list was actually a secret robot voice actor list, with clever codenames like "Epps" to put people off the trail that he's obviously Jazz.--Carrion 02:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Brawl could have easily been named Overkill, if you ask me. His toy has an amount of weapons that border on goofy: His spring loaded cannon on his right arm, the fact that it can swivel 180 to reveal a more accurate to his design Gatling Gun molding, his behind the back secondary guns, his shoulder mounted missile launchers, his twin claw, AND the anti-personal cannon molded onto the twin claw's base. Sheeeeeesh. --Terrocon Blot 19:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Devastator

apparently, when they screened the movie in australia, little thing became apparent. His name's Devestator?

Opened, or screened? Because if it was a pre-screening, it may have been a rough cut of the movie-- several decepticons' names were changes later in production, and Devastator was an early name for Brawl.

You can count on this being corrected for the actual film release. Roberto Orci has commented on it. --KilMichaelMcC 04:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

They called it both a special screening event and a premiere. We rock. --FFN 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey I just saw the movie on June 29th in a sneak preview in columbus ohio and they called him Devastator. And it seemed like scenes were missing from the movie

I'm a little confused as to why "Devastator" isn't noted as a mistaken when the only place it appears is a single subtitle line in the actual movie whilst "Brawl" appears on... everything else ever. I mean, a Michael Bay forced mistake is still a mistake.--MCRG 03:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Forced mistake"? If he intended to call the tank Devastator and he called it Devastator, I'm not seeing the mistake. It's clearly different from every other appearance, but unless we're going to make a big deal about how purple cartoon Rumble is a mistake, there's no reason to make it sound like someone didn't know what his name was. "Brawl" is clearly the most parsimonious name for the page, but that doesn't change the fact that his name is Devastator in the movie. -67.149.204.113 04:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, until the DVD release. I don't see Hasbro sitting by on that one when they've got Brawl stamped on all the merchandise.--MCRG 04:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Brawl is the better name, they should save devastator for the sequel.

The cinema in Minnesota I just saw the movie at had the 'Devastator' cut. -Derik 01:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what do you mean? Do you mean "cut" as in "the name Devastator was removed" or "cut" as in "the cut of the film that has Devastator," which would be the same as what everyone else has already seen? --KilMichaelMcC 01:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The version where he's called Devastator. ...is there no version where he's called Brawl like the said or something? Now you've confused me. -Derik 01:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It's Devastator in every version.

Of course, it's still wrong. But there is no cut that says Brawl. --Suki Brits 01:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It says "Brawl" in the credits, though. And as MCRG said, with "Brawl" on all the packaging I'm sure it'll be changed in time for the DVD release. - Dark T Zeratul 02:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So, uh, twice now people have removed the "Brawl (here called "Devastator")" bit from the movie summary with no explanation at all. I think that phrasing is important for the sake of clarification. Otherwise there's no real clear reason for him to be referred to as Devastator in the article as it's never actually stated before there that the name Devastator appears in the movie. Can somebody please justify this? --Steve-o 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It was apparently LV that removed it. After it was put back today, he asked if he was alone in thinking it should be removed. I said it was a little weird to suddenly call the character Devastator with no explanation, and he seemed to give up immediately. I don't recall him actually justifying it, but I think it'd be easiest for you to ask. /:) --Sntint 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding current edit: I don't think we should specifically denounce one name over the other, especially in the movie fiction section. Would the "Brawl (here called "Devastator")" thing work for the first mention, then just use pronouns for the rest of this specific section? Atomic spaceman 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's really denouncing- he was originally named Devastator, but his name was later changed to Brawl, it just didn't get fixed int he movie.

Somehow I feel like that sounds less than, say, Jetfire begin called Skyfire int he Sunbow Cartoon. (I may change my tune if it's not fixed on the DVD) -Derik 22:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For the film's fiction subsection I have changed his name to Devastator. It's the only name he is given in that story, and the director of the film has apparently said he prefers that name. To me, that makes it his name. He simply has a different name in the film than in all his other appearances. Further: there is still a mention in the trivia that he is credited as Brawl. However, the last time I saw the movie with LV and Walky, they both scanned the voice credits (I was looking elsewhere) and didn't see him credited at all, under either name. Can any editors personally attest to have seen the credit with their own eyes, or are we just repeating Some Guy's claim that it's there? --Steve-o 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Old edit of mine from early June for the Sydney June 12th premiere, where the voice actors were finally revealed. IIRC it was posted by one of the people attending and I forgot to edit it out, and I didn't bother hanging around to watch the voice credits myself. Btw, do the Decepticons EVER refer to Sam as anything other than Ladiesman217? That's why I refer to him as such in all the Decepticon writeups I've done. --FFN 23:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

DVD

Well, the DVD has been released in some places already, clips are flooding YouTube. So, I just wanna take the time to ask this question. Does he still call himself Devastator in the DVD release? -- SFH 05:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

According to a thread on the official TF movie forum, yes. --FFN 08:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Image

Does anyone have an actual image of Brawl in robot mode? -- SFH 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he never appeared in any promotional materials to my knowledge, and is BARELY seen in only some of the tv spots. The first time we saw his movie design (and not just his toy) was that leaked concept design sheet at TFW2005. --FFN 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He shows up in various heavily illustrated material, but in group shots. Let me think...He's in the movie comic adaptation, and various storybooks. Meet The Decepticons (group shot), Movie Storybook (likely same), and so forth. If you want a render, it seems unlikely.

Doublechecked various books. Seems like the best image of Brawl we'll get is his first appearance in bot mode from the Movie adapation comic. Beyond that, he's either lost in crowds, or not drawn well. Or cropped badly. --Terrocon Blot 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The game guide has a pretty large promo render of Brawl. There are a couple screen shots clipping him, but I'll see what I can do. --M Sipher 21:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So now that Brawl's gotten a released to the public concept art, we gonna ditch the CG one from the game, or keep using him? --Terrocon Blot 01:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is? --FFN 03:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are better picture of this guy. They can be found on Ben Procter's website. (The one with all the movie designs.) Crosshairs-1 11:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Crosshairs-1

Devastator and Michael Bay

"When queried, director Michael Bay said he had always preferred Devastator and that it is not a mistake."

I'd like to see a source for this. 'Cuz for everyone who brings this up, there's someone who will claim that Bay confirmed it as an error that will get fixed for the DVD. So unless someone can cite a source, I'm inclined to call this (as well as the "fixed for the DVD" version) a "fan rumor".

Oh, and "I seem to recall" or "I think I read somewhere" is not a source.--Nevermore 22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Then fix it yourself. --FFN 03:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can find it I think. Also, anyone remember his "If I wanna paint my house green" thing over flmaes and Prime s

Quote

If someone can SOURCE that "stupid simple" quote, I'd rather use that. --M Sipher 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Better image?

His main image is a stupid "Cyber Slammer" because....? LordHigher,MoreAnnoyingStarscream 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it's so out of character for a monster like Brawl to look this cute. --Detour 16:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides, they never released a single publicity image of him. --FFN 08:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I swapped the Cyber Slammer image with the concept art pic at the bottom of the article. -- Dark T Zeratul 09:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess you suck, then. -LV 13:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? It's concept art. Cyber Slammer art is the only official art of him on this page. I'm changing it back. --FFN 15:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, the Cyber Slammer picture is hilarious. --Steve-o 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's much better now!Maybe.--Telex 02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't. —Interrobang 02:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Now?--Telex 02:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

NO --FortMax 02:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How Bow Now?-Telex 02:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC) I changed the image to a video game one. I would have used the concept one, but I can't find anywhere. DO NOT CHANGE IT BACK. I WILL BAN YOU WHO CHANGES IT BACK. Read my argument against the Cyber Slammers image on my user page. G1MA 00:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)G1MA

That's...a bad way to get people on your side. -- SFH 00:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Better Image II: The Serious Discussion

May I ask why we don't use the video game image as his main image? It's a good, full body image, we use a game image as Tidal Wave's main image, and we have the Cyber Slammer image on the package art page making the same joke. So seriously, why not? -- SFH 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Because the image is awesome.

2) I don't see the same joke, sir.

3) It should be obvious after all this that you're outnumbered on the issue. Why belabor it? --ItsWalky 02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gonna make a fuss over it, but -- considering the huge stink we make for some characters over how such-and-such picture doesn't have "the right body", often haggling over some minor differences that nobody's gonna even notice, it's a little baffling to me how this pic has stayed up as the main image. FUNNY > information? -- Repowers 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Because I believe only four things, Walky:

1. The Autobots will rule Cybertron.
2. Female Transformers work better if you don't over exert yourself trying to explain them.
3. Megatron is better as a tank. It's more mobile than the gun, having him as a flier makes Starscream that much more useless, and it gives the fusion cannon a role in alt-mode.
4. And Brawl will finally have a real main image! -- SFH 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that one guy who made those three arguments:

1)It is not awesome.

2)The joke is there, sir.

3)Like I care.

I'd change the image, but I can't find the concept art. G1MA 19:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)G1MA

Dude, ItsWalky is one of the administrators of this Wiki. As for the concept art, I believe I asked for it to be deleted, because troublemakers kept moving it up as the main pic in defiance of this wiki's regular members and administrative staff. --FFN 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, then we're in trouble. If an immature moron who thinks putting those dumb images up there are funny is an administrator, then this wiki is doomed G1MA 23:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)G1MA

So essentially, you're saying that this Wiki is Ruined FOREVER? --Detour 00:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the hillarity of someone pointing out that someone is being immature on a wiki devoted to cartoons and children's toys. Just throwing that out there. - Semysane 00:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that the guy has been banned, can we please get back to the real discussion? Will someone give me a legitimate reason as to why we cannont use Brawl's game image as his main image? As Repowers said, information is supposed to be more important than humor. If someone can just give me a decent answer (one that does not include use of inappropriate language, doubts about my masculinity, threats of administrative retaliation, insinuations about my intelligence, or insults directed at members of my family), I'll drop it. -- SFH 00:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How is Brawl's packaging art not informative? --ItsWalky 00:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the package art from his Cyber Slammer toy, which looks nothing like any of the other toys OR his appearance in the movie and comics. People coming to the page not already knowing about the character could be confused or even put off by it. - Semysane 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the reasoning behind using this image was basically "Brawl is supposed to be such a hulking destructive monster, therefore it's ironically funny to use his cutest possible toy." I think a major problem with that is that what this character is "supposed to be" really doesn't exist, since he's a nobody who did very little and about whom very little is popularly known. He appeared in the movie for all of 4 minutes--under a different name. I can see the humor potential in showing Grimlock's art being a childish unintelligent scribble, precisely because it feeds off those character traits everyone knows he has. But when there's already so little to go on about Brawlastator, I think it's harder to justify. --Thylacine 2000 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Brawlastator"-funny. Anyway, I was wondering, Why all the fuss? If all the administators want this image to be the Cyber Slammers one, why don't these people just accept they will not be able to get that image changed for good without using NSA to control the Web? Why make a fuss over the main image. It's a once in a while funny joke, and if you're so lazy that you're just going to look at a picture at the top of the page, and not read anything, you deserve to be confused. JimCappuccino 20:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)JimCappuccino

Why not just hold a vote or something? That should settle it once and for all. (And yes, I saw Inferno'sQueen has previously suggested it, so please don't acuse me of being his sock. Wreck-Gar Rocks! 16:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have come to a conclusion-if this issue doen't resolve itself, this wiki will tear itself apart! No but seriously, a vote would be a good idea. JimCappuccino 23:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Weapons

What weapons he used and how many weapons he have other han his claw that it stab Jazz with?(MARV 2000 23:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, he has the missle pods, main cannon, those two smaller cannons... I think maybe a machine gun or two. Basically he's a walking weapons platform. Semysane 03:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Seperate Devastator page?

Issue three of Titan's Movie comic has the editor refer to Devastator as being a seperate character who just looks like Brawl. Does this mean we should create a seperate page for the fiction's where he's Devastator, or should we stick with both on the same page on the principle that it's funner that way? USER:Charles RB 10:50, 30th March 2009 (GMT)

Trivia note. We acknowledge it, then point out what a massive fucking headache it would entail if Brawl AND Devastator are running around. Hooper_X 20:09, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Where does the editor say this? On a letters page? -Derik 20:17, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, third issue. Sourced on the page. (And a later guy is Brawl and not Devastator cos, well, the cover says so) -Charles RB 03:02, 20 June 2009 (GMT)

As Hoop says; virtually everything Devastator does outside the movie is under the name "Brawl", which would result in this guy called Brawl in some cases immediately following up or working up to the handful of things Devastator does in the movie. Also, Devastator would have no toys or merchandise, despite appearing in the movie. -LV 20:21, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Also, "Reign of Starscream" retcons the movie to have him identify himself as "Brawl" in its flashback to the Mission City battle, so that right right there is canon information saying they're the same character. --KilMichaelMcC 20:23, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Gotcha. Same page it is. -- Charles RB 03:02, 20 June 2009 (GMT)

Name confusion doesn't change the fact that there are two characters in Titan. Let me see... In the Titan continuity, the tank featured in the film was named "Devastator". "Brawl" was a different guy in the Titan continuity. If we were to make another page I would suggest that Titan "Devastator's" appearances remain here and make a new page, called "Brawl (Titan)" or something. - Starfield 22:14, 7 November 2009 (EST)

Reviving this discussion: While it's not exactly necessary to split them, since the first discussion happened, Brawler does have his own page, and Devastator does appear in a few issues of the comic (with one focusing on him) compared to Brawler's singular boss fight. Also, it'd just be kinda funny.

Could be Devastator (Titan), and it'd just need to move the Titan comics section of the fiction (except the alt universe bit), and this page would need a new quote, since that was Devastator who said that. --Dinobot Scorn (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2025 (EST)

I think it would be a bit dishonest to do so especially since I doubt that Furman really intended him to not be Brawl, no matter what the editors claim; the spotlight story he gives for Devastator follows pretty closely to Brawl's toy bio of him being so consumed with rage he feels very little else . Escargon (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2025 (EST)

Front Image

How about scanning the concept CGI work on the internet and crop it so the robot mode is only there?

The sole reason for using the Cyber Slammer image is because ItsWalky finds it funny. I'm not entirely sure of the joke, but the other admins back him up. And it's not like there's much to go on for him, there's only two other full-body (second Titan and the video game) and officially the Titan one is of a different guy. -- Charles RB, 01:02, 19 June 2009 (GMT)

Look, can we stop with this "it's only up because Walky finds it funny" thing? I am far from the only one. Considering someone who is not me just yanked the super-retarded snark-template off, I think we can put that to fucking rest. Find some other pretend reason to take it down. --ItsWalky 20:09, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Honestly, I'm gonna go on record here for the first time as saying I've never liked the use of the Cyber Slammers image, and if we can find something else, I wanna swap it out. - Chris McFeely 20:05, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I think it's awesome and it should stay. Hooper_X 20:08, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I would like to go on the record as saying that there is no other official art that captures the essence of his character nearly as clearly, and I am strongly opposed to changing it to something else. --Suki Brits 20:10, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I scanned it. I reversed it. I cleaned it up. I put it there. It went up back when the Wiki wasn't the Big Deal it is now. I don't see the problem. There are other pictures of Devastator on the page and on the Internet. There has never been a good clean clear render of his CG model released to the public. In conclusion, I cannot believe that two years later there are still people with a bug up their butt about this. Lighten up, for god's sake. -LV 20:11, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I would liek to further refuse the "because Walky thinks its funny" argument with this timestamped evidence to the contrary.

I was the first voice to demand that the CC art remain Brawl's main userpic. Not Walky, me. YOU WON'T DEPRIVE ME OF MY LEGACY CHARLES. -Derik 20:15, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

You have no idea how tempted I am to sneakily edit my original post to say "Derik finds it funny"... -Charles RB 03:10, 20 June 2009 (GMT)

How about the image from the movie game that we have on the article already? It's a full body shot, it's intact. -- SFH 21:30, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I would prefer that to the Cyber Slammers image. --KilMichaelMcC 21:38, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Nah. It's a bad pixelated pic. I choose Cyber Slammers. --Detour 21:51, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Cyber Slammers seems to be the majority, so what the heck. --Charles RB 03:11, 20 June 2009 (GMT)

And the Fast Action Battlers art?--201.24.227.119 19:18, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Protection

Anons changing the main image seems like a daily occurrence, it might be a good idea to just protect the page and be done with it. - Cattleprod 16:57, 4 November 2009 (EST)

I agree. --FFN 17:10, 4 November 2009 (EST)

Game render image

This image appears to be a rare promo image from the 2007 Transformers game. I think it looks pretty cool, more or less fits the style of the other promotional renders we use on most of the other movie character articles, and it's not concept art, unlike that picture from Ben Procter's site that anon users and wikipedia keep pushing. Comments? --FFN 16:52, 3 January 2010 (EST)

As someone who's never loved the Cyber Slammers image, I'm all for using it. - Chris McFeely 17:03, 3 January 2010 (EST)

I'm for it. -- SFH 17:05, 3 January 2010 (EST)

As an ardent supporter of Grimlock's main pic... I'd vote for the movie render for Brawl. I mean, with Grimlock, we more than know what he looks like. There's shit-tons of art of him. Brawl? Not so much. (Actually, it'd be a funny April Fools gag to for one day replace all the main images with Cyber Slammers or Robot Heroes art.) --M Sipher 17:37, 3 January 2010 (EST)

I was thinking the exact same thing. Anyways, Brawl is just interesting to look at. He's complicated. And that promo render is sweet. -- Repowers 18:12, 3 January 2010 (EST)

I'm down with that. IIRC part of the reason we ended up with the cyber-slammer pic was the lack of an obvious alternative everyone could agree on. -207.224.68.64 18:43, 3 January 2010 (EST)

I like the Cyber Slammers pic but hot damn that render is awesome. I say let's use it. --Detour 18:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:(--ItsWalky 18:45, 3 January 2010 (EST)

There was a watermark over his left foot, from some chinese site, so I spent the better of an hour trying to fix it. Seems to have come out alright. --FFN 23:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Why ya' gotta break balls? Drayco90 23:32, 14 January 2010 (EST)

-I'm a new user, so I don't want to insult anybody...but what if we use both the Cyber Slammer toy and the pic at right. I get the Cyber Slammer joke, but I also think we need to show what he looks like. =) --Megatron Prime 11:51, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Have you visited Brawl's page recently? That pic has been Brawl's new main image since January. --Detour 13:16, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

-Oops, my bad...--Megatron Prime 12:56, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

Merged from Brawl (ROTF)

how is this brawl seperate from Brawl (Movie)? there from the same continuity famiy they could be two version of the same character.

I agree the two should be merged and have applied the relevant template to the page. Mimi (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2014 (EDT)