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)
- 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)
