Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon (film)
We do not care about leaks. Do not tell us who you saw on the set. Do not present us with images of stolen toys. Unless you can source it in an official press release or reputable news source, we do not care. Please stop telling us who you saw in set photography.
Release date
This page claims a release date of 1 July 2011, yet one of the sources given ([1]) gives a release date of 4 July 2012. Which is correct? Khajidha 12:25, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
- That Tformers source is from months ago, before the release date was moved up. --67.149.197.71 12:59, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
- Thanks. 199.90.28.195 15:21, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
Ik hoop dat Transformers 3 is heel beter dan RotF. Of anders... 71.254.158.28 22:46, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Image
Wikipedia has a picture of a Transformers 3 titlecard. Should it be put here too? And Megan Fox should be added to the cast list. --24.69.64.254 22:48, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- michaelbay.com does confirm Megan Fox, so she could be included with the reference, but I don't know where that image came from. - Starfield 22:56, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Said titlecard would be from Hasbro's Investor Day presentation back on November 5. --Lonegamer78 23:44, 3 December 2009 (EST)
- Well, then somebody put those things here already --24.69.64.254 20:01, 7 December 2009 (EST)
- I'm waiting...--142.32.208.231 15:06, 14 January 2010 (EST)
- Said titlecard would be from Hasbro's Investor Day presentation back on November 5. --Lonegamer78 23:44, 3 December 2009 (EST)
just take off the picture its inapropriote for the kid users —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.102.3.1 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 June 2010 (EDT).
- The movies themselves are pretty kid-inappropriate. --NCZ 16:00, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
- a silhouette of a woman is not appropriate for kid users? They'd see worse on billboards. --abates 19:21, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
- I'm not too crazy about the image, but I don't think it's too terribly bad [it's nothing compared to some of the Kiss Player stuff or the drawing of Wheelie lifting Teletraan-15's skirt; that stuff troubles me (yes, I know that's the nature of the Kiss Player beast)]. Besides, I have a feeling that the James Bond-ish pic will be removed as soon as we get some pics of the movie posters (might still see it on the Rosie article, though). - Zadok Rox 22:52, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
- a silhouette of a woman is not appropriate for kid users? They'd see worse on billboards. --abates 19:21, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
I can add a photo of promotional poster/sign/thing that was part of Hasbro's public-facing booth display at Licensing Expo 2010 (it was next to a Bumblebee Camaro and a life-sized Bumblebee replica). It's a cell phone quality photograph, but it's got Prime in. --Wednesday 17:42, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
- You might want to just upload the picture, then ask on its Talk Page if it cuts the mustard for this wiki (that's what I did for my pics of Movie Payload; good thing I did because it didn't cut the mustard). - Zadok Rox 20:05, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
- I can do that. I'd need to crop it down a bit. Wednesday 01:07, 21 June 2010 (EST)
- Pretty! We can definitely use that. --ItsWalky 01:26, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
- I can do that. I'd need to crop it down a bit. Wednesday 01:07, 21 June 2010 (EST)
James Avery as Silverbot?
New Actor Info
...is that seriously for real and not an early April Fool's prank on someone's part? Because... WTF? Who ever heard of Frances McDormand and John Malkovich doing anything in a Transformers movie? XD --Jeysie 10:54, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
- Hey now. Mrs. McDormand was in Aeon Flux, so it's not like she's above Hollywood fluff. And John Malkovich is in Jonah Hex and did things like Johnny English in the past. The Transformers film franchise attracted Hugo Weaving, Jon Voight and Robert Foxworth before them, so I don't see why other notable actors being cast would be such a shock. --Detour 12:14, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
- Weaving and Foxworth, at least, are both actors who've done mainstream scifi franchise stuff before, so I wasn't surprised by them at all, actually. But I always thought of McDormand and Malkovich as being more artsy movie types. (Maybe I'm just still skeptical that TF3's script is going to be less horrible than TF2's.) --Jeysie 12:30, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
- Yes, well, as I pointed out, it's not all they do. McDormand was in Aeon Flux. Malkovich is in a comic book film and was in a Rowan Atkinson comedy once, just to name a few. --Detour 12:37, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
- Weaving and Foxworth, at least, are both actors who've done mainstream scifi franchise stuff before, so I wasn't surprised by them at all, actually. But I always thought of McDormand and Malkovich as being more artsy movie types. (Maybe I'm just still skeptical that TF3's script is going to be less horrible than TF2's.) --Jeysie 12:30, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
Possible Titles?
Has anyone else heard these rumours about the possible titles: Rise of The Primes/Unicron/Galvatron. It is unlikely to be true, but should it be put in the notes, maybe? Titanus Prime 14:27, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
- We do not talk about crackpot rumours on this wiki. --FFN 14:32, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
- As soon as we get an official title, perhaps some of the rumored titles could be noted. Some, not all of them (maybe one or two likely titles and one off-the-wall one). - Zadok Rox 22:54, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
Twins, Ironhide and Ratchet on TF3
http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/first-behind-the-scenes-video-from-transformers-3-169679/ --Eagc7 0:13, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
- These are not official sources. A Humvee does not mean Ratchet WILL get a new paintjob, and a flying car does not indicate the Twins being in the film. --Detour 00:43, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
- Well one guy sayed that skids Would Apepar and throw a car (samrt car) it he sayed that before the video apepared and the video Looks like what he syaed but like you sayed they not offical source, still --Eagc7 01:15, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
- Bay Confirms tiwns are nto in tf3, but still the chevy spark/beat were spotted on set http://www.leftlanenews.com/chevrolet-spark-transformers-3.html--Eagc7
- That's still not an official source. If you can find a link where Bay or someone involved with the production says they're in, then that would do. --abates 16:35, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
- http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/new-transformers-3-on-set-pictures---including-a-clear-view-of-ratchets-new-look-169900/ Isn't this enough to prove that Ratchet and Ironhide will return?--CAJH 04:29, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- Not really. For example, the "Ratchet" could just be a fire department truck assigned as part of a NEST unit. Or it could have been painted up after the second movie in expectation of him being used in the third, but before a decision was made not to use him. The bottom line is that those aren't officially released photos. This isn't an "OMG look what I know that you don't site" trying to beat everyone to the punch by making half-baked predictions, it is an archive of what has been officially shown. --Khajidha 08:10, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- I don't think so. That ambulance is too similar. Hummer H2 and Autobot symbol on it. Autobot symbols are only used in Autobot alternate mode vehicles. NEST vehicles have no symbols or they have NEST logo. And what about Ironhide? Images are excatly enough to confirmation. These should be enough. There are no more proofs needed.--CAJH 22:46, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- Doesn't matter. Those aren't OFFICIAL photos. They weren't released by Hasbro, Bay or anyone who has any control over things. They are, in effect, STOLEN intellectual property and DO NOT belong here. Whether your contentions turn out to be true or not is irrelevant. --Khajidha 13:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- Not only that, Michael Bay and others are on the record that they're intentionally spreading false info. Remember how there were sightings of Barricade around the time RotF was filming? - Cattleprod 14:06, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- The pics have been confirmed and both ratchet and Ironhide have official pics with them being next to optimus prime and bumblebee and Ratchet still has his new colors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.204.17.1 (talk • contribs). 16:27 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- Nope, we still don't count 'em unless Michael, Don, Nelson, or anyone directly affiliated/working on TF3 comes up and says so. --Lonegamer78 16:29, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- Why is this such a hard concept. Unless any new photo/news is released by Hasbro itself or one of the authorities in charge of the film it does not go on the wiki. <Cheetor> PERIOD. <Cheetor).--ZacWilliam 17:13, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- Nope, we still don't count 'em unless Michael, Don, Nelson, or anyone directly affiliated/working on TF3 comes up and says so. --Lonegamer78 16:29, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- Doesn't matter. Those aren't OFFICIAL photos. They weren't released by Hasbro, Bay or anyone who has any control over things. They are, in effect, STOLEN intellectual property and DO NOT belong here. Whether your contentions turn out to be true or not is irrelevant. --Khajidha 13:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- I don't think so. That ambulance is too similar. Hummer H2 and Autobot symbol on it. Autobot symbols are only used in Autobot alternate mode vehicles. NEST vehicles have no symbols or they have NEST logo. And what about Ironhide? Images are excatly enough to confirmation. These should be enough. There are no more proofs needed.--CAJH 22:46, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- Not really. For example, the "Ratchet" could just be a fire department truck assigned as part of a NEST unit. Or it could have been painted up after the second movie in expectation of him being used in the third, but before a decision was made not to use him. The bottom line is that those aren't officially released photos. This isn't an "OMG look what I know that you don't site" trying to beat everyone to the punch by making half-baked predictions, it is an archive of what has been officially shown. --Khajidha 08:10, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/new-transformers-3-on-set-pictures---including-a-clear-view-of-ratchets-new-look-169900/ Isn't this enough to prove that Ratchet and Ironhide will return?--CAJH 04:29, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
- That's still not an official source. If you can find a link where Bay or someone involved with the production says they're in, then that would do. --abates 16:35, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
- Bay Confirms tiwns are nto in tf3, but still the chevy spark/beat were spotted on set http://www.leftlanenews.com/chevrolet-spark-transformers-3.html--Eagc7
- Meh noone blevies they are i nmovie, WELL Lets wiat til lfilmngi begisn and you guys will see these pcis are REAL!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagc7 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (EDT).
- It's not a case of not believing they're in the movie. I would say most people believe it. It's a case of these pictures being leaked information without official confirmation. And we don't include that sort of info on the wiki. - Chris McFeely 20:14, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
- Right. This info might be "obvious", but sometimes leaked info is less obvious and open to interpretation. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and no leaked info ever is pretty clear. - Cattleprod 21:00, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
- It's not a case of not believing they're in the movie. I would say most people believe it. It's a case of these pictures being leaked information without official confirmation. And we don't include that sort of info on the wiki. - Chris McFeely 20:14, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
- Well one guy sayed that skids Would Apepar and throw a car (samrt car) it he sayed that before the video apepared and the video Looks like what he syaed but like you sayed they not offical source, still --Eagc7 01:15, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
- I have no idea will the Twins really appear or not. But I'm sure Ratchet and Ironhide would still return. Bay has denied appearance of the Twins twice. But as he or anyone lese part of the production says nothing to it, I've no reason to believe that they won't appear. - CAJH 14:32, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
- True, but you have no official evidence that they will appear. Therefore, the wiki remains silent on their appearance or non-appearance in TF3. --Khajidha 11:42, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
- Looks like someone misunderstood. My point wasn't that their names should be added to the cast list.- CAJH 15:44, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
- Then what the heck WAS your point? This whole thread has been about whether or not these characters are confirmed as part of the cast of the new movie! --Khajidha 11:59, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
- Looks like someone misunderstood. My point wasn't that their names should be added to the cast list.- CAJH 15:44, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
- True, but you have no official evidence that they will appear. Therefore, the wiki remains silent on their appearance or non-appearance in TF3. --Khajidha 11:42, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
Megan Fox
She was reportediy axed due to a want not to have Sam tied down with a love intrest. http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.accesshollywood.com/megan-fox-dropped-from-transformers-3
- Reuters.com states it's due to Bay and company wishing to go a different direction. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J04920100520 Bottom line, Fox is gone. - Zadok Rox 21:32, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
- That news about Fox(cited) should probably be front and center in her own article, rather than down the bottom in trivia. --FFN 01:11, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
Shockwave Has villian and FInal Film in the franchise
- The above link is to the second page of a forum thread about an article ABOUT the article in question. Here's the actual article: http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-06-11-Transformers11_ST_N.htm?csp=usat.me -- Semysane 21:21, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
- For those who don't feel like reading through it: no more goofball humor; twins are basically gone; new love interest for Sam; Shockwave is new villain; involves USA/USSR space race; characters who die stay dead this time. -- Semysane 21:30, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
DINOBOTS?
In a interview with Josh Duhamel was asked if the dinobots are going to be in TF3,and he sayed that I can't answer that question which pretty much confirms that the Dinobots are going to be in it like they did with devastator in ROTF.so can we add them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.204.17.1 (talk • contribs). 02:28, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
- His deflection of the question doesn't "pretty much" confirm anything. --FFN 02:39, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
How so, he is playing coy and by now its common sense that when they do that it means its coming.Mis-information campaign. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.204.17.1 (talk • contribs). 11:27, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
- That's not official confirmation. Besides, Josh Duhamel is just an actor; for all we know, Lennox might not interact with the Dinobots. He might not even know who the Dinobots are. For now, they aren't confirmed. --NCZ 11:32, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
- "he is playing coy and by now its common sense that when they do that it means its coming.Mis-information campaign." But he could be acting that way to make you think he means the Dinobots are in it when they really aren't. That's the thing about mis-information campaigns, you never really know what it all means until the movie comes out. --Khajidha 12:17, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
- So in short, wait until Paramount or Bay or other reporting agencies outright says either the Dinobots are going to show up or not. Better accuracy that way. --Lonegamer78 13:44, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
- "he is playing coy and by now its common sense that when they do that it means its coming.Mis-information campaign." But he could be acting that way to make you think he means the Dinobots are in it when they really aren't. That's the thing about mis-information campaigns, you never really know what it all means until the movie comes out. --Khajidha 12:17, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
SIDESWIPE
Sideswipe was spotted on set.And YES michael bay and crew members were their so can we count that as confirmination? --User:Primetime 13:49,18 June 2010 (EDT)
- Source? --NCZ 15:52, 18 June 2010 (EDT)
Transformers 3 - Update # 12 ( Filming Locations, Mark Ryan Interview and more!) --User:Primetime 13:55,18 June 2010 (EDT)
Dear God. --M Sipher 15:56, 18 June 2010 (EDT)
I Found a video with Be,, swipe and ferrari on set can i psot it? --Eagc7
- NO. We've been over this countless times before, for the first film and for Revenge of the Fallen and now for this: We do not post anything that has not been officially released or revealed by Hasbro, Paramount or Michael Bay. This video was shot without authorization by onlookers on set and is not official. --Detour 02:03, 19 June 2010 (EDT)
Disclaimer
Do we need using a disclaimer/notice on the pagefor reference (not only the talk page), too? Since some users (especially new comers or anons) usually edit the page without reading the talk page first. --TX55TALK 04:55, 19 June 2010 (EDT)
- An excellent idea. - Zadok Rox 12:23, 19 June 2010 (EDT)
MARK RYAN
Mark Ryan the previous voice for bumblebee sayed in a interview that he was going to be doing several voices for characters(possible bumblebee).Since we don't know who he will be voicing but this is OFFICIAL can we put this in the notes section or take it in consideration?You can find the interview on the site.--User:Primetime 13:36, 19 June 2010 (EDT)
http://transformerslive.blogspot.com/
- That doesn't seem to say anything about him doing the on-screen voices, just that on-set voices (as he's always done). Bumblebee is not a guarantee, either. His only known line as Bumblebee in ROTF was cut. --FFN 13:54, 19 June 2010 (EDT)
Why
So let me get this straight...ummmm...so we can't add characters that were seen in videos or set pics.It safely confirms them so It seems strange that we cant add them it seems a little too...uptight(e.g.Ratchet,Primes G1 style trailer).Don't start bashing me and chewing me out.I just need a calm and good reason why.--Saberblade 1:20, July 15 2010 (EDT)
- We saw Barricade on set during ROTF's filming. Guess who wasn't in the movie? --ItsWalky 01:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
Yes that's true.But Ratchet, sideswipe, and prime were seen during a big chase scene in chicago with a camera crew.hmmmmm.--Saberblade 01:47, 15 July 15 2010 (EDT)
- This is Micheal Bay, he probably drives to work every day in a huge car chase, firing an uzi out of his window. Besides, just because they were being filmed doesn't mean they will actually be in the movie. They could easily be cut later. Plus, it is NOT an OFFICIAL SOURCE. -- Semysane 01:50, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
- The simple reason is that this is an archive of things that "have happened" in the Transformers universes, until the movie is released it "hasn't happened yet". --Khajidha 08:49, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
- And Barricade wasn't on set during ROTF's filming. ---Blackout- 13:18, 20 July 2010 (EDT)
"We saw Barricade on set during ROTF's filming. Guess who wasn't in the movie? --ItsWalky"
- actually, we did't. His altmode was seen 2 months before filming —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.253.95.14 (talk • contribs).
I would have one little question: Are the call sheets trusted information? --CAJH 7:41, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
- I would say 'no' because Bay could allow phony call sheets to be "leaked". Remember 'The Empire Strikes Back' which had a phony page in the script? I know it's not the same, but it's the same idea. - Zadok Rox 09:13, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
- Never heard about that thing with 'The Empire Strikes Back'. --CAJH 18:34, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
- The fake page had Vader telling Luke that Obi-Wan killed Luke's dad. - Zadok Rox 14:24, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
- Obi-Wan kills Luke's Dad? D@mn it, SPOILERS, MAN! Those of us watching through the Clone Wars cartoon to get the story in order don't want to know what's coming up! -ZacWilliam (not signed in and unable to resist.)
- The fake page had Vader telling Luke that Obi-Wan killed Luke's dad. - Zadok Rox 14:24, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
- Never heard about that thing with 'The Empire Strikes Back'. --CAJH 18:34, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
Carly?
do this Count has offical Confirmation or not? http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?7552-Every-Little-Girl-Should-Be-Told-That-She-s-Pretty-Even-if-She-s-Not.&p=143091#post143091
- I'm so baffled by this I forgot the overblown "NO" reaction I had planned. --NCZ 13:20, 20 July 2010 (EDT)
- I guess it's official now. Also, his news post on Bay's site apparently reveals the name of the Ferrari Autobot. --FFN 13:36, 20 July 2010 (EDT)
Optimus' Trailer
There have been multiple pictures and videos of a semi truck with flames driving a trailer which heavily resembles Optimus' trailer from G1. The truck is a different truck than the two previous films which does support his redesign. Should we mention it?
- What were the sources of those pictures? Were they from Paramount? From mainstream news programs? From some guy hiding in the bushes and taking pictures with his cell phone? ONLY officially released information may go on this page. --Khajidha 13:53, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
Soundwave's Return
Is it safe to put Soundwave on the character list since his head was seen on set?
- As the page says, repeatedly and in big letters, SET LEAKS DO NOT COUNT.--RosicrucianTalk 00:49, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
- Is there any way that the Edit button could be rerouted to a page that only reads (and perhaps states audiably) "If your info is from a set leak, don't post it here!"? I know that's virtually impossible, but I (and I'm certain quite a number of those here) are frustrated that these scoop hounds don't seem to understand what "officially released information" is. - Zadok Rox 08:24, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
- The page itself is semi-protected, which already keeps our signal-to-noise pretty good.--RosicrucianTalk 13:24, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
- Is there any way that the Edit button could be rerouted to a page that only reads (and perhaps states audiably) "If your info is from a set leak, don't post it here!"? I know that's virtually impossible, but I (and I'm certain quite a number of those here) are frustrated that these scoop hounds don't seem to understand what "officially released information" is. - Zadok Rox 08:24, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
Rush
Where's Rush? He's official, in the movie and confirmed. He should be on the character list --92.238.181.196 13:02, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
- Source? --Khajidha 13:17, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
- I haven't seen Geddy Lee in any of these pictures. - RolonBolon 13:19, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
Who's Geddy Lee? And it DID say Rush was the red ferrari but they must have changed it. That does not make it wrong. You cant just put a character in and remove it when it was confirmed before. Rush seems accurate and its clear they could not miss out the "st" the first time round. Its pure logic. --92.238.181.196 13:31, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
- Now it says that the Ferrari is parked on Rush Street. ---Blackout- 13:31, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
- That is NOT logic. It's quite possible that a picture could have been labeled Rush (no "St") as an indication of location. This note could easily have been misinterpreted by someone who didn't know the location as a name and posted. --Khajidha 13:34, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
You are perhaps aware of Michael Bay's admission that he likes to spread misinformation right up to the day his movies are released?--RosicrucianTalk 13:38, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
OK so lots of people were mislead as well. And who is Geddy Lee and what has he got to do with the movie? --92.238.181.196 13:45, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
- Geddy Lee is the lead singer for the rock band Rush. --NCZ 13:45, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
- If Rush is in this movie, I will line up for tickets. "Closer to the heart!" -- Semysane 16:41, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
Page edit
I was correcting a grammar error when the human list (and Sam Witwicky) were deleted, moving everyone else to the Decepticons. Can anyone help? -- Shackwave123 9:33, 28 July 2010 (EDT)
- If </ref> is forgotten from a footnote, it happens. Same thing happened to me once, when I got a permission to edit this page. --CAJH 10:00, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
Jolt
I know this isn't confirmed but look at this. [1] But it may be helpful in the future! Erimal 22:06, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
- We can't accept "insider source" info like that, nor is it truthfully helpful, and we don't care for info like that. As we said many, many, many times, the ONLY sources of info that we'll accept is: A) directly from the press, B) directly from Michael or Steven themselves, C) directly from Nelson, Michael's webmaster. --Lonegamer78 22:18, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
- I'm afraid Jolt won't return. Check this: http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/nelson---no-jolt-for-transformers-3-170344/ --CAJH 10:37, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
Nelson - Michael Bay's webmaster
How do we classify Nelson's comments? Like he posts official news and filmed official hype videos of the Chicago set, and does things with (presumably) Michael Bay's authorisation, but he's also been linking youtube videos by people (unofficially) filming the Chicago set on the front page of Bay's website, videos that reveal things that have not yet been "officially" revealed. So we pick and choose what he says and does based upon what we think is "official" and what is merely him drumming up hype for the movie? I ask because he revealed what the three Nascars (seen in both youtube videos, unofficial set photos AND Nelson's own official set visit video) are referred to as on set at TFW2005, but I don't know how to classify that comment. --FFN 23:52, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
- I'm inclined to go with Nelson's confirmations/denials on the boards, but videos we should hold off since we don't have context to go with it. --Lonegamer78 00:05, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
- Yeah, I think if Nelson confirms stuff, we should take that as official word. --abates 04:05, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
- http://transformerslive.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-autobot-arrives-and-more-boom.html Nelson confirmed this new Autobot vehicle. It's a fire truck, but it's not Inferno or Hot Spot. --CAJH 09:11, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
- Yeah, I think if Nelson confirms stuff, we should take that as official word. --abates 04:05, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
The Wreckers?
Should we include this? ([3]) --HeyTFWiki 03:43, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
- I am asking that very question above your edit. Also, please sign off on your comments. It's the signature-looking button, or just type four of these ~ --FFN 03:57, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
- I'd feel better about including the Wreckers story if they included a link to the forum post in question in their news story. I can't even find a link to the forums on that site! --abates 04:00, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
Einstein Bot not "Q"
Nelson confirmed that the "Q" thing was not true information and commented that he didn't know where the confirmation came from. It should probably be taken down, as "Q" seems to merely be a hint as to who it is, but not a potential name. Link is here. --Faded-Myth 21:01, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
- Thanks. I am vindicated of my belief of that NIBMRatchet guy's overeager incompetence. --FFN 23:18, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/more-transformers-3-spoilers-and-rumors-from-detroit-170570/ Though I read this article, I can't say that Wheeljack's name should be added onto cast list of the film. Word from extra casted people from Detroit filming can't be fully trusted. Even extra casted actors can have misinformation. --CAJH 18:34, 14 September 2010 (EDT)
- We're not until Nelson, Bay himself, Spielberg himself, or Murphy says otherwise. --Lonegamer78 14:39, 14 September 2010 (EDT)
- To CAJH - What part of "We do not care about set leaks. Do not tell us who you saw on the set. Unless you can source it in an official press release or reputable news source, we do not care. Please stop telling us who you saw in set photography." do you not understand? NONE of the various things you have brought here have been official information. --Khajidha 18:51, 14 September 2010 (EDT)
- I told you all that information from the previous link can't be fully trusted. Are you saying that because of that, I still shouldn't have even add it here? --CAJH 8:38, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
- And besides, this discussion page is to talk about the movie, not for collecting official information. So, there's no reason I would have done anything wrong. --CAJH 8:41, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
- Wrong. This is not a chat room or a message board. These talk pages are for discussions relevant to the Wiki and its articles. Just discussing movie speculation is not for here. --Detour 02:13, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
- Wait a second, you think that even Nelson's words about Jolt's not returning to film and Wheelie's return can't be trusted? "NONE of the various things you have brought here have been official information." I know this page must have an official information revealed. An information that is revealed by any member of the filming crew or producers of the movie. You have no proofs that webmaster's words contain nothing but rumors. That extra casting member who told about Wheeljack or Shockwave can't be fully trusted, but anything else I've added here is not misinformation. Well, anything I've added after I read the rules of these pages.--CAJH 9:07, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
- All we're saying is that you didn't need to bring it up because we know not to add Wheeljack's name unless otherwise. As for webmasters, both Nelson and Don work WITH Michael directly, so we trust them a lot more than set reports from extras or people working on the set. --Lonegamer78 02:31, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
- I wasn't saying it should be added here. But if you say that only links with information that will be necessary are permitted here, then I'll obey.--CAJH 10:05, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
- Hey hey, I forgot one thing. That Mercedes car hasn't evem been seen in Detroit. So how could anyone know that the Wheeljack really meant that Mercedes? By no means. I can't believe I didn't write it earlier. --CAJH 14:49, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
- All we're saying is that you didn't need to bring it up because we know not to add Wheeljack's name unless otherwise. As for webmasters, both Nelson and Don work WITH Michael directly, so we trust them a lot more than set reports from extras or people working on the set. --Lonegamer78 02:31, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
- To CAJH - What part of "We do not care about set leaks. Do not tell us who you saw on the set. Unless you can source it in an official press release or reputable news source, we do not care. Please stop telling us who you saw in set photography." do you not understand? NONE of the various things you have brought here have been official information. --Khajidha 18:51, 14 September 2010 (EDT)
Wheelie
Wheelie returns. Confirmed by Nelson. http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/wheelies-back-in-transformers-3-170366/ The sam elink confirms also that the Jeep seen in Chicago is not in movie as we thought. --CAJH 8:42, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
- Who is "nelson"? - Starfield 09:32, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
- The answer is on this very page. But if you don't want to click, Nelson is Michael Bay's webmaster, and here his information is considered an official source. --NCZ 09:40, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
Inferno as new Autobot ?
yes as new Autobot ::I can do that.
- I followed the link and saw this: "This object is not available! Perhaps you should contact wedenesday for more information?". Sorry, ace, but no dice. Everybody with me: "Wait for official (please denote the "official" part) news releases about the movie." In other words, if Michael Bay's website or the Associated Press didn't say it, it doesn't go here. - Zadok Rox 22:20, 7 August 2010 (EDT)
- If you mean that firetruck Autobot, you better know this. Nelson told that it's not Inferno. You wanna watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWCkIggT8yk Don't take it as official information, but this will sound very crazy. - CAJH 13:52, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
MEGATRON
Megatron is coming back for Transformers 3 so why does his name keep getting removed from the cast his face has being seen pinned up in Chicago. Check out the Link. http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/megatron-returns-for-transformers-3-170294/ --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plo Koon 1 (talk • contribs). 14:58, 25 August 2010
- READ THE NOTICE AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE. We do not accept ANY info that was not released by Bay, his webmaster, Hasbro, or Paramount. We take officially released info only and these pictures ARE NOT. --ZacWilliam 15:02, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
- And there's always the chance of them changing things mid-shooting. --Lonegamer78 15:15, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
- Plus, may I add that it could be a stand-in for a new baddie? It's cheaper to use a leftover prop than make a new cardboard face. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy who slapped that face on the pole didn't even know who it was. It's likely Megs will be back, but wait for official news. - Zadok Rox 16:49, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
- It is now official. Check out this link. Also, the original wikipedia.org states that he will be in it, and since we are a wiki site, shouldn't we have that info too?166.109.0.45 11:38, 21 December 2010 (EST)
- NO IT IS NOT. NOT A HARD CONCEPT. If it's not from BAY or His Webmaster or Paramount itself released for the public then it's NOT OFFICIAL. Also, no we are not associated with wikipedia and could care less what they put on their site. Sigh. --76.28.76.206 11:46, 21 December 2010 (EST)
- I understand that it must be official, and it cannot be some random blogger. However, if I may say tfw2005.com is a website trusted by hasbro. But why shouldn't we have it if wikipedia.org has it. Shouldn't we have more information then them about Tranformers. And i would say since wikipedia.org is much stricter, I would guess they have a good reason for putting it there, if you don't mind explaining that. And i'd hate to be rude, but why can't we have information from the set on our site? If the information is out, why can't we have it? Also, other websites state that people like Soundwave and Starscream will also be in the film, so why are we the only site that just says Shockwave is in it so far. I am not trying to be rude here.166.109.0.45 12:03, 22 December 2010 (EST)
- You need to understand that the photos that have allowed TFW2005 to make this news post are of a stolen toy. We do not add anything to the wiki based on "leaked, stolen or snuck" material. We actually respect Hasbro's wishes when it comes to the flow of information, which other sites do not. - Chris McFeely 12:21, 22 December 2010 (EST)
- Well on various video featurettes, Hasbro does say that they respect these sites and listen to them. They also respected hasbro after they said to remove the photos and they are not posting them up again until Hasbro says they can. I can understand the different policies, so to respond to that comment, I think we can conclude that Tfw2005.com and this site both respect hasbro, just in different ways. I am confused that wikipedia.org itself does not respect Hasbro, and states that Megatron is in the film, and uses seibertron.com as a reference. Could I get an explanation please?166.109.0.45 13:52, 22 December 2010 (EST)
- You would have to ask wikipedia.org. - Starfield 14:32, 22 December 2010 (EST)
- Well on various video featurettes, Hasbro does say that they respect these sites and listen to them. They also respected hasbro after they said to remove the photos and they are not posting them up again until Hasbro says they can. I can understand the different policies, so to respond to that comment, I think we can conclude that Tfw2005.com and this site both respect hasbro, just in different ways. I am confused that wikipedia.org itself does not respect Hasbro, and states that Megatron is in the film, and uses seibertron.com as a reference. Could I get an explanation please?166.109.0.45 13:52, 22 December 2010 (EST)
- You need to understand that the photos that have allowed TFW2005 to make this news post are of a stolen toy. We do not add anything to the wiki based on "leaked, stolen or snuck" material. We actually respect Hasbro's wishes when it comes to the flow of information, which other sites do not. - Chris McFeely 12:21, 22 December 2010 (EST)
- Look, what we're after here is not to get the information in as fast as possible. What we want is accurate, official information that has been released by Hasbro. Is that how Megatron's toy will look? Probably. Is he going to be in the movie? I'd be surprised if he wasn't. Things are subject to change, and we want the information to be accurate and precise. An encyclopedia that is inaccurate is useless, and we want to be accurate. So just be patient. It will be put in eventually. -- SFH 14:56, 22 December 2010 (EST)
- I understand that it must be official, and it cannot be some random blogger. However, if I may say tfw2005.com is a website trusted by hasbro. But why shouldn't we have it if wikipedia.org has it. Shouldn't we have more information then them about Tranformers. And i would say since wikipedia.org is much stricter, I would guess they have a good reason for putting it there, if you don't mind explaining that. And i'd hate to be rude, but why can't we have information from the set on our site? If the information is out, why can't we have it? Also, other websites state that people like Soundwave and Starscream will also be in the film, so why are we the only site that just says Shockwave is in it so far. I am not trying to be rude here.166.109.0.45 12:03, 22 December 2010 (EST)
- NO IT IS NOT. NOT A HARD CONCEPT. If it's not from BAY or His Webmaster or Paramount itself released for the public then it's NOT OFFICIAL. Also, no we are not associated with wikipedia and could care less what they put on their site. Sigh. --76.28.76.206 11:46, 21 December 2010 (EST)
- It is now official. Check out this link. Also, the original wikipedia.org states that he will be in it, and since we are a wiki site, shouldn't we have that info too?166.109.0.45 11:38, 21 December 2010 (EST)
- Plus, may I add that it could be a stand-in for a new baddie? It's cheaper to use a leftover prop than make a new cardboard face. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy who slapped that face on the pole didn't even know who it was. It's likely Megs will be back, but wait for official news. - Zadok Rox 16:49, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
- And there's always the chance of them changing things mid-shooting. --Lonegamer78 15:15, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
Decepticons
Since when were Megatron, Starscream, and Soundwave confirmed? I've seen them being added a ton of times but I can't find any official source that confirms it. Should those edits be undone or did I just miss something big? --Kirby 11:43, 3 September 2010 (EDT)
- Those names were added by a relatively inexperienced editor, I have removed them. Unless he/she can show reliable sources for their being in the movie (not just "but OF COURSE they'll be back... It's Megatron, Starscream, and Soundwave!") they should not be listed. --Khajidha 12:03, 3 September 2010 (EDT)
- Yeah, I thought so. I just thought that putting it on the talk page would be better than going right up and reverting it. I've noticed that a lot of my edits are just removing stuff --Kirby 12:06, 3 September 2010 (EDT)
- I don't think that Hasbro can not put Megatron, Starscream and Soundwave in the new movie, the popularity of the transformers would drop.
- You wouldn't think that Hasbro would kill off most of the memorable G1 cast either, but they did that too. What I'm getting at is that stranger things have happened. -- Semysane 04:04, 10 November 2010 (EST)
TITLE
---Blackout- 09:35, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- Can I just go on record that that is a crappy name? --Khajidha 09:42, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- I agree with you, but it comes with many joke opportunities.
- I just.....haven't figured out what they are yet. ---Blackout- 09:53, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- All I can think of is the Alabama song "Fire In The Night". --Khajidha 09:57, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- The Dark of the moon? Does that mean the movie is going to be just another one of those crappy conspiracy theories saying the US didn't get to the moon first? Does this mean this is hardly going to be a movie about Transformers? This seems pretty likely. Also, that name is just borderline teen novel. Hopefully they'll change everything at the last minute into something relatively better like they did before. --LokitheGrammarNazi 09:59, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- Here are some jokes we could use.
- "Dark Side of the Moon was taken."
- "Is it a Twilight crossover?"
- (Thank you Seibertron forum posters!) ---Blackout- 10:01, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- I hadn't even thought about Twilight until Loki said teen novel. Now, I can't get the word "Vampformers" out of my head. --Khajidha 10:08, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- Does this mean the main pic has to be that shot of John Turturro's as from ROTF?Riddlerj 10:22, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- No and shame on you for even thinking it. ---Blackout- 10:27, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- One thing I really like from the first 3 movies (86,07,09) wiki articles are the running joke used throughout. Star Wars, the 86 movie, and Empire Strikes Back. I would have thought we would use nothing but Return of the Jedi quotes here, but with this new title part of me thinks it would be great to use nothing but lyrics off the Dark Side of the Moon album. --Bluestreak7 12:36, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- We picked Star Wars and Empire for their respective films because the TF creative teams in those years specifically compared their products to those films--it was us making a joke out of their marketing idea. Though having captions about ROTJ would obviously "complete the set," I'm kind of against us making jokes out of our own traditions instead of the traditions of the franchise creators. It would seem like we're just jerking off. So I'd actually prefer Pink Floyd too. Of course, given that there's still a year for someone at Paramount to make a comparison between the respective 3rd films, the point may be moot. --Thylacine 2000 14:02, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- Actually, using Pink Floyd quotes here would preserve and extend the pattern we have going. 1st Movie/Star Wars Universe quotes, 2nd Movie/Non-SW quotes, 3rd Movie/SW Universe quotes, 4th Movie/Non-SW quotes. Remember that 1st - 4th is in real world terms, ignoring the fact that the 1st movie was not part of the same universe as the current trilogy. --Khajidha 14:10, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- Agreed. ---Blackout- 14:29, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- Actually, using Pink Floyd quotes here would preserve and extend the pattern we have going. 1st Movie/Star Wars Universe quotes, 2nd Movie/Non-SW quotes, 3rd Movie/SW Universe quotes, 4th Movie/Non-SW quotes. Remember that 1st - 4th is in real world terms, ignoring the fact that the 1st movie was not part of the same universe as the current trilogy. --Khajidha 14:10, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- We picked Star Wars and Empire for their respective films because the TF creative teams in those years specifically compared their products to those films--it was us making a joke out of their marketing idea. Though having captions about ROTJ would obviously "complete the set," I'm kind of against us making jokes out of our own traditions instead of the traditions of the franchise creators. It would seem like we're just jerking off. So I'd actually prefer Pink Floyd too. Of course, given that there's still a year for someone at Paramount to make a comparison between the respective 3rd films, the point may be moot. --Thylacine 2000 14:02, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- One thing I really like from the first 3 movies (86,07,09) wiki articles are the running joke used throughout. Star Wars, the 86 movie, and Empire Strikes Back. I would have thought we would use nothing but Return of the Jedi quotes here, but with this new title part of me thinks it would be great to use nothing but lyrics off the Dark Side of the Moon album. --Bluestreak7 12:36, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- No and shame on you for even thinking it. ---Blackout- 10:27, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- Does this mean the main pic has to be that shot of John Turturro's as from ROTF?Riddlerj 10:22, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- I hadn't even thought about Twilight until Loki said teen novel. Now, I can't get the word "Vampformers" out of my head. --Khajidha 10:08, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- The Dark of the moon? Does that mean the movie is going to be just another one of those crappy conspiracy theories saying the US didn't get to the moon first? Does this mean this is hardly going to be a movie about Transformers? This seems pretty likely. Also, that name is just borderline teen novel. Hopefully they'll change everything at the last minute into something relatively better like they did before. --LokitheGrammarNazi 09:59, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- All I can think of is the Alabama song "Fire In The Night". --Khajidha 09:57, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
Should we also put in a note that "dark of the moon" is real phrase and not completely made up? --Lonegamer78 15:35, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
Ahem. IT WAS THE DARK OF THE MOON ON THE SIXTH OF JUNE WITH A KENWORTH HAULIN' LOGS/ CABOVER PETE WITH A REEFER ON AND A JIMMY HAULIN HOGS/ WE WAS HEADED FOR BEAR ON I-1-OH ABOUT A MILE OUTTA SHAKEY TOWN/ I SAID "PIG PEN THIS HERE'S THE RUBBER DUCK, WE'RE ABOUT TO PUT THE HAMMER DOWN." -hx at work, this is all the caption you need.
- ARGH! I can't believe I forgot that! I can just see the "bout to put the hammer down" part as an Optimus Prime caption ("Convoy", don't you know. :)). --Khajidha 17:49, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any Amazon listings anymore, but the Transformers movie website is called "Transformers: Dark of the Moon". (Don't look at the logo, look at the title of the website in the web browser.) Should we lose the "the"? - Starfield 16:43, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
- At the same time, the domain they registered is "transformersthedarkofthemoonmovie.com", which has the leading "The" in it. --abates 17:00, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
- "transformersdarkofthemoonmovie.com" is also registered by the same party. - Starfield 17:03, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
- Why would they register it with the "The" if "The" isn't in the title? Whereas I can see why they'd also register it without, because people might accidentally leave it out when typing the url (and also for brand protection). --abates 17:57, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
- Similar reasons apply for registering the name with a superfluous "the". "The dark of the moon" is a preexisting term, people might easily insert it by mistake. --Khajidha 20:08, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
- IDK, the title of a web page just doesn't seem like enough to me to move the page. The titles on Amazon all had "The" in them, which might have been added mistakenly by whoever added them there, or might not have been. I suspect we should wait for some sort of official unveiling, because if we move the page now, we may well just be moving it back later. --abates 22:13, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
- Similar reasons apply for registering the name with a superfluous "the". "The dark of the moon" is a preexisting term, people might easily insert it by mistake. --Khajidha 20:08, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
- Why would they register it with the "The" if "The" isn't in the title? Whereas I can see why they'd also register it without, because people might accidentally leave it out when typing the url (and also for brand protection). --abates 17:57, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
- "transformersdarkofthemoonmovie.com" is also registered by the same party. - Starfield 17:03, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
Uh, Walky....
How does "www.transformersdarksideofthemoon.com." confirm that "The Dark of the Moon" is the title? Or did you put in the "side" in that URL by mistake? --Khajidha 12:56, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
- Yeah. Mistake. Durrr. --ItsWalky 13:02, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
Accident
Does last month's stunt accident where an extra got critically injured belong on this page, and if yes, where?--Nevermore 14:22, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
- I thought the top of this page said that the wiki does not care about news on the set. --LokitheGrammarNazi 14:46, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
- This is obviously not the kind of news the top of the page is talking about. Yes, the accident and lawsuit should be addressed on the page for the movie. Where, I dunno. Probably its own section. --ItsWalky 14:58, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
- Maybe "Production", if it ever gets made. —Interrobang 16:30, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
- This is obviously not the kind of news the top of the page is talking about. Yes, the accident and lawsuit should be addressed on the page for the movie. Where, I dunno. Probably its own section. --ItsWalky 14:58, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
Disambig?
What are we going to use as the disambiguation suffix for this movie? I used (TDOTM) for the Carly artilce I created, but I could see just (DOTM) instead, or perhaps something from out of left field -- G1MarvelBlaster 23:04, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
- (TDOTM) would be the most consistent. But (TF3) would be cool. - Starfield 23:22, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
- The only other franchise I can find with an initial "the" is The Headmasters, which has the disambiguation suffix (Headmasters). Going by that, I would say (DOTM). --Khajidha 09:20, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
- Considering Hasbro applied for the trademark "Dark of the Moon" without "the", I'm favoring (DOTM) too.--Nevermore 08:05, 13 October 2010 (EDT)
- (TDOTM) is a horrible disambig. I prefer (DOTM). ---Blackout- 08:11, 13 October 2010 (EDT)
- Considering Hasbro applied for the trademark "Dark of the Moon" without "the", I'm favoring (DOTM) too.--Nevermore 08:05, 13 October 2010 (EDT)
- The only other franchise I can find with an initial "the" is The Headmasters, which has the disambiguation suffix (Headmasters). Going by that, I would say (DOTM). --Khajidha 09:20, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
The Superfund Armored Truck as Sixshot and Rosenbaurer as Inferno
November-21=Michael Bay confirms the Superfund Armored Truck as Sixshot.
- Hi. Cite a source. Sign your posts. Thank you. Goodbye. ---Blackout- 08:22, 21 November 2010 (EST)
Should we add Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin?
Well, should we?
-ThiAthEhn
- And Walter Cronkite. --ItsWalky 11:56, 10 December 2010 (EST)
- Well, the question is, will they actually be in the film? This teaser feels very much like the teaser for the first movie, in that we may see only a little, or possibly even none, of the actual content of it in the film. - Chris McFeely 11:57, 10 December 2010 (EST)
- And we don't know if (though unlikely) they are main cast. And save their page for another day. --TX55TALK 12:00, 10 December 2010 (EST)
- I dunno, I think all promotional stuff still counts as "fiction" under our mandate. While they shouldn't be on the main cast list, I wouldn't be opposed to making articles on them and making some mention of them on the article. —Interrobang 14:16, 10 December 2010 (EST)
- And in any case, we already have a Neil Armstrong page, per Ghosts of Yesterday. So I'll ask my question here: how much do we want to put into that article? -- SFH 14:42, 10 December 2010 (EST)
- I'm tired of seeing useless perpetually incomplete pages for trivial as fuck foil characters that usually were only mentioned in the movie or even movie novelization in question and have no real story signifigance at all. I respectfully say nay to more character pages like this and I would recommend deleting such pages that are already created, such as the Mohammud page. --LokitheGrammarNazi 11:14, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- Then that's really too friggin' bad, because that's what this wiki is for. --ItsWalky 11:28, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- You really want your wiki to go to hell, to run rampant with the constant mindless page creations of anonymous IP adresses? You made one of the qualifications to delete a page "We are not a dictonary," but now you want to contradict yourself. --LokitheGrammarNazi 11:32, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- Uh, we've been making pages like this since the very beginning of the wiki back in 2006. At no point has this site ever succumbed to your insane scenario. So pardon me if my eyes roll so hard they pop out of my skull. --ItsWalky 11:36, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- What you said officially makes it okay to make pages like the pages made by anons from the start, so now you have put yourself in the situation where now a whole lot of anons who look around without editing will get that idea and tell all their friends about it and soon you have too many pages for Detour to put the speedy template on. Sure, in the past this has never happened, but now there is the possibility. --LokitheGrammarNazi 11:39, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- Now that we're going to continue doing the exact same thing we've been doing for the past four years, suddenly it's all going to be different now and ruin us. Got it. --ItsWalky 11:41, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- It's not that you've been doing the same thing all along, it's now you've said that doing what has been described now is alright and acceptable, and you seem to be ignoring/avoiding that. Besides, of course the consequences are not going to affect you immediately, so you shouldn't just assume that if the ramifications aren't immediate then there aren't any at all. Your 16-year-old level of sarcasm and quickness to attempt to avoid a situation is what makes people not like you. --LokitheGrammarNazi 11:47, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- I'm not ignoring anything, because I shouldn't have to distinguish for you the differences between making a page for a guy featured heavily in a trailer for a blockbuster Transformers film and between making a page for "floor." The difference seems to be obvious to everyone else. Do you have any other recourse to people disagreeing with you that isn't calling them an X-year-old? --ItsWalky 11:58, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- The reason I used the X-year-old argument is because that is what I usually only see here that warrants a recourse from me, what with the "Um, yes it does" and "pardon me if my eyes roll so hard they pop out of my skull" statements. I understand now that you have from the start always had a staff that can make the distinction between what is too little information and what isn't and make decisions based on that. I don't think that most people know what "too little information" is (including myself), so maybe that could be something you could put into the FAQ of the wiki for anons that want to be good editors but aren't and so people like me don't go anally retentive apeshit and get in heated arguments with the wiki's administrator. --LokitheGrammarNazi 12:10, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- When the sole basis of your argument is "tons of anons will make bad pages", it's kind of hard to do anything but roll one's eyes at it. --Detour 12:14, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- The reason I used the X-year-old argument is because that is what I usually only see here that warrants a recourse from me, what with the "Um, yes it does" and "pardon me if my eyes roll so hard they pop out of my skull" statements. I understand now that you have from the start always had a staff that can make the distinction between what is too little information and what isn't and make decisions based on that. I don't think that most people know what "too little information" is (including myself), so maybe that could be something you could put into the FAQ of the wiki for anons that want to be good editors but aren't and so people like me don't go anally retentive apeshit and get in heated arguments with the wiki's administrator. --LokitheGrammarNazi 12:10, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- Anons will make useless pages regardless of policies. I truly doubt making a page about Buzz Aldrin is suddenly going to open the floodgates for pages about grass, the birds, the bees, the peanut butter jelly time banana and Zartan's male pattern baldness. Your apocalypse scenario is ridiculous to say the least. --Detour 12:01, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- I'm not ignoring anything, because I shouldn't have to distinguish for you the differences between making a page for a guy featured heavily in a trailer for a blockbuster Transformers film and between making a page for "floor." The difference seems to be obvious to everyone else. Do you have any other recourse to people disagreeing with you that isn't calling them an X-year-old? --ItsWalky 11:58, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- It's not that you've been doing the same thing all along, it's now you've said that doing what has been described now is alright and acceptable, and you seem to be ignoring/avoiding that. Besides, of course the consequences are not going to affect you immediately, so you shouldn't just assume that if the ramifications aren't immediate then there aren't any at all. Your 16-year-old level of sarcasm and quickness to attempt to avoid a situation is what makes people not like you. --LokitheGrammarNazi 11:47, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- Now that we're going to continue doing the exact same thing we've been doing for the past four years, suddenly it's all going to be different now and ruin us. Got it. --ItsWalky 11:41, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- What you said officially makes it okay to make pages like the pages made by anons from the start, so now you have put yourself in the situation where now a whole lot of anons who look around without editing will get that idea and tell all their friends about it and soon you have too many pages for Detour to put the speedy template on. Sure, in the past this has never happened, but now there is the possibility. --LokitheGrammarNazi 11:39, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- Uh, we've been making pages like this since the very beginning of the wiki back in 2006. At no point has this site ever succumbed to your insane scenario. So pardon me if my eyes roll so hard they pop out of my skull. --ItsWalky 11:36, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- You really want your wiki to go to hell, to run rampant with the constant mindless page creations of anonymous IP adresses? You made one of the qualifications to delete a page "We are not a dictonary," but now you want to contradict yourself. --LokitheGrammarNazi 11:32, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- Then that's really too friggin' bad, because that's what this wiki is for. --ItsWalky 11:28, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- They exist in the Transformers universe. Why shouldn't we have pages for them? --NCZ 11:17, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- Saying something like, "What would Jesus do?" is not making them in-universe. Besides, the pages always stay shitty and are just bytes of worthless space-taking crap. What if the wiki made a whole page for every single obscure character that happened to be seen in a passing glance of the camera? The whole wiki would be have millions of pages of crap that nobody cares about. Besides, if somebody wanted to read about Buzz aldrin, they could just go to wikipedia. --LokitheGrammarNazi 11:21, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- Um, yes it does. If someone mentions Jesus in Transformers, that means that Jesus is in the Transformers universe? That'd be like if there was a standalone story where someone mentions how Bumblebee is a great scout, but Bumblebee doesn't appear otherwise. Does that mean Bumblebee doesn't exist? And there's a difference between making an article for someone who has no name, personality, or role, and making an article for someone who has a name and has a role hinted at. (We wouldn't make an article for a generic with no dialogue who's just there in the background, but we WOULD make an article for Bumblebee since he was named and we know that he's a scout.) And what if someone was curious about what Buzz Aldrin did in the Transformers world? Wikipedia wouldn't have that. --NCZ 11:24, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- You know very fucking well what I am talking about, don't act like a ten-year-old. I do not mean that important characters fiction wise (as in appearing in more than one piece of fiction in one universe) shouldn't have pages, they do have pages that account what they are important in. I mean not have pages about characters like the Muhammad or Jesus page that have no significance whatsoever in any piece of fiction. If they were more important in another piece of fiction, then they could have pages. What I want is quality control that isn't headed by ten-year-olds or anal people. --LokitheGrammarNazi 11:29, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- But they do have significance. A character mentions them and gives some details. Small significance, but they exist. When I said "standalone", I was referring to a whole new universe, where we don't know if Bumblebee exists or not. Then, someone confirms he exists, so we make a page for him. How am I acting like a ten-year-old?
- (I WILL admit there's a line. Remember "History vid Megatron", anyone?) --NCZ 11:34, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- I think someone needs a timeout. ---Blackout- 12:02, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- I remember "history vid Megatron"! According to a history video in Animated, he was a Decepticon during Animated's Great War. He looked like he commanded at least a platoon or something. - Starfield 12:19, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- You know very fucking well what I am talking about, don't act like a ten-year-old. I do not mean that important characters fiction wise (as in appearing in more than one piece of fiction in one universe) shouldn't have pages, they do have pages that account what they are important in. I mean not have pages about characters like the Muhammad or Jesus page that have no significance whatsoever in any piece of fiction. If they were more important in another piece of fiction, then they could have pages. What I want is quality control that isn't headed by ten-year-olds or anal people. --LokitheGrammarNazi 11:29, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- Um, yes it does. If someone mentions Jesus in Transformers, that means that Jesus is in the Transformers universe? That'd be like if there was a standalone story where someone mentions how Bumblebee is a great scout, but Bumblebee doesn't appear otherwise. Does that mean Bumblebee doesn't exist? And there's a difference between making an article for someone who has no name, personality, or role, and making an article for someone who has a name and has a role hinted at. (We wouldn't make an article for a generic with no dialogue who's just there in the background, but we WOULD make an article for Bumblebee since he was named and we know that he's a scout.) And what if someone was curious about what Buzz Aldrin did in the Transformers world? Wikipedia wouldn't have that. --NCZ 11:24, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- Saying something like, "What would Jesus do?" is not making them in-universe. Besides, the pages always stay shitty and are just bytes of worthless space-taking crap. What if the wiki made a whole page for every single obscure character that happened to be seen in a passing glance of the camera? The whole wiki would be have millions of pages of crap that nobody cares about. Besides, if somebody wanted to read about Buzz aldrin, they could just go to wikipedia. --LokitheGrammarNazi 11:21, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- I'm tired of seeing useless perpetually incomplete pages for trivial as fuck foil characters that usually were only mentioned in the movie or even movie novelization in question and have no real story signifigance at all. I respectfully say nay to more character pages like this and I would recommend deleting such pages that are already created, such as the Mohammud page. --LokitheGrammarNazi 11:14, 14 December 2010 (EST)
- And in any case, we already have a Neil Armstrong page, per Ghosts of Yesterday. So I'll ask my question here: how much do we want to put into that article? -- SFH 14:42, 10 December 2010 (EST)
- I dunno, I think all promotional stuff still counts as "fiction" under our mandate. While they shouldn't be on the main cast list, I wouldn't be opposed to making articles on them and making some mention of them on the article. —Interrobang 14:16, 10 December 2010 (EST)
- And we don't know if (though unlikely) they are main cast. And save their page for another day. --TX55TALK 12:00, 10 December 2010 (EST)
Astronomical/Apollo Errors in Trailer
The trailer seems to suggest that, after it landed, Apollo 11 passed around to the dark side of the moon, or out of radio range, or something. This is, of course, nonsense, since the moon doesn't rotate with respect to Earth. If the trailer counts as canon, do we want to start an errors section for this? JW 14:59, 13 December 2010 (EST)
- I think it is canon. That was strange. That looked like a real clip from Walter Cronkite, but maybe it was spliced together from different reports. Or maybe it was actually from before the landing when they were still in orbit. They sort of undercut the impact of the radio silence bit when mission control was still able to communicate with them. Maybe it was Sector 7 technology? - Starfield 15:19, 13 December 2010 (EST)
- My reading of the trailer was that the astronauts WALKED to the far side of the moon once the feed was cut, explored, and then returned all within 21 minutes. Which is just as ridiculous. --ItsWalky 15:24, 13 December 2010 (EST)
- You could be right. I was thrown off by one image where they were right next to the lander when they were "dark on the rock". That was probably out of sequence. Then again, being a movie trailer, the whole thing may be various images and dialog thrown together without regard to sequence. - Starfield 15:34, 13 December 2010 (EST)
- But did they go to the dark side? I took "dark on the rock" to mean that communications were nil, that they were "in the dark", as it were. A figurative phrase, not literal. After all - you can SEE the Earth in the sky behind the spaceship! That couldn't be the dark side! - Chris McFeely 16:02, 13 December 2010 (EST)
- Cronkite says "We now have had confirmation of loss of signal from Apollo 11. Apollo 11 is on the far side of the moon". - Starfield 16:07, 13 December 2010 (EST)
- "Apollo 11" is the name of the mission, which involved the Columbia rocketship and the Lunar module that landed. The Columbia was in lunar orbit while Buzz and Neil were on the surface of the planet. The Columbia part of Apollo 11 definitely could have been on the far side of the moon, unless it, was, like, circling the exact circumference of the moon that we can see from Earth. --ItsWalky 16:13, 13 December 2010 (EST)
- Mind, the actual "dark side of the moon" where the Autobot spaceship had crashed sure had a lot of friggin' light about and plenty of crisp shadows. --ItsWalky 16:09, 13 December 2010 (EST)
- I tried to find out if the lander bounced signals off the Columbia but my Google skills failed me. - Starfield 16:18, 13 December 2010 (EST)
- I'm pretty sure the whole "Dark of the Moon", "dark on the rock" thing is figurative, to both describe the mystery on the Moon and NASA's real reason for traveling there, rather than literally "the Ark crashed on the dark side of the moon, and the dark side of the moon is a short walk from Tranquility Base." This article suggests that Columbia served as the communications link between Eagle and Earth. Wish I could find a better article or source, but my google-fu is not great. --FFN 06:50, 22 December 2010 (EST)
- Even taking that as figurative, the trailer shows the Earth close to the horizon, when it should be nearly directly overhead. It also appears to move between shots only a short time apart. JW 06:55, 22 December 2010 (EST)
- Yea, it doesn't look like an actual error, except the movie makers wanted the Earth in every shot (I don't blame them). But the trailer doesn't make it clear that the Columbia is a communications link or anything like that so it is confusing. If it wasn't on the far side of the Moon, I don't see how they could have kept it secret. Anyone with a big enough telescope would be able to see it, I would think. At least observatories. - Starfield 11:19, 22 December 2010 (EST)
- Even taking that as figurative, the trailer shows the Earth close to the horizon, when it should be nearly directly overhead. It also appears to move between shots only a short time apart. JW 06:55, 22 December 2010 (EST)
- Cronkite says "We now have had confirmation of loss of signal from Apollo 11. Apollo 11 is on the far side of the moon". - Starfield 16:07, 13 December 2010 (EST)
- But did they go to the dark side? I took "dark on the rock" to mean that communications were nil, that they were "in the dark", as it were. A figurative phrase, not literal. After all - you can SEE the Earth in the sky behind the spaceship! That couldn't be the dark side! - Chris McFeely 16:02, 13 December 2010 (EST)
- You could be right. I was thrown off by one image where they were right next to the lander when they were "dark on the rock". That was probably out of sequence. Then again, being a movie trailer, the whole thing may be various images and dialog thrown together without regard to sequence. - Starfield 15:34, 13 December 2010 (EST)
- My reading of the trailer was that the astronauts WALKED to the far side of the moon once the feed was cut, explored, and then returned all within 21 minutes. Which is just as ridiculous. --ItsWalky 15:24, 13 December 2010 (EST)
MEGATRON IN DARK OF THE MOON
I have been looking around the internet about Transformers 3, and everywhere says that Megatron is returning for Transformers 3 as a Mack Titan Tanker Truck, I know that Michael Bay hasen't released any news yet on any Decepticons apart from Shockwave, but if Hasbro didn't release the pictures of the Megatron tanker truck toy, how the hell did they get on the internet, even Leader Class Ironhide pictures are around. Does anyone think that megatron should be added to the Decepticons? Thanks Plo Koon 1
- It's most likely a stolen prototype from a factory, and NO, Megatron will not be added until Hasbro or Michael Bay or some other official source says he's in. --NCZ 12:42, 27 December 2010 (EST)
- Kindly go away and never return. This is all you do, come here once a movie is in production and either add stolen info, or rant on talk pages about how we should add stolen info, and frankly I am sick of it. --Detour 15:13, 27 December 2010 (EST)
Why don't you go look up some more information and get adding to the page instead of waiting for Michael Bay's and Hasbro's precious information.
