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.

	Talk:Dark of the Moon (film) Archives
Archive 1

TITLE

Looks like we've got a 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)

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 agree with this comment. Also, now we have a title, is it time to add it to the left-hand navigation menu? --abates 19:16, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Save it for the Japanese release info. "Ironically enough, not a great big Convoy rockin' through the night." -hx 19:30, 7 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)

According to the teaser trailer, at least in Latin America, the international title of the movie is Transformers 3 (THANK GOD). Should we put it on the article?-ACIDSTORM92 03:28, 1 January 2011 (EST)

Are you sure it's the international title, or is it just the title in your area? Either way, it could be added somewhere in there I'm sure. Hero 00:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Scratch that, the new trailer calls the movie "El lado oscuro de la Luna" (Dark side of the moon), at least the movie looks awesome.-ACIDSTORM92 19:23, 8 May 2011 (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)

Fixed. I expect this slip-up to happen only 30,000 more times. --ItsWalky 13:03, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, mainly I was asking on the off chance that the other things we've found had accidentally left out the "side". --Khajidha 13:07, 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)

I thought we usually didn't do production sections though? What if it was placed in it's own section down at the bottom with the notes and trivia and such. Hero 00:20, 8 May 2011 (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)

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. --TX55^TALK 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)

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)

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)

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)

The term "Dark side of the moon" was a misnomer even before Transformers got hold of it. The dark side of the moon refers to the side of the moon that always faces away from Earth. But it gets just as much sunlight as the near side. It should rightly be called the FAR side of the moon.180.176.116.4 23:45, 22 April 2011 (EDT)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plo Koon 1 (talk • contribs).

Because we only use OFFICIAL information. If it doesn't come from Hasbro, Bay or another official source, it ISN'T information as far as we are concerned.--Khajidha 16:45, 27 December 2010 (EST)

Yeah, that's a great idea, let's post every single thing anonymous people post on Wikipedia, that's the best way to do research. Or post about stolen toys, thieves are always the best source of info. And then we'll have to take it down, because it turns out to be wrong. Or get crap from Hasbro, because it's stolen. That'll work out great. This Wiki is interested in getting things right, not first. The policy and the reasons for it have been explained quite clearly. - Cattleprod 16:53, 27 December 2010 (EST)

Ashton Kutcher

Just noticed, along with Ben Kingsley theres a spoof of the Heidi Montag audition by Ashton Kutcher. I can't put a link in though, as i have no idea how to.Burnout 11:40, 20 January 2011 (EST)Burnout

Just paste it!—TOM 13:05, 23 January 2011 (EST)

THE FIRST offical Images for DOTM Toys

Are these Officals right? http://www.asmzine.com/geekly-rewind/2011/01/28/toy-fair-uk-images-of-starscream-and-ironhide/ If so then its time to add these pics to Starscream and Ironhide Pages and make the DOTM Toyline Page well that its if anybody here considers these officals—Eagc7 28 January 2011 (EST)

Well, the article claims the pics are from Hasbro, but we better hold off until we're sure (as well as hold off on creating any 'MechTech' articles) - Zadok Rox 22:41, 28 January 2011 (EST)

ASM would be the last site in the world to lie about that. They're official, and they were delivered to most every Transformers website. I wouldn't be surprised if we got them too, but I'm not Monzo, so I couldn't tell you. --ItsWalky 22:48, 28 January 2011 (EST)

Yes, we received the images from Hasbro as well. --ItsWalky 02:23, 29 January 2011 (EST)

Thank You, Jesus, we finally got toy pics that aren't stolen prototypes! :D - Zadok Rox 14:19, 29 January 2011 (EST)

Ratchet and Ironhide

i think we should add ratchet and Ironhide in the cast and character list sicne the 2 were in the trailer and the trailer like an Offical Source—Eagc7

Laserbeak (?)

A bird-robot was also in the trailer.--TOM 19:51, 9 February 2011 (EST)

Looked more dragon-y than bird-y to me. --KilMichaelMcC 20:03, 9 February 2011 (EST)

Either way, the wiki isn't much of a place for speculation so whoever it is is moot until we get an official toy listing or promotional render. --Detour 20:07, 9 February 2011 (EST)

Indeed, Detour. It could be Laserbeak, or Buzzsaw, or something new. Could it be Laserbeak? Most likely, yes. However, like Detour said, TFwiki.net doesn't deal with "most likely". Be patient, folks; we'll find out soon enough (the movie will be out in five months and we might find out officially before then). - Zadok Rox 21:40, 9 February 2011 (EST)

Whatever. If the toy we've seen resembling it is the same character, it must have two modes: condor mode and dragon mode. - CAJH 19:35, 13 March 2011 (EST)

The same character (or an identical one) in the game is confirmed as Laserbeak. Is that sufficient enough to list him as a film character?
- ¡Usa El Queso! 2:58 PM, 27 March 2011 A.D.

Confirmed where? By whom? --Khajidha 15:45, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Well, it WAS on the page for the DOTM game, but it isn't anymore, so I'm guessing that was incorrect.

- ¡Usa El Queso! 5:04 PM, 27 March 2011 A.D.

I removed it from there as there was no source listed. --Khajidha 17:10, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

New guys?

Just a question. From the Superbowl trailer you can see that there are some "already dead" guys. I mean Barricade°(here it isnt really certain), Long Haul and (desert) Brawl. Should these be added into the list of appeared characters, since they wereofficially revealed via trailer? --194.228.147.9 21:12, 11 February 2011 (EST)

No. Just because they look like the old characters doesn't mean they are. More there's no reason to list nameless characters we know nothing about. Be patient. Plenty of time after the movie is out. We're in no rush.--ZacWilliam 21:19, 11 February 2011 (EST)

(That was not Barricade, but Sideways. Well, *a* Sideways.) --ItsWalky 11:01, 20 February 2011 (EST)

You recognized Long Haul and Brawl? You mean like how we recognized Blackout in ROTF? --Andrusi 12:04, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Because of Hasbro's action figures, we knew that there was a Blackout lookalike named "Grindor" from the start. Until Hasbro reveals some alternate names for these guys, I think we can feel safe keeping them under the umbrella of their known names, like we did and do with ROTF's Constructicons. --ItsWalky 12:22, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Long Haul and Brawl do have same-body-type buddies from the toyline--Payload and Tankor respectively. --Andrusi 12:33, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Yes, but all of the green Long Hauls are accounted for on Long Haul's page. This is just another green Long Haul, and we should treat it as such until we know differently. --ItsWalky 12:42, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Crankcase, Ratchet, etc

Dudes, if we have a trailer and a Toy Fair, and we see vehicle modes that we know belong to movie characters, and we see those vehicle modes that belong to movie characters transform into the robot modes of said movie characters I really think we need to get beyond the "we pretend we don't know anything" schtick. --ItsWalky 10:59, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Also, the whole "what if this is not the real Crankcase and the real Crankcase is elsewhere" is an argument that predicates on the idea that the "real" Crankcase is in the film. And if there IS no "real" Crankcase in the film, then this "generic" BECOMES the "real" Crankcase. Either way, he's in the damn film. --ItsWalky 11:07, 20 February 2011 (EST)

FurtherFURTHERmore, the fact that the counterargument has gone from "it's just an SUV" to "it's just a robot" to "it's just a robot mode that looks like Crankcase's" as this goes on just feels like this is a counterargument based not on facts but on obstinate reluctance. --ItsWalky 11:12, 20 February 2011 (EST)

And to put a final nail in the coffin, there were several Long Hauls in Revenge of the Fallen, but they were all accounted for on Long Haul's page as Long Haul. --ItsWalky 11:16, 20 February 2011 (EST)

I think if this passes based on this argument, then everyone in charge of this site better remember this when others are putting up information using the same reasoning. Karhukjnsi 15:23, 20 February 2011 (EST)

New Chevy Beat/Spark 'Bots (?)

Nelson said that a Chevy Spark spotted on set was not Skids, but a new character.--TOM 20:11, 25 February 2011 (EST)

We'll get to it when official information comes out. --Lonegamer78 23:30, 25 February 2011 (EST)

So, Nelson isn't a trustable source?--TOM 17:19, 4 March 2011 (EST)

There's literally not enough information to do anything with. What do you want, a page for Unnamed Chevy Spark character who might just be one of the Twins, we aren't sure yet? - Cattleprod 17:46, 4 March 2011 (EST)

Those Sparks were seen in trailer, but I still don't believe non-appearance of the Twins being misinformation. Characters were said to be cut off from the film, but the vehicles not. --CAJH 9:24, 2 May 2011 (EST)

If their vehicles appear, the characters are in the film. Please don't revert again. --ItsWalky 02:31, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

CAJH, considering how much Bay lied about Megatron not coming back in ROTF, and his (and Nelson's) claims about the Twins not coming back in DOTM (despite all evidence to the contrary), we're better off including them based upon what we can actually see rather than they tell us. --FFN 03:33, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

Is Mirage really in DOTM???

I saw that Mirage was added to the cast list (as of 11:09 pm EST on April 8th, 2011). Besides the Speed Star toy of Mirage, is there any actual evidence that the red Ferrari in DOTM is Mirage? I think the addition is a bit premature (I was about to undo the addition, but I thought I would play it safe). - Zadok Rox 23:13, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

We're not exactly sure yet, so leaving him off for now is probably for the best. --FFN 01:28, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Brains

Some believe that Brains might become the Einstein-Mercedes-bot, but I don't think so. Bay confirmed Brains being small in film too. What would you think that Einstein-bot be, if he's not Brains? --CAJH 12:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

More than likely just an early head design for Wheeljack. But we'll know for sure when the movie's out or more promotional renders are revealed. --Detour 06:00, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

Brains is in the "Rising Storm" comic prequel. He's a tiny hatchling guy that Bumblebee and Sam escort. Wheeljack is a separate dude who looks like Wheeljack. --ItsWalky 10:23, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

And if Wheeljack ever is that Mercedes-bot, it's very understandable that he would be different in film. Shockwave and Sentinel were too different in comic adaptations. And do not forget Mirage, though it's not officially confirmed, if he is the Ferrari-bot or not. And Brains we'll see in film looks definitely different than Brains we saw in comics.--CAJH 14:28, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Darkside Moon

I am a fan of these two titles because they have that "crazy" factor to them. That said...

I notice there's exactly one dot in those there katakana. I don't suppose it's actually "Darkside Moon", eh? You see "Darkside" here and there, really. 174.111.86.22 09:53, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Maybe. could be. Anyone else think it should be changed to "Darkside Moon" as opposed to the "Dark Side Moon" title that I originally wrote? --Sabrblade 16:04, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Trailer

http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-trailer-172021/ It also seems that Simmons lost a leg, and there are many Crankcases--Primo 19:46, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

I think he broke his leg, but anyway people can see the video for themselves so we don't need to mention stuff in it here. If you want to discuss the content of the video, you should take it to a forum. --FFN 19:48, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

Washington Post thing

That video is from 2010. Why did you date it April 30, 2011? Also, it's probably too plot point spoilery for us to use. --FFN 19:36, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

Avon sweepstakes

Looks like Avon's having a contest to meet Patrick Dempsey at the premier of DotM. Link here. Worth mentioning on the page? (Started last week if you want to add this to the timeline) -King Starscream 09:13, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

I personally don't think it should be added to the film article of the DOTM franchise, but this is unique in that Avon is having this contest without (as far as I know) having any merchandise tie-ins. Perhaps it could be noted on the main DOTM franchise article page as well as on the Patrick Demsey article. Either way, this is note-worthy. - Zadok Rox 09:28, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Hatchet is he,in the film?

Is it just me or should we add him because somebody add the "more info will pop up in July,1,2011" box-thing,just sayin' - Dinodigger97,May-4-2011

If you mean Ratchet, he is already in the cast list. --abates 20:33, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Actually, there's a new Decepticon named Hatchet, so I think that's who he meant. -- SFH 21:05, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

D'oh! Sorry, hard to keep up with all these new dudes. --abates 21:30, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

To answer your question Dinodigger97, no, we don't know. I'm not sure why Hatchet's article has a fiction section already, as there has been no indication that he is in the movie. --FFN 01:34, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Amazon comic spoilers

Could we please not get all excited about the spoiled comic adaptation pages on Amazon and rush off to the wiki? I think CAJH even cited Alientraveller's edits with a flickr account (with, I presume, pages of the comic). I wasn't about to spoil myself to look, so I just reverted everything. --FFN 11:33, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

For that matter, the comic adaptations of the movie are usually done from earlier versions of the script, and aren't guaranteed to reflect the movie itself. If we must document every little nugget, those spoilers would more properly go on the comic adaptation's page.--Rosicrucian^Talk 11:42, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Sorry guys, I concur as Amazon.com has apparently removed those pages (and TFW followed suit). Just a shame I still can't find a source to confirm the name of Shockwave's pet, or Dempsey's character for this page. Alientraveller 11:45, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

... did you just mention a spoiler? --FFN 12:22, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Maybe the comic adaptation has little differences with the film. But some elements like rest of the characters can't be different. But ok then. Let's wait at least until the release date. --CAJH 19:43, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Why couldn't the characters be different? Characters might appear in fight scenes in the comic with names and personalities yet be represented in the film only by an indistinguishable mass of duplicates of someone else. Thus, the Dreads in the movie might all be Crankcase doppelgangers but Hatchet might appear in the comic. --Khajidha 12:57, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Anyway, my main point for the revert was that the pages of the comics were apparently chock full of spoilers that were not supposed to be revealed yet (hence sites like TFW having to remove their news post). And even if Hasbro/Bay/Paramount didn't care (except they do), the wiki has a policy of avoiding overt spoilers for fiction until the release date. --FFN 13:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Dreads

Not trying to start a discussion with anybody, just pointing out: We already saw that there's a Black Dodge Charger, who's NOT Barricade, also we've seen that Hatchet is a Dread, and he has three other chances of appearing --Metroplex 14:19, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

What? Seen what? Why are you pointing this out here? --FFN 14:34, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

If you have something against this post, I have no problem in erasing it --Metroplex 18:06, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

Just wondering...

The 2007 TF film article used quotes from the 1986 movie, should I replace those with one of the prequels of Star Wars. (or, to be more specific, Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith) --Kaon Prisoner 16:27, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Do not alter the captions on the 2007 film article. --ItsWalky 16:29, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Or maybe other stuff from Ep 4. --Kaon Prisoner 16:30, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

At Walky: OK, I will [Not alter the quotes].

But still, quite stupid to quote the 1986 movie. --Kaon Prisoner 16:34, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

I've got an idea. Call our efforts stupid one more time and you can have a quite stupid ban. --ItsWalky 17:39, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

June 28 release?

I followed the link given for the release date, and that dateline site says it's coming out June 29, not 28. Is there something somewhere that suggests it's coming out on Tuesday instead? Magaroja 18:02, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Capone's AICN Review

Any thoughts regarding the first review of the movie?Ryantherebel 16:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

   -I think the review said the twins are in there, is it a reliable source to put in the confirmed?? (how do I sign posts?)

Regardless, the director of the film is a much more reliable source. And you sign your posts by typing "~~~~". (You may wish to review the Help pages.)

-¡Usa El Queso!

Foreign names

Serbian name for Dark of the Moon is: Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon, the only one with the "accurate" translation yet. Put it on the page in the Foreign names.DarkCon 12:57, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

That's the translation, but what is it in actual Serbian?--Khajidha 07:29, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

Transformers 3: Tama Meseca--DarkCon 20:04, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

Mirage

Should the whole mirage is not the ferrari be on this article? 68.197.232.80 15:48, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

Renaming Wheeljack and Mirage

now we know the names they will use the film, should we add some info of the change on theri pages or Rename their Pages?

If by "know", you mean "the same guy we didn't believe when he said it the first time just kept saying it", sure. - Chris McFeely 05:12, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

These sound like nicknames given to them by crew members who don't know the real names and don't really care. --Khajidha 09:47, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

Okay. but if the name changes turns out to be true Are you guys going to Consider them Seperate Characters Or you are Still Going to consider them the Same bots, depsite the Name change (like you guys did with Simmons Parents Pages)

See Brawl, also known as Devastator. And we eventually merged the Simmonses. —Interrobang 16:07, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

that means yes :P

Barricade

[1] Confirmation that he is in the film? Hope so -Kaine852 05:41, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

This time around, I'd say yes! - ¡Usa El Queso! 10:15 AM, 17 June 2011 A.D.

Considering the reused character models which happened both last movie (Grindor, the new Buffalo MPV 'Con) and in this movie (Sideways), I really wouldn't jump the gun so quickly on this. --Detour 10:53, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Ah, fair point. Yet those were instances of characters who had both died previously. Barricade has clearly been shown to be still alive. - ¡Usa El Queso! 11:44, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm not saying it's 100% totally not him, I'm saying they've reused character models in the past, so don't jump the gun and let's wait and see. --Detour 11:47, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Carly

Discussion moved to Carly's talkpage. - Starfield 10:16, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Superfund Armored Truck

So we still don't know the identity of the Superfund Armored Truck, Michael Bay, you're doing a great job -_- --Metroplex 09:27, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

Twins, Dino and Que

one guy in the tfw2005 site who saw the film says the twins appear for one Single scene in the film, the scene where they are seen in the trailer entering the NEST hangar, does this means they are TRULY in the film but for one scene link [2], Plus this guy confirmed WHeelajck and Dino are truly named Dino and Que[3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagc7 (talk • contribs).

At this point it's less than a day until the movie's out. There's not really much hurry to add new information when everyone will be able to see it, and the whole article will be restructured anyway. --abates 00:34, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Skids and Mudflap are in the film and should be listed as such. Bay only ever said that they don't PERFORM in the movie, which is true. --ItsWalky 10:51, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

McFeely coming down on the side of "Que" (god, I hate typing that) makes me question whether I'm the one who's wrong about "Q" being in the credits. Does anyone at all have my back on this independently? -LV 10:08, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Walky says he rewatched it and it's definitely "Que" in the credits. So against what I went on the rampage with earlier, these pages need to be changed back to the worst name in Transformers history. Sigh. (Yes, even worse than Rodimus Prime.) -LV 08:39, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Oh lord... I'd been told it was "Q" in the credits, which is why I'd changed the latest additions... Eugh. I guess they didn't want to make the James Bond similarities too blatant, but still, eugh. --Detour 08:50, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Silverbolt

So...he's just simply out of the movie and no James Avery in the end? --Jolt17 11:01, 29 June 2011

Seem so. --TX55^TALK 10:01, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

It's Out

So when somebody takes a break from watching the best movie over and over again can you please add the info to it.

Long Haul and Brawl in Dark of the Moon

I haven't seen the movie yet but when the Super Bowl trailer was released Decepticons resembling Long Haul and Brawl were spotted, do they appear in the final film as I haven't seen it yet? DOTM123 12:08, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Brawl was replaced by Long Haul, if I recall correctly. This is going by trailer footage, though. The tan Brawl wasn't in the later ones, with Long Haul replacing him in the wide shot so that it better matched who Prime was rampaging through in the closeup. --ItsWalky 13:37, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

On the subject of background 'Cons, I think I recall seeing one in Chicago with massive forearms that it walked on... Am I imagining things, and if not, was it a new model? Jalaguy

Here's what I'mma say on the subject of these generics.

• Brawl and Sideways - they're dead. Can't be them.
• Long Haul and Scrapper - Constructicons share body types. There are multiple iterations of each, and the DOTM appearance of these two should just be on the existing pages. Frankly, I've thought for a while the Constructicon pages could stand a bit of reworking to be about the body-types, rather than the individuals where applicable.
• Scalpel - he didn't die in ROTF. Sure, he died in the comic adaptation, but then, Barricade died in the TF1 adaptation, and Dino died instead of Que in the DOTM adaptation. So there's no saying with any certainty that Scalpel is dead, and one of those little guys could absolutely be him. He's turned up alive in Titan's post-ROTF fiction. - Chris McFeely 05:47, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

About bodytypes vs individuals: I've said that same thing about Swindle, Longarm, Dreadwing and co. from the first movie for a while but it seems to go unnoticed... --Detour 09:05, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

GI Joe/Transformers reference?

So, I just got back from seeing it, and all I'm wondering: Sam's actions against Starscream, would they fall under the Transformers References section as references to Snake-Eyes own actions against Starscream in GI Joe vs. the Transformers #5? Unlike a lot of other things people ask are references, this seems pretty blatant. Boy Blunderous 05:46, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Psht, you're silly. (I really wish this was an intentional reference, but all things considered, I really doubt those who worked on the script and shooting have read that story. Could be a ref, but not confirmed.) Antimatter 18:26, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Obscure Hard-To-See Decepticons

I've heard around that throughout the movie, a number of Decepticons are shown with vehicle modes and all, not just drones. For example, there's a 'Con that turns into a military Stryker with a robot-mode that looks like the Cloverfield monster, a random polic car (not Barricade, all white) and one that turns into a garbage truck, but it's robot looks like Long Haul. Did anyone else catch these Cannonfodder/Deadguy Decepticons? If so, do you have any pictures?

Silverbolt

Am I the only one who saw what might be Silverbolt lurking in the background when the Autobots are being exiled? --89.17.232.104 05:21, 3 July 2011 (EDT)