Jump to content

Talk:Transformers One

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because we've literally already had this discussion and this article is not plagiarised from yours. Like, what part is plagiarised? The part where it has more information, more sources, and is properly cited? PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 February 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 15:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers One (film) → Transformers One – There is no other article with this name to differentiate with by adding "(film)". Page might be result of move from draftspace, but Transformers One was already used as a redirect. IAmNMFlores (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute May 2024

[edit]

@HannibalSnow:It's clear this dispute is going nowhere and we are just going to keep reverting each others edits, so I want to bring this to an end right now. I would rather the page be like this, but you want it like this. My justifications are as follows:

  • For the removal of the logo: Film logo's are usually not featured in the body of articles, unless there is a significant reason to do so
  • Removal of Transformers characters from cast: Characters appearing in a film is not "Voice cast" information. Wait till we know who voices them
  • Removal of installment no.: It is not a part of that main Transformers series. According to the director, they do not even share continuity.
  • Premise: I do not even need to tell you that content should match the source.

If you do not respond to this and just continue to revert my edits, than I will have to bring in a third party to come and help resolve things Zingo156 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legobro99 is still edit warring over this in July[1] Why does any of this need to be highlighted in the lead section at all? The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the key points and not give undue weight to trivial details. The key points are that this film is animated (not live action) and that it tells an origin story set on Cybertron. The alleged chronology of the franchise is irrelevant (DiBonaventura is obviously going to say whatever he thinks is most likely to get people to see the movie) and only Legobro99 seems to feel that is necessary to force this verbiage into the lead section. We cannot even be sure about how it all connects (or fails to follow existing chronology) until it is actually released. It is simply not important information for any normal reader encyclopedia reader and Legobro99 is doing readers no favors by forcing it into the lead section. -- 109.79.169.204 (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to side with you. There is so much information contradicting that statement in the films, and I think basing the lead on the word of a single producer is silly. Zingo156 (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Buscemi as Starscream

[edit]

The Hollywood Handle (Who is currently at SDCC - Where TF: One is being previewed), just announced via Twitter that Steve Buscemi had been cast as Starscream, is someone able to update the article to reflect this new information?

Thanks! Catalyst GP real (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legobro99

[edit]

You need to stop edit warring over Transformers One, Transformers (film) isn't connected to Transformers One in any way at all, No Reliable sources could not be found at all. Untamed1910 (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://collider.com/transformers-one-chris-hemsworth-optimus-prime-lorenzo-di-bonaventura-comments/ Legobro99 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what part of that Collider article Legobro99 thinks helps support his point but it is irrelevant and totally unnecessary to keep forcing tedious long winded verbiage about continuity into the WP:LEAD section of this encyclopedia article. Variations of this edit war have been going on for a while and Legobro99 did not stop then either, this problem seems unlikely to stop anytime. -- 109.79.169.204 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow do you literally believe lorenzo di Bonaventura is reliable source, he literally knows jack shit and lost all his credibility when he started obsessing over the bay movies and that they all have to connected which there ain't Adam p. Hardy (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading "standing ovation"

[edit]

A version of the film was previewed at the Annecy Film festival. The section was later modified without any discussion or explanation (diff) to mention that the film received a "standing ovation" at this festival. Unfortunately without further information and proper cultural context this is wildly misleading. The cultural context is that French film festival goers frequently give standing ovations to filmmakers and guests, such applause is not a rare occurrence as it would be elsewhere. When industry publications like Variety report on such standing ovations they frequently have to explain how long the standing ovation actually lasted for context so that readers familiar with the industry can guess if it measures up to other occasions. Although I'm sure this added in good faith but for this _encyclopedia article_ it is out of context puffery and including it is not at all a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. It would be better to revert it entirely (diff) or trim back to the just the part "with audience and social media reactions reportedly being positive." -- 109.79.169.204 (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I think I'm going to cut it out entirely. Zingo156 (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- 109.76.138.125 (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"IGN IS A STUPID SOURCE FOR REVIEWS"

[edit]

I recently posted a edit on the critical response section, including IGN's less than receptive response to the film, and it was deleted claiming IGN is a "stupid source for reviews".

This doesn't seem like a good nor valid enough reason to warrant a deletion, right? I don't want to particularly undo the deletion from the previous user just yet to prevent claims of edit warring without a third opinion.Tubeyou0417 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't spell IGNorant without IGN!
(diff) IGN is not the best choice of review and I would encourage editors to instead pick from any of the industry journals listed by Metacritic or from the top critics listed by Rotten Tomatoes. Despite that IGN is what Wikipedia considers a reliable source WP:IGN and the review is an WP:RSOPINION that has been clearly attributed so the anon IP editor had no valid reason to remove it. Deleting a review from IGN was not a constructive edit so I have reverted the deletion. I would still encourage editors to add better reviews from other sources e.g. Variety[2] or The Hollywood Reporter[3] -- 109.76.198.63 (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Budget $147 million

[edit]

Template:Infobox film budget clearly states "If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range."
Please also note WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article" yet again the article body fails to mention the budget figure, as editors have added information to the Infobox without _first_ adding it to the article body.

According to Animationmagazine.net this movie cost $147 million to produce.[4] Several other sources say the film cost $75 million. It is unclear why this other reference was removed, it seems as if may have been removed against policy only because it was an outlier. -- 109.76.198.63 (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that both Variety and Deadline are part of Penske Media Corporation and it isn't surprising to seem them both using the same numbers (also it wouldn't be surprising if Variety posted an entirely different budget figure next week without ever issuing a correction or explanation, they've done it before). Box Office Mojo[5] and The-Numbers.com[6] do not list any budget figures yet. It would not be surprising for a film to be greenlit at one number and the final cost ending up much higher, especially for a film that had been in production since 2020 and all the delays and challenges that might bring. I see no good reason to presume that an interview by Animation Magazine with producer and director wouldn't have accurate figures, and the budget figure of $147 million is quite specific, so I've added both figures to the production section. If editors feel it needs to be made clearly the sources could be overtly mentioned directly in the article text but having everything referenced seemed clear enough. -- 109.76.199.27 (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalized[7] for no apparent reason, but thankfully soon restored[8]. I do not understand why someone would delete facts supported by references without any explanation or discussion. -- 109.77.195.4 (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to state that if those budget figures are correct, I do hope that the movie does not bomb considering how much work went into making it. Nosehair2200 (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Transformers are are bomb proof, and Hasbro will keep making shows because they help sell each new wave of toys. CBR.com is already asking if it is flop and outlining some of the possible causes.[9] The disappointing[10] opening weekend gross might be is a problem though, it seems to indicate this film is already a flop even if the budget was only $75 million. Most movies aim to recoup about half their budget in the opening weekend, and audiences (on average) tend to get smaller by about half every week. Losing the premium format screens to The Wild Robot is another factor limiting the profitability of Transformers One. It is difficult to know if this movie will have legs[11] but an animated family movie like this might stay in cinemas longer and slowly accumulate ticket sales from positive word of mouth, but it might be gone before Halloween and miss out. The UK release isn't until October 11 (and various other European releases) the international gross should get a bump then. We will have to wait and see. -- 109.76.134.139 (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds crazy to have to say this but somehow there are people who are taking the existence of the budget range as personal insult, and persistently vandalizing the budget figures in the Infobox[12] which has belatedly resulted in the article being locked. The Animationmagazine.net interview appears to be reliable, which is why the information was included. (Thanks again to the editors who restored this information.) If more sources become available we can always discuss further. The cost a film was greenlit at and the negative cost and the final cost including distribution and marketing costs can be very different. This encyclopedia is supposed to include figures from reliable sources and explain as best as possible what they represent, which is why the documentation expressly warns against cherry picking or excluding figures. If editors believe the article body needs to do a better job explaining what the figures represent then please raise that for discussion but deleting figures from the Infobox is not constructive. -- 109.77.194.81 (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers One canonicity

[edit]

I guess this discussion was inevitably going to happen, so let's get it over with. Does Transformers One actually take place in the same continuity as the live-action films? So far, the main person backing this claim up is Lorenzo Di Bonaventura, the film's main producer so he does have credibility. But no other significant figure involved in production has said that it is canon to the Micheal Bay films nor has Paramount themselves explicitly said anything of that nature in any press releases or statements related to the film.

This is only a discussion because it is affecting the lead paragraph of the article. Personally, I think we should leave any mentions of it possibly being canon or not out of the lead for now. It's why when expanding the Writing section of the article, I specifically worded it as "According to di Bonaventura, the film's events are set 3 billion years before the live-action films" rather than just "The film's events are set 3 billion years before the live-action films. I would like to hear everyone's opinion on this matter. Zingo156 (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many elements pointing to this film taking place in the Bayverse include di Bonaventura's comment about the film taking place 3 billion years before the live-action films and he has also discussed potential sequels explaining the translation from Chris Hemworth's Optimus Prime voice to Peter Cullen's by the end of the story.
This, along with featuring the involvement of other people from the live-action films should be enough to certify this as part of the Bayverse.
One final note, the film is included on the "Transformers" film series Wikipedia page. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all from di Bonaventura's comments and nothing is set in stone. People from the live-action films having credits does not confirm canonicity either. Zingo156 (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i don't see why it wouldn't be. referring it to at least "an installment in the transformers film series" should be enough to alert people. and given that there are sequels to rise of the beasts, a GI joe crossover film, and two sequels to this happening in the future, i don't see a reason to suddenly stop referring to these films as a collective. if we're going off reboot comments, then the pages for bumblebee and rise of the beasts should also have their connecting sentences removed, as those films are also considered standalone entries / reboots. Flyless Kyle (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to think you are factually correct User:Flyless Kyle from a production point of view they are all definitely all part of the one series. User:Zingo156 is also right, the continuity is not as clear as we might like, the producers have never let continuity get in the way of selling the next movie. The loose continuity of this series remains contentious, fans who don't believe you will slow edit war over this for years to come. I've seen it before and the slow dumb edit war over the wording of the lead section of the BumbleBee film article still flares up occasionally (I'd remove the compromise wording there if I could but it is too entrenched). Based on that past experience I would recommend this encyclopedia article avoid contentious wording as much as possible and suggest instead that it would be best if the WP:LEAD would "summarize the most important points" of the article. The fact that this film happened to be the eight produced isn't a particularly important detail, more important is that the lead section clearly and concisely state other more essential details such as this being an animated film and it tells an origin story set on Cybertron. Keep the lead section simple, leave it out. -- 109.79.67.198 (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled upon this article where di Bonaventura elaborated on the supposed "connection" between Transformers One and the Bay installments. Nothing of what he said here implies they take place in the same universe so for now I think we can throw the argument of it being canon in the bin. Zingo156 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They want to have their cake and eat it too. They're saying whatever they think will bring in audiences. Here's di Bonaventura again[13] making it as clear as mud:

“If you could say a two-billion-year-ago story is a prequel, then I guess it is,” di Bonaventura says. “But the truth is it’s really a standalone film. Right?

He wants people to go see the film and is trying to keep it ambiguous to allow people to subjectively believe what they want to believe, in contrast Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia based on objective facts. This means obsessive fans are going to edit war over their preferred version forever, and we'd be better off avoiding it as much as possible. -- 109.77.194.81 (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Edition: Transformers One

[edit]

Plot

[edit]

Cybertron is a planet inhabited by sentient robots fueled by a substance called Energon and fitted with transformation cogs, devices that allow them to transform into vehicles. In the city of Iacon, Orion Pax, a mining robot without a cog, sneaks into an archive and watches a documentary on the Primes, the original Cybertronians made directly by their creator Primus. Security guards catch Orion, but his best friend D-16 bails him out. Later, a cave-in occurs in the Energon mine where the two work, trapping fellow miner Jazz. While Orion and D-16 save him, their superior, Elita-1, is blamed for the incident, demoted and put in jail.

Cybertron's leader, Sentinel Prime, returns from an expedition to the planet's surface, claiming to have fought off invading Quintesson aliens, and organizes a race in celebration. To prove themselves as more than miners, Orion and D-16 enter the race with pep talk from Sentinel Prime for money using jet packs but to lose the race. While being grateful for the two boosting mining morale, he (Sentinel Prime) offers to reward them. Darkwing, who hates the two, but knows Sentinel Prime's shrewdness, has them reassigned to garbage incineration disobeying Sentinel's commands. They meet the eccentric B-127 and pay back his money using the reward. After long hours working the incenerator, they discover a chip among the junk containing a distress message from Alpha Trion, one of the Primes. Trion reveals that Jazz betrayed the Primes and has secretly been working for the Quintessons, giving them regular Energon supplies in exchange for letting him rule Cybertron while removing the miners' cogs to keep them subservient. Orion Pax gives Darkwing the cogs and asks him to sue Jazz for treason. Sentinel and his forces capture Jazz.

Meanwhile, the duo, Pax and D-16, travel to the surface of their planet to organise a covert reconnaisance mission and investigate the alien Quintesson aliens in place of Sentinel Prime. They are discovered by the Quintessons and killed on the spot.

The spirits of Primus and the Primes bestow Orion with the Matrix of Leadership, reviving him as Optimus Prime. Soon a peace treaty is formed between the Iacon and Cybertron, restoring Cybertron's dried-up Energon rivers and the miners' cogs. Optimus christens his teammate D-16 and followers as Autobots and sends a message warning the Quintessons to stay away. 115.98.235.221 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing we replace the summary with Fanfiction? Sorry. But Wikipedia isn't a place for fanfiction.CRBoyer 17:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TF hype guy

[edit]

I really think he deserves some recognition here. Like that guy, out of his own free will AND for free handled literally the most of the marketing. There are two articles about him already. So honestly I want to make a suggestion to add him here SolarisInSpace (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second this, though I think one or two sentences should be more than enough - no need to wax poetic, just a simple description of what happened and how he blew up, that sort of thing. W0nderhat (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Show your sources. In theory it is possible that a meme or online fad might rise to the level of being worth mentioning in the marketing section but I doubt it, it unlikely is something that will have lasting impact in years to come (and is more likely to be even less memorable than the Pepsi Burger King etc sponsorship of the first film). Merely being mentioned a few times in minor online publications is probably not a enough, if it gets enough attention to be commented on by mainstream publications then maybe. It all comes back to reliable sources WP:RS. -- 109.77.199.70 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://thestreamr.com/2024/10/07/transformers-hype-guy-interview/ (First Article about TF hype guy)
https://thehollywoodhandle.co/2024/movies/movie-news/will-a-transformers-one-sequel-happen/ (Second article about TF hype guy)
https://x.com/ScheierJason/status/1850771940505526352?t=GM17AdzOsK86BOh9ZKSUhw&s=19 (One of the creators of the film about tf hype guy, expressing his gratitude for marketing the film without anything in return)
Sure, this is an encyclopedia. And I do not expect you to consider putting a whole segment about him here. But after the fight he put for the film and it's possible sequel, I believe he deserves as much as a slight mention. Because I believe he did a lot, hyping people for the film and doing it all out of passion and love for the franchise alone. 37.30.36.102 (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two non-mainstream publications and a twitter mention from one of the crew (Jason William Scheier, Production Designer on Transformers One), while i can see this was a fun thing that happened on the internet and briefly gained some attention I don't think it is has received mainstream attention or is a key detail that encyclopedia readers need to know about. (This isn't Pauline Kael championing Bonnie and Clyde despite other critics, this is an apparently random guy on the internet doing free guerilla marketing for a film that pretty much everyone has already said is good.) Instead of trying to highlight random guy, it would be far better if this encyclopedia could instead do more to give recognition to the people who worked on the film, and for example how people like Production Designer Jason William Scheier, collaborated with director Josh Cooley to decide the look of the film. -- 109.79.166.198 (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while I understand your point of view, I don't think it would hurt to put in just one sentence of appreciation underneath the marketing section to that "random" guy that did a lot to advertise the movie in the most creative way. It also doesn't seem like Wikipedia pages have limits to their lengths, so why exclude one in favor of the other, when you can just put it all into the article? 37.30.33.178 (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not something I would add because I would expect other editors to remove it sooner or later. I'm not trying to push my own personal opinion so much as I am trying to make it clear that this is an encyclopedia and that other editors will probably follow the normal rules and want to add serious details about the process of making the film. I do not think most editors would want to add a fun marketing thing that happened on Twitter and I am not sure things that happened on Twitter are really what most readers want to know about when they come to an encyclopedia article about a film. Due to the persistent vandalism of the budget range the article is locked (and likely to keep getting locked) but when the article is briefly unlocked you could always try and add it yourself or if you don't want to wait you could make a specific {{edit semi-protected}} request before then. I'm simply saying that I expect other editors would revert remove or reject any such proposed changes because TFHype guy has not been discussed by any important or mainstream sources and it is would be undue to give it attention. But other opinions exist, you can still try, fun things have survived in articles for a really long time but ultimately I wouldn't expect it to survive the scrutiny of a Good article review. Best of luck. -- 109.79.165.199 (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transformers_One&oldid=1255560716"