Talk:Transformers: The Last Knight

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


Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016[edit]

Under the subcategory of "Transformers", detailing the transformer robots that will be in "Transformers: The Last Knight", I would like to make a few additions:

" - Autobot Hound, who has presumably returned for the fifth film, has a possibly upgraded vehicular form as a Mercedez-Benz heavy-utility military truck - Barricade (or a likewise Ford Mustang police car Decepticon) is returning with an upgraded version of his previous Mustang vehicle form - An unidentified Decepticon taking the vehicle form of a rusty, gray Volkswagen microbus/van - An unidentified Decepticon taking the vehicle form of a green Heavy Westerner Wrecker/Tow Truck - An unidentified Decepticon taking the vehicle form of a black and silver motorbike

"

Here are my sources:

https://www.facebook.com/TransformersCars/

https://www.instagram.com/kraelauzon/

http://www.seibertron.com/news/index.php?f_cat=4

Thanks!

Vikapedia

Vikapedia (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Those sources are either fan-sites or personal accounts with no history of fact checking. Also photos take during a film shoot may or may not reflect what is the final edit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vikapedia - The rusty van Decepticon is Dreadbot.
-Tow truck Decepticon is Onslaught.
-And the bike one is Mohawk. SpyderFrydge (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is cogman? Original Sideswipe not dead Jt4062019 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved from DYK nomination section[edit]

This is TimPrime1. From what I've researched is that Hound is back as another vehicle. Sqweeks is actually spelled Squeeks. Crosshairs and Drift are back. We need to put Galvatron back on there as well since he's from the last film, made by humans. Three new Decepticons are on set. They are unknown, but needed to be added. They shall remain nameless, except for The Creator. He's a new Autobot. The three Decepticons are an old Volkswagen, a Western Star tow truck and a motorcycle. I'll make the changes if they're not applied. Please don't delete this as this is hard evidence. Watch Alex Hue of TheRaginNation on you tube and look the info online. Not to mention that The tow truck has Autobot and Human kills.

Note: TimPrime1, I have moved your comment from the section regarding the nomination for the article to appear in the "Did You Know?" section of Wikipedia's main page. That's because your comments seem to be about the content of the article in general, and not about the nomination. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not transformers Jt4062019 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Development" sub-section[edit]

Earlier today I removed the following line, which has just been reinserted by ZeEnergizer:

Voice actor Peter Cullen hopes that The Last Knight and its sequel will return and make more use of their original roots.

I cannot see how one actor's "hope" is relevant to the development of the film. One could infer that Cullen's opinion is that previous films have moved away from those roots, but I cannot see why it would belong in this section. It is also unclear what "roots" he is referring to; is it plot, direction, use of effects, or something else? I can't see the purpose of including the commentary. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Good Reason why. [1] ZeEnergizer (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the fact that he said it. But can you tell me why it is relevant for inclusion in the article? If it was a statement from the director saying that the new film will have a lighter tone, then I would agree that it is information worth including. But the opinion of one actor who admits he has no control over the development is less worthy of inclusion, isn't it? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just removed that line: a "hope" from a voice actor does not belong in "Development", since there is no evidence that it has affected the film's tone at all. Indeed, the actor was pointing out a place in the previous film where he was unable to have a dark line changed. I can't think of a place where it would belong, frankly. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filming section[edit]

I just now, for the second time (the first was on June 19), removed the following inaccurate line:

This is the second American film to be shot in Cuba after Fast 8.

This is not the second-ever American film shot in Cuba, nor even the second post-revolution-and-embargo American film to be shot in Cuba, and Fast 8 was not the first. That claim has been removed from the Fast 8 article because it was not accurate. It may possibly be the second major-studio American film to have scenes shot in Cuba since the recent loosening of the embargo, but I even that's in doubt, and even if true is neither interesting nor particularly germane. ZeEnergizer, before you attempt to reinsert the claim again, as you did on June 19, please explain why it should be included despite the contrary facts—which were discussed in the Did You Know nomination of Fast 8. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look I did'nt edit that. I just moved the Updated design confirmation of Bumblebee's Alternate mode to the Character section. ZeEnergizer (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ZeEnergizer, back on June 19, you restored the line as part of this edit. I was assuming it was a deliberate restoration on your part, but if I understand what you just said, it was an accident while undoing other edits. Please do be more careful in future. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah that. Well to be honest I got Carried away for that because the page has sadly became a Victim of Unsourced Fancruft & Vandalism. I just want this Page to be perfectly clean. ZeEnergizer (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop referring to this as Bay's "Last" Transformer Film[edit]

He has said he was done with the franchise for the past 2 Movies!

"Bay Confirms ‘Transfomers 3’ is His Last" http://screenrant.com/transformers-3-michael-bay-sentinel-prime/

"‘Transformers 4’ Will Be Bay’s Last" http://screenrant.com/transformers-4-cast-robots-michael-bay/

Just because he says it is his last doesn't mean it is. At the least, it should be qualified as "Bay has stated this will be last film in the franchise". Until Transformers 6 comes out and it is not directed by him, (and even then there is no guarantee he won't return) such conclusive statements should be avoided. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-kun (talk • contribs) 03:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Wiki-Kun I agree...stop saying this is Bay's last film for the film franchise!!!Although this is speculation there could be a Bumblebee solo film on Bay'slist featuring Bumblebee in the main character spotlight.Bumblebee's past in Bay's Transformers movie line has yet to be told and discovered.But perhaps there is a reason that I can go against in this discussion as well.Bay's films are not very popular in the Transformers universe and franchise...perhaps Bay's not making the profit he would of wished to have for TF5...sigh..of course that's just speculation for Bay's profit expectations...Hope I answered to your question!!!-ProxyMODS 😃😃😃 ProxyMODS (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 12 April 2017[edit]

TimPrime1 (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No actual edit has been requested. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 13 April 2017[edit]

Add Category:Films set in Hong Kong 86.165.246.236 (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no mention of Hong Kong anywhere in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Cybertron[edit]

Am I the only person aware of the fact that Steelbane is an Autobot and Dragonstorm is a Decepticon?

P.S. in the "Other" section, who/what are the unnamed transformers? I am wondering if Bay has remembered the ~7 missing autobots following Dark of the Moon. Thanks, -The2016 The2016 (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately not,The2016 but why people seem to think Steelbane is a a Decepticon instead of a Autobot and Dragonstorm as an autobot instead of a Decepticon is unknown to me... ProxyMODS (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infernocons[edit]

Shouldn't we include them to the character list? Their appearances matches with those robots sliced by Optimus with his sword. CAJH (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But instead of those smaller robots who combine into a larger robot named Infernocus, several robots sharing the body design of Infernocus was shown. CAJH (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Budget[edit]

We have multiple sources listing the budget at $217 million and many more listing it as $260 million. Infobox rules say to give a range and not favor one budget over the other. Foodles42 (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents, since this is essentially a difference in thoughts between me and Foodles42, is infobox should only have "official" budgets. Figures from articles 7 months ago while in still in production are speculatory. As for citing The Numbers, they are often off with their pre-release budgets; they had Arrival listed as $50 million for the longest time. All that being said, I'm fine if we list it as "$260 (gross)" and "$217 (net)"; I feel that would satisfy all parties. Either way, I won't lose sleep over the budget on the Wikipedia page of a Michael Bay film haha TropicAces (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The $260 million number is also in an article from yesterday. Not seven months ago, yesterday. You could change it to net & gross, but that is speculation. We don't know. Infobox rules are quite clear on this, don't cherry pick. If the numbers differ, list both. And that's how it is now. Foodles42 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop change budget. $260 milion is Fake News IDIOT. Are Just Speculation. The Numbers And Box Office Mojo confirms $217 milion budget. Tony Strak (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Strak: Please remain civil.--Kevin Dewitt Always ping 01:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is another sock puppet for Carlo Galanti. Foodles42 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Barr[edit]

Resolved

IMDB is not typically a reliable source for information because it is largely user-generated with minimal editorial oversight. In this article, Steven Barr's character under the "Autobots" section is listed as "Topspin". However, according to this IMDB page, Barr's character is really "Volleybot". Is there a better source for this? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about these. [2], [3]? 2600:1012:B05B:7861:C66:345E:385C:C20A (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Cineplex source should work. I've added it to the article. Thanks! "theflickfanatic.com" appears at first glance to be a self-published website, i.e. not reliable enough for Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the article as of its semi-protected status currently reflects a WP:POV and WP:OR violation. The current information in regards to Steven Barr's credit is not correctly cited by the Cineplex source. Steven Barr is indeed credited as voicing a character named Volleybot but the article currently reflects the assumption that the character's name is Topspin. That alteration is cited with what appears to be a wikia page (user edited content). This is essentially citing original research with more original research. Within the film itself the character is never referred to as Topspin and for the sake of upholding verifiability the article should reflect what is cited by Reliable Sources.2605:E000:AB8A:1600:9842:38EB:2376:B379 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that was your excuse for putting a whole bunch of fan nonsense in the article? "Noble"? "Eccentric"? Etc.? Drmies (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those weren't my intended edits. Indeed a manual reversion over the specified content above should have been executed in retrospect. The reversion was in regards to the alteration of cited material pertaining to Steven Barr's credited character name. User:EnergizerConvoy was altering cited content within the page as well as related pages with information that is not correctly cited by the sources that were originally provided, Cineplex among them. The user was also citing his alterations with what appears to be a wikia page he claimed to be an editor of. It appears the user was recently blocked for disruptive editing, including removing comments from talk pages and edit-warring. I did not intended to engage in an edit-war with the user but he or she does not appear to intend to discuss the material or edits in question.2600:1012:B067:3C6:511B:59B3:C04E:5CB1 (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it usually takes two to edit war, and it's of course very convenient to get a new IP address and talk page every now and then. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies but that is not done intentionally as it may be due to my ISP. I must confess I'm not savvy enough to figure out how to deliberately change my IP. However my edits have been constructive and I do not intend nor have interest in making edits that are anything but that. 2600:1012:B067:3C6:511B:59B3:C04E:5CB1 (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying you were doing it on purpose; it just works out this way. You could get an account--accounts are more accountable, if you'll pardon the pun. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Mz7, thanks for your attention to this matter; I assume that this settles it? Glad we laid that to rest--I was afraid none of us would be catching any sleep. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Right, I've gone ahead and removed the "Topspin" thing since it's sourced to tfwiki.net. I'm inclined to believe the anonymous editor's explanation that all that other language (e.g. "noble", "eccentric") was unintended. Hopefully this matter is resolved now. Mz7 (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies again for the trouble over a seemingly minor issue. Thank you for your attention on the matter.2600:1012:B067:3C6:511B:59B3:C04E:5CB1 (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the official toyline for Transformers: Dark of the Moon (released in 2011), the character is also named as Topspin. Redstoneprime (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Transformers: The Last Knight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Runtime[edit]

There are discrepancies among sources for the runtime of this film:

Source Minutes[:seconds]
AFI 148
Box Office Mojo 149
BBFC 149
IMDB 154
Amazon 154
YouTube (Paramount UK) 154:32
iTunes 155
Fandango 155
Vudu 155

If we assume the "truth" is the 154:32 because of its precision, the 155s can be explained as correct 5/4 rounding, and the 154s as rounding down. PAL speed-up would make the PAL runtime 148:21, which could correct explain the AFI's 148, and the 149s as rounding up (strangely). Should we go with 155?

Pointers to policy or a guideline on the subject are welcome (I couldn't find anything). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, runtimes are such a pain.
The BBFC can be confusing, you cannot simply look at the top listed runtime of 149 minutes[4] you need to look further down the page and read click on the "Feature" section which lists various runtimes:
TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT [2D]	Film	148m 53s		Paramount Pictures UK	14/06/2017	12A
TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT [3D]	Film	148m 53s		Paramount Pictures UK	14/06/2017	12A
TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT [IMAX,3D]	Film	150m 4s		Paramount Pictures UK	19/06/2017	12A
TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT [3D]	Video	154m 35s		Paramount Pictures c/o Universal Pictures (UK) Ltd.	31/10/2017	12
TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT [2D]	Video	154m 35s		Paramount Pictures c/o Universal Pictures (UK) Ltd.
So it is not unreasonable to say the film was either, 149 minutes or 155 minutes, it is both. You're not wrong, but personally I'd leave it as it is now, 149 minutes, based on the reference to the BBFC. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template {{Infobox film}} says the runtime is intended to be the theatrical release runtime (not home video) "Restrict the entry to the runtime for the primary release" -- 109.78.198.42 (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final[edit]

This is not the final film of anything. I have once more and yet again removed this nonsense claim from the intro.[5] This and similar claims have been reverted before by multiple editors, but some editors seem hung-up the idea of subgrouping this series of films (see also Rise of the Beasts). It at best irrelevant. The lead is supposed to summarize what is in the article body (see WP:LEAD) not add new information. It may be necessary to add a warning comment to the wiki source if editors persist in attempting to insert original research to the lead section. -- 109.79.171.252 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional timeline[edit]

First please follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain your changes with an edit summary. Editors keep making unexplained changes to the years in the plot section. It is not clear that the years specified are correct, as there is often a mismatch between the fictional in universe timeline when the story is set and number of years in between the different films getting film being made.

One editor did belatedly say in an edit summary that the year was explained in some tie-in media but without some kind of reference to book or DVD or whatever to WP:VERIFY what that person might be talking about I am going to restore the WP:STATUSQUO again. Please provide a reliable source to back up your changes. -- 109.77.198.234 (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources. Anon ipv6 editor claimed that sources were too difficult to find. As the timeline information does not come directly from the film it might be better if it was not included in the Plot section at all. [P.S] I pushed the unsourced timeline information out of the plot section itself and into the footnote. It would still be helpful if it could be reliable sourced. -- 109.77.199.129 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again please don't make unexplained changes to the fictional timeline[6] I know it seems reasonable to make assumptions but an encyclopedia should not be making assumptions. I'm happy to make any change if it can be verified, but otherwise I will restore the WP:STATUSQUO. -- 109.76.139.213 (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is good to be specific, or others times it is better to focus on other details that readers need to know more. A fine editor has rephrased the Plot section to avoid mentioning the specific timeline.[7] Hopefully their changes will put an end to this recurring confusion over in universe timeline versus real world production timeline. -- 109.76.192.119 (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting stuff in the Sequels/Future section[edit]

That long preface under "Sequels/Future" mentions "a multi-part sequel storyline", so I understand the reasoning for including Bumblebee and what comes after, namely Rise of the Beasts. So besides repeating information covered under Production, it sets up discussion of "sequels to both the solo film (Bumblebee) and The Last Knight", the former of which has been deleted.[8] Either don't mention that part of development, or bring back Rise of the Beasts. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oversection[edit]

Please note WP:OVERSECTION and try to avoid unnecessary splits and subdivisions when there is not enough content to justify them.

Even if Bumblebee film is a reboot (that's dubious and subjective) it is not relevant here in this article about The Last Knight.

There is nothing "official" about Bumblebee being a reboot, although fans and commentators have called it a reboot. It hasn't really been _declared_ a reboot either, that's a compromise wording to reflect fan and commentator opionion that we eventually ended up with at the Bumblebee article because people were slow edit warring over whether it was a sequel, a prequel, soft reboot, a reboot or whatever. Di Bonaventura never put much weight on the term "reboot" [9] (please read the article text, the headline is confusing) and Variety magazine said the films[10] "weren’t exactly sticklers for the laws of time and space, either". Despite fan desire to declare things canon or not or to saying something is a reboot or not there is no perfect clean answer, the clarity they desire does not exist, and really they're all just one big series of loosely related films.

None of that is important here in this article anyway. -- 109.77.198.153 (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianJosephAllbee: Stop edit-warring. Discuss here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you telling me to discuss when I literally just started a discussion. You asked for discussion but failed to actually discuss! This is still both WP:OVERSECTION and irrelevant. -- 109.79.73.1 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking ChristianJosephAllbee to discuss, not you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creating differently titled unnecessary subsections without any discussion [11] is not a "compromise". My objection to fancruft and indulging irrelevant discussions about reboot and prequel or canon is secondary to WP:OVERSECTION and the subsections being entirely unnecessary to begin with. -- 109.79.73.1 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I put “prequels” in the future section is because “Bumblebee” is very blatantly a prequel and “Rise of the Beasts” is a follow-up to the previous film. If we can have those set in a “prequel” subsection to avoid any confusion among readers of the page, then I will be willing to let go of the discussion of whether there will be a direct sequel to “The Last Knight” and never bring it up again. That’s the kind of compromise I’m getting at. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The convention on film articles is to have one section, either titled "Sequels" or "Future". Any additional subsections would be excessive and not needed. We can note that it's a prequel in prose. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Association with Hasbro[edit]

This films is credited as "In Association with Hasbro" and the Infobox listed Hasbro as one of the production companies. There was a warning comment explaining the actual film credits, warning editors NOT to add "Hasbro Studios".

An editor replacing this "Hasbro Studios", and added a new warning boldly asserted that any further changes required consensus, despite their own comment actively ignoring an earlier warning, not having had any discussion or gained any consensus themselves, and actively contradicting what the film credits say.

If an editor is warning others to get consensus before changing it behooves them to discuss and establish consensus first before making such strongly worded assertions. -- 109.77.198.153 (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goes way way back, see 2017 diff and comment added in this diff. Restoring the longstanding WP:STATUSQUO and asking editors to show older edits the same WP:GOODFAITH they expect to be shown for their own changes shouldn't be a big ask. -- 109.77.198.153 (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for discussion and editors have not yet discussed why they think it is appropriate to ignore years of precedent and yet at the same time claim going against their changes would require consensus in advance. -- 109.79.73.1 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong actor?[edit]

stanley tucci did not appear in this film. He was the star of previous film. Transformers age of extinction. Someone also needs to correct the actors page. As it also lists him staring in the wrong transformer movie Mastereditorok (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tucci played Merlin in this movie. He played Joshua Joyce in the previous movie. The article already points this out. What's the problem? DoubleCross (‡) 21:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
omg didn't know thanks. I thought I uncovered some huge mistake. that's why I didn't correct anything. 71.197.114.163 (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How could it bomb?[edit]

I'm confused about the statement that it was a box office bomb. It made $600 million against a $275 million budget. How could it possibly be a bomb? Are there any updated sources? Nonto4567 (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not taking into account that not all the money earned at the box office goes back to the studio - theaters and the various distributors take a percentage too. The studio gets around half. There are also marketing costs (this movie had a "major marketing spend" according to THR[12]; I wouldn't be surprised if it were around $100 million) on top of the production budget. Usually a movie has to make around 2 to 2.5 times its budget just to break even. - DoubleCross (‡) 20:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You also have to factor in its box-office was weighted towards China as well, and the studios only get a 25% cut of Chinese box-office. Betty Logan (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a lot of interesting information. And here I thought I knew something about movies. Thanks for the replies..! Nonto4567 (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

Nothing makes sense here so I will list everything: 1. The Autobots didn't even kill Barricade, and MegaTron probably survived, since he can turn into a jet. 2. They left Hound and Trench behind, not even returning to see if they are alive. 3. How could they think they defeated Quintessa? Optimus wasn't able to attack Quintessa and kill her, so how would Bumblebee be able to? They should have realized she survived. 4. Autobots just leave Earth, while Megatron, Barricade, Mohawk and Quintessa are still alive and could conquer it, but, they KNEW that Mohawk and Barricade were alive, and didn't think of logic of Quintessa and MegaTron surviving. SpyderFrydge (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

China[edit]

Some editors have added China to the infobox as a production country (two recently [13][14]) but it is not clear to me that the level of Chinese production involvement merits including it in the Infobox. While China was used as a location and local companies were involved at that level it was not among the countries than actually financed the film and so should not be listed in the Infobox. (As far as I recall, it was not until Bumblebee that Tencent any Chinse company put actual money into the budget of any the films in the series). I think this needs to be more clearly and reliably sourced before anyone adds China to the Infobox again. Thanks. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Lumiere database (hosted by the European Audiovisual Observatory) China is listed as a "co-producing" country alongside the United States. According to Lumiere, they assign nationality status based on where the financing comes from, and the order of the listing reflects the level of investment provided. I don't know anything about the financial background of the film, but it does appear that China was a co-financier in some form. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next film[edit]

Instead of having a whole lot of redundant information repeated in several articles I think it would be better if this article focused on this film and only briefly mentioned the next film, Bumblebee. A lot of information accumulated here before the other films were ready to have their own articles, now that they have been released and have their own articles it is redundant to still have so much of that information here. See how the other articles in the series does this, in particular the article for Transformers: Age of Extinction. I suggest removing the Rise of the Beasts section from this article. -- 109.255.172.169 (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think three sections are excessive. The first is about the sequel to this film that was originally planned but never made; the second is about the next installment in the film series that bears little connection to this film; the third is about the next mainline installment (Bumblebee was a spin-off). InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not excessive but my point is the information is largely redundant and that simply pointing readers on to the next film in the series would be better, more direct, and actually helpful to readers. There is a lot of information in that section that is really is not relevant to this film. The Bumblebee section could even shorter (with hindsight there's no real need to include the comment from Bonaventura). The Rise of the Beasts section doesn't need to be here at all (there's no direct connection, different director and cast and crew, no recurring human characters). The planned film that didn't happen could stay much the same. This would be much more consistent with the other articles for the films in this series, which simply point to the next film. -- 109.76.129.60 (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually forgot that I complained about this section before Talk:Transformers:_The_Last_Knight#Oversection. Although it may have seemed somewhat necessary at the time, I think with the subsequent films having been released it would be best if this article stuck to information more directly relevant to this film. -- 109.76.129.60 (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2024[edit]

I want to add the short summary of Transformers: The Last Knight.

Following Optimus Prime's departure from Earth, Cade Yeager is gifted a Talisman by a dying Transformer knight, finds both himself and the Autobots pursued by both the Decepticons and the T.R.F. (Transformers Reaction Force). They are soon recruited by an astronomer, who is the last order of the Witwiccans, to save the world from the powerful sorceress Quintessa, whose plan is to drain Earth's energy core in order to rebuild Cybertron. Patrick8601 (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: too wordy for lede. Barry Wom (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's at it again. He waited for his newly created account to gain the necessary authorization and repeated the same edits that were repeatedly reverted and caused the article to be locked in the first place.
Please revert: (diff) -- 109.76.197.50 (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Liu1126 (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transformers:_The_Last_Knight&oldid=1219492345"