Talk:Transformers One

Contested deletion

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)

Requested move 24 February 2024

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)

---

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)

• Support. No need to disambiguate when there is nothing to disambiguate from. JIP | Talk 10:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. —Jman "not a dude" 98 22:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support obvious move. WP:SNOWPRO -- 109.76.130.189 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support removal of unneeded disambitious text. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support as per all. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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

@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)

• Actually, according to Josh Cooley, it's canon to the live action films. https://comicbook.com/movies/news/transformers-one-director-confirms-new-movies-canon-status/ --Legobro99 (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just read the source and he does not give a concrete answer of any sorts. Also characters appearing in a film is not something worthy of being in the Cast section. Zingo156 (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  He said all of the above. Legobro99 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  ''all of the above'' is not adequate, and he is being very vague with his answering so I say we leave it out for now. Also characters appearing in a film is not something worthy of being in the Cast section. Zingo156 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  I say we leave it on there. Legobro99 (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Bayverse ended with the last knight and no matter how much lorenzo bs nonsense he spits the newer movies won't be connected to the michael bay movies, trying to connect them will cause the plot to have more holes than a colander Adam p. Hardy (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Steve Buscemi as Starscream

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)

Legobro99

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)

https://collider.com/transformers-one-chris-hemsworth-optimus-prime-lorenzo-di-bonaventura-comments/ Legobro99 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Misleading "standing ovation"

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)

Got it, I think I'm going to cut it out entirely. Zingo156 (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. -- 109.76.138.125 (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"IGN IS A STUPID SOURCE FOR REVIEWS"

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)

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)

Budget $147 million

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Transformers One canonicity

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)