MCRG (Message Wall | contribs) |
TX55 (Message Wall | contribs) (The Wonder Festival 2007 exclusive Sunrise Mega Action Dai Atlas. From [http://transformers.hp.infoseek.co.jp/index.htm Transformer Picture Forum]. {{fairuse}}) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | The Wonder Festival 2007 exclusive Sunrise Mega Action Dai Atlas. From [http://transformers.hp.infoseek.co.jp/index.htm Transformer Picture Forum]. |
||
| − | ==Movie nav== |
||
| − | Is there any way to put it underneath the main picture? Its screwing up the formatting and makes the page look really haphazard. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 08:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :Do we want it under? It seems to... really not serve it's purpose if it's not on top. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 08:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
| + | {{fairuse}} |
||
| − | ::If its purpose is to make the page look fucking terrible, then yeah, I don't want it to serve that purpose, because that's what it DOES. There has GOT to be someplace better to put that. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :::The problem is that putting it somewhere ''other'' than top-left limits its usefulness. I've been using it to snap back and forth between pages, and it's really awfully handy. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ::::The problem is the main picture should not have to cut into the main body of the article merely because of the nav. Regardless of screen real estate, it bunches up the text to one side. Plus, pictures are typically wider than the nav, so they should be above it. Or above the introductory text. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | Okay, either the image goes, the nav thing goes, or we have to completely redo the navbar to work with pages and not fucking destroy them. Walky has spoken. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :[http://www.emopanda.com/tmp/proposed_solution.png Proposed solution] - a horizontal bar across the top. Smaller footprint. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :: That's still not layout-friendly, though it's better. Wikipedia seems to work fine with all its intra-series navigation at the bottom. Is that not a worthwhile solution here? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :::Got an example? (And yes, my proposed solution isn't layout friendly, merely low-impact.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | Was changing the Movie nax box found to be unworkable? Because the vertical box we have really is like a big scar at the top of the page. --[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 07:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :No consensus was reached on a new design, so no changes were made. (I agree the current design is ugly... but we ''could'' just wait until July 8th when Paramount announces there's going to be a sequel, then we can banish the franchise navigation to a page for the movie ''series'', and leave the pages for the individual movies clear.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 07:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ::I think it would be alright to put the navbox under the main image, personally. At least as a temporary fix. I agree that we need a more permanent solution, though, so that the nav can work with pages that have a main image in the first place. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 14:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | ==Officially released pictures== |
||
| − | Now that Hasbro has put up some renders of Barricade, Bumblebee and Prime on their site, can we use those for the character articles? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | Does the picture of Prime and Megatron belong on this page already? -[[User:EricMarrs|EricMarrs]] 01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | : I don't think we've seen any officially released pictures of Megatron. EDIT: Oh wait, the poster. Doh. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 08:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==For the love of God== |
||
| − | Can we PLEASE not have "argh the movie sucks and the designs blow and it's ruining my childhood" plastered all over these pages? |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==for the love of God, part 2== |
||
| − | Can we also please wait until things are actually published to start throwing movie stuff in here and there? I imagine quite a few of us are avoiding reading spoiler-intensive reviews of issues that are due merely weeks later. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Characters?== |
||
| − | I'm unsure as to whether I consider, say, new movie Bonecrusher to be the same character as G1 Bonecrusher in the sense that he should like to [[Bonecrusher (G1)]] and be written up in that entry like any other continuity. I kinda feel like he, and probably Scorponok and maybe Brawl, aren't "the same guy" in the sense that Megatron, Starscream, and the Autobots seem to be. On the other hand, it's probably impossible to really make a good judgement on that until the movie actually comes out. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 04:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
| − | : That's the gist of the comment I put on my update, yes. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 05:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | I think it may be a good idea to just set up a (Movie) category or sub-category unless something super G1-specific happens. ----[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] 04:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | Chances are, we'll end up having to do (Movie) pages for all of these characters anyway, so I wouldn't really worry about it until the movie's been released. - [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] 05:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :We'll have to worry about it sooner! The IDW prequel comic comes out next month. I had a discussion about this with Steve-o in person a while back, but I figger I should give my idea here. |
||
| − | : I think everyone from the movie should be given their own page, under X (Movie) if they require the (Movie) tag for disambiguation purposes. This is not to say that they will be considered separate characters. For obvious carry-overs like Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, they will simply have Movie sections on their G1 pages that have, for example, "''See [[Bumblebee (Movie)]]''" under the header, like Optimus Prime's toy section. (Stuff like this will especially come in handy on Prime's page, which is too long for more material already.) |
||
| − | : My reasoning for doing this to all the characters? The Movie is a huge franchise, and something that will be THE most prominent and pervasive Transformers media, probably of all time, and so separating them will increase ease of use, especially for more casual browsers. This will also allow us to focus exclusively on these versions of characters in a better way, with concept design stages, once the Art of" books come out, maybe even have a "Differences between the movie version and previous versions of the characters" section, again which would be beneficial to more casual browsers. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::That all makes good sense to me. I am wondering, though, about what the continuity notes for the Movie-character articles should say. Would the Movie and its related fiction be a labeled as a portion of G1, or would it be called a new continuity family of its own? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::That I'm not 100% sure on. Though if Bumblebee, Prime, Megatron, Starscream, and Jazz are considered versions of the G1 character, I would say that probably necessitates it being considered in the G1 continuity family based on that technicality. If it's its own continuity family, then it can't share any of another continuity family's characters without some dimension-hopping. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :::Well, this begs the question of what qualifies as "G1." From the sound of things, the movie has about as much in common with G1 as Armada did; in that it was definantly INSPIRED by G1 and definantly shapes a lot of things around what came in G1, but it also treads a lot of new ground and sort of does it's own thing. I mean, there's not a whole heaping lot fo different between Optimus in Armada and Optimus in G1. Likely there is going to be about the same ammount of difference for Optimus in the movie. I vote we give the movie it's own continuity family. Of course, that means we need to name it. Transformers (2007 Film) Continuity Family?--[[User:UndeadScottsman|UndeadScottsman]] 17:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::::"Dreamworks continuity"? --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::::Well, that hs a similar issue as calling it the Film continuity, as Dreamworks isn't responsible for all the content for it. Heh, if we wanted to be real smartasses, we could call it "Michael Bay Continuity Family." Honestly though, after looking at it, the most central thing to this new continuity is the movie, as much as I don't want to wind up with that one, I can't think of a better option. The others are probably right in that we should wait and see if a good tagline pops up. (Had Aaron Archer not come up with the Unicron Trilogy, I wonder if we'd stil be calling it A-E-C. :D) --[[User:UndeadScottsman|UndeadScottsman]] 01:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | So, should we replace Bonecrusher by Wreckage?--[[User:GUIGUI|GUIGUI]] 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :Why? --M Sipher |
||
| − | :GUIGUI, Wreckage is not Bonecrusher. Wreckage is a toyline-only character. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::Say now, toyline-only characters. Should that be a category, since we've got *-only categories for pretty much everything else? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 19:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ==Frenzy== |
||
| − | When Movie Frenzy's picture goes up, I demand the quote be "They are all laser-guided and I get CRAZY if you touch them!" or similar Ghost of Christmas Past from the Future shenanigans.--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :I have it on good authority that Frenzy survived the quickening of the Dragonoids. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 21:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::Done [[User:Hunter-113|Hunter-113]] 02:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | == Movie is not G1 == |
||
| − | |||
| − | My recommendation is that when the Michael Bay/Steven Spielberg movie is out, we should not treat it as being part of the G1 continuity family. G1 are characters from 1984-1992 and any continuity that spins out of or reboots either cartoon or comic. |
||
| − | |||
| − | It would be a mistake to label the Movie as part of this G1 tree. The writers themselves have said that they took inspiration from G1 but also from other storylines. It's the same with the X-Men movies: the Phoenix was really Ultimate Marvel though the cure plot was from Astonishing X-Men. And then Spider-Man 2 had stuff from the 50th issue where Spider-Man gives up being a superhero, but Doc Ock isn't in that issue, Kingpin is. |
||
| − | |||
| − | All I have to say is the movie is a new universe, something very new, a different interpretation of Transformers. It is like somebody just really liked the Autobots and Decepticons and made a movie of it. We may get nods here and there, and there are G1 characters there, but we shouldn't treat it the same. |
||
| − | |||
| − | :I'm not sure it's appropriate to make a final decision either way at this time. We'll call it when we see it. --[[User:Andrusi|Andrusi]] 20:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | We already have a split: |
||
| − | *[[Optimus Prime (Movie)]] |
||
| − | *[[Bumblebee (Movie)]] |
||
| − | *[[Jazz (Movie)]] |
||
| − | *[[Ironhide (Movie)]] |
||
| − | *[[Blackout (Movie)]] |
||
| − | *[[Barricade (Movie)]] |
||
| − | |||
| − | The above argument is that it's confusing universes and continuity families. yes, clearly we now that Spider-man 2 isn't int he same UNIVERSe as the Spider-man comics...but tha characters in it ''are'' Spider-man, and Doc Ock, and Harry Osborn. They are the 'classic' Spider-man versions. They're not the Japanese Spider-man who is a reporter (I think) with a talking car, or the Danish one who throws canal-salt, or the Indian one who has Krishna-given powers. THOSE character, using this analogy, would be like the ARMADA versions of Optimus Prime.<br/> |
||
| − | We know there are like 20 or 30 versions of Gen 1 Optimus Prime that all represent the same character, but whose backstory and adventures do not occur in the same universe. They 'are' all G1 Prime. On the other hand, we have 2 or 3 Optimsu Primes we recognize to be 'Armada Prime,' whose backstory and adventure ae ALSO irreconcilable, but we also recognize to still 'be' the same guy, albeit fundamentally different from G1 Prime.<br/> |
||
| − | You are arguing about universes. We are talking about continuity families. |
||
| − | |||
| − | You may be ''right'' that Movie Prime should be spun off (I haven't seen any proof of it) but your argument is mis-framed. You're saying Earth 615 Captain America isn't Captain America. (10 points to whoever gets that one!) when you mean 'he isn't the same individual as Earth 616 Captain America.' |
||
| − | |||
| − | (I just assume that supplementary materials from the movie are goign to give Movie Optimus Prime so many shared life experiences and universe elements with regular G1 Prime, that we'll live to regret placing him in a separate category, and conclude he is the same character. It seems a safe bet, given how TF is written.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | : Of course, the fun part is that apparently Japan considers the movie as part of their mainstream G1 continuity happening in 2007. That should either be some fun dubbing or it's going to require some huge suspension of disbelief. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :: It's probably no more difficult that shoehorning Cybertron into the Armada-Energon continuity.... Anyway, I would argue (as someone else did earlier) that Movie Prime will probably resemble (and differ from) G1 Prime about as much as Armada Prime did. I vote for new continuity family.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Title== |
||
| − | Shouldn't this be at either [[Transformers (film)]] (there's no other films by that name) or [[Transfomers (2007 film)]] (the current name implies that this is about Transformers in general in 2007)? [[User:Interrobang|Interrobang]] 00:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :Or [[Transformers (live movie)]]--[[User:GUIGUI|GUIGUI]] 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ==Keith David== |
||
| − | |||
| − | YEsterday, Keith David was confirmed as Barricade's VA |
||
| − | |||
| − | == SCARCASM! == |
||
| − | |||
| − | If this an alien concept to people? |
||
| − | |||
| − | Yes, I do indeed think the movie is going to rock out loud. I am foaming at the gash at the prospect of seeing it! The storyline section of the article is intended to POKE FUN AT THE PEOPLE who say that it is "Not Transformers" for various reason, by LISTING THE WAYS THAT IT IS. That'd be a completely ''shit'' story summary if it was supposed to be actually telling you anything about the movie, rather than just describing all the ways it's like G1. |
||
| − | |||
| − | AAAAAAAAA - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | Personally I feel that this whole entire wikia is too full of sarcasm and smart-alecky-ness. Wikis are meant to report facts about a subject, not for nerds and fanboys (for that's what all of us here are) to act like wise-ass jerks about what we love. I'm new here, and I came here looking for information, which is what wikis are for. Instead, I get smart-aleck articles chopped full of sarcasm and pictures with annoying captions instead of saying WHAT the picture is of. I love Transformers, people, but this is a POORLY run wiki.--[[User:72.66.73.224|72.66.73.224]] 04:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :[[Image:Megatrong1.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Art of Generation 1 Megatron!]]On [[Megatron (G1)|G1 Megatron's page]], the caption to the right would be insultingly redundant. If a photo's subject does not need additional clarification, a straightforward caption is absolutely unneeded. If the captions that are there annoy you, then you can feel free to not read them! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :Note: Official Star Wars people love our wiki's tone. Also, if humor and facts can coexist as they do here, why, exactly, shouldn't they? The information is all there regardless. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 06:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::To add, I reject the idea that wikis are supposed to present information in a very set, certain way that is unified across all wikis. Because that's false. There are plenty of wikis that don't present information just like Wikipedia does. Count us one of them. (This discussion needs to be moved somewhere else. Probably under the 30 other identical discussions from the other anonymous hi-then-bye folks.) --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :::Ok, all that aside, what about the original subject here, about using sarcasm in the plot desciption in order to poke fun at the haters of the film? Firstly, it's a twisted version of the truth, and wikis are about facts, secondly, since wikis are freely editiable, it's a vandalizing fight just waiting to happen. A hater will edit it in a way to bash the supporters, the supporters will edit back to bash the haters, and it'll go on and on. And quite frankly, ever since the announcement trailer last year, I have been sick and tired of all the fighting i've been seeing on the web.--[[User:72.66.73.224|72.66.73.224]] 20:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :::: Frankly, that entire summary's going to be replaced once the film's officially out. It's just a placeholder. And until then, I think it's fine. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::::: Yeah, that's just what I was going to say myself. I wrote the thing, only intended for it to be a bit of snarky filler material until an ACTUAL summary can be added in. Indeed, a goodly portion of the wiki's snark tends to steadily be filtered out as articles are filled in more and more. But, really, I've got no problem with people not liking the film for reason x, or reason y - but "It's not Transformers" is twaddle. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 21:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::::::Dight, if Beast Machines is Transformers, thant his is Transformers. And I don't debate that BM is Transformers- it's just '''bad''' Transformers. Fortunately, its badness was subsequently eclipsed by the Unicron Trilogy, so we can now look back on Beast Machines fondly. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :Way to get totally butthurt over a wiki, dude. [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Welker== |
||
| − | Editor assumption? |
||
| − | <blockquote>GameSpot chats with Frank Welker, the voice of Megatron in the original animated series and upcoming Transformers game and movie. [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6168694.html ]</blockquote> |
||
| − | |||
| − | ::That, or my elaborate conspiracy theory is right and Hugo Weaving as Megs is a trick to suprise us with Megs actually being voiced by Welker. -- [[User:Hunter-113|Hunter-113]] 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | == Voice Actors Revealed == |
||
| − | |||
| − | Optimus - Peter Cullen |
||
| − | |||
| − | Megatron - Hugo Weaving |
||
| − | |||
| − | Bumblebee - Mark Ryan |
||
| − | |||
| − | Ironhide - Jess Harnell |
||
| − | |||
| − | Barricade - Jess Harnell |
||
| − | |||
| − | Ratchet - Robert Foxworth |
||
| − | |||
| − | Bonecrusher - Jimmie Wood |
||
| − | |||
| − | Jazz - Darius McCrary |
||
| − | |||
| − | Starscream - Charlie Adler |
||
| − | |||
| − | Frenzy - Reno Wilson |
||
| − | |||
| − | Source: http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/showthread.php?t=137541 |
||
| − | |||
| − | :The post that this "news" originated from: [http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/showthread.php?t=137530 http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/showthread.php?t=137530]. Note that while it's said this came from an Australian press conference, credit is given to an anonymous source. Seems rather dubious to me, given the lack of Keith David. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 21:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::I heard David's only doing Barricade in the game -- [[User:Hunter-113|Hunter-113]] 21:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::Except this doesn't match up with the voice actors we know for the game either (Welker, for instance). I doubt it'll be long before we have corroborated list, however.--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] 02:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :::At this point, we need more than "heard," no offense. :) We need some solid info before we take any of this information to heart. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::::The post in that link I posted above has been edited, and now cites a source. Looks like this may be legit, although I'm still wondering about Barricade/Keith David. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 01:58, 12 October 2007
The Wonder Festival 2007 exclusive Sunrise Mega Action Dai Atlas. From Transformer Picture Forum.
This image is from or related to the Transformers brand, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. All trademarks, service marks, trade names, and trade dress present in the image are proprietary to the copyright holder and are not affiliated with Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki. The use of a small number of low-resolution Transformers images to illustrate a product or character on Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki falls under the fair use provision of United States copyright law. See Copyrights.
To the uploader: Please include the owner of the copyright.