Talk:Bumblebee (film)

Prequel

Prequel or reboot or both? Could we get some consensus on this so people quit slow edit warring over it? [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.165.193 (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

And another [4] -- 89.100.226.165 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It keeps happening [5]. It would be funny if it wasn't so lame. -- 109.76.131.195 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

So very very lame. [6] -- 109.76.131.195 (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a reboot which kept being changed which lead to a bunch of plot wholes. More or less it started as prequel, became reboot, went back to being a prequel and then became a reboot again hence why megatron had a almost complete concept design that was cut pretty late in production and it's also why optimus appears at the end which means it can't be a prequel Adam p. Hardy (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Since no one has bothered to discuss this let alone provide sources and the tedious back and forth continues, I finally went and looked for myself. In an interview with SlashFilm producer Lorenzo Di Bonaventura rejected the term reboot [7][8] so unless someone makes some effort to discuss this and produces some compelling sources this article should not say reboot. -- 109.79.172.66 (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add some discussion. The Last Knight made a big thing of Bee being on earth during the second world war, but in Bumblebee, it shows bee arriving on earth in 1987. Also, the way prime talks about earth suggests that it is an unfamiliar planet to them at this point. It seems clear to me that this is not a prequel, and the producer may have said what he said merely to act as a decoy of some sort? Drag-5 (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia claims to be based on sources. If anyone wants to use the term reboot then they will need to have a good source to back it up, a better source than the producer saying it isn't a reboot. -- 109.79.90.19 (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently director Travis Knight was trying to maintain continuity as he deliberately excluded Megatron, but another article (again at Screenrant) only a few days later complains about plot holes and continuity calling it as "a prequel that also doubles as a soft reboot", so while I haven't been able to find Knight using the term some people are interpreting the film as both. -- 109.79.95.247 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

yeah but lorenzo doesn't know what the hell he's 2A02:C7C:DACE:F100:9D2A:D459:8459:C74F (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah loenzo doesn't even know what hes talking about since it can't let go of the michael bay movies, honestly the transformer fandom wants him fired because he keeps muddying the water with statements Adam p. Hardy (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Not again. It might be better if the intro avoided using the terms prequel and reboot entirely since it gives them WP:UNDUE weight, because it doesn't really tell readers anything useful and despite all the back and forth about the terminology in the intro, no one has cared enough to add anything about it to the main article (the development section most likely). There's the fact that Di Bonaventura rejected the term reboot, but there wasn't much information about the director Travis Knight thought about it. Even if we can get a decent source about what Hasbro actually said at New York ToyFair it is all so much speculation that isn't really about this film but about the next film. -- 109.79.184.195 (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

So far the sources haven't been good, the least worst source so far (is Comicbook.com evan a reputable source?) still makes it clear that they are sourcing from a WP:FANSITE (TFW2005). -- 109.79.184.195 (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

So are you waiting for press that is considered more reliable but didn't attend the panels to say something? Seems a little misguided to dismiss a dedicated, reliable Transformers fansite as a source for Transformers news--Fradio71 (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards removing both terms (prequel, reboot) from the intro, and maybe expanding the article text, but the thing I want to avoid is the back and forth of another slow dumb edit war. What do you suggest? If we can establish some sort of local consensus and stick to it I can get behind that.

Wikipedia rules are so vague and so selectively enforced it is ridiculous, and most of the time a WP:FANSITE is not good enough and the discussion ends there. Other times articles like Star Trek: Discovery make excessive use of fansites like TrekMovie.com because editors didn't want to wait until better sources become clear (and even a year later the cruft hasn't been cleared out). I don't think the failure to follow the rules was a good idea there and I don't see a particular convincing reason to break the rule here either.

Cinemablend has reported on the story but again they're just repeating what they got from the fan site TFW2005, albeit with a better overview of the developments that lead to here. I think this article could do with that sort of commentary in the Development section. Also the quote people seem to be latching on to is "a new storytelling universe" then running with that to declare it a reboot. TFW2005 doesn't actually use the word reboot either. We don't know much of anything yet, and that should be okay, we should wait. I'd be surprised if Hasbro didn't make more statements soon as they try to gain attention for the home media and streaming release. -- 109.79.184.195 (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The producer rejected the term more than two months ago, before the movie even came out and way before the latest news its now considered a reboot. So the producer's rejection is at this point highly out-dated. Also, agree with Fradio71, no reason to dismiss the current reports about a reboot. If we were citing a fansite alone and directly then yes WP:FANSITE might apply, but even then the site in question here has been show to be reliable in the past. But regardless of that, we are not actually citing the fansite directly. Instead, we are citing other sources like Cinemablend. Per Wikipedia's policy, we are actually told to cite secondary sources (like Cinemabland) which are acceptable, and advised to avoid primary sources (like the fan site in this question). So, since Cinemabland is a secondary source, and not primary source, it is acceptable per Wikipedia's policy. EkoGraf (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This back and forth over prequel, reboot, or both (or none) has been going on for weeks. It calmed down slightly when I finally bothered to find a source disputing the term reboot. Due to comments attributed to Hasbro at Toyfair it is happening again. Although I think we need to work towards some clear agreement I must thank you for making the effort to add to the discussion.

Unfortunately a bunch of other sites repeating a WP:FANSITE doesn't make it not a fansite. Nearly all those reports make it clear they are just repeating the fansite, they aren't making even the smallest claim of having done any research of their own or getting confirmation from Hasbro like a reputable publication would do, and if they weren't so blatantly passing the buck then maybe they'd be worth taking seriously. On top of that as I said before the article from TFW2005 doesn't even use the term reboot. Reboot was the subjective interpretation of other sources. The page from TFW2005 merely said the Hasbro were going continue the new continuity established by Bumblebee (“a new storytelling universe”), and it isn't like the franchise was strict about continuity to begin with.

The film could be both a prequel and a soft reboot, but what I've been trying to establish this whole time is something based on reliable sources or failing that at least some local consensus. How about establishing even a tiny consensus of 2 or 3 editors, if even EkoGraf and Fradio71 can come to an agreement and we can avoid people slow edit warring over this I'll step back. Let us consider some options:

1. Include the only term prequel in the intro (status quo)
2. Include term reboot without the term prequel (the edit people seem to be making at the moment)
3. Include both, the film is a prequel and a reboot (the article was like this for quite a while)
4. NEITHER. Don't include either term prequel or reboot in the intro at all, follow MOS:LEAD more strictly and only summarize what the rest of the article actually supports.
5. Other ... write in comment

So I prefer and Support option 1, based on the sources currently available. I'd settle for option 4 over either of option 2 or 3. (I will ping both EkoGraf and Fradio71 for comment.) -- 109.77.237.77 (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

109.77.237.77, first, you should be made aware that you made 4-5 reverts within a period of 24 hours on this article. Per Wikipedia's policy, if an editor makes more than 3 reverts within 24 hours, in violation of Wikipedia's 3RR policy, it can lead to a block of the said editor. So I would kindly ask that you cancel your revert of my edit and stick to the talk page instead of cancelling out any editor who attempts to add info on the "reboot". Otherwise, if you don't roll back your actions or if you continue with the edit warring, you could be blocked for the violation. You should read up on the 3RR policy. As for the options you mentioned, numerous sources are at the moment citing Hasbro that its a reboot, while none are contradicting it, and thus it is option 2. That said, I will wait for the opinion of other editors. EkoGraf (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Those numerous sources you mention are not reliable on this matter, even if one of them might be generally considered reliable sources on other matters (e.g. Cinemablend). They all clearly pass the buck and plainly state they are only repeating a WP:RUMOR from a WP:FANSITE, and they might use the word "official" but it is clearly anything but official. Your edit was in good faith but four bad sources do not add up to a good source, and if another editor agrees with you and you restore your previous edit I would still urge you to only include the least worst of those sources, namely CinemaBlend.

I will reread the documentation but I don't recall 3RR trumping WP:RS or WP:BRD. Again thank you for being one of the few to finally try to discuss this. -- 109.77.213.47 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've expanded the Sequel section of the article, which already referenced the Slashfilm article and summarized comments from Di Bonaventura. Rereading the Slashfilm article more closely they refer to confusing rumors of a reboot before Bumblebee (pointing to an article from Feb 2018). Then the article refers to Bumblebee as a "spin-off" from the rest of the franchise, spin-off does somehow feel like a better less loaded term than prequel. Di Bonaventura rejects the term reboot but explains the balance of changing things to keep it interesting and fresh while keeping the parts people like. The quote we have from from TFW2005 is “a new storytelling universe” which doesn't go actually against what Di Bonaventura was already saying. We really should wait and see. -- 109.79.95.247 (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Whether an editor thinks he is right or he is wrong, a violation of 3RR is strictly prohibited and can not be disregarded. Also, it is not up to individual editors to determine the reliability of a source, but the wider community based on credible material confirming the source in question is unreliable and per Wiki guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems you are technically correct, even though I've not been reverting the same person it seems strictly speaking it goes against 3RR (and I see I did revert EkoGraf twice). The dumb slow edit warring I pointed out at the start of this discussion was probably a violation of 3RR too. Then again Wikipedia rules are selectively enforced and people always make excuses but I am actively trying to find a consensus that we can stick to, and despite the reverts we've only just started to have a discussion. EkoGraf you could maybe ask for a WP:THIRDOPINION? I still think the sources that EkoGraf says are reliable fail because they are openly reposting from each other and hearsay written on a WP:FANSITE and then subjectively summarizing it as "reboot" even though the fansite they are quoting didn't even use the term.

While I think it will be difficult to agree on changes to the intro, I would not oppose edits to the Sequel section of the article. Perhaps something along the following lines would be helpful to readers:

According to a report by Transformers World [TFW2005] from the Hasbro Product Presentation at the 2019 New York Toyfair, Hasbro officially declared the Bumblebee movie to be “a new storytelling universe” [maybe ref TFW2005 here] which other sources have called a reboot of the franchise.[other][refs][here]. 

Funny thing is all this talk of reboot was kicked off in 2018 by comments from TFW2005 [9] https://news.tfw2005.com/2018/02/16/transformers-cinematic-universe-current-movie-series-rebooted-358641 at the Toy Fair 2018 Hasbro Investor Preview where they said: "Hasbro specifically stated that a new team at Paramount will reset the Transformers Live Action Movie Series following the release of Bumblebee: The Movie. Sure enough, the company has removed Transformers 6 (sequel to Transformers: The Last Knight) from the upcoming list of movies. [Guess we are stuck with a cliffhanger, eh?]". That time too despite not using the term reboot either a whole bunch of other sites reinterpreted their comments as such. -- 109.79.95.247 (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think the reboot info needs to be detailed in the body of the article and described appropriately such as "described by xyz source(s) as a reboot" to clarify unofficial nature unless/until the studio or producers officially states this. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my attempt to improve the Sequel section, and fixing my mistakes. -- 109.79.95.247 (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I see User:Drmies has restored the changes by EkoGraf (verbatim) but unfortunately has not added anything to the discussion here yet. For some reason his talk page appears to be locked User_talk:Drmies so I can't even add a talkback request. EkoGraf was bold, I reverted, and EkoGraf discussed (WP:BRD). I thank EkoGraf for his good faith efforts and engaging in discussion, despite my disagreement. I feel it is necessary for Drmies to comment to to show he is at least aware of this discussion, and that he doesn't just think reverting to the version by EkoGraf was the article status quo. . -- 109.79.95.247 (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It really doesn't look like User:Drmies is aware of this discussion because he reverted all the effort to improve the Sequel section of the article too. -- 109.79.95.247 (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

If there is actually a consensus to use the term reboot, the sources currently being used in the lead are still really awful, there's no need to rely on lousy sources. Some critics have called this film a sequel/prequel/spinoff/reboot/soft reboot all along, only it seemed like a bad idea to use the term reboot when the producer clearly rejected it. For example: when discussing the film opening in China, noted critic Scott Mendelson called the film "the prequel/spin-off that became a proverbial soft reboot"; (critics already used in this article) Liz Shannon Miller of IndieWire "spin-off/prequel"; Peter Debruge of Variety "conceived as an origin story, rather than a reboot"; James Berardinelli of ReelViews "a re-imagination (technically, a prequel)"; and many more. Good sources support any of the above, which is why we had so many edits changing it back and forth, so there's no need to use source like Comicbook.com or Movieweb.com in the intro. -- 109.79.95.247 (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Lousy sourcing over minutia was mostly the reason for my revert, and a few things that looked like screwing around, if I remember correctly--but I'm not about to go to war over it, and you seem to know what you're doing. As for my talk page--if you had admin glasses and could check the history, you'd know why. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said before you could call this film a prequel, a spin-off, or a reboot just depending on what sources you pick. It seems even reputable sources like critic Scott Mendelson at Forbes.com are interpreting it as a reboot (his article about Bumblebee in China, points to an article from ScienceFiction.com which as with all these stories points right back to TFW2005). It is a house of cards, sources all based on a WP:FANSITE, ugh, I give up. However -Fnlayson made a good point that this should be detailed in the article body, the film is was developed as a spin-off and a prequel, and critics described it as effectively a soft reboot, only later did Hasbro (or so it seems based on the weak sources currently available) declare that it was “a new storytelling universe” that everyone seems to be interpreting as reboot.
It seems WP:UNDUE to emphasize reboot in the intro when it isn't properly explained anywhere in the article body. -- 109.79.91.196 (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This shit keeps happening [10] and it gets reverted [11]. This is why I made the extra effort to try and find consensus but Wikipedia failed hard. This dumb slow edit war will probably continue because too many people will not discuss. -- 109.79.91.196 (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Again [12] [13] the back and forth continues. -- 109.79.78.129 (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

And again the slow edit war continues, with an edit summary claiming it was only correcting a typo. I didn't want to let such a blatant bad faith edit stand, but since there's such a failure of discussion here I will probably leave it if it happens again. -- 109.76.198.249 (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

An apparent unsourced and POV-pushing edit under the cover of a "Fixed Typo" edit summary? Yeah, its most certainly a bad faith edit. EkoGraf (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The current version [14] of the text is acceptable. Thank you. But I would again remind you that per Wikipedia's policy of citing secondary reliable sources, the "reboot" is properly cited as per Forbes. You may think what you want of TFW2005 (primary source), but if a reliable secondary source relays its news (like Forbes) than that's that. In any case, thank you for the new version of the text. EkoGraf (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

So we've finally got something we can keep stable? Good enough. (At least for a while, other sources may become available.) Thanks for making effort to discuss. -- 109.76.144.160 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the wording again I realize it is a little bit stilted but I still think that slightly awkward wording is necessary to discourage people from arguing about it and changing it over and over again. -- 109.78.217.150 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

We still have editors messing with the compromise wording and saying "prequel" and other editors obsessing about calling it reboot which unfortunately shows we need to continue to call cover all bases and describe it as prequel, spin-off and reboot. Compromise, means we get this unhappy mess. -- 109.79.171.171 (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And it continues[15]... what does soft reboot even really mean and why is it so important for some editors to insist on using that term, based on what sources is this distinction necessary? The series has never been a stickler for continuity anyway. Ultimately this is all arguing semantics, it is just another film in the series, by definition it is a sequel and people are arguing over what type of sequel it is. I remind editors that Di Bonaventura rejected the label "reboot" and it is not clear that Hasbro ever used the term but we ended up using the word "reboot" because almost everyone else called it that anyway. If anyone believes a different wording is necessary please discuss, explain, and show reliable sources to support your argument. -- 15:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.200.34 (talk)

I am not a fan of labelling things as reboots, soft or otherwise (remember adding Wahlberg to the franchise was a significant change too) and even though I might personally agree with changes[16] I strongly disagree with lame long term slow edit wars even more. I will defend the small consensus we managed to establish unless and until there is a new discussion that establish a bigger better consensus. -- 109.79.171.78 (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The long slow war of the fan cruft seems like it will never end. "soft reboot"[17] is a practically meaningless distinction, and entirely subjective. Even if it was anything other than fan commentary, producer Di Bonaventura actively avoided the term "reboot" [18] and the series "weren’t exactly sticklers for the laws of time and space, either".[19] Fans are welcome to argue about this distinction as much as they like but it doesn't make much sense for this encyclopedia to give any more emphasis than it already has. It remains to be seen how much the next film will change things (or like Bumblebee not really change much at all) but Michael Bay's Transformers continues on. -- 109.76.139.213 (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Well after recent news, it's confirmed both Bumblebee and the forthcoming sequel are canon to the Bayverse. Just as intended.

)

NoobMiester96 (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update! I hope that is left alone. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  No problem. NoobMiester96 (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  The wording was changed again, with this article from 2019 linked as a source, though I've reverted it considering this recent bit of news. FearfulWarpII (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  It was changed again - one of the edit descriptions claimed that - going off the newly-released Transformers: Rise of the Beasts trailer - as Unicron isn't part of the Earth anymore, as established in TLK, Bumblebee is apparently considered a reboot. In addition, the Rise of the Beasts article was edited, adding that it's "the second installment in reboot/remake series". FearfulWarpII (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah except doesn't really since the absolute fucking moron that is lorenzo di Bonaventura doesn't know shit about the movies he's talking about since obsessed with saying they're connected to michael bay movies, which they clearly aren't. It's getting to the point the transformers fandom wants him fired so he can "produce" some other crap 2A02:C7C:DACE:F100:9D2A:D459:8459:C74F (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reopening the discussion, I wish I had noticed it sooner and do wish you had mentioned in your edit summaries that a new discussion had occurred on the talk page and that new sources had been introduced. I have some minor concerns, I do not think this is as all quite clear as NoobMiester is asserting it to be. The Collider article[20] the author uses the term "soft reboot" to describe Rise of the Beasts (a term Bonaventura has long avoided[21] and several films in the series changed things around a bit). It is not clear which specific part exactly of the article you think absolutely refutes the "reboot" claims that people applied to Bumblebee. (I ask for clarity, and to get a firm conclusion, not because I have any desire to keep that term in the article.) I also see an article from The Hollywood Reporter[22] where the director Director Steven Caple states that Rise of the Beasts "doesn’t mess up any of the timeline in 2006, 2007" and "We’re actually going in a direction that allows us to protect that side of the universe" which seems to strongly imply it is all just one continuity. This would seem to be enough to exclude the term disputed "reboot" term but again it is not as clear and conclusive as I would like. It might be helpful to clarify, and quote which specific lines of the article you think are most important. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I think things should be very clearly supported by the sources. -- 109.76.136.61 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

People keep reposting the same old sources, articles make claims that the words of the interview subject don't clearly support. This is contentious and unimportant and it is WP:UNDUE to put it in the lead section at all. Better to remove it[23] than have this continue to churn. It is one series, with many continuity errors and retcons. The fans are welcome to argue and discuss it endlessly but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article based on facts we can reliably confirm not and anything this unclear shouldn't be highlighted in the lead section, this mess is not the best way to serve encyclopedia readers and is better avoided entirely. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Years of churn, and discussions such as this one and the one on the Rise of the Beasts page show this not simple undisputed information from reliable sources but contentious unreliable information that cannot be reliably established. (The tenuous consensus was based on a mere three editors hashing this out and that was frequently ignored, it only slowed and did not stop the slow dumb edit war.) This is not simple continuity information[24] and it has been a slow edit war for years now. Try and establish the facts and gain consensus before including this continuity trivia in the lead section. Stick to the undisputed facts: Bumblebee was the 6th film in the series; it was the one after Last Knight, it was the one before Rise of the Beasts. Highlighting minor continuity issues does not serve serve readers of an encyclopedia and only raises questions and complicates matters that are best explained in the article body, ie it is WP:UNDUE to put them in the lead section. Please cut it out. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No, you need to gain consensus to remove the wording, not the other way round. The fact that this wording has been around for a while shows there is WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for belatedly joining the discussion. It has been like pulling teeth to get people to actually discuss this years long slow dumb edit war, and Rise of the Beasts has shattered it. Versions of this text have been contentious from the start and remained so. If you go right back to the top Di Bonaventure actively avoided calling this a reboot, and it does not seem like a good idea to contradict what he said. Knight tried to maintain continuity (leaving out Megatron) and more recently Caple Jnr claimed he was mostly maintaining continuity with the Bay films. None of these statements from the film makers have stopped third parties from labeling it otherwise (even in the very same article as Di Bonaventure actively trying to avoid the term reboot). I have tried to maintain that weak local consensus but I can see with hindsight it was a mistake it never belonged in the lead section in the first place, but should be explained as best as reliable sources allow in the article body.

InfiniteNexus wrote[25] in his edit summary that the talk page indicated consensus, what little consensus there ever was was tenuous at best, and it was frequently ignored anyway which is not WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. It is contentious mess, putting this continuity trivia in the lead section is any less WP:UNDUE. (User:Fnlayson did also remove the text at least once, it wasn't only me.) Fans care deeply about canon and continuity, but I do not believe that an ordinary encyclopedia reader needs or expects the summary in the lead section to include a knot of seemingly contradictory labels, and think they just want to know that this film was the one after the Last Knight and that the next film is Rise of the Beasts. Do you really believe this mess is helpful to the average ordinary reader? -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to propose a compromise: how about we say in the lead that the film has both been referred to as a prequel as well as a reboot? I do think continuity information is important to discuss in the lead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It pretty clear though that this film is not a prequel. As the continuity and what the characters say do not remotely line up with the Bay films. So the word should be removed. Cantomic66 20:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantomic66 (talk • contribs)

WP:VNT, we have sources that support this being a prequel; WP:OR, we can't come to a conclusion ourselves based on our own interpretation and beliefs. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not personal beliefs, the director called it a reboot and film itself supports that. The film was original going to be a prequel but the prequel elements were mostly removed from the film. So how can you call it a prequel when the filmmakers intentionally removed those connecting elements to set up a new canon. Cantomic66 06:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantomic66 (talk • contribs)

I regret ever agreeing to a compromise wording, I should have argued more convincingly exclude this contentious wording years ago, instead the slow dumb edit war continued on.

Sources called it a prequel, and the Bumblebee film is set in the 1980's which is chronologically before the 2007 Transformers film, so I hope you can see why some thought it was logical to call it a prequel. "the director called it a reboot" where exactly did you see that? if you have a source please show it, provide a link. I understand that the failure of this series to be careful about continuity or canon has resulted in some people interpreting that as a reboot, but please read the above discussion and note carefully that journalists reporting on this have called it just about everything you can think of, and there have been misleading headlines but I haven't seen a source where Knight himself is directly quoted as calling it a reboot (and DiBonaventura has been conspicuously avoiding calling a reboot because he doesn't want to risk turning off any protentional customers). Knight actually made some efforts to maintain continuity (for example by deliberately not including Megatron in the Cybertron sequence) but ultimately none of it really matters because if you are describing it to an ordinary reader (who isn't already a Transformers fan) like an encyclopedia should, then the most important details are that it is the one released after The Last Knight and before the Rise of the Beasts. -- 109.76.200.127 (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but the source is an unreliable baffoon so is it really any better Adam p. Hardy (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Slow dumb edit war continues 5 years on.[26] -- 109.76.132.42 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Will the long slow dumb edit war ever end? Apparently not. (diff) -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Still people who are convinced it is inaccurate to call this film anything other than "reboot"[27] -- 109.79.169.204 (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Soundtrack

This edit removed a song from the soundtrack without any explanation. I could (and might) revert it for failing to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain the deletion but the the source provided (and other sources [28]) does not include any song from Creed, so the delete might be in WP:GOODFAITH (despite the failure to update or delete the total runtime). Track 16 is listed as "Back to Life (80s Remix) [Bonus] – Hailee Steinfeld (3:13)". I could add that track instead but albums are often released with different bonus tracks, so someone with an interest in Soundtracks should check this. -- 109.78.219.98 (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The same edit was repeated but again still no explanation. -- 109.79.176.51 (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Audience response

Deadline Hollywood had an article[29] that quoted social media analysis company RelishMix[30]. RelishMix noted superfans agreed Bumblebee "is the Transformers movie they’ve been waiting and yearning for, which means a more authentic look at some of their favorite characters and dosing down of the super-action in previous, Michael Bay-directed chapters."

I was thinking of including this note from RelishMix in the Critical response section after CinemaScore and PostTrak. Any comments? -- 109.77.205.163 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Still thinking of adding RelishMix to the article but I might shorten the quote or have to rephrase it because I don't believe "dosing down" is actually a phrase and as far as I can tell it is a typo and "dumbing down" was the intended meaning. -- 109.77.195.189 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Charlie's Father

An editor keeps adding to the plot section, without any explanation. WP:FILMPLOT requires brevity, 400-700 words which leaves little room for any unnecessary words.

It is not helpful to claim that Charlie's Father's death is "recent", because we don't know if it was recent in any meaningful sense, and to claim it is recent requires guesses based on the flashback scenes.[31] The word "recent" is often subjective and better avoided in any writing but particularly in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia specifically has guidelines warning against using relative time words such as recent. (From a story perspective it seems it could be years since he died.) Using vague phrases such as "sometime later" are not helpful either. We don't know how much time passes between Bumblebee landing on earth and being found by Charlie, we only know that the year is 1987 and that is already stated. If these phrases are added again I will continue to revert them, and any other changes should take care not to unnecessarily bloat the wordcount. -- 109.76.137.43 (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Again [32] in addition to the above, we don't know when exactly Bumblebee arrived on Earth, or how much time passes after he arrives, but we do know that Charlie's story is in 1987. -- 109.77.192.152 (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall the film explaining much of anything about her father's death, but apparently he died of a heart attack according to http://t.wiki.net/wiki/Charlie%27s_Dad and "Transformers: Bumblebee: The Junior Novel" http://t.wiki.net/wiki/Transformers:_Bumblebee:_The_Junior_Novel [33] -- 109.77.195.61 (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Effects

Found a reference from the special effects company that provided two huey helicopters[34] for the film. Might be possible to fit it into the article somewhere eventually if it was expanded to include more details about the filming and practical effects. -- 109.76.212.43 (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Peter Cullen

I hate having to reference videos so I'm not sure if I'll add this to the article or not but as part of a panel discussion GalaxyCon Richmond 2020 Peter Cullen expressed his dissatisfaction at the film (or you could say his own performance in the film) because an inexperienced actor had been hired to provide a temporary voice track and the animators worked off that temporary track as a reference. Cullen then had to then match the details of his performance and inflections to the existing flawed animations.[35] -- 109.77.216.201 (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

NoobMeister96 (talk · contribs) added this to the Reception section without any explanation and unfortunately using a YouTube link as a reference.

Although Cullen is essentially criticizing his own performance, this doesn't seem like a particularly good fit for the Reception section, it might work better as a Production detail. Also video links die too easily, so a different reference would be better. -- 109.77.193.18 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirect

A redirect hatnote was recently added to this article.[36]

The series has never emphasized the numbers in the titles. As a result very few people search for the films based on numbered title.[37] Despite this, there seems to be a vanishingly small minority of fans who quibble over whether or not Bumblebee is the 6th film. I do not believe that there is a significant use of "Transformers 6" to begin with or that there is enough confusion to merit including a redirect hatnote.[38] The intro/lead already points to the franchise article and the sequel section points to the next film. I do not believe anyone looking for the upcoming Transformers: Beast Wars film are unintentionally ending up at this article, and in the unlikely event anyone does there are links to even if they do. I simply do not believe people trying to find out about the latest film are navigating that way and accidentally ending up here.

If you honestly believe this Redirect is necessary or that it really is helpful to a significant amount of readers please explain why. -- 109.79.78.84 (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Two years later, a "Transformers 6" hatnote still seems entirely unnecessary so I again removed it.[39] See reasons already outlined above. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

And I've reverted it again. It is necessary because the sixth mainline Transformers film is Rise of the Beasts and not this one. But sources widely call Rise of the Beasts "Transformers 7", so we're doing the same with redirects here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTAMB "When notes feature a trivial detail or use of a term, or links to overly specific and tendentious material, they are unwarranted." The title of this film is clear, no significant confusion exists. widely?? Factually it is the seventh film, but I would say that that the "Transformers 7" is only occasionally used to refer to RotB, and that Bumblebee was almost never referred to as Transformers 6, but that the common name of both films is clear, numbered titles are rarely used for the series, and that there is no real ambiguity here.

I gave this plenty of consideration when the issue came up years ago but i read the Wikipedia:Hatnote documentation then and I read it again today. I do not think it is bold assertion to say that readers are not accidentally end up at this page while looking for Rise of the Beasts. I do not believe this film needs a Transformers 6 hatnote any more than I believe The Last Knight needs a Transformers 5 hatnote. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The title of this film is clear, no significant confusion exists. It is not "Bumblebee" that's ambiguous, it's "Transformers 6". "Transformers 6" can mean two things: one, the sixth overall installment in the Transformers series, i.e. Bumblebee; or, it could mean the sixth mainline film in the Transformers series bearing the name Transformers in the title, i.e. Rise of the Beasts. Because someone might be looking for Rise of the Beasts when they type "Transformers 6" into the search bar, it is necessary for us to point them to the right direction on this page. This hatnote is not unwarranted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus says there is possible confusion as to the meaning of "Transformers 6". People get confused buy all kinds of things, but I do not believe people are _commonly_ referring to the films by numbers or that there is any significant amount of confusion. It seemed to me from the Wikipedia:Hatnote guidelines was not encouraging the proliferation of redirects and hatnotes. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe pageviews data comparing the Transformers 6 and Transformers 7 redirects would help? It does not seem significant to me compared to the numbers of pageviews the film articles are getting. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The difference in pageviews is about what is typical of redirects, so I do not find this to be sufficient evidence. If Transformers 6 received 500 pageviews in the past year, that means at least 500 people found it helpful, and any one of them may have been looking for Rise of the Beasts but ended up here by accident. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If it must exist -- I really don't believe it should, no _significant_ confusion exists -- I dispute the wording "For the sixth mainline installment" because that is a weird notion not supported by reliable sources, and feeds into the contentious claims and WP:FANCRUFT arguments canon, and the suggestion that this is anything other than film series (with a casual attitude to continuity and contradictory retcons). -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"Mainline" means it is not a spin-off and bears the name of the series (i.e. Transformers). Do you have a suggestion for an alternate word? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I still don't think the requirements for a hatnote have been met. There is no need to add unnecessary clutter or potential confusion for the majority of readers for the insignificant possibility of confusion in a vanishingly small minority. Reliable sources referred to called Beasts Transformers 7 (see Talk Seventh film) and it is rare enough that these films are referred to by number at all.

Instead, if you really think readers are not already well served by the clear link to the next film already in the lead section, I would suggest changing the redirect page Transformers 6 to a disambiguation page that points to the articles for both Bumblebee and Beasts, without any subjective notes about the alleged continuity (or lack of it) in this series of films. -- 109.76.132.159 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be okay if we went with a DAB page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

China clarification

An anon editor added China to the country list for this film[40] and this was reverted because no sources were provided. But sources such as (the films credits and) Variety say the film was produced in association with Tencent Pictures.[41] so could editors please clarify for the record why China should not also be listed if this was part financed by a Chinese company? -- 109.76.203.242 (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Added again (not by me), this time with a source.[42] If anyone removes it again please do explain and clarify. -- 109.78.198.42 (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Summarize sequel section

An editor deleted a large chunk of information from the Sequel section without any explanation.[43] Summarizing more succinctly might be an improvement, but it is relevant to this article that Knight was reluctant to direct another but still had some ideas for a sequel and also that Hodson had initially planned to return. Those details, which I think are relevant here, are less relevant to the development section of the next film. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I trimmed it a little bit, perhaps someone else can phrase it more succinctly but I think what remains is worth keeping. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Title

Some editors in the past have disputed the title of this film. The lead section previously included references to support the alternative names but these have been removed (diff) by an editor who did not understand why those references were there, so I am writing this to make it clear that those references were added to WP:VERIFY those alternative titles. (I don't think this was even the first time similar references to prove the alternative titles have been removed from the lead section.)

I don't think anyone actually disputes that the primary common name of this film is "Bumblebee".

Some toys and merchandising included the longer title "Tranformers: Bumblebee". The title was stylized on the poster and various other places to to use CamelCase as "BumbleBee". I don't think any of this is important or relevant but some editors seemed to feel it was important to include it in the lead section anyway so I left it alone, despite the fact that it is so inconsequential that it is not mentioned or explained anywhere else in the article body (the WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize not supplant what is in the article body). If anyone wants to argue for adding or removing alternative titles then feel free to discuss the issue here, but the information was previously referenced so please don't use the lack of references as a reason. -- 109.79.69.222 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The alternative titles (Transformers: Bumblebee and BumbleBee) should not be removed without good reason. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The inevitable happened, (diff) because sources were removed without understanding why they were there in the first place another editor came along and said why isn't this sourced and deleted the alternative title. So very predictable. I have restored the alternative title this time[44] but I might not restore it next time, it is all so trivial. -- 109.76.133.100 (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. The constant edit wars over such mundane matters is tiresome and meaningless. Unfortunately, this also means you will not be able to edit the page, so you are encouraged to create an account. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The level of vandalism seems low to me, locking seems like overkill. Flagged edits requiring approval would be better, or even better yet admins actually going after the few disruptive individuals causing problems rather than locking targeted pages. Unless Wikipedia completely ends its claims to be open for anyone to edit I have no plans to create an account (and maybe not even then). WP:WNCAA. -- 109.78.196.45 (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

tiresome and meaningless For the record it's been that way since this film released, a long slow dumb edit war, see above. I wish I'd stood my ground instead of conceding to a compromise wording that didn't make anyone happy either. I should have been more forceful about the WP:FANCRUFT being WP:UNDUE from the start, but people love to argue about canon and continuity and declaring that something is a "reboot", forgetting that this does not best serve the ordinary reader (because for all intents and purposes it is all one series, albeit with sloppy and contradictory continuity). The disruptive edits don't fit the strict definition of vandalism so hopefully setting this article to flagged edits will be sufficient. Thanks. -- 109.79.70.49 (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It's now set to pending changes protection, so you can still edit, but your edits are subject to review. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)