Jump to content

Talk:Transformers: Rise of the Beasts

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

Not the seventh movie. It's the second.

[edit]

It is clearly not the seventh film in the Bayformers series, since Bumblebee was 100% confirmed to be a straight hard reboot when it released. This is thus Transformers 2 and Bumblebee Transformers 1 of a brand new series. Doesn't matter if Bay is still involved or not. It's a 100% new continuity. --87.72.89.8 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources such as Deadline Hollywood say otherwise: Transformers 7. Di Bonaventura never put much weight on the term "reboot" [1] and Variety magazine said the films[2] "weren’t exactly sticklers for the laws of time and space, either". -- 109.78.197.54 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Super late reply, but thank you. NoobMiester96 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but lorenzo di bonaventura is a unreliable source since he doesn't know what he's talking about since he has a obsession with claiming every new movie is conected to the michael bay movies. A good chunk of the transformers fandom want him fired Adam p. Hardy (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@109.78.197.54 Think of logic. SpyderFrydge (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a continuation, how are people getting this so wrong? Unicron is in rise of the beasts and is a totally separate planet. In the Bay Transformer movies Unicron is Earth. These movies are not connected other than using some of the same characters. 2605:8D80:646:FCC2:2455:F64:5F5:DDCA (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reboot though. Hasbro confirmed at New York Toy Fair 2019 that bumblebee was "a new story telling universe" Cowman88 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source was an advertisement. It is not a reboot, plain and simple. 141.239.235.96 (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This film is a reboot! How do you explain Unicron in this movie as his own planet while in The Last Knight Unicron's the Earth itself? There's a lot evidence hear that proves that both Bumblebee (2018) and Rise of the Beasts are in a seperate universe.

(talk) 10:10, 8 November, 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantX13 (talk • contribs)

There is no obligation on anyone to explain how sloppy this series can be when it comes to canon and continuity. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show reliable sources that support your claim, especially since the producers have avoided using the term reboot. This is just another film in the series and editors should actively avoid using descriptions or terminology that is contentious. -- 109.76.128.3 (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah but the producer lorenzo is always contradicted by the movies himself he literally doesn't know what he's talking about Adam p. Hardy (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think he knows exactly what he's talking about just that he is unlikely to say anything that might discourage people from seeing the film. Your opinion or my opinion of Di Bonaventura doesn't really matter to this encyclopedia and what it considers reliable sources. The referenced source is considered reliable, and as a producer of the film series Di Bonaventura is expected to know, even experience has shown we should take his comments promoting the film with a grain of salt. It is difficult to express our knowledge that the series doesn't care much about as continuity without the risk of wandering into original research territory but we can use a certain amount of editorial judgement to express skepticism such as writing "According to Di Bonaventura" and making sure his statements are clearly and overtly attributed to him. The continuity (or lack of it) doesn't even matter, the films continue to be made by most of the same production team and are all technically part of the same series, from a certain point of view. Most importantly this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and the lead section is supposed to summarize the key points of the article, and this trivial arguing over canon and continuity is fancruft only briefly mentioned in the Production section, not a key point and does not need to be highlighted in the lead section. -- 109.79.72.19 (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bonaventura reputation is already up in air because Rise of the Beasts was a box office disappointment and he also produced Sony's Madame Web film and it failed miserably in both critically and finanicially. I have a feeling if 2024's Transformers One doesn't do fairly in the box office, Lorenzo will be let go by the studio and replaced with someone else. 2600:6C44:433F:7C62:6D19:2D5C:D3C9:C4B9 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section "standalone sequel" and other wording

[edit]

The lead section describes this film as a "standalone sequel". I find it unhelpful highly subjective to emphasize how much this film does or does not "stand alone" from the previous films (WP:POV, similarly we also avoid saying if something was "loosely adapted"). But there was a half-baked discussion about this already Talk:Transformers:_Rise_of_the_Beasts/Archive_1#Sequel and the director did in his own words described the film as "standalone",[3] and this is made clear in the in the article body Transformers:_Rise_of_the_Beasts#Development (with reference so repeating the reference in the lead section is unnecessary per WP:LEAD). The hidden warning comment was there to support the wording "standalone sequel". It is helpful to ordinary readers of the encyclopedia readers to be clearly told that this film is a sequel and the one after Bumblebee.

The wording "and prequel" was added later (misleadingly piggy-backing on the existing reference and hidden warning comment). The word "prequel" makes things less clear to ordinary readers, and is redundant because the premise more specifically and simply states the story is set in the 1990's. The wording "prequel" is mildly contentious because of the lousy continuity of this series (see various discussions and multiple edit requests above). Including the word prequel is undue and unnecessary and unhelpful. It keeps being added by and for fans who are deeply concerned about the canon and continuity of the series, more than they are about a clear and simple summary for ordinary readers. On the Bumblebee_(film) article, some effort was made to appease and compromise, but that overcomplicated compromise wording has still resulted in years of slow dumb edit warring (see Talk:Bumblebee_(film)#Prequel). This encyclopedia article should summarize and keep the lead section simple and avoided putting undue emphasis on fancrufty word "prequel", because it not actually a helpful description to ordinary readers and will including it will only result in yet another slow dumb edit war. -- 109.76.202.80 (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on" The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize and the whole lead section feels overloaded and verbose to me, too many blow-by-blow details have gradually accumulated. I'd recommend cutting a large chunk of the second paragraph (the first paragraph already says who the director and cast are). Editors of film articles seem to repeat the same patterns over and over again, without thinking about which details are most important to the specific film. For example, if a film premiered at Cannes or Venice or Sundance festivals that might be important, and get more than a single line in the article body, and also be worth highlighting the lead section, but the fact that this film happened to premiere in Singapore does not seem to be an essential detail that must be repeated in the lead section. It should be more than enough that lead section summarizes when the film went on wide release and the Release section in the article body includes the more specific details.
The lead section should summarize more concisely. -- 109.76.202.80 (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FILMLEAD "Other paragraphs in the lead section should cover aspects not yet mentioned." Director and cast were already mentioned in the first paragraph, and there was no need to repeat them or the timeline of when they joined the project, so I shortened and merged the second paragraph. -- 109.76.202.80 (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors keep trying to push the more verbose and redundant wording[4] but without any discussion, not so much as a simple edit summary. As I said already it is redundant (because the premise must say the story is set in the 1990's) and it is WP:UNDUE any extra emphasis beyond that. Is this article going to have another years long slow dumb edit war or are editors actually going to discuss why they believe crowbarring the word "prequel" into the lead section improves this encyclopedia article? -- 109.77.193.78 (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legobro99 in particular refuses to discuss, or even provide meaningful edit summaries. This reinforces my concerns that the wording is contentious and that it is better to keep it simple and shorter and avoid the redundant inclusion of "prequel" in the lead. -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look man. It's been confirmed this movie is a prequel to 2007. Legobro99 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look man. confirmed where? and by who? You keep making that assertion without backing it up. The director called it a standalone sequel, the word prequel wasn't used by Hasbro or the filmmakers. It is still redundant and unnecessary to crowbar it into the lead section. Imagine for a moment that this is an encyclopedia, a big book explaining things in a way that is understandable to grandpa and maybe even understandable to the grandkids too, things should be explained clearly and simply and putting emphasis on minor details don't matter. The continuity of this series is a clusterf... and it is an unnecessary overcomplication to even include the word "prequel". The brief summary of the premise is already going to say that the film is set in the 1990's, which makes saying "prequel" not only unnecessary but also entirely redundant.
To others reading this might seem trivial and pedantic but I'm making the argument now to avoid an even longer dumber argument later. There has been a years long slow dumb edit war at the BubmbleBee article (and a low quality verbose compromise wording locked in by a very small local consensus). If you keep the word "prequel" here too you are inviting another long slow dumb edit war here in this article. Fans can barely even accept that this is the seventh film, it would be far better to avoid any contentious wording as much as possible.
User:Legobro99 succeeded in getting the article locked with his preferred version by edit warring, but still fails to back up his assertions. It will probably be a few days before I have time to look at this again, I hope he continues to discuss and actually show some sources. -- 109.76.192.204 (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Legobro99 is unwilling to actually discuss his changes here, and continues to WP:HOUND me on another article, again restoring an edit (diff) that is obviously broken, being discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Crazy,_Stupid,_Love#Revert) and the editor who made that specific change User:InfiniteNexus has even acknowledged that " As for modifying reference titles, that was a mistake done by accident" but User:Legobro99 restored the broken edit anyway. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Legobro99, what are the sources which confirm the assertion under discussion? Please list them here. I don't want to take sides but there's so much "did not"/"did too" in the page history. I'd like to clarify exactly why the ip editor and you have been editwarring with largely no discussion. BusterD (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/transformers-rise-of-the-beasts-director-steven-caple-jr-1235484272/ "It doesn’t mess up any of the timeline in 2006, 2007. We’re actually going in a direction that allows us to protect that side of the universe," Legobro99 (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2023 (EST)
In that source[5] the director Steven Caple Jr. says "I feel like this is a standalone" and also as quoted that he has tried to maintain continuity with the other films in the series. The word prequel is never used, not even once in that article. There is no need to emphasize the word prequel in the lead section of this article. The plot/premise summary in the lead section is always going to need to say the story is set in the 1990's, making it redundant to emphasize the word prequel.
Again this might seem like a trivial thing to argue about but after watching years of slow dumb edit warring on the Bumblebee (film) article I believe it is important to argue this point sooner rather than later, to simplify the lead section and avoid including contentious wording that fans could potentially argue about for years to come. Yes fans want to be specific, yes they care about canon and continuity but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, and the lead section is supposed to summarize and explain things to ordinary readers in clear and simple terms. The word "prequel" is an unnecessary and redundant overcomplication, it would be far simpler and less contentious to leave it out entirely. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of discussing this issue and actually showing sources that use the term prequel (because the filmmakers have avoided using that term) User:Legobro99 instead continues to WP:HOUND me to other articles and revert (diff) my changes without any explanation and for no good reason. -- 109.76.201.77 (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:LegoBro is still belligerently hounding me to other articles and making unconstructive edits.[6] He refuses to engage in discussion because he knows the sources don't support his claims and his argument has no merit. -- 109.79.67.100 (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One fan says it's a new continuity, another says it's a prequel to the 2007 film–contradicting the first, and the word prequel is still in the article. Neocorelight (Talk) 05:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LegoBro was able to edit war, get the article locked (WP:HOUND me to other articles) but then never bother to discuss the substance of his changes, that the reliable sources don't' really support and in any case are undue emphasis in the lead section. So yes the lead section still has needless fancruft and the unnecessary emphasis on "prequel" because I have been prevented from removing it. People need to read what they write out loud to get a better understanding of how awful and cluttered it really is. -- 109.79.167.240 (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standalone sequel?

[edit]

it says two sequels are in development within the same article. Why is this called a standalone sequel? TreeElf (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two planned sequels to this film does not have anything to do with this being a standalone sequel to Bumblebee. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FANCRUFT that's the reason. How much this does or does not "standalone" from the other films in the series is almost entirely irrelevant, it is all one series. Obsessive fans really care deeply about canon and continuity (far more than the filmmakers actually do) making contradictory claims about how much this is a "direct sequel" to The Last Knight and also that is "standalone" and insisting that it absolutely needs to be highlighted in the lead section. Editor should re-read the guidelines on how to write a WP:LEAD section and rethink carefully about how best to summarize the article and inform encyclopedia readers about the subject, instead of pushing trivial details only existing for fans.
The director said "you don’t have to get caught up with the Beast Wars franchise in order to watch our movie. I feel like this is a standalone."[7] making it clear that RoTB stands alone from the Beast Wars television series, which editors have interpreted to mean this film stands alone from other Michael bay films. Future plans are dubious until they actually happen, things said optimistically while promoting the release of this film might never happen (Wahlberg was supposed to get a trilogy of Transformers films, only two happened). TreeElf is right though, if another film in the planned trilogy does comes out following the continuity with RoTB then the emphasising "standalone" will make even less sense than it does now. -- 109.79.67.100 (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2024

[edit]
31.221.40.84 (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States English

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gross

[edit]

In the Infobox replace X
"$438.9 million"
with Y
"$439 million" This is a simple rounding up to the nearest million and restores the recent WP:STATUSQUO

Also in the lead section replace X
"$438 million"
with Y
"$439 million"

This is how numbers are normally rounded (per MOS:LARGENUM) $438.9 million normally rounds up to $439 million, it is misleading, inaccurate and unnecessary to truncate it down to $438 million. For inexplicable reasons some editors keep doing this even though it would actually be easier to simply use the same box office gross figures consistently. (According to The-Numbers.com the gross is $439,241,749 which normally rounds down to $439.2 million[8] and Box Office Mojo lists the gross as $438,966,392[9] which rounds up to $439.0 million so simply rounding to $439 million keeps it simple for readers and avoids unnecessary issues over conflicting sources too.) -- 109.77.202.228 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll see the larger number though, and use that. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The grammar is now wrong you need to replace X "over of" with Y "". I recommended rounding to the nearest million, but if you are not going to do so then I strongly recommend you use the same $439.2 million figure in both the Infobox and lead section. -- 109.77.201.136 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something prohibiting you from creating an account, making at least 10 edits, and waiting 96 hours in order to have access to editing these articles yourself? if you have encountered problems, I can direct you to Wikipedia:Request an account. otherwise, I strongly recommend that you invest into creating one for yourself.
I have reworded this based on what you've said. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the article. There is nothing preventing me from creating an account. I choose not to use an account, please read the essay WP:WNCAA as it might help you understand some of the general reasons why someone might be happy to edit without logging in. -- 109.77.201.136 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that "essay" is useless and has no good points about anything. If you want to edit, i suggest that you do it well. "creating an account removes your identifibility" is one of the lines in that stupid patchwork opinion piece. AN ADMIN OR CHECKUSER who ACUTUALLY NEEDS TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE FOR A GOOD REASON can figure you out. nobody else needs to know. smh IP editor if you actually want to help the Wikipedia project you can pick a random name and accumulate edits so you may actually help on a meaningful level and not spend other people's time to have them do things that there is no reason that you should not be able to do yourself.
anyways, my point still stands, it's a good idea to make an account, i encourage it, have a nice day. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the benefit to me. I was disillusioned with Wikipedia and abandoned my account many years ago and edited sporadically since (Deletionism in particular, but other things too). I disliked having an account and found it annoying that people would comment on my page instead of discussing the article on the relevant article talk page. I've no interest in accumulating barnstars. I've been editing more recently but I am not going to get an account unless it becomes a forced requirement, and probably not even then. "help on a meaningful level"? sigh. "things that there is no reason that you should not be able to do yourself" if pages were not locked for over a year (and the lock extended) or protection lowered to allow flagged I would have been able to do the edit myself. Maybe the problem isn't yet another anon IP editor and maybe overuse of page locking is a problem as it leads to stagnation and more maintenance hassle than expected. But the admins thought it was better to continue to keep this page locked down.
Irrespective of my having an account or not the problem here is people being really bad at basic mathematics and failing to understand how to round numbers in the normal way MOS:LARGENUM. Maybe film articles should make greater use of the template {{Round}} to avoid this happening so often. -- 109.79.163.196 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are sockpuppets, there are vandals, these such issues are why page protections are necessary. You have to deal with it.
I don't know why people were bludgeoning you on your talk page. That sucks, but if that was a problem, you could have attached a notice to the top? Please, an annoyance that can be remided by typing "go to the talk page with this", and the point of barnstars? I've seen many an editor who has tagged their page with "this editor does not do it for the barnstars" or whatever.
If you want to edit Wikipedia, you're going to have to deal with the undeniable fact that vandals, including IP editors, as well as sockpuppetry and other bothers, cause pages to be protected. If you wanted to edit them as an IP address, you would have to eradicate all vandals and issues so they wouldn't have to be ("Like that's ever going to happen").
If you wanted to edit a protected page, all you would have to do is make an account, edit 10 times, and wait. Now tell me, which of these alternatives sounds easier? Making an account or snapping all vandals and malfactors, who cause this trouble and incite this response, out of existence? what is easier to you at the face value? YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I encourage you to discuss the large number things with the project. for consistency's sake. I edit these pages, and they could use some of that. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This encyclopedia cannot seem to get uncontentious basic mathematical facts like the box office gross right, this doesn't inspire confidence. I remain fundamentally disillusioned by both the shallow and deep deep problems with this project and yet for some reason I still edit occasionally. If the project needs someone like me to raise these issue then it must be even worse than I suspected. But that's getting offtopic for this article page. I'm disappointed that after over a year of being locked admins still thought it was best to keep the article fully locked. In this open encyclopedia that anyone can edit I believe that reducing the protection level down slightly to allow flagged edits would have offered a better balance of activity and stability. I wish I didn't have to ask but thanks anyway for fixing the minor errors in the box office gross. -- 109.79.163.196 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transformers:_Rise_of_the_Beasts&oldid=1243229120"