Talk:Transformers: Age of Extinction

Transformers FOUR

Why does the article bother to mention that this is not a reboot? Why on EARTH would any random assume that this is any other then the 4th movie in the series? 71.181.24.137 (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably because there were reports/rumors that it would be a reboot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.193.86.172 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That "not a reboot" would only hardly make sense if accompanied by a "contrarily to initial reports" which aren't there ATM. I removed that part of the text. --uKER (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Call sheet information

The call sheet revealed much of information, but now it has been removed at Paramount's request. Do yYou think we should undo the new info added here because of that? --CAJH (talk) 9:27, 25 August 2013 (EET)

Unicron, Galvatron and the Quintessons

Is there a remote possibility that we might see Unicron, Galvatron and/or the Quintessons in this upcoming film? AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing's been said about any of those characters.Transphasic (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Premise needs to be deleted.

There is no plot summary for the film, so why is their a rumored premise as it's official premise. 71.188.16.34 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the premise that was present and put a more, direct premise that is in line with that the story will be about up. 71.188.16.34 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Cyclonus

Cyclonus's name is mentioned by a leaked call sheet and even though I put a source on it, the IP users only remove it. Why?! CAJH (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2014 (EET)

No one knows if it was only a production name. But so were Dirft and Crosshairs under that doubt and they were still added to the list. CAJH (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2014 (EET)

T4 Superbowl Trailer spot, Marketing section

Here is a source to cite this for the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.16.34 (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Super Bowl trailer showed the twin-headed pterosaur seen in leaked toy images that was hinted as Strafe. Of course, the name is not officially confirmed and I was unable to find the toyline info from any OFFICIAL page. But could we mark the appearance of that Dinobot (without the name since it's not officilly confirmed), because of what we saw in the trailer and using a still as a source? Same thing was done with Grimlock. - CAJH (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2014 (EET)

In regards to that CAJH, per WP:FILMMARKETING, we need a source that has commentary on the clip, not just a image still. It would need to say something along the lines of "Dinobots shown, including Grimlock and a new, twin-headed pterosaur." Something like that. It has to specifically mention that for our inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Transformers 4, Crosshairs

75.157.142.233 (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC) For the Transformers 4, Age of Extinction page, it says one of the Transformers "A green 2014 Chevrolet C7 Corvette Stingray", is there. I would like to state, that, that Transformer's name is Crosshairs.

Sources :

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Crosshairs/1381987328698275

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ1Qp0pkIgY

Thanks!

 Not done The sources provided are not reliable sources to use as citations. However, I have found one that will work and will be adding the info to the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources

I don't know about some sites but TFW2005 is a very reliable source for the movies. More reliable than other sites. People who works for Hasbro are members. You guys should visit the site and actually read the posts and news instead of just saying some random stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobleboivin (talk • contribs) 06:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't "saying random stuff". It's policy. How it got by this long is beyond me. Please read WP:UGC and WP:SPS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Swoop would not be a Dinobot, but the Predacon Predaking

Swoop the Dinobot which is a Pteranodon, which in ar'ticulo mentioned has two heads and two tails, where you see the image of the Bumblebee riding, happens to be a scene where Bumblebee is mounted on the and empeiza to attack, or if possibly this is the main enemy, as it is possibly Predaking, the main villain.--Shinobilanterncorps (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This movie is not suppose to be like Transformers Prime: Beast Hunters. The character you see in the trailer is indeed one of Dinobots and transforms into twin-headed Pteranodon: Toyline indicates character's name as Strafe. "Swoop" is merely a fan speculation, since the Pteranodon Dinobot had that name in other continuities. But there are still not enough official confirmations to add Strafe into the list of characters in this movie. --CAJH (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2014 (EET)

All the movies of this franchise has been based on the Generation 1 Transformers storyline. Due to cinematic limitations, the directors crammed the movie in an effort to basically provide each character its own unique story. --Fowl_vet

This movie "borrows" many elements from Transformers Prime and Transformers Prime Beast Hunters. Even the "fat" autobot appears to be modeled after the T. Prime character Bulkhead. I also saw the similarities between the "dinobots" with the Predacons including the storyline of Cybertronians having visited earth many years before and predacon fossils being discovered.

Overall they started the movie with a completely new transformers mythos WITHOUT sharing what these were. It was confusing and frustrating, because I am a big fan of both the original storyline and a VERY big fan of the Transformers Prime storyline. But a lot of elements were injected into this movie that are completely new "creations" and I wonder if they ended up on the editing room floor.

--(User:Salsany|[Salsany]]

Sources to use

So my time has been really strained, and I haven't been able to take the time and dedicate readding sources to this page as I would have liked. I am adding below, sources where the info can be sourced from. This is a listing of all the articles reliable source IGN has done on the film. Use it as necessary, but be cautious to avoid a "rumor" article, versus a reporting/fact article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.ign.com/articles/movies/transformers-age-of-extinction/theater-112826
• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/category/projects/movies/transformers-4
• http://variety.com/t/transformers/ (this is good for the released photos of the cars, which should replace the Michael Bay.com sources, per WP:PRIMARY)

Stinger

The newest trailer hints Stinger being originally a man-made who becomes a Decepticon. But let me guess: because it's not clearly officially said by anyone from the production team, it can't yet be written here? --CAJH (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2014 (EET)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

TheDinobots (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Slash

Does ANYONE know yet whether Slash is the movie universe version of old Chopperface himself, the long-missed, honorable Dinobot from the Beast Wars? It'd be long overdue, and as a fan, that would be a welcome sight. The news of a velociraptor in the group perked my hopes, up... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.206.204 (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Plot

Given that all the information in the plot section was an amalgamation of all the information from reliable sources used elsewhere in the article, including the official trailers, I have restored it as it is a good grounding to add/remove information as it becomes available. Anyone wants to question it should discuss here. -- MisterShiney ✉ 14:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be beneficial to mention the criticism and reception to the series, especially the palpable negative criticism to Michael Bay's directing and his astonishing track record for making movies devoid of coherent plot that still manage to succeed at the box office, which is likely due more to the love of the Transformers than to any association with Michael Bay. 2605:6000:EC41:1900:6D50:CFF4:D75C:5F22 (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

All the movies of this franchise has been based on the Generation 1 Transformers storyline. Due to cinematic limitations, the directors crammed the movie in an effort to basically provide each character its own unique story.

For example any Transformers Gen 1 fan would know that the Dinobots or in the movie known as "legendary knights" has been created by Wheeljack and Ratchet. In this movie, it appears that the explanation says that the earth has been bombed with Seeds, a grenade changing any organic form of life into metal and are harvested by the Creators for production material. In Gen 1 Transformers, the Quintessons, a 5-faced floating bot are the boss of Cybertron who decides on their fate.

If anyone noticed Bumblebee has still not regained his voice. His voice is reminiscent of the robots in the planet of Junk in Gen 1 Transformers using t.v. and radio sound clips. If Optimus has his original voice, why not Bumblebee?

I would recommend to Michael Bay for once, adhere to the true storyline of the Transformers for the sake of the ones who saw it first, like me and the others. This movies would basically tell the younger generation that this is the storyline of the Transformers, which has been deviated from the story that made us cherish and love the story of humans and robots, working together for the common good. --Fowl_vet

Page Protection for vandalism?

What the heck? -- MisterShiney ✉ 15:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

transformers

transformers transformers revenge of the fallen transformers dark of the moon transformers age of extinction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.206.63 (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Garbage truck

Because we no longer use TFW2005 as a source, we must find another source for this: http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-toys-products-30/age-of-extinction-junkheap-revealed-179770/ A garbage truck Decepticon named Junkheap. His alternate mode was seen during filming. But do we add him to the character list or not? CAJH (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

wheres the plot?

Can someone, anyone please put down a plot already? cause I think it's kinda ovious here. Look at other movie sites they say: humans are using the transformers technology to expand what they can control and all the while a dark, evil transformer manace sets planet earth in its sights.

If anyone of you editors on this site are capable of getting info on the plot, nows the time. And please could you keep it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.231.186 (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Slog and Snarl?

2 Dinobots, Slog and Snarl, were on something about doritos. Though they haven't been seen a lot, the characters have official artwork. Add him or not? 72.69.96.205 (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

http://io9.com/first-look-at-more-new-dinobots-of-transformers-age-of-1576654201 At first Snarl was thought to be Stegosaurus/Ankylosaurus hybrid, but toys confirm that he is just Stegosaurus. CAJH (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox starring parameter and Stanley Tucci

According to Template:Infobox film, the starring parameter of a film infobox is supposed to contain "the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release." Per this guideline, I removed all the actors except for Mark Wahlberg and Stanley Tucci from the starring parameter because only they are listed in the billing block. Since Tucci is officially billed second, I also put him second in the cast section of the article. In disagreement with this is Larry1996, who believes the infobox should have more than two actors in it and Tucci cannot be billed above Nicola Peltz and Jack Reynor because they apparently portray the film's deuteragonist and tritagonist respectively. What are other people's thoughts on who should be in the billing block and where Tucci should be placed in the cast section? Bluerules (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Tucci should be placed in 4th place, he shouldn't be in 2nd

Larry1996 (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Where he's placed is dependent on where official material places him. At the moment, the only actors with official billing are Wahlberg and Tucci. Everyone else is up to speculation, but the official poster and the official website bill Tucci second. Bluerules (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Traxes and Vehicons

Ever since we found about these Trax characters, we've been assuming them as Vehcions as they were seen in Kre-O, but without any official confirmation. However, I've found two signs that may finally make that rumor false even though not to add Vehicons to the character list yet. The first sign are Lockdown's humanoid robot minions seen in this TV spot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf2VrhQj6BY. They resemore than those Age of Extinction Kre-O set Vehicons more than those Trax robots. And the other sign is this article: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-transformers-cars-20140614-story.html where General Motors somehow are referring Trax not only as a vehicle mode name, but also as a name for these robots. What do you say? We should keep the Vehicons away from the character list, since not confirmed outside of Kre-O sets. But what about the article about Trax. Do you think it's safe to write "Traxes" as a name for those Chevrolet Trax robots? CAJH (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It may sound strange to see "Trax" as a robot name, but maybe not if they would appear to be human-made like Galvatron and Stinger. CAJH (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Movie poster

The poster needs to stop changing. Yesterday(6/16)it changed 4 times in 20 minutes. keep the one of Prime leaning on his sword, thats my vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.192.82 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Character pics

It would be nice if some pics of the new bots could be added to their respective pages. the only one who has one is ,I think, Galvatron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.192.82 (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Mobile Game?

Hey! The mobile game is out. Shouldn't somebody add that on this page? Transformers 4Fan (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What KSI stands for?

Many review have different view of the company name which is shortened as "KSI". Is any of them ever REALLY mentioned in the film? CAJH (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The film itself mentions KSI as "Kinetic Solutions." - Areaseven (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

And nothing about the letter "I"? CAJH (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Likely the default 'Incorporated' for companies. See Incorporation (business). Dru of Id (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Four Years Later or Five Years Later?

The article contradicts itself. How long has it been since Dark of the Moon and how do we know?

Moorglade (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It's five years, because that was said by the government people in the film itself when Attinger told them about his black-ops' team's job about hunting the Transformers. The information said in the film counters what was reported during production. CAJH (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

People have never stopped making disruptive edits over this over this text. Perhaps it would be better to avoid the unnecessary specific timeline information and replace X "Five years later, despite the efforts after the Battle of Chicago" simply with Y "After the Battle of Chicago"? -- 109.255.172.169 (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

$302,138,390 at Box office

There is something fishy about the box office $302,138,390 Sources :

• https://www.yahoo.com/movies/transformers-box-office-controversy-erupts-after-90371685532.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.185.184 (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• screw that. The movie itself was good, and no one cares, so let's just move on and admit that the movie was good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.96.205 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2014

203.34.116.201 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

INFOBOX: Starring

I 100% understand the reasons for only having Mark Wahlberg and Stanly Tucci in starring, considering they were on the poster. However it seams odd only including those two when the film contained a large number of principal characters. It seams logical that at least Nicola Peltz, Kelsey Grammar and Peter Cullen should be included. Please leave your thoughts below. It is important to note that in the trailer only Wahlberg was included. Warner REBORN (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Cast; why only Mark Wahlberg and Stanley Tucci on top?

So I recently edited the top of the page with additional actors since the only ones on the top were Mark Wahlberg and Stanley Tucci. Then that was edited back to just Mark and Stanley by STATicVapor, saying he reverted a good faith edit without billing block. For those of you who think that the two actors on the top of the page should be followed by more actors, leave a comment with your thoughts. As for this user, what's with this good faith and billing block purpose? - Theironminer (talk), 14:47, 3 August, 2014

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't know why there aren't other cast members. It's true that on the poster it only has those two, but in the end credits it has all the lead actors. There should be Peltz, Reynor, Grammer, Welliver, and Miller on there as well. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Using the cast from the poster billing block or above the line works well for many cases, it just doesn't happen to work so well in this case. We could still ignore the poster and instead establish and local consensus, but even then we should still have some kind of a source to help us decide "only these people" in the infobox. Maybe the official site has a shortlist of the top cast, something like that. Listing on Wahlberg and Tucci isn't perfect but it is what we've got, unless someone wants to go to the trouble of setting a sensible limit on who goes in the infobox and establishing a local consensus. -- 109.79.84.158 (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

People keep edit warring over this, mostly anon editors. If editors really want to change the cast listed in the Infobox they should have a good reason and explain it properly (at least with an edit summary but preferably discuss it here). They should ideally provide some kind of a reference that would help set a limit on how many cast are listed and allow other editors to check the list. The also should not leave a hidden comment saying the billing block is " Per poster billing" if there is a consensus to do something else. -- 109.78.192.128 (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

19th film to reach $1 billion

Age of Extinction is the 19th film to reach $1 billion not 9th. Change "9th film" to "19th film to reach $1 billion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.41.145 (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't anyone changing ninth to nineteenth? It's the nineteenth film to gross $1 billion. If only this page wasn't locked I would change it and make it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.41.145 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is no one seeing this. Age of Extinction is not the ninth film to gross $1 billion. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 was the ninth film to gross $1 billion. Age of Extinction is the nineteenth film to gross $1 billion. Someone change it, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.41.145 (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Home media

Someone should add the home media section to this article, because it has been confirmed the movie will be on digital HD September 16 and DVD/Blu-ray September 30.

I believe you on this and have heard the commercial for it myself. But if you have a URL link or two to cite as sources, you could post it yourself. I think the release came as a surprise to many. I could have sworn that I saw it on here stating it wouldn't be released until either November or December, and they changed it. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

They released it on Blu-ray/DVD 3 days ago. I saw that on Facebook, and even commercials for it. KingBwains (User talk:KingBwains) 18:28 3 October 2014 (PDT) — Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2015

I would like to edit one part at the end of the plot where Optimus Prime sends a message to his creators that he'll find them. I want to edit it like this "Optimus Prime goes out to space and sends a message to the Creators to leave Earth alone and he'll find them"

50.65.132.61 (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the first big American brand making a play for China via product placement. It's a fantastic platform to do this kind of deal

This article give a reference how Hollywood movie targeting Chinese audiences to buy American car’s brand, GM in The Transformers: Age of Extinction. They are placing american car in an american movie transformer: Age of Extinction for pre-advertisement for the big car’s brand in the USA. It is really professional marketing strategies , and the result is pretty out standing that they grossed 165 million. Also “ This is the first big American brand making a play for china via product placement. It is a fantastic platform to do this kind of deal” - Derborag Harur, chief executive of Mogul Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.206.151 (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Megatron/Galvatron

Why can't I say that Megatron and Galvatron are the same character, even though Optimus Prime and Brains confirmed that they are the same character? We saw Megatron's brain upload into Galvatron's body. "Within that man-made prototype I fought, I sense the presence of Megatron" - Optimus Prime. "KSI might've named the body the snappy name of Galvatron, but that's just Megatron reincarnated" - Brains. Spider-Man2017 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I request a protection on this page

Someone keeps messing with the page and reorganizing it to how they see fit — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransformerRoland (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes: you. This also isn't the place to request protection. If you think the page should be protected, make a request at WP:RPP. Marianna251TALK 20:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar of plot section need work

Lots of examples of incorrect usage of there vs their, sentence fragments, etc.

>> Agreed. this was either written by someone who's first language isn't English, or someone with a very poor grasp of grammar.

Huge delete

Want to make note of a huge delete of a list of minor Transformers characters that appeared in the film. On the one hand I understand the delete, but on the other hand it makes this article inconsistent with the other articles for the films from the series, and the list is a lot like how the Jurrassic Park articles list all the types of dinosaurs that appear in the film. Also it is a shame to waste so much effort that was added in good faith. I don't plan to restore it myself anytime soon but back myself but maybe someone else might add it back and make sure it is up to the same standard as the similar lists in the other articles. -- 109.76.221.165 (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

" Justification of Underage dating" controversy

Is this worth mentioning on the Reception header? Sources: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/not-ok-michael-bay-transf_b_5549427 and https://www.ravishly.com/2014/07/01/transformers-age-extinction-review-sexism Xyuehong (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be just as happy to ignore it but it would be better that the "Romeo and Juliet" question be addressed here in this article rather than having it awkwardly shoehorned into the Transformers film franchise article (See Transformers_(film_series)#Critical_and_public_response it goes back further than 2019 I'm not going to look back any further). It is a tacky and tasteless plot point that makes me cringe and I wouldn't want to put WP:UNDUE emphasis on the issue but if the Critical response section was a expanded a bit more I do think it would be appropriate to mention it briefly. -- 109.78.205.154 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant in all accords. 85.23.142.58 (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I remain skeptical of CONTROVERSY sections. As I said above adding one seemed like a bad idea. Nonetheless in November 2025 an editor went ahead and added a Controversy section anyway.(diff) It doesn't seem as if he noticed this discussion.
The "controversy" never achieved that much mainstream attention, as I said before it is probably WP:UNDUE to give it much attention, let alone a section with multiple paragraphs. The claim that it "garnered controversy since its release and ongoing notoriety for more than a decade" seems to be original research that is not supported by reliable source. Please note that WP:IMDB is not a reliable source (especially not the "goofs" section, see also WP:UGC) and should not have been used as a reference. The Honest Trailers YouTube channel is not a reliable source either. (I'm not familiar with SheKnows.com but it is published by Penske Media Corporation it is possible it might meet Wikipedia standards of "reliable".)
The photo of Jack Raynor is a good addition to the article in general but he wasn't responsible for producing directing or writing the bad joke, and seems especially unfair to stick his face the controversy section. It would probably be better to include pictures of the cast in the Cast section.
The few potentially reliable sources (EW, THR) seem to all be from around the time of release, it isn't clear that people cared enough about this bad joke at the time to call it much of a "controversy" at that time, and there are no later or current sources there is any ongoing controversy or notoriety.
When the second film came out there was plenty of criticism of Mudflap and Skids but by the time the fourth film came out expectations were far lower and the "controversy" was barely a blip, a fart in the wind. At most this bad joke merits only a brief mention, not a whole subsection. The controversy section should be reverted, unless and until, more better reliable sources can be found. -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2024

I want to add the short summary of Transformers: Age of Extinction.

"Set five years after the events of Dark of the Moon, struggling inventor Cade Yeager and his daughter Tessa find themselves caught in a battle between the Autobots and the government after discovering a damaged truck, which turns out to be Optimus Prime. As they uncover a powerful Cybertronian artifact, they join forces to protect it from the ruthless bounty hunter Lockdown and a new breed of man-made Transformers. Their mission becomes a race against time to prevent the extinction of both humans and Transformers." Patrick8601 (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Not done: too wordy for lede. Barry Wom (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2024

Please revert this unexplained Plot section change (diff)

While specificity is normally a good thing in an encyclopedia but in a plot section it is sometimes better to keep it simple. The in-universe timeline versus the real world production timeline is unclear and has created confusion and disputes before, see past discussion #Four Years Later or Five Years Later?. It is unclear if the claimed timeline is accurate but more importantly the exact timeline is irrelevant to the plot of this film. The exact year was intetionally removed from the plot section (diff) to avoid such problems. Please revert. -- 109.78.192.78 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 05:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

THanks. -- 109.78.196.145 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

In the film, struggling inventor Cade Yeager and his daughter Tessa find themselves thrust into a high-stakes battle. With the help of Optimus Prime and the Autobots, they must face off against the ruthless bounty hunter Lockdown, the covert black ops unit Cemetery Wind, and a new breed of man-made Transformers. Their mission becomes twofold: to uncover a powerful Cybertronian artifact and to save Earth from the threat of extinction. 112.211.11.102 (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 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. —Sirdog (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The above editor seems to be is the same anon IP editor that repeatedly added bloat to the lead section (and apparently caused this article to be locked). They do not seem to understand that the purpose of the WP:LEAD is to summarize the article body. Only a brief concise summary of the plot is needed in the lead section, to introduce the premise to readers. A longer more detailed plot summary is redundant and unnecessary. -- 109.78.196.145 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

He's at it again. He waited for his newly created account to gain the necessary authorization and repeated the same edits that were repeatedly reverted and caused the article to be locked in the first place.
Please revert: (diff) -- 109.76.197.50 (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Though I wouldn't be surprised if they just add it back later. Reopen this request if that happens. Liu1126 (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024

In the film, struggling inventor Cade Yeager and his daughter Tessa discover a damaged truck, which turns out to be Optimus Prime. They join forces with the Autobots to face off against the relentless bounty hunter Lockdown, the covert black ops unit Cemetery Wind, and a new breed of man-made Transformers in their quest to prevent the use of a powerful Cybertronian artifact called the Seed, which has the potential to trigger Earth's extinction. 112.211.3.102 (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 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. Jamedeus (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Correlation not causation

Please revert this edit that was made without any explanation: (diff)

AND not BUT. Two things happened, the film got bad reviews, and the film made a lot of money. There might be correlation but there is not causation, and the wording in the lead section should not suggest otherwise. If this encyclopedia is supposed to be objective and neutral it should not claim that the box office gross was in spite of or "but" the reviews (even if many editors unfortunately use such common phrasing instead of more cautious encyclopedic phrasing).

...or to format the request in the very specific way this template demands, please
Replace X
"but was a box office success, grossing over $1.104 billion "
with Y
"and was a box office success, grossing $1.104 billion"

Thanks. -- 109.76.132.151 (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: request introduces errors. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"but" was conflating two separate things. The current use of "Nonetheless" is again conflating two separate things and still MOS:EDITORIALIZING

"over" is an entirely unnecessary qualifier (we don't write "under") MOS:LARGENUM "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way, unless the reader might otherwise be misled." $1.104 billion needs no qualifier. -- 109.78.196.107 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done Barry Wom (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I wish I didn't need to keep asking people to fix the same problems that shouldn't even be happening in the first place, but thanks again Barry.(diff) -- 109.78.196.107 (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

New unexplained "standalone sequel" claim

The lead section was changed to claim this was a standalone sequel (diff) without any explanation whatsoever. The lead is supposed to summarize the article body but the article body makes no mention of this claim. Firstly it is not clear that this 4th film in the series (that acknowledges the destruction of Chicago from the earlier film) is a "standalone sequel" to begin with and secondly, even if it was a "standalone sequel" there is nothing to suggest it is key point that would need to be highlighted in the lead section. This strange new claim should be removed from the lead section. -- 109.76.193.238 (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

In the lead section please change X "standalone sequel" to Y "sequel" (or revert this unexplained change(diff) if it can still be cleanly reverted)

• No explanation was given for this change
• Later films in the series were described by some as "standalone" this film was not, the cast changed but it was still very clearly a Michael Bay joint.
• How much it does or does not standalone is still subjective (it really doesn't, it refers to events from the previous film).
• Concerns about continuity in this series are WP:FANCRUFT likely to "bore, distract or confuse a non-fan"

Please revert to the WP:STATUSQUO. Thanks in advance. -- 109.78.192.142 (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

In the lead section please change X "standalone sequel" to Y "sequel"

Request reopened, because this fancruft was added in yet again and as usual without any explanation (diff) (22 February 2026) (Also WP:OVERLINK, simple terms like sequel do not need wiki link). -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done, but please, in the future, just open a new request instead of opening an old, stale one (you can link to the old one if you think it would help of course). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Will try to remember that in future. It is unfortunate though that the same request has to be made over and over again. perhaps I should request hidden warning comments be added to the wiki source any time I have to make the same request more than once. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected June 1 - "Standalone" 2

That didn't last long unfortunately. Claim reinserted by different editor without any explanation, [(diff)]. Please revert again, for same reasons as above.

Fans cannot seem to help themselves from overloading the lead section with excruciatingly trivial details that they want for themselves instead of writing what an encyclopedia article needs to explain to normal ordinary readers. (Also the claim that it is "standalone" not just WP:FANCRUFT and WP:UNDUE trivia that shouldn't be highlighted in the lead section, it isn't even based on fact. It is actively contradicted by the plot section saying "Five years after the Battle of Chicago" clearly indicating it is all part of the same continuity.) -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2025

Although the action sequences, musical score, visual effects and the cast performances (particularly those of Wahlberg and Grammer) were praised 189.235.192.151 (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC) Lucas Rodrigues da Silva Laurel

 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. I assume you mean adding this to the lead section? You will definitely need to include a reliable source for this change, as the critical response section seems to suggest otherwise for these additions. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk · contribs) 05:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Add the change on the praise line after the negative resume reviews although the visual effects, action sequences, musical score and the cast performances (particularly those of Wahlberg and Grammer) were praised 189.235.192.151 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Barry Wom (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2025 (2)

I would like to include after the negative reviews from critics that although the action sequences, visual effects, musical score and the cast performances were praised 189.164.121.73 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC) I would like to include after the negative reviews from critics that although the action sequences, visual effects, musical score and the cast performances were praised

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Lead section SYNTH of Critical response

This (diff) looks a lot like WP:SYNTH and undue praise for a film that was not not well liked by critics. Roeper directly criticized the cluttered special effects but this edit changed the lead to claim the effects were praised. The critical response in the lead section should probably be trimmed back to only the most clear and well supported generalizations (as the hidden warning comment suggested). -- 109.78.192.142 (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit (diff) addressed most of my concerns about the lead section mispresenting the actual critical response section in the article body. Editors that want to make better encyclopedia articles need to be aware and that fans will persistently try to claim the review were other than negative (despite 18% on Rotten Tomatoes and 32% on Metacritic) and this neutral objective wording may need to be restored again in future. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2025

• Replace X "[[File:Jack Reynor - Irish actor.jpg|alt=Reynor smiling|thumb|Reynor in 2014|175px]]In the film, 17-year-old Tessa"
• with "In the film, 17-year-old Tessa"

See above discussion about Controversy section, Reynor did not produce direct or write the bad joke and it is unfair to put his picture in that section, he was an actor doing his job. I remain skeptical that the Controversy section should exist at all (see above) but due to article being locked and the limitations of the {{edit semi-protected}} process I have deliberately kept this request very simple. I leave it to the discretion of the editor if they want to move the image to another section instead of removing it entirely. -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the photo for now. I'm actually inclined to remove the entire section as WP:UNDUE but I'll see if anyone objects here first. Pinging TheLostPariah, who added it. Day Creature (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I support removing the photo and I should not have added it in the first place, shoutout to the above.

that said: I think the section should remain on account of 1) This movie had very little cultural impact EXCEPT for that moment; if anyone is to mention Transformers 4 in conversation today, they’re probably bringing up that scene. The discourse around that scene, including the actor addressing it directly in interview years later post #metoo, shows its relevance — more important than a video game based on a movie or revenue metrics. Modern Warfare 2’s Wikipage would be incomplete without No Russian’s controversy, and this I believe is a smaller version of that.

If nothing else, the section’s inclusion is a pretty stark moment showing Hollywood’s continuing flippantness toward sexualizing teenagers.

(Apologize for verbosity. G bless.) TheLostPariah (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree this film had very little cultural impact (The Last Knight exceeds it in every way). Things a few people complained about at the time and that fans still talk about does not rise to something big enough to justify a whole Controversy section in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. No problem with the verbosity in a talk page discussion but in the article over 200 words to address a bad joke seems excessive, it merits a line or two at most. The issues issues raised above still need to be addressed if this section is to stay in the article.
WP:IMDB is not an acceptable source and should never have been allowed and should have been removed already.
WP:NPOV the text should be written in a more neutral way "A subplot and specific scene in Age of Extinction have garnered controversy since its release and ongoing notoriety for more than a decade" the sources would need to be far better to strong enough to support the strong claim that this was a full on "Controversy" rather than a lame joke. If you really want to put this much emphasis on it then more sources, such as film critics complaining about the joke instead of weaker sources. (Irish newspaper film critic calling it out.)
The reference with Reynor's comments is good, the others not so much. The section could and should be much more concise. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on May 9, 2025

Replace X: "In the film, 17-year-old Tessa is dating 20-year-old Shane, which would be illegal should the two engage sexually in several U.S. states but not in Texas (where much of the film is based) due to a [[Romeo and Juliet law]] — which generally protects against prosecution when someone over the age of 18 has sex with someone underage so long as both parties consented and the age gap is within a certain range.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=23 November 2025|url=https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2109248/goofs?tab=gf&item=gf2223611&ref_=ext_shr_lnk|title=Goofs|website=[[imdb]]}}</ref> The film calls attention to the gray area,"

with Y: "The film calls attention to the [[Romeo and Juliet law|age of consent in Texas]],"

WP:IMDB should not have been used as a source in this article, and this should have been removed already. The section is also excessively verbose and needs to be shorter and more concise. I would ask that editors follow my edit request verbatim, and only then after that if they feel it is necessary to make any other further changes they might believe are necesary. IMDB should not have been used as a reference, it is disappointing that this was allowed in the article since November 2025 (diff) and still no one has fixed it. The systems is seriously flawed if it requires months and an anonymous editor like me to make a request to fix a mistake like this. The whole paragraph still needs a rewrite and better sourcing, as it. This encyclopedia article should follow its own rules, see CONTROVERSY sections and undue weight. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Just a side note, please, you don't have to write "X" and "Y". The "X" and "Y" in the instructions are metasyntactic variables and aren't meant to be included verbatim (really it should just be anything that makes it clear what you want to change exactly). I'm going to say Not done for now, because the resulting change would read incredibly awkwardly if done exactly like that. And while the IMDB source is probably no good, presumably the other sources (like Hollywood Reporter) that are in there can at least get the basics. A little context is probably okay here. The whole section could use a hatchet, but I don't have a great way to clean it up right now –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It is strange to be told not to take the documentation literally and slavishly follow the style it says is required, but at the same time to also be told that editors are not willing to address the main substantive issue of an unreliable source. I follow the pedantic formatting requested not because I want to force editors to do things any particular way, but because I want the article fixed and for this to be a better encyclopedia. I am disappointed that editors thinks it is appropriate to continue keep an unreliable source such as IMDB in an encyclopedia article after being specifically asked to remove it.

Editors could at least partially fix the issue make the minimum change they believe think is necessary or they could revert the whole paragraph, the WP:BURDEN was and still is on the person who added it originally to make sure that it is properly reliably sourced. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, I would support removal of the entire section as WP:UNDUE. At the very least, it should be significantly shortened (maybe a sentence or two at most) and the sourcing issues dealt with. Day Creature (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2025 - IMDB should not be used as a reference

Replace X: <ref>{{cite web|access-date=23 November 2025|url=https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2109248/goofs?tab=gf&item=gf2223611&ref_=ext_shr_lnk|title=Goofs|website=[[imdb]]}}</ref> The film calls attention to the gray area," with Y: <ref>{{cite web|access-date=23 November 2025|url=https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2109248/goofs?tab=gf&item=gf2223611&ref_=ext_shr_lnk|title=Goofs|website=[[imdb]]}} {{Better source needed|reason=[[WP:IMDB]] is not a reliable source|date=June 2026}}

ie add {{Better source needed|reason=[[WP:IMDB]] is not a reliable source|date=June 2026}} after the reference to IMDB.

I ask for this minimal change to tag the reference because editors above previously declined to remove the reference to WP:IMDB (which should not have been allowed in the first place) but fully removing the IMDB reference entirely would be preferable. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done I've added the better source needed tag for now. As concerns continue to be raised over the sourcing and due weight of the "Controversy" subsection, I am considering removing it entirely. Does anyone object to this? Day Creature (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It was stupid and was overblown but it was memorable. (Nonetheless, I don't think it was any more important than the controversies surrounding TJ Miller and they don't get a mention here because they're not directly connected to this film. After "the twins" in second film most people knew better than to keep watching this franchise if they found the style of humor offensive. By the fifth film the lazy stupid description of Isabella Merced as Little J'Lo barely provoked any reaction at all.) My preference would be for the bad joke to be mentioned only once and only very briefly somewhere in the article. The recently added source could be moved to the Production section to explain that the "joke" wasn't even in the script but was a late addition. (I am not going to trawl through to contemporary critic reviews to find if it was called out specifically, but if it was that might be justification for second short sentence.) That is the limit of the emphasis I would think is appropriate for this encyclopedia to give to this nothing burger controversy. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on May 5, 2025

Please revert Scriptboy (diff). This was not a mistake to be fixed, but I can understand that editors would make a good faith effort to keep articles consistent but "American film" was deliberately omitted.

In the first sentence of lead section remove the word "American" as this is a both Chinese and American co-production (see Infobox) and MOS:FILMCOUNTRY "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later"

... and to follow the format technically required by this template:

• replace X "2014 American science fiction action film"
• with Y "2014 science fiction action film"

Thanks in advance -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Timeline references are better avoided

Please revert this recent unexplained change to the plot section(diff) and lead section (diff) which asserts that this story is set five years after the previous film. (The lead section does not need to mention this trivial detail. It is unclear if this detail is correct in the plot section, but again it doesn't need to be mentioned.)

See above #Four Years Later or Five Years Later?

There was a slow edit war over the vague and dubious timeline. Then as now, editors did not explain with a meaningful edit summary, they just slow edit warred over a detail that is not even important. Editors frequently get confused by the real-world release date timeline versus the in in-story-universe timeline. It is both easier and better to avoid mentioning dubious attempts to be specific that no normal readers actually care about. It was done that way on purpose, please restore the older wording. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Standalone 3

See above #New unexplained "standalone sequel" claim

In the lead section please change X "standalone sequel" back to Y "sequel"

previous revert was ignored and editor repeated it yet again without any explanation days later (diff) please revert again. See also section directly above about recent timeline changes, you might want to go further and revert big chunks to restore the lead section.

If you are feeling zealous it might even be good to remind the editor that everyone is supposed to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain their changes with a meaningful edit summary.

This franchise is a magnet for WP:FANCRUFT and blocking anon IP editors only offers limited protection, named editors with accounts are just as misguided and the articles in this series should all be set to allow only flagged edits. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done I've changed "standalone sequel" back to "sequel" for now, and will take a look at the rest of the lead when I have more time. Day Creature (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)