Talk:Bonecrusher (Transformers)

message: A robot with Bonecrusher's vehicle form can be seen in the desert at the end of the film, but is there any confirmation that this is actually meant to be Bonecrusher? A robot similar to Blackout appears but this is known to be Grindor so is this just a case of mistaken indentity? --86.157.212.138 (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I seperated the dog Bonecrusher from the Decepticon, since they are different characters. Mathewignash (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Whatever.  Do what you gotta do.  But where did you seperate the Dog Bonecrusher too?--TriPredRavage (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, just went through the edit history, some one removed it without reason.  I replaced it.--TriPredRavage (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The dog is mentioned in the section for the 2007 film, which is when it first came out, and when the dog got its name. There's no sense in creating a RotF section just to mention a dog having the character's name. Then again, I reinstated the RotF section with the mention of the Bonecrusher lookalike in RotF which serves the purpose of informing anyone wondering whether it's him in the film or not. Also, his toy bio deserves mention since it poses an open end for him after the first movie. --uKER (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: "all the supporting fiction made says Bonecrusher was alive. "  What, just one toy bio meant to sell a repaint?  This idea isn't even supported by the IDW or Titan comics (the later because his survival was entirely dependent on a splinter timeline).  Face it, THERE IS NO REASON WE CAN POSITIVELY SAY THAT BONECRUSHER WAS IN ROTF!!!   209.106.203.252 (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the text says it POSSIBLE it may be him, not that it IS him. It's a very neutral statement. Mathewignash (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Going by your reasoning, what would Wikipedia provide for someone who just saw the movie and wants to know whether that was Bonecrusher or not? How would they know Wikipedia's editors didn't just omit to mention him? Which also has the wonderful side effect of getting us wave after wave of not-so-informed people adding it into the article saying it's in fact him. Also, your removal loses the mention of the outcome described for Bonecrusher in his toy bio that mentions him surviving the first movie. --uKER (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My response is, how are we supposed to give an answer to someone who just saw the film if we do not officially know ourselves?  Also, we all know that the movie toy bios aren't exactly the best examples to hold basis on.  Just because the toy bio says he survived, doesn't prove his existance in the film.  I hope that Bay will mention the cameo in the commentary and that will answer to whether or not it is or is not Bonecrusher.  But until then, we do not know for sure that it was Bonecrusher.  We know someone looking like Bonecrusher was in the film, but we don't know if it was him.  There were tons of 'Cons in the film that all looked alike becasue they were just generic nameless characters.  Plus, with the Blackout/Grindor look-alike, we don't know if it was actually him. --TriPredRavage (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And my response is, did you really read what I wrote? Does this ever say it was Bonecrusher? The point is saying "yes, we know there was a bot that looks like him but we don't really know whether it's really him". If you were able to think outside of the box, you'd realize it does constitute information, it is indeed related to Bonecrusher regardless of it really being him or not, and it is in fact undeniable, so I don't see your problem with it. And no, there were certainly not "tons of lookalikes" as you say. In fact, Grindor is the only character with an earth mode that resembled some other character. --uKER (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that.  But seeing as we don't know if it is Bonecrusher or not, it doesn't merrit him having his own section.  In truth, his appearance is no different than any of the other Decepticons that arrive in that part of the film.  We don't know it's him officially.  Do I think it's him; yes.  Do I know it's him; no.  I'm just saying, it's not worth giving its own section.  I think it could/should be mentioned along with the other information in the first film's plot section, or a sub-section title RotF, but the (currently) nameless character does not merit his own page.--TriPredRavage (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I think it's him? No. Do I give a damn about it being him? No. Am I a fanboy? No. I just want a better article. I just don't want people to come here and only be able to wonder why there's no mention of Bonecrusher in Revenge of the Fallen when they could swear they saw him. I guess it's not too hard to understand. --uKER (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I understand that.  But we don't know it is him.  People would swear that they saw Blackout in RotF, too.  But they didn't.  My point is, the best article will not say what we don't know for sure.  We don't know it is him, and until we do, the best article will not claim that the character in RotF is the same from the first film.--TriPredRavage (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you let me know if there any way in which I can make you understand I-am-not-implying-it-to-be-Bonecrusher-himself? I just intend people who watch the movie and swear they saw Bonecrusher, to be able to come here and have something to indicate we're not morons who just missed him being there. There's a clone of him here, for Christ's sake. Do you consider that too far fetched to deserve mention? And no, there's not tons of clones of other characterized robots. --uKER (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I understand what you are saying.  I do.  The point is, because we do not know that it is Bonecrusher for sure, we can't say that Bonecrusher appeared in the film.  Seeing as he is an unnamed character, and did very little of importance, he does not merit his own section of the page.  I have edited the Movie Plot section of the 2007 film to include the clone and describe that he is a look-alike.  I hope this satisfies you.--TriPredRavage (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet Mathewignash refuses to follow the consensus. He wants to insist that the character is Bonecrusher. What do you propose to do then? --72.186.97.147 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenge of the Fallen 

message: When and where was this supposed Hasbro Q&A session that they confirmed a new Bonecrusher toy with a blaster gun added? This hasn't been mentioned in any panel from Botcon, SDCC, etc. that I've seen, nor is there a link to give it any credibility. This is on the main ROTF toyline page too. While I don't doubt the possibility of a repaint, has anyone actually seen anything that suggests there'll be such a figure? I think this should be removed unless it's got a reliable source.AristosRietze (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some guy keeps making up this and the "Leader" class Grindor. They are both fake rumors. Mathewignash (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROTF Toy?