History Headscratchers / Bumblebee

** Could also be a case of sheer ego and assuming the ignorant, primitive local species wouldn't be smart enough to catch on to the name. It's abundantly clear that she and Dropkick are fully of the opinion that humans are basically stupid.

** As far as Cybertron is concerned, technically speaking we don't know the prologue occurs in 1987. That dateline doesn't get dropped until later when the action moves to Earth, so for all we know dozens or even millions of years pass between the battle and Bumblebee's landing.

* ''Rise of the Beasts'' all but confirms that ''Bumblebee'' is a reboot, since Unicron is Earth in the Bayverse timeline while in ''RotB'' he's awake and active in another part of the galaxy.

** Also, she and Bumblebee just had a violent altercation with a state trooper the last night. The state trooper would sure be able to recognize the yellow Volkswagen Beetle if other policemen were to investigate Charlie's house.

** Because she didn't want to tell her parents that an outsider broke in, cause if she did, they would call the police and the police would do a thorough investigation of the house, which could possibly include the garage -- thus exposing Bumblebee.

** She's just a kid, and she is panicking and in shock herself. She didn't think of it is all. It was a dumb move, but teenage kids make dumb moves all the time.

When Charlie had to explain the house getting wrecked, why didn't she just act like someone had broken in, rather than blaming it all on herself?

* This troper is quite frustrated about the studio developing this movie as a prequel and promising as such, only to go back and say it was a reboot after they released it. But even pushing such emotions aside, there are some serious questions about this. The "Appearances" entry at the top does address the fact that the Transformer characters resemble their G1 selves rather than their Bayverse selves, and if this movie was really a reboot, then such designs would be justified. But here's the thing: if I recall correctly, the reboot rumors didn't start until a month or two before the movie came out. I'm no expert on special effects, but I'm pretty sure it takes WAY longer than that to render full CGI character models, animate them as the script demands, and integrate them with the real live-action elements. So...did they always intend this movie to be a reboot, or is this just a case of the director making things his own way just...because?

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Prequel vs. Reboot]]
* This movie was first announced as a prequel, and was even developed as such (Bumblebee's license plate, the Camaro scene at the end, Megatron being frozen in ice, etc.). Sure, there's enough confusion to warrant the "Timeline" entry above, but then again, these movies have always retconned each other in order to tell their own story. But now they're saying it's a reboot. Um...what? Yes, The Last Knight was less successful than they wanted, and yes, they want to take the franchise in a new direction. But what made them think it was okay to start making a spin-off about Bumblebee, promising it to be a prequel and developing it as such, and then later say that it was a reboot instead?
** Because Bumblebee got much better reviews than Michael Bay's pentalogy of live-action films. It was supposed to be a prequel at first, but given that the critics and some audiences claim ''Bumblebee'' had more of "[[MythologyGag The Touch]]" than the Bay-verse did, Hasbro decided ''Bumblebee'' will begin its own universe.
** Lorenzo di Bonaventura did say Paramount was on track to make a sequel to ''The Last Knight'' regardless of ''Bumblebee''[='s=] reception, but then he retracted it and so they'll be focusing on more movies similar to ''Bumblebee'', claiming Bumblebee was much more acclaimed. Though in reality ''Bumblebee'' made even less money than ''The Last Knight'', so it's uncertain if Transformers movies will keep coming given its currently dire financial circumstances.
** It's true that Bumblebee was much more lauded that Michael Bay's movies and said to feel more like G1. But why doesn't that mean that they can continue to build off of Michael Bay's franchise, except with a G1 feel/design to it? Maybe it's just me, but to promise a prequel/spinoff, release said prequel/spinoff, and then declare it to be a "reboot" that actually has no connections to the previous movies just feels...wrong. It's like Abe Lincoln preparing and giving the Gettysburg Address, intending to (and succeeding in) honoring the fallen American soldiers, only to later say "Actually, that speech was all about abolishing slavery, and everything I said before was a bunch of BS."
*** That's Hollywood for you, my friend. Hollywood is a corporation focused on profits, not keeping promises.

** Because Bumblebee got much better reviews than Michael Bay's quintology of live-action films. It was supposed to be a prequel at first, but given that the critics and some audiences claim ''Bumblebee'' had more of "[[MythologyGag The Touch]]" than the Bay-verse did, Hasbro decided ''Bumblebee'' will begin its own universe.
*** Not to be nitpicky, the the correct term for five stories is "pentalogy."

** That's Hollywood for you, my friend. Hollywood is a corporation focused on profits, not keeping promises.

** Because Bumblebee got much better reviews than Michael Bay's quintology of live-action films. It was supposed to be a prequel at first, but given that the critics and some audiences claim ''Bumblebee' had more of "[[MythologyGag The Touch]]" than the Bay-verse did, Hasbro decided ''Bumblebee'' will begin its own universe.

** Lorenzo di Bonaventura did say Paramount was on track to make a sequel to ''The Last Knight'' regardless of ''Bumblebee''[='s] reception, but then he retracted it and so they'll be focusing on more movies similar to ''Bumblebee'', claiming Bumblebee was much more acclaimed. Though in reality ''Bumblebee'' made even less money than ''The Last Knight'', so it's uncertain if Transformers movies will keep coming given its currently dire financial circumstances.