MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Hasbro Q&A/July 2009: Question submission

2009-08-10T07:22:22Z

81.155.131.13: /* ... */

==Save some face for me!==
Heh, so nobody's asked yet why Optimus Prime is now a bloodthirsty Jack Bauer? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 00:01, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
:For example: "Dear Hasbro, I really enjoyed Optimus Prime's line in the new movie, "Give me your face!" Can we have a new Prime toy with a face-taking action feature so that I can reenact this defining character moment at home? Far too many of my Decepticon toys still retain their faces." --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 00:03, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
::I was trying to figure out a not-bitchy way to ask something like, "The screenwriters have said that they wrote ''Revenge of the Fallen'' to an older sensibility (with more swearing and vicious action) to parallel the aging of its protagonist Sam. Yet presumably the target audience of the toys remains in the same bracket as always. How do you justify marketing the movie product-line to children who are too young to watch the film?" - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 02:41, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
:::[[Greg Lombardo]] has said that kids can experience the movie through storybooks and Fast Action Battlers. These toys and books are seen as a replacement for the movie-watching experience. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 08:57, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
:I think that phrase should have its own page like "'til all are one". It should be the new Autobot rallying cry.[[User:Riddlerj|Riddlerj]] 00:09, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
::Jackpot, the answer to your question is simple: $$$. Sadly, marketing toys based on movies that's too adult for little kids has been going on for a long time ('Aliens', 'T2', etc.). Of course, I would love to hear Hasbro's explanation. - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 08:33, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, what Jackpot said - if there was a polite and non overly snarky way to do it, that'd be a good question, but we already more-or-less know the answer: "A lot of that shit was out of our hands - the studio wanted Optimus Prime to be more badass, and who are we to argue with them about it? There are plenty of other ways for little kids to engage in the TF2 fantasy without seeing the film." It's grossly unfair to ask questions about the TF team's opinion of ROTF in this venue, because 1: they're not going to go on the record talking shit about their multi-million dollar merchandising vehicle like that and 2: it's a waste of a goddamn question slot that could be used for something more informative or at least fun. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised at ALL if the members of the TF team were taken aback by the violence/language/sex in ROTF, but on a professional level, they aren't going to say shit about it 'cause that motherfucker is getting them all some very nice bonuses at the end of the year. (incidentally, the handful of parents I've spoken with weren't upset about the violence, because it was all relatively bloodless, being mostly robots hitting - they were upset about the language.) [[User:Hooper X|Hooper_X]] 09:16, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
:I didn't know that Lombardo had already given an answer. Also, yeah, I definitely agree with the principle that we shouldn't use Hasbro's generous Q&A opportunity to talk shit. The more uncomfortable we make it for them, the less likely they'll keep doing it in the future. And it's hard enough to get more than corporate non-answers out of them anyway; being confrontational would only guarantee defensive marketing babble. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 13:09, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
::The same way the toy companies justified making Terminator 2 toys. Or (in a less extreme example) Jurassic Park toys. "Realistic toy dinosaurs are fun to play with even if you can't see the PG-13 movie." -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 13:13, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
:::And I remember being disturbed at the sight of T2 toys when they were on the shelves. It's the Joe Camel thing. And as questionable as those are, TF seems to me to be even more notable because the toyline is actually the ''core'' of the franchise. T2 and JP toys are more like afterthoughts. I mean, whatever, we've gotten as much of an answer as we ever will out of Hasbro, so at this point the debate is academic. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 15:42, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
::::"Can we expect a human alliance Mikaela and Wheelie with realistic 'bot on leg' action so we can recreate our favorite movie scenes?" - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:22, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::Survey says, "Aaaaannnnnhhhhhh!". Seriously, Jackpot has a good point about being polite and diplomatic with Hasbro. Sadly, they have to think about keeping Hasbro afloat (and keeping their people out of the unemployment line), so if that means selling toys based on a movie that little kids shouldn't be watching, so be it. - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 23:12, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

== Slag=Snarl ==

Hey [[User:Detour|Detour]], that question was asked by a couple of sites [[Hasbro Q&A/October-November 2008|late last year]]! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:56, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
:Great, now I need to think of another question. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 00:45, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

== ... ==

I'm waiting...

Of course, I'm not going to update this page every day like last time. [[User:Gearshift|Gearshift]] 11:51, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
:To misquote Count Dooku in 'Episode II: Attack of the Clones', "Patience, Gearshift, patience. Hasbro will soon respond." - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 14:38, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
::Speaking as a moderator, Gearshift, if you even consider doing something like that, I ''will'' ban you for a day or three as a time out. Whining for the answers does not produce them.
::By way of a theoretical explanation for the delay, however, the Hasbro team just got back from the San Diego Comic-Con. I imagine it takes a few days to recover from the world's largest sci-fi convention, ''on top of'' having to do your job. --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 18:52, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What happened to the July anything? There doesn't seem to be answers from any other websites. ~Gearshift (Logged out)

Talk:Optimus Prime (Movie)

2009-08-06T10:05:26Z

81.155.131.13: /* Prime and faces */

Prime's offical bio was released a few days ago. Shouldn't it go in here?

Read your talk page more often. Explanation was there. Suffice to say, posting the bio, word for word, is a no-no.--[[User:UndeadScottsman|UndeadScottsman]] 11:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I never read my talk page. Who in their right mind would want to talk to me

The captions under the pictures in this article are inapropriate and rude {{unsigned|Pirakafreak24}}
:I'm sorry you lack a sense of humor. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 06:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

==Unreleased Toy?==
My friend recently sold me a "prototype Mcdonalds" O.P. for 4 bucks along with some other figures. Teletraan 1 does not have an entry on this odd toy, and I am gretly curious as to what the heck this toy is: [img]http://gallery.zealot.com/data/500/medium/000_0017.JPG[/img]

==Top image==
Derik, on-screen Movie characters need to have Dreamworks images at the top of their pages. -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:...why? If a character appears in multiple media we seem to pick whatever shows the character off best. This book (being a retelling of the movie) probably isn't the best example, but if we got a great image of Prime by Geoff Senior in the UK Mag, can we never use that?
:(I'm not disagreeing that there ''is'' a good argument for reverting to the original picture,but I'm not sure I agree with your statement that Dreamworks renders are ''automatically'' the only acceptable main image. Frankly, I think a ''lot'' of Dreamworks images look bad when not in motion.)

-[[User:Derik|Derik]] 21:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

:Because we need the top-quality Dreamworks renders on every on-screen character's page in any case, and putting them on top creates consistency like a legitimate encyclopedia. You added a ''great'' image, but it belongs down further. -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

::I still prefer that render of the actual CG model used in the movie than the low-res, low-detail promotional CG model render we're using now. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Yes, let us use that one. -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Apparently we can't. They decided that the movie design looked ugly and that was the end of discussion, evidently. I, on the other hand, think the lower-detail design from late 2005/2006 that the toys are based upon looks... incomplete (I mean the front of the hood just becomes these little nubs under his windows!) and not as visually impressive as the final version. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

{| width="100%"
|+ Profile images of Movie Prime
|-
| [[Image:MovieOptimusPrime promorender.jpg|800x200px]]
| [[Image:MovieOptimusPrime promorender3.jpg|800x200px]]
| [[Image:MovieOptimusPrime promorender2.jpg|800x200px]]
| [[Image:Movieprime meettheautobots.jpg|800x200px]]
|}

I'm looking at these 4 images- and I'm really not seeing the huge differences between the designs of 2 and 3 that you're describing. Where does his hood go on #2 version that it doesn't in #3? #3 looks liek a rougher, simpler (better proportioned) model, but of the final design to me. And ''any'' way you cut it, i think #1 and #2 are the ''ugliest'' pictures in this lineup.

<nowiki>#</nowiki>1's shoulder is coming out of his crotch, for instance. If the final image misleads the eye about spatial relationships then it's ''badly composed''. The abstract knowledge that it is a 3d model and thus spatially perfect does not change the fact it it a terrible 2D image. #3 has displeasing proportions- and frankly is boring and inspiring, capturing none of Prime's character. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters to anyone. But I prefer images 3 and 4. #1 is AWEFUL. #2 is boring. #3 is decent. #4 Is the best image, objectively, but of course isn't CGI.--[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 22:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::It' not like we're locked into the CGI- we don't use it for [[Cheetor (BW)|Cheetor]]'s main image. If anything we seem to like having [[Terrorsaur (BW)|some variety]] to the sources we use. That said- this ''is'' Prime, and I'd like to have a Dreamworks image if we could find one that doesn't suck. It's not like we're locked into 'Okay it MUST be one of the Dreamworks promo images,' or that any image we choose is permanent. Once the Blue-ray of the movie comes out we'll have lots of images to choose from (Not the mention the promised intermezzo story.)
::I happen to think [http://www.emopanda.com/tmp/we_are_waiting.jpg this] is a gorgeous image, and even though it's of Prime's back, it captures something central to his character, and unique to the Movie version, the decision to make Earth not just a second home like in every other continuity ever- but an ''only'' home. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:What does the first picture have to do with anything? That's the old design anyway, and it seems most people hate that pose. The hood on the final model is more obviously hood-shaped and sits there on his torso. On the earlier design, they become red, for a lack of a better word, ''shapes''. It is, by comparison, a poor CG model to the actual movie one, and the only thing going for it is its HEROIC POSE. But I can already see that maintaining such a differing opinion will be to no avail. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 23:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::You're all disdainful of the heoric pose. Why? Do you think that the main image should be lifeless and dead as long as it's correct? It's not like these are the only two renders of Prime out there. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm not a fan of the model, not the pose. Those stupidly long blue things on his forearms appear to have been shorted or folded on the movie model. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 02:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

==Fiction==

Someone else had already added in some information from the prequel comics in the top paragraph, so I just rearranged it to the bottom with a spoiler tag. If we're not supposed to put fiction in yet, I'm sorry. -[[User:EricMarrs|EricMarrs]] 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

== EW Interview canonical? ==

How do we want to treat the new Entertainment Weekly intereview with movie Prime? It was apparently written by the screenplay writers and was (likely?) approved by Hasbro to see print, does that make it official canon? We HAVE set a president of a sort by counting things like [[Toaster]] and the "ask vector prime" info, though those were from first party sources and this is in a second party source but was likely approved by first party? So, um yeah, is that official enough? I ask because though tounge-in-cheek it mentions things like movie Ratchet's wedding that might deserve a passing light-hearted mention on his page. If we are taking Toaster and Blaster's sister as cannon then is this any different? Thoughts? --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 01:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
:I don't know how likely or not it was to have been Hasbro approved. Given how meta-jokingly it's written -- with Optimus and Megatron being actors who play Optimus and Megatron in the movie, Megatron being such a method actor it's best to avoid him when he's in-character because he might vaporize you -- I'm not really sure how to treat it as "canon."

:Also, I feel I must nitpickingly point out that, technically, the reference isn't to ''movie'' Ratchet's wedding, as that answer comes in response to a question about whether Optimus kept up with "his old Autobot buddies from the show," and we of course are treating the movie and G1 characters as separate entities. ;) --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 02:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

::I agree it's a tricky call, which is why I bring it up. I'd guess anything written by the screenwriters as promo for the movie in a major publication like EW would have had to have some kind of official OK/oversite. The "meta" side of it, being tounge in cheek and breaking the third wall and all that is an issue too, but at the same time we include things like the tounge-in-cheek, third-wall-breaking Botcon scripts, UK letters page, and ask Vector Prime which all proceed from similar footing. It's worth debate at least. --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In a similar vein, what about Sarah Silverman being a Transformer? All that MTV awards show shpiel had to have been approved at least by Dreamworks. It's no more ridiculous than any of the other examples listed above. Less funny, but that's Sarah Silverman for you. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 15:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

== OP's face ==

Should it be added in that Optimus will still have his retractable face plate as seen in earlier concept work (now confirmed by official screenshots) and that he looks a lot like a robotic Peter Cullin? [[User:King Starscream|King Starscream]] 02:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

== What went wrong? ==

What the fuck just happened? I edited the "Fast Action Battlers" section, and now it's fucked up! What did I do wrong? Does this Wiki have a mind of it's own, and it craves incorrect information, thus if I try to correct it it screws me over?

I honestly dont know either bud. I wish they would say SOMTHING more then what their saying about all of the Fast Action battlers. A wiki should be unbais. Btw: Since this is the talk page, I just thot I'd throw in an OPINION, but my OPINION is that I think Fast action Starscream, Ratchet, and Brawl are pretty close to the "real" versions of them, and a nice alternative when u wanna save a few bucks. (with the latter...the former..not so much, but its a nice alternative to him, and the cannon is more accurate)--[[User:Chipmonk3288|Chipmonk3288]]

== FAB and G1 prime two-pack ==
"For some reason the Classics Prime toy is designated "1984 Optimus Prime", even though he was released in 2006." I'd love to edit out this stupidity, but last time I tried it screwed up the format of the text. Can somebody tell me what I did wrong, or just fix the mistake themselves? --[[User:MrMania|Sav]] 10:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:What's wrong with it? --[[User:Sntint|Sntint]] 14:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::And don't call my work stupid. I'm responsible for most of the toy sections on this wiki these days,and most are uncompromisingly 'straight' in comparison to the rest of this place. That was a moment of left-of-field levity - I was pointing out the fact a crappy G1 Prime toy from 2006 that sort of looks like G1 Prime is flogged as '1984 Prime' even though he ''technically'' isn't. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:::It's meant to represent G1 Prime, and it does a fairly good job, because I think "g1" when I look at the toy. No matter, though, it seems to have been corrected.--[[User:MrMania|Sav]] 08:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

== Leader class figure factory irregular ==

I recently picked up a leader class prime and when I tried to transform it, one of its elbows wouldn't bend. at first I thought it was the screws, but upon closer inspection, the two arm parts had fused solid! is it my figure or a larger oversight on hasbros part?

== Peter cullen figure? ==

I want pics. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
: [http://tfkenkon.com/g/?mode=view&album=Collection%2Fact442&pic=movie_robot_vision_optimus_prime08.jpg&dispsize=1000&start=0 Bam.] [[User:70.55.207.104|70.55.207.104]] 09:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

==spare pic==
[[:Image:MovieOptimusPrime_promorender2.jpg|Old low-detail promo render pic]] --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 16:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

==Main pic==
[[Image:Movieprime meettheautobots.jpg|right|thumb|"Freedom is the right of all-- ooh, pretty!"]]
How about we discuss it before changing the picture? Especially (as I pointed out in the image talk of render3), this old render picture is based on the outdated design. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 16:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:There's been more discussion on this ''somewhere'' where we went full-circle around ''this is not the final design / the final design has less pleasing proportions / there are no CGI images of the final design that doesn't look goofy''.
:Does anyone have the DK I-0can-read book 'Meet the Autobots'? The hand-illustrated image of Optimus Prime standing on Earth on the final page is (I think) the final design, and I think it'd make a ''fantastic'' main pic for the article. (Unfortunately I bought the guidebook instead, so... anyone want to scan?) -04:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
::Oh man, we totally ''need'' to have that picture on the article somewhere. It's fantastic. --[[User:Suki Brits|Suki Brits]] 21:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:::In the book this images occurs (I think) ''after'' the closing monologue of the movie, with Optimus thinking that 'life is good' on his new home. Could it go at the end of the movie section? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 21:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:Can we change it now? There has got to be something better. How about [[:Image:Defiance4 coverA.jpg|this]] or [[:Image:Defiance4 coverA original.jpg|this]]. There used to be a ROTF poster of Prime out there. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 20:16, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::Hearing no objection... - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]]
:::I think it would be badass if we used a screenshot of him cutting off Bonecrusher's head with the caption "Freedom is the right of all sentient be ... oh slag that."[[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 15:30, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
::::I think LG or one of the recent TV spots has a shot of Prime with his Ion Blaster out and about to shoot someone in the head (I guess). If we could get a good, clear shot of that, that would be awesome.--[[User:AWT88|AWT88]] 19:08, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

== Siblings? ==

I know that OP calls Megatron "Brother" in the movie, but are they actually siblings, or was Optimus speaking metaphorically (as Optimi tend to do)? If it's stated in the prequel comics, that's fine, but if it's only from one line in the movie I have to contend it. -[[User:King Starscream|King Starscream]] 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Yeah, they are siblings. Its in the comics, kids books, novelisation ect, as I understand it. They toned down the reference to that one line in the movie for some reason, as the references were apparently more prevalent in the older draft. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:I thought he was just having a Hulk Hogan momemt. -- [[User:69.182.245.28|69.182.245.28]] 06:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

== His father ==
So one of the video games has a cutscene where Optimus says to Jazz that Megatron "took my father's spark". Did Activision bother to give the brothers' father a NAME in any of the games? -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
:Not the console version.--[[User:Autobotx1010|Autobotx1010]] 01:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

== Another fun addition ==

I added basic information about the new "First Strike" Prime. Should be enough to suffice.

== Videos mentioned in the trivia section... ==

I've only found poor quality videos from YouTube of that Burger King and the MTV thing - do higher res/quality ones exist? (And should we put links in so people can see them? I honestly didn't know about them until I read the page).

== Giftcard and DVD Case Primes ==

Okay, I've hot a question... The Target giftcard and DVD cases that unfold into flat versions of Optimus Prime... Do they belong in the Merchandise section, and if so, does anyone have decent pictures of them? --[[User:Nemesis Primal|Nemesis Primal]] 18:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

== Rearranging the toy list? ==

Should we rearrange the toy list sorted by molds? Currently it's a mess, it doesn't even exactly follow the release order; and even though Robo-Vision Prime ''was'' released ''after'' regular Voyager Prime, having them listed in this order and then calling Robo-Vision Prime a "redeco" of Voyager Prime is kinda iffy.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
: So. Any objections to this?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 11:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Robo-Vision Prime preceded Voyager Prime by a very hefty margin. Technically Voyager Prime's the redeco here.--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

==Voyager Class shoulder cannons?==

Ok, I bought First Strike Optimus and I cannot for the life of me figure out how to get his shoulder cannons to lower. I thought they would work like Classics Optimus but they don't. Whats the trick to getting this to work?{{unsigned|68.45.124.176}}

==Mouthplate==

Is it worth to note that he's only shown(as far as i know) without his mouthplate ONLY in the movie?--[[User:Grand-majin|Grand-majin]] 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
: There's a Robot Heroes figure without the mouthplate. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::And he's in a Burger King commercial without the mouthplate, too.[[User:Inferno'sQueen|The Big Q]] 13:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

==dashes==

For eff's sake, I'm not TRYING to change the dashes - I don't care what they look like, I don't care which kind you use, I don't care if every page on the wiki uses tildes and umlauts instead of real punctuation. it '''happens automatically on these "this page may be too big" pages,''' which seems to be the point Interrobang missed. Once again: It's not intentional; it just happens. I don't know why, so I can't fix it. But by that same token, would you quit just plain old reverting the edit? The other stuff is minor, but it's not irrelevant - at least, not as irrelevant as it could be. It's on-topic with the subjects it's in. So by all means, please, fix th dashes that I've screwed up - but stop reverting the other bits. Please? Yeesh![[User:71.207.12.70|71.207.12.70]] 07:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:You seem to be ignoring the fact that I consider your actual additions minor and unnecessary. Regardless, "it happens automatically on these "this page may be too big" pages" makes very little sense, considering that it isn't consistent on whether it replaces the em dashes with "hyphen-hyphen-space" or "space-hyphen-space". [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 09:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
::Hey, beats me—I'm no Firefox programmer. But just because you consider my additions unnecessary, it doesn't mean they actually are. Yeah, they're minor—I said as much. But unnecessary? Your opinion. Which you're only acting upon, I'd wager, because you're in a snit about the dashes. Am I wrong?[[User:71.207.12.70|71.207.12.70]] 05:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

== Premium Prime Eyes ==

Will they glow blue instead of yellow like the original Leader toy? If they do, it needs to be mentioned. [[User:Inferno'sQueen|The Big Q]] 13:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
:the box shows blue, but it is still yellow unfortunately--[[User:Skyglide|Skyglide]] 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

== Red is Hard To Film? ==
In the 1970's TV show "Emergency!" featured many red fire trucks and the crew did not special measures to film them. Therefore, red is not a hard color to film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency! [[User:Liberal Noob|Liberal Noob]] 01:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
:I'm sure this isn't the only example of red vehicles ever being filmed. But Emergency!, being a TV show, was probably filmed on video, and not on... you know, film. I don't know whether red vehicles being hard to film is some weird general thing I'd never heard of before this movie, or whether it has something to do with the special effects, but I'll take the professionals' word for it.
::When I heard that in the commentary, I asked somebody who films stuff, and they said it's hard to get it to look consistantly the same color. He also said lighting can make it look very orange at times. --[[User:70.190.251.10|70.190.251.10]] 04:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
:::In my meager experience with Shake and film editing, I know red can be a bitch to color correct.--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] 07:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems I have been misinformed. Thank you all for the clarification. [[User:Liberal Noob|Liberal Noob]] 17:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

== Why were my edits removed? ==

Peter Cullen did say that.
I was just trying to make the images work better. [[User:208.190.203.162|208.190.203.162]] 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

== Shall I include to this page? y/n ==
Someone got arrested at an airport for wearing a TF2007 Optimus Prime T-shirt? [[http://gizmodo.com/394544/optimus-prime-t+shirt-transforms-into-arrest-threat-at-airport source]] [[User:Liberal Noob|Liberal Noob]] 21:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
:I think it's fun trivia, especially if you contrast it with the fact that Megatron's always been the perceived [[For safety reasons|safety hazard]]. I'd link to [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7431640.stm this BBC article] instead, though, since it's a more mainstream, firsthand source. Also, he wasn't actually arrested. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

== Prime's Great Plan ==

Acknowledging that yes, the entry ''is'' fairly tongue-in-cheek to begin with, is the last trivia bit really fair? Obviously, Megatron was powerful, and nothing we'd want tromping around Earth any longer than he had to be. Without the All Spark for which he came to Earth to begin with, though, I don't recall him having the power to obliterate Earth. In fact, between the remaining Autobots and their good friends in the U.S. military, who showed during the battle of Mission City that no, not even Megatron was not invulnerable against heavy weapons fire... well, I'm hesitant to call the outcome either way, but it doesn't like the kind of foregone conclusion/idiotic plan the entry makes it out to be. Any thoughts? - [[User:Caswin|Caswin]] 04:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

==Seen ROTF, want to change main caption SO BAD==
To "I will cut off your face!" It's especially awesome with our new main image. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 03:35, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

* On that subject, if this continuity's Optimus is a violent rebel, does that mean his [[Shattered Glass]] equivalent is a benign dictator? [[Special:Contributions/82.41.72.10|82.41.72.10]] 05:39, 26 June 2009 (EDT)
:Nah, he's a decadant Nero-like emperor. <tt>Freedom is the right of all sentient beings... in bed.</tt> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 07:41, 26 June 2009 (EDT)
:That is so Prime! I kinda like this violent bloodthirsty Prime.[[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 07:53, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

== Introduction ==

Should we change the introduction to reflect current continuity as established in [[Defiance]], or just keep it as it is? -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 01:24, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:I'd favor scrapping this intro altogether and starting anew. Intro notes aren't supposed to be summaries of events like this, theyr'e suppsoed to be about the character's personality, connections abilities etc.
:When the movie first came out, the only thing that set him apart from the other Optimus Primes was his backstory. Since then he's developed his own personality quite a bit. He's speechier than the original Prime, and fightier. (And crazier. I think he's still Abraham Lincoln + John Wayne... but his Wayne side is from ''The Searchers''.)
:The brother stuff needs to be relegated to trivia too-- it got cut from the 2007 movie itself, and the 2009 movie seems to throw it out altogether. It's a teardown-and-redo. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:47, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

== Trailer super mode ==
It appears that Prime at some point in production of ROTF would get a trailer, and would combine with it to get a [[Super Mode]]: http://www.joshnizzi.com/oproughs.html --[[User:Sunjumper|Sunjumper]] 13:35, 21 July 2009 (EDT)
:That's [[Jetfire (ROTF)|Jetfire's]] parts he's combined with. [[User:ZeldaTheSwordsman|ZeldaTheSwordsman]] 22:19, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
::That's not Jetfire. It says 'Trailer Suit'. Jetfire is not a trailer! [[User:Gearshift|Gearshift]] 14:50, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

== Prime and faces ==

Movieverse Optimus Prime seems to have a habit of ripping his opponents' faces off. Should we list this as a trait? [[User:ZeldaTheSwordsman|ZeldaTheSwordsman]] 22:17, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
:The 'GIVE ME YOUR FACE' joke in the image captions is getting annoying and repetitive. What should be done about it? [[Special:Contributions/81.155.131.13|81.155.131.13]] 06:05, 6 August 2009 (EDT)