Talk:Optimus Prime (Movie)

Prime's offical bio was released a few days ago. Shouldn't it go in here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.18.160.11 (talk • contribs){{#if:07:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)| 07:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)|}}.

Read your talk page more often. Explanation was there. Suffice to say, posting the bio, word for word, is a no-no.--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 preceding unsigned comment was added by GWolf (talk • contribs){{#if:13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)| 13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)|}}.

The captions under the pictures in this article are inapropriate and rude —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pirakafreak24 (talk • contribs){{#if:01:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)| 01:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)|}}.

I'm sorry you lack a sense of humor. --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. --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.)

-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. --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. --FFN 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let us use that one. --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. --FFN 22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Images removed

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.

#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. --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.--ZacWilliam 22:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It' not like we're locked into the CGI- we don't use it for Cheetor's main image. If anything we seem to like having 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 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. --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. --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. --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. --FFN 02:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that for an article on movie Prime, the picture should be one of his actual movie appearance, rather than an adaption of that appearance from other media. It just seems more...relevant. Also, despite the plethora of suitable images out there, there isn't a single, clear, full-body shot of Prime's movie appearance on the page. Does that seem right to you? Also, we have to think of what people want when they search for something; if they're searching for movie Prime, it's movie Prime we should give them first and foremost, rather than an adaption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhysman (talk • contribs){{#if:22:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)‎| 22:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)‎|}}.

You're replying to a 6 year old conversation. I think the image we have now was decided on after this conversation. (also, sign your posts.Escargon 22:14, 20 August 2013 (EDT)

Could we please change the main picture, that cartoonish picture really threw me off when I first started using this website. Why not use one of the many Cgi renders from the 3 movies? --SoundWave 15:27, 14 September 2013 (EDT)

No. We don't change an image just cause 1 person doesn't like it. --Escargon 15:34, 14 September 2013 (EDT)

It seems with all the promo renders out there we could have found something better than that, it dosen't even look that accurate, with the colors. But maybe this is just me. --SoundWave 15:40, 14 September 2013 (EDT)

The only real guideline for mainpics is that they depict the character in their original Earth form. There's no reason that they have to be sourced from the media that created those models. For instance, several TFP characters use art from a How To Draw TF Prime book for their mainpic rather than renders of the show model. --Jalaguy 15:53, 14 September 2013 (EDT)

In general, we aim for variety. --LV 15:56, 14 September 2013 (EDT)

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. --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? --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. ;) --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. --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. --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? --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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrMania (talk • contribs){{#if:22:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)| 22:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)|}}.

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)--Chipmonk3288 05:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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? --Sav 10:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? --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. --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.--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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.123.124.233 (talk • contribs){{#if:21:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)| 21:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)|}}.

Peter cullen figure?

I want pics. --Derik 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bam. --70.55.207.104 09:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

spare pic

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

Main pic

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. --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?) --Derik04:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, we totally need to have that picture on the article somewhere. It's fantastic. --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? --Derik 21:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we change it now? There has got to be something better. How about this or this. There used to be a ROTF poster of Prime out there. --Starfield 20:16, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

Hearing no objection... --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."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.--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. --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. --FFN 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought he was just having a Hulk Hogan momemt. --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? --Rotty 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Not the console version.--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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.13.149 (talk • contribs){{#if:18:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)| 18:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)|}}.

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). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.139.192.234 (talk • contribs){{#if:15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)| 15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)|}}.

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? --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.--Nevermore 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So. Any objections to this?--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.--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?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.124.176 (talk • contribs){{#if:21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)| 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)|}}.

Mouthplate

Is it worth to note that he's only shown(as far as i know) without his mouthplate ONLY in the movie?--Grand-majin 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a Robot Heroes figure without the mouthplate. --ItsWalky 16:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And he's in a Burger King commercial without the mouthplate, too.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! --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". --—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? --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. --The Big Q 13:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

the box shows blue, but it is still yellow unfortunately--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. [1] --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. --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.--MCRG 07:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems I have been misinformed. Thank you all for the clarification. --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. --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? [source] --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 safety hazard. I'd link to this BBC article instead, though, since it's a more mainstream, firsthand source. Also, he wasn't actually arrested. --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? --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. --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? --82.41.72.10 05:39, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

Nah, he's a decadant Nero-like emperor. Freedom is the right of all sentient beings... in bed. --Derik 07:41, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

That is so Prime! I kinda like this violent bloodthirsty Prime.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? --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. --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 --Sunjumper 13:35, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

That's Jetfire's parts he's combined with. --ZeldaTheSwordsman 22:19, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

That's not Jetfire. It says 'Trailer Suit'. Jetfire is not a trailer! --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? --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? --81.155.131.13 06:05, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

The "GIVE ME YOUR FACE" joke is hilarious and makes my day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.28.93.252 (talk • contribs){{#if:01:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)| 01:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)|}}.

Seconded. Also, sign your posts. ---Blackout- 03:43, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

It's already in the trivia and the joke stays.Dead Metal 04:56, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Good. ---Blackout- 05:05, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

I have a massive gallery if anybody wants screencaps from both movies.

Optimus has some of the best facial expressions, but they go by SO fast.

Anyway, I have a huge gallery of over 200 Optimus movie screencaps from both films. They're up for grabs if anybody wants to use them in articles or whatever.

http://www.imagebam.com/gallery/24a8bf8847330ed806d929dbf28b6627/

CH 17:06, 23 November 2009 (EST)

Make Optimus Prime Talk

Remember that contest where "do a barrel roll!" won but Hasbro chickened out of using it? Where's the page for that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.192.196.242 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

Right here. --Chris McFeely 18:08, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

Bio

Think it needs updating to bring in the Foundation and Rising Storm character elements? --User:Eire 16.09 (BST) 28 May 2011

Trailer/Flight..., thing?

Do we have an article for his DOTM... thing?

The DOTM novelization calls it his "weapons pack" (p352,) but also notes that the "flight equipment" (p356) is it's "true form" as opposed to the trailer or weapons base modes.

The Junior Novel uses "flight harness" and "mobile battle kit", which I find vastly preferable unless we have more official terms. --Derik 14:53, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

To throw another one in, it's an Armored Weapons Platform in the Cyberverse. --Starfield 15:01, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Armored Weapons Platform is a proper noun unlike the others, and it's a sensible term.

What do you think, Armored Weapons Platform converts to trailer and flight harness? --Derik 17:38, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

It's far from clear that all the things that transform out of Prime's trailer are the exact same trailer. And the Ultimate Prime's armor is called the Omega Combat Armor, as I recall...which is of course the same trailer in trailer mode as the rest of them. I assume the "mobile battle kit" specifically refers to the armory mode, but it seems like the most generic of these official terms. --LV 18:30, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

The Mobile Battle Kit phrase does indeed come from the Chernobyl sequence of the Jr. Novel when it unfolds into that armory-ring.

Is there a decent shot of the trailer in one of the officially released, um... trailers or commercials? Otherwise I'm going to nab one from the video game launch trailer. --Derik 23:41, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Did the Matrix of Leadership

Somehow give Optimus a vision of the past? In the novel and in the movie, he has a line to which he counters the Fallen that alludes to him knowing of the original primes, when he did seem to know of them before, right? Should this be noted on the article? It seems like, maybe, a plot point that was sort of forgotten, the importance of Optimus's ancestry. --205.250.176.157 00:50, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

Walkaround Character

Universal Studios Hollywood has walkaround versions of Bumblebee and Optimus Prime. I'm sure they should be mentioned somewhere on the page, but I'm not sure where. --pjdonnell 21:39, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

New May 2015 layout

Definitely a clearer layout than the old one; we lose some of the chronology but the ease of navigation makes up for it. Roll on this elsewhere! --Charles RB (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2015 (GMT)

Main Picture

Could someone change it to actually from the film? I'd prefer that over comic Prime. --Skywarp Prime (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2019 (EDT)Skywarp Prime

No. --Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

I don't really care, so whatever. --Skywarp Prime (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2019 (EDT)Skywarp Prime

Bumblebee movie Prime should have his own page

Is this page meant to be about any live-action movie that will eventually be made where Optimus is part of it, or is it specifically Bayformers live-action? Because if so, the Bumblebee bit shouldn't be included on this page seeing as the movie was declared a straight-up reboot when it finally came out and as such is no longer part of the Bayformers continunity, isn't a prequel and can't even be called spin-off of those movies anymore, even though it began as such. --Luka1184 (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2020 (EDT)

Misconceptions and urban legends about Transformers. --Escargon (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2020 (EDT)

Its not a spin-off, but he is still a live action movie prime. maybe we should change the name of this. -- PRIMEMODE1011 (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2025 (EDT)