Talk:Optimus Prime (Movie)
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.--UndeadScottsman 11:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I never read my talk page. Who in their right mind would want to talk to me
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)
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?
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)
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. -Derik 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Bam. 70.55.207.104 09:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
spare pic
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?) -04:32, 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)
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)
