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)

...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)

Profile images of Movie Prime

File:MovieOptimusPrime promorender.jpg

File:MovieOptimusPrime promorender3.jpg

File:MovieOptimusPrime promorender2.jpg

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)

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)

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?

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

"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. --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)

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)

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)

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).

From Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki, a Wikia wiki.