Oooooh okay, so if they made a TLK prime as a peterbilt it is still TLK prime. Got it.

 

He did have 2 different vehicle modes in AOE.

 

But neither was the long hood pete.........

 

Irrelevant. There is no such thing as 'TLK Prime'. There is 'Bayverse Prime'. He's been a Peterbilt, a Marmon, a Western Star, and even a strange metal asteroid thingy. If the Bayverse hadn't crashed and burned, he'd probably have been another vehicle at some point later on. All of those are 'correct' for the character, who is the same character regardless of body. You're slicing and dicing one character into multiples for the purposes of making a strange argument that essentially tries to remove the idea of homages as legitimate altogether. But on a board increasingly obsessed with screen accuracy to frankly obsessive levels, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

False. If hasbro marketed a figure as DOTM prime but it was a Western Star that turned into DOTM prime, I have a feeling most people would have a problem with it. To be clear, I have no problem with this figure having flames. But saying its okay for G1 prime to have flames because G2 prime does is stupid. Sorry, but its a stupid notion. Prime was also a proto in the first movie, so you're saying a TLK prime that turns into a meteor/proto (a state that body of that character was never in) is nothing to bad an eye at? If so I'll part ways and agree we have a difference of views.

 

Come on! We've got to get this right quickly and decisively. Lives are on the line. If we don't solve this argument I'll kill an entire bag of weasels with a spatula!

 

Another false comparison. This isn't being marketed as Movie Prime, it's being marketed as a blended homage, which Hasbro themselves does all the time. And even if your comparison was valid - which it isn't - appealing to Hasbro as an arbiter of accuracy in marketing is bizarre. How many Movie Primes have been painted in G1 colours, or in weird colours that were never on-screen, or using toys that look nothing like the screen versions, or are toys repurposed from different continuities? Are you outraged at all of them?

 

I specifically said " I don't have an issue with this figure having flames" I had an issue with the G1/G2 comparison, but it seems we have a difference of opinions. Take care!

 

I never said that you had an issue with the flames. I never mentioned them at all. I specifically addressed the comparison you brought up, re. if people would be upset if Hasbro made an Optimus that had a robot mode from one movie and an alt mode from another. I'm not sure if you legitimately misread my post or if you deliberately misinterpreted it - to be frank I'm leaning towards the latter, as acting as if I made a mistake allows you to bow out from the discussion on a high note - but if nothing else I'm inclined to take you up on your offer to stop here because I don't want to be a part of dragging this thread off-topic.

 

"This isn't being marketed as Movie Prime, it's being marketed as a blended homage" this is what I focused on. I think this discussion fell to the "no sense of tone" problem. I do appreciate and will take your point of view into account in the future man.

To get the topic back on track after my derailment, has it been said the actual measured height of the combined figure yet?

 

How are people still arguing with @dmarsee? What he is stating is, unequivocally, fact. The hot rod style flames began as a Prime design cue with Bayverse prime and their appearance on this Prime is, quite clearly, a reference to Bay Prime. That has been his point since the beginning. The G2 deco being "inspired by fire" is irrelevant to the point he is making. The Bayverse flames are, obviously, visually distinct and meant to be literal flames while the G2 deco is an abstraction of fire in general and not flames in specific. People have been wandering all over the place in an effort to not acknowledge what he is saying is true. Also, @metaphorge, the person who @dmarsee was originally debating, did not say "G1 character" he said,

after posting a picture of the 2010/11 RTS Prime. The character continuity of G1 Prime had nothing to do with dmarsee's point. You will also notice that @dmarsee never debates the idea that other Primes have featured those same style of flames. He simply points out that the 2010/11 RTS Prime was released after the 07 Bay movie and that the flames featured on that toy were also likely inspired by the Bay design. "G1 character" isn't brought up until post 739 by dragga and his point is, again, irrelevant to the points that dmarsee was making. The deco on the 2010/11 RTS Prime has nothing to do with the G1 to G2 Optimus Prime character continuity. Dragga's post confuses the point dmarsee was making, lacks clarity in terms of the debate already happening and significantly moves the goal posts from the original debate. It is "needlessly obtuse" in reference to the original points made.

 

Precisely.

 

Except that has nothing to do with what you stated. Here is the exact exchange:

Not once is the character or character continuity brought up. The two of you were, quite clearly, discussing the figures. Dmarsee states that specifically: "show us the G1 and G2 Optimus Prime figures that had flames like this before 2007". RTS Prime is, factually, not a G1 or G2 Prime figure nor do any primes feature the Bay hot rod style flames previous to 2007. Again, like I stated before, this character continuity business wasn't brought up until post 739 by dragga. What both dragga and tigatron are talking about have nothing to do with what dmarsee was talking about.

 

Still arguing about the flames?

 

I stand by this is all pedantic as hell. The original statement was that the flames are not exclusive to Bayverse Prime, using the 2010 Laser Prime as an example. Moving the goal posts later does not change that the original point was that the character of G1 Optimus has been depicted with those flames before, thus it shouldn't be a shock anymore to see them show up on that incarnation. It's like how G1 Ironhide has canonically been an elephant.

Fully agreed, because it shouldn't remotely be an argument at all, that this figure is clearly movie inspired, but this debate started by saying that G1 Prime, as a whole, has been portrayed with those flames thanks to the toy in 2010. Nothing more, and there's nothing false about that statement. Splitting hairs for a "technically" result is just asinine since it ignores the starting point never once brought up that a G1 toy has had those flames (even if there's multiple cases of pre-movie toys with flames, but then we get more hair-splitting over exactly those flames) but that the character of G1 Optimus has worn them.

This has been beyond silly. That's all I have left to say on that debate, and frankly I think we can all stop trying to out-nerd each other with such petty specifics as "but I mean the TOY not the character" especially when the original point was about the character. Let's move on.

I like the figure, personally. Hadn't even noticed the flames missing until pointed out. I kinda like them being specific to the super mode, but that's just because it kinda adds a touch of Super Robot charm to it. Almost wish there was a head for the super mode or a head piece that could be attached, but that's purely the anime Super Robot nerd in me just wanting that inch more, haha. I want the Studio Series DoTM Optimus, but I'm honestly not interested in Jetfire despite loving the character, and the combined mode seems a bit underwhelming. This...is kinda pushing the right buttons and might tempt me to see if I can snag it somehow. (Man, for a guy who gets a lil' tired of G1 styled Optimus figures, I sure am getting tempted by a lot of G1 Optimus...es...)

 

@metaphorge line you quoted sayiing "It's not like they've ever been confined strictly to Bayverse Optimii anyway...." specifically refers to character continuity. he doesnt specify which movie, he specifies the character of bayverse prime, so you are wrong in stating that character continuity wasnt brought up until later.

 

"So for now, let the battle be here, on this strange, argumentative board. And let it be called Flame Wars!" (Cue fist thrust and guitar riff)

Somewhere this has probably already been done, but
"Has axe? Combines with jetpack that is NOT a robot? Is red and blue? Turns into truck? Has skinny waist? This can only be Animated Optimus and anyone who says different can go to hell!"

Some people face facts, others face alternate facts. Regardless of who is correct, it will always be hard to see what someone else sees if you won't turn the other cheek. *shrug*

 

...I'm about to post a scale chart.

Seriously, though, a toy can homage multiple specific sources. A clear example is the upcoming Takara Star Convoy, which references the G1 toy in both truck and cab robot modes, and (astonishingly) Star Convoy in super robot mode. In that way, it's a lot like this toy, even down to it being in large part a retool of an earlier design.

...and G1 Ginrai homaged G1 Convoy, which is partially how we got here, since this toy is a retool of a Ginrai cab robot toy PE made earlier.

This isn't rocket surgery.

I know some of you always yell not to cross the streams, but what could possibly go wrong? Egon? Anyone?

Pic unrelated:

 

I don't remember anyone saying that a toy *can't* homage multiple specific resources. I only asked for an example of the apparently many "G1 and G2 Optimus Primes" that feature flames in this style. So far, I've only seen figures made since the BayVerse movies came out. Hence the miscommunication.

(funny how "G1 and G2 Optimus Primes" has morphed into the platonic ideal of a single character released at any time, eh?)

I don't think anyone in this recent conversation thread has said anything like this. In fact, I distinctly remember saying multiple times over the months that there's nothing wrong with a figure like this. People are allowed to like whatever they want.

 

The "game of telephone" got us, to a degree. My TL;DR was "why would it matter when they came out?"

My answer to that is it would matter if we're time traveling via DeLorean, but would not if we were time traveling through the quantum realm. =D