I just got my sideways deluxe toy, and I've noticed 2 things: - He's got notches under his headlights and he's missing the Audi headlight grill thing. - There's this HUGE empty space at the back of his car in vehicle mode, and notches on his legs that don't plug into anything. It looks like they had some extra stuff that never made it to mass production. Anyone have any idea?
the notches under the headlights are part of the ball socket they are attatched to, he doesnt have the audi logo because of copyright, and what leg notches?
pics please? i can kinda understand what you mean but my sideways feels pretty complete. and yeah, dont expect any AUDI logos and trademarks on this one
yeah he is complete minus the triggered spinning blade/wheel gimmick, obviously they dropped that like Starscream's folding hands and launchers.
yep +2 on the missing Audi logo. ROTF and TFTM have an exclusive contract with GM. I wonder though, isnt sideways actually an Audi in the movie? Does he have the Audi logo? so why not the toy?
Because they'd have to pay Audi licensing fees for that, and some car companies are dead set against their logo being on a 'war toy'. This was an issue that cropped up quite a bit with Alternators (And probably contributed to the death of the line) For the main line Autobots, the money is worth it, and Ford and GM are two companies that have never had a problem with licensing to Transformers (And they're also major supporters of the film). But Sideways is a Decepticon, and Audi might not be so willing to loan out their logo. Making Sideways 'Audi-esque' is cheaper and less of a headache.
But you didnt answer my question. Does sideways, in the actual movie, have the audi logo? cause if he does, they have to pay to use that. And if Audi is being advertised as a decepticon on gigantic theater screens across the world, I dont think making a toy is a huge leap or a problem for audi. since im sure the movie will portray an evil audi decpeticon more viscerally than a toy ever could.
Two things. 1. You don't pay companies to use their product in a movie. They usually pay the movie to have their product used. Especially in a movie as big as Revenge of the Fallen. 2. If you go back to the first movie toys, Barricade, which is a Ford and is a direct competitor of GM, does not have and Ford logos on it. Only a Saleen Logo on the rear bumper.
Yes, sideways is an audi in the movie, the reason being is that bay probably convinced them to use their car. Hasbro doesn't want to go through the same troubles that bay probably had to go through n order to do so, so the did like they did in the universe line, and made the figure as physically close to the real deal without infringments and law suits. Does any of this make sence? I took a naproxin, and I feel kinda funny in the head..
Because using an Audi in a movie, and making an Audi TOY are two different things, legally. I don't believe moviemakers even need permission to use a company's car in a movie. As long as the car is sold publically, and they're not slapping their logo on something they don't make, it's fair game, because the vehicles are publically accessable. Just like yuo don't need the manufacturer's permission to take pictures of your car and post them on the internet. It's YOUR CAR. Moviemakers generally get the cooperation of car manufacturers because, if their car is featured, it's good publiciity, and the car manufacturers will tend to provide free vehicles. That's hot TFTM got the concept Camaro, and how they likely got the Concept Viper. However, if you make a TOY of that car, that's a different story. That's a PRODUCT that bears that company's logo and/or is a replica of their product. You are therefore making money by using their trademarked items, and must A) Get their permission, and B) Compensate them. Simply put, if you own an Audi, you can take pictures of it, burn it, make softcore porn int he backseat, whatever, it's your car. But if you make tiny replicas of it with the Audi logo on them, neither the design of the car nor the logo belongs to you. That's why Sideways lacks the logo, and has other cosmetic changes to make him 'Audi-esque'.
ok that makes sense. But again I go back to the fact that the audi transforms in the movie. Its not like they are using the audi as a car in the bkg. it is a real transformer character. Im sure there are legal issues but it seems that if michael bay can get the ok from GM why not audi? But then again GM is bankrupt and Audi/VW is not.
1. That's actually only half the story. In any sort of movie or TV show if you see a product logo, leaving little doubt as too what it is. Like the 3 GM cars in TFTM. You know BB is a Camaro, you know Jazz was a Solstice, and that Ironhide was a GMC. How in some TV shows everyone is using the same kind of cell phone, or an apple iBook. Or, in very crass cases (I'm looking at you I Robot), they actually talk about it. That company paid for that kind exposure, and probably donated the product to be used on the set. However the opposite is also true. Just to feature that companies product, even if it's just in the background. Like stock on a store shelf. You have to get the companies permission. In case someone can see it. It's why in some reality shows they'll bleep out product logos on someones shirt. I also heard a story about an amatuer film maker having to deface candy bar logos for a scene in a store. For the most obvious example watch Repomen. There is a scene in a store where all the stock is stark white packaging with foods name in big black letters. 2. Bay and Hasbro got a license from Saleen not Ford. Hence the logos. Also Audi is part of the Volkwagen group. So I don't know how the hell they got away with using one of their products as a TF. Considering that German auto makers have a huge aversion to being associated with "war toys." This requires some further research. Like does Sideways's CG model have an Audi logo on it? Does the real car they used? Did they even use one?
Yes thank you. Can we get confirmation of what sideways actually looks like in the movie. If they can get audi logos approved for a bad guy in a movie it seems that they could have done so for the toy. But maybe hasbro doesn't want to spend the money.
To peg in the silver panels ? That's just result of the design. G1 aesthetic would have probably used up all inner space for fully blocked out legs.
