Talk: Optimus Prime (Primax)/toys

20TH/MP

It's a little detail, but the pic used for the 20TH Anniversary MasterPiece Convoy Optimus Prime is kind of wrong: I think it's a testshot model that has never been sold (battle damage with long stacks and wrong light's feet colors) Also, he is a lille misstransformed as the matrix "hidder" is on the wrong side.

Its a stock photo of one of the longstack protos Hasbro keeps using for promotional images. I chose these photos because its hard to find stock photos of the actual product (I don't want to use somebody else's photos), and they're actually photographed pretty well, with no major posing or transformation problems aside from the bumper in his chest. --FFN 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The errors should be noted, though, so we know we have to replace this photo eventually. --ItsWalky 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer a really good photo, since its the best toy he has, so might as well get the best pics possible. --FFN 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we could take a remy pic?

The text for the Masterpiece/20th Prime is a bit... um... --M Sipher 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Accurate?

Abit what? I believe I wrote that at 4am. --FFN 10:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I recently got this and thought there was somet stuff worth noting... I don't know whether I've got what is now the standard, or something specifically "UK". I ordered it off Amazon UK and I've seen the same thing in Forbidden Planet here. Anyway, whatever it is, it has the small smoke stacks, no shiny chromy bits, and much more simplistic paintwork than the battledamaged US release. The Ion Blaster is also a mix of blue, silver and yellow as opposed to black or grey. Oh it comes with a talking stand too, although it's rather obviously not Peter Cullen they recorded... Something I was also curious about is the pair of voice communicators in his arms. On mine he has a sticker of Grimlock on the right, and Megatron on the left, however, the box shows Starscream. Is there just a random assortment that varies from item to item? Well, anyway, I, umm, thought some of this information might be pertinent. Sorry if this isn't the right place to bring this stuff up. DS (sorry, no account) 82.69.45.136 10:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the Classics DVD version. check here. --FFN 11:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Classics

The entry for Classics Voyager Optimus Prime (and the matching entry at Ultra Magnus (G1)) claims that his two guns "can combine together to form a back-mounted shoulder weapon." I've never heard of Classics Prime having such a feature, at least not officially. Can somebody confirm or deny? --Andrusi 23:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true - you leave the wind vane attached to his back, and you can then plug the smokestacks into that, and angle the whole shebang up over his shoulders to make a twin cannon. It's official an' in his instructions and stuff. - Chris McFeely 23:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I never knew that. Cool. --Andrusi 04:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Flat character

I always thought so. Compared with Megatron, he had no charisma. He was wayyyy too honorable, level-headed, mature, just, wise, noble, etc.. *blech*71.34.68.213 21:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Prime wasn't evil enough for your tastes, but as far as I can tell that doesn't have anything to do with his toy... --Andrusi 23:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Merchandise

What about this guy? --Andrusi 14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Revoltech

Shouldn't Revoltech be in merchandise? I moved it in that section, but someone else move it back in toys without explaining why.

By what possible definition is a Revoltech action figure not a toy and a 3" Titanium figure a toy? --Rotty 20:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, but Titanium has transformable toys, at least. I think the best definition would be toys=sold directly by Hasbro/takara, that would make Revoltech a merchandise. But what about McDonald Toys, then? Anyway, even if the difference between Merchandise and toys became kind of blur for Mc Donald, Titanium, and Even Action Master, Revoltech is not sell directly by Takara/Hasbro, and neither does it transform. Which clearly set him in Merchandise at the same title than "Metal Force"--GUIGUI 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, wow. I know we have some idiosyncratic definitions on this Wiki (like "Comics-only character"), but I'd be very much against creating our own peculiar definition of TOY that's "sold by Takara/Hasbro". And "there's a toy that transforms in the package" as a definition would suddenly make 99% of my G.I. Joe collection not toys... --Rotty 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Titaniums are directly sold by Hasbro in the same way the Kenner-branded Beast Wars and Machine Wars were. Plus, most of the characters with 3" Titaniums I've seen have them under "merchandise". Puls, while the Action Master figures (usually) didn't transform, their weapons or vehicles did, and they were a mainline to boot. However, there's also guys like Enemy, who has a transforming toy, but said toy is bolted to a radio that keeps his legs pointed outward. --FortMax 21:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

...In the Transformers line, Of course I don't know why I should even precise that. And I don't want to create my own definition of Merchandise/Toys differentiation, I want one to be officially created, by general consensus (unless there is already one? If so a link to it would be appreciated)! That's why I Talk about it in the Discussion part: What make a Merchandise and what make a Toy? And in which category should Revoltech be put?--GUIGUI 21:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If we must have a clear criterion, I think "produced by Hasbro/Takara" may be the best we can do. And yes, that would mean moving most promotional toys like Happy Meals out of "toys" and into something else. Sadly, it would also affect toys made by GiG in Italy or by Estrela in Brazil, without some sort of concession. Those were at least the same molds, so, we could base it on who owned the rights to the tooling at the time the item was produced, since GiG and Estrela were licensing them but wouldn't have owned them. (Not who made the original tooling, since then toys like Omega Supreme and Roadbuster are out.)

Hasbro owned the Bandai tooling used to filled out the line in 1985? --Rotty 21:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops -- no, they didn't. Don't know why I even wrote that. So that idea's out completely then. --Steve-o 22:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally though I would rather not have a set rule for it, and instead decide things case by case. We could keep a list in the help pages of what items "count" as toys and what items don't. It's a subjective thing, but, I think we'll end up with the smallest number of silly categorizations that way. As Rotty says, I can't imagine any definition of the word "toy" that would exclude a Revoltech figure. They are nothing like Metalforce Prime. Metalforce is, IMO, very much in the "statue" area and not the "toy" area. A 3" Titanium is pretty much just a statue too, to me, but a SCF/HoC PVC figurine is moving closer to "toy".

--Steve-o 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with Steve. The line between the two is fuzzy, but I feel that most everybody would agree with decisions, in this case, made somewhat arbitrarily. I don't think it's too hard to easily discern what was produced to be played with, and what was produced to be a display piece. --Sntint 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we can come up with a pretty good definition in that toys are designed to be played with. You can say of them that they have a "play pattern", as I did at Multi-property brand. So figures that transform into something else are toys. If you play with them by having them interact with vehicles and accessories, also toys. Attacktix, Built to Rule, MyClone, Revoltech, those are also meant to be played with. There's really no way to play with 3" Titaniums, but it would be nice to keep Titanium Series entirely under Toys when the same character has both 6" and 3" figures. 3" Titaniums and SCFs are a gray area. --Rotty 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice that this "to be able to play with" distinction fall apart for softimus Prime and Optimash Prime, who are definitively done to play with. Yet, personally I would never move them in the toys Section.--GUIGUI 22:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a point here, but I really think it needs to be a) signed and b) not phrased as threat of protest in order to weigh it against other opinions expressed. --Rotty 22:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just Forgot to sign (happen from time to time, sorry) and there was absolutely no will of threat when I tipped it.--GUIGUI 22:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Hasbro and Takara have some exact standard by which they determine what's a toy and what's merchandise? Perhaps toys tend to belong to "lines" or assortments, whereas merchandise tends to be a one-off item? There is an assortment of Titaniums, there is certainly an assortment of actual main-line figures, but there is only one Optimash Prime? Certainly we cannot strictly use the amount of "one", but perhaps this is where we can be arbitrary, if not being wholly arbitrary? There are only two Softformers, only one Metalforce... I suppose Masterpiece now has enough items to be considered a line? --Sntint 22:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea, but the Heroes of Cybertron series goes against that logic.--GUIGUI 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We're currently counting Robot Heroes as Merchandise, and that line's set to get fairly extensive. SCF would also have to be switched to toys, when you really can't play with them. --Rotty 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wall Statues

I went to my local Toys Be We today, looking for a Classics Bumblebee, and discovered three Classics Primes, a 20th DVD Anniversary Prime....and Megatron and Optimus Prime Wall Statues. Here and here. Pricy, but yummy-lookin'. I wish I had three hundred bucks to blow on all three...but I'll be content (for now) with my Classics Prime. If somebody wants to add the statues to the merchandise for Optimus and Megsy, go ahead. Kendrakirai 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Original G1 Toy

We don't seem to have a picture of the original toy. I think given its importance to the line (and its many releases) It would be great to have a good collection of pictures of it emphasising its many features and variations (ie New Years Convoy, TF Collection version with axe). Azereal 03:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote this article, I attempted to track down as many images as I could find for all the figures I listed and described. But G1 Prime was difficult, because I wasn't sure any fan photo would be more deserving than any other for it, and I couldn't find a stock Hasbro/Takara photo of the original team was of good visual quality. I think I'll leave if for you guys to figure out, now. - FFN in class

New additions

Hi guys. I was just reading thru this AWSOME article and noticed a few more recent things were missing. I hope you like my additions. --PacifistPrime.

Thank you. I am pretty awesome at writing about toys I don't actually own :D --FFN 14:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you certainly do a great job, because I actually do own most of them (not that I'm bragging), and I can't really better any of the descriptions in your entries. Nice work! :-)

In case you're interested, I'm a Prime/Megsy completist, at least in the sense of I buy each officially produced transforming (or at least highly articulated) mould. I'd like to think that I'm not a slave to repaints, but if they reflect something that's actually in the fiction I'll sometimes cave, ala Powerlinx Armada Prime. As a sideline I collect most iterations of Starscream, Hot Rod/Rodimus Prime, Ultra Magnus, Soundwave and Grimlock. Oh, and Beast Wars/Machines characters who were actually in the shows. All the best, PacifistPrime.

To be fair, I've not seriously edited this page since creating it in January, so the sheer majority of the work since then (especially of the new toys released since January) were written by other members, and the entire Trivia section was originally by Nevermore and somebody else who I can't remember, unfortunately. But still, I am very proud of it as toys are a sorely neglected subject on this wiki. A single sentence about toys is not good enough unless the product in question doesn't do anything. --FFN 15:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Slightly altered how?

Me again. Just a question; does anyone know what the actual difference is between the original Japanese Pepsi Convoy and the supposedly "slightly altered" U.S. release? I've just added the U.S. version here since, unlike Pepsi Convoy, he is actually supposed to be Optimus. However, I don't know what this small difference is supposed to be, since I only own the Japanese version myself.

Also, I understand that this was a convention exclusive of some variety, but was it just a BotCon thing, or was it available at ComiCon and/or anywhere else? Purchase or competition?

Any help?

Thanks, PacifistPrime

The only differences I'm aware of are the character distinction and the packaging. Oh, and I assume the US version has short stacks. (I have the Japanese one.) It was sold by Hasbro Toy Shop at BotCon and San Diego Comic-Con this year. It's something they sold at whatever convention they were at, as part of their normal stock. --ItsWalky 13:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dude! Much appreciated. Yeah, now that you mention it, looking at the picture I added I can see the small stacks. Cheers, PacifistPrime

Snarky commentary

Who the heck put all the snarky commentary in the sections for iPod Convoy, the Nike thing, the Pepsi things ect? I actually have a good idea who did it, but I'll refrain from naming names. For the most part, this article is meant to be informative in comparison to most articles on the wiki, so we should restrain ourselves from adding colour commentary and giving "cute" nicknames for the toys. I would also advise this person to stop displaying the toy images as large as possible. --FFN 05:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear FFN,

PacifistPrime here.

I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions. I am responsible for the so-called "snarky" comments that you have unilaterally excised, however, you are incorrect in describing them as having been "put" into the relevant sections such as Nike and iPod Convoy, because I originated all those sections myself in the first place. As the original author, the tone of my writing can hardly be described as an insertion or imposition to pre-existing material, since those whole sections were my own original contributions.

Regarding the "naming of names", I don't know if I was the user you had in mind or not, but I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from making this all sound like some clandestine snarkfest: I wrote the entries whilst logged in and never made any attempt to make my contribution anonymously.

As to the "snarky commentary", with all due respect (and acknowledging you're doubtless a more frequent contributor than myself): Are you serious? One of the most pervasive and appealing things about this wiki is its sense of humour and light, joshing tone. My comments are satirical and jovial at worst, hardly snarky. I mean, honestly, you don't want us to become like the mirthless uptights over at Wookieepedia, do you?

And I challenge you to dispute that my contributions on these toys aren't thoroughly informative. I believe that my wry comments in no way detract from the article's informativeness.

Finally, if the image sizes are too large, I'm more than happy to concede that. I just made them a size which seemed adequately large to understand, but if you feel strongly otherwise, I don't much care on this point.

Rather than just reverting your edits, I'm hoping we can discuss this. I'd be good if some other users will weigh in on this matter. I hope I am not out of line here, but I really believe that FFN's appraisal of my work (and his edits) are excessive (and somewhat contrary to the flavour of this wiki), especially as they have stood intact for several months.

All the best,

PacifistPrime

The problem is not me wanting to excise humour from the wiki (if you'll noted me in talk pages and on TFW2005, I am a staunch defender of the Wiki's tone and sense of humour), the problem is the jokes got in the way of conveying information with them starting off with commentary about Prime's corporate shilling and the various nicknames you gave to the toys. In any case, the number of jokes didn't fit the tone of the rest of the article, or really, the tone of the toy sections of the rest of the wiki. Now, I really do appreciate you for writing about the Japanese toys, but really, with humour sometimes less is more.

Oh, somebody needs to find an out-of-box photo of iPod Convoy. I only have stock photos of iPod Optimus Prime. --FFN 12:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, FFN, what can I say? I disagree. I really don't think you can reasonably argue that the jokes were "getting in the way", as all the useful information was clearly there. Frankly, I think the running gag that Japanese Convoy is addicted to endorsement deals was a perfectly relevant bit of observational humour, given how obviously egregious 2007 was for this fact, and it's a damn shame to have it removed.

Does anyone else want to weigh in here?

Cheers, PacifistPrime.

I have no strong opinion on it. I think there were probably too many jokes before, but it would be okay for some of them to be put back in. I do think the "nickames" for the toys are probably a bad idea. Since we're talking about Japanese-exclusive toys that American fans won't know much about, it's probably better to call them by their real names all the time to avoid confusion. --Steve-o 23:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. I can appreciate the point about the excessively cute/smartass nicknames. If I could restore the running note of observational humour about Convoy's excessive number of corporate endorsements, I'd be happy. Whaddaya reckon, FFN? Anyone else?

--PacifistPrime.

Okay, I'd just prefer it if we didn't bash people over the head with the joke like say, the The Chaser's War on Everything or something. I prefer my satire to be more subtle and be left for the viewer to notice, like Newstopia. Funnily enough I love both shows.

Edit: Sorry for not replying soon, I didn't notice this talk page had been updated since January. --FFN 06:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I take it from the Chaser reference that you're a fellow Aussie TransFan, FFN...? Anyway, I've restored the two header jokes about Japanese Prime being addicted to endorsement deals but without reinserting any of the name-based jokes, as per our discussion. (n.b. The remaining use of "iPodimus Prime" was actually still there, I didn't put it back in. I assume that means you thought one mention was okay when you were removing all the others. I'd appreciate that one use being left that way too, as I think it rolls off the toungue an is fankly pretty amusing, if I do say so myself...).

I hope that's all cool with everyone now.

Peace, --PacifistPrimePP 09:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I am. That's fine now. Could you write about the iPod Optimus Prime redeco? Yeah, his name is Optimus Prime for some reason. --FFN 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am probably a bit late, but i think the whole "convoy loves corporate endorsements" thing is hilarious and does not detract at all from the informative nature of the article. Just thought i would throw my opinion out there.--Skyglide 04:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Humour debate: Tiresome redux

I know I'm late to the party, but it's come up again so... so. There's a line between easily identified snark and confusing, unhelpful text. Given that the toys in question have little or no fiction, and given that Takara's take on TF has gotten so insane that basically any joke we might put in could easily be interpreted as canon, I think we need to keep the snark here as limited as possible. Chip 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was sitting here looking over the conversation, and figuring out how to sum up my opinion on it... and Chip did so already. Snark is fine, but not in case where it could possibly be confused for actual official information. --Sntint 04:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I really don't see the need to get into this all over again when we've had a consensus on this since April. But I disagree for two primary reasons:

1]The justification that Japanese fiction is so wacky anyway that people will get confused is flawed, since many of our articles contain jokes about Japanese fiction that, if some numbskull took them literally, would technically be disinformative. Since when do we pander to numbskulls?

2]More importantly: THIS IS A TOYS PAGE. Ergo it naturally does not include important canon information about content of fictions, which are (or if not, should be) entirely covered elsewhere on the relevant page(s). The simple fact that this joking "story" information is mildly incongruous on a Toy's page is a clear signal that it's a joke, Joyce!

I really think restarting another whole discussion about this is just a waste of time. It's clearly a joke, and anyone who can't tell the difference is going to have a HELL of a lot of trouble with most of this wiki, long before they end up at this page.

User:PacifistPrimePP 05:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I have to admit, I'm for removing it, not so much because of the possibility of confusing it for actual canon, but because it just seems to ruin the flow of the article (which mainly focuses on descriptions of toys) and because, well, I just don't think they're that funny to begin with. --Professor Icepick 05:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ouch.

Well, one's man's meat is another man's poison.

To be fair though, since when do we stop for (very concise, I might add) jokes? I mean, do we take out stuff about Kup being an old codger for flow problems? Personally, given the absurd number of endorsement-deal versions of Convoy that Takara put out in 2007, I think two short, wry observations about the fact are hardly all that intrusive.User:PacifistPrimePP 06:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I throw my vote behind removing the snark. Too much possibility for confusion. The fact that so many of us are saying that should have some bearing. --Jimsorenson 06:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm just flabbergasted! Why does the previous consensus suddenly count for nothing? And more to the point, since when does this wiki avoid humour for fear of confusing someone when the context clearly indicates otherwise? Are we going to remove the jokes about Tracks being gay now because someone might get confused?! Come on...User:PacifistPrimePP 06:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The previous "consensus" was Steve-o saying he had no strong feeling on the matter and an exceptionally begrudging FFN, who was for removing it from the beginning. And apparently the rest of the wiki -including myself- missed it until this recent event. (Things do slip past people's attention.) Consensus used to be that we wouldn't use quotes. Consensus used to be that every character page would have a parenthetical franchise-of-origin disambiguation in the title regardless of uniqueness of name, and that "(UT)" was an acceptable parenthetical. That's pretty clearly not the case anymore. --M Sipher 08:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the previous concensus. I was always for removing the jokes, snarks, comments and nicknames you gave to the Japanese toys. PacifistPrime, you went way overboard even by the standards of this wiki. Basically, what you did is getting in the way of conveying information. The attitude on this wiki seems to be that the toy sections, while not off-limits for humour, are meant to be much more neutral and mainly informative than other sections, and any humour to be used here is to be much more subtle and not bang the reader over the head with the author's opinions. You hit people with a sledgehammer. --FFN 12:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone who isn't Pacifist Prime is right. --ItsWalky 13:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I will personally be sorry to see the endorsement jokes go, as I find them vastly entertaining (and no, not confusing), but if they're not appropriate for a toy section, well okay then. That said, the Takara Sport Label section on Megatron's page has similar bits, so if this is the position you should probably take a look at that as well. -- Greenygal 14:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Main Image

"We need a more appropriate image, one that only has G1 Primes on it."
While I agree with ItsWalky that that would be ideal, the image that was there is so filled with awesome that I vote we keep it in place until we have something better. JW 14:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Remy Rodis do one like this, with a buttillion Primes all together? Maybe you should bug him about it. -hx, still not logged in.

25th Anniversary Pack

Sooooo... what do we file the umpteenth rerelease of this toy under? Universe? Universe (2008)?--Rosicrucian^Talk 05:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Universe (2008). —Interrobang 05:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pepsi Convoy

Does Pepsi Convoy really belong on this page? He's a separate character. -Derik 22:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll note that Pepsi Convoy isn't on this page. Pepsi Optimus Prime, who IS Prime, is. - Chris McFeely 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

*looks more carefully.* Oh, how careles of me! Quite right, quite right... -Derik 22:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Reissues

Unless I'm mistaken, all the reissues so far have been TRU exclusives. The Universe rerelease of Prime is going to be the first that isn't.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As M Sipher suggested, I thought I would note the PM Prime reissue seperately and note that it was an exclusive since it's not really a reissue, rather it's a release of a Japanese toy. --FFN 15:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems a bit arbitrary. It was part of the same toyline as the other TRU exclusive reissues.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Which I suppose I should clarify. I feel that since we do have a whole page dedicated to G1 Optimus Prime toys, we could easily detail all the rereleases, the differences between them, what retail or mail order outlets they were available via, etc. They don't need the full writeup the original entries had, but there were differences between them.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)