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

The captions under the pictures in this article are inapropriate and rude —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pirakafreak24 (talkcontribs).

I'm sorry you lack a sense of humor. --Detour 06:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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
MovieOptimusPrime promorender MovieOptimusPrime promorender3 MovieOptimusPrime promorender2 Movieprime meettheautobots

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)


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?

I honestly dont know either bud. I wish they would say SOMTHING more then what their saying about all of the Fast Action battlers. A wiki should be unbais. Btw: Since this is the talk page, I just thot I'd throw in an OPINION, but my OPINION is that I think Fast action Starscream, Ratchet, and Brawl are pretty close to the "real" versions of them, and a nice alternative when u wanna save a few bucks. (with the latter...the former..not so much, but its a nice alternative to him, and the cannon is more accurate)--Chipmonk3288

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. 09:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

spare pic

Old low-detail promo render pic --FFN 16:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Main pic

Movieprime meettheautobots

"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)


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. -- 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)

Not the console version.--Autobotx1010 01:59, 13 September 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).

Giftcard and DVD Case Primes

Okay, I've hot a question... The Target giftcard and DVD cases that unfold into flat versions of Optimus Prime... Do they belong in the Merchandise section, and if so, does anyone have decent pictures of them? --Nemesis Primal 18:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Rearranging the toy list?

Should we rearrange the toy list sorted by molds? Currently it's a mess, it doesn't even exactly follow the release order; and even though Robo-Vision Prime was released after regular Voyager Prime, having them listed in this order and then calling Robo-Vision Prime a "redeco" of Voyager Prime is kinda iffy.--Nevermore 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So. Any objections to this?--Nevermore 11:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Robo-Vision Prime preceded Voyager Prime by a very hefty margin. Technically Voyager Prime's the redeco here.--MCRG 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Voyager Class shoulder cannons?

Ok, I bought First Strike Optimus and I cannot for the life of me figure out how to get his shoulder cannons to lower. I thought they would work like Classics Optimus but they don't. Whats the trick to getting this to work?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).


Is it worth to note that he's only shown(as far as i know) without his mouthplate ONLY in the movie?--Grand-majin 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a Robot Heroes figure without the mouthplate. --ItsWalky 16:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And he's in a Burger King commercial without the mouthplate, too.The Big Q 13:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


For eff's sake, I'm not TRYING to change the dashes - I don't care what they look like, I don't care which kind you use, I don't care if every page on the wiki uses tildes and umlauts instead of real punctuation. it happens automatically on these "this page may be too big" pages, which seems to be the point Interrobang missed. Once again: It's not intentional; it just happens. I don't know why, so I can't fix it. But by that same token, would you quit just plain old reverting the edit? The other stuff is minor, but it's not irrelevant - at least, not as irrelevant as it could be. It's on-topic with the subjects it's in. So by all means, please, fix th dashes that I've screwed up - but stop reverting the other bits. Please? Yeesh! 07:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I consider your actual additions minor and unnecessary. Regardless, "it happens automatically on these "this page may be too big" pages" makes very little sense, considering that it isn't consistent on whether it replaces the em dashes with "hyphen-hyphen-space" or "space-hyphen-space". —Interrobang 09:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, beats me—I'm no Firefox programmer. But just because you consider my additions unnecessary, it doesn't mean they actually are. Yeah, they're minor—I said as much. But unnecessary? Your opinion. Which you're only acting upon, I'd wager, because you're in a snit about the dashes. Am I wrong? 05:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Premium Prime Eyes

Will they glow blue instead of yellow like the original Leader toy? If they do, it needs to be mentioned. The Big Q 13:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

the box shows blue, but it is still yellow unfortunately--Skyglide 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Red is Hard To Film?

In the 1970's TV show "Emergency!" featured many red fire trucks and the crew did not special measures to film them. Therefore, red is not a hard color to film.! Liberal Noob 01:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure this isn't the only example of red vehicles ever being filmed. But Emergency!, being a TV show, was probably filmed on video, and not on... you know, film. I don't know whether red vehicles being hard to film is some weird general thing I'd never heard of before this movie, or whether it has something to do with the special effects, but I'll take the professionals' word for it.
When I heard that in the commentary, I asked somebody who films stuff, and they said it's hard to get it to look consistantly the same color. He also said lighting can make it look very orange at times. -- 04:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In my meager experience with Shake and film editing, I know red can be a bitch to color correct.--MCRG 07:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems I have been misinformed. Thank you all for the clarification. Liberal Noob 17:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why were my edits removed?

Peter Cullen did say that. I was just trying to make the images work better. 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Shall I include to this page? y/n

Someone got arrested at an airport for wearing a TF2007 Optimus Prime T-shirt? [source] Liberal Noob 21:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fun trivia, especially if you contrast it with the fact that Megatron's always been the perceived safety hazard. I'd link to this BBC article instead, though, since it's a more mainstream, firsthand source. Also, he wasn't actually arrested. - Jackpot 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Prime's Great Plan

Acknowledging that yes, the entry is fairly tongue-in-cheek to begin with, is the last trivia bit really fair? Obviously, Megatron was powerful, and nothing we'd want tromping around Earth any longer than he had to be. Without the All Spark for which he came to Earth to begin with, though, I don't recall him having the power to obliterate Earth. In fact, between the remaining Autobots and their good friends in the U.S. military, who showed during the battle of Mission City that no, not even Megatron was not invulnerable against heavy weapons fire... well, I'm hesitant to call the outcome either way, but it doesn't like the kind of foregone conclusion/idiotic plan the entry makes it out to be. Any thoughts? - Caswin 04:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as we know from Twilight's Last Gleaming, Megatron could have won the battle of Mission City, but that was most likely due to getting his hands on the All Spark. However, the thought of "WTF, Prime?" did run through my head when I first heard it. Additionally, the Autobots didn't seem to believe that they could take on Megatron themselves, as shown when Ratchet ordered them to fall back upon his appearance. And remember, Megatron still had backup. -- SFH 04:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, based on the immediate history of the article, it looks like somebody's thinking along the same lines I am, anyway. As the next widget said before it was deleted, even with Starscream, victory was not guaranteed, such that it's unlikely that Megatron would want to butt heads with an Allspark-less Earth. The note in question, on the other hand, implies (and pretty well hinges on the assumption) that with Optimus Prime out of the way, Megatron could just annihilate everything and everyone and be gone without a second thought. I think we can all agree, though, that that isn't true - and if so, it's misleadingly harsh; the plan was better-thought-through than that. Granted, it would feel strange to remove something that's been around for about three-quarters of a year, and it does have a certain point to it, but I don't think it should remain as-is. Caswin 22:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you know what, forget that. Even if it was written in a rambling, speculative way, at its core, that recently added-and-deleted bullet point pretty much had it: The plan would have ensured that Megatron wouldn't win the long-term victory; in the short term, a Decepticon victory was hardly guaranteed even without his own presence, and without an All Spark to fight for, they wouldn't have much reason to remain on Earth anyway. Under the stated goal of ending the war and stopping Megatron, it's not a bad plan at all. Unless there are any objections, I move that it be taken off the article. - Caswin 04:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
And I move that it stay, because Prime's plan had some major short term faults. -- SFH 04:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much either way, but I'm really sick of dogpiled additions that begin with "To be fair" and "On the other hand" and "Then again" and similar disclaimers. If a "then again" is needed at all, the whole note should probably be re-written to reflect it (not just on this page, but any time it comes up, across the whole wiki.) -- Repowers 05:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. And just in the context of this page, one way or another, the note shouldn't continue in its present form. Unfortunately, every time I look at it, it's so much its own thing that I'm not sure how to actually go about editing it. - Caswin 14:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to open up a can of worms again, I can't let this one drop. Having established that Prime's plan was a good one long-term, denying Megatron ultimate power, that still leaves the fate of Earth and the remaining Autobots, which seems to be the main point of contention anyway. However, as mentioned earlier (albeit as more of a secondary point), Megatron would have had very little reason to stay on Earth with the object of his desires gone - not enough to stay and battle it out with the human forces and Autobots. - Caswin 04:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And here we are again, nearly one year and an edit duel later. As my opponent has stopped talking to me -- fair digs, edit summaries aren't meant for that kind of behavior anyway -- I would like to bring this issue to the forefront one more time. There is strong evidence that Optimus Prime's plan would not have backfired horribly. In the unlikely event that Megatron chose to stay in a hostile situation with the object of his desires destroyed in front of him, he certainly could not have destroyed the world and every living creature on it, even if he had a mind to. Human weapons fire had already weakened him, and Prime's sacrifice notwithstanding, it is reasonable to assume that things would have only gotten worse as more military forces poured in. It would be a nasty battle, but for all his rage, Megatron (or even the rest of the Decepticons) did not have the tools to take on the world, let alone eradicate it. The note reflects a rather shaky understanding of events in the movie, most notably the part where Megatron had already been injured, and an underestimation of the human capacity for sheer tenacity and big guns. In the interest of being fair to fictional characters and the people who write them, unless I've missed something, I would like to see it deleted. - Caswin 04:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Your opponent stopped talking to you because he and most of the original community moved the wiki to TFWIKI.Net last September. This site's little more than a sub-par mirror now. - 12:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Actually, I was referring to my edit-war "opponent" with whom I've been fighting over the entry for half a week and who has only just now stopped coming up with reasons for undoing my edits. Does that mean I can just delete it? (And on a side note, shouldn't there be... a note, or something to that effect? The site announcements don't say a thing about the move, and judging by all the activity around here, I don't think I'm the only one who's confused.) - Caswin 13:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The new main pic

Personally, I liked the old pic better. It was clearer, especially in thumbnail form. --Detour 01:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I figure it won't be long until we have a render from the second movie we can use. Onslaught Six 08:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed contents

  • Prime's initial plan to end the war: unite the All Spark with his own spark, destroying it and himself, leaving the Autobots leaderless and further reducing their already dangerously low ranks, and leaving a planet full of squishy, carbon-based life forms at the mercy of a psychotically violent Decepticon conqueror who wouldn't think twice about obliterating the remaining Autobots, the planet and every living creature on it (and perhaps Starscream just for good measure)...yeah. Really thought that one through, didn't ya, Prime?

  • It appears that this particular Optimus Prime is far less intelligent then other incarnations. During the final battle of the first film, Optimus comes to the brilliantly made conclusion that the Cube must be united with his spark in order to maintain peace and end the war. On the contrary, Megatron would still survive, simply enraged by the destruction of the cube. He would easily lay waste to the Human race with his Decepticon friends, with nobody but three leader-less (And one leg-less and voiceless) Autobots to stand in their way. Yeah; Way to go, Optimus...

  • Unlike most of the other truck-mode Optimus Primes in other continuities, Movie Optimus Prime does not pull a trailer of any sort. However, if he did, it would most likely be a flatbed trailer, as the rear of Prime's sleeper cabin is protected by a large silver "headache rack", a piece of optional equipment installed in trucks that haul heavy loads on flatbed trailers. The rack protects the driver in case the load breaks free during braking.
  • After Optimus Prime is released from his personal plane in the Shanghai scene, he makes his first (and only) conversion from humanoid to vehicle mode, which is presumably more difficult to animate as there are very few on-screen transformations of that nature.

Not only this page.but the entire transformers wikiapedia is messed up.

Moved to Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/The Funny

energy blades

When Prime destroyed Grindor's face, did anybody else notice that his energy blades were curved into hooks? Xeno the Hedgehog 15:09, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Japanese G1 continuity

The timeline posted on TakaraTomy's website

So let me get this straight, in japan the 2007 movie is in G1 continuity year 2007, Convoy isnt revived until 2010 due to continuity changes, and this incarnition of the character isnt renamed Convoy but keeps the Optimus name, is optimus Prime and Convoy separate characters in J G1 continuity?

Japan considers every series in the franchise to be part of the G1 timeline. I stopped trying to make sense of it several months ago. Xeno the Hedgehog 02:27, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
Nuh, actually, it simply looks more like:
  1. The writer of the table simply didn't know 2007 film is in another continuity. — That is, An Error/Mistake.
  2. More like a tie-in promotional ad says "Hey, do you know in the real world in 2007, there will be a whole new Transformers movie?" (Though somebody may ask "Why put it in Chronicle #1 instead of #2?")

--TX55TALK 04:31, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Convoy?

Both this version and the animated version of Optimus werent renamed Convoy in japan, why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

For future reference, please sign your posts with four ~'s. As for an answer to your question, I don't know about the "Animated" series, but live-action film characters tend to keep the same name when the film is dubbed into other languages. I'm probably not entirely correct, but that's the best explanation I have to offer. Xeno the Hedgehog 19:24, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

I forget/don't know the reason that Movie Optimus Prime doesn't change the name. As for Transformers Animated, it is said that Japan changes its story, making it a prequel to the Transformers film. So this Optimus Prime is that Optimus Prime's younger self. Yeh, I know it's crazy. --TX55TALK 06:09, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

DotM Chest

Your argument of a grille beneath his chest is invalid. Bay said he would make Prime look "more heroic" in the sequel. In order to do this, he added a SIX PACK!


you forgot the axe he had when he faced Sentinel Prime. (Primarch11 20:53, August 30, 2011 (UTC))

Main image

Moved from User talk:TX55

Why can't the Optimus Prime promo pic I added be used as the main one? It's much better than the other (You cant even see him) and it isn't used on TFWiki... --Warpath 19:07, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

This image was chosen because it isn't so monotone or dull, and it is not so bad as it was said. --TX55TALK 01:36, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Then why not use the one on top of this page, that's not monotone. --Warpath 09:53, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
May or may not used it since it has scars on his body. --TX55TALK 14:17, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Then what about this one released for Dotm?:
It is brighter and seems to have more paint applications, and not so monotone as the other render. --Warpath 22:30, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Though it still has blank background, it is better than the original one (the character model, not the promo image for Empire). --TX55TALK 07:56, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
So...shall I ad it? --Warpath 10:48, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
Though I still prefer the Empire one, let's use the DOTM one until an image better than the both shows up some day. --TX55TALK 14:56, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
There is another version with him pointing, would that be better? --Warpath 19:02, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

New Pic

could we have a new profile pic? could people say which one they want? their name is in the caption--Ahaga10 07:28, February 12, 2012 (UTC)


Why was this called Tyran??? I didn't get that one.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 00:24, June 13, 2016 (UTC)


A lot of the quotes seem to be in reverse. On this page and others. User:Primarch11


Several characters including Optimus are in Bumblebee with a new G1 style look, this should be noted. Mseay222 (talk) 03:51, January 1, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.