The Energon Pub

Picked up Botshots Mirage the other day. I'd not seen any pics of him before hand, but he has an overwhelming likeness to the Ferrari in Dotm. So much so that my girlfriend was able to say it looks like a Ferrari.
So if Hasbro can release a similar likeness to the car why can't they produce a deluxe class Dotm figure if they are able to do a Botshots version

I know people have said its because another company have the licence from Ferrari, but in the botshots case it's not being marketed as a Ferrari.

Hasbro did the same thing with Sideways in ROTF. Because Hasbro couldn't secure the rights to use an Audi alt mode, they just altered the car to where it had an Audi likeness. Hell, Hasbro had "modified" car models a ton of times to avoid having to pay a car company for the license. I can't think off too many off the top of my head, but more recently I know Prime Cliffjumper is like a mashup of a 70's Dodge Charger and some other car, Cybertron Downshift was also based on a Dodge Charger, and I'm pretty sure even Classics Prowl/Silverstreak/Bluestreak were based on Nissan Altima's (don't quote me on that last one).

Bottom line; if Hasbro REALLY wanted to, they could have easily released Mirage.

Retailers where left with a tonne of shelf warmers from the dotm line. There wasn't enough demand for new waves of the line because of all the Bee's. In the end Hasbro couldn't keep the line going. I'm sure if the movie line wasn't cancelled we would have seen mirage/dino in toy form somewhere down the line.

Asia still has the movie line going but I doubt it's gonna produce anything new in the near future.

We never would have seen a Deluxe Mirage from Hasbro, because of Mattel owning an exclusive license from Ferrari. That's also the reason why he was called "Dino" and not "Mirage" due to product placement.

Funny that Sideways was mentioned, because his Legends toy is used for Cyberverse Mirage.

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:We never would have seen a Deluxe Mirage from Hasbro, because of Mattel owning an exclusive license from Ferrari. That's also the reason why he was called "Dino" and not "Mirage" due to product placement.

Funny that Sideways was mentioned, because his Legends toy is used for Cyberverse Mirage.

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you, Jelze. You seem to be implying that the reason we didn't get Mirage as a toy was due to licensing issues. That's not the case at all. As I pointed out in my previous post, if Hasbro wants to make a toy of a character whose alt mode is based on a licensed vehicle, they can get around it by altering the vehicle mode's resemblance to the aforementioned vehicle (ala ROTF Sideways).

Therefore, licensing did not contribute to Mirage's absence in toy form.

WolfDawg wrote:

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:We never would have seen a Deluxe Mirage from Hasbro, because of Mattel owning an exclusive license from Ferrari. That's also the reason why he was called "Dino" and not "Mirage" due to product placement.

Funny that Sideways was mentioned, because his Legends toy is used for Cyberverse Mirage.

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you, Jelze. You seem to be implying that the reason we didn't get Mirage as a toy was due to licensing issues. That's not the case at all. As I pointed out in my previous post, if Hasbro wants to make a toy of a character whose alt mode is based on a licensed vehicle, they can get around it by altering the vehicle mode's resemblance to the aforementioned vehicle (ala ROTF Sideways).

Therefore, licensing did not contribute to Mirage's absence in toy form.

I said exclusive. Meaning only Mattel can produce Ferrari toys. I know Speed Stars Mirage is a approximation of a Ferrari, but with larger toys I wouldn't want to risk ticking both Ferrari and Mattel off.

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

WolfDawg wrote:

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:We never would have seen a Deluxe Mirage from Hasbro, because of Mattel owning an exclusive license from Ferrari. That's also the reason why he was called "Dino" and not "Mirage" due to product placement.

Funny that Sideways was mentioned, because his Legends toy is used for Cyberverse Mirage.

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you, Jelze. You seem to be implying that the reason we didn't get Mirage as a toy was due to licensing issues. That's not the case at all. As I pointed out in my previous post, if Hasbro wants to make a toy of a character whose alt mode is based on a licensed vehicle, they can get around it by altering the vehicle mode's resemblance to the aforementioned vehicle (ala ROTF Sideways).

Therefore, licensing did not contribute to Mirage's absence in toy form.

I said exclusive. Meaning only Mattel can produce Ferrari toys. I know Speed Stars Mirage is a approximation of a Ferrari, but with larger toys I wouldn't want to risk ticking both Ferrari and Mattel off.

I know what exclusive means. However, I still stand by what I said regarding Hasbro using approximations of other cars in the past and getting away with it. If Hasbro were to use a rough approximation of a Ferrari without actually having the figure BE a Ferrari, then there's literally nothing Mattel or the car company could do since there's no law that says vague vehicular resemblances infringe upon a company's patent. If that were the case, the third party TF market would have been sued to hell and back a LONG time ago. Just because something RESEMBLES something else doesn't mean it's copyright infringement or anything similar. Again, that's how Hasbro was able to squeeze in ROTF Sideways without getting into a hassle with Audi. Like I said before, if Hasbro REALLY wanted to release a deluxe Mirage, they could have.

Speaking of Mattel owning Ferrari, how is Hasbro able to make a Masterpiece Sideswipe based on the Ferrari car model? I'm not calling you a liar in that respect, Jelze, because I know Hasbro doesn't have rights to the official Ferrari car model. However, I never heard anyone mention if Hasbro paid for licensing regarding the MP Sideswipe alt mode.

WolfDawg wrote:Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you, Jelze. You seem to be implying that the reason we didn't get Mirage as a toy was due to licensing issues. That's not the case at all. As I pointed out in my previous post, if Hasbro wants to make a toy of a character whose alt mode is based on a licensed vehicle, they can get around it by altering the vehicle mode's resemblance to the aforementioned vehicle (ala ROTF Sideways).

Therefore, licensing did not contribute to Mirage's absence in toy form.

Unless you know all the licenses agreements made, then I don't know that anyone can really be sure.

Audi apparently, wanted to show off their car in a movie, and that's how sideways came about. Hasbro came up with a way to release the toy, which may have been part of the agreement with Audi. This actually works out better for Hasbro, they don't have to worry about the licensing on the sideways mold. Which is probably why that mold got used so often despite minimal screen time.
How the Ferrari license came about may be different entirely. While Hasbro could have done a generic car, this clearly didn't interest them. Or perhaps it was part of the license agreement for the film, that no transforming toy be made out of Dino. These types of things can happen when companies let other companies use things. It's possible the Ferrari, and Dino, were agreed upon to be film only.

I think it's very strange Audi didn't come to some kind of agreement with Hasbro to have the toy resemble their car. I don't know exactly how all these agreements went down though. I think Que's toy is still said to turn into a Mercedes. I really don't think any of us know. Just because one happened one way, doesn't mean another could have.

Since it's Takara doing the MP, not Hasbro at this point (different countries, different licenses, different IP laws), then that could be why, but that also decreases the liklihood that the US will ever see it.

As for Ferrari, look at classics Sideswipe/Sunstreaker/Punch\Counterpunch. That wasn't licensed, it was a deluxe, and it resembled a Ferrari without being a Ferrari, so yes, I agree, Hasbro totally COULD do a Dino/Mirage in DotM if they wanted to.

edit: I JUST realized, Sideswipe etc. (including the MP and Classics) are Lamborgini's, not Ferraris . My bad.

Screamfleet wrote:I think it's very strange Audi didn't come to some kind of agreement with Hasbro to have the toy resemble their car. I don't know exactly how all these agreements went down though. I think Que's toy is still said to turn into a Mercedes. I really don't think any of us know. Just because one happened one way, doesn't mean another could have.

According to the wiki, Hasbro *did* have an agreement with Audi by the time the movie rolled around. Sideways was in the scene at the construction yard where he was bifurcated by stabby-McWheelfeet. I suspect that they didn't have the agreement when they were making the mold perhaps?

Screamfleet wrote:

WolfDawg wrote:Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you, Jelze. You seem to be implying that the reason we didn't get Mirage as a toy was due to licensing issues. That's not the case at all. As I pointed out in my previous post, if Hasbro wants to make a toy of a character whose alt mode is based on a licensed vehicle, they can get around it by altering the vehicle mode's resemblance to the aforementioned vehicle (ala ROTF Sideways).

Therefore, licensing did not contribute to Mirage's absence in toy form.

Unless you know all the licenses agreements made, then I don't know that anyone can really be sure.

Audi apparently, wanted to show off their car in a movie, and that's how sideways came about. Hasbro came up with a way to release the toy, which may have been part of the agreement with Audi. This actually works out better for Hasbro, they don't have to worry about the licensing on the sideways mold. Which is probably why that mold got used so often despite minimal screen time.
How the Ferrari license came about may be different entirely. While Hasbro could have done a generic car, this clearly didn't interest them. Or perhaps it was part of the license agreement for the film, that no transforming toy be made out of Dino. These types of things can happen when companies let other companies use things. It's possible the Ferrari, and Dino, were agreed upon to be film only.

I think it's very strange Audi didn't come to some kind of agreement with Hasbro to have the toy resemble their car. I don't know exactly how all these agreements went down though. I think Que's toy is still said to turn into a Mercedes. I really don't think any of us know. Just because one happened one way, doesn't mean another could have.

That makes sense...until you remember that there was a Mirage Speedstars figure that was loosely based on a Ferrari. While I can't be sure, I don't see why Ferrari would say, "Sure, Dino can ONLY be a Speedstar figure that doesn't transform, but dammit, you better make sure it DOESN'T transform into a robot!"

Also, they just released a Cyberverse Mirage based on the ROTF Sideswipe mold, so I don't see why a transforming version of the character would have been a problem. Hell, they could have even renamed him if it was that big of a deal. A red Ferrari-ish looking car that transforms into a character that sort of resembles the one on screen and has a different name (from what I remember, he was called Dino on the movie) wouldn't piss anyone off.

WolfDawg wrote:Speaking of Mattel owning Ferrari, how is Hasbro able to make a Masterpiece Sideswipe based on the Ferrari car model? I'm not calling you a liar in that respect, Jelze, because I know Hasbro doesn't have rights to the official Ferrari car model. However, I never heard anyone mention if Hasbro paid for licensing regarding the MP Sideswipe alt mode.

Sideswipe is a Lamborghini, not a Ferrari. Hence his Japanese name "Lambor" Still, we don't know for certain what his vehicle mode will actually be, nothing was ever announced. It could be the original Countach, or a couple of Lamborghini models smushed into one (the front of a Gallardo and the back of a Diablo for instance)

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

WolfDawg wrote:Speaking of Mattel owning Ferrari, how is Hasbro able to make a Masterpiece Sideswipe based on the Ferrari car model? I'm not calling you a liar in that respect, Jelze, because I know Hasbro doesn't have rights to the official Ferrari car model. However, I never heard anyone mention if Hasbro paid for licensing regarding the MP Sideswipe alt mode.

Sideswipe is a Lamborghini, not a Ferrari. Hence his Japanese name "Lambor" Still, we don't know for certain what his vehicle mode will actually be, nothing was ever announced. It could be the original Countach, or a couple of Lamborghini models smushed into one (the front of a Gallardo and the back of a Diablo for instance)

Ever since I can remember, I've always assumed Ferrari's were like a sub-line for the Lamborghini brand. Just goes to show you how much I know about cars, lol.

WolfDawg wrote:That makes sense...until you remember that there was a Mirage Speedstars figure that was loosely based on a Ferrari. While I can't be sure, I don't see why Ferrari would say, "Sure, Dino can ONLY be a Speedstar figure that doesn't transform, but dammit, you better make sure it DOESN'T transform into a robot!"

Also, they just released a Cyberverse Mirage based on the ROTF Sideswipe mold, so I don't see why a transforming version of the character would have been a problem. Hell, they could have even renamed him if it was that big of a deal. A red Ferrari-ish looking car that transforms into a character that sort of resembles the one on screen and has a different name (from what I remember, he was called Dino on the movie) wouldn't piss anyone off.

I did remember, which is why I said in my post "that no transforming toy be made out of Dino"

It's very possible this fell into whatever agreement hasbro or I should say paramount, made with Ferrari. Hasbro and Ferrari may not have come to an agreement.

A Mirage toy based on a ROTF mold, isn't a Dino toy based on a Ferrari.

You're pointing things out that are not explicitly a new mold Dino toy. You don't know what agreement Ferrari and Hasbro made. You don't see the problem, because frankly, none of us are aware of what they agreed to. They did rename, and make toys out of him, that really hardly resemble him. You talk as if you have solutions, but you really don't know what the problem is. Neither do I. I'll not claim they could have done something though, when, really, if they could have, why didn't they? I suspect, because they actually couldn't.

WolfDawg wrote:

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

WolfDawg wrote:Speaking of Mattel owning Ferrari, how is Hasbro able to make a Masterpiece Sideswipe based on the Ferrari car model? I'm not calling you a liar in that respect, Jelze, because I know Hasbro doesn't have rights to the official Ferrari car model. However, I never heard anyone mention if Hasbro paid for licensing regarding the MP Sideswipe alt mode.

Sideswipe is a Lamborghini, not a Ferrari. Hence his Japanese name "Lambor" Still, we don't know for certain what his vehicle mode will actually be, nothing was ever announced. It could be the original Countach, or a couple of Lamborghini models smushed into one (the front of a Gallardo and the back of a Diablo for instance)

Ever since I can remember, I've always assumed Ferrari's were like a sub-line for the Lamborghini brand. Just goes to show you how much I know about cars, lol.

Well, how's that for coincidence? Turns out that Lamborghini is now owned by Audi, who in turn is a subsidiary of Volkswagen.

Screamfleet wrote:

WolfDawg wrote:That makes sense...until you remember that there was a Mirage Speedstars figure that was loosely based on a Ferrari. While I can't be sure, I don't see why Ferrari would say, "Sure, Dino can ONLY be a Speedstar figure that doesn't transform, but dammit, you better make sure it DOESN'T transform into a robot!"

Also, they just released a Cyberverse Mirage based on the ROTF Sideswipe mold, so I don't see why a transforming version of the character would have been a problem. Hell, they could have even renamed him if it was that big of a deal. A red Ferrari-ish looking car that transforms into a character that sort of resembles the one on screen and has a different name (from what I remember, he was called Dino on the movie) wouldn't piss anyone off.

I did remember, which is why I said in my post "that no transforming toy be made out of Dino"

It's very possible this fell into whatever agreement hasbro or I should say paramount, made with Ferrari. Hasbro and Ferrari may not have come to an agreement.

A Mirage toy based on a ROTF mold, isn't a Dino toy based on a Ferrari.

You're pointing things out that are not explicitly a new mold Dino toy. You don't know what agreement Ferrari and Hasbro made. You don't see the problem, because frankly, none of us are aware of what they agreed to. They did rename, and make toys out of him, that really hardly resemble him. You talk as if you have solutions, but you really don't know what the problem is. Neither do I. I'll not claim they could have done something though, when, really, if they could have, why didn't they? I suspect, because they actually couldn't.

Based on what I read during Dark of the Moon's development was that Ferrari did not want Hasbro to use their car model as a reference to one of their characters. That at least explains why Mirage became Dino. Now I'm not sure how I'm confusing you by listing both Speedstars Mirage and the recent Cyberverse Mirage as examples of Hasbro at least being able to both produce a Ferrari-like vehicle and a transformable characterization of DOTM Mirage. All I'm saying is that there are many ways to get around whatever agreement Hasbro did make with Ferrari. Obviously Hasbro's agreement had nothing to do with them producing Ferrari-ish vehicles, the Speedstars version pretty much proves that. Likewise, the Cyberverse Mirage proves that Hasbro at least has the right to make a transformable version of the character. How is it, then, with both of those toys in existence, it's so hard to believe that Hasbro can't make a transforming version of DOTM Dino who doesn't have the same name as the on screen character, doesn't have the same alt mode as the on screen character, and (from what Cyberverse Mirage has proven) doesn't even have to be tied to the DOTM fiction?

You keep mentioning that it must not have been part of an agreement, but I'd sure like to know what kind of agreement would bar Hasbro from making a version of the character SOOOO far removed from the actual movie character that it can be a completely different character. I mean, the fans will know who he's supposed to be, but just like with so many of the third party figures, as long as they don't outright say "Hey, remember Dino? Screw Ferrari, THIS is Dino!", I don't see how Hasbro would have broken any agreement clauses. And if Hasbro did agree to some extremely EXTREMELY specific and detailed terms with Ferrari to use the vehicle in the movie, then that's just dumb business. Who would sign a contract that would pretty much forbid a them from making a figure of character, in ANY form of fashion, that would, in essence state "You cannot make a red vehicle that even has a passing resemblance to the Enzo, no matter if you change the name and fiction from which the character is involved"? Hell, if that were the case, Hasbro would have had their pants sued off of them since Classics Sideswipe's vehicle mode looks kinda like DOTM Dino's.

You're not confusing me at all, if anything you're confusing yourself. Cyberverse is proof? I don't see it as proof of anything. It's not even a DOTM toy.


You keep referencing an agreement between Hasbro and Ferrari, they might not have reached any kind of agreement. You don't know, I don't know. I think it's safer to assume since a toy didn't happen, that an agreement wasn't reached. You're far too caught up in the idea that a character in the movie must be made into a toy. Why would Hasbro agree to a character being in the film if they couldn't make a figure out if it? Perhaps that wasn't up to them. Marketing a toy in DOTM line, that's a red sports called, and calling it Mirage, instead of Dino, may very well have broken an agreement. Ferrari could have said they'd love to feature a character in the movie, but no toy. Hasbro pitches them the idea they did for Audi. Ferrari says no and does not wish to see any transformer toy resembling Dino. Speed Stars doesn't transform, is small, translucent, and isn't a ferrari. Cyberverse mirage is a red repaint of sideswipe, not DOTM dino. This is all very plausible. That anything Hasbro wanted to make as a toy, Ferrari had to say ok to. There doesn't need to be terms beyond that. Maybe Ferarri just didn't want hasbro to have a toy be popular because it was a Ferrari, even if this character's toy ended up being a generic car, like the Audi situation. Cyberverse Mirage isn't a DOTM toy. Maybe in the future hasbro could make a toy inspired by DOTM Dino, but still looking pretty different in both modes. In time, all the cross promotion stuff will be far enough away. It seems obvious to me that at the time of the movie, this was not going to happen

You're connecting dots that really don't necessarily match up. You're really just going kind of crazy now. Why would hasbro get sued? You don't know the terms and conditions of this agreement, between Ferarri, Paramount and Hasbro. These types of deals do happen. Cross promotion and advertising, it's not as simple as you try to make it out to be. You just seem angry that there isn't a toy.

[quote="Screamfleet"]You're not confusing me at all, if anything you're confusing yourself. Cyberverse is proof? I don't see it as proof of anything. It's not even a DOTM toy. /quote]

That's my point, dude. Deluxe Mirage could be released OUTSIDE of the DOTM line just like the Cyberverse Mirage was.

And I'm not confusing myself. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think you're confused, you think I'm confused. I'm trying to explain loopholes Hasbro could exploit to actually release the toy, and you keep going on with the same response about a very general "agreement" and how nobody knows exactly what the agreement was.

WolfDawg wrote:That's my point, dude. Deluxe Mirage could be released OUTSIDE of the DOTM line just like the Cyberverse Mirage was.

And I'm not confusing myself. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think you're confused, you think I'm confused. I'm trying to explain loopholes Hasbro could exploit to actually release the toy, and you keep going on with the same response about a very general "agreement" and how nobody knows exactly what the agreement was.

For what it's worth, I see exactly what you're saying Wolf, and I agree with you on the matter. But who knows? I heard in another topic that there was a miscommunication between Hasbro and the movie producer on which characters were going to have a big role, so it may just be that there was a big mixup and they never bothered to make a mold for poor Mirage.

I'm saying, at the time of the films release, they may not have been able to release such a toy. Even if it's a parody. It wouldn't be a loop hole if they agreed not to do it. Now that we're further away from it, they may be able to make a toy that barely resembles the character at all.

Which really, isn't a toy of the character at all. Your bottom line was, Hasbro could make one if they wanted to.

Now it's like, "hasbro could make that pizza if they wanted to, but substitute the sauce for the ketchup, and use American cheese, and use ground beef not pepperoni and stack it like a sandwhich"

I'd call that a cheese burger, not a pizza.

Screamfleet wrote:I'm saying, at the time of the films release, they may not have been able to release such a toy. Even if it's a parody. It wouldn't be a loop hole if they agreed not to do it. Now that we're further away from it, they may be able to make a toy that barely resembles the character at all.

Which really, isn't a toy of the character at all. Your bottom line was, Hasbro could make one if they wanted to.

Now it's like, "hasbro could make that pizza if they wanted to, but substitute the sauce for the ketchup, and use American cheese, and use ground beef not pepperoni and stack it like a sandwhich"

I'd call that a cheese burger, not a pizza.

Well, I guess I'd rather have a cheese burger than nothing at all. Using your analogy, I'd say ROTF Sideways turned out to be a pretty awesome cheeseburger.

And I'd say if you think ROTF sideways fits that analogy, all of this is going over your head.

Screamfleet wrote:And I'd say if you think ROTF sideways fits that analogy, all of this is going over your head.

Yea, well I'm guessing it went COMPLETELY over my head. From what I get of your analogy, you're trying to say that if the character has a modified alt mode that isn't completely screen accurate and is placed into a different "continuity" (ala Cyberverse Mirage/Evac/Soundwave), then it's a cheese burger as opposed to a pizza (which is apparently what is preferred). The only difference between placing Mirage in that analogy and Sideswipe is the fact that Sideswipe was actually released in the ROTF movie line.

But yea, if thinking ROTF Sideways fits that analogy is wrong, then I have no idea what point you're trying to make about using that analogy...

If I was Hasbro, and I would be backing a movie based on a TOY-line, I would make damn sure that whatever vehicle or character was featured in that movie, I would be able to make an actual TOY out of.

If Audi or Ferrari or Mercedes came to me stating they'd want their car in this TOY-based movie, but they didn't want toys made out of their vehicles... I'd say: "**** you"; I'd not put those makes of cars in the movie, and I'd just move on to the next car maker who would be willing to allow merchandise based on their vehicles (like GMC did).

Hell... Even if no car makers would cooperate, I'd just CGI up some made-up carmodels and other cool vehicles, so I could at least profit from that merchandising potential!

Imagine you're Paramount pictures, and a car company comes to you and says "we'll loan you a free car, and pay you a few million dollars if you put our car in your movie". You really going to worry about what kind of arrangement the car company and the toy company make?