Prime 1 Studios Dark of the Moon Shockwave Teased

Seibertronians, we have some more news out of SDCC for you, as always provided by Seibertron himself. This one comes from the Sideshow Collectibles booth, who have made quite a few Transformers busts and High-quality statues in the past, Ranging from the Bayverse into G1. The Prime1 Studios Optimus was a particular show-stopper this year, and if you'd like to take a look, Seibertron has you covered with a whole gallery and a video! Check this statue out in all its glory down below!











Super interested in this figure? It's available now through Sideshow's website for a Prime-sized price tag.

Will you buy it? What do you think of the almost G1-Fall of Cybertron mashup design? Leave your thoughts in the comments!

Seibertronians, we have some literal big news tonight. Just after we premiered the new gallery for Prime1 Studio's G1-inspired Optimus Prime statue, it appears Sideshow and Prime1 are at it again. They've unveiled two completely new statues, one of the Decepticon leader himself, G1 Megatron, and one of everyone's favorite Munky not Trukk, Beast Wars Optimus Primal (seems like a familiar insect tagged along as well-and met an unfortunate end). We've obtained some images of both, along with Optimus and Nemesis Prime, although unfortunately, Primal's still in his Gray-scale prototype phase, but fear not! Megatron's viewable in all his colored glory! Check 'em out below!


Megatron







Optimus Prime





Nemesis Prime




Opimus Primal and Waspinator

Bronzewolf wrote:Megatron

The TFW2005 images don't show up here. But I've seen him. And like with the Optimus Prime statue, this is what Megatron should have looked like in the Michael Bay movies. (And voiced by Frank Welker from the start.)



I would have never guessed that this creature was supposed to be him:

That Primal is a thing of beauty. Megatron looks great too.

It's a Megatron I love, but will never be able to afford in my lifetime! Definitely awesome though.

That Megatron looks wonderful; but very oddly rounded. It's certainly not something I dislike, but it is a bit weird to see.

Cyberpath wrote:this is what Megatron should have looked like in the Michael Bay movies. (And voiced by Frank Welker from the start.)

But the movies aren't G1. Why is every other non-G1 Megatron allowed by the fans to have their own unique and original designs but not Movie Megatron? Or any of the Movie characters?

Sabrblade wrote:

Cyberpath wrote:this is what Megatron should have looked like in the Michael Bay movies. (And voiced by Frank Welker from the start.)

But the movies aren't G1. Why is every other non-G1 Megatron allowed by the fans to have their own unique and original designs but not Movie Megatron? Or any of the Movie characters?

Well...

The movie was very obviously intentionally aimed at fans of G1 - notice that before the movies, every other iteration of Transformers featured entirely different settings and beyond Optimus, Megatron and Starscream a very different cast of characters. Only Energon broke this trend and even then it was mostly just references in the designs due to the anniversary. The movie went full-out G1 with it's Autobot cast - hence Ratchet, Jazz, Ironhide, Bumblebee - and was a blockbuster movie aimed at cashing in on 80s fans' nostalgia. So it's only natural that said fans would want the designs to be more reminiscent of G1 more than any other series, especially given there were a lot more viewers to this than the likes of RiD and Cybertron.

Kurona wrote:The movie was very obviously intentionally aimed at fans of G1

Seemed more to me like it was aimed at mainstream action popcorn movie audiences unfamiliar with Transformers than anyone else.

Kurona wrote:notice that before the movies, every other iteration of Transformers featured entirely different settings

"Present-day Earth" was the main setting from 2001 to 2005, with "out in space" as a secondary setting during that time, and both of which the movies all take place in as well.

Kurona wrote:The movie went full-out G1 with it's Autobot cast - hence Ratchet, Jazz, Ironhide, Bumblebee

With Jazz being the only one of those four who bore any physical resemblance to his G1 counterpart, and not even in his color scheme.

Not to mention how three of those four were barely even in the movie at all.

Kurona wrote:and was a blockbuster movie aimed at cashing in on 80s fans' nostalgia. So it's only natural that said fans would want the designs to be more reminiscent of G1 more than any other series, especially given there were a lot more viewers to this than the likes of RiD and Cybertron.

Let's not beat around the bush here. The real reason is cuz a lot of G1 fans wanted and still want live-action G1 movies instead of live-action non-G1 movies. They want what they grew up with to be done and be seen in a real life live-action format (nothing wrong with that) and won't accept anything new or different from that (therein lies the problem).

Sabrblade wrote:

Kurona wrote:The movie was very obviously intentionally aimed at fans of G1

Seemed more to me like it was aimed at mainstream action popcorn movie audiences unfamiliar with Transformers than anyone else.

Kurona wrote:notice that before the movies, every other iteration of Transformers featured entirely different settings

"Present-day Earth" was the main setting from 2001 to 2005, with "out in space" as a secondary setting during that time, and both of which the movies all take place in as well.

Kurona wrote:The movie went full-out G1 with it's Autobot cast - hence Ratchet, Jazz, Ironhide, Bumblebee

With Jazz being the only one of those four who bore any physical resemblance to his G1 counterpart, and not even in his color scheme.

Not to mention how three of those four were barely even in the movie at all.

It was most certainly aimed at general action movie audiences, yes; but we're not tackling yet - we're tackling what the Transformers part was aimed at. Because if it was just a generic action movie, you could call it anything. You could make it anything. You could just make another Die Hard movie or Bay could just make another one of his terrible movies based on real life disasters. But why was it Transformers in particular? Who are they aiming at?
Well, considering the age rating, the events of the movie and the sexualization, I'm going to assume it's not Hasbro's usual target audience. That usual target audience being, of course, kids who do not need G1 references thrown at them to buy a product. All they need is something they find cool thrown at them to buy a product. I sure as heck didn't get Energon Ultra Magnus as a kid because I thought it was a great reference to G1 Ultra Magnus in name and colour scheme, I bought it because oh my god my Armada Optimus can have massive shoulder cannons.
And most G1 fans don't really care about those new Transformers franchises that happened since they were a kid, or don't even know they exist. Some did, obviously. We're on a website full of them, but that's a very small and niche amount of people. Transformers (2007) was made as a Transformers movie rather than a generic action movie to target and cash in on a large audience who as children 30 years ago were captivated by a world-wide phenomenon. I don't like to put arguments as objective fact, but there is no debating that. You can't possibly argue that it was targeted at any other facet of the Transformers fandom.
So, if it's aimed at those fans... it's pretty natural that a lot of them would come away thinking "you know I really wish that guy calling himself Megatron actually looked like the Megatron I saw as a kid".



Admittedly, my use of the term 'setting' was a bit too broad and inaccurate. When I said it I meant more the themes and subject of the show. Armada focused on collecting mini-cons, Cybertron focused on saving the entire galaxy from a black hole, etc. The point is that they all went for something a little different than being G1-based in story.



Yeah, Jazz is the only recognisable one of the bunch. I just said they were going for a G1 cast, not that they did it particularly well.





In any case, this discussion is likely best not to take place here as it's a completely different subject. Don't want a repeat of that whole Masterpiece Energon scenario...

Sabrblade wrote:

Cyberpath wrote:this is what Megatron should have looked like in the Michael Bay movies. (And voiced by Frank Welker from the start.)

But the movies aren't G1. Why is every other non-G1 Megatron allowed by the fans to have their own unique and original designs but not Movie Megatron? Or any of the Movie characters?

Because when you do movies you go back to the source, to what made the franchise popular in the first place, and go from there.

Spider-Man got to look like Spider-Man.

Batman like Batman.

Superman like Superman.

And Megatron looked like a blob of metal parts with zero resemblance to the iconic character. He didn't even have his arm cannon, it's the least the the designers could have done.


Kurona -- also, they paid millions to the original voice-actor of Optimus Prime. They could have tagged a famous movie-star instead.

IMO this Prime 1 Studio got the right mix of on-model details and new "realistic" details. (for a live-action movie.)

Cyberpath wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Cyberpath wrote:this is what Megatron should have looked like in the Michael Bay movies. (And voiced by Frank Welker from the start.)

But the movies aren't G1. Why is every other non-G1 Megatron allowed by the fans to have their own unique and original designs but not Movie Megatron? Or any of the Movie characters?

Because when you do movies you go back to the source, to what made the franchise popular in the first place, and go from there.

By 2007, there were lots of sources to choose from. All those other examples you listed didn't have to keep drastically reinventing the looks of those characters every year or two to keep things fresh over the years to sell more toys. But Transformers had to do that because what made Transformers popular in the first place also nearly killed Transformers too.

Sabrblade wrote:By 2007, there were lots of sources to choose from. All those other examples you listed didn't have to keep drastically reinventing the looks of those characters every year or two to keep things fresh over the years to sell more toys. But Transformers had to do that because what made Transformers popular in the first place also nearly killed Transformers too.

Yes, I'm sure all these other obscure TF cartoons and toys up to 2007 were just as well-known and iconic as the originals. And that it's totally a coincidence that Hasbro is still basing its toys on "G1."

And these other franchises did change in the comics...





.. but the movie makers knew how to pick the iconic looks for them.

Cyberpath wrote:Yes, I'm sure all the other obscure Transformers cartoons and toys up to 2007 were just as well-known and iconic as the originals.

They were to every kid who grew up with them as much as G1 was to every kid who grew up with it, yes.

Cyberpath wrote:And that it's totally a coincidence that Hasbro is still basing its toys on "G1."

Which only really started to take off in 2006.

Cyberpath wrote:And these other franchises did change in the comics...

Every 1 to 2 years, though?

Sabrblade wrote:

Cyberpath wrote:Yes, I'm sure all the other obscure Transformers cartoons and toys up to 2007 were just as well-known and iconic as the originals.

They were to every kid who grew up with them as much as G1 was to every kid who grew up with it, yes.

Less kids, I'm sure.

Sabrblade wrote:

Cyberpath wrote:And that it's totally a coincidence that Hasbro is still basing its toys on "G1."

Which only really started to take off in 2006.

Earlier than that, I think. But that's already ten years. Companies tend to go back to the original once the "flavour of the month" dries up. Even "G2" was the "G1" toys with weird decos and some new figures that could have been released in the original line.

Sabrblade wrote:

Cyberpath wrote:And these other franchises did change in the comics...
.. but the movie makers knew how to pick the iconic looks for them.

Every 1 to 2 years, though?

I don't know how many years apart. But they change enough to have a selection; and the movie-makers usually pick the iconic looks. Bay's Megatron wasn't close.

Even in the 2007 animated series they made sure to make Megatron instantly recognisable..

Cyberpath wrote:Batman like Batman

Nope, they didn't go with an iconic Batman costume for any of the movies. The iconic comic Batman costume is blue/black cowl, cape, gloves, trunks, and boots on a gray spandex body suit and yellow utility belt, but every movie from '89 to present have clad him in the drastically different all black body armor from head to toe. They've since become the expectation for the movies, but they have only the barest essentials like the ears in common with the original source. Remove the ears and the Batman logo from the chest and the '89 movie costume would not have been recognizable as Batman at the time.

Emerje

Was there ever a "Batman" film where Batman didn't look like Batman?

-- where someone looked at him and said.. wait, is that supposed to be... Batman...?

Never happened. Batman is instantly recognisable in all of them. They took his attributes and ran with it.

And Megatron?




If you go back, I didn't say that they should have used the original model for film; but something like the Prime 1 Studio sculptures. They stuck the perfect balance imo.

Ladies and gents, our images are BACK UP! We apologize for any inconvenience and thank you for your patience! Continue your discussion of these beautiful statues below!

That Primal is GORGEOUS. Too bad it'll probably cost a zillion dollars.

Sabrblade wrote:Let's not beat around the bush here. The real reason is cuz a lot of G1 fans wanted and still want live-action G1 movies instead of live-action non-G1 movies. They want what they grew up with to be done and be seen in a real life live-action format (nothing wrong with that) and won't accept anything new or different from that (therein lies the problem).

In other words, just another manifestation of the "TRUKK NOT MUNKY" mentality.

I will grant that the movie designs are ugly, but this has nothing to do with whether or not they resemble G1. The aesthetic is just horrible in and of itself.

Cyberpath wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

Cyberpath wrote:And that it's totally a coincidence that Hasbro is still basing its toys on "G1."

Which only really started to take off in 2006.

Earlier than that, I think. But that's already ten years. Companies tend to go back to the original once the "flavour of the month" dries up. Even "G2" was the "G1" toys with weird decos and some new figures that could have been released in the original line.

And look how well that did. It lasted a whole TWO YEARS before Beast Wars had to "ruin" the franchise back to viability, and if that hadn't happened there would BE no Transformers today.

And then there was Machine Wars. How did that go over, exactly?

Cyberpath wrote:Was there ever a "Batman" film where Batman didn't look like Batman?

-- where someone looked at him and said.. wait, is that supposed to be... Batman...?

Never happened. Batman is instantly recognisable in all of them. They took his attributes and ran with it.

Of the three you listed, Spiderman, Batman, and Superman, it's Batman who had the most drastic costume change when it came to '89 and later movies. He still doesn't dress like that in the comics because he doesn't need to. I'm not saying he's unrecognizable, just that he had a radical redesign compared to the others you named.

And the reason why he still looks vaguely the same after getting the movie treatment is because in the end he's still the same millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne who's parents were murdered and fighting crime at night. Spiderman is still student Peter Parker that was bit by a radioactive spider. Superman is still Daily Planet writer Clark Kent who is secretly an alien from the planet Krypton. It's the same characters from the comics. Movie Megatron is not G1 Megatron in any way, shape, or form, they don't share origins, they don't share stories, and therefore has no need to look like him at all. Sure, many of us would like to see G1 done as the ideal movie and that statue might fit in nicely with that, but that's not the movies we got.

Emerje