Transformers Pics of Gen1 real vehicles.

[CFlash]

why not just avoid the whole courtroom?

thats your argument?...please.....

thank god your not their legal adviser

"go on dreamworks.....we can take em"

And, it would be very good legal advice. The Disney v CAT case lasted like ONE DAY.

Possibly because case law PRECEDENT is quite clear. The Mattel v MCA Records case (as well as other cases in the last ONE HUNDRED years) settled it.

 

[xwolverine2]

And, it would be very good legal advice. .

*rolls up newspaper* NO!...NO!..Cflash!

 

[Denny67]

Soundwave

Megatron

Jazz

 

[xwolverine2]

HELL NO!...to the radio!

 

[Psionic Force]

your a nazi!

Huh?

 

[Hotwire]

I don't care what you say, this is NOT a real life Ironhide

I think he's got to be a Dodge Hemi Durango

 

[chaos123x]

I don't care what you say, this is NOT a real life Ironhide

I think he's got to be a Dodge Hemi Durango

The Durango looks to much like a SUV.

He needs to be a van.

 

[geomon]

This is Ironhide.

 

[xwolverine2]

stop it with the ugly cars....

find something that retains its shape but is also futuristic looking....(camaro)

 

[CFlash]

stop it with the ugly cars....

find something that retains its shape but is also futuristic looking....(camaro)

I agree about the ugly old-schoolers...
But, I can't fathom how a Camaro is the same shape as a Beetle.

 

[xwolverine2]

I agree about the ugly old-schoolers...
But, I can't fathom how a Camaro is the same shape as a Beetle.

lol.... well you know what i mean.

make the cars look badass....not 1920s cars....or soccer-mom vans..k?


JETS!!!

 

[Orko Is King]

Updated:

Prime

Starscream

Bumblebee

Ironhide

That looks sooooo much better than the Prime we got.

 

[Denny67]

The Durango looks to much like a SUV.

He needs to be a van.

ummm that is not a Durango... it IS a van.

This is a Durango

 

[geomon]

I agree about the ugly old-schoolers...
But, I can't fathom how a Camaro is the same shape as a Beetle.

Sigh...it never stops. It won't stop either.

 

[roach]

And, it would be very good legal advice. The Disney v CAT case lasted like ONE DAY.

Possibly because case law PRECEDENT is quite clear. The Mattel v MCA Records case (as well as other cases in the last ONE HUNDRED years) settled it.

Im pretty sure that if they asked and VW said no and they still went ahead and used a Bug they'd lose in court

 

[chaos123x]

ummm that is not a Durango... it IS a van.

This is a Durango

Looks like a SUV to me.

 

[CFlash]

Im pretty sure that if they asked and VW said no and they still went ahead and used a Bug they'd lose in court

That Dreamworks would lose? What do you base that statement on? Explain.
There's a ton of case law precedent that says you're wrong. I already cited it. It doesn't get any more clear cut than the Disney/CAT and Mattel v Barbie Girl case.

It wouldn't even be a prolonged fight. It'd be dismissed on the first day of preliminary hearings.

Dude, it's all about product placement nowadays.... GM paid Michael Bay $$$ to feature its cars. VW said they wouldn't pay. Bay went with GM. Only out of $$$. He could have used VW cars anyway. But he chose not to.

 

[roach]

If I was making a war movie and I asked VW for permissions to put their bug in it and they said no..if I said to hell with them they could take me to court...and win.

Did Disney ask before they did the movie???
Did Barbie Girl ask before they made the song??????

If they could do what they wanted with someone elses product then why would they ask. I am not a lawyer and I dont think you are...so I dont know what the laws and regulations are in this situation but from a common sense position if someone asks to use something and they say no...you dont use it.

 

[CFlash]

If I was making a war movie and I asked VW for permissions to put their bug in it and they said no..if I said to hell with them they could take me to court...and win.

Did Disney ask before they did the movie???
Did Barbie Girl ask before they made the song??????

If they could do what they wanted with someone elses product then why would they ask. I am not a lawyer and I dont think you are...so I dont know what the laws and regulations are in this situation but from a common sense position if someone asks to use something and they say no...you dont use it.

"Asking" isn't a legal thing. lol.

The "Asking Caveat" by Roach. lol

Why would they "ask" you say? Bay asked to be provided with VW vehicles for free. VW said no. So Bay looked for other people that would. It's called product placement. The asking wasn't for "permission".... it was to be provided with a product.

Bay easily could have said, "OK, we'll just budget for these vehicles because I really want to put a Beetle or a Freightliner in the movie... to be faithful."

P.S.
No, I'm not a lawyer. But, I was a law major (Pre-law, Political Science) in college.

 

[roach]

"Asking" isn't a legal thing. lol.

The "Asking Caveat" by Roach. lol

Why would they "ask" you say? Bay asked to be provided with VW vehicles for free. VW said no. So Bay looked for other people that would. It's called product placement. The asking wasn't for "permission".... it was to be provided with a product.

Bay easily could have said, "OK, we'll just budget for these vehicles because I really want to put a Beetle or a Freightliner in the movie... to be faithful."

P.S.
No, I'm not a lawyer. But, I was a law major (Pre-law, Political Science) in college.

so which is it....did GM pay to have their cars in the movie or did Bay pay to have the cars in the movie??????

 

[CFlash]

so which is it....did GM pay to have their cars in the movie or did Bay pay to have the cars in the movie??????

GM paid. The vehicles are worth money. Not only that, but the deal most certainly included marketing tie-ins. That's usually the case with these deals.

When they made the Dukes of Hazzard movie, Dodge was "asked" and refused to take part because of the Confederate Flag racism connotations. Just like VW did with Transformers and "war." The makers of Hazzard went ahead and put the car in the movie anyway.

 

[roach]

GM paid. The vehicles are worth money. Not only that, but the deal most certainly included marketing tie-ins. That's usually the case with these deals.

When they made the Dukes of Hazzard movie, Dodge was "asked" and refused to take part because of the Confederate Flag racism connotations. Just like VW did with Transformers and "war." The makers of Hazzard went ahead and put the car in the movie anyway.

the dodge people allowed them to use the car after a scene was written where the flag is debated

 

[CFlash]

the dodge people allowed them to use the car after a scene was written where the flag is debated

They gave them one car (when they needed like 6). And they refused to take part in marketing tie-ins.

Yes, it's good to get the "blessing" of a manufacturer. Mainly, because as a studio you want good relations with manufacturers because for other movies that may have a small budget, the manufacturer can provide you with products.

The reverse is also true. It is in the interest of manufacturers to get their products seen. Just because they don't really want to be part of Dukes of Hazzard doesn't mean they don't want to be in The Fast & The Furious Part 10

So relationships must be maintained. But as a matter of LAW? Nope, you're wrong.

I'm not saying a case couldn't be brought... I'm saying that it is a HUGE uphill battle for the manufacturer. They have to prove a gazillion things... 1) that the car itself is a trademark... hard to do with a Dodge Charger... maybe easier for a Beetle... and 2) the hardest to prove: "damages."

 

[CFlash]

Look at it this way.
In this TF movie, the one lone (AFAIK) non-GM car is a Mustang. And he's a bad guy.

I wonder if they got Ford's permission to show the one bad guy car be a Mustang against a fleet of good-guy GM cars. I dunno. Maybe. I doubt it.

 

[Advocate05]

ThunderCracker & Skywarp

Sunstreaker and Sideswipe

Ironhide

Windcharger