Transformers the Movie 40th Anniversary Tour

[LordGigaIce]

But he is not saying that. That is what you are interpreting him saying.

It's the only possible conclusion to what he's saying and trying to do.
"Get Hasbro to hire me" can only happen if they fire the other guy. I don't wanna see someone else lose their job because Dan is being petty.

I wonder about that. Unless Cullen recorded a lot more lines for the show to continue, I would wager that the idea of the show continuing is gone.

As this thread has proven, Peter Cullen did not have a monopoly on Optimus. I do get it, that Cullen did this and anything specifically following up on it that recasts him might not look great but... well...

This franchise moved on from someone else voicing Optimus Prime with Neil Kaplan twenty five years ago. Gary Chalk played him from 2002-2006. We've had a pretty decent smattering of Optimus VAs aside from Cullen since RiD '15 wrapped up.

I don't think it's disrespectful to Cullen as an actor or Optimus as a character to recast him in this project now that he's passed.

 

[The Predaking]

It's the only possible conclusion to what he's saying and trying to do.
"Get Hasbro to hire me" can only happen if they fire the other guy. I don't wanna see someone else lose their job because Dan is being petty.

He literally is saying that he can't do anything about it. He isn't asking you to get the guy fired, he is literally asking for ideas on how to get the role. Your inference is putting things into it that he isn't asking for. And yes, he does want the role, especially since it's a G1 cartoon continuation, and you literally heard his voice just minutes before this for that Bumblebee.

As this thread has proven, Peter Cullen did not have a monopoly on Optimus. I do get it, that Cullen did this and anything specifically following up on it that recasts him might not look great but... well...

This franchise moved on from someone else voicing Optimus Prime with Neil Kaplan twenty five years ago. Gary Chalk played him from 2002-2006. We've had a pretty decent smattering of Optimus VAs aside from Cullen since RiD '15 wrapped up.

I don't think it's disrespectful to Cullen as an actor or Optimus as a character to recast him in this project now that he's passed.

I do think that it is disrespectful to him, since this is the G1 Optimus Prime. This isn't another incarnation of Optimus Prime, it's literally the iconic original role. Hasbro for the last decade or so has been hiring cheap non-guild voice actors for its Transformer series, and Cullen and Welker have been very vocal (see what I did there) about it over the past few years. To have this cheap replacement for Bumblebee is bad enough, to do it to G1 Prime would be horrendous. But hey, let's hear Cullen's thoughts:

 

[Princess Viola]

I don't see how you can interpret 'Any ideas on how to get Hasbro to change course and go with the original (remaining) G1 voices for a G1 based series?' as anything other than 'try to find a way to convince Hasbro to fire the guy they already hired for this series (assuming that it does actually exist) and hire me instead' considering (Gestures) everything around it.

Unless, of course, you're just being deliberately obtuse about it.

'Oh but he isn't explicitly calling for fans to get the new guy fired', well yeah of course he isn't. He's been in the business long enough to know that doing that is, at best, a surefire way to get himself probably blacklisted from ever reprising G1 Bumblebee again lol.

 

[LordGigaIce]

do think that it is disrespectful to him, since this is the G1 Optimus Prime. This isn't another incarnation of Optimus Prime, it's literally the iconic original role.

So... what? Are we just never going to do anything G1 adjacent again because Peter Cullen passed away?
I don't know man, that seems reverent to the point of absurdity. We can respect the man's legacy, mourn his passing, and honour what he meant to the franchise and us without locking G1 Optimus away forever.

and you literally heard his voice just minutes before this for that Bumblebee.

And maybe if he had a better agent or was better at industry networking he'd have landed the role in this.

He literally is saying that he can't do anything about it. He isn't asking you to get the guy fired, he is literally asking for ideas on how to get the role. Your inference is putting things into it that he isn't asking for. And yes, he does want the role, especially since it's a G1 cartoon continuation

@Princess Viola said it best, you're being willfully obtuse here.
Him wanting the role now can only happen if the guy who has it is fired. Dan Gilvezan may be a nice guy, I've heard nothing bad about him until this whole thing, but trying to take a paycheque out of someone else's hand is petty. And no amount of mental gymnastics or semantics on your part will change that.

Using a dead man to try and pump up your argument on a subject only tangentially related is also very petty.

Peter Cullen was right to stand up for unionized VAs. He's also passed on now, so I don't see how his advocacy in that area means we can never recast G1 Optimus again or that Dan Gilvezan has the right to muscle younger VAs out of a paying job.

 

[Sabrblade]

This is reminding me of how people started speculating if Hasbro should outright retire the character of Optimus Prime in light of Peter's passing. To which I say, no, they should not do that, because they tried to do that before, and it backfired on them tremendously. They tried to get rid of Optimus Prime back in 1986, and the fans were outraged by it.

This would be like if Pokemon were to try to get rid of Pikachu after Ikue Ohtani eventually passes away in the future. Or imagine if Disney had gotten rid of Mickey Mouse back when Walt passed away. Or if Warner Bros. had taken away Bugs Bunny when Mel Blanc passed away. Each of these examples would be not only an absolutely terrible business decision but also completely disrespectful to the fans who want more of that characters by deliberately withholding them from the fans anymore.

Or hey, the best example of all: Kermit the Frog was deliberately not retired when Jim Henson passed away. The televised special that honored his memory notably kept Kermit out of the special until the very last scene at the end. This left viewers to wonder where Kermit was and if Jim's passing meant Kermit wouldn't be around anymore, until the final part when Kermit walks in puppeteered for the first time by Steve Whitmire, having been personally asked by the Henson family to take of the role after Jim's passing.

 

[The Predaking]

So... what? Are we just never going to do anything G1 adjacent again because Peter Cullen passed away?

Yes. There are numerous other versions of Optimus Prime out there and no restrictions on making a new one. Let G1 Optimus end with Peter Cullen. Make a new prime or revisit another one.

@Princess Viola said it best, you're being willfully obtuse here.
Him wanting the role now can only happen if the guy who has it is fired. Dan Gilvezan may be a nice guy, I've heard nothing bad about him until this whole thing, but trying to take a paycheque out of someone else's hand is petty. And no amount of mental gymnastics or semantics on your part will change that.

The guy has already done the VA work and that means he has already got paid, so I am not worried about that. What I am wanting here is Dan to return to the role that pretty much only he had for 30 years. 2015 RID gave the character a new voice, but that was for a different version of the character. And if this was a new version of Bumblebee, I wouldn't mind seeing another person doing it, but this is G1 Bee and Dan wants to do it. You seem to be contrarily locked into the idea that this poor VA, that you can't even name without googling, is going to get fired for it and nothing else matters. Also, to save you from looking it up his name is Jarret LeMaster. Check out his work below:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1185500/?ref_=tt_cst_t_5&_ssoLoop=1

Not to be mean about it, but after looking over his work, I have some serious questions about him due to a lot of his work being seemingly political online videos. To be fiar though, he is in the union at least.

Using a dead man to try and pump up your argument on a subject only tangentially related is also very petty.

I am literally showing you a video with him talking about this very subject (People taking over other VAs roles). Since it doesn't align with your opinion you attack it as petty? It is literally Peter Cullen and Welker talking about this.

Peter Cullen was right to stand up for unionized VAs. He's also passed on now, so I don't see how his advocacy in that area means we can never recast G1 Optimus again or that Dan Gilvezan has the right to muscle younger VAs out of a paying job.

He and Welker literally say at the beginning that you don't do someone else's role as a rule. I would recommend that you go back and rewatch the video.

 

[CoffeeHorse]

As for The Uprising... look. I love Medieval history, I like Andrew Garfield, but holy hell was that a swing and a miss. There's enough about the 1381 Peasants' Revolt to build a movie around, but trying to tie it into Robin Hood was a huge misstep. Robin Hood as a story takes place two hundred years prior, and revolves around an entirely different social-political dynamic and was, ya know, myth. Robin Hood is a folktale. Wat Tyler's Peasants' Revolt really happened, so on top of mixing up the timeline it just seems disrespectful to fold Tyler into a folk story that he himself was probably aware of, and not even give him the decency to be Robin Hood?
Additionally it follows a very common and inaccurate trend of presenting the Medieval period as constantly greyscale and muddy which... yeah. No. It wasn't that.

Eh. There's good evidence placing the bulk of Robin Hood's career in the 1360s, so 1381 isn't too far off.

I agree with the rest of that though. Enough with the greyscale slander already. Filmmakers have to know better by now, so they're just getting it wrong on purpose.

 

[MrBlud]

Ok yeah, the new Bumblebee VA voiced Satan in the 2024 short “Satan asks the Democrats to tone down the evil” so uhh yeah I’d prefer he not get any further money or exposure.

 

[LordGigaIce]

Yes. There are numerous other versions of Optimus Prime out there and no restrictions on making a new one. Let G1 Optimus end with Peter Cullen. Make a new prime or revisit another one.

With the way things are, there's so much bleed over now. Cyberverse and Earthspark and even Cyberworld Prime are VERY G1 in presentation, with ES as a show even using G1 aesthetics and call backs for its backstory. Where does the line exist?

Either way "we can never revisit G1 Prime because Peter Cullen died" seems incredibly short sighted and all around poor to me. Peter Cullen is not the first VA tied to a character who has passed away.

You seem to be contrarily locked into the idea that this poor VA, that you can't even name without googling, is going to get fired for it and nothing else matters.

I don't need to know the man's name to know someone else campaigning to steal his job is a petty move. It doesn't matter. It's wrong. And the best you got is...

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1185500/?ref_=tt_cst_t_5&_ssoLoop=1
Not to be mean about it, but after looking over his work, I have some serious questions about him due to a lot of his work being seemingly political online videos.

...he did some work for the Babylon Bee? I'm sorry, "he should get fired and replaced with the G1 guy because he worked for conservative Onion" is just piling on the pettiness.

To be fiar though, he is in the union at least.

So your whole thing about Hasbro being bad for hiring cheap non-union VAs doesn't apply here. Cool.

I am literally showing you a video with him talking about this very subject (People taking over other VAs roles). Since it doesn't align with your opinion you attack it as petty?

I think you're petty for trying to use a clip of Cullen to win an argument.
"The beloved dead celebrity said this and I can twist it to fit my argument."
Come on, dude.

At this point I'd respect your position more if you just said "I don't care if it puts Jarret LeMaster out of work, I just want my G1 guy back." Stop trying to deny the realities of what you're pushing for.

It is literally Peter Cullen and Welker talking about this.

Peter Cullen is dead. Mel Blanc's death didn't result in Bugs Bunny being retired. Mickey Mouse wasn't retired when Walt Disney died. Why should G1 Optimus Prime be retried because Cullen died?
If anything finding a new VA who can channel the best aspects of Cullen's performance while doing something new, and inspiring kids for generations the way Cullen did is a great way to honour his legacy.

"We should retire G1 Optimus."

How about no?

As for Dan Gilvazen? He should have had his agent looking out for this sort of thing he could get into talks to do this when it was being planned. Weaponizing his fanbase is petty. There's no two ways about it.

If you want him just because you want G1 for its own sake, sure, but again. Cop to that.

Ok yeah, the new Bumblebee VA voiced Satan in the 2024 short “Satan asks the Democrats to tone down the evil” so uhh yeah I’d prefer he not get any further money or exposure.

I'm uncomfortable with that because it's all after the fact rationalizations.

"Oh maybe Dan is right because the guy who did Bumblebee in the short is a chud."

I mean... no. Dan's posts aren't about "we need to get people with values that run contrary to the brand out of the franchise," they're all pretty self serving "go fanboys, brigade Hasbro so the guy they hired gets fired and they hire me."

It's still jivety behaviour any which way you cut it.

 

[Princess Viola]

Retiring the flagship character of the brand entirely because his original VA died would be a damn choice

 

[LordGigaIce]

Eh. There's good evidence placing the bulk of Robin Hood's career in the 1360s, so 1381 isn't too far off.

I agree with the rest of that though. Enough with the greyscale slander already. Filmmakers have to know better by now, so they're just getting it wrong on purpose.

The first written account of Robin Hood crops up in the 1360s, but his story is traditionally placed during the reigns of King Richard I and King John, roughly 200 years previous.
The Russell Crowe Robin Hood movie also faltered by trying to tie it into a major historical moment, but at least the Magna Carta was timeline appropriate.

Which I think is another issue I have with The Uprising. By trying to marry the Peasants' Revolt to the Robin Hood story, they fall into the trap of assuming Medieval history was flat. Two hundred years, five or take, separate the traditional setting of Robin Hood and the Peasants' Revolt. That would be like in 500 years taking a story set in America in 1826 and tying it into the a political drama about the Trump presidency.

The medieval era lasted a thousand years, and it was hardly static.

 

[CoffeeHorse]

Tradition places the story in Richard I's era because some chronicler misread a cursive Roman numeral and ruined it forever.

 

[LordGigaIce]

Tradition places the story in Richard I's era because some chronicler misread a cursive Roman numeral and ruined it forever.

And that's why fiction is beautiful.

 

[CoffeeHorse]

The reason Robin Hood loses so many fights in the early stories is that a lot of those stories were basically self-insert fanfics.

We have never changed a bit.

 

[MrBlud]

I'm uncomfortable with that because it's all after the fact rationalizations.

"Oh maybe Dan is right because the guy who did Bumblebee in the short is a chud."

I mean... no. Dan's posts aren't about "we need to get people with values that run contrary to the brand out of the franchise," they're all pretty self serving "go fanboys, brigade Hasbro so the guy they hired gets fired and they hire me."

It's still jivety behaviour any which way you cut it.

It is! Which is why I noticeably didn’t include anything about Dan or his quixotic crusade in there.

LeMaster comes off as a right-wing chud and I don’t think he should voice Bumblebee (or anything else) for that reason. It doesn’t have to be Dan.

 

[The Predaking]

With the way things are, there's so much bleed over now. Cyberverse and Earthspark and even Cyberworld Prime are VERY G1 in presentation, with ES as a show even using G1 aesthetics and call backs for its backstory. Where does the line exist?

Now there are qualities and visual similarities in every version of Optimus Prime that are inspired by the G1 Optimus Prime. That is ok. However, in the case of this short and the reported planned series that apparently continues it, it is literally the G1 Optimus Prime set in the G1 Transformers universe. I think that that particular version of Optimus Prime should be retired. Use another of the infinite amount of Optimus Primes that are at your disposal, but leave the G1 alone.

Either way "we can never revisit G1 Prime because Peter Cullen died" seems incredibly short sighted and all around poor to me. Peter Cullen is not the first VA tied to a character who has passed away.

No, he is not. And I feel the same way if they tried to have a TAS Batman with someone now that Kevin Conroy has passed away. Heck, Mark Hammil has retired from the Joker because he won't do it with out Conroy as Batman. DC even killed off the entire TAS universe in a DC film with Conroy and Hammil doing their iconic voices for the final time.

I don't need to know the man's name to know someone else campaigning to steal his job is a petty move. It doesn't matter. It's wrong. And the best you got is...


...he did some work for the Babylon Bee? I'm sorry, "he should get fired and replaced with the G1 guy because he worked for conservative Onion" is just piling on the pettiness.

I don't know the man's work, I just saw what he has done and posted it. I think that it's worth discussing, that we should factor it in when discussing this guy not getting a role in a potential YouTube series after he has already done the short.

So your whole thing about Hasbro being bad for hiring cheap non-union VAs doesn't apply here. Cool.

I am sure that he was cheap though. Kind of a budget balancing move after hiring Welker and Cullen.

I think you're petty for trying to use a clip of Cullen to win an argument.
"The beloved dead celebrity said this and I can twist it to fit my argument."
Come on, dude.

I don't see how quoting the man and using a video to do so is twisting anything. You are literally insulting me and denying what he said just to get around this major point.

At this point I'd respect your position more if you just said "I don't care if it puts Jarret LeMaster out of work, I just want my G1 guy back." Stop trying to deny the realities of what you're pushing for.

I never said that I didn't want Dan in this role. I want him in this role, and if that means some right winged actor that no one has heard of doesn't get the recurring YouTube series role that might not even happen, then so be it.

Peter Cullen is dead. Mel Blanc's death didn't result in Bugs Bunny being retired. Mickey Mouse wasn't retired when Walt Disney died. Why should G1 Optimus Prime be retried because Cullen died?

Optimus Prime doesn't have to be retired, but G1 Optimus Prime does. Do you see the difference between the two? Also, both of the characters you listed where for slapstick cartoon characters that didn't have a universe to continue. Every single short was separate thing even in Mel Blanc and Walt Disney's prime, and that continued along to this day.

If anything finding a new VA who can channel the best aspects of Cullen's performance while doing something new, and inspiring kids for generations the way Cullen did is a great way to honour his legacy.

And you can do that without reusing G1 Optimus Prime in the G1 Transformers universe.

As for Dan Gilvazen? He should have had his agent looking out for this sort of thing he could get into talks to do this when it was being planned. Weaponizing his fanbase is petty. There's no two ways about it.

One, you are interpreting what Dan said as "bombard Hasbro and get me the role" for a role that might not even exist. Then you are inferring to that as "fire this new guy so I can return to the role", a role that the new guy doesn't have for a series that might not exist. All this is your inflection of what he said. None of which is in his tweet, just in you. Dan is literally trying to get attention out there that if there is a series to follow up on this, he wants to voice Bumblebee again. If that gets him the role, and the new guy doesn't get it, then I am fine about that. Mainly because if the show happens, and if the new guy has already recorded his lines for it, he still gets paid whether or not they use his dialog. If they haven't recorded the lines for this YouTube series that might not even happen, then Dan has gotten the word out that he wants to do it and now Hasbro knows.

If you want him just because you want G1 for its own sake, sure, but again. Cop to that.

I have never denied that I want Dan to reprise the role. In fact, I started off this conversation saying that. It would have worked better for the short too since he is the voice of G1 Bumblebee and you just heard him talk in the film that you just watched. However, to get Dan in the potential YouTube series would be neat.

I'm uncomfortable with that because it's all after the fact rationalizations.

"Oh maybe Dan is right because the guy who did Bumblebee in the short is a chud."

I mean... no. Dan's posts aren't about "we need to get people with values that run contrary to the brand out of the franchise," they're all pretty self serving "go fanboys, brigade Hasbro so the guy they hired gets fired and they hire me."

It's still jivety behaviour any which way you cut it.

Well, it still matters that the guy is who is he regardless of what Dan tweeted. I don't want to build a strawman to exaggerate the point, but it does matter.

 

[LordGigaIce]

Optimus Prime doesn't have to be retired, but G1 Optimus Prime does. Do you see the difference between the two? Also, both of the characters you listed where for slapstick cartoon characters that didn't have a universe to continue. Every single short was separate thing even in Mel Blanc and Walt Disney's prime, and that continued along to this day.

"Do you see the difference?"
Optimus Prime is Optimus Prime. The desire to artificially construct some barrier around parts of the character that are suddenly off limits because Peter Cullen died doesn't make much sense to me.

As for your other point, nah I don't agree. Hell, I'll add Kermit the Frog to the list. He didn't get retired when Jim Henson died.

The idea that G1 Optimus is "different" makes no sense to me, in part because I find the distinction between "G1" and "everything else" so nebulous.

Like... hypothetically... if they wanted to do another Netflix show based on the Generations line should they be bared from using Optimus? It could be argued that's "G1 Optimus"! What separates that from this short and the alleged series that may come from it?

One, you are interpreting what Dan said as "bombard Hasbro and get me the role" for a role that might not even exist. Then you are inferring to that as "fire this new guy so I can return to the role", a role that the new guy doesn't have for a series that might not exist. All this is your inflection of what he said. None of which is in his tweet, just in you.

Cut the crap.
The role, if it exists (and Dan seems to think it does), has been cast. The only way Dan can get the role is to replace the new guy. This isn't my "inflection," this is me drawing what Dan has stated he wanted to the logical conclusion.

Stop with this "this is your interpretation" nonsense. You are smarter than that.

I don't see how quoting the man and using a video to do so is twisting anything. You are literally insulting me and denying what he said just to get around this major point.

Peter Cullen is talking about how it's an unspoken rule not to take someone's role and he's standing up for unionized VAs.

On the first part, Peter is dead so someone else coming in to voice Optimus is appropriate, and Dan hasn't been Bumblebee in forty years, save for a single video game appearance (Devastation, for those curious).
I'm sorry, you don't get a four decade long "dibs" on a role with that level of inactivity. If he'd come back to the Bay movies or RiD or Cyberworld, sure, but 40 years man. It's not like this has been his cherished baby. Cullen took a twenty year break (give or take) from the franchise, and he was always far more tied to the role than Dan was to Bumblebee.
I'm not even saying Dan shouldn't have gotten the role. If he or his agent were more proactive in getting him cast in Awakening then that would have been great. But let's not pretend like he had some sacred claim over this role after forty years.

As to the second point, the new guy is union so it doesn't matter. Peter was right to stand up for unionized VAs, and I'm glad Hasbro found a unionized VA.

"You are literally insulting me."

I find it to be in poor taste to use a dead beloved actor as a cudgel. As I said above, you're a smart guy. You don't need to try and sink to that level of manipulation. Doing so, as I said, strikes me as being in poor taste. Just like I find Dan's tweets to be. And I won't sugar coat my opinion on that.

 

[The Predaking]

"Do you see the difference?"
Optimus Prime is Optimus Prime. The desire to artificially construct some barrier around parts of the character that are suddenly off limits because Peter Cullen died doesn't make much sense to me.

I have already explained this and it being a G1 Universe. Please see previous post.

As for your other point, nah I don't agree. Hell, I'll add Kermit the Frog to the list. He didn't get retired when Jim Henson died.

Again, one off shows, no continuity, comic slapstick characters that are completely different from what we are talking about. You might as well through in the Green Giant for comparison too.

The idea that G1 Optimus is "different" makes no sense to me, in part because I find the distinction between "G1" and "everything else" so nebulous.

One exists in the G1 universe, in four seasons of the cartoon, a movie, and now an animated short. The others don't.

Like... hypothetically... if they wanted to do another Netflix show based on the Generations line should they be bared from using Optimus? It could be argued that's "G1 Optimus"! What separates that from this short and the alleged series that may come from it?

Nope, they can do a new Optimus Prime, but it wouldn't be G1 Optimus Prime in that case. It's not set in the G1 universe.

Cut the crap.
The role, if it exists (and Dan seems to think it does), has been cast. The only way Dan can get the role is to replace the new guy. This isn't my "inflection," this is me drawing what Dan has stated he wanted to the logical conclusion.

Stop with this "this is your interpretation" nonsense. You are smarter than that.

Your whole point is that you are inferring something that he didn't actually say for a hypothetical situation that we don't know all the details of, and you finding him to be petty for it. Like somehow Dan is going to magically insert his own performance into this short while simultaneously erasing the new guy from existence. Or perhaps you think that the new guy is an employee of Hasbro and is working a 9 to 5 job. That Dan is trying to get him fired so Dan could work there. This is contract VA work. The new guy has been hired and paid (probably a lot less than they paid Welker or Cullen) for his work in the short. There is no replace here. There is only the possibility that Dan gets the role back for a hypothetical YouTube series that probably won't even happen now that Peter Cullen has passed away. And if Dan does get the role in this hypothetical YouTube series, Dan did the role of G1 Bumblebee first, so I would welcome that return for a G1 series continuation.

Peter Cullen is talking about how it's an unspoken rule not to take someone's role and he's standing up for unionized VAs.

Yes he is.

On the first part, Peter is dead so someone else coming in to voice Optimus is appropriate, and Dan hasn't been Bumblebee in forty years, save for a single video game appearance (Devastation, for those curious).

For the next Transformers series, fine. Cast away, as there have been some great Optimus Prime performances over the years. I would recommend David Kaye as he did a great job in Animated. However, as I have been constantly saying, G1 Optimus can't be replaced. Combiner wars, Earthrise, Kingdom, Armada, Energon, Cybertron, and all of the other Optimus Primes are fine, and any new ones they want to write for new shows are fine. Just let the G1 Universe version of him retire.

I find it to be in poor taste to use a dead beloved actor as a cudgel. As I said above, you're a smart guy. You don't need to try and sink to that level of manipulation. Doing so, as I said, strikes me as being in poor taste. Just like I find Dan's tweets to be. And I won't sugar coat my opinion on that.

I am not using him as a cudgel. I am using his well-known and documented opinion on the matter to explain why I want them to just let G1 Optimus Prime go and move on with the character to new versions of Optimus. There will be many more Optimus Primes over the next few decades, and I am happy about that. But there is no need to bring back G1 Optimus Prime without Peter Cullen. Like could you imagine the outrage if for this short they had used Jon Bailey? Of course, given your arguments here, you would have been fine with that.

 

[Sabrblade]

...There is more than one "G1 universe".

"G1" does not solely equal "the 1984 The Transformers cartoon".

Heck, the cartoon wasn't even the first Transformers series to give us Optimus Prime. This was:

I dare anyone to say that that isn't "G1".

 

[The Predaking]

...There is more than one "G1 universe".

"G1" does not solely equal "the 1984 The Transformers cartoon".

Heck, the cartoon wasn't even the first Transformers series to give us Optimus Prime. This was:

I dare anyone to say that that isn't "G1".

You know, if they want to recast the comicbook with a new VA, go ahead.