Hence...I'm struck by the idea that we'd even expect Unicron's persona, if introduced into the movie-verse, to stick to canon. So far, very little has, particularly in regards to the team that this thread was originally concerning, the Constructicons.

Exactly - the Constructicons can essentially be defined by two statements:

• They turn into construction vehicles,
  
• They can combine to form a larger robot.
  

That the filmmakers saw a need to reinterpret something as simple as the second point suggests that, politely, it is open season on everything. I therefore very much doubt that should we see a live-action version of Unicron any time in the near future, that he will even remotely conform to some sort of canon standard.

I'll just say this: Based on how the Constructicons were handled, I am violently dissatisfied with the way the filmmakers are dealing with these characters; is there ANYTHING we can do about it?

That really doesn't match up with what we know about Unicron, who is after all, a Multiversal being. Unicron is Unicron, regardless of reality. There is only one Unicron. He was always able to take on planet or humanoid form so there's no need to come up with some method of giving him that ability.

I am struck by this idea: we were all so certain - prior to the release of Revenge of the Fallen - that the robot-form Constructicons and the combining vehicle Constructicons shown in the trailer footage were, in fact, the very same Constructicons. As this turned out not to be the case, I think it can be said that from now on, the only safe assumption we can make is that there will be no more safe assumptions. It is entirely possible that in the next film there will be Unicron, or Unicrons; a giant robotic entity, or perhaps not; with the ability to turn into a planet, or something other than a planet; and possibly necessitating an explanation for this situation. In a world where robots can turn into construction vehicles, and construction vehicles can combine into a bigger robot, but robots cannot turn into construction vehicles and combine into a bigger robot, pretty much anything is possible. :)

 

 

That really doesn't match up with what we know about Unicron, who is after all, a Multiversal being. Unicron is Unicron, regardless of reality. There is only one Unicron. He was always able to take on planet or humanoid form so there's no need to come up with some method of giving him that ability.

I am struck by this idea: we were all so certain - prior to the release of Revenge of the Fallen - that the robot-form Constructicons and the combining vehicle Constructicons shown in the trailer footage were, in fact, the very same Constructicons. As this turned out not to be the case, I think it can be said that from now on, the only safe assumption we can make is that there will be no more safe assumptions. It is entirely possible that in the next film there will be Unicron, or Unicrons; a giant robotic entity, or perhaps not; with the ability to turn into a planet, or something other than a planet; and possibly necessitating an explanation for this situation. In a world where robots can turn into construction vehicles, and construction vehicles can combine into a bigger robot, but robots cannot turn into construction vehicles and combine into a bigger robot, pretty much anything is possible. :)

Hence...I'm struck by the idea that we'd even expect Unicron's persona, if introduced into the movie-verse, to stick to canon. So far, very little has, particularly in regards to the team that this thread was originally concerning, the Constructicons.

 

 

Hence...I'm struck by the idea that we'd even expect Unicron's persona, if introduced into the movie-verse, to stick to canon. So far, very little has, particularly in regards to the team that this thread was originally concerning, the Constructicons.

Exactly - the Constructicons can essentially be defined by two statements:

• They turn into construction vehicles,
  
• They can combine to form a larger robot.
  

That the filmmakers saw a need to reinterpret something as simple as the second point suggests that, politely, it is open season on everything. I therefore very much doubt that should we see a live-action version of Unicron any time in the near future, that he will even remotely conform to some sort of canon standard.

Yep, it's a total reimagining of the franchise. That's why I'm rethinking Unicron the way I am.

When you think about it, the fact that he was a planet didn't mean anything. It was the fact that he was ENORMOUS. But with my idea it would play up much moreso the fact that he's a living planet by actually being inhabited and having events occur on him.

 

Besides, your proposal would require most of the movie to take place on another planet and require massive mounts of CGI to create entirely CGi scenes.

No, I'm thinking about half of the movie would be on Unicron, while events would also still be taking place on Earth. Plus, with Unicron originally being an organic planet, he would be more like Earth and you wouldn't need entirely CGI backgrounds.

But anyway, given the progress from the first movie to the second, I don't think adding more and more CGI will be a problem.

There's a big difference though between Unicron and the Constructicons. Unicron is a multiversal singularity. Only one of him exists in all the multiverse. The Constructicons are not. If, and when Bay uses Unicron, he has to stick with that. Unicorn cannot be changed into something totally different. Thus, Unicron really can't be "re-imagined". Unicron is defined by being the great Chaos-Bringer, and opposite of Primus. He is a dark god that transforms into a planet and that consumes entire universes, one planet, one star system at a time, whose sole purpose is to unmake creation itself.

There's a big difference though between Unicron and the Constructicons. Unicron is a multiversal singularity. Only one of him exists in all the multiverse. The Constructicons are not. If, and when Bay uses Unicron, he has to stick with that. Unicorn cannot be changed into something totally different. Thus, Unicron really can't be "re-imagined". Unicron is defined by being the great Chaos-Bringer, and opposite of Primus. He is a dark god that transforms into a planet and that consumes entire universes, one planet, one star system at a time, whose sole purpose is to unmake creation itself.

Alas, I'm sure we would all be a lot happier if Michael Bay was bound by canon - but unfortunately, this is not the case. If he, his writing team, and anyone else involved in the filmmaking process decide that they want Unicron to be a cloud, or a spaceship, or some other radically differing form, then it's their call. If their interpretation is sufficiently far-removed from Hasbro's vision then I'm sure the toy manufacture will intercede; but you must remember, this is the same company that allowed Michael Bay to put testicles on a character with a $100+ toy. I think protecting Unicron's alternate mode is probably not on their priority list. :)

There's a big difference though between Unicron and the Constructicons. Unicron is a multiversal singularity. Only one of him exists in all the multiverse. The Constructicons are not. If, and when Bay uses Unicron, he has to stick with that. Unicorn cannot be changed into something totally different. Thus, Unicron really can't be "re-imagined". Unicron is defined by being the great Chaos-Bringer, and opposite of Primus. He is a dark god that transforms into a planet and that consumes entire universes, one planet, one star system at a time, whose sole purpose is to unmake creation itself.

Alas, I'm sure we would all be a lot happier if Michael Bay was bound by canon - but unfortunately, this is not the case. If he, his writing team, and anyone else involved in the filmmaking process decide that they want Unicron to be a cloud, or a spaceship, or some other radically differing form, then it's their call. If their interpretation is sufficiently far-removed from Hasbro's vision then I'm sure the toy manufacture will intercede; but you must remember, this is the same company that allowed Michael Bay to put testicles on a character with a $100+ toy. I think protecting Unicron's alternate mode is probably not on their priority list. :)

Wel, Unicron's physical form isn't as much of an issue (except the cloud). Remember, in the Cybertron toy line and comic, Unicron was a tank. This, of course, was because his body had been completely destroyed, and he had to "downsize". But, you can be assured, he'd soon begin growing again. I'm pretty sure that Hasbro is not going to let Bay alter Unicron much. Brian Goldner is one of the Executive Producers after all. His appearance might be much more complex, but I'm sure that he'd be easily recognizable as Unicron. He's too iconic of a design and character.

Well, Unicron's physical form isn't as much of an issue (except the cloud). Remember, in the Cybertron toy line and comic, Unicron was a tank. This, of course, was because his body had been completely destroyed, and he had to "downsize". But, you can be assured, he'd soon begin growing again. I'm pretty sure that Hasbro is not going to let Bay alter Unicron much. Brian Goldner is one of the Executive Producers after all. His appearance might be much more complex, but I'm sure that he'd be easily recognizable as Unicron. He's too iconic of a design and character.

I would agree, but Revenge of the Fallen contains so many egregious examples of Micheal Bay running roughshod over canon that I simply don't know what to think anymore. It's one thing to redesign the appearence of the Matrix of Leadership; it's another to put testicles on Devastator. I don't mean to be harking on about the same example, but try to understand: someone at Hasbro - maybe even Brian Goldner - almost certainly reviewed a pre-release version of the film, and watched as Agent Simmons cracked a line about being under the scrotum of the centerpiece of the Revenge of the Fallen toyline.

 

If Hasbro were asleep at the wheel for that one, then I think it would be safe to say that from hereon out, anything goes...

Well, Unicron's physical form isn't as much of an issue (except the cloud). Remember, in the Cybertron toy line and comic, Unicron was a tank. This, of course, was because his body had been completely destroyed, and he had to "downsize". But, you can be assured, he'd soon begin growing again. I'm pretty sure that Hasbro is not going to let Bay alter Unicron much. Brian Goldner is one of the Executive Producers after all. His appearance might be much more complex, but I'm sure that he'd be easily recognizable as Unicron. He's too iconic of a design and character.

I would agree, but Revenge of the Fallen contains so many egregious examples of Micheal Bay running roughshod over canon that I simply don't know what to think anymore. It's one thing to redesign the appearence of the Matrix of Leadership; it's another to put testicles on Devastator. I don't mean to be harking on about the same example, but try to understand: someone at Hasbro - maybe even Brian Goldner - almost certainly reviewed a pre-release version of the film, and watched as Agent Simmons cracked a line about being under the scrotum of the centerpiece of the Revenge of the Fallen toyline.

 

If Hasbro were asleep at the wheel for that one, then I think it would be safe to say that from hereon out, anything goes...

JOP's right...let's not be naive to the point that we think Bay won't do what he deems creative...he CAN pretty much change anything. The evidence of these liberties is in full display throughout ROTF...particularly in regards to the Constructicons, IMHO.

Well, Unicron's physical form isn't as much of an issue (except the cloud). Remember, in the Cybertron toy line and comic, Unicron was a tank. This, of course, was because his body had been completely destroyed, and he had to "downsize". But, you can be assured, he'd soon begin growing again. I'm pretty sure that Hasbro is not going to let Bay alter Unicron much. Brian Goldner is one of the Executive Producers after all. His appearance might be much more complex, but I'm sure that he'd be easily recognizable as Unicron. He's too iconic of a design and character.

I would agree, but Revenge of the Fallen contains so many egregious examples of Micheal Bay running roughshod over canon that I simply don't know what to think anymore. It's one thing to redesign the appearence of the Matrix of Leadership; it's another to put testicles on Devastator. I don't mean to be harking on about the same example, but try to understand: someone at Hasbro - maybe even Brian Goldner - almost certainly reviewed a pre-release version of the film, and watched as Agent Simmons cracked a line about being under the scrotum of the centerpiece of the Revenge of the Fallen toyline.

 

If Hasbro were asleep at the wheel for that one, then I think it would be safe to say that from hereon out, anything goes...

 

 

Well, Unicron's physical form isn't as much of an issue (except the cloud). Remember, in the Cybertron toy line and comic, Unicron was a tank. This, of course, was because his body had been completely destroyed, and he had to "downsize". But, you can be assured, he'd soon begin growing again. I'm pretty sure that Hasbro is not going to let Bay alter Unicron much. Brian Goldner is one of the Executive Producers after all. His appearance might be much more complex, but I'm sure that he'd be easily recognizable as Unicron. He's too iconic of a design and character.

I would agree, but Revenge of the Fallen contains so many egregious examples of Micheal Bay running roughshod over canon that I simply don't know what to think anymore. It's one thing to redesign the appearence of the Matrix of Leadership; it's another to put testicles on Devastator. I don't mean to be harking on about the same example, but try to understand: someone at Hasbro - maybe even Brian Goldner - almost certainly reviewed a pre-release version of the film, and watched as Agent Simmons cracked a line about being under the scrotum of the centerpiece of the Revenge of the Fallen toyline.

 

If Hasbro were asleep at the wheel for that one, then I think it would be safe to say that from hereon out, anything goes...

JOP's right...let's not be naive to the point that we think Bay won't do what he deems creative...he CAN pretty much change anything. The evidence of these liberties is in full display throughout ROTF...particularly in regards to the Constructicons, IMHO.

Once again, you're forgetting that there is an intrinsic difference between Unicron and the Constructicons. The Constructicons are not Multiversal Singularities. Each incarnation of the Constructicons are completely different individuals in each continuity. Each continuitie's Constructicons are unique to that continuity. This is not the case of Unicron. There is only one Unicron in the entire multiverse. Unicron in the G1 movie, in Marvel, in the Unicron trilogy, in Universe, etc are all the same exact being, not different Unicrons. Bay could do pretty much whatever he wanted with the Constructicons because this version of them are indigenous to this reality alone. They have no relation to the G1 Constructicons. Unicron, however, is the same being regardless of the reality he appears in. That makes a huge difference in how he can be handled.

Oh God, not this ridiculous "It's the same Unicron in every universe" schtick. It's not the same Unicron, because we've seen Unicrons die.

Oh God, not this ridiculous "It's the same Unicron in every universe" schtick. It's not the same Unicron, because we've seen Unicrons die.

Even if they were all the same Unicron, that wouldn't stop the film makers.

 

Yeah, that's the interesting thing about Transformers fiction. Whatever writers wanna do, they'll do. So you're right, yeah.