FANDOM


Greenycron

In case people are wondering, that toy should really be under the "Mini-Con" entry, since the toy represents a Unicron doppelganger made up of countless Minis, not Unicron himself. --M Sipher 00:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Rule Breaking Chaos Bringer?

Looking at the entry it's kinda breaking the rule that the "Character Profile" section should not be continuity specific and should only contain continuity-neutral character/personality info. Unicron's here is most definately skeewed towards latter Armada era continuity and doesn't apply at all to his Movie/Cartoon self and story. Are we breaking the rule on him intentionally, or does it need fixing? ZacWilliam 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The currently operative retconned storyline is that there is only one Unicron, who travels the dimensions of the multiverse. Armada Unicron = G1 Movie/Cartoon Unicron = Marvel Unicron = Dreamwave Unicron. They're all the same guy, regardless of continuity. --KilMichaelMcC 02:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I know that but I don't think it *CAN* work with G1 cartoon. Like it or not there is no Primus in that Continuity and Unicron is NOT a god, just a big machine built by Primacron. The retcon hits a brick wall and cannot function in the G1 toon without a lot of fanfic-ing. You can't apply the retcon to the Cartoon here without ignoring the *ACTUAL* continuity and stories of the Cartoon in favor of some extremely different, never told, complicated immaginary story. Since the purpose of the Wiki is to inform factually about characters and their history then, I think factually, we have to say the way things actually were. Now granted the retcon can work most everywhere else (though it's a huge obvious retcon many places) so maybe it should get priority, but I'm just saying the main character profile does not work for the Cartoon version unless you want to start making a whole lot of stuff up. ZacWilliam 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hrm... I astuually kidna agree with Zac. Unicron got a new, huge backstory that was goignt o tie him into everything. "Dont' worry, we'll go back and explain hwo it all works." And then- they enver did. In fact, was the Unicron/Primus conenction witht he One ever actually used, anywhere OTHER than in a guidebook?
This entry needs to recognizse that... lapse. -Derik 01:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in the fan club, so I'm not up on how Unicron's backstory was dealt with in the Club Comic, but if it's been used anywhere that'd be the place I suspect. Something perhaps not directly related to this but interesting to note: Although it didn't mention The One or the multiverse, the Cybertron episode in which Primus woke up and transformed had Vector Prime descibe Primus thusly: "He who charted the universe when it was young. He who battled Unicron at the beginning of time." The charted the universe bit comes from the story with The One, right? But as I said, that's not directly related to that matter at hand.
At any rate, futher discussion on how this article should deal with Unicron's retconny-multiverality might best be put on hold a few days until folks currently at BotCon return to contribute to it. --KilMichaelMcC 02:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with applying the retcon to the G1 cartoon. Unicron, probably disembodied from his previous rampage in some other dimension, found his way into that universe and simply influenced Primacron in some way (how is unimportant) into building a body that he then inhabited. There is no *mention* of Primus anywhere, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Probably the TFs didn't know he was there, or had long ago stopped believing he was real, and he was still asleep, so he never did anything himself. That's an explanation that requires very little gap-filling and allows the retcon to mesh perfectly with the cartoon.
On the other hand, Simon said at BotCon 06 that the IDW universe is probably not going to have Primus and Unicron in it, like, at all, which in my opinion *does* break the retcon. Or, retcons the retcon, if you prefer, such that those gods do not exist in every conceivable universe (or even every conceivable Transformers universe), but only in a bunch of them. He is intentionally writing a universe of which they are not a part, rather than simply writing a universe and not mentioning them. That, I think, will need to be dealt with. --Steve-o 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Primus WAS in fact retconned into G1 by the time the Beast Era came about, which was meant to be a continuation of the G1 story set in the distant future (until they hit that wormhole. damn space time anomolies). As far as Unicron's origin, it is true that Primus and Unicron were still not considered gods per se, but powerful ancient beings with energies beyond all comprehension. A LOT of retcon was incorperated in this era, and that includes Primus becoming a key figure in the creation of their kind. As early as Beast Wars, Unicron's backstory was heavily altered, following closer to the Marvel continuity, and essentially tying him into the one Unicron theory. While he can only exist in one universe at a time, he can move between space-times as easily as we move through air. His body may change, but his motives are always the same, and in some cases, he has brought information across from one continuity to another. It is mentioned (albiet briefly) that Jetfire took the name Sky Shadow as an alias while disguised as a Decepticon. The only Sky Shadow (Decepticon) was from Beast Wars, another continuity all together. But what many do not realize is that during Energon, most of the cast came into contact with Unicron's dismembered body. Merely a theory, but he may have gotten the information from Unicron's data banks, which is a better explaination that blaming it on the wormhole ripping causality a new one. It should also be noted it's easier to link his many incarnations throughout the various comic book continuities than it is the cartoons, mainly because the comic writers do research the cartoonists don't. Dracokanji 04:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


nice article 24.3.227.249 04:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional Pic

Unicron tfu cdrom

Planet Q

Planet Q was not consumed between Energon and Armada. Unicron was also put into stasis after Armada and remained that way. Alpha-Q's demise happened eons ago, right after Rodimus left Cybertron. It's confusing in the dub because it contradicts itself, but Super-Link has it spelled out correctly. Alpha-Q actually states he was lost in Unicron for "ages and ages, alone." which is what drove him to madness. The Energon dub never really explains what timeline all of this occurred and it seems the writers never really knew themselves. Another dub error is that Rodimus states Planet-Q put Unicron into stasis. This is not true, the story is exactly the opposite. Unicron survived just fine, hence why all the sparks from the planet were absorbed into his body as he carried on his world-ravaging. -Bodycount

I figured it was like that...Unicron had layed 'dead' for the ten years between the two shows, and his attack on Planet Q had happened eons ago, before the events of Armada. Takeshi357 00:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks. Unicron's a toughie. He has 30 zillion different conflicting stories and origins, but he's canonically all the same guy, and all of his appearances across the different continuities apparently happen in a sequential order. Which is a concept I love, but it's not so easy to reconcile detail-for-detail. User:ItsWalky

I have some nice pics of Unicron(inculding the battle dameged planet mode ala the Deathstar II, how do I upload them?User:X-BoB58

In the "toolbox" among the links on the left of your window is a link that says "upload file". Follow the instructions there. --Steve-o 21:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Er Thanks, but I think I made the image a wee too big, is there anyway to make it a thumbnail?

We can get a better picture of Energon Unicron than that

I don't think we need so many similar pictures of Unicron in planet mode. I think the screenshot from the movie is enough, and the OTFCC Universe art is kinda pushing it. --ItsWalky

Unicron looks the exact same in the Armada comics and cartoon. One picture will do for both. X-Bob, stop pushing the image down into where there's no article yet. I put it where it is for a reason. --ItsWalky

Steve- feel free to muck with the Omega Point entry. I'm kinda considering going back and wiking the whole storyline-- it really needs some annotations. Maybe we can argue about the timeloops some more!User:Derik

I feel that the Unicron trilogy (Micron trilogy in Japan) Generation section should be broken up between Dreamwave Continuity (the comics) and Animated Continuity (the TV shows.) I feel this way because a) The use of the phrase 'comics continuity' is too confusing when you have some comics liek Linkage and the Colelctor Club stuff in 'toon continuity. b) They should be by continuity, not by series because otherwise it just becoems too disjointed, and the contnections between the series are weak enough as it is. user:Derik

I agrea with Derik on this issiue user:X-BoB58

Why, int he TFU section, does it say Unicron was defeated by the Wreckers? I don't believe dhtere'd been any indications at all that Unicron had been connected to the Wreckers. (It's possible I suppose that this was an issue #4 revelation, but it was my impression that his appearances in TFU proceded from Tarantulus's machinations in Primaeval Dawn, not Wreckers.) -Derik 18:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wreckers #4 would have told us that Cryotek's big plan was resurrecting Unicron. The Wreckers stop him before Unicron is fully restored, or blow him up and leave him half-there. That's where Universe picks up. --ItsWalky 18:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Wreckers #4 was never published, should that info even be in the article? Or shouldn't it at least be called out as apocryphal? Also, out of curiosity... how do you KNOW that's what would have happened? Did Glen say so at some point, or was there a script or artwork or something released online, or what...? - Jackpot 21:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Were the Hasbro and Takara G1 Unicron protos different toys? I was under the impression they were two test-shots of the same mold.

They're different moulds, I think, but based off the same basic proto, maybe. Takara's is noticably fatter, and has the cord coming from it. It also appears to have an open robot mode mouth, and the "moon" accessory (or perhaps this was a planet Unicron would electronically "eat," but IIRC early Unicronian concept art shows the moon, and all the Movie toys were based off earlier concept art, thusly...) What I'm getting at is that Takara's appears to be modified for electronics while the Hasbro proto has none. Onslaught Six 07:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The Hasbro version had electronice in the chest below the head, as shown in the toy's patent. I'd give a link, but I can't get to it with the Allspark boards down. --FortMax 21:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record, the Takara mold's torso at least is entirely different from the Hasbro one. It's even got an extra step in the transformation wherein the torso either opens out or extends (hard to tell from available shots) to copy movie Unicron's thinner midsection.--MCRG 22:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

*spots Willis's notes about Universe #4* That's stupid. I mean, Primal Prime hints darkly of a great failure he had before emerging onto modern Cybertron in Qpelinq's journals. And Primaeval dawn has his fighting Tarantulas, a spawn of Unicron, who turns up in Uncron in TFU. I assuemd he failed to stop Tarry in PD and failed, thus TFU. Why is Unicron coming out of effectively nowhere in Wreckers to ruin our interesting Quint plot? And how does Tarantulas arrive? Laaame. -Derik 06:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

sweet

right on, glad my Unicron History page made this section, I've worked my hide off trying to get it together and am glad that it can help! ErikB www.transformersontheshelf.com

"Respawning"?

What's the background on the statements, "His power is limited to one reality at a time, though he can move between them at will," and, "When Unicron is destroyed in one reality, he will respawn in another, ready to eat again"? Primus is described in his own article like so: "His body is the planet Cybertron. Primus' lifeforce (aka the Allspark) is a multiversal singularity; it exists across all Transformers realities." This duality - a single mind/metaspark/godhead that's spread across multiple physical bodies - is how I've intuited the "one-Primus/one-Unicron" retcon. Since each universe has its own Cybertron, so likewise it seems each universe should have its own Unicron-body. Why would there be any difference? In fact, some evidence in favor of the multiple-Unibodies model is in the Cybertron section of this article: "During the final battle, Unicron disappeared from their reality underneath them, sucked away into the Unicron Singularity in another timestream." If Uni only exists in one reality at a time, then how could his destruction in one universe happen while he was existent in another? The only evidence I can think of otherwise is that Uni entered the Armada-comic universe from elsewhere. But to me, that just means that either his original body in the Armada-comic universe had been destroyed, or that the Armada-comic universe was an oddball one that never HAD a Primus or a Unicron (like the IDW-verse is apparently going to be). - Jackpot 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Unicron's consciousness wasn't present in Universe, just his body. He wasn't in two places, and his Minions were merely trying to resurrect him with eaten spark energy. (That story bit is also from the same story we got the "Only one Unicron who travels across the multiverse" information, so it's not like it's two conflicting stories.) --ItsWalky 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
What story is that from? I just re-read the Universe comics, and I don't remember any of that being stated. - Jackpot 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Fun Publications' Cybertron comics from the fan club magazine. First arc. --ItsWalky 23:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The Autobots should camp on Unicron's respawn point and frag his ass. -Derik 08:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've re-read those comics now, and I think I can see where you're getting that notion from. But it seems exceedingly vague to me, and I couldn't find anything about "respawning." Basically it comes down to Ramjet's ravings in issue #3: "Bound always by his imprisonment in a physical body, he's been incapable of destroying more than one reality at a time. But Cybertron! Stable axis of the multiverse! One Cybertron, a multiplicity existing concurrently across the infinite realities! Destroy one aspect, and that reality soon crumbles. Cybertron persists, protected by the ordered mathematics of its own existence. A single, infinite curve across all realities; the only truly unique thing in all of creation. Unicron cannot destroy something that is everywhere without himself being everywhere, Prime. And at last, thanks to his new prison and its proximity to Cybertron, he has that chance!" [note: this is accompanied by visuals of a line of Cybertrons, all different, extending indefinitely]
That leaves me... unconvinced in the troublesomely literal retcon that this article conveys as truth. Consider that in the first issue, Vector Prime describes the multiverse: "Every movement sends out ripples, which spread out in concentric rings, interacting with ripples created by others, creating new patterns, new realities, branching possiblilities. Every moment is creation and destruction. Every action is a thrown stone, shattering the surface of time." This seems in keeping with the "branching realities" model that most TF multiversal fiction follows (such as the Marvel-comic Uni searching "possible futures" for a herald). But if Uni is literally confined to one reality at any given time, then he must be vanishing from timelines left and right. At every moment, tons of possibilities branch off from one another, and therefore Uni must spontaneously disappear from all but one of the various universes. That's just... stupid. It doesn't even make SENSE based on him being "imprisoned in a physical body." That body should keep existing in all the alternate universes, just like Earth and Cybertron and every OTHER physical body keep existing across the multiverse. Plus Ramjet's use of the term "infinite realities" would make Unicrons' job ultimately impossible. If he truly has to keep hopping from one universe to the next in a linear fashion, he'll never succeed. And yet he DID, once.
What makes more sense is that Ramjet's "one reality at a time" statement refers to how Uni has to attack each universe separately. Uni could conceivably assault two or more Cybertrons simultaneously, but that wouldn't result in the infinite-birds-with-one-stone chain reaction that feeding Cybertron to the black hole supposedly would.
Or, of course, Ramjet is just insane and doesn't know what he's talking about. Certainly he and Vector Prime have some metaphysical disagreements that they chat about while trying to kill each other.
The upshot here is that I think the "one reality at a time" idea should be presented either with more qualifiers or just in the "So-and-So's Story" section. Based on past experience, my analysis would probably be smacked down as "speculation." So, in order to keep the editors happy, I suggest putting Ramjet's notions - and possibly more - under attribution...ary headings. Strictly speaking, the only things that should go in the first few paragraphs are observed events and statements of omniscient narration. Ramjet is not an omniscient narrator. Does all this sound right? - Jackpot 21:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
If Ramjet didn't know what he was talking about, then the entire fundamental conflict upon which that story was based was just a lie, and it was wasting our time, an idea I find appalling. Casting out a pretty deliberately stated backstory because it can be perceived as realistically improbable would start a dangerous precedent for the wiki, I think. Forest Lee created this story because he wanted to hash out the way the Unicron/Primus dynamic works and to forge the multiverse into a cohesive whole. I don't think it's the wiki's place to determine for Hasbro's fiction guy what he can and can't do. (Would it make you feel any better or worse that I confirmed my interpretation of the backstory with Dan Khanna, the co-plotter? This write-up wasn't just a shot in the dark.) --ItsWalky 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, the Keeper's story was Furman's "truth" when he wrote it, and when he later revised it through the mouth of Primus himself, etc., etc. And I think the article handles those various "truths" perfectly by presenting them as "here's what so-and-so said." The more I think of it, the more it seems the ONLY appropriate thing is to add "Ramjet's Story" to the list. And, as for Khanna confirming the "respawning" thing (which I assume you're referring to), I think treating author intent as canon is ALSO a bad precedent. Author intent should be NOTED, but not presented as story-fact. Especially since the Unicron/Primus story will quite likely see MORE changes as time goes on. (Hell, the most recent ad for the DD Joe/TF crossover promises "the secret origin of Unicron" or some such.) - Jackpot 22:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The Keeper's story was canon until something else retconned it. The same is true here. --ItsWalky 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Granted I am not paying all that much attention, but, I think the current form of the article is okay. Jack's main concern, aside from disliking the current canonical explanation, seems to be that it's being presented more forcefully than the retconned explanations. But... I think that is valid, more or less for the reason Walky states here. The article is quite clear at the beginning of the "evolution" section that this is merely the most recent of many versions of the story. If/when it is invalidated, it can be moved. Under normal circumstances I would agree that different versions of a particular guy/story should be given equal footing, but since this "nature of Unicron" thing explicitly makes itself multiverse-spanning and overrides previous explanations, I think it should be given priority. --Steve-o 05:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
My original concern was that I had no idea where the idea CAME from, and now that I've carefully re-read the story in question, I'm still iffy. After a straight reading, I came to a different conclusion than the author apparently intended (hence my long "this don't make no sense" rant up there). Walky claims to have inside knowledge of the author's intent, and I question how much weight that should be given. To put it another way, were the Vok canonically the Swarm before it was actually put into writing in Wreckers? And, to broaden the question further, are the Vok canonically the Swarm when we're just talking about the BW 'toon? The idea of one series having "retcon power" over everything that came before it is a new one in how the fandom has always looked at TF canon. Since we've never had a George Lucas to dictate what is and isn't mainstream "truth," everything got to live in its own separate "parallel universe," and that was that. The advent of multiversal storylines in TF fiction does complicate things, and this issue is a good one for testing how exactly we deal with canon now. My take is still that the story is the only "truth," author intent is noteworthy but not "canon," and ultimately every series exists unto itself by its own rules. - Jackpot 23:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Parts of this (the Geen 1 anime section) dont' seem very in-universe. -Derik18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Name Origins?

Does anyone know from where the word Unicron came? Is it a Latin-type pun (uni = one; cron = time)? Or just an anagram of Unicorn? - NP Chilla 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

weirdness when printing page

I printed this article to read on my lunchhour, and the text blocks overlapped the pics in several areas, but it looks fine on-screen. I edited out some blank spots (thought maybe some random tabs or returns in there), and it looked better, but I saved and print previewed, and it's still showing up at 'Dark Essence' and 'Energon' sections. Anybody notice this before? Is it just my local print settings or something, or a legit problem? Evil-yuusha 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Appearances?!

I would like to know the appearances of Unicron, chronilogically thoughout all mediums (shows, movies, comics, ect.)

Take the 1986 movie and animated series appearances, put them at the front of the list, and then everything in the Fiction section files in order right after those. --ItsWalky 23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty much the order in real world chronology yeah. If he was interested in the in-multiverse fictional chronology... well I'm not sure it's possible to chart that but it would apparently start with the Marvel comic and work out from there. Right? --ZacWilliam 12:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much. --ItsWalky 14:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Cybertron Animated Continuity?

I understand the whole retcon'd storyline debate, but the Cybertron portion of the Animated continuity section (4.3.2.3)seems to include zero storyline originating from the Cybertron television series. I feel there should be something from the show if we want to put this information under the heading "Animated Continuity." Maybe something like "Unicron's remains became a shiny new outfit for Megatron, allowing him to turn into some kinda nutty space-car..." etc. --Starcrunch 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor question

Uh, just found Unicron is in the "Category: Decepticon", is the reason that he is in the category because some of his toy labeled him as a Decepticon? Just ask for confirming. ;D --TX55 03:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Suicide?

If Unicron's objective is to consume everything and rid the multiverse of it's existance, wouldn't he destroy HIMSELF after he was done?

His objective - and this is canon - is to take care of that infernal racket so he can get some goddamn shuteye. - Jackpot 05:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote

Can anyone think of a decent Unicron quote? Maybe one with a bit more...ooomph then the one that's there User:GWolfv2 18.06 June 23 2008 (UTC)

Unicron's Destruction Responsible for Death of Go-Bots

Does this mean that Bug Bite, who clearly blames Classics Megatron for the death of his world in "Games of Deception" is actually completely wrong?--G.B. Blackrock 23:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-read. Unicron's destruction created numerous splinters... but the one responsible for the one that's eating the GB universe (the Classics universe) is aberrant in other ways besides its cannibalizing other universes' reality. It didn't happen at the same "time" as the others. Something else went wrong. How right Bug Bite is in blaming Megatron... well, that's still in the air. --M Sipher 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Re-read what? I'm referring to this item from the Trivia section: "When Unicron exploded in the Marvel Comics continuity ("On the Edge of Extinction!"), the tear in existence his destruction caused resulted in creating the Classics universe. This splinter timeline began overwriting the Tonka Go-Bots universe. That's right. Unicron killed the Go-Bots."
Now, if you mean "re-read Withered Hope," that's fine, although a major undertaking that could be handled better just by going to the source (i.e., you or Trent). If you mean that part I just quoted, then perhaps I should clarify with a follow-up. Since Megatron was in no way present for Unicron's destruction in the original Marvel issue #75, I fail to see how Bug Bite can be correct in his assumption that Megatron was responsible for the destruction of his universe.... Unless (I suppose) you want to assert that the creation of the "Classics" timeline is just the start of cannibalization process, and Classics Megatron does something that specifically places the Go-Bot universe at peril beyond what's already happening.
Which could be pretty interesting, actually....--G.B. Blackrock 03:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's... not true. It's probably easier to describe it as if the TransTechs were looking at it from the "real world"... the Classics timeline appeared (roughly) 16 years AFTER all the others did from their/our perception, even though the branch starts earlier in the G1 comics' timestream (between issues... uh... whenever we first see the Last Autobot and #80, what with the Mini-Cons and Last Autobot, where all the other branches occur sometime AFTER #80). Unicron's kablooey had the time-space crapola happening, but there was another element that resulted in the Classicverse forming and wiping out other realities.
The exact cause is... currently a mystery. Bug Bite believes Megatron has something to do with it. What, we don't know yet. --M Sipher 04:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are several clues in place. The root happens before the destruction of Unicron, but the tangent happens afterward. Things to keep in mind: 1) Bug Bite, despite his bravado, isn't omniscient and doesn't have all the pieces, 2) Something, possibly Unicron-related (since he seems to have a good hand at universal disruption), interrupted the normal flow of the timestream before Unicron's death yet survived beyond it to initiate the events, directly or indirectly, that tangented the Classicsverse from the G1 continuity, 3) When Bug Bite attempted to travel to the source of the disturbance, he found "just a crashed Autobot starship in Canada, fifteen years ago, with no survivors.". He may have just been late to the party. Someone in this wiki deserves to be credited with (the likely inadvertant) death of the Gobot Universe, but I wouldn't point the finger directly at Unicron.--Trent Troop
Ahhhh, I thought that Bug Bite had somehow been the accidental instigation himself. Classic time-travel irony. Within the context of the story itself, HE is the only anomaly in the period where the split began. Also, since he time-traveled to the split-formation from roughly the same period at which the variant timeline "appeared" (afterwards, yes, but not much longer than, what, weeks?), that seemed a reasonable explanation for why the Classicsverse had a delayed "appearance." (Inasmuch as that makes a damn bit of sense at all. Seriously, within the fiction, I have no idea what it means for a timeline to "appear" at a point a decade and a half AFTER its creation. What's the difference between "appearing" and "being created"?) But, IRREGARDLESSLY, my interpretation doesn't seem to jibe with your cryptic hinting nearly as much as Galvatron II does. If he's the culprit, then it's easy to see why BB would've made the mistake of blaming Megatron instead. But it still leaves the bizarre "appearance" problem unsolved. - Jackpot 06:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, in terms of the 'appearing' and 'being created' factor, I see it like this, normally 'cause' and 'effect' are pretty much one after the other: Unicron's death is the 'cause' point, and the effect is general multidimensional chaos. In this case the 'cause' element appeared in the timeline, but the effect wasn't felt until years later. Sort of like lining up a shot in pool, going to get a beer, then coming back to do the shot. The 'cause' of the disturbance shows up as an element of the universe long before it does what it does to spread chaos. If someone who should have, in, say, the G1-G2 continuity, lay dormant for ages or out-and-out-died, were able to instead survive and go on to influence the timeline, (in the typical 'path not taken' view of divergent multiple timelines), this could cause a universe to branch off into its own thing. For my own view, anything that was heavily enough influenced by Unicron or Primus (or another diety-class being) and dimensional travellers might continually shatter off potential universes as it is more easily unhinged from causality and 'the way things are meant to be', having, in a bizarre way, a higher degree of 'free will' than other beings who might be locked into a more Calvanist existence. The experiment runs the same way every time until you change a variable and all that. Sorry if that rambled a bit. -Trent Troop
From a strictly determinist standpoint (And Vector Sigma's Computational Matrix can apparently predict the future with a STAGGERING degree of accuracy,) those 'inside' the timeline would not be free to make any decision that was not a result of their past experiences. While time is probably not ENTIRELY locked (I have to believe that if two choices were EXACTLY equal Optimus Prime could choose either, plus quantum stuff might have a cumulative effect somwehwere- though that'd mostly cancel itself out,) it stands to reason that time-travelers woudl be more likely to inject mass branching int the equation- as they start initiating choices in REACTION to what went before. (Or, sicne Galvatron was from an alternate timeline, what didn't go before.)
Galvatron 1's death caused a massive timestorm. (Well okay, that was Cyclonus's, but the principle remains,) but Galvatron II was from a divergent timeline- rendered impossible from the moment he was dragged back to the present. I can believe his death would enact lower-level consequences here.
Galvatron II ALREADY caused at least one major timebranch. After Hook Line and Sinker brought him back to 1990, time immediately branched. In one timeline he headed to Earth- looking for pawns he could use in battle. In another he headed for Cybertron and, when eh vanished intot he corridors around Primus, caused the worried Unicron to accelerate his course and arrive at Cybertron in 1991 instead of 2005 (as he would in the other timeline.) The biggest single distinguishing branch between US and Earthforce continuity (Unicron's arrival date) stems DIRECTLY from Galvatron II's actions. -Derik 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that there's a reason "I hate quantum" is a recurring line in the TT stories. --M Sipher 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The basic root cause of all variations in the multiverse, eh?
I've got a question... the Ultimate Guide says that Primus and Unicron entered the universe when it was young and still cooling, and that they had their big lagerheads (the one where they were trapped in asteroids) when the first signs of life were arising. It (and Fun Pug #1, IIRC) also indicates the Multiverse is a branching timeline thing-- rather than a transfinite number of always-existing parallel worlds.
How exactly DID Unicron and Primus end up in every reality? Because as I see it, simply by virtue of entering our universe so early... wouldn't Unicron and Primus have branched along with the entire timeline, every time a branching occoured? So every universe that branched off after their entry at point X (before life, the cause of most branches, arose,) would have a Unicron and a Primus, right?
Which leaves me with two questions-- or at least problems. 1) Branching must have occoured BEFORE their fight. ...yet Primus traps Unicron in every reality ever? Is it just because pure quantum branching (without lifeforms to cause MAJOR variations) means that none of the variations were big enough to effect the outcome of that battle? An infinite number of nigh-identical battles? OR was there, somehow, just ONE? the other question.... if Unicron and Primus entered the Universe AFTER it was born... there should be at least a FEW universes out there WITHOUT a Primus, despite all the dogma about Cybertron being the stable axis of the multiverse that exists in EVERY reality.
Is that where Gobotron comes in? Is Gobotron Cybertron by another name, or is there no Cybertron in its universe? -Derik 23:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone in this wiki deserves to be credited with (the likely inadvertant) death of the Gobot Universe, but I wouldn't point the finger directly at Unicron.
IT WAS ME. I DID IT. IT WAS AWESOME. -hx 00:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the diff between the "whens"... the whole Multiverse setup the TTs have is meta stuff wrapped in technobabble. Two years ago, fifteen-ish years of Classics timestream suddenly appeared, and it starts before the original G1 comic ends, unlike the other post-G1-comic fiction-branches (the two G2s, Another Time and Place), which don't start until after #80. --M Sipher 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Target: 2006

This:

"Note: The concept that Transformer weaponry could destroy Unicron was never brought up again after "Target: 2006", and doesn't quite fit with the idea of Unicron as primordial demi-god. This was, however, written before Furman came up with that origin for the guy."

I think it's fairly easy to assume that Galvatron was simply unaware of Unicron's godhood and saw him as just a very big mechanoid; meaning that his plan would've simply been doomed to fail due to his ignorance anyway. Takeshi357 17:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that Unicron's actions and reactions in the story suggest that he feared being destroyed. Timrollpickering 23:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

g1 cartoon

Shouldnt the TFM section be with the G1 cartoon section, since theyre in the same continuity? Skyfire34 18:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's notable enough to be given its own section, what with being his most memorable and important outing and all. Jeep! 23:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

SABOTAGE

--IAMMURDERBEAM 08:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)IAMMURDERBEAM Some has sabotaged the article and removed most of the information and placed a very uninformitave and noncanon article to replace it all. This user should be banned, but first someone needs to put all the information back and protect it so no one can destroy it again.

Replied in Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal#SABOTAGE
Argh....It turns out it was one of my friends, he told me over Xbox Live when he was doing it "By the way, I attacked that Wiki you're always looking at", and talked about what he did to poor Unicron....Primus dammit Drooney...Sorry guys, by proxy it's my fault, and I tried reverting it once, but his computer's faster than my Wii, so I just gave up...I'm sorry.....--KaotikusNemesis 08:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
That's okay, it's not your fault. ;) --TX55TALK 13:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
--IAMMURDERBEAM 04:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)IAMMURDERBEAM

Thanks. Now, if no one hasn't protected this yet, we gotta convince someone to do that, or else someone might come and kill it again!

Umm....I kind of doubt it'll happen again....Unless This happens alot to this specific page....In which case, meh....Zetsubou KaotikusNemesis 05:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Armada/Energon figurine's size?

I wonder if it's worthy to mention those particular figurines are 16" tall. (I knew he was big, but when I got my Armada Unicron figurine, I was still surprised at how HUGE he is!). Unicron 17:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

reply to unicron size

yeah,the unicron toy was the largest in the armada/energon toy lines. though cybertron primus is taller in robot mode--Seraph12241 06:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unicron Movie?

I didn't see anything about Unicron in the movie franchise (as in the sequel to ROTF). Is there anything that can be mentioned, even a picture or something? According to Wikipedia the Blu-Ray has some secret information about the third movie and pictures of Unicron.

Here's the source:

http://tformers.com/transformers-allspark-experiment-secret-video-bay-says-transformers-3-goes-deeper/12562/news.html

HE'S BACK!!!!!

UNICRON IS BACK IN TRANSFORMERS 3 THE DECEPTICONS ARE FINALLY REBUILDING HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!saddy66

  • That is if you want to say if Cybertron is Unicron cuz I did not see Unicron in TF3.Mrmouse45 17:08, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

True. Unicron is not in the movie. He must be mistaking him for Cybertron.--69.231.219.202 01:26, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous Picture Captions

What the hell is this? I've been looking over this page and realised EVERY SINGLE picture caption is completely idiotic. "A Unicron cultist with mask. Or a cosplayer. Same thing."? What the hell. It doesn't stop there. "Planet: "My Mom always said to close my mouth while eating, and I think you should, too, Unicron!"? "Incoming message from the Giant, Floating Head!"?! Are you guys fucking serious? Make captions that are actually USEFUL and not idiotic, random things you guys just feel like saying. People look through here to do actual research.

  • Thank for this i actually find someone who comes here for research too... YAY!! Mrmouse45 17:08, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Split Page

I think we should split the article into the continuity pages like Unicron (BW), Unicron (Prime), and Unicron (G1), but do it with all the other continuities that are listed in this article. To me, it just doesn't look right if all the continuities are on one page, because I was just looking for one specific continuity and the search only found one page namely this one. Mrmouse45 17:07, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.