The "Why Unicron Should NOT Be In TF3 Or Any Future Sequel" Thread

Hotwire · 10-25-2009, 11:22 AM

OK. I know there are threads for Unicron, but I've had it! I'm tired of fanboys begging for Unicron, and saying things like, "He could work on screen." He can't! Get it though your head. He's just too frickin' big!

Here's an example of size comparison.
Let's say they make Unicron the same size as the moon. We won't even go to full planet size.
The moon is 3,478,800 meters across, or 3,478,800 meters "tall".
Optimus Prime is 8.53 meters tall.
That means that the moon is 407,832 times taller than Optimus Prime.

To put this in perspective, the average human 1.75 meters tall, so something 407,832 times smaller would only be, well, microscopic. See, a flea is about 1.5 millimeters tall (about 1148th the height of a human), and the average human can't see it unless he's really looking for it. Now, imagine how small something would be if it was 407,832nd the size of a human. You'd need an electron microscope to even think about seeing it.

Now, who's gonna tell me that Unicron could still share the screen with the Transformers?

GogDog · 10-25-2009, 12:12 PM

They could make him a traveling gas ball like they did for Galactus.

Gingerchris · 10-25-2009, 12:22 PM

...

*looks about*

...

Dyson Sphere!

If Unicron is hanging in the sky (or covering the sky because he's enveloped it in his shell body) then any shot showing humans and the sky together would have both sharing the screen.

And I'm sure Unicron would be aware of any tiny things on or near him. They're potential meals. I'm sure normal-sized TF are aware of all parts of their body, no matter how small, so the same could be likely for Unicron. And he probably has some kind of nanobot system for making self-repairs, so contact with humans could be brought down nearer to our level if need be via that, a'la something like Reed Man or a TF-sized avatar.

Apriorion · 10-25-2009, 12:29 PM

I think Hotwire has given some good reasons to not add Unicron to the live action movie franchise. Here are some more:
1. We haven't exhausted all the other cool things that a robot can transform into that within our size-scale: an aircraft carrier would still be a huge bot, and if we jump to a planet, all these other huge robots won't be very impressive anymore.
2. Gravity is a weird thing: the image of Unicron standing on Cybertron in robot mode looked cool, but isn't very plausible, once we come to know a thing or two about the interactions of massive bodies of that size.
3. Wasn't the comic-book version of the Fallen supposed to have it that he's a disciple of Unicron? If that's the spin they are going to use in the live-action universe, then we will have a really bad, predictable structure of: (movie 1) You thought the baddest decepticon was defeated (Megatron), but you're wrong because (movie 2) *he* answers to an even scarier decepticon (the Fallen). Now, (movie 2) you thought that the baddest decepticon was defeated (the Fallen), but it turns out (movie 3) there's an even scarier decepticon (Unicron). It's time for a change, and I vote that we start by getting a new plot structure!
3. 'Unicron' is a dumb anagram of 'unicorn'. While I'm pointing out the terrible cheesiness of robot names, let's not have a robot called 'Kup' or 'The Sweeps', either.
4. Let's not forget, Unicron was really just a bad rip-off of the Death Star. I'm sure we could do better, 25 years later. Presumably we could come up with our own ideas, can't we?
5. How would Unicron get defeated? The Matrix? Could someone explain to me how that was supposed to work exactly? I've watched that cartoon movie a couple times, and it still seems like (rising rock crescendo, feel-good one-liners, toss out the second-in-command Galvatron to the dark of deep space (*another* Star Wars rip-off) and ... well, for some reason the matrix makes Unicron wanna tear off his own leg; after seeing this, I know the feeling) they just got lazy and decided the kids wouldn't even notice, anyway. Now, that's been happening in the live-action franchise already, but again, it's not too late to demand a change for the better from the upcoming sequels.

If I think of some more arguments, I'll post 'em. I'm sure there are more, but that's enough from me for now.

Mr knightmare · 10-25-2009, 12:40 PM

Quote:

2. Gravity is a weird thing: the image of Unicron standing on Cybertron in robot mode looked cool, but isn't very plausible, once we come to know a thing or two about the interactions of massive bodies of that size.

Physics was thrown out of the window in the first movie when we had Transformers jumping around the city like they're freaking Ninja Turtles why should we care about it now?

Quote:

3. Wasn't the comic-book version of the Fallen supposed to have it that he's a disciple of Unicron? If that's the spin they are going to use in the live-action universe, then we will have a really bad, predictable structure of: (movie 1) You thought the baddest decepticon was defeated (Megatron), but you're wrong because (movie 2) *he* answers to an even scarier decepticon (the Fallen). Now, (movie 2) you thought that the baddest decepticon was defeated (the Fallen), but it turns out (movie 3) there's an even scarier decepticon (Unicron). It's time for a change, and I vote that we start by getting a new plot structure!

Why do we even NEED a plot? Throw some exsplosion, boobs and CGI and put Transformers on it and it and PUF insant epic boxoffice number. It worked so far!

Quote:

5. How would Unicron get defeated? The Matrix? Could someone explain to me how that was supposed to work exactly? I've watched that cartoon movie a couple times, and it still seems like (rising rock cresendo, feel-good one-liners, toss out the second-in-command Galvatron to the dark of deep space (*another* Star Wars rip-off) and ... well, for some reason the matrix makes Unicron wanna tear off his own leg; after seeing this, I know the feeling) they just got lazy and decided the kids wouldn't even notice, anyway. Now, that's been happening in the live-action franchise already, but again, it's not too late to demand a change for the better from the upcoming sequels.

A bigger railgun

The writers are also lazy in the live-action movies and it worked, why change it?

Seriously guys we had Sam die AND GO TO A F&$%ING ROBOT HEAVEN!!! I think Unicron is pretty believable after that...

Apriorion · 10-25-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr knightmare

Seriously guys we had Sam die AND GO TO A F&$%ING ROBOT HEAVEN!!! I think Unicron is pretty possible to put in a movie after that...

Good point, but the central theme of my post was that it's not too late to ask for an improvement over what's been done before.

Again, though, that robot heaven thing SUCKED!

Gingerchris · 10-25-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr knightmare

Seriously guys we had Sam die AND GO TO A F&$%ING ROBOT HEAVEN!!! I think Unicron is pretty believable after that...

This is basically a trump-all reply for any arguments against anything in the next TF movie.

Autobot 47 · 10-25-2009, 12:49 PM

no unicron!!!!

StayingInTheBox · 10-25-2009, 12:55 PM

[/quote]Seriously guys we had Sam die AND GO TO A F&$%ING ROBOT HEAVEN!!! I think Unicron is pretty believable after that...[/quote]

Believable. That's the key thing here. Is Unicron BELIEVABLE for TF3? I don't know if he is or not . . . I want to say he is, because he is after all a part of the Transformer Universe, but ROTF couldn't even get the Fallen right.

I know this is a thread against Unicron for TF3, but I will say Unicron CAN work if he is done right. BUT, based on some of your guys' points I will agree that it is a valid argument and I can see it going both ways.

Ephland · 10-25-2009, 01:15 PM

If they did Unicron, why does he have to be "planet-size" or even "moon size"? And even if he is, why does he have to come to Earth? Couldn't the Transformers go to space to fight him?