|
|
Post by jameso on Oct 22, 2009 12:19:00 GMT
What do people think of the concept of multiversal singularity? tfwiki.net/wiki/Multiversal_singularityThis is the basic idea that some of the Transformers, when you see them in different continuities it's actually the same being, they have dimension hopped ie the Fallen from ROTF is the same being as the Fallen in War Within. |
|
|
|
Post by charlesrocketboy on Oct 22, 2009 12:42:20 GMT
Personally I think it's rubbish. You have to jump through hoops to get it to work, namely:
- Characters who are clearly killed are now... not.
- Characters keep doing the same thing over and over, even though it keeps failing. You'd think Unicron would learn his bloody lesson about turning Megatron into Galvatron!
It also means every Transformers story is now locked into the Primus/Unicron myth that even Furman wanted to stop bringing up. Even the Sunbow toon which predates it! You can't do anything new with Transformer origins with this, not without causing headaches and unfortunate implications if Primus exists in Beast Machines, then he wiped out an organic world filled with life to create Cybertron, what a bastard!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Oct 22, 2009 13:02:23 GMT
It's fairly interesting. Nicholas cage starred in a film a few years ago in which he could see three minutes in the futures or travel three minutes back in time depending how you want to look at it. The effect was basically the same as the Fallen being able to see all timeline and choose the one to pursue. But after you remove the three minute limit then the person can see to the end of time and find the very best outcome for him or herself and take it. Actually creating universe and being aware of it and effectively jumping between them is just plain nightmarish to contemplate.
Retconning such a concept in to any story is beyond stupid. In transformers continuity trying to retcon it in would be just horrible. You need to intend it from the beginning.
I can accept characters such as Unicron being aware of other versions of themselves to some degree or the Matrix drawing from a single power source and so connecting different primes, but the idea that Dave is the same Fallen as IDW Fallen, I don't see how anything storytelling wise profits.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Oct 22, 2009 13:11:24 GMT
Well, I'm certainly open to the possibility (in reality as well as fiction) that quantum uncertainty at the atomic level allows infinitely many parallel possible universes to branch off from the one we are in at every moment, differing to begin with only by the state of a single particle, but then diverging as time progresses - both forwards and backwards. I am also open to the possibility that souls may exist across universes rather than confined to a single timeline (so you don't get two separate souls resulting whenever a universe branches, but rather a single soul living different lives as a result of those quantum fluctuations).
But these universes would branch through probability fluctuations at the atomic level, not through macroscopic beings like ourselves taking one decision or a different decision when faced with a choice. And it applies to all beings, not an elite few.
It is an interesting concept in science and science-fiction, but it seems to be being applied here in a very lazy way to reconcile badly planned storytelling after the fact.
The truth is, we can all access and see into macroscale parallel universes (the ones that differ in a big way, depending on choices made by us). Open your word processing software. Imagine pressing the 'a' on your keyboard. You know the consequences of pressing the 'a' - an 'a' will appear on the screen. Don't press it. Close the software without pressing any keys. You just looked into a parallel universe without entering it!
In the same way, if Unicron was all that clever he could predict what would happen when he turns Megatron into Galvatron from his knowledge of the universe that he is in now. You don't need to enter a parallel future to see what happens in it.
Conclusion: I agree with Charles and Andy, in this case it's rubbish.
Martin
|
|
primenova
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
Posts: 6,057
|
Post by primenova on Oct 22, 2009 13:28:28 GMT
A bit like how Unicron was travelling from universe to universe - stated by Spinister in Armada #14-18 arc. Same character travelling between different universes [apart from not being the Unicron from the Marvel one].
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesrocketboy on Oct 22, 2009 15:20:22 GMT
Retconning such a concept in to any story is beyond stupid. In transformers continuity trying to retcon it in would be just horrible. You need to intend it from the beginning. And if it's going to continue, I demand Slapper from RID is one the Original Thirteen Transformers. At least that'd make the concept good for a laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Stranger on Oct 22, 2009 16:38:44 GMT
It's a silly concept I think. What's wrong with having separate universes?
And because Hasbro has spouted this, is it to be taken as canon?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 22, 2009 17:00:51 GMT
What do people think of the concept of multiversal singularity? I think it's the sound of one hand clapping while looking at dirty videos. -Ralph |
|
|
|
Post by charlesrocketboy on Oct 22, 2009 17:39:08 GMT
And because Hasbro has spouted this, is it to be taken as canon? Yeah. Except Dreamworks have mucked that up by giving the film Fallen a different origin, motive, look, and way of working to the Dreamwave one, and then killing him. And by having the All Spark make everyone. Forest Lee, the Hasbro muckity-muck who came up with the concept (and much of the Fun Pub stuff), is refusing to back down though. Hence the utterly mental "Multiverse Dynamics" bit at that link. Luckily, Titan heroically said there were only seven original Transformers in its The Fallen Profile. (Also, if the Fallen's mind operates "on a higher level" to "lesser beings", why do those "lesser beings" keep beating him?) |
|
|
|
Post by jameso on Oct 22, 2009 18:37:16 GMT
How does it work with the Matrix against the All Spark? In one continuity the Transformers are created by one, and in one continuity the other...
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Oct 22, 2009 19:26:24 GMT
Personally I dont like the multiversal stuff in any continuity. Why do people have a hard time just making stuff its own unique entity, why must everything be linked?
The new Star Trek film is a prime example of that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2009 21:13:53 GMT
I'd be just happy if each separate continuity was its own story and not linked in any way to any other continuity. After a while it just becomes too confusing and it doesn't help when fan fiction authors (especially the bad ones) try to patch up gaps by creating whole new knots in the already tangled storyline.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Oct 22, 2009 21:19:48 GMT
I'd be happier if there was only the original continuity, and when the makers got fed up of writing in it they just stopped and went and did something other than Transformers.
One character, one life is my preference as a reader/viewer in contemporary fiction.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Oct 22, 2009 21:40:40 GMT
I'm not sure that I would be able to tell the difference between a Multiversal Singularity and one made from a single collapsed universe. When you are dealing with mass on that kind of scale the difference seems almost academic.... :-)
I have to say I have found the idea as postulated in the convention comics to be frankly absurd, and incredibly silly. The idea that similar characters who share the same name in different revisitations of Transformers seems to me an exercise in connecting the unconnectable. These things are mutually exclusive remakes of a central concept after all - many of them are not designed to connect to each other at all. There is, for example no narrative connection between Robots in Disguise and Transformers(2007). Both use the same basic components and concepts, but the aren't somehow a coherent fictional multiverse. So bolting them together as if they were part of the same thing, rather than distinct entities seems rather Heath Robinson at best to me.
Also, the proposal that there is only one Unicron who is teleporting himself from one universe to another after every defeat manages to make Unicron seem even less impressive than he already was. That premise logically seems to imply that Unicron has been resoundingly beaten repeatedly, which rather strips him of any sense of threat. He isn't planet-devouring menace, just a big chump with a string of catastrophic defeats to his name.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesrocketboy on Oct 22, 2009 23:33:52 GMT
And when those same comics used him after making him out as a chump...
|
|
|
|
Post by dinogrrl on Oct 23, 2009 4:32:07 GMT
Bad idea. Why can't we just have multiple universes without connections instead of trying to mush it all together into one big inbred incestuous orgy pile?
I like to be able to jump out of one universe when it starts annoying or boring me and go to another without dragging bits of the two together.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2009 7:16:06 GMT
I like the ides that some transformers are unique, throughout the multiverse, but it just gets confusing after a little bit (like with Vector Prime)
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamthomson on Oct 23, 2009 7:21:07 GMT
It seems silly to me, in both concept and execution.
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesrocketboy on Oct 23, 2009 9:38:32 GMT
But it's a silly idea invented by someone still at Hasbro, so we're stuck with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 23, 2009 10:00:04 GMT
Really? Are we really stuck with 'it'? I only know this exists from reading one entry on a website (tf wiki). I don't recall this concept in the hundreds of Transformers comics and cartoons I've experienced.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamthomson on Oct 23, 2009 10:10:23 GMT
Heh. James's link to TFWiki was the first I'd heard it as well!
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesrocketboy on Oct 23, 2009 12:08:15 GMT
I don't recall this concept in the hundreds of Transformers comics and cartoons I've experienced. Be glad IDW had to postpone their The 13 miniseries, or you would have seen the concept. It's a concept that exists in one of the Ultimate Guide books and Fun Pub crap only so far, but considering how heavily it's pushed in Fun Pub it's only a matter of time until Forest Lee forces it into something else. I.e., something most people will actually read or watch. |
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Oct 23, 2009 12:15:38 GMT
Since he's still writing all the bio's for the toys I think if he wants to push it he can and eventually some other writer will pick it up and run with it.
It could make an intersting story, but not if the writer tries to tie it in to existing stories. It would have to be completely stand alone, but I think getting fans to understand that such a story would be its own multiverse and not just another universe in an/the existing multiverse would be hard.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesrocketboy on Oct 23, 2009 12:29:19 GMT
It could make an intersting story, but not if the writer tries to tie it in to existing stories. Which, sadly, is exactly what he did. Which is annoying. |
|
|
|
Post by jameso on Oct 23, 2009 12:37:53 GMT
I'd first heard of the idea of even though this is a different universe, what if this character with the same name as a 'regular' character was actually that character, they'd just dimension hopped with Unicron in the Armada Worlds Collide story which must be what 5/6 years ago now? I actually thought it was a fairly interesting idea.
The worst thing possible this idea could suffer would be to have it implemented by Fun Publications, with their impenetrable fanwank gibberish, though. I'm sure I've got most of the issues that will go into more detail on the concept but I can't get past page one in most cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamthomson on Oct 23, 2009 12:44:33 GMT
Is this all in that Cybertron collection that IDW published a year or so back? I have that, but never read it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Oct 23, 2009 12:45:40 GMT
A multiverse done right is a fantastic concept (Alan Moore's Captain Britain, Grant Morrison's Zenith and the absolute master of them all Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion stories) but in the hands of Forest Lee it's utter fanwank.
Drivel to explain away errors and push pet theories. A big bag of arse.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesrocketboy on Oct 23, 2009 14:55:57 GMT
While creating more!  |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Oct 23, 2009 17:56:56 GMT
But it's a silly idea invented by someone still at Hasbro, so we're stuck with it. Speak for yourself, I don't feel stuck. As far as I'm concerned, Bob Budiansky wrote the rules of Transformers, and if it's not in what he wrote, it's an optional extra. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 23, 2009 17:58:10 GMT
Is this all in that Cybertron collection that IDW published a year or so back? I have that, but never read it. AGGGGGHHHH!!!! I used to own that. Damn you, Turnbull. -Ralph |
|
