Talk:Obsidian (BM)

Who's said Obsidian was a Predacon? I know the word wasn't used, but I assumed he was an Autobot from the context of his introducing himself in the show. Animus 08:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that he was a former Maximal general of sorts. --Detour 09:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem likely, since Optimus thinks he's a Maximal spark at first and Obsidian corrects him. Something like "I'm not one of your people." Non-Maximal protector of Cybertron leads me to think he's an Autobot. Animus 09:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Animus

I don't remember such a line in such a context. Can someone watch the episode? --ItsWalky 11:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If I could know the title I'd look around. --Detour 12:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The episode title is "Spark War (Part 1)" which I just re-watched. The actual lines, in context, are as follows:

Obsidian: You are hereby invited to surrender your sparks to Megatron.

Optimus: Whoever you are, you're betraying your own people.

Obsidian: On the contrary... I've been programmed to protect Cybertron. And such has always been my mission.

Which I first interpreted as saying he wasn't one of Optimus' "people," but on second viewing, it doesn't necessarily have to mean that. It still can, though, and his emphasis on "always" seems like he's been around for quite a while. Animus 19:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Animus

I don't actually belive that he has a true faction at all, he just kind of changes team and mindset depending on who's in charge and follows suit with the ruler's mentality (explaining why he wants Primal's spark). Megatron was in control of Cybertron in his debut, so he called himself a Vehicon. When Cybertron was reformatted, he then probably went along with the Maximal mentality. He and Stryka are basically their own faction. Darktruth 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Primal does say that by helping Megatron, he was committing treason...which does sorta imply that he was either an Autobot or Maximal, but that's hardly conclusive. --Spectre 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Obsidian's TFU profile calls him a former Autobot, though that may or may not apply to this-universe Obsidian. Where has he been credited as a Predacon? --Spectre 22:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only time Obsidian was referred to as a Predacon was in his bio in the Vehicons section of Transformers: The Ultimate Guide by Simon Furman. I'll quote the relevant section here: "One of the most feared and deadly Predacon warrior-generals from Cybertron's past, Obsidian (along with his cohort, Strika) is a veteran of countless campaigns." Personally, I don't think it gels well at all with Primal's dialogue in Spark War nor with Obsidian's status as undefeated general (considering the 'cons/Preds lose the Great War). Oh well, maybe Furman was thinking of something along the lines of cartoon Shockwave when he put that down.--Derrax 00:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

maybe its just me but I don't think Obsidians actual faction is important seeing as he fought for Cybertron its possible he was just part of whatever army Cybertron had against extraterrestrial threats not those that were part of the Autobot/Decepticon Maximal/Predacon civil war but the times when they were allied against other planatary forces. Bobtherandomguy 16:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to the bio for Universe Obsidian, at least the one that was on transformers.com, he was an Autobot. Since he seems to be fairly similar to the BM version I would say he is an Autobot as well...Lightsyder 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I've noticed Walky's dissent about this article and Tankor (Decepticon) more than once, so I decided to try migrating all the info to their "(BM)" pages. And, y'know what, I think it works. I don't think we need these extra pages. - Jackpot 04:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think, arguably, we might have if Tankorr had fought Rhinox (but maybe not,) but he didn't, so... -Derik 05:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he did. But I still think it works. At least, I think I loaded it up heavily enough with "THIS IS AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE NOT THE SAME GUY FOR SERIOUS DUDE" disclaimers for there to be no less confusion than two articles would produce. - Jackpot 05:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course we've gone the other way before, for characters like Waspinator and his alternate universe self that's a Transmetal and still possessed by Starscream.--Rosicrucian^Talk 05:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell which side you're supporting. Do you mean this guy, in the only Waspinator article? The single case where I think it makes undeniable sense to separate two same-continuity-family incarnations is Galvatron II. Because, jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick, seriously. - Jackpot 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that Obsidian and Strika are, much like Transmetal Waspinator (as presented in the game fiction, and supported in the IDW profiles) one-off variants. They had a defining event that diverged them from the main timeline, but they were very much the same characters before that diverging event.--Rosicrucian^Talk 05:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, gotcha. Just to be contrary, I'm going to point out that there's no proof Minion-Tankor was ever Rhinox. But certainly the two Tankors are similar enough that Silverbolt recognized the Minion, and there is infinity percent more evidence of their congruity than most other Universe repaints. - Jackpot 05:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if the characters are merged, but, for consistency, I suggest merging [[Inferno (Universe Autobot)]] and [[Inferno (Vehicon)]] into Inferno (BW). —Interrobang 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Heck, those two could well share a timeline via the Vehicon being pre-pit and the Autobot being post-pit.--Rosicrucian^Talk 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Autobot is said to work with Optimus Primal after he changed form, and the Vehicon is said to work with Optimus Primal as is. I don't think that really works. —Interrobang 01:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Information migrated and merge-templates applied. Again, looking at the finished product, I think this makes sense. - Jackpot 01:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)