Talk:The Fallen

unused image

That bit about how the Fallen was created by Pat Lee? In the latest edition of Wayward's Insecticomics it is said that it was actually Furman who created the character, that Lee just did the design. When I asked her about it, she posted this transcript which backs that up. --KilMichaelMcC 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

OK so I just left line in the trivia, cos I thought it was funny.

• So he's the henchman of a evil being, has mystical supernatural powers, is a badass and is on fire? Someone might want to file a law suit.

Can it stay or should I take it back down?Dead Metal 09:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

..I don't even get that. AlwaysWrong 22:44, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

It was removed, it contained a link to the wikipedia article for Ghost RiderDead Metal 09:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Head

Anyone notice that his head is very Soundwave-y? When i first saw him, i clearly recognized his head as soundwave's with added badassery.--Skyglide 05:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambig time?

http://www.hasbro.com/transformers/default.cfm?page=News/Item&newsid=59522272-D56F-E112-4C783175A8BBBAD6

Ah-heh.

(SOMEBODY IN THAT MOVIE DAMN WELL BETTER BE ON FIRE.) --ItsWalky 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fallen, Bludgeon and Megs

I don't know about Bludgeon, but there is a connection between the Fallen and Megs: IDW Megatron's Cybertronian body is based off of the Fallen, right down to the design of the Fusion Cannon. User:GWolfv2 21.07 June 11

Defiance issue 4 Fallen's backstory

Defiance issue 4 is out. TFW2005.com has posted all the Fallen-relevant spoilers from issue 4, but beware, if you're avoiding Defiance, this spoils the Fallen's crazy scheme in the movie. The backstory for the Fallen seems fairly different to the Fallen we know. So are they still the same guy? --FFN 14:56, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Still appears to be a member of the Thirteen, still appears to betray them, still apparently serves a force that devours planets/stars.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:12, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

But from what I understand of the "multiversal singularity" characters thing, there's just one Fallen, so the guy created by Primus who eventually serves Unicron is also a guy created by a Cube who serves nobody but himself and is building solar towers to replenish the Cube. Or is the currently-untold story of the 13 vague enough that this still works? --FFN 15:20, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

It does seem pretty distinct. One's a "created by mighty power source, got selfish, betrayed his brothers, now want to kick off where things went wrong" other "created as a multiversal control for entrophy and warrior against Unicron. Switched sides. Most dangerous servant of the ultimate evil ever". User:Eire 21.21 Apr 8 2009 (UTC)

I don't trust a 3rd party summary written by someone who may not fully understand the story to accurately represent what's actually in the story. -Derik 16:44, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

In any case, I suspect we are probably going to need to wait to see what the movie itself has to say before making a decision on this. It may expand on what is presented in the comic, it may contradict it in some way, it could make it easier to tie this version in with the previous mythos or may firmly separate it, etc. --KilMichaelMcC 17:54, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I don't think we would have to wait until the movie if the comic is fairly clear on the matter. - Starfield 17:59, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I think we do, because as I said, we have no way of knowing in advance how well the actual movie will line up with the comic. --KilMichaelMcC 18:05, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

The Fallen is one thing, but what about definite "multiversal singularity" Primus? Does the AllSpark=Primus in the movieverse? - Starfield 17:59, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

The AllSpark has been designated a sacred implement in Japanese fiction.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:07, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

It is not uncommon for Transformers to have no knowledge of Primus or Unicron. For every world where they have a full-blown religion to fill them in, you have one where the Transformers have neither heard of either-- remember in The Transformers: The Movie Hot Rod and Kup had never even heard Unicron's name before. -Derik 02:06, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Did they not mention that the Fallen calls himself and his other pals "trans-dimensional beings"? --ItsWalky 19:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Not the mention this interview affirming he's the original and was "banished to another dimension." -Derik 02:06, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

I think what they mean by that is that he's stuck in that stupid pylon. --ItsWalky 02:15, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

The Fallen gets Power Plans!

[1] Preview page from the upcoming DK Ultimate Movie Guide, which is totally written by Furman. It establishes a few important things. The Fallen is an "omniversal tyrant." He betrayed his fellow Primes to serve the source of his new "chaotic" powers "from the very birth of the universe," forces which seek to replace morality with a "void." --ItsWalky 16:06, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

If Nimoy is cast as him, it will be the second time in his career that he'll be playing some sort of servant of Unicron. --FFN 02:36, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Subject Seperation

Will you make a separate page the live action version of the Fallen? --Some Random User guy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.230.53.229 (talk • contribs){{#if:00:50, May 20, 2009 EDT| 00:50, May 20, 2009 EDT|}}.

As we far as we know, the Fallen is a multi-dimensional being that can... you get the picture. If this Fallen is established as a seperate being, then maybe.--AWT88 01:01, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

And as seen in Walky's post above this, the DK guide establishes the Fallen as an "Omniversal tyrant". That more or less means the Fallen is one of those characters who can travel between dimensions, and there's only one of him. Thus, we consider ROTF Fallen to be the same guy as Dreamwave comics Fallen, unless the movie says otherwise (and it obviously won't). --FFN 02:36, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Despite the brain-bending problems this creates with the other 12, yes. Are they all birthed by the AllSpark then? That's not what The Ultimate Guide says... (We'll figure it out. Expect the backpedaling, qualifications and clarifications to begin trickling in this fall.) -Derik 04:15, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

You know, the movie universe could have two individuals named the Fallen. I mean, it's not a real name, but rather a sort of title, right? Why couldn't the omniversal tyrant and some douchebag that came from the AllSpark live in the same universe? -- Semysane 04:26, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Two dimension-hopping flaming ancient Primes who discarded their name in favor of being called "The Fallen" after betraying their 12 fellow Primes, the oldest of Transformers?

We already have the Covenant and the Thirteen. Don't make this more complicated. -Derik 04:39, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

I personally think they should be seperated. I mean, he's been trapped in that relic, or whatever it exactly is, for a really long time. How could he of shown up in the IDW series? And, the other 12 sacrificed themselves, so, how could they exist either? -VakamaMetruNui 09:29, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

(The Dreamwave series, not the IDW series.) That's really easy to explain. The DW Fallen was also trapped in a dimension, same as the Movie one. He was able to break free of it due to a space bridge accident, and was apparently banished back to it by Primus. (He would have returned if DW hadn't gone bankrupt, so he wasn't dead.) Who knows how time and space work in there. --ItsWalky 10:11, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Unicron keeps showing up in new places yet always gets defeated in more or less the same way; why should his gothy wanna-be have it any better? Since his "real" origin was as a creation of Primus, perhaps the entire Movie AllSpark / Movie Original 13 was something the Fallen himself put together later--he tried his own hand at being a god, while actually not claiming credit for it but just inserting himself among the lineup, like Keyser Soze. Or maybe he used his woowoo omniversal magic to sense that some other god was about to create the AllSpark, and then he twisted the whole process to his own ends. Who knows. And if all that sounds like a deus-ex-machina, remember that that is LITERALLY what he is. --Thylacine 2000 10:24, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

What dimension did this happen in? The movie-verse? Not necessarily.

I think splitting the page of a known dimension-hopper goes against common sense. Without a really good reason, of course. I don't think there is a good reason yet. - Starfield 10:47, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

At BotCon 2009, Hasbro copy-writer Forest Lee stated once again (at the Collectors' Club panel) that the Original 13 are all multiversal singularities. Apparently the upcoming movie hasn't changed his mind! So let's hold on to our current setup for the time being. --ItsWalky 16:11, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

He didn't state this before, IIRC he stated that they were probably Multiversal singularities before.

Do you or anyone (Steve) have an exact working on his statement this weekend? It's worth citing it on the 13 page. -Derik 16:52, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

I don't, no. And Steve-o wasn't there this weekend, so we are without his meticulous information-gathering. He did specifically say that the original 13 were multiversal singularities, though. It was in response to someone asking if Shattered Glass The Fallen would be icy. Forest said that as one of the 13, The Fallen doesn't have any multiverse counterparts. There's just one of him, the same as Vector Prime and the others. (Trent noted that he liked to believe that if the Fallen were to ever wander into the Shattered universe, his flames would turn to ice, much to his confusion.)--ItsWalky 19:53, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Is there evidence that supports ROTF Fallen is the same as the character in The War Within?--TOM 13:20, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

Evidence in the form of fictional stories? No. Apparently not. It is all shadow evidence as far as I can tell. Word of mouth at conventions and a Hasbro Q&A. Should the wiki hang its hat on such shadow evidence? Or would the "multiversal singularity" thing be better put in the "notes" section until it shows up in fiction? - Starfield 13:53, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

If this Wiki wants to wait on merging Alpha Trions I suggest your side doesn't split the G1, UT, ROTF and Prime versions of Prima, Megatronus, Liege or Vector. And it wouldn't call it shadow evidence considering Megatronus explicitly described his brothers as able to traverse dimensions, or Vector and Nexus being the sole versions of those characters flying about the timelines. "All Cybertrons are yours." Alientraveller 14:15, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

Movie altmode

FYI: If we get Hasbro photography depicting a toy with an altmode (we have!) and the paragraph in question is describing that toy, then the presence of said altmode is officially confirmed. I don't know under what logic you can say otherwise.--Rosicrucian^Talk 20:10, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Remember Scorponok's robot mode? I believe the debate is whether or not The Fallen's vehicle mode was something invented for the toyline. - Cattleprod 20:48, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Except the altmode description was removed from the toy section. The toy has an altmode. Plain as day. Thus the section describing that toy ought to mention said altmode.--Rosicrucian^Talk 21:07, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Ah, right then. Well... most of what I said can be salvaged, assuming this argument comes up outside the toy section. - Cattleprod 21:14, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Decepticon symbol

I see there is a Decepticon symbol on The Fallen's page for a long while, is this something related to his toy(s)? Thanks. (I can't reach my Titanium Fallen now, so... ) --TX55^TALK 11:24, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

His ROTF toy packaging consistently labels him a Decepticon. He helped Megatron START the Decepticon faction in the live-action continuity. And the Decepticon faction symbol is based on his face. --ItsWalky 11:35, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

So it is really due to the ROTF. Thanks. ;-D --TX55^TALK 12:55, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

What they said.

I notice the Beast-machines Dinobots symbol links to the Dinobots disambig page-- was it used tor the Wal-Mart Dinobots as well? -Derik 11:56, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Mainpic

When the Wikia site comes up on Google, it also has a secondary link, which is their version of this page. Our secondary link is Animated, which is unfortunately now a bit less relevant than theirs. (Notably, they've even rebranded their site to have a Movie look.) Happily, our The Fallen is much better than theirs because we've expanded the DW section, and they still haven't written ANYTHING about the prequel comics. Plus, y'know, there's the stuff that made us leave in the first place. But in the interests of sealing the relevancy deal, I suggest we change the mainpic to be The Fallen's ROTF body. That way even at a GLANCE a viewer can see which one is more up-to-date. What do you all think? - Jackpot 16:23, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

I support this. We've got good promo renders of it. Let's do it.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:29, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Sounds good to me, I say go for it. Maybe change it back when the movie buzz fades down, but for now, yeah, totally. - Chris McFeely 16:44, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Heh, so they merged the articles back. TX55 was an editor here. Doesn't he notice the borked layout of the images? --FFN 17:00, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

New main pic

You dare photograph me?! I am a a Prime!

Swap the current one for a promotional shot from Josh Nizzi's website? -- SFH 13:58, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

Naw, I prefer the one we have now. Flashier. - Chris McFeely 14:12, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

Grargh fiction

Do we really need to separate out his various DK Ultimate Guide and Titanium information into their own little sections. Can't we throw those into the beginning of the Dreamwave continuity section and cite them appropriately? This page is now a real friggin' chore to read and understand. --ItsWalky 19:58, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, it sorta feels like it's... out of order. Cause, it is. Fictionally. I mean, I grok what Jackpot has done - he's put it in publication order, which I know is an approach that he's generall favoured in the past, but to me, it just doesn't "read" right. (Also, I am totally about to ruin the "he is on fire" joke. Watch me go!) - Chris McFeely 20:05, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

I feel a little weird about combining them like that, but I don't full-on object. I don't think there's ever been precedent for putting toy-bio info into a comic-series summary, but in this case there was clearly intent behind the bio to make it mesh, and there are no variant War Within "continuities." All I can do is note that it's unorthodox and move along.

Oh, and Walky, thanks for restoring the continuity-family headers. My theory is that since our default organizational model is to separate our articles based on continuity family, whenever we break that "rule," we should call it out.

- Jackpot 16:49, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

Really not buying the 'multiversal singularity' thing here

Recently, I saw the new movie and....... I don't see how it could possibly be the same character as in Dreamwave's comics. Not only is his entire backstory different, but his motives also seem different and the film also makes mention that The Fallen was a member of 8 original leaders (if I remember correctly), as opposed to 13. Not to mention his radically different appearance (the other 'multiversal singularities' at least all looked alike) and abilities.

Unless the writers find a way of explaining how this could be possible, I don't see how it makes any form of sense.

The fact it's 8 and not 13 is the first sign that the writers intend to explain it. They're backpedaling away from making it "The 13" because it creates way to many problems.

We all basically agree that it makes not sense now, but this (very last-minute) change strongly indicates that it will make sense, and that Hasbro's story-gurus has finally figured out how they intend to make it fit. -Derik 19:33, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

I seriously doubt that Hasbro's story-gurus had any imput whatsoever on the contents of the movie itself. --KilMichaelMcC 20:35, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Yes, I think that rather than being The 'Multiversal Singularity' Fallen, The (ROTF) Fallen is just a 'fallen' Prime who is subsequently and coincidentally called "The Fallen". He happens to have the same name, like Prowl, Prowl, Prowl, Prowl and Prowl.218.214.49.189 21:02, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

That's nice, but Hasbro's packaging bio writer is saying that's not the case. Thus we have to go with what he says. --Rosicrucian^Talk 21:09, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

So... Doesn't this mean that since he died in the movie, he has died in all universes forever, since he is a "multiversal singularity"?76.251.230.101 19:59, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

When a multiversal singularity "dies" in one universe, he'll reappear in another universe --72.64.107.124 20:02, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

I've seen that idea expressed on the Wiki before, but I've never seen a source for it. Basically... says who? In fact, most of what we "know" about multiversal singularities comes not from the fiction itself, but from creator comments. I don't agree with putting authorial intent on that high a pedestal, especially when its results are flat-out nonsensical. I think that at best, author-intent should get a Note, not define central aspects of how we describe characters. - Jackpot 20:16, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Hear hear! Besides, saying that a character is a multiuniversal singularity only lasts until someone else says he's not. Then we get a weird state of 'he's mostly a multiuniversal singularity, except where he isn't' situation. I think this sort of notion warrants about as much consideration as a Madman DVD book saying that Cyclonus categorically was Skywarp - we note it, then we go on with the rest of our lives. --Jimsorenson 20:37, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

There's at least some indication that Mowry and Furman are going to attempt to reconcile the multiversal singularity thing, or at least hang a lampshade on it and run with it, in Tales of the Fallen. We may get our answer soon.--Rosicrucian^Talk 21:09, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

saying that a character is a multiuniversal singularity only lasts until someone else says he's not

Bingo. No matter how much people might like Forrest's ideas, it's just as much "authorial intent" whenever anybody else at Hasbro or IDW or Bay's workshop says something that contradicts him. We know he's multiversal, or "omniversal," whatever, because one of the movie guidebooks says so. I try not to think too hard about the "13-whoops-7-Primes" clusterfuck. --Thylacine 2000 21:48, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

I think the idea of Multiversal Singularities dieing in one universe and appearing in another has 2 sources: 1) Unicron - He's a multiversal singularity and this is demonstrably how he works, and 2) Vector Prime - After his death in the UT he's seen again in the final credits battling Galvatron again. Granted it's supposition, but I think that's the basis for the idea.--76.28.72.27 21:22, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Unicron's many deaths constitute one of the reasons why the multiversal-singularity idea is generally thought to be nonsensical. The idea that he "respawns" every time he's destroyed is a rationalization somebody here came up with; it's never been shown to happen in the fiction. And Vector Prime's case barely applies; he wasn't destroyed the way Unicron or The Fallen were; he just permanently phased outside of normal time because he overexerted his temporal powers. It was presumably in this non-time limbo that he battled Galvatron again, and where he will be forever. Ultimately, I think Rosicrucian's right: We should wait until "Tales of the Fallen" comes out before we make any hard-and-fast calls on the subject. But I've long thought that we should be more rigorous about letting the fiction alone define "multiversal singularity" instead of the authors, and I'll be more than happy if future information radically changes what we think it means. - Jackpot 22:43, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

The bio for TRU-excl. Universe Unicron says he travels through multiple dimensions and that whenever he dies he comes back to life. I don't think it says he has to be reobrn in a different dimension than the one he just died in, but honestly, once they've officialized and published the "multidimensionality and immortality" aspect, precisely where he is at ANY given moment in any life doesn't matter. But that's just Unicron--there's nothing as cut-and-dried in published form for the rest of them, I don't think. --Thylacine 2000 23:08, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Ah, that's interesting. Let's take a look... Hm, it actually sounds more like Vector Prime's existence than the hoppity-hop-from-universe-to-universe model that's been the wiki party line. Unicron "floats through the non-space between dimensions, reaching out with his sensors to find the universe with the most energy. Those dimensions he finds suitable, he consumes." Also, "He has been defeated or destroyed countless times, yet he always returns [...] for [...] He is evil incarnate, and as long as there is evil, there is Unicron." It sounds like, whereas Vector Prime is stuck outside of time and can only send messages (or swords) into the timestream, Unicron can actually manifest himself in a very real and devastating way. But they share some essential transcendent nature, which to me is a bit more sensical than the more linear model. I read it to mean that basically he can keep coming back because he's always got one foot outside of normal space-time, and destroying a specific incarnation will never be enough. It's not a full "death." Plus he's got that strange relation to the concept of evil, which is backed up in the Armada cartoon when only Galvatron's death and the resulting end of the war could destroy him. As you say, I don't know how this would apply to The Fallen or others, but one thing at a time... - Jackpot 00:06, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

It's not particularly relevant, but I just want to point out that Vector Prime did actually die, in the sense that his linear lifespan came to an end point. He continues to exist because prior to his death, he spent most of his existence outside of the timestream, and since time has no meaning there, he will always be there, watching and guiding. - Chris McFeely 07:55, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Change of appearance

From TF; The Movie Universe

The Fallen butchered and betrayed his brother Primes, disowning his given name in favor of one befitting his new, terrifying appearance.{{#if:|{{{quote2}}}}}{{#if:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: The Movie Universe p86"The Fallen"|Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: The Movie Universe p86{{#if:"The Fallen"|, "The Fallen"|}}|}}

Late intot he game, we have the idea that The Fallen may have changed his appearance. (And since his appearance is really no different than the other Primes... it begs the question what the hell this is talking about.)

Oh, and Walky was wondering abotu the curiously-regular panes of transparent plastic on The Fallen toy's shoulders... accordign to the guidebook, he has "Energon Distribution arcs" in his shoulders-- I think they're actually supposed to represent some sort of energy blade. -Derik 19:44, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Unreliable narrator

So I saw the ROTF film. It really doesn't clash with the Multiversal Singularity thing too bad... it's Defiance that's the real problem. And I'm beginning to think that Definace just had a serious case of "unreliable narrator."

Let's assume (for a moment) that the Fallen was lying about parts of his backstory to Megatron. He certainly didn't mention Primus or Unicron (so we know he left stuff out) and we know he was snowing Megatron about making him a Prime (something you apparently have to be born to in the Movieverse.) He's ALREADY demonstrably lying, so lets throw out everything he said about his own origins, and assume he's actually the same dimension-hopping spanish-speaking nutjob we know and love-- what would the universe 'look' like?

Logically, The Fallen

traveled to this universe and integrated himself with it-- somehow convincing the six Founding Primes of the universe that he was one of them. He then secretly endeavored to murder them all, destroy the Earth and seize ultimate power for himself using the sun harvester.

Of course, if this was actually what happened, and The Fallen is lying... you'd expect there to be some indicator[ of this in the IDW comics.

Oh hey, look at that! It's the ancient illustration Starscream was trying to replicate in "Reign of Starscream"! The only piece of evidence from the era of the original Primes that doesn't come from our Unreliable Narrator. And what does it show?

Six Primes surrounding the AllSpark cube as it is renewed by the Sun Harvester. Not seven.

-Derik 23:55, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

As much as I really want to make this all work, I don't know if I want to go the Unreliable Narrator route. --ItsWalky 00:18, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Neither do I... but if IDW chooses to quietly change the 13 primes to the 7 in their Movie Spotlight books... at that point the Fallen's retelling of history becomes much more actively wrong, and this bit from Reign of Starscream fits quite nicely.

I figured it was worth highlighting as a possibility. It wouldn't be appropriate to present it as "fact" until IDW gets a crack at it. (It seems almost inevitable that there are Retcons Comings.) But i was pleased to discover that there's at least one fairly clean way here to make things more-or-less fit, and it ties into some pre-established continuity arond Starscream's plan with the Replica AllSpark, which is a definite plus in terms of making the change less jarring. -Derik 00:27, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Your way probably works better than my "the other 6 Primes were busy." But still, that's fanon until Forest Lee gets a crack at it. --ItsWalky 00:31, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

...That leaves me a little worried that we're putting our hopes on IDW. Especially since they caused quite a few of the problems. And lets not even get into their record of continuity consistency in okaying All Hail Megatron. -- SFH 00:34, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

But nothing the movies is 100% consistent with one another. Did you notice Leo mentioned the big fight from the 2007 movie took place in L.A.? And the IDW comics aren't in continuity with the first movie in a strict sense either-- Reign of starscream dedicated a page to re-doing the "gathering of the 'cons" from the dfirst movie just so they could assert "no, he's called BRAWL damnit." Or the helicopter being shot down over Afganistan America.

Frankly, I think think the wiki would be best off is we weaned ourselves of this tendency to present the IDW comics as somehow "the primary continuity." They're definitely bound up tightly with the movies... but they aren't in perfect continuity with them-- and it's not just oddities, it's outright deliberate contradiction, like the Brawl thing. -Derik 00:57, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Until I get an official reasoning to change continuity flow of various fiction, I'd rather leave the articles as they are. Brawl thing - who cares, really? --FFN 04:36, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

By which you mean "structured differently than every other fiction section on the wiki." ;)

(I'm not really pushing for the restructure either. Just talking in general terms.) -Derik 04:54, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm set in my ways, dagnabbit. Yeah, the movie kind of started the movement of supporting fiction such as comic books and novels more or less directly being in continuity with the primary fiction, something we saw later in Animated. As opposed to the traditional TF method of having comics and cartoons and books all going in completely different directions. --FFN 05:26, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

You've got it backwards. The Mowry-penned stuff has some of the best internal consistency of the entire continuity.--Rosicrucian^Talk 00:37, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Right, Mowry was foreshadowing the RotF plot in the second issue of Reign of Starscream, before anything had leaked. And he seems to have a pretty clear idea where almost every character "was" before and after the war, how they're related to one another, etc. He also did a lot of ground work to make the game drones fit right. -Derik 00:57, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Voyager toy

The Voyager toy has slidable gauntlets, shinguards, and some kind of firey thing under the shinguards, but none of these are called out in the instructions, or seem to serve any point in either mode. Should this be mentioned in the article, and if not, does anyone know what the deal with them is?KrytenKoro 20:50, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

"saturn"?

Especially because the novel specifically says it's not Saturn, can we get rid of this? Unless it was revealed in an interview or on a toy bio or something, all the movie shows is that it's on the moon of a ringed planet - without specifically identifying it.KrytenKoro 19:22, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

I think it has to be Saturn unless it is a plot hole. Megatron just flies there in about a day or so. It has to be in the solar system, I think. Megatron was never shown to have a personal space bridge like Jetfire. Can Megatron travel faster-than-light? Possibly, but the space bridge seems to be this universe's faster-than-light technology. - Starfield 20:57, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

I recall seeing something about how Megatron can travel interstellar distances, but that he's supposed to be one of the few Transformers who can. Additionally, we see the Decepticons travel to Earth in transition form, implying that they are coming from somewhere in the solar system. -- SFH 20:59, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

Yes, Megatron can travel interstellar distances, but in a day or two? - Starfield 21:02, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

And return with Starscream and Grindor? And have The Fallen and a buttload of new Hatchlings arrive not soon after? They can't be lightyears away. That'd basically be Yet Another Plothole. --ItsWalky 21:09, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

According to the Ultimate Guide, The Fallen actually can do something like a space bridge, so wouldn't it be possible for the Fallen to have brought them to the final battle? Unless the Fallen can only do personal transport.

For Grindor, though, do we know he was actually on the Nemesis?KrytenKoro 22:47, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

I thought someone might suggest that about The Fallen, so I didn't argue that point. I think that if he has the ability to space bridge armies across interstellar distances I would wonder why he would need the Nemesis at all. Starscream also made it to the Nemesis but he had a little longer, he could have hailed a space taxi or something. I think the movie strongly implies the Decepticons traveled by protoform from a relatively short distance and landed on the aircraft carriers. Even The Fallen. He seems to have traveled by protoform. Maybe space bridging long distances uses too much energy? - Starfield 23:13, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

"Saturn" appears to have a nebula in the background in the movie.

Which means that unless you can provide a cite for it being Saturn, it's not Saturn. -Derik 00:51, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

Power of a Prime?

Why is that important? --Boba Fett 20:15, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

Why is pointing out the differences between the film itself and its adaptations important? Is that what you're asking? --KilMichaelMcC 20:19, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

Why IS information about a Transformer in a Transfomers wiki important, I wonder? --ItsWalky 20:50, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

The novel and comics are similar enough to the movie that they don't merit their own sections on the page, so the few significant differences that DO crop up need to go SOMEWHERE. - Cattleprod 20:53, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

Main Pic

Since the standard practice to to have the main image use the body the character first appeared in, rather than their most recent or more well known, shouldn't the main pic here be his Dreamwave body? User:Eire 23.45 18 Aug 09 (UTC)

In this case it was changed so that movie visitors wouldn't reach the page and go "who the hell is this guy?" as well as to visually distinguish our article from Wikia's.--Rosicrucian^Talk 19:25, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

Leader Class

I found a clip on Youtube about a Leader class The Fallen toy. It's extremely close to the CGI version in design and look and it comes with a staff. I think it's a fanmade one, but it's definitely worth noticing. I have proof. [2]--Cydra 09:49, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, that's a custom by FrenzyRumble. --ItsWalky 09:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Image:Vectorprimeut.jpg

OK, who put that there? The Fallen isn't even on it. ---Blackout- 12:07, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Read the caption and come back to me. --ItsWalky 12:09, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

I just wasted two seconds on reading a caption which I have already memorized, and another ten on checking the image again. The Fallen is NOT on the image. ---Blackout- 12:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

...yes he is. See the guy behind Vector Prime? His silhouette matches The Fallen's. Pay special attention to the little spikey hangy-things on his crotch, plus the shape of his head. And don't talk to ME about wasting time. --ItsWalky 12:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

My bad. ---Blackout- 12:26, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Unable to edit

I noticed that I am unable to edit The Fallen page why is that. Also I thing the sarcophagus should have its own link and that it should be edited to make it more appropiate. --Narutofox94 10:04, 14 November 2009

Lawson Exclusive EZ Fallen???

Just noticed the pic of the 'Lawson exclusive' EZ figure.

Apparently the version of EZ Fallen released in the 2-pack with Soundwave was actually the standard US version, and the Takara-Tomy picture was incorrect. Unless anyone has an official source (in-hand pictures, on-line sales listings etc) that says the Japanese version of the Legends figure is any different from the US colours, I'd recommend deleting this photo. 213.123.203.109 09:03, 1 December 2009 (EST)

... that doesn't make any sense. If we don't have any in-hand photos, how do we know it's the SAME as the US release? --Monzo 10:10, 1 December 2009 (EST)

So what you're saying is that we have this exclusive Legends Fallen, now released in Japan. You'd think it might show up somewhere? But there's not a squeak of it on YouTube, on eBay, or for that matter ANY Transformers retailer or website you can care to name (trust me, I've checked). I realise it's supposedly an exclusive, but I can't think of another occasion in all my years of collecting when a figure's been commercially released and yet NO-ONE has seen it. As I say, I think it's just a bad photograph.

Also, note that the two supposed 'exclusives' in this Lawson offer were Mudflap and The Fallen... which haven't actually been released in Japan as part of the main EZ line (nor have they been announced as forthcoming). So it would make sense that these are the standard US versions, which were Lawson store exclusives in Japan. Just like how ROTF Deluxes Dead End, Swerve and Stalker Scorponok were on general sale in the US but store exclusives in Japan.

I seem to recall pictures of Takara Deluxe Ravage and Voyager Mixmaster with different paint apps too (extra purple on Ravage and a different coloured head on Mixmaster) - yet both releases ended up the same as their US counterparts. Early photos of the Takara combiner Devastator (shown in Hyber Hobby and Dengeki Hobby) has the US grey face that was later changed to red in Japan. We now know that the Deluxe red Rampage has a movie-accurate silver shovel, not the red one we saw in the early pictures. My point here is that promotional photos are notoriously unreliable.

I realise I'm on shaky ground here - It's very difficult to prove something doesn't exist. But I think at the very least the point should be made on the page that this so-called redeco has never - to anyone's knowledge - been sighted outside of a low-res photo on the Takara website. And possibly never will.91.104.167.124 13:55, 7 December 2009 (EST)

This strikes me as a question that would easily be resolved if we had actual contact with the Japanese fanbase.... -Derik 14:01, 7 December 2009 (EST)

OK, after a bit of research, I've discovered that the US and Japanese versions of these legends are IDENTICAL. There are pictures on TFW2005 (I think you need to be a member to sign into the forums) [3] So this page does need to be changed, as does Mudflap's.91.104.167.124 17:20, 7 December 2009 (EST)

Page Quote

To be fair... whether or not it should be changed to LesterX's idea, the current quote does suck. It says pretty much zero about the Fallen's personality or motivation or purpose or anything. All it says is that he's from some past time period, which is true of every 13 member. --Jeysie 17:21, 7 January 2010 (EST)

I never was crazy about it but it does do a good job of summing up a pretty major aspect of the character. I'm gonna go through all his comic appearances and have a look for a better one (can't think of one from the movie) User:Eire 00.00 Jan 08 2009 (UTC)

Change the top quote all you want, but "kali ma" is so not going away for another damn "Give me your face" joke. --ItsWalky 19:05, 7 January 2010 (EST)

No argument from me on that regard. --Jeysie 19:14, 7 January 2010 (EST)

Separate

I recommend that this page be split into two different pages, as the backgrounds differ. (I would type in a label, but the thing won't let me) Cold Rod 16:23, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

I recommend you learn what multiversal singularity means. --ItsWalky 16:38, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

Of which the movie version is not. 74.78.77.122 12:41, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

I would like to laugh at this, because do you see that big pile of text on multiversal singularity? That was taken from a Hasbro response ABOUT SPECIFICALLY MOVIE THE FALLEN. The original question was "If The Fallen is a multiversal singularity, how can we reconcile these various different movie-originated versions of him, like in the novelization and childrens storybooks?" And then we got that answer. So to say that the answer does not pertain to movie The Fallen betrays a monumental ignorance of the subject at hand. --ItsWalky 13:11, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

Prove it. According to Hasbro multiversal singularities can have different backgrounds in different universes and still be the SAME character. Confusing, but true. Khajidha 12:43, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

So they look exactly the same then? they have the same background? 74.78.77.122 12:56, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Somebody sign this guy up for a course in logic. Or at least ENGLISH. --Khajidha 12:58, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Seriously, read the multiversal singularity page. Specifically "multiversal dynamics". - Chris McFeely 13:00, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

You said can, not do. There's a difference. Can means possibly. Do means certainly. It doesn't prove their one and the same. The one bathed in fire isn't a Decepticon. In addition, Teletraan 1 (the other wiki) split theirs. 74.78.77.122 13:05, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Then go annoy them and leave us alone. --Detour 13:08, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Besides, the other wiki is pretty much abandoned by this community. They're now almost independent. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure Hasbro said they were the same character. --NCZ 13:09, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Yes, can. The Fallen has different backgrounds in different universes, but is still a singularity. Other singularities have the same background in different universes. Thus, singularities CAN have different backgrounds. Also, what Teletraan 1 does is not an argument that will go over well here. Khajidha 13:10, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

To cut a long story short, we're treating them as the same because Hasbro writer Forest Lee, who's basically responsible for all the multiversal singularity stuff, says they are, and has offered an explanation for how that works. And yes, kindly refrain from holding up anything Teletraan-1 does as a basis for how we should do things. - Chris McFeely 13:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

I thank the other wiki a billion times for separating their Fallen pages, because Google sure likes our page way better now! (and that was fairly immediate) --ItsWalky 13:07, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

Google still prefers Wikia if you add "Transformers" to your search terms for "The Fallen", at least from what I can tell. --FFN 14:18, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

Multiversal Clean Up

Some people's stubborn refusals to understand his nature aside, I think the article as written right now might contain a few too many "artifacts" from when we were still rather unsure of the Fallen's Multiversal Singularity status and how it worked. The "Origin" section for instance seems to exist entirely to present his differing origins as being a conflict while not mentioning at all that Hasbro's explanation on how singularities work explains any conflict away.

I think the page could use a slight "refresh" (the Origin section especially) to really make it clearer that all the differing apperences, actions, and even origins are all part and parcel of how a mulitversal singularity works and not mistakes or continuity conflicts.

Didn't want to try to touch/alter such a potentially controversial article without feeling people out on the idea first though. --ZacWilliam 14:43, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Anyone have any real feelings on this one way or another? If no, I may attempt a clean up as discribed above in the near future. --ZacWilliam 13:03, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm inclined that it gets a "refresh", given the "stubborn refusals to under his nature". MUL-TI-VERSE, how hard is it to understand? Oy. --Lonegamer78 14:39, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

What is this 'multiverse' of which you speak? Is that a breakfast cereal?--Jimsorenson 14:44, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

A wonderful porridge filled with all the vitamins and minerals (some necessary, some superfluous, and some bad for the waistline) for growing protoforms, from the same company that produces Garbage O's! :B --Lonegamer78 14:49, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

Megatronous Prime

Where the hell did the person who put The Fallen's real name as Megatronous Prime? Which comic or whatever included his real name did that person learn that?

I believe it was mentioned in the Exodus novel. --Jeysie 16:32, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

I wonder if that's a reference to the Covenant of Primus... "I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. I am that which is, which was, and is yet to come...and you will know my name is Megatron when I lay my vengeance upon you!" Sounds like it could be about the Fallen to me. If that's the case, other Megatrons may have named themselves after him to show how hardcore they are. -- Semysane 16:58, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

Appearance

Dark, Decepticon symbol face, did he look like Soundblaster? Considering that Soundblaster might or might not be one of the 13, feels like an odd coincidence. I guess we'll have to wait to find out if that actually means anything. Item42 11:43, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

No. He looked like this squat, ornately-carved boxy monstrosity whose whole body vaguely looked like a 'Con symbol, the face much moreso, with a big right-arm cannon. Hasbro said in a previous Q&A answer that we should not assume Logos Prime is one of the 13. I would not be surprised if that character never matters again. --Thylacine 2000 18:09, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Considering Logos Prime can alter his appearance at will, and that Soundblaster is only one of those forms, Logos Prime can basically be any of the other 13 that he wants. Hell, maybe he's the Fallen. </fanon> --ItsWalky 20:36, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

I put up this section hoping for it to turn out that way. I think I should maybe discuss this on a messageboard. Item42 20:52, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Was it this? --King Starscream 15:17, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Megatronus vs Megatronus Prime

When Hasbro did their Thirteen concept art presentation at BotCon, pre-The Fallen was just "Megatronus" rather than "Megatronus Prime". I assume this was intentional, as the only Thirteener to otherwise have "Prime" as part of his name in the line-up was Vector Prime. I don't know how this factoid should be incorporated, though. Just in Notes? --Monzo 11:07, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

Life support chair

Where did this info come from? It wasn't clarified in the movie.--96.54.128.212 16:49, 23 December 2010 (EST)

A little request

Can we have some notes to compare and contrast Fallen's tie-in IDW comics, game, and promo-render forms with the one presented in the final movie? Or at least, can someone explain to me here on this talk page? I know they're different...but I just can't put my finger on how (probably because of the drought of good full body screencaps of him in ROTF) and it's kind of bugged me for a while now. - Tyrannolodon 11:09, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Disciples vs. Apostles

"If the first Transformers were Cybertron's disciples, then The Fallen is its Judas." I changed this to "apostles" a short time ago, and my edit was undone with this message as accompaniment: "The reference is to Jesus' twelve disciples. Not all of them became apostles, and not all apostles had been disciples." I believe there is a confusion here between "apostle" ("one who is sent forth") and "disciple" (student). The apostles were Jesus' twelve chosen: Peter, Andrew, James the Greater, John, Phillip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the Lesser, Thaddeus, Simon, and Judas (Judas was later replaced by Matthias, and the title was also granted to Paul and Barnabas). The disciples were simply the followers of Jesus: the first Christians. Since this page refers to the Twelve, the reference should say "apostle." And if anyone wants a source for all this (other than my Catholic upbringing), I'll list the Bible, CatholicAnswers, and my religion teacher (a Dominican sister who DEFINITELY knows what she is talking about). Sorry for the religion lesson, but I'm 99.9% sure that "apostle" is the right word here.

-¡Usa El Queso! - 2:30 PM, 8 June 2011 A.D.

You must not have listened carefully. Judas Iscariot was a disciple of Jesus, but he was never an apostle. Because he was not sent forth to teach after Jesus death and resurrection. At least that's the way it was explained in the Baptist Churches I grew up in.--Khajidha 14:36, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

The only part of Judas sent forth was his intestines. --ItsWalky 14:44, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Does that really apply anymore anyway? There is now the Liege Maximo so there would be two Judases. - Starfield 14:51, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm still wondering if there is any actual evidence (the two being specifically mentioned as being somewhere at the same time for instance) that The Fallen isn't the Liege Maximo. --Khajidha 14:52, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Uh, the relevant panels at the last two BotCons? —Interrobang 15:52, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

What exactly was said at the panels, what I've heard didn't sound definitive. --Khajidha 15:58, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

What was said is "This is The Liege Maximo. He's one of the 13. Here is Megatronus Prime, another member of the 13. Later, Megatronus Prime becomes this guy, The Fallen." Each of those three entities had their own art. Liege Maximo looked drastically different from Megatronus/Fallen. And... I'm pretty sure The Fallen isn't going to be two different members of the 13. --ItsWalky 18:27, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Okay, that is clear. Given that it was stated that they are separate, my question is invalidated. --Khajidha 21:19, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

I beg to differ, Khajidha: he was sent forth before Jesus' death. Luke 9:1-6 gives one account of this. Judas was one of the Twelve, AKA the apostles. Also, hee hee... intestines.

-¡Usa El Queso! 3:01 PM, 8 June 2011 A.D.

I'm not arguing that he wasn't sent forth before Jesus's death, I'm arguing that "the apostles" are those sent forth AFTER Jesus's death. Paul was an apostle, never a disciple. Judas was a disciple, never an apostle (by the definition I gave). Since Fallen = Judas, apostle is not a good term to use here. --Khajidha 15:04, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps the dictionary definition can settle this? Note the list of the Twelve.

-¡Usa El Queso! 15:59, 8 June 2011 (EDT) 3:59 PM, 8 June 2011 A.D.

I really think this is a Catholic vs Protestant thing. To a Protestant hearing the word Apostle applied before Jesus's death seems weird. Do a google search for "12 Disciples" and look how many Protestant sources use that formulation. --Khajidha 16:07, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Whereas to a Catholic, "12 Disciples" sounds just plain uneducated (no offense intended). So what shall be done here? (All definitions I see in dictionaries still list Judas among the apostles.) -¡Usa El Queso! 16:31, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm gonna go out on a whim here and say we should have it compare the Thirteen to the Archangels and that The Fallen is their Lucifer. At least Judas was remorseful enough to kill himself. Alientraveller 17:02, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Lucifer was not an Archangel. He was a Seraph. In fact, the Archangels are the second-lowest in the nine choirs. -¡Usa El Queso! 18:23, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

My point still stands: I had considered changing the comparison from Judas to Lucifer ages ago but opted not to out of respect for the lead ItsWalky wrote. Alientraveller 18:35, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't think "Lucifer was not an Archangel" is something that's universally agreed upon, especially since a lot of that stuff is, well, apocryphal. Googling "Lucifer Archangel" sure brings up a lot of stuff about how Lucifer is an Archangel, for example. I think you need to start stating these things with less certainty. There's a lot of Christian mythology, and it all doesn't agree with itself. --ItsWalky 18:38, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

To be perfectly honest, I can't state these things with less certainty. Being Catholic, I am obligated to believe what the Church teaches. I'm actually quite surprised and fascinated to see some of these other views that I'd never heard of before. But, in Catholic teaching (which we just so happen to regard as objective reality, not just our opinion), Judas was an apostle and Lucifer was the highest of the angels and thus a Seraph. I do hope I don't sound rude or inconsiderate or <insert negative adjective here>, because I don't mean to be. I'm simply pointing out what I thought was an error (that being said, I preferred the Judas comparison to the Lucifer one; Unicron would make a better Satan parallel). -¡Usa El Queso! 20:11, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Sorry if this has already been resolved, but wikipedia describes the definition of "apostle" to include Judas, stating that he wasn't sent afterward, and that the title was extended past the Twelve. They were sent out in Mark 6:7-13, and Matthew 10:1-4 explicitly calls Judas one of the apostles. Like, it says "the names of the twelve apostles are" and then says "Judas". Luke 6:12-16 says this as well, and indicates that they worked alongside other disciples who were not apostles.

As far as archangels/seraphs -- Lucifer is not given an explicit rank beyond being the "highest of angels". There are two main treatments of the angelic hierarchy -- one with simply "angels" and "archangels", and one with all nine ranks organized in three spheres, essentially splitting the other's "archangel" into eight separate rungs, the lowest of which retains the name "archangel". Both rankings place Lucifer, Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael at the top, regardless of what they actually name that rank. It's basically a difference in terms/detail, rather than intent.KrytenKoro (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2014 (EDT)

To be fair, I guess saying "the thirteen are his disciples" isn't really "wrong", as the apostles were disciples.KrytenKoro (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2014 (EDT)

The Fallen's plan in movie continuity

Now forgive me if this was explained in any of the more recent IDW stuff (I don't own any comics past the ROTF adaptation), but has the Fallen's initial plan with Megatron ever been explained beyond: 1. Find star harvester, 2. Find Matrix, 3. ???, 4. Control power of the AllSpark? By the timeframe of ROTF, the plan is evidently to use energon from the harvester to revitalise the AllSpark-less Cybertron, but this clearly wasn't their original intention. Thanks, Jalaguy 17:48, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

Split?

I know that the Fallen is a multiuniversal singularity, but I honestly think the Movie incarnation of The Fallen should get a seperate page. I think the character's article is getting way too long and I think we should split that section. Like Optimus Prime (G1) gets a page for his appearances in the cartoon and Marvel Comics continuities, I believe that should happen here. We should split the section into an article titled [[The Fallen (Movie)]] or [[The Fallen (ROTF)]] or [[The Fallen/Live-action film continuity family]].72.70.64.11 11:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

I know this has been discussed before. I, like you, believe it is possible for all Fallen's to actually be 1 Fallen, but I believe the film incarnation should get a seperate page anyway because this article is getting way too long.72.70.64.11 11:26, 8 November 2011 (EST)

49 kb is not that particularly long. —Interrobang 13:18, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Exodus-Exiles

Should the two sections be merged to better represent the in-continuity chronological order?192.249.47.196 13:46, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Capitalization concerning the Aligned continuity.

I don't have "Exodus" so readily available at the moment, but in "Exiles" the capitalization is "the Fallen", more used as an adjective than a name (likely as the "Fallen Prime"). I'm willing to do this, but I move for all mentions of "the Fallen" concerning the Aligned universe be written with the lower case "t", just as "Mini-Con" is "Minicon", or the whole "Brawl/Devastator" movie thing. Not all will be "the Fallen" (like in the movies that DOES have the capitalization) just information with the Aligned continuity family. --Karhukjnsi 22:15, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Title

Should this not be at Megatronus? It's his true name and the name more often used nowadays in Aligned stuff. Saix (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2015 (EST)

While I like the idea of putting the page at his original personal name rather than his moniker, I think more people know of the character by the moniker than by the name. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2015 (EST)

The only time people regularly call him anything other than the Fallen is in Aligned stuff, so I'd say no. Grum (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2015 (EST)

Well, Aligned and IDW are the only stuff featuring him at this point (and are also two of the three-still running major continuities in the first place). Dreamwave material is now obscura and ROTF is a flash in the pan movie that nobody cares about anymore. The trend is towards using "Megatronus" over "the Fallen" now and that seems likely to continue in the future. Saix (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2015 (EST)

Ehhhhn. The movie kind of has this article by the throat. It's why we decided to break our usual rule for the article-header picture, and I think it'd be odd to go with Megatronus. Right now, anyway.- Chris McFeely (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2015 (EST)

I still feel ROTF is old news now. It's been two movies since then, and all the general public remembers at best is "that random evil guy who got his face ripped off in that confusing movie". Is it really that big of an impact whether this article is at Megatronus or not for those people? Saix (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2015 (EST)

When you say IDW is featuring Megatronus/The Fallen in their stuff, are you referring to their RID tie-in comic, or has he made an appearance in IDWG1 that I haven't heard about? -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2015 (EST)

He's been mentioned in IDW, and the Thirteen in general are becoming prominent parts of its mythology. Saix (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2015 (EST)

There's also the notion that one of the whole points behind this guy is that, because he did something so terrible in the past, he's not supposed to have a real name anymore. So even if we know that he real name formerly was "Megatronus", he in his present life isn't supposed to be known by that name (or any name) anymore, much like how a few Optimus Primes were formerly "Orion Pax" in their earlier lives but not in their present lives. --Sabrblade (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2015 (EST)

But that's not really the case in Aligned... Saix (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2015 (EST)

It's the case in most other works of Aligned fiction except RID. Grum (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2015 (EST)

Exodus, Exiles, and the Covenant all made it clear that "Megatronus" was his name back before he fell, not after. The Prime cartoon even called in "The Fallen" in a present sense. Only the RID cartoon treats him with "Megatronus" as his present day name, and that's just one piece of fiction out of several. --Sabrblade (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2015 (EST)

That may be true, but it's the only fiction featuring him right now. It's not like there's some other series calling him the Fallen at the same time. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2015 (EST)

Unless he somehow comes back from the dead to return in season 2, RID isn't currently featuring Megatronus anymore after his only appearing in 3 out of 26 episodes, what with RID season 1 being long since done and over with by this point. --Sabrblade (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2015 (EST)

Ah. That's what I get for not actually watching the show. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2015 (EST)

I feel like we should revisit this? Saix (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2018 (EST)

Seconded. With two of the three Prime Wars Trilogy cartoons using Megatronus as the primary name (Megatron only references The Fallen as a nickname/title of sorts, i.e. "the Fallen, the Flame, the one who stood apart from the original Thirteen, the first Decepticon"), that's another piece of non-Aligned media making the shift. It's also been almost a decade since RotF, so I think it doesn't hold as much weight as it used to. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2018 (EST)

Agreed. 'The Fallen' title is rarely used anymore, with the biggest one being ROTF, but even then the movie came out almost 9 years ago. Since all current media refer to him as Megatronus, the page should really be called that. And here on this wiki, we usually do real names, not nicknames. Additionally 'Fallen' is a very common name amongst all media (and a word too). -west james/notirishman (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2018 (EST)

There is no amount of other media that counterbalances 1) the first name used for him in fiction or 2) BLOCKBUSTER LIVE ACTION MOVIE. I don't care if it was friggin' 60 years ago. --ItsWalky (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2018 (EST)

Plus it's like... in the title of that blockbuster live action movie. "Oh no, no one is going to remember the name of the bad guy from the movie with the name of the bad guy in the title" is just a weird concern. Diecast (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2018 (EST)

Right. Just. Fucking. Stop. --M Sipher (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2018 (EST)

Change the mainpic?

Right, so here's the thing; RoTF's been out for a while, we've had two sequels and another forthcoming...and none of the movies since have ever even mentioned The Fallen. He's sort of become discarded within the movie continuity; I mean, you can't erase RoTF from existance, but it seems like Movie Fallen is being silently pushed aside. To this point, DW Fallen is still the most notable instance of the character, since he's both the first occurance of the concept and the (to this point) most unanimously lauded version; Aligned Fallen is screwed by Aligned itself being a clusterfuck, Movie Fallen was barely in his own movie and was not recieved well by anybody...Should we then maybe consider making Dreamwave Fallen the mainpic again?

Mostly because A) The DW-verse Fallen is the first body of the character; so, by the whole "first body/most notable body is mainpic" rule, DW!Fallen should be mainpic, not Movie!Fallen. And B) Movie Fallen has fallen into obscurity, at least as far as the character goes. We usually go with the most well-known bodies of these characters, and I know that DW (as...questionable as they were at times) still had a huge influence on TF comics, about as much as the movies did, IIRC.

So I'd say that we should at least hold a psuedo-council to see if we stick with the mainpic we have now or if we'll switch it out for a different mainpic. Anybody have any thoughts? MaximalBroadjaw (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2016 (EST)

Most notable? How many people have seen the RotF movie versus know about the comics from a failed publisher? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2016 (EST)

DW also single-handedly revived interest in TF comics from all sorts of comic fans, so obviously they're pretty well-known, even if they did go down in flames. RoTF, while still seen by many people, was also probably rather incredibly hampered by the massive negative reception it recieved, which means it probably didn't reach as much people as, say, it's sequel did. In fact, both DoTM and AoE are far above RoTF in revenue, so obviously a lot more people saw the former two and not the latter.

Plus, we also need to consider that RoTF was, financially, not the most sucessful of the films; in fact, except for the original, it's the worst preforming of them. So really, I'd say DW's had a much more lasting impact than RoTF had, at least in any positive ways. MaximalBroadjaw (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2016 (EST)

This accomplishes nothing. The mainpic now is perfectly fine. Besides, no one even remembers Dreamwave anymore, except to make Pat Lee jokes. I could see maybe changing the picture to a collage of Megatronus/The Fallen in various continuities similar the one over at Sideways (disambiguation), but changing to the way he looked in ten year old comics from a dead publisher is aggressively stupid. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2016 (EST)

Revenge of the Fallen total box office take: $836,300,000. Average ticket price in 2011: $8. Estimated number of people who saw it in the theater worldwide: 104,000,000. Let's be insanely conservative and assume that most people saw it twice. Still, 52,000,000 people. Let's further assume that the home video distribution reached a whopping ZERO people who didn't see the film theatrically.

Now let's look at DW. Biggest print run per issue: approximately 100,000. Let's be insanely generous and double that number, to 200,000 unique people reading a DW issue. Then let's double it again because of trade paperbacks, for 400,000. Let's double it a third time because maybe people are lending / selling their old issues. 800,000. Even with all these generous assumptions, Revenge of the Fallen had about 65 times the audience that DW did for its entire existence. --Giggidy (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2016 (EST)

I'm reviving this discussion since over 8 years have passed and a lot more media has come out since. While RotF may have been the most prevalent piece of media to feature The Fallen, I feel it hasn't had significant influence on the character. I feel this is most evident with his upcoming toy in Age of the Primes being based off his Dreamwave body. I don't know a perfect solution to this as it may be hard to argue which iteration should be the one to headline the page, but as RotF's relevance dwindlts I think we need to reevaluate this. Ezim93 (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2024 (EST)

Move to Megatronus?

It feels like for the last several iterations, "Megatronus" has gotten more and more use than "The Fallen." Between that, the recent movie giving us a rare non-Fallen version of Megatronus, and now the new "Megatronus the Fallen" toy, would it make sense to move the page to "Megatronus" with "The Fallen" as a redirect, rather than the other way around? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2024 (EDT)

I could go either way, but I believe time has indeed proven the previous obstinacy complaints from 2018 to have been false on its face, with Transformers One indeed having validated Robots in Disguise and Prime Wars Trilogy as "Megatronus" being Hasbro's preferred name. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2024 (EST)

I did have a discussion in Discord about this, and, yeah, I still support this move. "But the 15-year-old movie" is dull at this point. (A good compromise would be to split this page like we do with everything else, then the movie guy can keep the name.) Saix (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2024 (EST)

Split Pages

Now I'm new to this wiki so excuse me if I'm talking out of turn here but didn't the Shroud remove Multiversal singularities which in that case, shouldn't Megatronus be split into duplicate pages from the year the Shroud happened onward? Just asking -- Jasenomous_TF (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2024 (MDT)

We don't split out singularities affected by the Shroud because all of their pre-Shroud appearances as singularities still exist as fiction. The Shroud didn't automatically invalidate those appearances because those pre-Shroud appearances are still canon. --Sabrblade (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2024 (EST)