Talk:Nemesis Prime (G1)

Alternators

So, does the japanese version of it contain Die Cast or not?

Well, in a few months when you can buy one, let us know! --ItsWalky 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nit pick

Nit-picky: I don't think he becomes Nemesis Prime/Black Convoy until the spark is put in him. Therefore, "Now, as Nemesis Prime, he returned to Arkeville's lair," wouldn't be true. Actually, the story explicitly stated he is under the control of AI programming, and was only named after Arkeville connected him to the evil life force. But, like I said, that's a nit pick.

What I really don't like is calling that other guy Vector Prime. For me, it's too great a leap. Just my thoughts. --Crockalley 21:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

War Within origin?

If this G1 Nemesis Prime is man -made, what about "The War Within" Nemesis Prime from the Titanium Series?--Autobotx1010 21:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Having never seen the packaging and bio, I couldn't speculate. However it's worth noting that Arkeville never appeared in Dreamwave continuity, and thus Dreamwave continuity is not Alternators continuity. In other words, a "War Within" Nemesis Prime would be solidly in the Dreamwave-verse, and thus have no bearing on Alternators.--Rosicrucian 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sunstorm and Ricochet are clones in Dreamwave continuity, and not in others. Thus it's difficult to say what kind of status a Dreamwave Nemesis Prime would have based on his status in other continuities.

If I had to guess, I'd ssay they'd place him as part of Age of Wrath with all the other clones runnign around, so clone is likely, bu by no means assured. -Derik 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternity

Translations of the "super-black" version of Alternity Convoy heavily imply that he's Binaltech Nemesis Prime, as well as Nemesis Prime (Universe 2003). Presumably this works out rather well, because the timeline that birthed the Alternity into the multiverse was the Binaltech one, which is also the one where Universe Nemesis Prime's spark got infused into Binaltech Nemesis Prime's body.--Rosicrucian^Talk 03:16, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

But, if he was created from a fragment of Uni Nemesis' cloned spark, that just makes him a clone whose spark was born from Uni Nemesis, rather than being the same individual. I mean, Uni Nemesis is a clone of a Prime from a destroyed universe...it's all rather head turning really User:Eire 21.29 July 21 (UTC)

Uh... I know that we've seen instances of sparks being split in the past, but I'm blanking on where. (Dinobot II doesn't really count, he had external datatraxs.) -Derik 16:42, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

Where are we getting that this is a fragment, not the whole spark?--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:48, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

Where are we getting anything that says Nemesis was born from having an entire spark transferred by Unicron? User:Eire 21.49 July 21 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what I just asked? I mean, you seem to be assuming he's a clone of a clone, when that doesn't seem supported by the source material. The second spark within the Binaltech body could well have been Nemesis Prime's in full.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:01, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

The "fragment" bit is from the unsourced Forest Lee statement down in the trivia section of this page, which I believe he said at a BotCon? That's the only bit that specifically ties Binaltech (well, Alternators) Nemesis Prime to Universe Nemmy; the actual Binaltech story didn't draw so specfic a connection, but did imply Unicron's hand in the proceedings. As Eire says, he (BT Nemmy) doesn't seem to be precisely the same entity as Universe/Alternity NP. Nothing is actually leaping out at me from the translated story that explicitly hints he's Binaltech Nemesis Prime, anyway. - Chris McFeely 17:46, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

Maaaaan, having two franchises called "Universe" can be damn confusing. Okay, so I've read a translation of Alternity Super-Black Convoy's bio, and the only reference I'm getting out of that is to 2003-Universe NP. I am seriously not at all seeing any implication, heavy or otherwise, that he's Binaltech Black Convoy or Alternators NP. Could someone please explain what I'm missing? - Jackpot 16:35, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Ichikawa wrote Binaltech, and the second spark that was housed in Binaltech Nemesis Prime's body was that of the 2003 Universe Nemesis Prime. Alternity is a continuation of Binaltech in many ways, and seems to be written by Ichikawa as well. Our current translation Heavily parallels the events of Binaltech, and the eventual destruction of Binaltech Nemesis Prime.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:43, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

What is the evidence that Binaltech Black Convoy (I'm using the Japanese name to try to keep all these incarnations straight) got 2003-Universe NP's spark? Reading a translation of the story where that happens, the source of BC's new life is vague in the extreme. I don't know where to find translations of his continued story, but this article's summary doesn't suggest anything more about his origin. I'm also not seeing how Alternity SBC's bio "heavily parallels" Binaltech BC's story. All it says is that he fought a fierce battle with the Cybertrons (I'm assuming that means "Autobots"?) and was defeated, which is pretty much what happened to 2003-Universe NP too. Of course, I'm assuming that Binaltech didn't have a 900,000-year flash-forward... - Jackpot 16:56, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

To be more specific, Alternity Nemesis Prime's bio implies that he was specifically reformed in the same timeline that the Alternity originated from, the "BT World." This makes the Alternity bio kind of a missing link here, because we now have a clear timeline of Megazarak destroying the Optimus Prime of his world, Unicron rebuilding him and giving him the Dead Matrix, him being destroyed in the Unicron, his spark being harnessed by Arkeville, and then destroyed again in the Binaltech timeline and apparently rehabilitated in the span of time it took that universe to birth the Alternity. The 900,000 years figure is the same one mentioned in the other Alternity fiction.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:14, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

How does it imply that SBC came from the BT World? It starts out in an explicitly alternate universe (one that sounds not-coincidentally like the one 2003-Universe NP came from), SBC loses a battle in a nonspecific place and time, and then he is "inducted into the Convoy collective 900,000 years in the future, where the Alternity is located." Since the Alternity transcends universal streams, a character could come in contact with it from presumably anywhere in the multiverse. In fact, if the "Convoy collective" is referring to the Convoy Corps, then you're saying that every one of those Convoys must have come from the BT World, which I thought was either in doubt or expressedly wrong. - Jackpot 18:28, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

I think this might need a re-translation. Just to make sure... --Lonegamer78 19:05, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Alt/BT versus Classics

So we can agree that Alternators/Binaltech NP has some portion of Universe NP's spark, but they each have their own article on this wiki. Now, why would Classics NP be here on this article when his bio shares no connection at all to Alt/BT NP? It just seems funny that the two who share a spark are considered different characters, but Dr. Arkeville's clone and Straxus' twisted soldier are considered the same character. --Crockalley 09:10, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

There had been a discussion about this some while back, but I think it got lost in the crash. The logic was, the Alternators/Binaltech character and the Universe Classic Series character are both evil black-and-teal Prime clones in the G1 continuity family, so they should share an article. Just as, for instance, IDW Galvatron is in the same article with (most of) the other G1 Galvies that came before him, despite his unique origin. The connection you're suggesting between Binaltech Black Convoy and 2003-Universe NP is new to me. Does it have to do with the Alternity discussion up above? - Jackpot 16:42, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Yes, the first post of the above discussion mentions it. Also, the trivia sections of Nemesis Prime (Universe 2003) and Nemesis Prime (G1) mention it. It's the whole "Arkeville tapped into an extra-spatial source, which Forrest Lee says is Unicron, who gave Arkeville a piece of Universe NP's spark" thing. Thus, a connection between Alt/BT NP and 2003-Universe NP. I wouldn't really consider then the same character, but in my mind, they share a stronger connection to each other than Alt/BT NP and Universe Classic Series NP. To counter your point about Galvatron, I present Galvatron II. -Crockalley 17:53, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Ah, I forgot about Forest's alleged comment. I'm.... not inclined to give much weight at all to unconfirmed hearsay about off-the-cuff author-commentary. Besides, the story of Alternators NP is somewhat different from Binaltech BC, so I'm not sure how to apply that even if it WAS canon. If that's the best evidence we have of any connection between 2003-Universe NP and Alternators NP - and as far as I can tell, it is - then I don't think there's sufficient reason to change the articles around.

As for Galvy II, I don't see how the reason that that article exists pertains at all to this situation, nor how it invalidates the IDW-Galvy analogy.

- Jackpot 21:05, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

In regards to the Nemesis Prime issue, I guess I concede. It just doesn't feel very good to me having two characters who have very different backgrounds on the same page, but I guess there's a bunch of pages like that here. As for Galvatron, I was trying to say that Galvatron II has pretty much the same origin as Galvatron I, both are from a G1 universe, they're clearly based on the same character template, yet separate pages. I mean, if we're going to keep someone as different as IDW Galvatron on the Galvatron page, why does Galvatron II (who is so similar to Galvatron I by compariaon to IDW Galvatron), get his own page? Wait, I finally understand your first Galvatron analogy: two completely different characters who share the same page, just like Nemesis Prime (G1). Can you possibly understand my confusion? --Crockalley 22:59, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

I totally understand where you're coming from; the current setup does seem intuitively... off. But it actually does make sense, and I'm glad that I've been able to explain that clearly. For what it's worth, if any official material ever actually connects Binaltech BC with 2003-Universe NP, then I'll be much more amenable to rearranging the articles.

The logic behind Galvatron II as a separate article is actually the opposite of what's happening here: Because there are two versions of Galvy running around in the same comic series, each doing big stuff, any attempt to document both them in the same article would be confusing and unnecessarily difficult. Given that one of the Galvys even has a unique official name ("Galvatron II" shows up in The Ultimate Guide and some e-Hobby stuff), making a second article is clearly preferable.

Meanwhile, IDW Galvy is lumped into the primary Galvatron article because he's in the same continuity family and has the same name, same general appearance, and same basic role as a character, but unlike Galvy II, he's safely confined to his own series. Splitting hairs on origins is a dangerous road to go down, since every incarnation of a given character is going to be somewhat different from the rest, and with so many variations within a continuity-family as sprawling as G1, we have to allow some give so everything doesn't end up a judgement call.

At least, that's the status quo. I've actually argued for less "give" in certain cases, but it seems that the wiki trends toward inclusion.

- Jackpot 12:07, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

Move?

This article just got moved from Nemesis Prime (G1) to Nemesis Prime (Alternators) with a memo stating: None of the Nemesis Primes (Nemeses Prime?) in this article were actually in the G1 franchise, just Alternators/Binaltech, Universe, and arguably Classics.

... Alternators, Binaltech, Universe 2008 and Classics are all (G1) continuities. What you smokin'? -Derik 13:56, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

Not to mention that Classicsverse Nemesis Prime really doesn't belong here if this is to be the Alternators character.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:01, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

Disambigs are by franchise of origin. The franchises that apply here are all part of the G1 continuity family, NOT the G1 franchise. This character originated in Alternators, then another version of the same essential dude appeared in Classics (via Universe). They belong on the same page in the same way that IDW Galvatron belongs on Galvatron (G1) (as described above), disambiguated by the franchise-of-origin, which is Alternators. - Jackpot 15:05, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

Except that (G1) was the most narrow parenthetical which applied to all the toys in that umbrella article. Seeing as it contained non Alternators characters who were wholly unrelated to Alternators, that was a very bad choice for a move. So at this point, splitting out Classicsverse Nemesis Prime was a necessity.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:09, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

...oh for Christ's sake Jackpot, you just made it worse.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:10, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm assuming you mean the first undo. I don't know what went wrong with that; I've fixed to be fully back to the state before Derik started moving stuff around. And... here's the thing. The whole "most narrow parenthetical" logic is exactly what Jeysie was trying to suggest in that giant debate on parentheticals we had a while back, and not only did the mob shout her down, but her own experiments on the matter revealed that it opens up way too many cans of worms on all sorts of articles. The conclusion was that the job of a parenthetical is NOT to encapsulate the full scope of the character; it's to keep same-name articles separate based on a simple rule. The rule is franchise-of-origin, and NP never appeared under the G1 franchise, so there you go. Unless you're counting the unreleased Titatium toy as the G1 franchise... which I squint at because it was, y'know, never released, and even if it was, wouldn't it be War Within, not G1? - Jackpot 15:27, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

I'd say the ideal thing is still to split out Classicsverse NP, if we're going to use this rationale. Then we can debate over whether Alternators/Binaltech NP should merge with Universe 2003 NP. It sidesteps the major issue with you moving the article to the Alternators parenthetical.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:42, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm not... wholly against that idea, but I dislike it because I think that I've convincingly argued each of these points, and the only reason left to do things differently is that the logical result doesn't "feel" right to some people. JACKPOT HATES FEELINGS GRRARR. Also, having three separate NP articles will just make people think, "Hey, maybe we should combine the Alternators one with Nemesis Prime (Universe 2003) to make things neater," which is another blow against reason. But, just because I dislike it, doesn't mean I'm opposed to it. It's not the worst outcome, and if a three-article solution makes everybody basically happy, then I won't put up a fight. - Jackpot 16:03, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm saying this mainly because moving to the Alternators parenthetical breaks the original premise of sticking all the G1 continuity family NPs together, which was why we originally ended up at this namespace. If we split that out and stick it at (G1) or at (Universe 2008), then we're on more solid footing and the debate can proceed without distractions.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:06, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

I hear what you're saying about the debate and distractions. I was hoping we could reach conclusions soon and that render that point moot, but I guess we'll see. As to your other point, though, changing the parenthetical doesn't actually affect the scope of the article. If it did, then we'd have to use titles like Optimus Prime (UT) instead of Optimus Prime (Armada). I mean, in principle, YES, I'd love it if our parentheticals could more accurately reflect our article content, and I've long thought that the UT examples were a perfect example of how counterintuitive our system can be. But the problem is that continuity-families (which are the default basis of ALL of our articles, special exceptions aside) don't all have nice, straightforward, easily-abbreviated, well-recognized, official names. If they were all as clean as "UT", I'd be pushing for that as our parenthetical standard instead, big time. But until some new terms fall into our laps from heaven, the lesser of the evils is to live with the disconnect between continuity-family-based articles and franchise-of-origin-based parentheticals. - Jackpot 16:32, 5 August 2009 (EDT)