View Full Version : Legend of the Unown

January 23rd, 2006, 9:53 AM
Given the hoopla of the groups of the Legendaries, I thought it was time to address this. If I repeat myself, apologies.

The question is simple, do you believe the Unown are legendary?

Let's check on the mechanics first.

In the third movie, since Entei there was a construct of the Unown, and the movies always does a Legendary as the focal point of the plot, that would make the Unown hit that status. Not to mention the rarity.

In the games, Unown can't make any eggs, a disability normally reserved for pre-evolved/Legendaries (I'm not counting the Nidos).

This with their antiquity which fuels their mystery gives them more of an edge, more so than say the Fossil Pokemon but that can be the counterargument as they could fall under "Ancient oddities." Unlike the other Legendaries, they are rare but plentiful in a nice reverse irony to the rarity the series normally gives.

That's the current evidence I can think of.

What say you?

January 23rd, 2006, 6:56 PM
Well, legendaries are one of a kind in each game and the Unown are plentiful plus there fairly easy to get when compared to how hard it is to get a legendary.

All in all I wouldn't say there legendaries, they are simply ancient Pokmon, to put in a clearer manner think about Spinda with here being so many variations like with the Unown and fast forward thousands of years and they no longer exist and in a cave or something a bunch are found like the Unown and thought to be all powerful or whatever. That is pretty much what the Unown are as they back in the day may have been fairly common but do to them being ancient now they are considered at a higher regard therefore sparking such a thread as this.

They could also be compared to the Pokmon Omanyte and Kabuto as they are ancient and not common therefore held at a higher regard though when they lived back in the day they were probably as common as a Magikarp are today.

The Fallen
January 23rd, 2006, 7:52 PM
I agree that they can indeed be compared to the ancient pokemon (Omanyte, Kabuto, etc.). It would make a bit more sense to categorize them in that way being as they are very common.

January 23rd, 2006, 10:48 PM
I think they are legendaries, because they existed along time ago according to the 3 movie

January 24th, 2006, 1:32 AM
I think they are legendaries, because they existed along time ago according to the 3 movie
No all that means is there ancient like Kabuto and I know you wouldn't think Kabuto is a legendary.

January 24th, 2006, 3:14 AM
No, I don't think they are, i don't like them anyway.

January 24th, 2006, 6:33 AM
Duh! Of course they are ledgendary Pokmon! Their names ARE "Unown" after all ^^

That means a lot of things about them are UNKNOWN...Making them mysterious therefore making them Ledgendary!

January 24th, 2006, 10:39 AM
Indeed, the mystery angle does help fuel the Legendary image because the ancient Pokemon and the majority of Pokemon are more or less explained whereas the Legendaries...

Mew, not explained.

Celebi, not explained.

Lugia, not explained.

Rayquaza, originally not explained and then explained but still.

The Regis, not explained.

You notice the recurring theme here?

But yeah, for just a rare Pokemon, it isn't explain much with the Psychic punch too, which is another note--the majority of the Legendaries are Psychics, and the series tends to get them that extra edge because of it.

Hmm...let's keep going, heh.

Alter Ego
January 24th, 2006, 10:53 AM
Ohh...how did I miss this one? Well, in my opinion Unowns, adorable little buggers though they are, aren't really legendaries. For the no eggs argument; it's a simple matter of them being genderless. Note that Staryu, Voltorb, and Magnemite just to name a few have this same disadvantage, and yet they are not legendary by any means. Myself, I would consider Unown kind of an in-between. I mean, they aren't really normal, made-for-use pokmon since they've only got Hidden Power and a really lousy statline to boot, but at the same time, they aren't really legendaries either because a signature trait for legendaries is that they exceed regular pokmon either by statline or by movepool, usually both, and Unown has neither. Also, most of the legendaries tend to have a rare trait to them (Groudon's 'Drought', Kyogre's 'Drizzle', Rayquaza's Air Lock, Mewtwo, the legendary dogs and legendary birds with Pressure, Jirachi with Serene Grace, even Celebi's Natural Cure is quite rare as traits go (I think only Staryu, Starmie, Roselia, Swablu, and Altaria can learn that in addition to Celebi). Mew is a slight exception to this with its dull Synchronize trait, but kind of makes up for it with the humungous movepool). In my opinion Unown, unlike ordinary pokmon and legendaries, were made to be a plot device (Such as in 'Spell of the Unown' or pokmon Crystal) or a scenic effect rather than real pokmon, and as such, I don't really consider them legendaries. Unown are kind of in a class of their own.

Chairman Kaga
January 24th, 2006, 11:04 AM
Years ago, at the beginning of, say, the time GS was out, Unown would have definitely been legendary, because my single criterion for it being classified as such was that its very existence is in question, even by experts, but the fact that Ash has seen virtually all of them and that there have been so many Eusine-ish people since then who have seen them and hunt them as a hobby. That threw my ideas out long ago, and since then I haven't had a new rubric to test for legendary status as I became more and more opposed to what legendaries were doing to the franchise. Even though Unown is a gray area for me to this day, I lean heavily toward them being legendary because the definition has become so loose.

Dragonite Tamer
January 24th, 2006, 11:37 AM
I don't think Unknown is legendary, legendaries are usually uberly powerful and I don't think Unknown is, although it does have it's trademark move like some other legendaries (eg. Lugia has Aeroblast and te Regi's have superpower).

January 24th, 2006, 11:40 AM
Nidoqueen has Superpower too >_>. Unown is not legendary. It can be considered ancient, but is in no way legendary.

January 24th, 2006, 2:39 PM
I personally don't think so. It may be mysterious, but in the games, you can catch plenty of them, unlike the other legendaries, where there is only one of them and it's hard to catch.
They don't seem very powerful either, like the legendaries. They're just average to me.

I've never even thought of them anywhere near legendary, just a diffrent kind of Pokemon @[email protected];

January 24th, 2006, 4:46 PM
At best Unown are ancient Psychic type Pokmon like Kabuto is an ancient Rock/Water type.

They can't be considered a legendary as there are a few pre-requisites they don't meet, one there not rare and one of a kind plus there even plentiful to boot. Two there not powerful when you meet them as all other legendaries are. And there not hard to get as all other legendaries are, I mean if I recall there at Lv. 5 when you meet up with them in G/S/C and practically any low level Pokmon could beat them with ease where as you better have a highly trained team of Pokmon to even try to catch a legendary Pokmon most of the time.

When they came out they were just a new ancient Pokmon that were made up to be made up because if the makers of Pokmon intended for them to be legendaries there be more too them in the games then just solve a puzzle then drop down in a cave and catch a plethora of them with ease. Plus if I recall the puzzle you solve is putting together a Kabuto right indicating there ancient just like it.

Saying the Unown are legenedaries is like saying Kabuto and Omanyte are and I don't think anyone every would say such non sense.

January 25th, 2006, 4:06 AM
They are mere plot devices I say. PLOT DEVICES!

Ahh.... anyhow, I consider them to be like the Regis (which I consider to be ancient Pokemon), because both the Unowns and Regis seems to have connections with an Ancient race of people.

January 27th, 2006, 8:23 AM
They all are plot devices, Mewtwo, Lugia, Unown...shifty eyes. Regis probably would fall on that too.

I'm half tempted to make a thread on that. Heh.

The vote seems to be no but it was neck to neck a few days ago, interesting. Muses and schemes.

Alter Ego
January 27th, 2006, 8:30 AM
They all are plot devices, Mewtwo, Lugia, Unown...shifty eyes. Regis probably would fall on that too.

Ehh...not really, well, not from a gaming perspective, anyway. I mean, Mewtwo, Lugia, and the Regi trio, they all just sitt there untill you talk to them at which point they let out a cry and attack you, that's hardly a plot function (Unlike Groudon and Kyogre in R/S/E, Rayquaza in Emerald or Suicune in Crystal). Finding the legendaries (With the exception of the afforementioned ones) is just a sidequest, you don't need to do it and it has no impact on the main plot, hence they aren't really plot devices in my opinion, more like easter eggs, a pat on the back for anyone who bothers to go through all that trouble to find them.

January 27th, 2006, 8:55 AM
Actually, I kinda meant that from an anime point of view but that's a good point there certainly.

And I made the thread for that anyway, huzzah. Heh.

January 27th, 2006, 12:39 PM
Awright! Legendary arguing time! XD Seriously, no one can ever seem to come to conclusion about the criteria of being a "legendary" pokemon. Probably because there are several different ways you can look at identifying a legendary pokemon.

Now, I'm not one to be a stats master (as some should know XD), so I wouldn't know about any of that, nor would I judge anything by that either having had little experience in the area. So, I will ignore that.

I voted "yes", though my real answer is somewhere between that and "I don't know". I think the Unown are really weird, they have all this mystery surrounding them, and they make a somewhat big deal about it in the game with the Ruins of Alph and all that. I think that because they have some mysterious hand in the past, and have all of these strange, misunderstood "powers", that they qualify to be legendary. I mean, where else in the games do you come across a place like the Ruins of Alph? Sure there was that ghost in R/B/Y, but I don't think that really counts. ^^;; Legendary pokemon may usually be one pokemon and not many, but doesn't that not count for Unown anyway? There has to be more than one because they're all letters of the alphabet. XD It would defeat their whole idea if there was only one. I suppose there are more than one of every letter, but eh, I think their mysterious-ness makes up for that.

As for it being an ancient pokemon like Kabuto and Omanyte... I think they're different, again, because of the fact that those two fossil pokemon don't have any strange powers associated with them. I mean, they learn pretty normal attacks, and the only thing about them that is strange is that they went extinct. *shrug*

I don't know, I think that being a legendary is in the eye of the gamer. Each person seems to make up their own standards and feelings on the subject.

January 30th, 2006, 9:29 AM
That's a good point, Light. With the exception of Ho-oh and Unown at that point in G/S/C if you want to go later on, so be it but none of the other Legendaries had a location exclusive only to them or have personal revelence. (Moltres in Victory Road was more relevence to your character and the ending of the game, and Zapdos at the Power Plant was more...biological with the power theme almost) That rather heightens the mythos whereas most Legendaries are just kinda there on the whole and have almost random places to roost. At least with the Unown, it's an interesting side quest and have things to explore at.

The poll is almost a dead heat, wow.