But here's the thing, her plan to drain Unicron was built up as something centuries in the making (or at least long enough that the Knights knew about it), and as the staff's big purpose. Why would she have such a plan before _Cybertron was ever damaged? Why not have a plan to kill Unicron literally any other way. It's ridiculously specific and convenient to her current needs.
Then why name him in this film if he's going to have such a non-presence? No dialogue, no explanation, no appearance, no anything. This brings me back to my earlier question: who is this supposed to please? Not the casual moviegoers, because they're not going to know who Unicron is, and the movie sure as hell doesn't help them with that. And not the fans either, because the movie doesn't do anything with him. It's not fan-service if you're not really servicing the fans. The film could've kept him unnamed and saved the reveal for the (more-than-likely-delayed/cancelled) sixth film and nothing would've been lost. Name-dropping Unicron does nothing for anyone. That's my problem.
What other Transformers media? Prime's the only other continuity that had Unicron be Earth, and even then, they never used him as an excuse for why all the Iacon Relics and such _happened_ to all land on Earth, as they had no bearing on him.
Same goes for things like the Allspark, or the Primes and their Star Harvester. They have no bearing on Unicron, so having all that revolve around him makes no sense, and the fact that the original 'Bots and 'Con teams only came to Earth for the Allspark, and the Ark only came for Megatorn, neither by chance nor ambiguous reasons, confounds things even further.
And there, that right there, is your problem.
Head-canon is fun little theories. It's not to be taken seriously, and fine for little bits in a film that don't really matter, like, say, having a head-canon that Bumblebee's voice box only started working again because Optimus punched it so much.
If you have to use head-canon, stuff you make up, just to make sense of a film's lore and backstory, that is a problem. A serious problem. My argument up 'til now has been that these movies' lore, especially TLK, is an absolute trainwreck. If you have to make up things that the films don't really support (or outright contradict) just to make sense of it all, you're just proving my point. A film's story has to stand on its own. These fail at that tremendously.
Having a director that doesn't know what the heck he's doing, and a massive shift in the writers involved, probably didn't help things going from 4 to 5, which is the likely explanation for all the discrepancies between those two films alone, from the Quintessons and Quintessa, to the two groups of Knights treated as one.
I'd probably like him a lot more if his desire for purpose were actually the focus and not constantly thrown aside for cheap jokes and exposition-dumping.
Funny. I actually chuckled at his telling the Prime Minister to shut up and calm down. Felt more dignified IMO.
He and Cogman were incredibly hit-and-miss for me, though that's more than what I can say for the rest of the cast.
But his whole stereotypical Brit thing rubbed me the wrong way. The plaid ivy cap, the coat and tie, the cane, the obnoxiously Shakespearean demeanor, the pipe, did he even smoke that thing?
Felt like a bunch of twats sat down and thought of the most British-y British things a Brit could have, and had that be the character's whole shtick.
Oh yeah, on that we can agree.
But this movie was easily too long as well, or it could've at least had screentime rearranged.
Like say, not dedicating several minutes to a drone chase with boring humans, and having the big 'Bot-and-'Con brawl last more than a few seconds. Or cutting out Izabella, Squeeks, Simmons, Lennox, and the basically all the Chicago shenanigans.
To think that the original cut was over three hours long. It's maddening. I don't know what Bay was thinking.