Because it means a member of the military that he himself commands is... Stupid .

There, I said it.

We're talking about a 7ft tall maniac who can, merely by thinking about it, choke you from across the room without touching you.

And that certainly wasn't Vader's first demonstration of such.

Even if they thought he was a con, merely 20 years prior the entire galaxy knew about the Force and considered it a given.

It would be like having one of your employees in charge of running the factory telling you

"I don't believe in electricity".

First, you're astonished at the utter contempt for popularly known truths.

Second you're shocked that anyone could willfully deny a phenomenon for which there was evidence all around him.

Third, you begin to doubt your own judgement of character (which Vader probably and rightfully considers paramount to his continued rule).

Finally, it is something that would anger him that someone would both call him a liar and presume his own weakness.

Vader's comment was sardonic; the young officer taunted Vader and Vader responded in kind.

He was not disturbed, except to the extent that he was annoyed by an obviously ignorant and arrogant officer who dared challenge him.

Excerpt from the exchange: Officer:

Any attack made by the rebels against this station would be a useless gesture no matter what technical data they've obtained.

This station is now the ultimate power in the universe.

I suggest we use it.

Vader:

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.

The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

Officer: Don't try to try frighten us with your sorceror's ways, Lord Vader.

Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes.

Or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels hidden fortre-- (face contorts, gasping)

Vader: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Vader can only be in one place at a time

so it's possible for someone to come up through the Imperial ranks without seeing Vader's mojo in action.

Right up until the moment the Force tendrils seized his neck the officer assumed Vader was some sort of witch doctor.

This station is now the ultimate power in the universe.

There it is; the cause of Vader's reaction.

All through his training as a Jedi, his fall to the dark side, and subsequent career, one thing would have held true - the Force as a power.

A claim of something else as the "ultimate power in the universe" doesn't just go against his training; it's something he knows to be untrue.

So when someone shows a lack of faith in the power of the Force - well, he's got to be put right, hasn't he?

As any Sith, Vader took his Dark Side seriously.

It was a way of life, more so than a religion or ideology.

Therefore, having the most important thing in his life being dismissed as old timey superstition is... disturbing.

Remember what drove Vader/Anakin all this way.

The vision was using the Force to unite the Galaxy and bring order to it.

The officer relying on some pimped out technology as a solution was basically undermining that approach.

I think you are right that Darth Vader didn't really care what Admiral Motti thought of the Force - it was only important that Motti had an intense fear of Vader and the Emperor.

The Sith ruled the galaxy by fear and their Imperial officers were held in check by it.

Vader does not care what Imperial Officers believe, only that they are fearful of him and the Emperor to the point of complete submission.

He demonstrates this consistently throughout the trilogy.

It is very similar to the phrase

"The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am."

Whether Vader or the Emperor is the more forgiving person is really not the point.

The point is to remind the officer of his intense fear (of both Vader and the Emperor) in order to keep him motivated in a subservient manner.

Unless I'm mistaken Vader is finding the lack of faith his subordinate has in Vader's abilities to complete the tasks the subordinate outlined.

A complete phrase would sound more like, "I find your lack of faith in my abilities, disturbing."

Something like that.

This is the exchange as printed in the script (my emphasis added): MOTTI:

Any attack made by the Rebels against this station would be a useless gesture , no matter what technical data they've obtained.

This station is now the ultimate power in the universe.

I suggest we use it!

VADER:

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.

The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

MOTTI:

Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Vader.

Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebel's hidden fort...

Suddenly Motti chokes and starts to turn blue under Vader's spell.

VADER: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Vader was disturbed by two things: Motti's lack of faith in the Force to help Vader fight the Rebels.

Motti's undue faith in the Death Star over the Force.

Motti thought the Death Star cannot be destroyed (obviously Motti would shortly be proven wrong) and that it was the "ultimate power in the universe" instead of the Force (which is blasphemous to Vader, and also incorrect).

As Vader indicated, the Force is still more powerful than the Death Star -- the Force cannot be destroyed and, while the Death Star can destroy a planet, the Empire owed its existence to the (dark side of the) Force.

Vader was disturbed by Motti's overconfidence in the Death Star at the expense of faith in the Force.

Question: I find your lack of faith disturbing   -  Darth Vader   What a great Quote! This inspired his own  meme .   But does it make any sense?  Why would the fact that an officer didn't believe in the force disturb Vader in any way? He is not a preacher or a missionary trying to propagate the  Good News of the Dark Side .

Why would Darth Vader find someone's lack of faith (in the power of the Dark Side) disturbing?

Vader was not disturbed, except to the extent that he was annoyed by an obviously ignorant and arrogant officer who dared challenge him.  As would any Sith, Vader took his Dark Side seriously.

The officer challenges him which in turn irritates him. He is irritated by the officer; not disturbed.


It seems that if the TARDIS is in normal flight, it has fixed up/down orientation.

However, if it is being acted on by some outside force (Angels, crash, impact with the Titanic), then the contents are affected by the movements of the TARDIS due to that force.

While I can't recall the TARDIS ever being turned completely upside down, or even on its side, it does not stay fixed vertically while flying, yet there is never any indication, on the inside, of the g-forces caused by its movements, or of any impingement by the external gravitational field.

This video shows what happens when 4 Weeping Angels tilt the Tardis back and forth.

The people inside are thrown about.

Every room in the TARDIS apparently has it's own gravitational controls.

The clearest example of this is in

The Doctor's Wife when House has taken over the TARDIS (presumably looking for Vicodin?)

and Amy/Rory are running through the halls.

At one point House turns off the anti-grav on a room that is apparently tilted sideways, and Amy/Rory almost fall down a very long shaft.

However, they are able to climb into an adjacent room where gravity is normal.

It's less clear how River does her high-dive trick in Day of the Moon .

When the TARDIS matrialized on the side of the building, The Doctor and Delaware are still in the control room, which appears upright.

Amy and Rory have to go open all the doors to the pool, which I interpreted as meaning "open all the doors between the front door and the pool", but of course we never see River actually move through the TARDIS, so it's not clear what happens to her direction of movement when she goes through the doors.

My suspicion -- not really supported by canon but the most logical -- is something of a Portal effect.

Her vertical momentum was converted 100% into horizontal momentum the minute she passed through the door, and the TARDIS's fine gravity controls kept her aloft long enough to splash down in the pool.

In season 19 "Castrovalva" episode 2/4, the tardis lands tilted and the control room was tilted, the companions and doctor all walked inclined to get out of Tardis.

BUT in 2005 series S07E10 "Journey to the center of the tardis" everything was level inside, after you walk in.

In Journey to the centre of the Tardis it is made clear that the Tardis has its own gravity system.

At the start of episode 1 of The Romans (1964), the TARDIS lurches violently and the floor tilts crazily, throwing the Doctor and his companions to the floor, as the TARDIS topples off the edge of a cliff and tumbles into a ditch.

In the 1968 serial The Web of Fear , episode 1 begins with the TARDIS tilted over on its side in the time vortex, lurching and off balance, because the doors have been opened in flight: the Doctor and his companions struggle to avoid being ejected through the open doors due to the sloping floor.

In The Curse of Peladon in 1972, the TARDIS lands half way up a mountain, and begins to topple over the edge of the cliff in a storm.

The Doctor and Jo have to struggle against the tilted floor to escape , in the moments before it falls into the chasm.

In Castrovalva (1982), as mentioned, the TARDIS lands on its side in episode 2 (at a 45 degree angle), because the newly regenerated Doctor is ill, leaving Tegan to attempt the landing.

In the novel: Tegan picked herself up from the floor, which was now leaning over at a crazy angle...

Since the outside and the inside of the TARDIS are in two separate dimensions, the inside can be locked to the outside.

Meaning that if the outside rocks the inside rocks.

But it can be unlocked, so if the TARDIS was sideways the contents wouldn't necessarily be sideways.

Though most of the time it is probably locked.

The Doctor can choose which room is connected to the Real World-interface (the main doors) and orient the said-room to match the situation.

An anti-grav mechanism is likely used.

But seeing as the TARDIS is old, and sometimes malfunctioning, the anti-grav can sometimes not work.

That's how River did it...

The TARDIS has it's own gravitational field inside which would keep any of the contents (including lifeforms) fixed to the floor.

For more watch 'Journey To The Center Of The TARDIS' with matt smith and that explains the question in which you are asking better

Question: If the TARDIS is turned upside down or is laid horizontally, what happens to the contents - including people?  Does the TARDIS up / down orientation change? Or does it have an artificial gravity so that internal down is always down as experience by those on board?

What happens to the people inside when the TARDIS is tilted?

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/143/Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE

An anti-gravity mechanism is likely used. The TARDIS has it's own gravitational field inside which would keep any of the contents (including lifeforms) fixed to the floor. Also, The Doctor can choose which room is connected to the Real World-interface (the main doors) and orient the said-room to match the situation.

When TARDIS is in normal flight, the orientation is fixed and an anti-gravity mechanism is used.

When TARDIS is in normal flight, the orientation is fixed. An anti-gravity mechanism is used.


While one of C3PO's primary abilities is translation, as a protocol droid he would be capable of many additional functions.

For example, a protocol droid is seen serving drinks to Qui Gon and obi Wan in episode 1.

With that in mind, I had always assumed that the original intent behind Anakin building C3PO was to assist with chores around the house.

As a slave, I would imagine that Shmi Skywalker typically worked long hours doing hard, menial work such as cooking, cleaning, etc and likely was often very tired and not wanting to have to do all the same activities when getting home.

So C3PO would have taken care of all that for her.

Anakin was a mechanical geek.

He assembled C3PO for the same reason some car geeks restore antique cars, or computer geeks upgrade ancient PCs

- it's just how they express themselves and what their hobby is.

Anakin saw a cool droid in a junk heap, and it was a Project Worth Exploring.

He probably didn't come by all THAT many almost-functioning droids in the junk that he could afford to be picky.

Maybe part of her work is buying supplies at the markets.

So, given that they live on a world where most of the demographics aren't human, she would need to know how to communicate (haggle) with the buyers and sellers.

Anakin built C-3PO to be his friend CANON:

In the Revenge of the Sith novelization by Matthew Stover, when he offers C-3PO to Padme, Anakin says he built C-3PO to be his friend since he didn't have many friends as a child.

Without anything of his own to give except his love, all he could bring her was a friend .

" I didn't have many friends when I was a kid ," he'd told her, " So I built one. "

And C-3PO had shuffled in behind him, gleaming as though he'd been plated with solid gold.

Padme had lit up, her eyes gleaming, but she had at first tried to protest.

"I can't accept him," she said.

" I know how much he means to you. "

- Revenge of the Sith p. 113

In

The Phantom Menace , back when he barely knew Padme, Anakin claims to have built C-3PO to help his mother.

However, this could simply have been his justification he provided adults.

After creeping on getting to know, falling in love with, and marrying Padme, he finally reveals that his personal motivation for building C-3PO was actually to fashion himself a friend.

His personal reason for building him was to stave off loneliness.

Any help C-3PO would be able to provide Shmi was likely just an added bonus.

"I didn't have many friends when I was a kid, so I built one."

Question: C3P0 is a protocol droid that seems to be used mainly for translations.  Anakin said he built it to help his mother do her work.  What use would a protocal droid be to a slave?  (Please note that this is not a question on how he managed it, merely why he bothered).

Why did Anakin build C3PO?

Anakin was a mechanical geek and he assembled C3PO for the same reason some car geeks restore antique cars. Although one of C3PO's primary abilities is translation, as a protocol droid he would be capable of many additional functions.

Anakin is a geek and assembled C3PO for fun aside from its ability to function as a translator.


It is just something that Dragons do in Tolkien's legendarium.

It's in their nature.

From

The Hobbit : Dragons steal gold and jewels , you know, from men and elves and dwarves, wherever they can find them; and they guard their plunder as long as they live (which is practically forever, unless they are killed), and never enjoy a brass ring of it .

Indeed they hardly know a good bit of work from a bad, though they usually have a good notion of the current market value; and they can't make a thing for themselves, not even mend a little loose scale of their armour.

There was a most specially greedy , strong and wicked worm called Smaug.

Dragons are simply greedy by nature, and that combined with an inability to "make a thing for themselves" has apparently driven them to horde precious items made by others.

Aside from dragons gathering treasure being a generic mythology trope (e.g. Fafnir's hoard, which Tolkien would have been well aware of), an in-universe explanation is also appropriate.

Dragons in Tolkien do gather treasure; his other major dragon from the legends of the First Age - Glaurung - did the very same after he sacked Nargothrond - piled up all the treasure and sat on it.

In the Third Age Scatha the Worm is also mentioned as having a hoard, which led to a fued between the Northmen and the Dwarves (the horn that Merry was given is mentioned as having come from this hoard).

So it's just something that Tolkien's dragons do.

But why?

As creatures of Morgoth there is very likely an element of his spirit in them

(this is nowhere confirmed in canon, but I'm imagining Morgoth feeding reptiles to create dragons in much the same way as he fed a wolf to create Carcaroth, although their obvious intelligence and sentience suggests a possible Maiar source (I'm deliberately ignoring the Lost Tales concept of dragons here); either way we don't know and we've moved away from the topic a bit now); when Morgoth lusted after and stole the Silmarils from Formenos, he also took a lot of other jewels with him, which he also did not need and which he begrudged having to feed to Ungoliant.

So there's a clear element of basic avarice, especially avarice for items one does not actually need, running through Morgoth and his dragons.

It's an expression of Smaug's power.

Collecting something you value is an intrinsically motivated act.

You build up a collection of things you enjoy purely because you enjoy them.

The opinions of others have no impact.

To collect something valued by others shows extrinsic motivation.

Not only do you deprive others of the contents of your collection, but by gaining their admiration or envy, you gain power over them.

Tolkien's day job was as a teacher of Old English literature, among other things.

The third part of the Old English saga/poem 'Beowulf' tells how the hero had to deal with a dragon who was angered because some low-life had sneaked in, and stolen a golden cup from his cavern-hoard of treasure.

The dragon emerged and devastation ensued.

Eventually the dragon is slain, but the hero dies.

The idea of dragonish desire for treasure was certainly present in literature before 1000AD, and was also picked up in C.S. Lewis' Voyage of the Dawn-Treader.

Perhaps it was all metaphorical for humans with an overwhelming lust for glittery stuff.

We all know some bling-heads!

They probably had them back then too.

Some of the Anglo-Saxon gold-work with enameling and carnelian insets are unbelievably intricate and beautiful, check the Sutton Hoo treasure on google images.

I can see why dragons would covet it.

There are a lot of scholarly articles on the dragons of Old English literature, try google scholar.

The bibliographies of a few articles should get you on the road to a better answer.

Not a Tolkien source, but I fondly remember the explanation used in The Flight of Dragons , a favorite movie when I was a boy.

Breathing fire, dragons tend to burn up bedding made from conventional materials.

They make their beds of gold as it is a softer metal that won't ignite.

Wikia states (no Tolkien quote) that there was one side benefit to the hoarding (possibly not intentional) -

the jewels stuck to Smaug's scales when he was lying atop of his treasure, making him even less vulnerable to damage than scales alone.

Question: In  The Hobbit ,  the Dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf are on a mission to rob Smaug . But why did he have so much to steal from? He's a Dragon! He is not the kind of dragon that  eats gold and gems . He doesn't need wealth to buy a luxury cavern and/or pay his servant.   Why did Smaug gather his treasure?

Why did Smaug gather a treasure of gold and other precious objects?

This is just something that Dragons do in Tolkien's legendarium and this can be seen as an expression of Smaug's power.


This is an allusion to the Argonauts As well as this image by Oliver Coipel where Tony demonstrates his ability to control several armors at once using tech similar to the NTU-Telepresence armor.

You can see in this still shot he is wearing what I believe is a Telepresence headset.

Elsewhere in that same trailer, we see a flying Iron Man suit that Tony jumps into .

The back of the suit is open, and he leaps into it, then takes over.

This suggests that these suits may be remote controlled, so it's likely that most of them are empty in that image.

It's unlikely that if there are pilots in the suits that they would be Avengers, as Kevin Feige, Marvel Studios President stated in an interview : Journalist:

After cell phones came out horror directors had to come up with elaborate ways to explain why people wouldn’t call someone on a cell phone for help, now that all The Avengers know each other do you have to come up with excuses for why Tony Stark wouldn’t reach out when he needs a hand?

Feige:

It’s a good question, and it’s sort of half and half.

I am betting that like the comics you don’t have to keep – if you are reading a standalone

“Iron Man” comic, they don’t spend every page explaining where every other Marvel hero is.

The audience kind of accepts that there are times when they’re on their own and there are times when they are together.

I’m betting that movie audiences will feel the same way.

That being said, there is a little bit of lip service here and there to that.

There is also just the very nature of Tony wants to, once he barely survives that house attack

you saw today, and even you saw it in the message he left for Pepper

, he’s basically saying “I’m going off the grid to try to figure something out.”

It's currently unknown who is controlling them remotely (Tony, JARVIS, a villain, etc.), as the film is not yet released.

It's likely that Tony is doing so, as in a previous trailer (Trailer 1 at 0:27)

we see him wearing a device on his head and remotely guiding components of a new Iron Man armor onto himself.

In addition, it's been discussed in interviews that the movie will adapt the Extremis storyline.

In that storyline, Tony gets some augmentations to himself, which allows him to remotely guide and control Iron Man suits.

Spoiler:

They are remotely controlled by him: Operation "House Party" The movie came out last week in japan (4/26/2013)

Armors in the film were mark 25 striker mark 33 silver centurion mark 38 igor mark42 mark 17 heartbreaker

mark

40 shotgun mark 39 starboost mark 35 red snapper mark

37 hammerhead..

These are the armors Stark built in the film.

The suits were all (almost all) unmanned, and controlled remotely by JARVIS as part of operation "House Party".

They are all the various prototype and production suits Tony had built.

During the battle in which they participated, Tony jumped from suit to suit, as needed, which is why I say "almost all" are unmanned.

We've had an example of someone else wearing Iron Man Armour in War Machine, if a big enough threat makes it's self apparent

there is no reason Tony couldn't have a military unit suited up in a set of Iron Man suits.

About 1:50 in this trailer

we see what looks like people being measured for suits?

That could hint at an army of Iron Men?

Although the conversation between Tony and Rhodes: "We do need backup" "

That's Your department" And

"There's my boys" Imply that it might not be military, and might be as other have suggested remotely controlled, or AI controlled Iron Men.

There is precedent for this, the suits that Vanko puts together in Iron Man 2 are remotely controlled.

Question: It looks like there are about fifty Iron Men in the new Iron Man Movie:  Iron Man 3 .  Who are all these Iron Men? Is Pepper Potts one of them? Or is it all The Avengers, but wearing Iron Man costumes?  Here's a snapshot from the  international trailer :

Who are all the other ‘Iron Men’ in the Iron Man 3 trailer?

They are all various prototype and production suits Tony had built. During the battle in which they participated, Tony jumped from suit to suit, as needed, so "almost all" may be unmanned. I tis also unlikely that if there are pilots in the suits that they would be Avengers.

The suits Tony had built are mostly all unmanned and controlled remotely by JARVIS.


The fact is, we are still not sure if those deaths were caused by the blood ritual.

Unlike Renly's death, where there was a supernatural being directly involved in the death (the shadow baby).

Robb's death was due to the machinations of Tywin Lannister, and executed at the hand of Walder Frey.

Nothing supernatural here that we can see.

Book spoilers:

Joffrey was poisoned, possibly by the Tyrells.

Again, nothing supernatural.

Balon Greyjoy on the other hand

we have no first hand account of his death.

But its timing coinciding with the return of Euron has led many to speculate that it was an assassination ordered by Euron.

It could simply be a lucky guess on Melisandre's side, or a self fulfilling a prophecy.

Melisandre can kill anyone just by drawing leech

Says who?

Leeched blood is a small sacrifice, and would only yield a small favour from the red god/blood magic.

Generally with blood magic, you need a "fair trade", i.e. sacrifice a life to give life to another (as with the birth of Daenerys' dragons), or if you "cheat" the red god of a death (Arya saving Jaqen & co.), it should be repaid with another life so that you "return balance".

Mellisandre is a cunning lady though.

She gets visions of the future from the flames.

So if she knows that someone is going to die, she can make it seem like it was her doing.

This way she seems more powerful, furthering her agenda.

Or so the theory goes.

GRRM doesn't give much explanation about the nature of magic and gods.

Melisandre believes that Stannis is Azor Ahai .

There is a prophecy that says that Azor Ahai will be The Lord of Light's champion, and fight the Great Other in a large upcoming battle.

There will come a day after a long summer when the stars bleed and the cold breath of darkness falls heavy on the world.

In this dread hour a warrior shall draw from the fire a burning sword.

And that sword shall be Lightbringer, the Red Sword of Heroes, and he who clasps it shall be

Azor Ahai come again, and the darkness shall flee before him.

It is said that Azor Ahai will "wake dragons from stone", which is doubtless the prophecy that Melisandre is trying to coerce into existence.

She has already tried to coerce Lightbringer into existence, but we know (as Maester Aemon also noted) that it is a glamour, not a true burning sword.

We also know that Daenerys has already awakened her dragons from the stone eggs, thus fulfilling the prophecy.

As for the bloodfilled leeches...

We know for a fact that Melisandre can see the future in her fires, and that this is something she is very good at.

So what most likely happened is that she saw that Robb, Joffrey and Balon would die, so she decided to put on a show for Stannis, to convince him that he needed to give her the boy to work her magic.

To convince him of the power of King's Blood.

She believed that if she did indeed sacrifice the boy, a dragon would awaken from stone, and the prophecy would be fulfilled.

From a more pragmatic point of view, a dragon is also a sign of power, and it would be easier to get support from the lords of Westeros with a dragon.

I thought he was the illegitmate son of Robert Baratheon.

In her magic she uses there is 'power in a king's blood' and hence she uses his blood to power her magic.

We don't necessarily know that she does want to kill (Edric Storm Book/ Gendry TV), just that Davos is worried that she is going to kill Edric/Gendry and so takes him to safety.

We haven't actually seen her kill anyone (other than Renly)

just that her mutterings about the power of King's blood makes everyone else think she is planning to sacrifice people.

Melisandre can just be seeing into the future where see catches glimpses of what is to come and then use that to "convince" others that by sacrificing Edric and Gendry she could do much more.when in fact she just wants to REMOVE any threat the her Kings rule.

Both Edric and Gendry could in theory lead an uprising and overthrow Stanis as king.

Melisandre names 3 names as she performs her blood ritual.

Melisandre: The usurper Robb Stark.

The usurper Balon Greyjoy.

The usurper Joffrey Baratheon.

Game of Thrones, Season 3

Episode 8

, "Second Sons" Lets look at how each of those died.

Robb Stark Died in the Red Wedding as planned by House Frey, House Bolton and House Lannister.

The Frey's did it to gain power with the Lannister.s and to take revenge on Robb betraying them by marrying Talisa instead of a Frey girl.

The Bolton's because they've had a long history of fighting with the Stark's, to take power in the North by claiming Winterfell and to gain power with the Lannister's.

The Lannister's did it because they were at war with the Stark's and it gave a nice neat ending for them.

Balon Greyjoy Was killed by his brother Euron Greyjoy who did it in an attempt to take power of the Iron Islands.

It was a risky move as the next king is chosen by a Kingsmoot and Yara

was favourite, especially as Euron had been AWOL for a while.

Joffrey Baratheon Killed at the Purple Wedding by Petyr Baelish and the Tyrell's by poisoning his wine.

Petyr did it to cause chaos so he could climb the ladder.

Also so he could sneak Sansa Stark away with him in the following chaos.

The Tyrell's did it as Ollena did not want Margaery to marry Joffery.

As you can see as each died because of someone else, that was already seemingly planning to kill them

it's unclear if there deaths were due to the ritual.

As for why she wants to kill him, well more of a sacrifice equals a more powerful outcome.

A great gift requires a great sacrifice.

Game of Thrones, Season 3

Episode 10, "Mhysa"

Question: If Melisandre can kill anyone just by leeching Gendry, why kill him rather than keeping him alive?  If he is alive he can be leeched at will and allow her to kill as many people as she likes.

Why does Melisandre want to sacrifice Gendry?

Melisandre may just be seeing into the future where catches glimpses of what is to come and then uses that to "convince" others that she could do much more by sacrificing Edric and Gendry. However, she just wants to REMOVE any threat to her King's rule.  In theory, both Edric and Gendry could lead an uprising and overthrow Stanis as king.

Melisandre knows she is capable of so much more if she sacrifices Gendry and the threat of his rule.


There are two parts here: 1)

Why human?

How do you know it's a human voice?

Out of universe, we know Majel Barrett is human, and we know that she also played Christine Chapel and Number One

(the unnamed second officer under Captain Pike), both humans.

But she also played Lwaxana Troi, a Betazoid.

And there's nothing in the voice (as far as I can tell) to distinguish it from that of a Bajoran or a Vulcan or any other species.

The voice doesn't seem to be Klingon or Ferengi, but that might just be because it's flat, emotionless, and, well, computer-like.

Why female?

In-universe (although quasi-canonically), it was Number One who installed the first voice device on the Enterprise and programmed it with her own voice.

(This is from Memory-Beta , which cites the novels "The Rift" and "Enterprise: The First Adventure").

She's a human female, so there you go.

Somewhat speculatively, there is some evidence that both men and women find women's voices more pleasing.

Research suggests that this might be due to the early bonding between fetuses/infants and their mother.

I bet that in a galaxy where there are hundreds of starships using a single programmed voice to get information from the computer -- sometimes in the middle of crisis -- the exact pitch and timbre of the voice has been thoroughly researched.

From "The Making of Star Trek", written by Stephen E Whitfield, and Gene Roddenberry (first published 1968, ISBN 1-85286-363-3, in the "Part II, An Official Biography of a Ship and its Crew", Chapter 2, page 152 it says: It [the computer] uses a feminine voice, a familiar occurrence, even today.

The pre-take-off system on today's F-105 Fighter, for example, speak to the pilots in a female voice because it has been discovered that the feminine voice penetrates noise better and results in improved response by men (and women).

If that's enough for a TV show being made in the 60s, it'd probably be a good enough in-show reason :-)

While I'm not sure it's ever noted during an episode, in "Mirror, Mirror", in TOS, this was the reason why the Mirror Universe computers spoke with a male voice - because it was suggested that in the mirror universe they never did that piece of research, and as a result just used a default male voice instead.

(You also see Kirk & McCoy doing a double take when they hear the computer talking)

There's never any in-universe reason given for the computer's voice being female but in the real world female voices are easier to understand and more pleasant to listen to according to this CNN article.

I believe this is also the reason most police dispatchers are female.

Though it's entirely possible that the use of female voices for computers was influenced by Star Trek itself.

Low-pitched audio frequencies ("bass") are harder to reproduce (cf. subwoofers - dedicated equipment for that)

than the high-pitches ones.

So, when it does not matter who the speaker is - e.g., when the sound is computer-generated - it is easier to use female voices.

This is why the vast majority of voices coming out of loudspeakers are female.

It was the voice of Gene Roddenberry's wife, who also played Nurse Chapel on the original show.

Gene thought it would be cool to have a sexy computer voice, since at that point, voices of comupters were robotic and male.

He thought his wife's voice was very sexy, so he asked her.

It was also a way to show how futuristic Star Trek was, too

, i.e. - you could make the computer sound any way you wanted.

And Kirk, being a lady-killer would naturally choose a sexy-lady voice.

ships are called with women names.

and even though the enterprise is not a woman name they refer it as "she".

humanity might follow traditions and traits of the older kind and respect the old times so that would mean a woman voice in the ship is tradition and respect, as for real life story Gene Roddenberry loved hsi wife

so he deiced to make her the voice of the computer

One reason for a female voice: real world aircraft cockpit warning systems use recorded female voices because they're known to be more effective at getting flight crews' attention in complicated situations.

I'm not sure if this applies equally to female pilots, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Flight systems (fighter jets) have female voices because they (used to) stand out of the radio chatter (which used to be all male).

Nowadays there's some systems that use a male voice.

Given there's translation everywhere I'd imagine only humans hear a human voice, the rest something more suited to their species.

Why female?

Ask the guys who designed the communication system ;).

My other answer is: it was 50/50 and then it just became standard.

If you don't like it ask the computer to reconfigure for you personally.

Not specific to Star Trek, but general to most computers in movies or real life having a female voice: A voice system for most of them fills the role of a secretary.

You make the decisions, the secretary collects/handles/organizes/reports the information.

Most secretaries were and still are, female.

While probably not the sole cause, traditions can have an important effect on shaping our views and expectations.

Question: In Star Trek all Federation computers have a human female voice, provided by Gene Roddenbery's wife Majel Barrett.  This, of course, is the out of universe reason; however is there ever an in universe reason given?  With the Federation being a multi-gender, multi-species organization why a humanoid female voice?  Is the voice based on someone related to the LCARS systems?

Why does the computer have a human female voice?

Gene Roddenberry thought it would be a good idea to have a sexy computer voice, since up to that point, voices of computers had been robotic and male. This is a tradition in Star Trek and a tribute to Gene Roddenberry's wife.

Female voices are easier to understand and to listen to. Furthermore, a female voice in the ship may be based on older traditions and traits which would mean a woman’s voice might be considered to be sexier by Gene.

Female voices are easier to understand and to listen to. A female voice in the ship may be based on older traditions and traits which would mean a woman’s voice might be considered to be sexier by Gene.


It's not atypical that the same address can be both affectionate when used in friendly jest, and derogatory when used in malice ("shrimp", from real life, or "seaweed brain" from Percy Jackson novels).

Wormtail clearly falls into the same cohort - it may be an affectionate (to an extent) nickname when used by Marauders but works equally well as an expression of contempt for a weak worthless thing that DE's saw Peter as.

Here's the quote illustrating it from Percy Jackson:

But Thalia held out her spear.

“You want some, Seaweed Brain?”

Somehow, it was okay when Annabeth called me that— at least, I’d gotten used to it—but hearing it from Thalia was not cool.

At least part of it is probably due to the fact that Peter Pettigrew was supposed to be dead.

Voldemort and the Death Eaters couldn't talk to or about him using his real name without risking being overheard and exposed, but everyone who knew him as Wormtail was either dead, discredited, or in hiding, so it would certainly have been more convenient than coming up with a new codename, which would have taken effort he wasn't really worth.

I figured he was called Wormtail by anyone that knew he could turn into a rat (which has a worm-like tail).

Since he spent so long as Scabbers, they likely call him Wormtail in jest at him being a rat almost as long as a human.

‘Wormtail’ sounded like an insult, so it’d be easy to use it as one.

Though it’s theoretically possible that the Marauders meant it affectionately, it would be very easy for the Dark Lord to start calling Pettigrew ‘Wormtail’ in an insulting way, because it inherently sounded like an insult.

Worms themselves are lowly creatures, and the name is also related to his Animagus form and connection with rats, creatures that are considered vermin.

“Wormtail has a curious affinity with rats, do you not, Wormtail?

His filthy little friends told him there was a place, deep in an Albanian forest, that they avoided, where small animals like themselves had met their deaths by a dark shadow that possessed them …” - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 33

(The Death Eaters)

However it was originally meant, it’d be very easy for a name like Wormtail to be used as an insult, as it has inherently negative connotations, so would be suited to call someone considered vermin.

The Death Eaters likely called him Wormtail as the Dark Lord did.

That the Dark Lord called Pettigrew Wormtail was likely at least part of the reason that the Death Eaters did.

When the Dark Lord refers to him to the Death Eaters, he always calls him Wormtail.

“Some of the Death Eaters he passed in silence, but he paused before others, and spoke to them.

‘Macnair … destroying dangerous beasts for the Ministry of Magic now, Wormtail tells me?

You shall have better victims than that soon, Macnair.”

- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 33

(The Death Eaters)

The Dark Lord only ever calls him Wormtail - at no point does he call him ‘Peter’ or ‘Pettigrew’, including when addressing him in front of the Death Eaters.

Since the Dark Lord always calls him Wormtail, it seems likely that the Death Eaters would then consider this the accepted way to refer to him, and would call him the same thing the Dark Lord does.

Maybe he introduced himself as it.

I just have the hunch,

eventhough

I don't know whether DE's could use their real name 'as-is', or could have nicknames within themselves (If there is another example of DE's being called by nicknames rather than their real names, I don't know of it) Because it was a traitorous act the one he made by running to Voldemort with the potter's adderess, maybe he didn't want to be entitled also to be called by the name...

Okay scratch that!

Why would he want to be called by his nickname which will remind himself of his friends, by the very hand that killed two of them?

Masochistic and antic nature maybe?

I can't talk with much fact from here on, maybe it was a mere mockery thing from Voldemort to use his nickname, so he could bother Pettigrew with it.

I tried my best at answering...!

Question: Title says it all: I can't imagine why they would; it was an affectionate nickname given to him by his school friends, and seeing as Voldemort and other DEs view Wormtail as a coward and worthless I can't imagine why they'd use what is supposed to be, (or, what originally was) an endearing nickname for him like that.

Why do Voldemort and other Death Eaters call Peter Pettigrew his Marauder name, Wormtail?

Although a nickname can be used in a friendly manner, in jest, or maliciously, one reason for using the name Wormtail may be that Voldemort and the Death Eaters couldn't talk to or about him using his real name without risking being overheard and exposed. Voldemort always used that name, and it is likely that the Death Eaters followed his example.

Voldemort and the Death Eaters can’t use his real name because Pettigrew is supposed to be dead. Given that the The Dark Lord called him Wormtail, the Death Eaters did so too out of respect for the Dark Lord.

Voldemort and the Death Eaters can’t use his real name because Pettigrew is supposed to be dead. The Dark Lord called him Wormtail and the Death Eaters did so too out of respect for the Dark Lord.


It's a reference to the First Doctor's regeneration.

The First Doctor's explanation for why he had to regenerate was that "this old body of mine is wearing a bit thin.

" It's the end of a harrowing adventure (his first encounter with the Cybermen), and the man's had a really rough time of it all around.

The idea is supported because Hartnell's failing health was becoming increasingly obvious to those watching the show.

Hurt isn't as feeble as Hartnell was, not by a long shot, but he plays the part of an equally ancient, tired man who has seen many lifetimes' worth of struggle in that body.

But in the end, it's a callback line more than it is a good explanation.

The real reason is that he's the Doctor again.

As we saw in Night of the Doctor , the War Doctor does not consider himself the Doctor and never has.

He specifically regenerated into that form so that he could do un-Doctor-y things.

The events of Day of the Doctor restored his ability to be the Doctor, and he couldn't do that in the War Doctor's body (which was tailor-made to be a warrior by the Sisterhood of Karn).

Regeneration is not only available at time of death.

In fact, the only other Time Lord we saw regenerate on screen in Old Who (Romana I to Romana II, at the beginning of Destiny of the Daleks ) seems to have done it on a whim.

Regeneration can be triggered "manually," and it seems that many Time Lords treated it pretty casually.

The Doctor's dangerous life of adventure (one which sets him apart from nearly every other Time Lord) leads him to use it more sparingly, keeping regeneration as an emergency get-out-of-death-free card.

It's his reward isn't it?

At the beginning of the story the Doctor Hurt tells Rose/Bad Wolf/Moment -

"I have no desire to survive this" and she/

it replies "Then that's your punishment

, if you do this, if you kill them all, then that's the consequence:

You live ."

Given that this specifically refers to the destruction of Gallifrey ("... killing them all, Daleks and Time Lords alike" as she/it says) and he doesn't do it, then logically he shouldn't be punished, so should die rather than live.

Thus he doesn't have to continue being the Doctor who fought in the Time War, but can be a new man who can put some distance between himself and the other things he did in that War ("I've been fighting this War a long time; I've lost the right to be the Doctor," he says.)

Of course, it's a bit double-edged, because the Eccleston Doctor is a bi-polar PTSD sufferer who thinks he's committed double genocide (due to not being able to "remember that I tried to save Gallifrey rather than burn it") and it takes a second Bad Wolf induced regeneration (in The Parting of the Ways) to allow him to get over that.

Outwith

the fiction, I suspect it comes from a combination of the fact that we know this story was conceived (Moffat has said as much in DWM) with Eccleston's Doctor in the Doctor Hurt role (and thus there was no regeneration at the end originally) and a desire from the production team to 'cap off' the War Doctor with a regeneration scene.

After all, Moffat has spoke of his own fannish desire to see McGann regenerate, surely the same impulse applies?

It means that what happens is thematic rather than strictly plot-based, but it does work, I think.

Albeit it is very surprising the first time you see it.

(Doctor Hurt's line "

Of course.

I suppose it makes sense. '

Wearing a bit thin'!" feels more like placeholder than explanation.

It also leaves the rather odd disconnect in the story that Tennant and Smith do not realise that Doctor Hurt is from before the end of the Time War, even though we later see he dies immediately it ends.

They think he could be from after it.

That makes sense if he's Eccleston.

Less so if it's Hurt.

There is no clear indication as to why he regenerated at the end of the episode...

All he said was something along the lines as "I suppose this was wearing a little thin"...

Perhaps the answer lies in the question

why did the War Doctor age so much from the prequel to the Day of the Doctor...

There is some speculation that he had aged a lot during The Time War or that perhaps he was hit with some sort of ageing weapon by The Daleks..

Because the time war was over.

There would be no need for a warrior anymore, but a return to the Doctor.

It has been shown several times old series and new

that time lords can use their regeneration energy at will.

I think it was to do with the fact that he was old, but it might be also that he actually wanted to regenerate, because he accepted himself as the Doctor, and wanted a fresh start.

The War Doctor did not exist as a normal regeneration, but as one specific to the elixir given to Eight in 'Night of the Doctor'.

He existed to fight the Time War.

With it ended, his time was over.

It is possible that is why he had more of a demeanor of acceptance for this regeneration than many of the others.

He thought he had doomed Gallifrey

The War Doctor was forgetting what really happened during his interaction with his later incarnations, as his true memories were being replaced by the false memories of pushing the button that had ended the war and doomed his world.

He was dying from the stress of guilt and grief.

The War Doctor's comment about "wearing a bit thin" may have been a reference to his true memories.

In the next scene, the Tenth Doctor remarked that "I won't remember either".

Question: At the end of "The Day of The Doctor", we see John Hurt's War Doctor step into his TARDIS and start to regenerate into Christopher Eccleston's 9th Doctor.  I always thought that Time Lords can only regenerate when they are close to their death (old age, severe physical injury, etc.,) which isn't what's happening.  Other Time Lords can also enforce a regeneration, but that's clearly not the case here since they are "gone."  Why then did this regeneration begin?

Why does the War Doctor regenerate?

He specifically regenerated into that form so that he could do things uncharacteristic of The Doctor. The events of  Day of the Doctor  restored his ability to be the Doctor, and he couldn't do that in the War Doctor's body. The Doctor's dangerous life of adventure  leads him to use it more sparingly, keeping regeneration as an emergency get-out-of-death-free card.

The reason for this is he’s the doctor again and he regenerated into that form so that he could do in-Doctor-y things. However, the events of the Day of the Doctor restored his ability to be the Doctor.

The reason for this is he’s the doctor again. He regenerated into that form so that he could do in-Doctor-y things. The events of the Day of the Doctor restored his ability to be the Doctor.


According to Lauren Faust , creator, writer and Senior Animator of "Friendship is Magic", the pigs were kept for humanitarian (pigitarian?

ponitarian?

) reasons as well as to help the ponies to locate truffles.

Obviously it can't be for food, given that ponies in Equestria are

strictly vegetarian

Equestrian ponies are not exclusively herbivores.

That looks like a meat sandwich to me, and Pinkie Pie references hot dogs in Fall Weather Friends .

One could argue that they're vegetarian equivalents, but that just pushes the notion back to "equivalent of what ?

" The presence of a vegetarian hot dog implies an original meat hot dog for it to be mimicking.

Equestrian ponies aren't like real-world ponies in many ways.

Being omnivores is one of these differences.

(It doesn't seem that they eat a lot of meat.

Faust's justification of pigs as truffle-hunters is probably also true, perhaps even primarily true, but it probably isn't the entire truth.

Please note, even in an unofficial off-the-cuff answer Faust didn't indicate that ponies don't eat meat).

The ponies are shown several times baking and cooking various meals and dishes.

Some of these require some kind of fatty substances that could be pig lard.

They also wear clothes sometimes, for which they could use pig leather.

Pig hooves can be used to fabricate buttons that can also be used to make dresses.

What are pig farms used for?

To dispose of the bodies!

(see Snatch and True Blood , for example)

In this context, as previously mentioned , no graveyards - so where do the corpses go?

Let's see what non-pork uses are there for raising pigs.

Truffles!!!

Plowing/land clearing Fertilizer Boar's hair for brushes Waste products can be used to generate electricity

Question: From everything I've seen so far, the ponies seem to be herbivores. We never see them eat meat products of any kind. But the Apple family raises  pigs  in their farm (Season 3 Episode 10 "Spike at Your Service"). It makes sense for ponies to raise sheep (for the wool), cows (for the milk) and chickens (for the eggs), but why would they need to raise pigs if they don't eat meat?

If the ponies are vegetarian, why do they raise pigs?

According to  Lauren Faust , creator, writer and Senior Animator of "Friendship is Magic", the  pigs  were kept for humanitarian reasons. Faust's justification of pigs as truffle-hunters is probably at least partly true.

The pigs were kept for humanitarian purposes. Moreover, the pigs were also kept to help the ponies locate truffles.

The pigs were kept for humanitarian purposes. The pigs were also kept to help the ponies locate truffles.


My answer here provides the reason; I'll repeat the relevant quote from Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age : ...

there was a fiery mountain in that land that the Elves named Orodruin.

Indeed for that reason Sauron had set there his dwelling long before, for he used the fire that welled there from the heart of the earth in his sorceries and in his forging; and in the midst of the Land of Mordor he had fashioned the Ruling Ring.

In summary: Sauron chose Mordor for his lair 600 years before he made the One Ring.

The reason why he chose it was to use Orodruin for his "sorceries and forgings".

Sauron had used Orodruin for these for some considerable time before making the Ring.

There's no reason to suppose that he didn't continue to use it afterwards.

Potential evidence of a future use of it was for making the battering ram Grond in the War of the Ring.

Sauron's returns to Mordor are normally accompanied by eruptions of Orodruin, which may indicate Sauron using it for something.

In other words, it's wrong to think of Orodruin as being solely connected with the Ring:

Sauron had other uses for it too.

Tolkien answered that himself: "He is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place.

That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind.

That we should try to destroy the Ring itself has not yet entered into his darkest dream.

Why didn't he destroy Orodruin?

Morgoth couldn't do it

and he was the mightiest of the Valar.

Why should Sauron, a Maia, be able to?

I also imagine it may have something to do with its creation by Eru Ilúvatar.

Notice that there are

very few geographical things are actually destroyed in the mythoi.

Even the lands that lie under water still exist, but are difficult to access. :D

I have answered that question here in detail, the answer also got accepted.

I will provide a section from my answer here and include it in this answer:

Brief overview :

He ' used the fire that welled there from the heart of the earth in his sorceries and his forging .'

The most famous result of his forging, and in fact the only one we know of for sure, was the One Ring.

Mount Doom was much more than just any volcano - Sauron seems to have extended his own power into it , just as his former master Melkor had extended his own power into the flesh of Arda as his means of corrupting the Valar's shaping of the world.

In his case, it was probably due to his use of it as a foundry for the forging of the Ring, and was able to control its fires.

It seems to have lain dormant when Sauron was away from Mordor, and sprung into life when his power grew.

It's an important place for Sauron as it represents the instrument for his ruling of the world.

The more his power grows, the more roaring and fizzing the fires become.

We can offer two conclusions.

First one, that Sauron's own powers are tied into Mount Doom along with his sorceries.

Second one, that he needed Mount Doom for the construction of other items, preservation of his power, form

or he was attempting other things with it.

Additionally, we can offer a conclusion that every spawn or forgery of Mount Doom was destroyed or perished with its final eruption...

The world was bent, so that thereafter, only Elven-Ships could sail into the Utter West.

Sauron's body was destroyed, but his spirit was not diminished, and he fled back to Mordor bearing the Ring, where he slowly rebuilt a new body and his strength during the time known as the Dark Years.

From this point on, he lost the ability to assume a fair shape, and ruled now through terror and force. ...

even Sauron's ability to assume any kind of shape or form again.

But while Sauron had much of his former strength, he was still much weakened without the One Ring and remained hidden in the shadows, directing his armies from afar.

Furthermore, we can conclude that he needed it running in order to forge something else, when he grew more stronger, and tie his strength and power into it once more.

The Road approached the east side of the base at a causeway and then wound up like a snake; at that point the Road seemed damaged by the lava and re-repaired several times.

It is also placed deep inside Mordor and thus needn't much protection.

He was seeking The Ring with the Eye and flying Nazgul over it as he was rebuilding and wanted to maintain it for himself, only his purposes, whatever they may be.

He didn't even consider that someone planned to destroy the One Ring.

"Sauron never considered that somebody would do anything other than try to claim it" In my opinion, a more phylosophical approach would apply better, as implied by Anthony Grist.

A complementary reason for the ring's creation was to corrupt and therefore get valuable information.

Sauron in the end represents corruption itself and not necessarily the effects of it.

It wasn't even thinkable for it to be destroyed.

Who would even dare to think and try to destroy it, apart from an "innocent" and pure hobbit.

It is an amazing parallelism of modern society's egoism an concentrated power i.e. political leaderships etc.

Why didn't Sauron Guard Mt. Doom answers this pretty well.

He could not conceive that anyone should seek to destroy it.

Not to mention the magic of the ring is so powerful that even Frodo could not throw it into the fire at Mt. Doom.

Question: Sauron knew that the One Ring could be destroyed  only  in Mount Doom, where it was forged. From Sauron's perspective, no one would think about destroying the One Ring. But if someone did, then Mount Doom would be the only place to do so.  Why did he keep Mount Doom active? Wasn't the risk too high?

Why did Sauron keep Mount Doom alive after forging of the One Ring?

He didn't even consider that someone planned to destroy the One Ring. Who would even dare to think and try to destroy it, apart from an "innocent" and pure hobbit?

Sauron knew that One Ring could be destroyed in Mount Doom. To his mind, nobody would think about destroying One Ring. However, if someone did, Mount Doom would be the only place.

Sauron knew that One Ring could be destroyed in Mount Doom. To his mind, nobody would think about destroying One Ring. If someone did consider destroying One Ring, Mount Doom would be the only option.


Since it's never happened on screen, any answer would be pure speculation.

However, since we've frequently seen the Doctor open the Tardis door in deep space - in both classic and modern series - without the air rushing out, we can speculate that the same force would stop the water rushing in.

We actually see this in " Listen ", where the TARDIS is opened underwater.

With all of its systems working correctly, it simply remains trapped inside its own air bubble with the water held at a safe distance outside.

As to how this is achieved; in the episode " Logopolis " there is a lengthy discussion of the doctor's plan to open the TARDIS doors underwater.

From this conversation we can deduce two main facts; A substantial number of systems need to be shut down in order to allow water to enter through the doors ∴ Under normal circumstances, the doors can be opened without suffering a catastrophic influx of water DOCTOR:

No, how can we with the Master in the Tardis?

They're a retiring people.

They like a quiet life.

There's no telling what acreature like that would do on Logopolis.

ADRIC:

So how do we flush him out?

DOCTOR:

And there's no saying what that might do to the Tardis systems.

Can you swim?

ADRIC:

Yes.

DOCTOR: Good.

Materialise the Tardis underwater and open the door.

(Down in the Cloister Room, Tegan walks round the police box.

The dooropens invitingly.

The Doctor calls up an aerial view of London on thescanner.)

DOCTOR:

That's the River Thames.

We'll put down there.

ADRIC: And water sluices in and floods out the whole Tardis.

DOCTOR:

Yes.

Adric, shut down everything.

Fold back the Omega configuration.

(Adric gets on the floor underneath the console.)

ADRIC: Folded back.

DOCTOR:

Good.

Exponential cross-field? ADRIC: Halted.

DOCTOR: Good.

Pathways to conditional states seven to seventeen?

ADRIC: Closed.

DOCTOR: Excellent.

Main and auxiliary drive?

ADRIC: Ended.

DOCTOR: Good.

Now, we're partially materialised, so there'll be a slight jolt.

Are you ready?

ADRIC: If you are.

DOCTOR:

What?

Well, I'd feel more confident if you just said yes.

ADRIC:

Yes.

DOCTOR:

Good.

Here we go, then.

[Cloister room](Tegan gets jolted.)

TEGAN:

This is too much!

[Tardis] DOCTOR: A gentle splash-down.

(Thud!

They fall to the floor.)

DOCTOR:

We must have touched bottom.

ADRIC:

Touched bottom?

DOCTOR:

Yes.

Good thing the water was there to break our fall.

[Cloister room]

TEGAN: Crazy idiot of a pilot!

Wait till I have a word with him.

(Laughter comes from the open door of the police box.)

TEGAN:

Who's that?

[Tardis]

(The Doctor is standing braced across the doors.)

DOCTOR: Careful, now.

The water pressure could send us both flying.

Ready?

ADRIC:

Yes.

DOCTOR: Now!

(Adric presses a button and runs to join the Doctor.

The doors do not move.)

DOCTOR:

That's odd.

There's no pressure on those doors at all.

ADRIC:

Perhaps we aren't down very deep.

(The doors swing open and they step outside [onto dry land])

In the episode The Beast Below , the Doctor references an " air shell ".

This allows a sustainable environment for the TARDIS and the residing occupants to have the ability to open the doors and be on the immediate outside.

The reason we often see the TARDIS constantly filled with water, I presume, is that the air field must be enlarged manually, otherwise it is automatically at a minimum.

Or it just looks cooler.

In Logopolis the fourth Doctor tried to land the TARDIS underwater in order to flood the TARDIS.

Unfortunately we never saw what happened as the TARDIS materialised on a barge instead of dropping to the bottom of the Thames.

We see this at the start of Series 8, Episode 4 "Listen" where The Doctor does open the TARDIS doors underwater.

Nothing happens.

The TARDIS maintains a shell around it which doesn't let any water in.

TECHNICALLY, in the episode with Donna Noble, when she opened the TARDIS when David Tennant was Doctor, she asked why they were breathing.

The doctor replied with the fact that there was an oxygen field surrounding the TARDIS, which would also mean that no water would be able to get inside when the shields are up.

Disney mermaid in the second left picture has the tardis also opening underwater

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/117818/Sunday 16th June in Aus

Question: I've always wondered what would happen, and have asked my friends a few times, but without a satisfying response.

If the Doctor were to open the TARDIS under water in the ocean, what would happen?

The TARDIS maintains a shell around it which doesn't let any water in. With all of its systems working correctly, it remains trapped inside its own air bubble with the water held at a safe distance outside.

Nothing happens as the TARDIS maintains a shell around it thus preventing any water from getting in.


The transcript for "The Matrix" makes Cypher's motives pretty clear; Not only does he want to re-enter the Matrix permanently but he alsowants to return to a state of blissful ignorance as a "blue-pill".

He fervently believes that the machines can remove painful memories and reinsert him into the Matrix as someone special .

With the arrival of Neo, his unrequited fantasies towards Trinity (arguably the only good thing he's got in his miserable life) have been crushed severing his final connection with Zionese culture.

CYPHER :

I don't want to remember nothing.

Nothing!

You understand?

And I want to be rich.

Someone important.

Like an actor.

You can do that,

right?

AGENT SMITH : Whatever you want, Mr. Reagan.

Cypher takes a deep drink of wine.

CYPHER :

All right.

You get my body back in a power plant, reinsert me into the Matrix and I'll get you what you want. and Cypher:

I know what you're thinking, 'cause right now I'm thinking the same thing.

Actually, I've been thinking it ever since I got here:

Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill and Cypher: You know, for a long time,

I thought I was in love with you .

I used to dream about you.

You're a beautiful woman, Trinity.

Too bad things had to turn out this way.

Also, you can never underestimate the appeal of a really good steak;

He wanted to reset his memory and forget about the Matrix.

There is no evidence that the "liberated humans" could do that to themselves.

It was also implied that he would be inserted in the Matrix as President Ronald Reagan (see, for example this ).

According to Wikipedia: Cypher has grown tired of the Man/Machine war within the real world.

Harshly disillusioned with the grim existence of living on a hovercraft and tired of following Morpheus and his blind faith in the Prophecy, he has begun to wish that he had never learned the truth and left the Matrix in the first place.

I agree with what the other answers are saying about why he wants to go back to the blissful state of the "blue pill".

As for why he betrays Morpheus, what he says when he reveals his betrayal indicates that he resents and feels betrayed by Morpheus.

Cypher : "He lied to us, Trinity.

He tricked us.

If you'da told us the truth, we woulda told you to shove that red pill right up your ass."

Trinity : "

That's not true, Cypher, he set us free."

Cypher : "

Free?

You call this free?

All I do is what he tells me to do.

If I had to choose between that and the Matrix, I choose the Matrix."

He feels like a slave to the person who has tricked him into a dystopian reality.

Because metaphor.

Neo represents every teenage boy; you are leet, you discover something secret but world-changing, you are initiated into a new world and the scales fall from your eyes.

It is a metaphor for becoming an adult.

Cypher represents defeatism, the impulse to give up and run away and be turned back into a little boy.

He is the embodiment of the moment after you are rejected by a potential partner for the first time.

I want to go home.

Morpheus, by contrast, is the father.

He is the one who affirms Neo's maturation and believes completely in him.

Why does Cypher betray Morpheus?

Because Morpheus' role to support the rite of passage into adulthood is worthless if it is better to remain a child, and Cypher rejects the truth.

Also, as an allegory it illustrates how futile it is to attempt to return to the child state; once we know, we cannot unknow.

Following the logic, this allegory is telling us that hedonism (satisfying the senses) is not sufficient for happiness; the story embraces purpose (and even ideas of destiny) over sensuality.

Certain physical pleasures like steak could presumably be reproduced in private simulations, but I think the restaurant scene was meant to illustrate his overall desire for "the good life" of a wealthy person in the Matrix, and a lot of the supposed appeal of great wealth

is interpersonal in nature, not just physical--like the desire for a shortcut to getting the respect of lots of people (including glamorous wealth-seeking mates), getting into certain high-profile "in-crowds", paying people for creative services like DJing your party or painting your portrait, being able to buy influence in politics or the media, etc.

None of these would likely be very satisfying if he was just in a private simulation with a bunch of simple simulated people like the woman in the red dress (and even if Zion had the ability to create more genuinely intelligent simulated people, they probably wouldn't because of fear that they would take the side of the machines in the Matrix and rebel from within).

Edited to add that this section of the Cypher's lines that Richard quoted above supports the idea that this was at least part of Cypher's motivation:

"And I want to be rich.

Someone important.

Like an actor.

You can do that, right?"

CYPHER : I don't want to remember nothing.

Nothing!

You understand?

And I want to be rich.

Someone important.

Like an actor.

You can do that,

right?

AGENT SMITH :

Whatever you want, Mr. Reagan.

Cypher takes a deep drink of wine.

CYPHER :

All right.

You get my body back in a power plant, reinsert me into the Matrix and I'll get you what you want.

Surely his reasoning is flawed when he says he wants to remember nothing, is getting your memory totally wiped not the same as being killed?

The Cypher who wakes up after such a procedure shares nothing with the old Cypher except his body

Question: The film demonstrates that Morpheus and the other liberated humans can enter the Matrix while in disguise, and in addition can generate their own virtual environments (eg, Neo and Morpheus sparring).  Doesn't Cypher have plenty of opportunities to enjoy a virtual steak and the other amenities of virtual life without betraying Morpheus?

Why did Cypher betray Morpheus?

Cypher's motives are clear - Not only does he want to re-enter the Matrix permanently but he also wants to return to  blissful ignorance  as a "blue-pill". He believes that the machines can  remove painful memories  and reinsert him into the Matrix as  someone special.  He feels like a slave to the person who has tricked him into a dystopian reality

Morpheus unplugs Cypher believing he is The One and he tells Smith he will surrender Morpheus to be plugged back into the Matrix with his mind reset.

Morpheus has searched for The One for a long time and believes Cypher is The One. He unplugs Cypher believing he is The One. He tells Smith he will surrender Morpheus to be plugged back into the Matrix with his mind reset.


Ark II

Here's a guess:

Ark II Three young scientists travel around the country in the 25th century after the world has been ravaged by pollution.

In their hi-tech RV, the titular Ark II, they study the land and help out those in need.

Go here and here for more details, episode guides and pics.

Watch a making-of documentary here .

Yet another possibility:

This is the Overlander from Terrahawks .

It's function is: an automated all-terrain vehicle similar to a rail-free train with multiple, articulated sections that brings supplies to Hawknest.

- ( Wikipedia )

This image is from David Sisson's page - a man who restored the original model.

In your question, you mention multiple sections , which the Overlander had.

And you mention mountainous terrain - which was exactly the terrain on which the Overlander drove.

See if the vehicle in this video looks familiar:

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/143/Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE

This is almost certainly The Highwayman .

It was another cheesy Glen Larson series from the late 1980s or so, and depicted two quasi-law enforcement officers who drove trailer trucks that

(I kid you not) could convert into helicopters.

One of them had this ridiculous Australian accent, but I am uncertain if this was just acting or if he was someone famous from that continent or whatever.

I don't think it lasted a full season.

Here is an image I dug up on Google to confirm it:

Could you be thinking of Damnation Alley ?

Although produced and released as a theatrical movie, it made its way to TV fairly quickly.

IIRC, the TV version was broadcast in two parts, making it feel like a mini-series.

Practically another star of the show, the "Landmaster" was a custom-built articulated vehicle with a very unique wheel arrangement - the three-wheel clusters could rotate to climb over large obstacles.

The Landmaster was actually built full-scale and driveable, having a working drivetrain.

As for the "specialized sections", could you be thinking of the movie The Core ?

Sounds like Genesis II and/or Planet Earth .

These Gene Roddenberry TV movies involved a train system and the character name Dylan Hunt.

I think you might have a few shows mixed up

but I believe I have your answer.

I believe that you are referring to the second season of The Highwayman where they added the actor Mark Alexander "Jacko" Jackson who was a former Australian rules football player.

He had a different-styled (1/2-height) tractor that could separate, unlike the tractor that actor

, Sam Jones drove that had a helicopter that separated.

Here is a photo of Jacko's tractor-trailer:

Supertrain .

Supertrain is an American television drama/adventure series that ran on NBC from February 7 to May 5, 1979.

Nine episodes were made, including a 2-hour pilot episode.

Question: I seem to remember the intro to the show having the train-car traveling amongst some barren mountainous terrain.  I seem to remember that each section of the car-train had a different purpose, like the medical car, and the weapons car, etc.  I don't think it ran for more than a season, possibly not even completing a full season. It was live-action. It was on US television, and I don't remember any accents, so I am guessing it was American.

70s or 80s TV show, possibly post-apocalyptic with a massive train-like car

This may be Ark II, The Overlander from  Terrahawks, Supertrain, Damnation Alley, Generis II/Planet Earth or The Highwayman.

The name of the TV show is most likely one of the following: Ark II, Overlander, Supertrain, the Highwayman, Damnation Alley, Genesis II or Planet Earth.


In a word, no.

The patronus must take the form of something that creates positive feelings (a dementor is by definition the embodiment of unhappy feelings, primarily fear) and the shape of an animal with whom they share an affinity.

Not only would someone who had an affinity for a dementor be unable to create a patronus, it's also fairly questionable whether a dementor qualifies as a 'animal':

"This ancient and mysterious charm conjures a magical guardian, a projection of all your most positive feelings.

The Patronus Charm is difficult, and many witches and wizards are unable to produce a full, corporeal Patronus, a guardian which generally takes the shape of the animal with whom they share the deepest affinity" - Wonderbook : Book of Spells and

"A Patronus is a kind of positive force, and for the wizard who can conjure one, it works something like a shield, with the Dementor feeding on it, rather than him.

In order for it to work, you need to think of a memory.

Not just any memory, a very happy memory, a very powerful memory… Allow it to fill you up...

lose yourself in it...

then speak the incantation " Expecto Patronum " HP:PoA (Film)

This would be a bit ironic.

It would be hard, but I personally don't see a reason why it wouldn't be possible.

As @Richard said, a dementor is the embodiment of unhappiness, but there are some people who feel happy when they are depressed.

There are stranger ways people can feel/behave.

Another issue with a Patronus being a dementor is why the person creating this Patronus would need to create one, if he/she had an affinity with dementors.

In this case, I would imagine he/

she wouldn't have many happy memories to draw on, though, again, there are stranger things in this world than a person being happy and depressed at the same time.

Also, there are other creatures that get repelled by Patronuses, so even if the person didn't need to create one to battle dementors, he/she may need one for these creatures.

Also, there is the matter of creating one for fun/training, as Dumbledore's Army did in Order of the Phoenix .

Regarding a dementor being an animal, I'm not sure, but as they are (slightly) intelligent, I don't think they are "merely" animals,

in the same way humans aren't "merely" animals.

That being said, I don't believe J.K. Rowling ever said a Patronus has to be an animal.

I don't see why, for example, a Patronus couldn't be a human, or a giant, etc.

For narcissists, like Gilderoy Lockhart, I imagine they could have a Patronus in the form of themselves.

Dementors aren't animals so the answer is probably no.

To clarify they are amortal non-beings.

They are not animals or humanoids but spirts that are manifestations of despair.

In the book Patronus Charms are only Animals, And since Dementors are non-animals because of their sentience they would not be a shape found in a patronus.

Reading the previous answers, it should be possible.

Although I believe that it would be rare to the point of being so rare to survive the killing curse.

There are several answers above that state

the patronus is the creature it is because it is something that the person has a AFFINITY with.

This does not mean that the wizard/witch has to have memories with the dementor, but rather has similar traits as a dementor.

If one was to decribe a dementor, soulless is a good one.

To have less soul someone would need to make a horcrux, but with the horcrux come with less morals for the original soul.

If one was able to create a dementor patronus that wizard/witch would most likely have a horcrux.

The part that might deny this idea is 'can someone with less morals create a patronus at all?'

I believe

so if they could before.

If the person did not know their happy memory, then created a horcrux, they most likely would never be able to create a patronus.

Let's say Ermac the Evil (the only other known person to create a horcrux) was able to create a patronus before making a horcrux, there is a chance it would be a dementor.

Earlier someone said the Death Eaters don't use Expecto Patronum because they don't need to, not that they can't.

While it is most probable that Voldemort doesn't have a happy enough memory, doesn't mean other wizards/witches with horcruxes can't.

Another that could shoot it down would be 'can a dark wizard or witch use a patronus?"

Again yes, because Severus Shape , a known dark wizard, can.

Even if he is on the light side he still has the taint of dark magic, hence dark wizard.

And yes I saw that POTTERMORE says a dark wizard will conjure maggots that eat him/her.

But PotterMore is written by fans that INTERPRET the movies, books, and interviews.

People mess up and they make mistakes.

Even when Snape repents and goes good he still has the taint of dark magic.

If Shape had no taint on him he most likely would not be able to kill Dumbledore with the killing curse later that year.

Also he cast the patronus after casting the killing curse at Dumbledore to guide Harry to the forest to get the sword of Gryffindor.

Snape has dark magic taint.

Snape can use patronus before killing Dumbledore.

Snape can use patronus after killing Dumbledore.

There is a possibility that a dark wizard with a horcrux can create a dementor patronus.

FIN.

Given how a wizard in canon made a Patronus that was a giant, and then Dumbledore's own is a Phoenix

it's possible, just unlikely.

Now what I want to know is could a non-existent thing could be a patronus?

The rules just say it has to give a feeling of happiness, emphasized text not that it has to be a real or mythological animal.

Question: My question is simple. We know that a patronus can take the form of a magical animal (Dumbledore's phoenix patronus for example). So, can it take the form of a dementor? It would be a little bit ironic.  Perhaps there isn't any canon answer, but I'd like to know.

Can a patronus take the form of a dementor?

The patronus must take the form of something that creates positive feeling or happiness so no, this would not be possible.

It is possible though difficult to contemplate a patronus taking the form of a dementor. Moreover, Dementors aren’t animals and a Patronus generally needs to take the shape of an animal they have an affinity with which brings about happiness.

It is possible though difficult to contemplate a patronus taking the form of a dementor. Dementors aren’t animals and a Patronus generally needs to take the shape of an animal they have an affinity with which brings about happiness.


Stargate Universe takes place on the starship Destiny , a huge ship of The Ancients whose purpose is to explore the universe without Stargates.

The Destiny is capable of FTL and uses stellar plasma as fuel.

Destiny was preceded by Seed Ships which would scout ahead and manufacture and plant Stargates.

Whether this is how the rest of the Stargates were seeded, via automated starship, is unknown.

But it was likely using FTL drive to initially reach a planet and building a Stargate upon arrival.

The Ancients placed all of the gates in both the Pegasus as well as milky way galaxies.

They also had the ability to travel faster than light in large ships that could carry multiple star gates at a time to drop them off on planets that could potentially have life.

The Ancient's home galaxy was the galaxy the Ori remained in, and they most likely had already created the gate network in that galaxy before heading to the milky way.

Obviously, the builders of the stargates had starships that let them travel to all those planets and install the gates.

The same way the Goauld have starships.

You see one Goauld ship in the movie, and you see a lot of their ships in the series.

The Ancients seeded planets with stargates using superluminal ships.

One of these ships is the setting for the series Stargate: Universe .

One thing you need to remember is that even before the Destiny the Ancients (shown in Stargate Ark of Truth) used a giant spaceship to evade the Ori armies and flee to the Milky Way galaxy.

The had the capacity to seed worlds and merely (as mentioned in season 1 of SG-1) used the Stargate for convenience, not as a requirement for travel.

So the real question is not how without ships but which ship, the Destiny or some other ship; as others have stated this has never been made clear.

In contrary to @Himarm's answer: it is hard to say if the Ancients created the gates in the Ori galaxy.

Hints in SG-1 (Ancient story book) and Ark of Truth suggest that it was still in the idea phase when the ancients left, but that is also not clear.

We see in The Ark of Truth that the Ancients had large starships at the time that Amelius had the idea that would become the Stargates.

Therefore it's entirely reasonable to suppose that the Stargates made it to their planets via starship.

Furthermore (although this proves nothing about the Milky Way, Pegasus, Ida, or Ori-galaxy networks)

we see evidence of this in SGU in the form of the seed ships, whose purpose included constructing and delivering gates to planets.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/1167/Lightness Races in Orbit

Question: Somebody put them there so they can travel quickly between planets, but how did they travel to the planet far away without a Stargate to build one there?

How did the Stargates get to the planets?

Destiny was preceded by  Seed Ships  which would scout ahead and manufacture and build Stargates.

The stargates are transported on starships or constructed and transported by means of seed ships, and are installed on far away planets. Furthermore, the gate network was most probably created by the Ancient’s in their home galaxy before they left for the milky way.

The stargates are transported on starships and installed on far away planets. Seed ships are used for the purpose of constructing and transporting gates to planets. The gate network was most probably created by the Ancient’s in their home galaxy before they left for the milky way.


In-universe, the explanation is simple: The Hobbit was Tolkien's translation into English of the original material from Common Speech, since the plot device is that both The Hobbit and LOTR are the writings of Frodo and Bilbo, that he (Tolkien) had access to and translated.

The Common Speech, as the language of the Hobbits and their narratives, has inevitably been turned into modern English .

In the process the difference between the varieties observable in the use of the Westron has been lessened.

Some attempt has been made to represent these varieties by variations in the kind of English used ...

( LOTR:

The Return of the King, Appendix F, "II.

On Translation" )

As such, it's a common thing with the translators to employ idiomatic translations instead of literal - and as a linguist, Tolkien surely was familiar with translation techniques.

As other answers noted, both Tolkien himself, as well as his intended audience (English speaking people of 20th century) knew what "like drums and guns" sounded - probably a lot better than whatever idiom was used by Bilbo in the Common language.

So, this is a very valid approach to the text.

One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years.

By 1918, all but one of my close friends were dead.

J.R.R. Tolkien, foreword to The Lord of the Rings Even though it was a translation from the original

, I am pretty sure this was only an image of speaking to make the modern people imagine how the roar really sounded like in his mind.

J.R.R. Tolkien’s service in the British Army during World War I may have influenced his fiction.

More here: JRR Tolkien and World War

I J.R.R. Tolkien in uniform, 1916.

I doubt this is what Tolkien had in mind, but the OED gives several obsolete meanings of "gun" which would make sense in a world with no firearms but does possess "blasting fire".

The first is used to describe any large engine of war.

R. Milward Selden's Table-talk 30

The word Gun was in use in England for an Engine to cast a thing from a man, long before there was any Gun-powder found out.

This would cover the tossing part, but not the roar.

A better fit is used to describe a blasting device.

Chambers's Cycl.

Suppl.

Gun is also a name given by the miners, to an instrument used in cleaving rocks with gunpowder.

It is an iron cylinder..

having..

a hole drilled through it to communicate with the inside of the hole in the rock.

A etymology search shows gun to come from gunne meaning war.

mid-14c., gunne "an engine of war that throws rocks, arrows or other missiles," probably a shortening of woman's name Gunilda, found in Middle English gonnilde "cannon" and in an Anglo-Latin reference to a specific gun from a 1330 munitions inventory of Windsor Castle ("...una magna balista de cornu quae Domina Gunilda ...

"), from Old NorseGunnhildr, woman's name, from gunnr + hildr, both meaning "war, battle.

First element from PIE *gwhen- "to strike, kill" (see bane); for second, see Hilda.

A key meaning is siege engine, aka catapult, ballista, or trebuchet, whose munitions produce a large roar or crash on impact, and would be recognizable to middle earth inhabitants.

Gunpowder hadn't really taken hold in ME at this point but it was used at Helm's Deep by the forces of Saruman to breach the wall.

This is opinion based of course

but one could reasonably suspect that the word was used for the readers benefit in describing Beorn's assault on the platoon of Bolg.

'The Hobbit' is written in a very different style to LotR. When he was writing 'The Hobbit', Tolkien didn't yet have the details of Middle-Earth and its history worked out, nor had he yet adopted the flowing, almost archaic style of writing that still characterises fantasy literature to this day.

He probably used the word because it was what came to his mind as a good description, without thinking about whether it fitted with the sort of world he was creating.

Question: In Chapter XVIII -  The Return Journey  of the book ' The Hobbit ', Tolkien uses the word  gun .   'The roar of his voice was like drums and  guns ; and he tossed  wolves and goblins from his path like straws and feathers'   As far as I know guns are not used as a weapon in Middle-earth and I don't remember them being mentioned neither in  The Hobbit  nor in  LotR .  Was this a mistake on Tolkien's part or is there another explanation?

The use of the word "gun" in The Hobbit

Both Tolkien and his intended audience (English speaking people of 20th century) knew what "like drums and guns" sounded like. Tolkien was translating Frodo and Bilbo's "Common Speech" into English.

The word gun was probably employed by Tolkien because it is descriptive and worked well as a translation of the original. Furthermore, Tolkien’s time in the army probably influenced his choice to use the word gun regardless of the context.

He probably used the word because it was what came to his mind as a good description, without thinking about whether it fitted with the sort of world he was creating.

The word gun was probably employed by Tolkien because it is descriptive and worked well as a translation of the original. Tolkien’s time in the army probably influenced his use of the word gun.


This in answered in the Lord of the Rings chapter

The Council of Elrond , during a discussion between Glóin, Elrond and Glorfindel (with my emphasis):

But what then would happen, if the Ruling Ring were destroyed as you counsel?'

asked Glóin.

We know not for certain,' answered Elrond sadly. '

Some hope that the Three Rings, which Sauron has never touched, would then become free, and their rulers might heal the hurts of the world that he has wrought.

But maybe when the One has gone, the Three will fail, and many fair things will fade and be forgotten.

That is my belief.' '

Yet all the Elves are willing to endure this chance ,' said Glorfindel ' if by it the power of Sauron may be broken, and the fear of his dominion be taken away for ever .'

This is confirmed by Galadriel's words to Frodo later on in the chapter

The Mirror of Galadriel (again with my emphasis): The love of the Elves for their land and their works is deeper than the deeps of the Sea, and their regret is undying and cannot ever wholly be assuaged.

Yet they will cast all away rather than submit to Sauron: for they know him now .

The Elves' motive is therefore to achieve the destruction of Sauron's power, and loss of the power of their own Rings is a tradeoff that's acceptable to them in exchange for that.

Relevant to this are Elrond's words elsewhere in The Council of Elrond , where they discuss the possibility of using the Ring against Sauron: If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself on Sauron's throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear.

And that is another reason why the Ring should be destroyed: as long as it is in the world it will be a danger even to the Wise.

For nothing is evil in the beginning.

Even Sauron was not so.

I fear to take the Ring to hide it.

I will not take the Ring to wield it.

This highlights that in the end the only realistic option was to destroy the Ring.

The three elven rings were much different then the other rings of power.

The 7 rings of dwarves and 9 rings of men had one major similarity, their main purpose was to enhance the power of the bearer .

Although forged by Cerebrimbor, the three elven rings served the main purpose to heal and preserve .

The three elven rings - Narya - Passed from Gil-Galad to Cirdan to Gandalf, helped Gandalf to inspire others to fight against evil and imbue hope into others' minds.

Nenya - Worn by Galadriel and used to protect Lothlorien.

Vilya

- Passed from Gil-Galad to Elrond, the mightiest of healers of his time.

It was responsible for helping Elrond protect Rivendell and also possibly for his magical abilities (although he may have some by birth).

The elven lords, when they were first given the rings by Celebrimbor, wore them but when Sauron tried to corrupt their minds they realized it and hid them.

Only after when the one-ring was cut off from Sauron's finger, they started using it to rebuild safe-haven's for all those elves still remaining behind (when the war was won by Last alliance of Men and Elves most elves decided to leave for Valinor).

When Sauron's power began to rise again they felt that it will not only destroy men and dwarves but also bring great harm to elven populace.

So, for self preservation and also to honor the great alliance with men

they joined the fight against Sauron (i.e. destruction of one-ring).

It is rightfully said, that once the One-Ring was destroyed the power of the three elven rings also withered away.

But then again, by that time most of the elves had decided to return to undying lands any way.

So the purpose of the three rings (to create pockets of elven safe haven such as Lothlorien or Rivendell and also to inspire the oppressed) were properly served.

Their only options were- Help destroy the Ring.

Abandon Middle-Earth and go to Valinor.

Stay and do nothing as they watch Sauron conquer all of Middle-Earth.

There was no other way to defeat Sauron and the Rings were not going to protect the Elven realms when Sauron put his full power against them.

The time of the Elves was on the verge of ending one way or another.

If Sauron regained the Ring the elves would've been utterly ruined as Gandalf said "all that has been wrought by those who wield the Three will turn to their undoing and their minds and hearts will become revealed to Sauron if he regains the One.

It would be be better if the Three had never been".

I may be wrong

but I've always thought that if Sauron regained his Ring then the 3 elvish ringbearers would become like the Nazgul, completely enslaved to Sauron.

The Three Rings were going to become useless no matter what else happened.

If the One Ring was destroyed, the Three would lose their powers and become ordinary pieces of jewelry.

If Sauron found the One Ring, the Elves would be forced to stop using the Three, because using them would lead to Sauron controlling the Elves who wore them.

This means that the Elves had to choose:

Help the Fellowship destroy the One Ring, thereby saving the world but losing the powers bestowed upon them by the Three; or do nothing, see the world being destroyed, and still lose their powers because they could no longer use the Three safely; or see the world being destroyed, keep using the Three, and become slaves to Sauron.

Given these options, the Elves clearly made the right decision.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/44025/Wad Cheber stands with Monica

If Sauron gets his ring back.

Elves would deal with him again.

They might be thinking that to hit him while he is at his weakest and with the hardest hit (which is to destroy the ring) is wise.

They might also be trying to finish what they started.

Since humans took the ring and made the bearer corrupt, they might not want another incident like that.

Now the ring has been found, they have the chance to finish the job.

Question: In  Lord of the Rings , the rings preserve what you desire the most. The Elves have three rings preserving their kind's well-being, as well as preserving Rivendell. If the One Ring is destroyed, and this takes the Elves' three rings down with it, what motive do the Elves have to help?

Why would the elves help destroy the One Ring?

The Elves' motive is the destruction of Sauron's power, and loss of the power of their own Rings is an acceptable tradeoff.

By destroying One Ring, the elves save the world and destroy Sauron; otherwise Sauron may regain control over One Ring, thus rendering the Three Rings unusable, and subsequently destroy the elves.

The purpose of destroying One Ring is to destroy Sauron. If Sauron regains control over One ring, the elves will be destroyed. If One Ring finds its way back to Sauron, he will have full control over the elves who will need to stop using the Three Rings; otherwise they risk being Sauron’s slaves.


This sounds somewhat like the short story " It's Such a Beautiful Day " by Isaac Asimov.

Read online at the Open Library in Nightfall and other stories published 1969.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/38970/This isn't my real name

Arthur C. Clarke's story The City and the Stars also comes to mind.

Do you have any more details about what may have happened in the story?

Brief synopsis of 'The City and the Stars':Story is set 1 billion years in the future on Earth - specifically in the city of Diaspar - which is fully enclosed.

No one in millions of years has arrived or left from this city.

A boy (Alvin) is born and is a bit unusual in that he feels compelled to try to leave the city.

Eventually he does and finds other humans on the planet.

Alvin continues to try to find out why the inhabitants of Diaspar are so afraid of leaving their city...

There is much much more to the story - i recommend reading it.

One of my favourites!

Well, not a boy, but there is "

The Pedestrian" by Ray Bradbury, first published in 1951.

In the year 2053 A.D, Leonard Mead likes to take long walks at night, something which no one else does.

Everyone stays indoors watching TV.

On one of his usual walks he encounters a police car which is possibly robotic.

It is the only police unit in a city of three million, since the purpose of law enforcement has disappeared with everyone watching TV at night.

Mead tells the car that he is a writer when asked about his profession, but the car does not understand, since no one buys books or magazines in the television-dominated society.

The police car or its occupants struggle to understand why Mead would be out walking for no reason and so decides to take him to the Psychiatric Center for Research on Regressive Tendencies.

He is forced to get in the car.

As the car passes through his neighborhood, Leonard Mead in the locked confines of the backseat says, "That's my house".

There is no reply.

I think I remember a story like this...

It might be

The Machine Stops by E. M. Forster: The story describes a world in which most of the human population has lost the ability to live on the surface of the Earth.

Each individual now lives in isolation below ground in a standard 'cell', with all bodily and spiritual needs met by the omnipotent, global Machine.

Travel is permitted but unpopular and rarely necessary.

Communication is made via a kind of instant messaging/video conferencing machine called the speaking apparatus, with which people conduct their only activity, the sharing of ideas and what passes for knowledge.

The two main characters, Vashti and her son Kuno, live on opposite sides of the world.

Vashti is content with her life, which, like most inhabitants of the world, she spends producing and endlessly discussing secondhand 'ideas'.

Kuno, however, is a sensualist and a rebel.

He persuades a reluctant Vashti to endure the journey (and the resultant unwelcome personal interaction) to his cell.

Full story here

It's Such A Beautiful Day seems by far the likeliest.

The boy's mother is deeply humiliated when he catches a cold after going outside in the rain

(disease is almost unknown now) and is inclined to accept his schoolteacher's advice to have him treated with a psychic probe.

The boy's psychiatrist is vehemently opposed to this, and it is strongly hinted (though not flatly stated)

that he himself was once "treated" in that way for a similar "disorder".

In the last sentence, the psychiatrist himself decides to walk home because "it's such a beautiful day".

Question: I am trying to locate a sci fi story, probably written in the 50's, most likely by Bradbury or Heinlein, about a dissatisfied boy who breaks the rules in a future society where no one goes outside anymore because technology has eliminated the need to do so. Any ideas?

Dissatisfied boy breaks the rules in a future society, technology has eliminated need to go outside

This sounds like the short story " It's Such a Beautiful Day " by Isaac Asimov. However, "The Machine Stops"  by E. M. Forster is another suggestion.

The possibilities are "It’s Such a Beautiful Day" written by Isaac Asimov and "The Machine Stops" written by E.M, the former being the most likely.

The likeliest answer is "It’s Such a Beautiful Day" written by Isaac Asimov though "The Machine Stops" written by E.M. Forster is also a contender.