As Dawny33 speculated, and speculated correctly.

It was fire.

This is confirmed in an interview by The Huffington Post with director of the episode " Dragon and the Wolf ",

Jeremy Podeswa, when asking the all important question "Was it Ice or Fire?" .

(Emphasis mine throughout)

“The way I looked at it was, when the sept burned down, that was green fire, and so then the dragon is going to have some kind of blueish fire ,” he said.

“ It’s certainly still fire — it has the ability to burn the Wall and melt snow.

But it’s going to have a different kind of magical quality to it, because it’s coming from an undead dragon.”

The Huffington Post in an interview with Jeremy Podeswa This is re-confirmed in an interview with IndieWire where he discusses the humour of the acceptance of Green fire but not blue fire, although that 'chemically' the two would be different, coming from a dead being.

“It’s funny because people really accepted the green fire [of wildfire], which burned down the Sept [of Baelor] and the sea battle in the earlier season,” said Podeswa.

“I think that fire can have many different manifestations.

I think that the ice dragon fire is clearly still fire because it does melt The Wall and tear it down, but it had a particular quality because it’s coming from an undead dragon.

So what the chemical nature of that is and the chemical nature of fire would actually be different coming from a non-sentient being.

So there’s

definitely some thought into that of what that should actually look like.

But obviously, an ice dragon is going to have an icy kind of fire

but it’s still fire.”

Jeremy Podeswa breaks down the final episode for IndieWire Finally, when talking about the amount of practical vs visual effects used in the episode with The Hollywood Reporter , Jeremy Podeswa reveals that there are interactive elements with the scenes where the "flame" tears the wall down. "...

And there are many interactive elements also that people might not be aware of, like the dragon flame and the impact of that and what it does in terms of the effect it has on the Wall..."

The Hollywood Reporter in an interview with Jeremy Podeswa

In addition, the official script to Season 7 Episode 7 "The Dragon and the Wolf" states that it was indeed blue fire : Hovering near the base of the Wall, the ice dragon shoots forth a steady stream of blue fire, thick as a tree trunk, strafing back and forth along the base of the Wall.

"The Dragon and the Wolf", page 62 - Official Script

It is fire

The thing which the dragon was breathing radiates like flames, which only fire can do.

Never seen any creature in Scifi breathing ice which radiates flames Also, one can clearly see black and grey smoke coming out of the wall wherever the blue fire touches it.

Ice on ice creates white smoke.

But here, it is more greyish towards the upper side of the smoke, which again supports the view that it is fire.

Viserion is known to be smaller than his other two brothers, Drogon and Rhaegal.

So, unless and until he magically grew very strong under the aegis of the Night King, there is no way he could have breathed ice so strong which can bring down another ice structure like the Ice Wall [which stood strong for 8000+ years].

So, it should be fire.

To be warned that all the answers here would be speculation.

We shall only (probably) know in the next season.

As the other two answers say it was fire, I will take the other position: it wasn't fire.

When the undead dragon breathes on the encampment at the top of the wall, we see no items catching fire:

Every time we've seen the living dragons breathe, things have caught fire.

Furthermore, the damage to the wall is inconsistent with fire damage to ice; we do not see melting, we do not see smoothed surfaces where the "fire" has hit.

We see particles which could be steam -- or they could be dust, particles of the wall, etc.

We do see jagged edges and flying debris consistent with physical impact.

This is inconsistent with the fire of the living dragons, which has been shown to hit humans without explosive force, simply lighting them on fire: Given a lack of signs consistent with fire damage, we are left with what we do know: it is some variety of force-causing emission which acts differently than the fire breathed by living dragons.

It may be ice, or it may be something different entirely.

It is some kind of magic fire, it was definitely fire as

it brought down a huge portion of the wall which was made of ice and generally

, fire melts ice!

(Though the impact was different than from the previous episode when Dragons were vanquishing the Wight walkers and ice)

In chemistry, we do have substances which burn with a blue flame.

We need to wait for the dragons to fight each other to know which flame is stronger.

I'm certain it's magical dragon fire...

White walkers have blue eyes and the dead they reanimate have blue eyes too.

Also, those magic sphere bombs that Leaf had were blue.

I'm guessing this type of 'un-dead' magic has a blue quality.

Question: Major spoilers for the Season 7 finale of  Game of Thrones .    Did Viserion (Night King's dragon) breathe ice or fire to bring the wall down?   Reasons for Fire:    - It  is  a dragon...  - It  looks  like fire, just blue...    Reasons for Ice:    - The Night King's magic is ice based.  - The Wall does not appear to be melting, but exploding

Was it Ice or Fire?

Any answer will be speculation, but it is generally agreed that Viserion breathes fire to bring the wall down, even though it has a magical quality because it's coing from an undead dragon. However, some people may dispute this and claim it to be a magic form of ice.

Views vary but the most authoritative statement comes from director Jeremy Podeswa who says it is fire, but the fire has a different magical quality because it is coming from an undead dragon.

According to director Jeremy Podeswa it is fire, but the fire has a different magical quality because it is coming from an undead dragon.

It must be fire because ice on ice creates white smoke whereas this fire creates grey smoke.

It wasn't fire - it must have been a jet of particles like ice or dust.

There are substances in chemistry that burn with a blue flame - and the blue colour is like the blue eyes of the white walkers and the reanimated undead.


I assume that Sansa and Arya are aware of Ned's wise words.

The Winterfell plot line this season has been centered around Littlefinger sowing discord amongst the Stark siblings.

However, Littlefinger's final scene shows Arya, Sansa, and Bran coming together to pass judgment on Lord Baelish.

Over the past several episodes all 3 siblings had touched the dagger.

They've held it and passed it between each other.

So while Sansa might have said the words and Arya's hand was on the blade when it killed Littlefinger they operated together as a unit.

The Starks did pass the sentence and the Starks swung the sword.

Sansa was never taught this.

This lesson was likely never taught to Sansa or Arya to begin with.

In the original scene, the lesson was for the benefit of the male children present (Robb, Jon, Bran).

Given the attitudes towards what was proper for women to learn, he would not have bothered teaching this bit of wisdom to either Sansa or Arya (though Arya might have heard about it secondhand).

Sansa would have no reason to want to strike the blow herself.

In addition, she has been learning, the hard way, the art of manipulation.

It would fit with both this change in her personality, as well as her upbringing as a lady to let another hand do the dirty work.

She may have become aware of this later, but not likely - it's not the sort of thing that would come up in conversation before she was spirited away by Littlefinger, and it certainly was not among the behaviors he was trying to teach her.

If she has not had occasion to pass this sentence on someone, there is zero reason for anyone to mention it.

Certainly no one had the temerity to bring up at that moment.

Think of where she began, and where she is now.

That sort of thinking belongs to the bright, honorable world she was expecting long ago when Robert and friends first came to town, a world view that has long since been shattered.

Even if she IS aware of the tradition, it belongs to a world that must appear to her as naive and fanciful, where people do the right and honorable thing.

she's seen what happens to people that think that way.

Whether she knows of it or not, she has no reason to do the deed herself.

As you say, the old way was The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword (emphasis mine).

There is no natural law of the universe that prevents someone else carrying out the sentence, which is what happened in this case.

There is two quotes at work here.

The Man who passes the sentence should swing the sword" and "

The lone wolf dies, but the pack survives."

The event in question symbolizes that the Stark children aren't lone wolves anymore, but they are a pack again.

And the "man" (or rather the entity) that passes the sentence is the wolf pack.

Thus Bran, Sansa, and Arya are all one in respect to the first quote.

I like to think that Arya added Baelish to her list once Bran told her that he was responsible for their father's death (assuming this happened behind the scenes) and therefore wanted to be the one to end his life.

Question: In the Season 7 finale of Game of Thrones,  The Dragon and the Wolf    Petyr Baelish is sentenced to death by Sansa, and Arya kills him   According to the old way,  The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword     So, why did the person who passed the sentence not carry it out?

Why was the person who passed the sentence in the Season 7 finale not also the executioner?

There are a number of possible explanations for this, but it is difficult to say for sure which is the correct reason. Firstly, it could be considered that The Starks operated as a unit both when passing the sentence and then carrying it out. Alternatively, it could also be that Sansa was never taught the rule of needing to carry out the sentence. It's also possible that she was aware of the Old Way, but chose to ignore it because she doesn't see it as important.

Views vary - Arya can be seen as striking the blow for the Starks as whole, as getting revenge for the death of her father or as simply ignorant of a rule that would - in such a society - have only been taught to the menfolk. The rule was anyway only a matter of custom - she was not breaking any deeper natural or universal law.

Altho Arya struck the blow she was doing it as a Stark and the whole execution - including the sentencing - was a combined effort of the Starks.

Sansa was never taught this rule probably because it was never felt that she - as a women - would need to implement it.

The rule is just customary - there is no natural or universal law behind it and therefore ultimately no obligation to honor it.

Arya wanted to be the one who killed Baelish as he was responsible for her father's death - so it was partly a revenge killing.


The canon novel " Aftermath: Life Debt" identifies the remains of Alderaan as a debris field named the Alderaanian Graveyard : Asteroids tumble through space.

They drift and spiral, and when one hits the perimeter shield, it breaks.

Bits drift, pulverized, as the rest of the rock pirouettes away to join the rest of its crumbling brethren.

Every time it happens, it hurts Teven Gale's heart.

Because that asteroid is a piece of his world.

Was a piece of his world, anyway.....

Out in the black, demo-droids drill and dig into the asteroids, one by one

- they look like fireflies out there with their bright-orange light flickering from their cutting lasers.

Those droids look for anything of note from the world the Alderaanians lost: artifacts, remains, fragments of precious stones or minerals or metals.

Even a single brick would be a find.

Accessing any of this wasn't even an option under Imperial rule; the Empire blockaded all access to the Alderaanian graveyard .

Interlude:

The Alderaan Flotilla

Vader was apparently not averse to giving away bits of the former Alderaan as a reminder to unruly systems that they needed to remain loyal to the Empire Darth Vader:

Annual #01

As to what's left, we can actually see it in A New Hope.

In short, not a lot.

"We've come out of hyperspace into a meteor shower or some kind of asteroid collision"

I'd doubt if there'd be many survivors to populate it.

Basically you'd be left with a huge Asteroid Belt.

It might be worth mining but not likely to have a permanent population unless there are a lot of people who care to live in hollowed-out Asteroids.

I presume the remains eventually formed an asteroid belt around the star.

The explosive force would rip any atmosphere from the debris; only Alderaanians off-world could survive.

Reassembly of the planet would be unlikely, as the explosion would scatter a substantial fraction of the planetary mass too far to coalesce by gravity alone.

Referring to Valorum's answer, there was a similar event also in a Legends comic book Star Wars 86: The Alderaan Factor .

A stormtrooper was carrying a chunk of rock around his neck, which was, as he claimed, everything that was left of the planet Alderaan.

Later, the trooper was shot dead and the rock remained in Leia's hands.

Question: In Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope, the Death Star destroys Alderaan, killing all life on the planet.  After its destruction, I assume there was still  some  debris left from it being destroyed.  So what happened to this left-over rock and other debris of Alderaan after its destruction by the Death Star?  Was it left alone? Were the remains of Alderaan reinhabited by surviving Alderaanians? Was there some attempt (possibly using some sort of gravity creating device) to recreate Alderaan?

What happened to Alderaan after its destruction by the Death Star?

Whilst it is never clearly stated whether anything in particular happened to the remains of Alderaan, it is quite likely that nothing happened to them and that Alderaan simply became a large asteroid belt and there would be very few, if any, Alderaanian survivors.

The debris from the destruction of Alderaan is now a widely scattered asteriod belt - too diffuse to form a new planet and therefore unable to provide a viable habitat for any surviving Alderaans, even assuming there were enough of them to re-populate it.

All that remains of Alderaan is a debris field tumbling through space, access to which is blockaded by the Empire.

It is unlikely there would be many survivors, and anyway all that's left is an asteroid belt which is too widely scattered to coalesce into a planet again and which would not therefore form an attractive habitat for them.

All that's left is a small chunk of rock taken from a dead stormtrooper and now in the possession of Leia.


He was mocking Rey.

He was arguing to Rey that he wasn't the savior she thought he was, and he wasn't going to return and go defeat the First Order on his own.

He mis-identifies the lighstaber to mock the idea that he could take down the whole army with his weapon.

Laser sword is the way somebody who is unfamiliar to a lightsaber might refer to one, so it emphasizes the lack of knowledge someone would need to have to expect him to defeat the First Order.

He tries to remove the lightsaber's mythical image.

The term lightsaber implies a lot of things beyond the actual technical device.

For example, it is a part of the Jedi religion, it is a weapon of mythical reputation, it is the weapon that great heroes fought their heroic battles with.

Luke wants to make Rey understand that everything beyond the apparatus itself is pure imagination, so he calls the lightsaber by a name that describes the device, but lacks context, to relativize her associations regarding the weapon.

It's a bit like calling, say, Excalibur, an “old sword”.

It's aimed at removing properties of the device which are – in Luke's opinion – not real, and thereby questioning the validity of the Jedi religion that he has become disillusioned with.

Remember that we open with Rey handing Luke the lightsaber (i.e. the end of The Force Awakens ) and Luke tosses it behind him and walks away without saying a word, much to Rey's astonishment Luke doesn't want anything to do with Rey, or rebellions, or Jedi.

He's now a crotchety (and snarky) old man.

Mocking Rey by disparaging the lightsaber is a way to discourage her so she'll leave him alone.

George Lucas often referred to them as "laser swords."

The phrase was also used in Phantom Menace by Anakin, referencing Qui Gon's lightsaber.

I think we can infer that both phrases are used in-universe.

I thought it might have been a tribute to Lucas who called a light saber a laser sword, a lot.

Or, it might have been his disdain for the weapon on the director’s choice to portray the character.

He was entirely bitter against the force and the Jedi at that point.

Could have been both.

Question: In  The Last Jedi , I thought it was a little odd that Luke referred to the lightsaber as a "laser sword".  Given that the lightsaber identifies a Jedi, why did he refer to it as such?

Why did Luke call the lightsaber by a different name?

It's possible to infer that both terms, "lightsaber" and "laser sword", are used. However, in this case Luke calls the lightsaber a "laser sword" because he is mocking Rey. As a side note, it is also possible that it was a tribute to George Lucas, who referred to them as laser swords.

Luke used the term 'laser sword' to show his disdain for the Jedi and his rejection of the idea of resuming his old ways. The term was also often used by Geroge Lucas, however, so it can also be seen as a tribute to him, or as both of these.

Luke was doing it to mock Rey and thereby ridicule her suggestion that he might join her with his lightsaber in fighting against the old enemy.

It could have been a tribute to George Lucas, who used the term laser sword, or it could be a way of showing his bitterness towards the Force and the Jedi, or a combination of these.


The most common guess I've heard is 'knockers', which makes sense since it explains why he was able to come up with 'knuckles' so quickly (still quite an achievement to improvise it on the fly, mind).

Plus, Google says that the use of that word in writing peaked around the time Héctor died, so it's a term he would have been familiar with (if he spoke English, anyway). '

Tits', which was suggested by another commenter, existed in the 1920s but only really started to get popular around the 2000s.

(And it's only one syllable.

So it wouldn't really fit anyway).

Are you talking about the fictional origins of these lyrics?

Because these ARE the original lyrics; "Everyone knows Juanita" is an original song written by Adrian Molina and Germaine Franco for the 2017 Pixar movie, Coco.

https://acadianasthriftymom.com/2017/11/29/the-meaning-and-love-behind-the-music-of-disneypixar-coco/ (the writing of Juanita is discussed 2/3 of the way down)

(see back of CD cover, left lower corner for writing credits)

I too started researching the lyrics to the original Mexican song, but then it occurred to me...

what if it SOUNDS like an old Mexican song

but it's an original song written for the movie?

Turns out they did a VERY convincing job of making it sound like an old Mexican ranchera.

I do agree with the theory that the authors probably implied "knockers" with the euphemistic "knuckles."

I assumed it was implied to be "tatas" - Spanish slang for "large breasts".

"Knockers" would work, but it is distinctly English in origin, and I think he was just looking for something that could "drag on the floor" to replace the word with.

The word is not nor would have been tits or knockers.

Those are English language derived words.

The song is Spanish in origin.

The word would be of Spanish origin, therefore, probably chiches or tetas.

Someone earlier suggested "her lemons" which would translate as limoncitos or small breast.

I don't think that would fit the context of the song though.

Small breast dragging the floor and all....

I assumed the "original" word that Hector replaced was nipples , as the song doesn't use slang for any other body parts it describes.

Question: In the Pixar film  Coco , when Héctor performs " Everyone Knows Juanita " for his friend Chicharrón, he changes one of the lines to be more family friendly.   Héctor:   Well, everyone knows Juanita   Her eyes each a different color   Her teeth stick out and her chin goes in   And her...knuckles, they drag on the floor  Chicharrón:  Those aren't the words!  Héctor:  There are children present   What was the actual line that made Héctor censor himself?

What were the original lyrics to "Everyone Knows Juanita"?

There is no clear correct answer to this question, although there are several possible suggestions. The original word, instead of "knuckles", could have been "knockers" - a slang term for breasts, "tatas" - a Spanish slang term for large breasts, or nipples.

Views vary, with one possibility being 'tits' or 'knockers' although these words may be too English for the Spanish context, which would make a word like 'tatas' meaning 'large breasts' more likely.

The best guess is 'knockers' as it was current at the time - unlike 'tits', but there was no original song, it's just that this song is written to sound like a version of an olf Mexican song.

The word that is replaced is most likely 'tatas' meaning 'large breasts' in Spanish, as words like 'tits' and 'knockers' are too English.

The 'original' word must be 'nipples' because slang terms are not used for any of the other body parts mentioned.


It depends on how you define a character, but yes.

Snoopy conversed with Woodstock with thought bubbles, as evidenced by this passage from the book "My Life with Charlie Brown", by C. Schulz.

I would much prefer that Snoopy not converse with Woodstock, but there are some ideas too important to abandon, so I have him speaking to Woodstock through "thought" balloons.

So Snoopy is not actually speaking, but using thought balloons that Woodstock understands, so there is at least one recurring character in Snoopy that understands what he is thinking.

I was going to comment in reply to NKCampbell, pointing out that as well as walking on two legs, putting clothes on himself, ice skating, and typing letters to his brother, Snoopy is also a famous World War I fighter ace , when I noticed the reference comic in that link demonstrates that Linus at least understands what's going on in Snoopy's head, even if he doesn't have a direct translation of individual thoughts.

(He shoots down Snoopy from his Sopwith Camel/kennel.)

Additionally, that page suggests Marcie understands Snoopy's thoughts inasmuch as she is happy to play the French lass who falls for the hero in his fighter ace fantasy Edit :

Further instances of the characters being aware of what Snoopy is thinking:

Charlie knows Snoopy has just bailed out of

his 'plane' Charlie knows Snoopy is flying a sopwith camel in world war 1 against the red baron Edit 2:The example below is wrong.

It is Woodstock talking.

I couldn't see him in the image (still can't), but it's his speech.

Thanks to @DaveTweed for the correction.

I still think there is enough evidence to show there is definitely some understanding of Snoopy's thoughts by the Peanuts children.

And finally: Evidence of direct understanding of Snoopy's 'speech'

(not thought) bubble:

So

yes, Snoopy is can be understood by the human characters in the strip.

Edit 3:

To respond to essentially similar comments from RDFozz and cann-ned_food:

For the first part of the argument, I suggest that for a strip that started in 1950, realising that Snoopy is a World war 1 fighter ace is NOT an obvious reaction to seeing him dressed in aviator hat/goggles piloting his kennel.

A 1950s pilot would be more likely than a WWI pilot fighter ace , (heck even a WWII pilot would be more likely).

For the second, the logical end result

- once you start down the path of assigning parts of the strip to someone's imagination - is that the whole thing must be imagination based, whether that imagination is Snoopy's, Charlie Brown's (whether or not that includes the rest of the Peanuts kids) or that of Mr Schulz himself.

I felt this would invalidate the question, so I chose to not only not go down that path, but to ignore it completely.

I cannot recall any instance where a human character responded as though Snoopy's thought balloons were directly communicated to them.

Generally, his communication with humans was limited to his actions (not eating when fed; dancing about; kissing Lucy; Linus commenting on the "vulture" in a nearby tree; etc.)

As JohnP pointed out, Snoopy's thought balloons do seem to be communicated to Woodstock and his bird friends as though they were spoken, and to Snoopy's siblings when he meets up with them.

His siblings responses are communicated the same way; however, the birds' responses are always in "bird language" (||\|||/|||!).

It seems reasonable to assume that Snoopy (and his siblings) are communicating in "dog language", and the thought balloons are simply translations to simplify things for us.

We'd also need to suppose that birds understand "dog language"; however, since Snoopy seems to understand "bird language", that doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

The closest we see to direct interaction is Woodstock and Snoopy.

Snoopy thinks in normal thought, while Woodstock speaks bird, yet they clearly understand each other While we don't see the other characters interact with the bubbles directly, there's always Snoopy's typewriter, which we do see some characters interact with directly from time to time

No, they don't.

This is explicitly stated in the January 27th, 1997 comic strip.

However, Charles Schulz was not renown for his consistency, so it's possible that there exists another strip that contradicts this one.

Question: In Peanuts, are the humans aware of what Snoopy is thinking? I know that Charles Schulz was very careful to always place Snoopy's thoughts in a thought bubble as opposed to a speech bubble, but did the other characters react as if it was spoken?  I'm referring to human characters only here, not Woodstock or the cactus that Spike speaks to.

In Peanuts, do the human characters know what Snoopy's thinking?

There is no agreement as to whether the human characters were aware of Snoopy's thoughts. Some may feel that there is evidence of some understanding of his thoughts, but the comic strip in 1997 explicitly stated that the other characters were not aware of what Snoopy was thinking. This being said, Charles Schulz was not renowned for his consistency.

Charles Schultz himself stated that none of the human characters understood Snoopy's thoughts, but he was known to be inconsistent and there are signs that the Peanuts children have some understanding of Snoopy's thoughts.

There is evidence that the Peanuts children had some understanding of Snoopy's thoughts.

No, they do not, as Charles Schultz himself stated.


Duncan Makenzie, the protagonist of Imperial Earth (1976) is a bisexual man, and sexual encounters with both genders are described.

In fact, a romantic/sexual triangle between Duncan, his friend and sometimes lover Karl, and a girl called Calindy, is central to the plot.

Yes George and Jerry who appear in the third book of the Space Odyssey series 2061:

Odyssey Three .

An old gay couple who are two of Floyd's longest and closest friends; they had worked in the arts in earlier life.

George and Jerry help to manage Floyd's personal affairs while he is away.

" 2061:

Odyssey Three ", Wikipedia

In Rendezvous With Rama (1973) two male crew members are in a polyamarous relationship with each other and a woman back on earth.

But no one can predict where the lightning will strike, and years ago Mercer and Calvert had established an apparently stable liaison.

That was common enough.

Much more unusual was the fact that they also shared a wife back on earth, who had borne each of them a child.

Norton hoped that he could meet her one day; she must be a most remarkable woman.

The triangle had lasted for at least five years, and still seemed to be an equilateral one.

Walter Curnow from 2010:

Odyssey Two is described as being a "cheerfully well-adjusted polymorph" - i.e. happily bisexual.

Yes, in The Songs of Distant Earth, pretty much everyone on it is, at least, bisexual.

In it, Arthur C. Clark treats sexuality has something volatile, with people not belonging fully to one end of the scale (homo or hetero).The colony on the planet in which the story takes place (Thalassa), was founded with the aid of machines, one of which containing all human knowledge and heroic, or good, history.

Wars, Crimes, Religion and overall bad notions, acts or concepts were left out - the concepts of possession, racism, discrimination and jealousy among them.

So regarding relationship and sexuality, this resulted in a society where there was no norm for either relationships or sexual orientation.

Everyone was free to be themselves in those regards.

At some point the author explains that Earth society came to accept sexual orientation as not set in stone, but having a tendency percentage.

An example in the story is Loren, a man for Earth, which identifies as an heterosexual (but with a small tendency for homosexuality), is married to a woman and although in love with Marissa, has a one night stand with her brother, Kumar.

Kumar, on the other hand is mentioned as being known for having partners from both sexes.

There's a rather explicit dialog concerning bisexuality in "The Songs of Distant Earth", right at the beginning of chapter 35 "Convalescence":

"I'm quite surprised," Loren had interjected at one point in a rather seamy narrative.

"I'd have sworn you were ninety percent hetero." "Ninety-two, according to my profile," Horton said cheerfully. "

But I like to check my calibration from time to time."

The lieutanant was only half joking.

Somewhere he had heard that hundred percenters were so rare that they were classed as pathological.

Possibly in The City and the Stars.

There is a girl who is in love with the main character Alvin, but he rejects her and prefer spending time with his new pal instead (who do have a girlfriend).

At one point Alvin sees his friend naked when they spend a night together in a tent, and pay some attention to his genitals, which are different from his own (they can be retracted into his body).This was written in the 50s, when orientation was rarely mentioned.

Also in Childhood's End there is a man of mixed race who Clarke describes as beautiful (or perhaps he used other words to describe him, I can't remember).

Question: Arthur C Clarke was gay. Did he portray any of his characters as gay (or otherwise LGBT)?

Did Arthur C Clarke portray any gay characters in his fiction?

The answer is that yes, LGBT characters do appear in the fiction of Arthur C Clarke. There are examples of relationships between male crew members and other examples include Duncan Makenzie, a bisexual man, and Kumar, who has had relationships with both sexes.

Yes, there are many gay and bisexual characters in his novels, for example, Duncan Makenzie, the protagonist of  Imperial Earth  (1976) is a bisexual man, and sexual encounters with both genders are described.


As far as the information from the HP books (and movies), Fantastic Beasts first movie, and as you mentioned in your question, the non-wizarding world people are addressed as: MUGGLES by the British community NO-MAJ (NON-MAGICALS) by the American community However, according to David Yates (director of the new Fantastic Beasts movie), in his interview here , he mentioned that the French address non-wizards as: NON-MAGIQUES Which is undoubtedly the literal translation of the American term.

However, as far as I have read, searched and seen online, these are the only three terms mentioned.

( Fingers crossed for some new reveals though! )

Even though only two words have been officially disclosed, we could assume other countries would use the words introduced in official translations of HP books.

There's a list of translations for "muggle" at Harry Potter Wikia .

I dont believe Rowling has answered this.

I suspect we might find out what muggles in France are called with the next Fantastic Beasts movie.

In the Finnish translations, it is Jästi .

The source is a currently unavailable pro gradu work for Tampere University linguistics: http://uta32-kk.lib.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/90829/gradu00230.pdf (gives a timeout error at the moment)

Hanna Karppinen: Harry Potter -kirjojen suomennoksissa käytetyt uudissanat, Appendix 2.

Pro gradu.

Tampereen yliopisto, 2003 Translation: "The neologisms used in translations of the Harry Potter books" Funnily enough, the word means a person that is an outsider.

One that does not belong to any circles.

It can be any kind of a circle, ie.

a group of people with a common interest or background.

The word itself was selected by the Finnish translator, Jaana Kapari, from the word jästipää which means a very stubborn person.

Stubborn to a level of stupidity.

Btw, the English version of that page tells that it's a person who does not partake in geocaching, but that seems to be someone's joke addition :)

In India, they're called "मगलू" in Hindi which in English would be pronounced as "Mugloo" .

Source: glosbe.com/en/hi/Muggle and also from Harry Potter Wikia .

For the pronounciation part, you can copy paste the Hindi word in the translator and listen to the audio

Ok, this is just speculation on my part... but hear me out: Since it's not actually an english word (Unless you consider it's root as 1920's New Orleans slang for a joint and/or hot chocolate.)

but rather a wizard world word

I'd think that most countries would have a local word derived from olde wizarde or high wiz (or whatever the spell language is called) such as Muggle in English, Mugglare in Swedish and मगलू in Hindi (as Abhi stated).

Some communities could try and mark their uniqueness and standing apart from the other wizarding world by making up words (such as the americans with their slang word "no-maj")

but the word "Muggle" would still be recognizeable by them.

Question: Muggles, as we know, are the people who have no magical ability and are born in a non-magical family. Non-magical people are called Muggles in the British magical community and 'No-maj' in the American community. But we can find wizards in other countries also. E.g the twins Parvati and Padma Patil were of Indian descent.  What are non-magical people called by magical communities outside of Britain and America?  I am not asking about different languages like German or French. I am asking about different magical communities in other countries.

What is the in-universe term for Muggles in other countries?

It doesn't appear that that JK Rowling has answered this question. However, David Yates (director of the Fantastic Beasts movie) has mentioned that the French wizards refer to muggles as "Non-magiques".

JK Rowling has not answered this question yet so the only terms we have are 'muggle', 'non-maj' and possibly 'non-magiques' in France.

The only known terms are 'muggle', 'non-maj' and possible in France 'non-magiques'.

JK Rowling has not answered this question.


She seemed to be “brought in” for the Second Task.

Fleur’s sister didn’t seem to arrive at Hogwarts with the rest of the students - we only see her at the Second Task, when she’s held as the hostage for Fleur.

The other three hostages were already at Hogwarts since they were all Hogwarts students, but it seems like Fleur’s sister was brought in specifically for the task, perhaps since there was no one at Hogwarts

she cared about much.

“A choir of merpeople were singing in the middle, calling the champions towards them, and behind them rose a crude sort of statue; a gigantic merperson hewn from a boulder.

Four people were bound tightly to the tail of the stone merperson.

Ron was tied between Hermione and Cho Chang.

There was also a girl who looked no older than eight, whose clouds of silvery hair made Harry feel sure that she was Fleur Delacour’s sister.

All four of them appeared to be in a very deep sleep.

Their heads were lolling onto their shoulders, and fine streams of bubbles kept issuing from their mouths.”

- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 26

(The Second Task) After the Second Task was over, we don’t see Fleur’s sister again until the champions’ families are invited to Hogwarts to watch the final task.

“On the other side of the room, Fleur was jabbering away in French to her mother.

Fleur’s little sister, Gabrielle, was holding her mother’s hand.

She waved at Harry, who waved back.”

- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 31

(The Third Task)

After having saved her, Harry would be more likely (though not guaranteed) to notice her presence at Hogwarts since he “knew” her - however, she’s not mentioned as being at Hogwarts until the families come for the final task.

In the movie, though, she came in with the Beauxbatons students.

In the movie version of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire , Gabrielle comes in with the students, and is doing flips.

She’s also shown in the Beauxbatons uniform, which may imply that the movie intended her to be a student.

However, in the movie, there don’t seem to be any other Beauxbatons students as young as her, so if she is supposed to be a student, that would make her the youngest one brought to Hogwarts by far.

As Valorum suggests in the comments, it’s possible

they suspected Fleur would be chosen as champion, and brought her sister specifically in preparation for the Second Task.

Fleur was competing as Beauxbatons' champion in the first Triwizard Tournament in ages.

Although this is not mentioned explicitly in the books, surely her family would come over for the occasion, to cheer her on?

Fleur's little sister was doing gymnastics when they arrived at hogwarts.

So I'm guessing she's the school's mascot since she's too young to go to the same school as her sister.

Each champion had their most precious possession -- the person they valued most -- taken by the merpeople and held for rescue by their champion.

Harry's best friend, Ron, was chosen, and Hermione was chosen for Krum to rescue.

Cedric's girlfriend, Cho Chang, and Fleur's little sister, Gabrielle, were also selected for the task.

I imagine she was "flown in" for the task.

While there's no mention of it, it wouldn't be unreasonable to imagine that Beauxbatons takes students at a significantly younger age than Hogwarts.

In the UK we have a clear separation between Primary and Secondary School, starting at around age 11/12.

Muggle France does something very comparable, but that's not to say that wizarding France might not combine the two and reduce the distinction, after all, with such a small population it may not make sense to have more than one school.

Alternatively they make take an attitude that while a wizarding child might not come into their magic until their second decade, the training may begin much earlier.

One might liken it to Ballet or learning an instrument, where in general starting younger is more desirable.

Question: I am surprised that I didn't find this question using the search.  Why was Fleur's little sister Gabrielle even at Hogwarts?  If I remember correctly she must have been only 8 years old, and all the other students from Beauxbatons were older than her.

Why was Fleur's little sister Gabrielle even at Hogwarts?

It's not clear whether or not Gabrielle attended Hogwarts, although she does appear during the Second Task. There is also no reason to suggest that she couldn't have attended Hogwarts even though she was significantly younger. In the movie version, she appears with the rest of the students wearing a Beauxbatons uniform. Alternatively, there is the possibility that she was merely the school's mascot rather than a student.

She has probably come just to act as a hostage for her sister Fleur, but maybe she is just a school mascot or maybe Beauxbatons accepts younger students than Hogwarts.

It looks like she was brought in only to act as hostage for her sister Fleur. After Harry saves her she is not mentioned until the families come for the final task.

Gabrielle may be the school's mascot since she is doing gymnastics when they arrive at Hogwarts.

Perhaps Beauxbatons accepts students from a much younger age than Hogwarts.


Phylosians from 'The Infinite Vulcan' ST: TAS S01E07 (1973)

It might not fit exactly, but apparently in early drafts of 'This Side of Paradise' the Omicron spores from Omicron Ceti II were a communal intelligence.

Since the animated series counts, there are the Phylosians :

They kidnap Spock and make a 25-foot tall clone of him.

In the TNG episode Shades of Grey , Riker is attacked by a vine that demonstrates a basic level of sentience.

It attacks living things, but not Data, and writhes when they cut off its thorn.

Since there seems to be no animal life on the planet Pahvo from Discovery season 1 episode 8, the sentient Pahvans presumably originated as plant life of some kind.

in DS9 Julian mentions that Ensign Vilix'pran is "budding" with twins.

Vilix'pran

The plants in This SIde of Paradise seem to have some intelligence - they turn to shoot spores into people who aren't already space-hippie-zombies.

They also seem to have some sort of control over people who get sprayed - they want to protect the plants and expand the plants' control over other people.

I'm not sure if this fits your definition of Sentience.

[Farmyard] KIRK:

Spock, is that you?

[Pasture] SPOCK:

Yes, Captain.

What did you want?

KIRK

[OC]:

Where are you?

SPOCK:

I don't believe I want to tell you.

[Farmyard] KIRK:

Spock, I don't know what you think you're doing, but this is an order.

Report back to me at the settlement in ten minutes.

We're evacuating all colonists to Starbase Twenty Seven.

[Pasture]

SPOCK:

No, I don't think so.

[Farmyard] KIRK:

You don't think so, what?

[Pasture]

SPOCK:

I don't think so, sir.

Question: There are a variety of different species in  Star Trek , from all walks of life. Humanoids, insectoids, silicon-based life-forms, the works. However, I can't seem to think of any sentient plant species from across all the  Star Trek  shows/films. Are there any that exist, throughout all of the canon? Examples from the animated series will also be included, in all its weirdness.

Are there any sentient plant species in Star Trek?

There are some examples of sentient plant life in Star Trek, including the Phylosians from "The Infinte Vulcan" and a vine creature in "Shades of Grey".

There are some sentient plant life forms, including the phylosians, a sentient vine and the pahvans.

The phylosians from The Infinite Vulcan.

The sentient vine in the TNG episode Shades of Grey.


This is a pretty common trope.

However, here is one of the better known examples:

According to the The Restaurant at the End of the Universe , Earth was populated by the useless middle class of the planet Golgafrincham, who were sent here on Ark B.

The ark was intentionally crashed into the Earth, but the enough of the Golgafrinchans survived to become the dominant species on the planet, wiping out the native hominids.

Per the Hitchhikers Wikia The Golgafrinchans are a race of humanoid beings who realised that there were three types of beings on the planet of Golgafrincham.

Thinkers, Workers, and the strange Middle Class.

The middle class comprised of hair dressers, lawyers, telephone sanitisers, and other such "worthless jobs".

The Thinkers built a ship and told the third class that the planet was to be consumed by a "giant space goat".

So they built a ship and sent off their third class.

Telling them that they would follow soon.

The Third class ended up on Earth, "mucking up the program to determine the ultimate question", while the rest of the classes were killed off by a raging disease contracted from public telephones.

Golgafrincham itself soon after was consumed by a giant space goat.

This may be 'Genesis' by H. Beam Piper.

The 'humans' are from Mars, and their vehicle goes off-track.

The last line is something like

'we are the men from Mars' http://www.loyalbooks.com/book/Genesis-by-H-Beam-Piper

This happens in James Hogan’s “Inherit the Stars”.

An ancient skeleton is found on the moon.

Scientists try to figure out how it got there.

Readers find out in the final chapter that compatriots of the dead alien landed on earth and founded the human race.

Could also be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutineers%27_Moon .

The ship did not crashland.

The book begins with a prologue recording a mutiny aboard the planetoid-sized Utu-class starship of the Fourth Imperium (a more-than-55,000-year-old technologically advanced multi-star system empire), the Dahak, led by its Chief of Engineering, the ambitious and psychopathic Captain Anu.

Anu's ostensible reason for mutiny is to lead his followers to refuge on some remote planet where presumably the genocidal wrath of the "Achuultani", a mysterious alien race that periodically exterminates all intelligent life it can find, and which has destroyed the previous three Imperiums, will pass over them.

Not a perfect match, but it could be The Wailing Asteroid by Murray Leinster.

It might also be Moon Wreck , prequel to The Slaver Wars and The Lost Fleet series by Raymond Weil.

As Buzz said, this is a pretty common trope.

Also, of course, Earth is the Thirteenth Colony of Kobol in Battlestar Galactica universe.

Question: I am looking for a sci-fi story in which a spaceship with humans crash-lands on earth in the distant past and the surviving members go an founding the human race. This story is at least 30 years old.

Spaceship crash-lands on earth and the surviving members found the human race

The plotline in question appears in a number of different books and is quite a common theme. Books that feature this type of story or variations of it include "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe", "Genesis" by H. Beam Piper, "Inherit the Stars" by James Hogan or "The Wailing Asteroid" by Murray Leinster.

Many books take up this idea, including The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, 'Genesis' by H. Beam Piper, The Wailing Asteroid by Murray Leinster or Moon Wreck , prequel to The Slaver Wars and The Lost Fleet series by Raymond Weil.

This is a common trope - e.g. The Restaurant at the End of the Universe has Earth populated by the middle classes of Golgafrincham.

This could be 'Genesis' by H. Beam Piper, where the 'humans' are from Mars.

This happens in James Hogan’s “Inherit the Stars”, where a skeleton is discovered on the Moon.

This could be The Wailing Asteroid by Murray Leinster or Moon Wreck , prequel to The Slaver Wars and The Lost Fleet series by Raymond Weil.


Ultron waged his war against humanity from the shadows, and Wakanda would have been a significant threat For the majority of his conquest, Ultron had chosen to operate behind the scenes.

He wasn't sweeping the streets killing off people, but rather setting up a plot to destroy humanity.

The Avengers and any relevant governments/institutions for which he was targeting were certainly aware, but in almost all cases he chose subtler movements, concealing his larger plan, and avoiding all out war on humanity.

His original goal seems to have been nuclear destruction, but when that failed, he devised the alternate plan we see him carry out.

To that end, if there's anyone in the world he'd want to avoid coming after him, it'd be Wakanda itself.

As we've seen, Wakanda's entire technological structure is centered around Vibranium, and it's safe to say they know everything humanly known about the metal.

This includes not just it's strengths, but also it's weaknesses.

Vibranium is the threat to the world because of its capabilities and durability, so his plan is already at risk simply by using the substance for which they are so protective.

To extend that into an outright invasion/assault on Wakanda itself would be virtually suicidal.

EDIT:

A quote from Age of Ultron , to affirm that Vibranium was known by at least a few on the outside to have come from Wakanda (and so by extension, we can strongly suspect Ultron knew):

Tony Stark:

If this guy got out of Wakanda with some of their trade goods...

Steve Rogers: I thought your father said he got the last of it?

Bruce Banner: I don't follow.

What comes out of Wakanda?

Tony Stark:

The strongest metal on earth.

I agree with the above that going after the vibranium would have been a bad idea if Ultron had known, but I disagree that he would have even known it was there.

Ultron had access to the entire internet, and by extension probably a lot of government agencies as well (although not nuclear stuff - thanks Jarvis!).

With the entire world not knowing Wakanda was sitting on a giant stockhouse of vibranium, why would Ultron have this information if all he has to go on is the collective intelligence available via Earth's computers?

It is true that Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, and others knew about the existence of Vibranium in Wakanda; no one knew that there was tons of it.

When learning of the existence of the metal Ultron was likely able to find out:

Vibranium existed

It was the strongest metal on earth

Its only known source was Wakanda Cap's shield was made from it

Klaue was known to have stolen some of it

As far as Ultron, and anyone else, knew of it vibranium was just some super rare metal that happened to be in Wakanda somewhere.

At that point you have two options.

Either try your luck mining Wakanda and hope you find some, or hunt down a known dude that you are pretty sure has some.

Given that Ultron did have a timetable (Avengers closing in)

you have to assume he went with the safe option and went after Klaue.

Even if Ultron was aware of the presence of Vibranium in Wakanda, he likely would not know what form it was in.

The logical conclusion would be that the bulk of it was in ore form; after all, the world knew Wakandans to be largely pastoral instead of the technological powerhouse it really was.

Ultron likely had neither the knowledge nor the time to process and refine it himself, making Klaue's smuggled shipment of processed vibranium much more attractive.

In Black Panther , Agent Ross tells Klaue that Klaue got all the Vibranium in Wakanda, and Klaue laughs.

Unless Ross was playing Klaue, that tend to indicate that the US government, and arguably the majority of the world, thinks that there is no more Vibranium left to steal.

If that was the information they had, that was information Ultron had.

In Black Panther , Ross mentions that Klaue stole all of Wakanda's remaining Vibranium.

Klaue invaded Wakanda before Avengers: Age Of Ultron , so according to the world, Klaue stole all of the Vibranium in Wakanda leaving only small quantities behind.

So Ultron went to him directly as he thought the same too.

Question: In Avengers: Age of Ultron, Ultron goes to Ulysses Klaue to get the Vibranium he needs to forge a body for himself and Vision so why did he simply not go directly to Wakanda. He had access to the world's entire internet and the information stored on it. He could have gone there and easily managed to get enough Vibranium to make his entire fleet of robots Vibranium bonded. So why does Ultron go to a criminal who got lucky instead of Wakanda?

Why didn't Ultron get the Vibranium directly from Wakanda?

The answer to this question will be speculative, however, the most likely answer is that Ultron may not have realised how much Vabranium was on Wakanda. Furthermore, even if he did know, it would still have been a more certain option to visit a criminal who does have some than take his chances on a planet where there might be some. In any case, Ultron largely chose to operate behind the scenes and Wakanda would have been a significant threat to him.

Ultron could have had a number of reasons for going to Klaue - in order to conceal his moves, because he did not know that the vibranium was actually in Wakanda, because he did not know what form the vibranium was in or because he thought Klaue had already removed all the vibranium from Wakanda.

Ultron goes to Klaue for the vibranium because he wants to hide his actions from Wakanda, fearing a response from the Avengers.

Ultron did not go to Wakanda because he did not know Wakanda was sitting on a stockpile of vibranium.

Even if Ultron had known about the vibranium in Wakanda he would have known what form it was in.

Klaue had previously invaded Wakanda so it makes sense that Ultron would believe that Klaue had taken all the vibranium with him.


Introduced in

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and back story filled in by The Tin Woodsman of Oz , the Nick Chopper, the Tin Woodsman and his counterpart, Captain Fyter, had immortal (if rust-prone) metal bodies with their original consciousness preserved (their original meat parts, still alive because nothing could die in Oz, were glued together into a misshapen human form known as ChopFyt).

The first Oz book (which contained enough of Chopper's story to show the transformation that lodged his consciousness in the metal form) was published on May 17, 1900.

People being granted immortality in non-human forms is a recurring theme in Greek Mythology Upon Heracles' death

Zeus brings him up to Olympus and makes him a god.

Narsissus pines away and is transformed into a Narsissus flower.

Baucis and Philemon grow old together, and upon their deaths are transformed into an oak and a linden tree intertwined.

You could probably debate how much these qualify as "consciousness transfers", since trees are not particularly known for their thinking.

But the seeds of the concept are there.

And it wouldn't surprise me if there are other myths that do include a deliberate body modification to give someone a conscious immortal body.

According to the Wikipedia article, Mind uploading in fiction , there are two plausible candidates given as the earliest example, depending on whether transfer to biological or artificial "brains" is required:

The Altered Ego by Jerry Sohl (1954) invovles "brain records" taken as backups that can be placed into either a restored or a new brain after the original's death.

The Tunnel Under the World by Frederick Pohl (1955) involves electronic scans of brains being uploaded into computers and robots.

Two early examples that come rather close are: Neil R. Jones's "The Jameson Satellite" Amazing Stories July 1931 in which super advanced aliens revived the long dead brain of Professor Jameson and put it into a robot body.

E.E. Smith in The Skylark of Valeron

Astounding stories (August 1934 to february 1935) had the spaceship Skylark of Valeron equipped with a super computer of almost human intelligence.

Richard Seaton had a mind reading helmet he used to control the computer and the ship.

When he captured his arch enemy Dusquesne he ripped the mind reading helmet off of his head lest his desire to kill Dusquesne be turned into action by the computer.

Reading that scene I instantly thought that similar technology could be used to copy a person's memories into a sufficiently advanced computer so that their copy could live on in the computer.

I assume that some readers had the same thoughts back in 1935 and thus there could have been stories featuring memory upload (or is it download?) to computers as early as 1935.

The earliest movie I remember with transferring or copying memory to computers or robots is The Creation of the Humanoids (1962), which suggests that written science fiction probably had memory copying long before 1962.

The Star Trek episode "

What Are little Girls Made Of?

October 20, 1966, also had memory transfer to robots.

According to the Technovelgy.com website, Lord of Light (1967) by Roger Zelazny is the first story to have scientific reincarnation, transferring memories to a new biological body and brain.

Which is somewhat similar to transferring memories to a new cybernetic body and brain.

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1370 1

But so far I haven't located any reference to the first written story with memory transfer to a computer or robot.

One could argue that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was the first example of transplanting a brain from an old body to a "recycled" one.

Published in 1818.

Question: I was reading about  Galaxy Express 999  (1978), and I saw this manga featured the idea of human transfer of consciouness into an artificial body for eternal life similar to  Altered Carbon  or with some similarities to  Ghost in the Shell.  I assume this story isnt the first one to feature that idea but it is the first one I've heard of. My question is, which was the first sci-fi story to feature human transfer of consciouness into an artificial body for eternal life?

Which was the first sci-fi story to feature human transfer of consciousness into an artificial body for eternal life?

There is no clear definitive answer to this question, but there are several sci-fi books that could claim to contain the first example of human transfer of consciousness to an artificial body. This concept features in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, which was first published in 1900. However, if this example does not fit the description in the question, other potential answers could be "The Altered Ego" by Jerry Sohl, "The Tunner Under the World" by Frederick Pohl or "The Jameson Satellite" by Neil R. Jones.

There are a number of possible contenders, including The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900), The Altered Ego (1954), The Tunnel Under the World (1955) and The Janieson Satellite (1931) and Lord of Light  (1967) by Roger Zelazny.

But so far I haven't located any reference to the first written story with memory transfer to a computer or robot.

According to the Technovelgy.com website, Lord of Light (1967) by Roger Zelazny is the first story to have scientific reincarnation, transferring memories to a new biological body and brain.

Which is somewhat similar to transferring memories to a new cybernetic body and brain.

In the Wonderful Wizard of Oz (published 1900) the Tin Woodsman and Captain Fyter have metal bodies that preserve their consciousness.

There are two possible candidates according to Wikipedia - The Altered Ego  by Jerry Sohl (1954) where "brain records" are taken in preparation for the original's death and The Tunnel Under the World by Frederick Pohl (1955) where electronic scans of brains are uploaded into computers and robots.

In Neil R. Jones's "The Jameson Satellite"  Amazing Stories  July 1931, super advanced aliens revived the long dead brain of Professor Jameson and put it into a robot body.

According to the Technovelgy.com website,  Lord of Light  (1967) by Roger Zelazny is the first story to have scientific reincarnation.


This is the 'Garden of Eyes' scene from Kubo and the Two Strings .

The classic form of this monster is D&D 's Beholder , “The body of these creatures is a great globe about 3′ in diameter.

Atop it are ten eye stalks, while in the center of the spherical body is a great eleventh eye.

The body can sustain 40 points of damage, each eye stalk 10 points, and the central eye can withstand up to 20 points...” which is so important to its mythos that it's one of the few baddies specifically claimed by Wizards of the Coast as their IP.

That obviously hasn't stopped imitators like this guy :

“Greet with warm compassion; they will embrace our generosity.

Revisit with stern warning; they will heed our genuine concern.

Annihilate with great prejudice; they will serve as an example for others.”

They were presumably inspired, however, by monstrosities like H.P. Lovecraft 's Old Ones , “Those in shallow water had continued the fullest use of the eyes at the ends of their five main head tentacles, and had practiced the arts of sculpture and of writing in quite the usual way—the writing accomplished with a stylus on waterproof waxen surfaces.” described in At the Mountains of Madness .

Apparently, long before that, Ralph Waldo Emerson 's essay "Nature" included a section about a "transparent eyeball" that caused Christopher Pearse Cranch to draw this

“I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or parcel of God.”

c. 1837, apparently based on a misunderstanding of what transparent means.

That said, especially in reference to film, any gentleperson of taste and sophistication would more quickly recognize it as the Guardian “A Guardian.

What it sees — Lo Pan knows!” from Big Trouble in Little China .

The core of the planetary parasite Axos from Doctor Who (" The Claws of Axos ," 1971) resembles a floating eye on a stalk.

Could this be The Floating Eye of Death from

The Aquabats ?

It also reminds me of Omi the Dianoga from Star Wars .

The Aquabats vs. the Floating Eye of Death! is the third studio album from American band

The Aquabats, released on October 26, 1999.

Here's the cover album:

It also reminds me the alien twins Bwelelyang and Bob from the movies Men

In Black , but they don't shoot beams, as I remember.

There's also an animated series, but the design is not the same:

Note that the movie version looks like Elder Things from HP Lovecraft, but with no wings.

Six feet end to end, three and five-tenths feet central diameter,tapering to one foot at each end.

Like a barrel with five bulgingridges in place of staves.

Lateral breakages, as of thinnish stalks,are at equator in middle of these ridges.

In furrows between ridgesare curious growths – combs or wings that fold up and spread out likefans.

which gives almost seven-foot wing spread.

Arrangementreminds one of certain monsters of primal myth, especially fabledElder Things in the Necronomicon. —

H.P. Lovecraft, At the Mountains ofMadness They are a lot of different interpretations of the creature.

You maybe have seen one with a big eye...

Here is one illustration, but each artist delivers something different from this description:

This is possibly the monster from Cybersix , episode 9: "The Eye" (1999): In this episode, Von Reichter sends José one of his newest creations to test out, a small floating eyeball which grows larger as it sucks out people's souls.

José nearly takes over the entire city until he loses control of it, leaving it up to Cybersix to save the city and take the monster down.

The visual effects in the episode are similar to the drawing.

Shooting destructive beams (at 137 seconds):

Absorbing souls (at 269 seconds):

They’re Demon Eyes from Terraria .

They fly around bombing you and shooting you, etc

They may also be the Atraxi from Doctor

Who , from " The Eleventh Hour " episode with the Eleventh Doctor.

Could be the aliens from the "Moonstone" episode of the original The Outer Limits .

To add to the other answers, it also made me think of the one eye monster called Ocula in Small Soldiers (1998).

Question: I feel I saw these creatures somewhere (in a movies or a TV series...) but I can't remember a single detail. Can anyone identify what they are?  Here's a drawing representation.

Where are these floating eyeball creatures from?

It is not clear what these creatures are, but there are several possibilities. They could be from the "Garden of Eyes" scene in Kubo and the Two Strings, or they could also from a monster known as D&D's Beholder. The planetary parasite Axos from Doctor Who and the monster from Cybersix also resemble this particular creature.

There are many monsters that resemble this, for example those in the 'Garden of Eyes' scene from Kubo and the Two Strings, D&D's Beholder, H.P. Lovecraft 's Old Ones from The Mountains of Madness, the planetary parasite Axos from Doctor Who ("The Claws of Axos" 1971) or the monster from Cybersix , Episode 9:  "The Eye" (1999).

This is the 'Garden of Eyes' scene from Kubo and the Two Strings.

This monster looks like D&D's Beholder - “The body of these creatures is a great globe about 3′ in diameter". They were presumably inspired by monstrosities like  H.P. Lovecraft 's Old Ones from The Mountains of Madness.

The core of the planetary parasite Axos from Doctor Who ("The Claws of Axos" 1971) resembles a floating eye on a stalk.

This could be the monster from Cybersix , Episode 9:  "The Eye"  (1999):   In this episode, Von Reichter sends José one of his newest creations to test out, a small floating eyeball which grows larger as it sucks out people's souls.

They might be the aliens from the "Moonstone" episode of the original  The Outer Limits .

They could be the one eyed monster called Ocula in Small Soldiers (1998).


Per the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, Vol 2 (Deluxe Edition)

#2 , Cap's shield has a blunt, rounded edge.

Granted, that source is 30-something years old by now, but I'm not aware of anything that really contradicts it since.

There are a couple of cases of him using the edge to cut heads off (as mentioned in other answers)

but I don't think that necessarily means the edge is sharp; blunt force directed through a basically indestructible object like the shield would work just as well.

The shield can be used for cutting or smashing.

In Avengers #500 (I think)

Captain America slices his shield through Ultron's neck (which is apparently made of Adamantium):

I didn't read the comic, but the Wiki says it takes place on Earth-61108 and Earth-616, but I'm not sure which is depicted there.

Another image (I'm not sure what comic, nor what earth) depicts the shield going in one side and out the other of a missile .

In another comic, somewhere in Civil War Nos. 1-7 (2006-07) , he smashes Iron Man's helmet open (in the middle panel he's clearly using the edge of the shield):

For the film version, the edges are definitely not sharp.

That can be seen from the way the shield bounces off the people

Cap throws it at in this clip.

It bounces back without slicing them up and with no blood on it.

In fact, there is even a clear view of the shield's rim at 1:32, and it can be seen not to be sharpened, but rather squared off.

I doubt if it has been consistent over the years but in Captain America #254 , Cap used his shield to cut off a vampire's head.

On the other hand, he has (repeatedly) hit foes in the face with it before, which argues it would be blunt.

It does not have a sharp edge.

It is merely narrow, IMHO.

Its indestructibility and the speed with which it strikes Cap's targets concentrates all of that force in a very narrow band.

A polyethylene cutting board dropped edge-first will concentrate all its force on a bare foot and may cause a pressure cut, at the very least it would leave a nasty bruise.

Imagine the shield's edge striking with the force of a "mighty" throw.

Question: When Captain America throws his mighty shield, does it hit things with a razor-sharp edge that can cut or a blunt edge that can bludgeon/bruise? Or is it some sort of modified edge that could do one or the other depending on how he throws it?  I'm interested in the mainstream comics universe (Earth-616, or whatever it calls itself these days), although other universes are interesting supplementary material.

Are the edges of Captain America’s shield blunted or sharp?

It is generally agreed that, while the shield can be used for cutting or smashing, it does not have a sharp edge, at least, not in the film version.

The evidence is contradictory and it may have been inconsistent over the years, sometimes sharp and sometimes blunt, as there are scenes where it used to cut and other where it is used to smash. It might also be narrow, allowing a cutting action with sufficient force and otherwise a smashing action.

The shield can be used for cutting or smashing.

For the film version, the edges are definitely not sharp and there is one scene where the squared off edges are clearly visible.

There is no consistent depiction of this - e.g. there are scenes where he uses it to cut (suggesting a sharp edge) and also scenes where he uses it to smash (suggesting a blunt edge).

It is not sharp, but it is narrow so that it will have a cutting effect if applied with sufficient force, and otherwise a smashing effect.


Dean Cain, who played Superman in the 90's TV show Lois and Clark, is actually 1/4 Japanese , and does identify as Asian American.

However, by looks, I could see the audience not necessarily reading the character to be Asian American, and of course, Superman himself being an alien from Krypton, calling the character to be of any particular ethnicity is kind of a misnomer.

Yes!

At least three of them.

Kong Kenan

The recent New Super-Man comics feature Kong Kenan as the "Superman of China".

Note that he was some kind of replacement after the "usual" Clark Kent Superman died for the nth time.

Actually, he was shown to bully a rich kid (because he was the heir to the flight company who managed the plane Kong's mother died in) at first, then was pictured as a hero after facing a Chinese villain.

He was selected to be engineered as part of the Super-Man of China project, which had the means to "replicate" Superman's powers.

His recruitment as a replacement however, is motivated by a shady branch of the Chinese government.

He eventually got to meet Clark Kent in Superman #16, during an arc which featured the villain of the month going after multiple Supermen across the multiverse.

Up to oneself to decide whether that acknowledges him enough as a Superman!

You might also want to know that there are several other heroes in this arc as well, like Chinese Batman and Wonder Woman.

They are the Justice League of China.

Hoshi

In the 2002 Elseworld JLA: Shogun of steel , Kal-El's rocket lands in Feudal Japan.

He is raised by a fisherman who names him Hoshi, his son of the stars.

Thanks to Pharap for pointing out that "Hoshi" (星) just means "star", and "star son" would have to be "Hoshirou" (星郎).

He's able to wield a katana, but don't worry, the final fight involves the traditional Superman way of solving issues with punches, while dressed with the brand "S" symbol.

Superman of Tokyo Superman of Tokyo (2015) is part of the DC Nation shorts.

It features an aging Superman giving his cape and his mantra to Kenta, son of the Japanese equivalent of reporter Lois Lane.

Kenta then takes part in world (or at least Tokyo) saving from a giant robot.

For all its... unusualness, the short still features a depiction of Superman, who is Japanese, and is stamped DC.

South Asian

In Superman: The Feral Man of Steel ( Superman Annual #6), an Elseworlds story, the infant K'L'L lands in India in the 19th Century and grows up in the wild.

This version of Superman has the appearance of a dark-skinned Caucasian of South Asia.

(Image source: Wikipedia )

While this may be toeing the line between Eurasia, we do have a depiction of Soviet Superman, and Russia is technically in Asia (even if it shouldn't be culturally).

In Superman: Red Son his ship lands in Ukraine instead of Kansas and he becomes a "Champion of the common worker"

I have never seen or heard of any clear depiction of Superman as anything other than the American of European origin that portrayed him in the original series.

I specifically recall his motto of "truth, justice and the American way" being voiced over film of him standing with arms folded and cape flowing.

I think your question is interesting and yet your search better directed to characters of a similar nature with a known Asian origin.

Aside from the films of several Chinese action stars such as Jackie Chan, Jet Lee, and Bruce Lee, most of us here in the US are completely ignorant of superhero film or comic book characters of an Asian (or any other non-European) origin.

To my taste, remakes transposed to other cultural regions are often uninspired.

The inspiration of the original is lost, if there was any to begin with.

Question: Along the lines of  Is there a depiction of Superman where he is an African American?  Was there ANY depiction of Superman as an Asian in the comics or even elsewhere?

Is there a depiction of Superman as an Asian?

There are at least three depictions of Superman as Asian. The recent New Superman comics feature Kong Kenan as the "Superman of China" and "Superman of Tokyo" is part of the DC Nation shorts. Additionally, "Superman: The Feral Man of Steel" depicts Superman as having a dark-skinned South Asian appearance.

There have been several depictions of Superman as Asian, for example Kong Kenan, but ultimately he is an alien from Krypton so the ethnicity he apparently has can be misleading.

As Superman is an alien from Krypton it is in a sense misleading to think of him as having any particular ethnicity.

There have been at least three, including Kong Kenan, the "superman of China" and Hoshi, the Superman of Japan.

In  Superman: The Feral Man of Steel (Superman Annual #6), there is an infant who lands in 19th century India and grows up in the wild, having a South Asian appearance.

I have only seen Superman depicted as having an American or European origin.


Because Vader was a well-known individual in the Empire.

Vader quickly became a highly visible symbol of the Empire, serving as Palpatine’s fearsome enforcer.

He hunted down fugitive Jedi who had escaped Order 66, as well as ferreting out enemies both within and without.

Darth Vader - Databank (emphasis mine)

And if you are wondering how Kenobi knew Darth Vader was Anakin Skywalker, he saw it in the temple hologram.

OBI-WAN moves to a panel and flips some switches.

He sees a HOLOGRAM of ANAKIN slaughtering JEDI, including the YOUNG ONES.

OBI-WAN and YODA react.

OBI-WAN: (continuing)

It can't be . . .

It can't be . . .

As ANAKIN surveys the carnage, a DARK-ROBED SITH LORD enters.

ANAKIN turns to DARTH SIDIOUS and kneels before him.

ANAKIN:

The traitors have been taken care of, Lord Sidious.

DARTH SlDIOUS:

Good . . .

good . . . You have done well,

my new apprentice.

Do you feel your power growing?

ANAKIN:

Yes, My Master.

DARTH

SlDIOUS:

Now, Lord Vader, now go and bring peace to the Empire.

OBI-WAN watches in horror.

Tears well up in his eyes.

OBI-WAN:

I can't watch any more.

OBI-WAN switches off the hologram.

The TWO JEDI stand in silence for a few moments.

YODA:

Destroy the Sith, we must.

OBI-WAN:

Send me to kill the Emperor.

I will not kill Anakin.

YODA:

To fight this Lord Sidious, strong enough, you are not.

OBI-WAN:

He is like my brother ...

I cannot do it.

YODA:

Twisted by the dark side, young Skywalker has become.

The boy you trained, gone he is . . .

Consumed by Darth Vader.

Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

First, Obi Wan knew Vader was Anakin.

As this question points out, he saw Palapatine address Anakin as "Vader" in a security hologram at the Jedi temple during the events of Revenge of the Sith.

Second, from this question , it was apparently common rumor that Vader was part machine:

It was that genuflecting obedience, the steadfast devotion to execute whatever task the Emperor assigned, that had given rise to so many rumors about Vader: that he was a counterpart to the Confederacy’s General Grievous the Emperor had been holding in reserve; that he was an augmented human or near-human Star Wars: Tarkin.

So even without considering Obi Wan's well developed force powers, it could be a reasonable statement to make.

Vader is a famous figure in the Empire .

Although Obi-Wan is described as living as a hermit, he would have needed to keep some tabs on local Empire propaganda to help him stay hidden.

It is likely that almost everyone in Imperial territory knew what Darth Vader looks like (with his armor on, at least).

Obi-Wan would know that much too.

Obi-Wan is probably just guessing about Vader's cybernetic enhancements, but he has good reason to make the assumptions he does, because unlike most people, Obi-Wan knows the extent of Anakin's injuries .

Vader lost most of his limbs on Mustafar, yet he is seen walking and using hands.

Anyone who hears Vader speak knows he has a breathing apparatus, but most people probably think this is just part of the armor's function as a space suit.

Obi-Wan, though, knows where and how Anakin's lungs could have been damaged.

Given the medical technology of the series, it would have been safe for Obi-Wan to assume that Vader's limbs and lungs are cybernetic , because he just plain wouldn't have them otherwise.

As others have stated, surely there was Imperial propaganda that depicted Vaders image.

However it doesn't matter what Vader looked like in order for Obi-Wan to know him.

Obi-Wan and Vader sensed each other's presence on the Death Star before they met face to face.

Obi-Wan could have been wearing a snowman suit and Vader dressed as a toaster and they both would have known each other.

This was, after all, master and apprentice who spent years training and fighting together in the clone wars.

Obi-Wan also knows that Vader at that point has lost an arm and two legs from his battles, so in order for him to be still around he would have to be "more machine than man" now.

When Obi-Wan sees Vader he is standing in the corridor with his lightsaber ignited, and then walks up to Obi-Wan and starts talking.

How many Dark lords of the Sith would be walking around on the Death Star waiting for him?

Obi-Wan Kenobi vs Darth Vader

Vader hadn't seen Obi-Wan in years either.

The last time he had seen his former master he looked like Ewan McGregor.

Going by sight alone he would have been forgiven for failing to recognise him as the ageing Alec Guinness.

But of course Vader sensed his old master was in the vicinity long before he encountered him face to helmet.

If Vader could sense Obi-Wan's presence by the force alone, logically Obi-Wan could sense Vader/Anakin too.

Obi-Wan himself explained that the force " surrounds " and " penetrates " all living things.

If that is the case it is also logical that those who are sensitive to the force can sense both the outer appearance of another living thing as well as their inner person.

Obi-Wan could have therefore sensed that Anakin was "more machine than man" based on how the force surrounded and penetrated his remaining living tissue.

Question: How did Obi-Wan know what Vader looked like before he confronted him? "He is more machine now than man"

How did Obi-Wan know what Darth Vader looked like in Episode IV?

Obi-Wan knew what Darth Vader looked like because Darth Vader was a well-known individual in the empire. It's quite possible that everyone knew what Darth Vader looked like. Aside from this, using the force, Vader and Obi-Wan were able to detect each other's presence aboard the Death Star long before they encountered each other.

Darth Vader's apperance was familiar across the Empire through propaganda, but also Obi-Wan knew he was Anakin and therefore that he must be part machine due to Anakin's injuries. Obi-Wan would also have recognised Vader because of the link from their former relanship as master and apprentice.

Darth Vader was well known throughout the Empire and therefore anyone would have known what he looked like.

First, Kenobe knew Vader was Anakin and secondly it was widely rumoured that Vader was part machiner.

Kenobi would have known Vader's appearance from local Empire propaganda and he would have known Vader was part machine because he knew the extent of Anakin's injuries, which would have necessitated mechanical replacements.

Despite the propaganda providing examples of Vader's appearance Kenobi would have sensed it was him because of their old relationship as master and apprentice.


A wizard's staff is symbolic rather than a source of actual power, and so breaking a wizard's staff has no effect on the wizard's power.

How do we know this?

Because Gandalf was able to defeat the Balrog without his staff .

At that moment Gandalf lifted his staff, and crying aloud he smote the bridge before him.

The staff broke asunder and fell from his hand .

This was before his battle with the Balrog.

Saruman therefore didn't break Gandalf's staff because there was no need for him to do so and also because doing so would not have accomplished anything .

Presumably because Gandalf was sent back by the Powers with greater power specifically for the purpose of fulfilling the role that Saruman had forsaken, to contest Sauron.

From The Two Towers (emphasis mine):

Naked

I was

sent back - for a brief time, until my task is done.

Then to Saruman later: '

Come back, Saruman!'

Gandalf said in a commanding voice.

To the amazement of the others, Saruman turned back as if dragged against his will ... Since the Istari were Maiar, an increase in power would only have come from some greater being (i.e. the Illuvatar)

so Gandalf is able to do what he did to Saruman (a reversal of their earlier position) because he is an agent of a greater Power still, and was granted that authority by his divine master.

I always saw sundering said staff as simply a sign of supremacy.

Saruman already outranked Gandalf when he defeated him.

Breaking Gandalf's staff wouldn't serve any additional purpose; the higher-ranking wizard should have been expected to win anyway.

When Gandalf later defeats Saruman, Gandalf breaks the staff as a symbol that his power has become greater, and he assumes the dominant rank.

As to the staffs themselves...

I think a wizard does gain benefit from their staff, but it's not because of power in the staff itself.

It's merely the benefit you get from a tool that has become comfortable with long use, but still one you could make again if need be.

Saruman didn't break the staff, because he managed to take it whole from Gandalf and kept it (check out the end of the fight where Saruman has both staffs).

When Gandalf flees Orthanc he does so without his staff (revisit the scene here ) and later on gets another staff.

This differs in the films from the books.

The accounts of how he gets another staff in the movie universe differ a bit and maybe this is worth a separate question, but he clearly loses his staff in the fight with Saruman.

Somewhat authoritative sources for this answer are this IMDB FAQ (check out How did Gandalf get his staff back from Saruman?

He simply leaps off of Orthanc without it ) and the Lotr wiki .

The flight scene also shows that Saruman still hoped he could turn Gandalf until that moment, so it was reasonable to keep his staff intact, but out of reach of Gandalf.

Also note that in the movie universe, wizards obviously can make use of the staffs of other wizards (perhaps less efficiently).

So, even if he would not convince Gandalf it might be prudent to keep the staff just like you might keep a spare sword around, if you have it anyway.

Poetry and drama.

Gandalf's line, "Saruman, your staff is broken," is the only quote I remember from The Two Towers .

It is not a direct command, it is as just as much a comment on how the positions have changed between these two wizards as well as destructive magic.

The storyline now apparently finishes with Saruman and the struggle for Middle-earth now turns towards Mordor.

It appears, from the Lord of the Rings books, that a wizard's staff is a method of channelling their respective energies.

For instance, in The Fellowship of the Ring, Book 1: ...

"The figure lifted his arms and a light flashed from the staff that he wielded.

A mighty eagle swept down and bore him away."...

In Book 2: ...

"...he thrust the end of his staff into the midst of it.

At once a great spout of green and blue flame sprang out,...

There are also many mentions of Gandalf lighting the way through Moria using his staff, and guiding the party (using the staff as a beacon).

As pointed out by Victim of Circumstance , Gandalf strikes the bridge with his power, most likely channelled through his staff to a point of force at the staff's end, so much power that it destroyed the staff.

user1643723 is absolutely right in his comment - there is a power there, but maybe not within the staff itself.

Later, in The Two Towers, Book 3, we find Gandalf in Edoras.

Háma states: "The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than just a prop for age."

There are many more references to the power of the staff throughout the books (a Kindle is a great resource!).

So, it could be that the wizard's staff is more than just an emblem of power

- it could be a conduit to channel such power to a fine point, or a focus to bring that power to bear.

It might be that Saruman, possessing the staff of Gandalf, could have more control over him.

While Gandalf broke his staff since he did not care about having control over Saruman.

Question: In  The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers  after becoming Gandalf the White, Gandalf cast Saruman from the Order and the Council. He also got the power to break Saruman's staff, which was very powerful.   So when Saruman captured Gandalf the Grey on Orthanc, why didn't Saruman do the same? He meant to find the One Ring's location from Gandalf. He could have broken Gandalf's staff, thereby decreasing Gandalf's power.

Why didn't Saruman break Gandalf's staff on Orthanc as Gandalf broke Saruman's?

There is no definitive answer to this question, but it's likely that Saruman didn't break Gandalf's staff for the reason that a wizard's staff is largely symbolic rather than having an effect on their power. Therefore, breaking the staff would not really accomplish anything.

The staff is probably just a symbol of a wizard's power - or at most a device through which power can be channelled - and therefore Saruman had no reason to take Gandalf's.

The staff is merely a symbol of the wizard's power so breaking it does not weaken that power, as can be seen in Gandalf's fight with the Balrog.

Saruman didn't break the staff because he had succeeded in taking it whole.

It is a matter of poetic and dramatic effect - a comment on how positions have changed between the two wizards.

The staff is a device through which a wizard channels his power rather than a thing that contains power itself.

Perhaps Saruman wanted Gandalf's staff to get control over Gandalf but Gandalf broke Saruman's staff because he had no interest in gaining control over Saruman.


Here's the "regeneration" you're referring to: The key here is that, while the Doctor did use up one of his regenerations, he didn't actually regenerate .

He used just enough of the regeneration energy to heal himself, then channelled the rest into his severed hand from "The Christmas Invasion", preventing himself from fully changing.

You can think of it like the scene in "Let's Kill Hitler" where River Song transfers the last of her regeneration energy into the Doctor to revive him: on both occasions, the energy brought him back to life, but he didn't regenerate.

So he's still the Tenth Doctor.

It's complicated, more complicated than anyone knows exactly

and this is why:

In the episode " The Brain of Morbeus " The Doctor faced a Timelord, a criminal mastermind who had survived execution called Morbeus.

In a desperate attempt to thwart his plans, The Doctor goaded Morbeus into a mental duel.

They were both hooked to a machine which pitted all their mental resources from each of their many lives against the other's, their will and their knowledge and their determination to win, and to live.

The effort killed The Doctor, and reduced his enemy Morbeus to an insane gibbering wreck who threw himself off a cliff, so The Doctor - even in death won.

Whilst he was hooked up to the machine, The Doctor's and Morbeus's previous personas were displayed one by one as they were drawn into the contest - these images appeared among others:

Attribution: Peter 2018 None of the (lower row of)

above images are of Doctors that we can pinpoint and name easily, they all appeared before the image of William Hartnell, Peter Cushing (had you forgotten him too? Here .)

Michael Jayston ( as per comments ), David Bradley ( Here )

et al..

The Party line is that Peter Capaldi is the twelfth, but there's more to it, much more to it, perhaps more than even The Doctor himself

knows - Rasillon knows, I don't.

Canonically, there only is, was, and will ever be one Doctor.

The numbering is simply a referencing device for commentating on the show.

Personally, I also thought that by regenerating into the "same" body, that ought to count as two separate Doctors.

However, regardless of in-universe status, the numbering of the Doctors is really based on the out-of-universe actors who played the character.

On that basis, since the actor did not change, the numbering of the Doctor did not change either.

The numbers generally refer to the number of times the Doctor has regenerated, distinct from the number of times the Doctor has consumed one of his available regenrations.

In short, new face, new actor, new number.

There's another question on here that asks what "counts" as a regeneration -

I've opined that it's not the amount of energy used, but the number of times the energy (and the process) is tapped into.

The events of the show suggest they consider the rule to be the number of times the process is started.

This was all addressed in Matt Smith's last episode The Time of the Doctor .

The War Doctor (played by John Hurt) was a regeneration The Doctor didn't acknowledge, but it certainly counted as a regeneration.

So too did Ten's "partial" regeneration after getting hit by the Dalek beam.

He chose to offload the regeneration energy into his severed hand.

He retained the same body/regeneration, but the process was started, the energy was expended, so it too counted towards his twelve regeneration limit.

Moffat cannily hinted that the fans "had forgotten something" when it came to the regeneration limit, namely that Tennant regeneration.

Comments online made it clear that damn near nobody forgot, and we were all keen to see what he was going to do, since by the rules, The Doctor had hit his limit.

So to answer the original question, Smith's regeneration indeed the twelfth regeneration, but the "extra" Doctor is The War Doctor.

So technically, Eccleston was Ten, and Tennant was Eleven.

They never "counted" the War Doctor, so Smith often referred to himself as "eleven", but he still counted as a regeneration.

Question: How is Matt Smith not the 12th Doctor (since David Tennant regenerated first into himself and then into Matt Smith)? Then wouldn't Peter Capaldi be the 13th Doctor?  (Because that regeneration was a gift from the Time Lords thanks to Clara.)

Wouldn't Matt Smith be the 12th Doctor and not the 11th because David Tennant is both 10 and 11?

The Doctor did use up one of his regenerations, but he didn't actually regenerate. This would make David Tennant still the 10th Doctor. However, some people would argue that canonically, there is only one Doctor.

The Doctor can use up a regeneration - for example for recovery purposes - without actually regenerating and that is what happened on this occasion.

The Doctor in this case used up one of his regenerations without actually regenerating.

There is only ever one Doctor - the numbering is just used for referencing on the show.

The numbering of the Doctors is an out-of-universe device which is determined by the changing actors that play the role.


In The Bacta War , book 4 of the X-Wing series, Rogue Squadron resigns from the Alliance in order to fight against Ysanne Isard who has taken control of Thyferra.

They get their hands on their old ships after Incom offer the Alliance a brand new squadron's worth of X-wings "Someone in the military probably General Cracken, but maybe even Admiral Ackbar decided accepting Incom's gift was appropriate, so all the equipment in Rogue Squadron was inspected, listed as missing parts, and surplussed out.

Winter found out about it before anyone else, and we scooped up the lot, including Emtrey and our astromech droids."

Wedge blinked. "

Surplussed out?

Our stuff was sold as surplus?

" "Broken surplus.

It was missing parts."

"Such as?"

"PL-Is" Wedge frowned. "

PL-Is?

I've never heard of them.

Tycho shook his head.

"That's the designation for pilot."

Wedge immediately began laughing.

Someone back on Coruscant favors what we're doing or perhaps just wants to give us the tools to destroy ourselves.

So apparently you can just buy x-wings for cash from military surplus sales.

In the Legends continuity it seems to be extremely difficult or expensive for private parties to buy a TIE fighter or X-Wing.

In the books, most notably the X-Wing series, most groups not directly affiliated with the Rebellion/Republic or Imperial military relied on ships noted to be cheaper, such as the Z-95 Headhunter.

However, salvaging individual parts of these ships was quite common, as " Uglies " cobbled together from parts of TIE fighters, X-Wings, Y-Wings and the like were used extensively by pirates and mercenary groups.

One episode of Rebels (Disney canon) features Mining Guild Tie Fighters .

Because they are not being operated directly by the Empire, they have reduced combat abilities, and are clearly marked with their affiliation.

From what I can tell, it is unspecified how the Mining Guild acquires the Tie Fighters, except that the process is sanctioned by the Empire.

In the X-Wing novel Mercy Kill , we're shown a used-vehicles lot that specializes in military surplus: This particular lot was thick with decommissioned military vehicles.

Some were early-production-run vehicles that had failed to impress the soldiers testing them....

And then there were starfighters from the orbital base.

Some were old and so worn that their lift wings drooped.

Others, though, belonged to designs that were simply being phased out over time, such as the four classic Incom T-65 X-Wings....

It's mentioned that these vehicles, being destined for civilian ownership, are partially demilitarized; for instance, the X-Wings' proton torpedo launchers had been removed.

There's no mention of the sort of "broken" surplus discussed in @Jontia's answer, but that might simply be a lack of opportunity (it's peacetime, and the local base is small enough that it wouldn't have a constant stream of wrecked materiel from accidents).

In The Last Jedi , Finn, Rose, and DJ steal an arms dealer's ship.

While talking after making their escape from the casino, they go through the ship's computer and see that the dealer sells ships and weapons to both the First Order and the Resistance.

Presumably, civilians could also buy from such private dealers if they ponied up enough credits.

See this video:

In a little blue planet known as Earth, bipeds (referred to as 'man') have produced fighter aircraft (not spacecraft).

As time progressed, so did the technology, which created pool of older fighter aircraft that were sold to civilians .

The example shows that approximately 2 'man' lifetimes of productivity (5 million of their so-called 'dollars') could purchase a retired Sukhoi SU-27.

The practice is that original military owners would sell or task the de-militarize equipment to private contractors, who would in turn sell the de-militarized hardware.

It is reasonable to expect that in other galaxies (fictional or real) that a similar eco-system handles the lifecycle of similar military hardware.

Question: This question  What is the in-universe cost of a TIE fighter?  Establishes that there's a second-hand market for military ships.  Where are these ships available for sale?  Who sells them, what's the main route-to-market (i.e from "in-service" to "out-service")?  Are there any cases in SW literature where a character owns a second-hand fighter (of either denomination)?  I know there are a few questions here, but I assume a good answer will cover the route to market with an example.

How would one buy a used TIE Fighter or X-Wing?

There is no clear and obvious way that people could acquire a TIE fighter or X-wing, although it is believed to be difficult or at least expensive. However, there is some information that suggests that you can simply buy X-wings for cash from military surplus sales. However, there is not enough conclusive evidence for this.

There are a number of cases where military surplus lots have fighters and other ships and spare parts that are sold off to interested buyers in a similar way to surplus military equipment on Earth.

The Rogue Squadron in The Bacta War purchased their old x-wings for cash from the Alliance after they are replaced with a new fleet.

It is very difficult or expensive to buy a TIE fighter or an X-Wing so groups not affilliated with the major military tend to buy cheaper ships or to cobble ones together from spare parts.

In Rebels the Mining Guild has its own TIE fighters although it is not specified how they are acquired.

In the novel Mercy Kill thee is a military surplus lot that sells de-militarised vehicles such as X-Wings for civilian use.

In The Last Jedi Finn, Rose and DJ steal an arms dealer's ship and find out from its computer that the dealer has been selling both to the First Order and the Resistance so presumably civilians could also purchase them.

On Earth you can purchase used Sukhoi SU-27 so why not in Star Wars?