In the case of sankyo (or tenkai kote hineri), the most common way to escape the technique is to drop one's elbow.

Of course, a well executed tenkai kote hineri prevents that from happening.

Any kote hineri (rotational wrist lock) or kote gaeshi (supinating wrist lock) can be escaped with a judicious punch aimed at Tori's nose or to be fair, any body parts.

In addition, if one's wrist is heavily muscled then it is possible to just force the write to untwist.

All wrist locks are aids to a technique (either throw or pin) and not the technique.

Better results are achieved with balance breaking and wrist locks than with just wrist locks.

Unless the intent is to cause grievous bodily harm by snapping the wrist 1 .

In this case, the lock can cause dislocation, tendon tears, and bone breaking.

Depending on the level of balance breaking, indirect harm can as well be inflected.

1 :

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV .

That said, causing grievous bodily harm will get you into trouble with the law whatever the situation and reasons for doing it.

martialarts.stackexchange.com/users/82/Sardathrion - against SE abuse

Holds like sankyo rely on crossed extensor reflex action - the sensation of pain causes reflexive activity in other parts of the body.

This is most effective when the opposing side of the body has nothing to leverage against, i.e. no wall or floor to push against.

This means you can continuously adjust or tweak the hold to prevent the opponent punching or grabbing you.

One very simply way to nullify the pain from sankyo so that you can then counter it is to put your forehead to the back of the wrist that is being manipulated.

I'm sorry to say I don't know why it works - from my experimentation

I don't believe it's due purely to bio-mechanical reasons because the attacker can still be cranking on the wrist

(it may have something to do with interrupting the pathway of the nerve impulse).

Of course placing your head in that position can lead to further danger - so don't leave it there for too long!

A non-Aikido solution, is to simply hammerfist or punch the back of the grabber's hand or their fingers, smashing it to get free.

We see twice in the video the guy gets a countergrip before the grabber shifts position and increases pressure, so the reach is there, and few people consider their hands as striking targets.

There's also the possibility of stomping the grabber's feet, however

, it's harder to get off given that the grabber has a good read on any weight shifts through the pressure of the lock itself, and it's not as immediately easy to target like the hand on your arm which you can target by feel, instantly.

We have a similar throw in the the style I practice

but It's only taught to higher grade students for the reason that it's very hard to get that grip in the first place.

Once you have the grip on the fingers the throw isn't too difficult but to get it requires: The receiver of the technique must have their hand open (ie not in a fist)

The receiver must not move the hand when you try to grab it.

You can learn a lot about balance when you do this technique

but I don't think this is going to come up much outside a dojo.

Open hand strikes are one thing but if your opponent is good enough to catch one of your strikes you are probably in trouble anyway either in self defence or anywhere else.

However the first thing you should do if caught this way is relax the arm muscles.

This makes it harder to manipulate the body using the arm and also reduces the pain caused by the stretch.

Then anchor the elbow to the body.

If your elbow ends up high you are in big trouble as you can see in the video.

There is always a counter technik; also inside the Aikido (other than punching and kicking)

For every technique there is a twin technique which could be used as counter, like ying yang principle.

The concept is called Kaeshi waza .Of

course I would not suggest to resist the sankyo grip if your opponent/partner tori has solid control over you, it might harm your joints.

But there are 2 maybe 3 points of time which you can use for your kaeshi , if tori makes a small failure: Shortly before the sankyo grip seated, tori needs to slow down alittle.

As already suggested, you can try to drop your elbow,control opponent's wrist and with the other elbow of yours you cango for a quick kote gaeshi .

After sankyo grip seated, tori screws the controlled hand with a direction to the top and immediately sinks it for the throw/leading to the ground.

He can lose the control for a second exactly at this moment.

You can once again drop your elbow and go for a kote gaeshi .

Does not happen often, but tori can slightly lose the control during the leading to the ground.

You can try to make a forwards roll ( mae-ukemi ) and loosen the grip.

Question: As can be seen here in  this video , it seems impossible to escape from the  sankyo  grip.   Is there a way to escape from it (including self defense options)?

How to escape from a sankyo grip?

In the case of sankyo (or tenkai kote hineri), the most common way to escape the technique is to drop one's elbow. Better results are achieved with balance breaking and wrist locks than with just wrist locks. However, a non-Aikido solution, is to simply hammerfist or punch the back of the grabber's hand or their fingers, smashing it to get free.

The most common way to escape from a Sankyo grip is to drop the elbow, and a  non-Aikido solution is to  punch the back of the grabber's hand or their fingers, smashing it to get free.

Themost common way to escape from a Sankyo grip is to drop the elbow. A non-Aikido solution is to  hammerfist or punch the back of the grabber's hand or their fingers, smashing it to get free.


It depends on context, skill and time spent training.

If they just start training they're a student 学生(xué'shēng), when they become an official disciple they'll be called 徒弟(tú'dì).

Then when they become an instructor/teacher they'll be called 老师(lǎo'shī).

When they take on disciples of their own they'll be 师父(shī'fu) and when their skill is widely recognized as a master they can be called 师傅(shī'fù) or 高手(gāo'shǒu).

It is complicated in Chinese, and often depends on who is referring to whom, and what dialect is being used.

In Japan, the term "-ka" is added (and in Korean "-in") to denote a "practitioner of".

One equivalent in Chinese would be "jia", as in "Kung Fu-jia" or "Wushu-jia".

The same character in Chinese for "jia" (家) is used in Japanese "ka", so I suspect this is the term you're looking for.

It could also be "xuesheng" which is used by itself and means "student".

What Does the Chinese Character

家 Mean?

On the Character "家"

There are several good answers here.

I'll only add that there are specific names practitoners call other practitioners depending on relationship .

Very commonly utilized are the terms: Si Hing ( 師兄)

Elder kung fu brother Si Jie (師姐)

Elder kung fu sister because all schools have longer-term, more advanced students who help teach the newer students.

If one is lucky, one also gains exposure to: Si Baak (師伯)

Master’s elder kung fu brother/sister

Si

Suk (師叔)

Master’s

younger kung fu brother/sister

Many kung fu films involve the disciple seeking out their kung fu uncle or aunt for additional teaching.

This can be extraordinarily valuable in getting a fuller picture of the art, particularly in regard to a certain style through existing relationships.

(As an example, the founder of Bagua taught each of his disciples different things, based on their aptitudes, inclinations and body types.

This is not at all uncommon.)

You can find a full list of martial relationship terms here:

http://www.moyyee.com/about/kung-fu-terminology/ Regarding "Sifu", when addressing one's own teacher, one uses that term independently, or "Sifu [Name]".

When addressing a master from another school, one reverses it: "[Name] Sifu".

It's also fairly common for non-students to call any master "sifu" to show respect for their skill and/or reputation.

In the same way, one can call a student from a different school "Si Hing" or "Si Jeh" to acknowledge the greater experience of that student.

Although there are uncountable schools (and famous rivalries) in the Chinese system, all practitoners are considered to be part of the jiānghú (江湖) or "gallant fraternity".

It's important to understand these terms in the context of wuxia and of the Water Magin , one of the four great classical novels, in particular.

(In the Water Margin, aka "Outlaws of the Marsh", the heroes are forced into outlawry, but are nevertheless virtuous.

This idea was strongly reinforced by Li Jinglin ("Miracle Sword Lee") in the preface to The Major Methods of Wudang Sword , and is heavily emphasized in contemporary mythologization of martial heroes, most notably Wong Fei-Hung .

Essentially, all practitoners are part of one big family, and the familial nature of the terms referenced here is a reflection of that.

Adding on to Wigwam's answer, other options are 武者

（wǔ zhě） 武人（wǔ rén） 功夫者

gōng fū

zhě） 功夫达人（gōng

fū dá rén）

Although the last one translates to something like "Kung fu expert", I've heard it used as a respectful term for just practicioners of kung fu in general

and it's probably the one I am most familiar with.

And for Tai Ji Quan specifically, I'd use 太极拳手 （tài jì quán shǒu） Since "拳击手" is the common name for "boxer".

I don't think there's a single proper term "kung fu/tai chi practitioner" but rather many for " -master" e.g. -大师 （dà shī），-高手 （gāo shōu）

By practitioner, I assume you mean someone who practices tài jì (taichi) regardless of skill level considerations.

As explained to me orally, and corroborated at least by the Wikipedia judoka description (which itself does not have a proper reference for this fact), the term judoka (柔道家) formerly referred to a practitioner with rank (3rd degree according to oral source, 4th degree according to Wikipedia), not a practitioner of any skill level.

Thus, I think attempting to extrapolate jiā to a general practitioner is not a good idea.

Based on this interpretation of jiā , I would guess that 太极拳家 tài jì quán jiā has the same meaning as 太极门 tài jì mén , which is an inner door practitioner (disciple), not a practitioner of any skill level.

家 jiā is also used in 內家 nèi jiā , a term which comprises the internal martial arts.

A 学生 xuésheng student is usually used to describe someone who is insufficiently trained to be considered representative of the art, so also probably not what you are looking for.

I am not a native speaker of either Japanese or Chinese.

I have found, however, that friends who are native speakers often do not know specialized martial arts vocabulary like nèi jiā .

Question: I know that practitioners of Japanese martial arts are called with a  -ka  ending (e.g. karate  ka ), but I wouldn't know how to denote a practitioner of Tai Chi Chuan or other Kung Fu styles. I recall asking a chinese friend who suggested that the term  might have been  Tai Chi Chuan  su , but he wasn't even sure.  Do you know how to denote such a practitioner?

How do you call a practitioner of Tai Chi Chuan (or Kung Fu in general)?

It depends on context, skill and time spent training.  If they just start training they're a student 学生(xué'shēng), when they become an official disciple they'll be called 徒弟(tú'dì).  When they take on disciples of their own they'll be 师父(shī'fu)  and when their skill is widely recognized as a master they can be called 师傅(shī'fù) or 高手(gāo'shǒu) Regarding "Sifu", when addressing one's own teacher, one uses that term independently, or "Sifu [Name. When addressing a master from another school, one reverses it: "[Name] Sifu".    It's also fairly common for non-students to call any master "sifu" to show respect for their skill and/or reputation I don't think there's a single proper term "kung fu/tai chi practitioner" but rather many for " -master" e.g. -大师 （dà shī），-高手 （gāo shōu）

It's hard to know what to call a practicioner of Tai Chi Chuan or Kung Fu, as it's complicated in Chinese, depends on who is being referred to and the dialect being used but students do call their master, 'Shifu'.

It's hard to know what to call a practicioner of Tai Chi Chuan or Kung Fu, as it's complicated in Chinese and depends on who is being referred to and the dialect being used. It's common for students to call their master, 'Shifu'.


Emotions in general are detrimental to your sparring.

Usually when I have seen this said to a student it is not because we want you to get angry, but that you are sparring as if you are afraid.

If you are afraid of striking your opponent you become SLOW and hesitant.

Remember here that you should only ever spar willingly (never spar if you don't want to) and also that your partner is in the same position.

Hitting your partner (or at least trying in earnest to do so) is actually beneficial to them, if you don't hit them (by reacting calmly to the openings they present) then they will have a false sense of security/confidence going into other bouts and wind up getting hit more.

Sparring '

Angry' is usually an attempt by your opponent to intimidate you into losing confidence and not trying hard.

Many people will try this tactic, learn to deal with it and keep your calm as they are using that instead of skill to try to win.

Once you have dealt with people sparring this way a couple of times you will learn to cherish new opponents that try it as they are easy to pick apart and usually don't have any other tactic to fall back on.

As @Kristina Lex says - reacting to the situation and putting a hand or foot to any target that presents itself is key - and much easier if you aren't angry/afraid/flustered - leave emotions at the door of the Dojang or on the pads/bags .

What works for your sensei might not work from you.

He is teaching you, what had worked for him.

For some, they use anger for the aggressiveness it brings.

Anger dominates certain opponents.

And in the case of draw, the more aggressive fighter that attacks more (whether contact or not) is usually declared the winner.

But anger does not work for everyone.

It results in your judgment being clouded, tunnel vision, rash decisions leading to mistakes, disqualifications due to fouls, not to mention raising your blood pressure and heart rate for the wrong reasons.

I prefer teaching students to fight with a cool head, but maintaining an 'afraid-to-lose' mentality.

As in, never let the other guy score more points than you.

And reactive fighting.

Seeing an opening results in automatic launching of a kick to that area.

While tigers can be considered savage in some sense, as in "uncivilized" or "fierce", they certainly don't get angry.

When they are attacking, they have a goal in mind ("kill this prey to satisfy my hunger") and they use their instinct and physical might to reach that goal, there is no emotion.

When they are defending themselves, they again use their instinct and physical abilities to save their lives, whether it's fighting back or running away.

I think that is what your sensei may have meant.

Anger is definitely not a prerequisite for sparring, specially since angry people tend to neglect their technique, but I think that you might have misinterpreted what your sensei told you.

A tiger hunts with everything it has, full concentration, full physical force and deadly precision, since they hunt completely alone.

Keeping this in mind and the fact that you yourself said that you don't like being angry, he might have ment that you should try to be less timid in sparring and go for it with more "power".

It's about focus, not anger.

No, anger is not a prerequisite for sparring.

There is more than one school of thought for what your mental state should be to spar/fight.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive: Fight without emotion.

Buddhist or Daoist training for a state where thought is stopped ( mushin ) also means that your emotions do not disturb your mental state and create thoughts.

You can act decisively and without hesitation if you are mentally unencumbered.

Harness emotion for strength.

This sounds like what your instructor is suggesting.

Many athletes use music to prime themselves before competition to improve performance.

A snarling animal can be intimidating and cause an opponent to think twice before engaging.

Crazy.

Examples are Viking berserkers or Moro rebels in the Philippines.

This mental state is for killing without worrying about getting killed.

The US Army switched to using higher caliber (larger) bullets with more "stopping power" to fight the Moro rebels because they would keep fighting even after being shot.

There is a range of possibilities.

Question: My sensei says while sparring you should express your inner tiger. My understanding is that I should be savage and angry. But I don't like being angry! Is it possible to be good at sparring without anger impulses?

Is being angry a prerequisite for sparring?

"Use your inner tiger" is said to a student not because they want you to get angry, but that you are sparring as if you are afraid. If you are afraid of striking your opponent you become slow and hesitant. Remember that you should only ever spar willingly and also that your partner is in the same position. Hitting your partner is actually beneficial to them. If you don't hit them then they will have a false sense of security/confidence going into other bouts and get hit more.  Being angry is usually an attempt by your opponent to intimidate you into losing confidence and not trying hard. Many people will try this tactic, learn to deal with it and keep your calm as they are using that instead of skill to try to win. Once you have dealt with people sparring this way a couple of times you will learn to cherish new opponents that try it as they are easy to pick apart and usually don't have any other tactic to fall back on.  Anger is definitely not a prerequisite for sparring, specially since angry people tend to neglect their technique, but I think that you might have misinterpreted what your sensei told you. It's about focus, not anger.

Whilst some people use anger to dominate or intimidate the opponent, it is not a pre requisite for sparring and can be detrimental, neglecting your technique.

Anger  is not a pre requisite for sparring and can be detrimental, neglecting your technique. Some people use anger to dominate or intimidate the opponent.


Just to add to MattM's answer, here is how the Kodokan Throwing Techniques video illustrates the difference in the sweeps in the two throws: Yama-arashi same side eri grip off-balancing uke forwards standing directly in front of uke, sweeping upwards leg parallel to uke's legs almost fully in contact Harai-goshi standard collar grip / under-arm grip off-balancing uke sidewards standing across uke, sweeping across leg leg almost perpendicular to uke's legs in contact only at one point

Yama arashi examples from Kodokan Judo Throwing Techniques show sweep In Toshiro Daigo's book Kodokan Judo Throwing Techniques published by Kodansha International in 2005, which I consider the best canonical source for throw classification

, there are two examples of yama arashi and two examples of throws that are explicitly not yama arashi .

All of these have tori's right leg very close to or in contact with uke's right leg.

This is Daigo's description of what makes yama arashi distinct from page 77:

Tori places his right calf over uke's right shin and wraps the tip of his right foot around uke's right ankle.

In the unique feature of this technique, tori then sweeps up with his right leg placed tight against uke's right leg.

This sweeping technique is different from the method employed in harai-goshi.

Both examples of yama arashi involve a leg sweep.

The examples are distinguished by tori's right arm position when tori's left hand is on uke's right sleeve.

tori's right arm on uke's right chest area tori's right elbow inserted under uke's right armpit (as in a morote seoi nage )

The examples of throws that are not

yama arashi have the same hand positions as the yama arashi examples, but with no mention of a sweep: tai otoshi where tori's hands are on one side of uke, on the sleeve and the lapel seoi nage with the same hand position as the tai otoshi but with tori's elbow into uke's armpit as in a morote seoi nage

My interpretation is that yama arashi requires a sweep under current Kodokan classification.

If there is no sweep, it is not a yama arashi .

In the video referred to by Sjana , the throw shown by Mifune would not be considered a yama arashi but a tai otoshi under Daigo's description.

Based on Daigo's explicit counterexample, I suspect the throw in the video may have been considered a yama arashi by some practitioners before, but should not be now.

Kodokan judo throw classification is messy, changes with time, and is not always understandable.

Unless you are working for an official exam, it is frequently not worth expending the effort to understand the minutiae.

The name is different with the leg sweep.

Historically, yama arashi is catagorized as a "hand throw".

The fundamental impulse comes from the arms as you lift your uke over your hip.

You do unbalance them through the hip, but the primary force is through the arms.

Compare that to harai goshi , which is classified as a "hip throw" and the primary impulse is being delivered via the hip, while the arms are being used to unbalance.

In practice, of course, the throws are kind of on a continuum based on where you split the most effort, but the pure forms are "hand" and "hip" respectively.

You might further compare with osotogari , which is a similar technique, but is a "foot throw" with a clear sweep.

There is a very good video on youtube which explains the difference between Yama Arashi and Harai Goshi.

Harai Goshi doesn't require you to lift your opponent up.

Whereas the Yama Arashi uses an arm throw with your opponent in a lifted position.

From there your leg is only used to keep their foot from being planted forward.

Where the Harai Goshi uses the leg rotate your opponent, rather than using your arms.

Roughly, Yama-arashi could be classified as a variation of harai-goshi on the same basis that eri-seoi-nage is a variation of morote-seoi-nage.

Attention: according to IJF rules once you have both hands on the same side, you just have few seconds to throw with Yama-arashi, otherwise you will receive a shido.

Question: I have seen the throw  yama-arashi  done in multiple ways:   10 dan Mifune  performs it without sweeping uke's leg.  In the  Kodokan training video  tori performs  yama arashi  with an obvious leg sweep (seemingly as a close variation of  harai-goshi ).  I was shown the the throw by a 6 dan in Judo with no leg sweep.    What is the deal here? Why the differences in teaching a technique with the same name? Why is the name not different by adding the leg sweep?

What is the difference between Yama-arashi and Harai-goshi?

If there is no sweep, it is not a  yama arashi.  Historically,  yama arashi  is catagorized as a "hand throw". Harai Goshi doesn't require you to lift your opponent up.

Hara Goshi does not require lifting the  opponent and has no sweep, whilst  Yamarashi is categorized as a  hand throw.

Hara Goshi doesn’t require you to lift your opponent and has no sweep. Yamarashi is categorized as a  hand throw.


The chronological order is: Prelude to Foundation Forward

the Foundation Foundation Foundation and Empire Second Foundation Foundation's Edge Foundation and Earth The publication order is: Foundation (1951) Foundation and Empire (1952) Second Foundation (1953) Foundation's Edge (1982) Foundation and Earth (1986) Prelude to Foundation (1988)

Forward

the Foundation (1993)

I don't think there are spoilers if you read it in chronological order.

However, I would recommend reading the Robot Series of Asimov first.

This is the chronological order of the main 7 books: Prelude to Foundation Forward

the Foundation Foundation Foundation and Empire Second Foundation Foundation's Edge Foundation and Earth

but do yourself a favor and read them in publication order Foundation Foundation and Empire Second Foundation Foundation's Edge Foundation and Earth Prelude to Foundation Forward

the Foundation Spoiler : now, the Foundation series is really the same as the Empire and Robot series including Caves of Steel and even some other books out there, like "The End of Eternity", but the continuity is not that big of a deal there.

I read the in the Foundation series in the chronological order and I would not recommend this order for 2 reason.

There is some small thing, I would not call all of them spoiler, I could call them big clues, but some of them are so big that the guess is almost oblivious.

I read them about 5 year ago, but still have a bad taste in the mouth of some punch that have been cut down by those clues.

The quality of the prequels (Prelude to Foundation and Forward the Foundation) is significantly lower the the main series.

It just a motivation thing, but I was wondering why this series was so praised before I reach the Foundation book (the 1951 one).

As it's said here

it's better to read the Robot Series of Asimov because there is genuine spoilers of them in the Foundation series.

This is the order they come in.

I, Robot

The 3 Elijah Bailey novels Robots and Empire

The 3 Empire novels

The 2 Hari Seldon prequels

The Original Trilogy

And the two postludes.

This is the order I read them

The Original Trilogy

And the two postludes.

The 2 Hari Seldon prequels

The 3 Elijah Bailey novels I, Robot

The 3 Empire novels Robots and Empire

The only thing I'd suggest is reading Caves of Steel earlier, it's important that you at least know who R. Daneel is.

But reading Robots and Empire last left an awesome impression on my mind

, I don't remember why, but it seemed like the most satisfying conclusion possible.

My own advice would be to read " Foundation ", " Foundation and Empire " and " Second Foundation ", in that order, and then stop.

The newer ones are nothing like as good.

If you still want more, then Donald Kingsbury's " Psychohistorical Crisis " is better than any of the "official" ones.

It's also worth noting that there was a trilogy of volumes written as authorized sequels to Foundation by Greg Bear, Gregory Benford and David Brin.

Benford's contribution, Foundation's Fear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation%27s_Fear takes place prior to the Foundation Trilogy and is, to my taste, 'way too far out of the canon set by the Asimov stories to be taken seriously. (Because Benford is a fine writer, it's worth reading, but think of it as Foundation fan fiction, not canon.)

The second book, Foundation and Chaos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_and_Chaos , is by Greg Bear and is a sequel to the Benford book, but feels to me to be a bit more in the Asimov spirit.

Again, Bear is a fine writer and worth reading.

The third volume, Foundation's Triumph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation%27s_Triumph , by David Brin is IMO quite good and brings this trilogy almost back to canon.

It is set after Foundation and Earth and does a good job of resolving the three-way battle that had been shaping up between the Robots, the Foundation(s), and Gaia/Galaxia.

I'd also like to second the praise for Donald Kingsbury's Pyschohistorical Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistorical_Crisis .

It is a brilliant homage to Foundation, as well as a critique of it, but was not authorized and is consequently set in a not-quite-the-same-universe.

It's best enjoyed after reading Asimov.

But of all the sequels, I'd recommend Orson Scott Card's story "The Originist" from Foundation's Friends which reads like pure Asimov in spirit, but better written than anything Ike ever did himself.

I recommend reading all of these after the Asimov-written books.

"The Orginist" fills in a beautiful bit of detail, but doesn't really play a role in the greater story, while the Benford/Bear/Brin trilogy is sufficiently skew to the original books that it would be just confusing to read them in their chronological position.

They should be read in order afterwards.

There is nothing to stop one from reading it in multiple sequences.

I myself read the original Foundation Trilogy first, then went on to the prequels and the Robot stories, in no particular order, interspersed with other Asimov stories.

I am now reading them again in the "chronological order of future history", after a span of several years (so I remember parts of the stories but not all).And although Nemesis is not considered part of the Foundation universe, I definitely see it being a pre-cursor to the prequels, in terms of general concepts (hyperspatial travel for example).

Question: I've been meaning to read the Foundation series but haven't quite been able to figure out which book to read first. Does anyone know the correct chronological order of the books in the series? Are there any drawbacks to reading the Foundation series in the chronological order (possible Star Wars like spoilers)?

What is the chronological order of the novels in Asimov's Foundation series?

The  chronological  order of the main 7 books:  Prelude to Foundation  Forward.

The  chronological  order of the main 7 books is Prelude to Foundation  Forward.


It appears that there are no current plans to continue: On July 13, 2008, Straczynski revealed that he had no plans to continue The Lost Tales.

He said that although the studio was interested in another disc, they wanted to budget the next installment similarly to the first.

Citing his disappointment with the first release due to the low budget, Straczynski said he did not want to dilute Babylon 5's legacy with further sub-par stories.

He stated that he would only return to the Babylon 5 universe if Warner Bros. wanted to do a large-budgeted cinema release. -- Babylon 5:

The Lost Tales @ Wikipedia Like many other fans, I'd love to see more Babylon 5 tales - but, equally, I'd hate to see the canon troubled by low quality (low budget) additions.

JMS at San Diego Comic Con 2010 :

“I said to Warner Bros. a while back, 'When you’re ready to do something real with 'Babylon 5,' either a big-budget film or a TV show, if you want to do one of those two things, call me, otherwise don’t bother me.'

About a month ago the phone rang.

I don’t know where this is gonna go yet, but when they call you, there’s something going on.

I can’t tell you what it is yet

and it may not go anywhere, but there is movement in the tall grass.

He has also hinted that more news will come in April 2011, but apparently we will have to wait a little longer :

It'll be at least another few weeks as the powers that be ensure that every i has been dotted and [every] t crossed.

There's always a chance things could go pear-shaped, as the Brits say, but things are looking promising for the moment.

As per JMS's talk at ComicCon 2011, Warner Brothers approached him about doing a new Babylon 5, and they made a deal - but then the distribution system Warner was planning for fell through

( IGN has a write-up ).

Apparently there are still some sort of talks going on, and JMS is hopeful that some sort of series may happen.

As long as the studios haven't forgotten about it (and are willing to give the support needed) I wouldn't be writing off the chances for a new show/movie.

A newer answer: Word is that JMS is working on a reboot of Babylon 5 , but in movie form.

Everything's still in rumor-mode as of end-of-2014, though.

As far as I know there aren't any plans.

All rumors I've heard have been unconfirmed.

J. Michael Straczynski some years ago got into the Hollywood A-list

so he got to produce Babylon 5:

The lost tales

but I think it was so unsuccessful there are no other plans for anything in the Babylon 5 universe.

Quite unfortunate.

Question: I loved the series and all the movies, and I even watched  ' Crusade '  which was awesome.  But it's been a while since I've heard of any  new Babylon 5 movies .  On the other hand, the series creator  Michael Straczynski  may have some additional clout from receiving a  BAFTA  award nomination for the script of  Changeling  and after writing the script for the blockbuster Thor .   Are there any plans for new Straczynski-driven  Babylon 5  works?

Are there any plans for a new Babylon 5 series or movies?

It appears that there are no current plans to continue.   On July 13, 2008, Straczynski revealed that he had no plans to continue The Lost Tales. However, word is that JMS is working on a reboot of Babylon 5 , but in movie form.

The more recent word is that JMS is working on a reboot of Babylon 5, which would be in movie format.


Obi-wan was lying to Luke.

He knew full-well that Vader was Anakin.

You can see this by their chat during their duel later in the movie.

(And Luke calls him out on it in the last movie.

But the sly devil twists the words around to sound like he wasn't lying.)

He knew that Anakin was consumed by the Dark Side of the Force.

I think he was speaking metaphorically.

Certainly he knew that Darth Vader was not literally dead, but Anakin Skywalker was.

According to Wookieepedia , Obi-wan initially thought that Anakin/Vader had died, but had his doubts: During the first days of his exile, Kenobi visited the Lars Homestead every day, always trying to stay clear of Owen and Beru so that they would not see him and watching Luke from afar.

It was during these visits that he would contemplate on Skywalker's "death", though he still had an inkling that he was in fact alive as well as wondering why his former Master, Jinn, had not yet contacted him from beyond death.

These doubts were then later verified: For the first few months of his self-imposed exile Kenobi had no idea what had become of Vader after he had left him to his fate on Mustafar, but one day at a cantina Kenobi finally heard that he was alive when news reached him of Vader’s victory at the Battle of Kashyyyk .

He was shocked that the remaining Jedi thought they could band together to defeat the Sith Lord.

He had hoped that they would go into hiding like he and Yoda did.

(source)

So why did Obi-wan say that Anakin was killed by Vader?

Well, metaphorically Anakin died and was reborn as Vader, but I doubt Obi-wan was saying Vader killed him just to wax poetic.

Instead of telling Luke the exact truth, Obi-wan told him what he needed to hear to help guide Luke on the path to become a Jedi.

Telling Luke that his father was a great Jedi knight who died in battle fighting against the Empire was just the sort of thing that could help drive Luke to leave Tatooine and ultimately join the Resistance.

Imagine if he had told Luke exactly what happened... Hey, kid.

Your dad's still alive.

Oh, and by the way, he's the scourge of the galaxy.

Also, he killed your mom.

That might not have played out very well.

It wouldn't have been particularly motivating for a young and impressionable Luke to learn such a dark and hard-to-accept truth.

He might have given up all thoughts of joining the Academy, or later the Resistance, knowing he might one day have to oppose his father.

It isn't explicitly mentioned in the films.

But I think the implication is there that Obi-wan, Yoda, Bail Organa, et.

al.

all knew the full truth about what happened.

In Star Wars: A New Hope , Obi-wan's lie about Anakin being "killed" by Vader certainly implies that he explicitly knows that Anakin became Darth Vader.

If, at that stage in his life, he'd believed that him leaving Anakin for dead had killed him, he'd have said that.

In other words, at some point between him leaving Anakin half dead and Luke finding him on Tattooine, he (and presumably Yoda and his other allies) discovered Anakin's fate.

Obi-Wan could had administered the coup d'grace, and probably kicked himself repeatedly over the years for not having the guts to do so.

Obi-Wan was both exhausted and heartsick over the slaughter of the Jedi order and younglings, and realizing that his own apprentice was responsible.

But even after seeing the Jedi Temple holos showing what Vader did, and seeing the same man nearly kill Padme (which not only for profound admiration and friendship, but also perhaps in his unrequited love for Siri Tachi and/or Duchess Satine, may have been carrying a torch for as well)

, Obi-Wan couldn't bring himself to dispatch the young man he'd considered as a brother.

Obi-Wan, in his shock and grief, left his apprentice to die of his wounds and burns, and he also needed to tend to the stricken Padme.

He didn't realize that Palpatine would come to Vader's rescue, and Vader's own superhuman endurance to not succumb to the injuries that would have finished off virtually anyone else.

Even a powerful Jedi like Obi-Wan is "human" and has faults.

If he employed sophistry, and tried to palm off his deception of Vader's status as father to Luke with that "point of view" crap, at least understand that his solitude on Tatootine, with nothing but that awful memory to deal with, probably drove Obi-Wan to the brink of insanity.

Little wonder that he knowingly went to his own demise on the Death Star willingly; it was relief from his pain.

Question: Obi-Wan left Anakin for dead, and one movie later (in  A New Hope ) he was saying Anakin had been killed by Darth Vader.  What exactly did Obi-Wan know about Anakin and Darth Vader before  A New Hope  started?

When did Obi-Wan Kenobi learn that Anakin was "dead"?

Early in his exile, Kenobi visited the Lars Homestead every day, always trying to stay clear of Owen and Beru so that they would not see him and kept an eye on Luke from afar. Obi-wan was lying to Luke about Anakin/Vader because he knew that Anakin had been consumed by the Dark Side of the Force. According to  Wookieepedia,  Obi-wan  initially thought that Anakin/Vader had died, but had his doubts. He was both exhausted and heartsick over the slaughter of the Jedi order and younglings, and realized that his own apprentice was responsible. However, he could not kill the man that he considered as a brother.

Obi-Wan knew the following about Anakin and Darth Vader before  A New Hope  started - that Anakin was consumed by the Dark Side of the Force, that Anakin had died but had his doubts.


Five. Four that were directly built by Noonien Soong: Data Lore

B-4 Juliana Tainer 's copy.

There was also Lal , created as a partial clone of Data's own brain (his "Daughter").

It's quite amazing how many different numbers we have here, all attempting to address the same question.

Some are more or less correct, some not at all, and some are correct within the scope defined by the answer but not the question.

This confusion seems to stem from the fairly wide variety in the natures and origins of all the Soong-type androids .

In hopes of clearing this up, I'll try to cover this question from all angles.

All complete androids built by Soong, and seen in Star Trek canon - Four

I'm starting here, with the narrowest category.

This includes only the androids built by Soong himself, which became fully functional, and are actually seen in Star Trek movies and TV series.

This list includes the following: B-4 Lore Data Juliana Soong

(AKA:

Juliana Tainer)

All Data-like androids mentioned in Star Trek canon - Five Slightly narrower in some ways, yet broader than others, this category is meant to cover all androids which Star Trek viewers would easily recognize as being "Data-like".

This category includes only androids which actually have similar design and programming as Data.

These androids have a few specific features that make them unique from the others.

They are physically modeled after Soong himself.

(Making them physically Data-like)

If they are fully functional, they are

programmatically Data-like if: They have their own identity which is fully pre-programmed.

They are programmed to know that they are androids This excludes Juliana Soong, because she was not programmed to be aware of her true nature and her identity was not really her own.

Also, she looked nothing like Data.

This includes the prototypes prior to B4 because we can reasonably assume they were also physically modeled after Soong, and the fact that they were not fully functional excludes them from the other requirements.

This excludes Lal, because Data deliberately built her so that she could realize her identity, even including her species and gender appearance, on her own - it was not pre-programmed as with the others.

This list includes: Unnamed prototype #1 Unnamed prototype #2

B-4 Lore Data All Soong-type androids mentioned in Star Trek canon - Seven

This is the most all-encompassing category of Soong-type androids.

It covers all Soong-type androids created by Soong himself, which would include Data and all of his predecessors as well as Juliana Soong.

This also includes Lal, who was later created by Data.

Unnamed prototype #1 Unnamed prototype #2

B-4 Lore Data Juliana Soong (AKA: Juliana Tainer)

Lal

All of the lists above are based on information taken from Memory Alpha .

Aside from those already linked, there is another article which is important - TNG Season 7, Episode 10: Inheritance .

It is important, because it is in this episode that we discover that there were three prototypes created prior to Lore .

(If you want to review the episode, the pertinent discussion takes place around 20 minutes in.)

These three are not explicitly named in any episode or movie, but they would presumably include B-4 .

This is why some of the above lists include two unnamed prototypes.

Unfortunately, we never canonically find out much else about these prototypes other than that they existed.

Seven or Eight, depending on definition.

Seven:

If you count the 4 prototypes before Lore and Data , and add the wife-bot.

Eight:

If you count Lal . From Memory-alpha on the nature of B-4

He was one of four failed prototypes before the construction of Lore was successful.

(TNG: "Inheritance") From Memory-alpha on Juliana Trainer O'Donnell

assisted Soong in his work on artificial lifeforms, and helped create the android Data, as well as his five predecessors, including Lore and

B-4. From this we can deduce that there are 7 Soong-type androids created by Dr Soong (Data + 5 predecessors + Juliana's copy), with Lal another Soong-type created by Data making it 8 in total.

Four. From Wikipedia:

Noonian Soong: Human cyberneticist who created Data, played by Brent Spiner, who also plays the role of Data.

Soong has created four complete androids in the known Star Trek universe, Data, Lore, and B-4 (all three of the same design), and a replica of his dead wife Juliana, which is technically superior to his previous models.

Early in Dr. Soong's career he was widely hailed as Earth's foremost robotic scientist, but he became a recluse after apparently failing to create a positronic brain and was thought to have been killed with other colonists on Omicron Theta.

The scientist actually settled on Terlina III and summoned Data there to fit him with his final invention, an emotion chip.

He inadvertently also summoned Data's brother, Lore, who killed him after obtaining the chip.

Noonien Soong built a total of six androids.

2 Unnamed prototypes, B4, Lore, Data and then Julianna Soong (copy).

Eight, Three prototypes that died, Lore, Data, his wife Juliana and Data's daughter Lal, made by him.

This information is from the 1999 edition of the Star Trek encyclopedia.

B-4 is the eighth, an unknown fourth prototype made.

I believe that the first three prototypes are now with Starfleet robot research and the theft of one of these prototypes would be known by the Enterprise crew.

Question: Star Trek TNG's Data was an andriod created by  Noonien Soong , who was the Albert Einstein of robots.  He was a busy guy and I think I can count about 4 total robots.  Does anyone know all of the Data-style robots that were mentioned in the series?

How many different Soong robots were there?

Seven or Eight, depending on definition. Seven if you count the 4 prototypes before  Lore  and  Data, and add the wife-bot. The unnamed prototypes are B4, Lore, Data and then Julianna Soong.

From Wickipedia, it seems there were four Soong Robots but depending on definition, ther were seven or eight.


TL;DR:

Book's official status within the Alliance (and therefore on his ident chip) was that of a retired Alliance commander.

This would result in VIP treatment at most Alliance facilities.

I'll outline his entire known history below.

Most of this is outlined in the comic " The Shepherd's Tale ", which is essentially Book reflecting back on his life while dying at Haven.

Spoilers!

Early Life Originally named Henry Evans, the man we know

as Derrial Book was born on a border planet to an abusive father.

At the age of ten, he ran away from home and became adept at survival on the streets.

He eventually garnered some reputation as a thief & criminal, but ended up joining the growing Independence Movement.

Life as a Browncoat

In the four years before his Alliance assignment, Evans quickly became known for his vicious skills in combat - easily (and brutally) taking down entire squads of Alliance soldiers during missions.

When the Browncoats began looking for a long-term operative who could infiltrate the Alliance military as a double agent, Evans volunteered.

He needed a new identity, so he murdered a random citizen named Derrial Book and took that name as his own.

Life in the Alliance

Once in the Alliance, Book began a "meteoric" rise through the ranks.

He was seen as totally committed to the cause and earned a reputation for using savage tactics against the Browncoats, quickly becoming known as a master interrogator.

Because of his rising rank & influence, Book found himself increasingly able to both damage the Alliance plans as well as cover up losses or information leaks.

He quickly became a vital asset for the Browncoats, but also one of their most guarded secrets.

Retirement Book eventually found himself in command (or perhaps XO) of the IAV Cortez , an Alliance cruiser which oversaw an operation intended to end the Unification War in a single stroke.

Book himself was in charge of the operation, which involved committing massive resources into striking multiple targets at once.

Due to Book's involvement, however, the operation was actually a huge ambush.

Numerous forces were lost, including the total destruction of the IAV Alexander and all 4000 crew.

Considered one of the largest defeats in Alliance history, the entire operation was swept under the rug and Derrial Book was quietly discharged from Alliance service.

Life at the Abbey With the Independent Movement crushed soon after, Book wasn't sure what to do with himself.

He wandered the outer territories, weary of his life and drowning his sorrows in alcohol.

At one point, he finds himself at a church and comes to see religion as a way to atone for the many people he had killed throughout his life.

It apparently worked, as he eventually ended up at the Southdown Abbey on Persephone.

Book finally found peace tending the Abbey's garden, but knew he couldn't stay there indefinitely.

Life on Serenity

After an unknown amount of time at the Abbey (but presumably several years), Book decided to leave and get back out into the galaxy.

The Abbey had access to the Cortex, and Book had tired of watching others suffer along the rim.

He announced his intention to carry the Lord's message out to others, and this leads us directly to his introduction in S01E01 "Serenity".

As for your specific question, his ident chip reflected his official status with the Alliance - a retired Captain or Commander.

Especially in a medical situation like that, a status like that would require any Alliance officer to render immediate assistance.

Well, I did decide to get the book, and so here's the answer.

Spoilers!

Shepherd Book was abused as a boy, and lived on the street for a while.

He wasn't born under the name Shepherd Book, BTW.

He joined up with the independence movement, and volunteered to be a spy on the Alliance.

He was an officer until he led a brilliant defeat, after which he was discharged.

He later lived in a monastery for a time, and became the preacher we all know:-)

I'm not quite sure what I think of it, but there it is, so...

The lead villain in Serenity commanded the respect from the alliance forces that Shepard Book did once they saw his ID.

I wonder if there is still something we don't know about him, perhaps he too was one of the fixers.

Henry Evans had a troubled childhood and was a criminal for a time before enlisting with the independence movement.

As a member of The Independence he volunteered to spy on The Alliance.

He killed a man named Derrial Book assumed his identity to enlisted in the Alliance Military.

While still working as a spy for The Independence he quickly worked up the Alliance ranks to become a prominent officer.

At a key point during the war he intentionally lost a major battle dealing a crushing blow to the alliance and leading to him being discharged.

This loss was so crushing that the alliance made a point to wipe all record of it out.

Meaning on paper shepherd Book is nothing but a retired prominent Alliance officer.

After being discharged he "found god in a bowl of soup" while at a soup kitchen and decided to join an Abby.

He eventually left and ended up boarding Serenity.

From the episode with the bounty hunter it does make it seem like he was once him self a bounty hunter and then became a preacher.

That would also explain why the alliance gave him treatment.

He may have done some bounty work for the alliance, as you all know the bounty hunter does say " that man is not a preacher".

I think it's more plausible that he might be former Allience 'non-existing' agent, just like one that was chasing Firefly crew in 'Serenity' movie.. it would fit to how he was treated by cruiser crew and his skills in ( presumably) combat and firearms

Question: The one big question I've always had remaining about the Firefly series was, what was Shepherd Book's past? It's obvious he wasn't always a preacher, but what was he?

What was Shepherd Book's past in Firefly?

Shepherd Book wasn't born with the name Shepherd Book. He was abused as a boy, and lived on the street for a while before joining up with the independence movement, and volunteering to be a spy on the Alliance.

He joined the independence movement and volunteered to be a spy. Moreover, he was abused as a boy and was homeless for some time.

He joined the independence movement and volunteered to be a spy. He was abused as a boy and was homeless for some time.


It isn't consistent.

The existence of this tech is almost always a way to explain away the problem of inter-species communication.

One ST:

TNG episode, Darmok goes deeper.

And I would watch that one if you are interested in a deeper understanding on inter-species communication.

And it is the one episode that explains, in detail, what the universal translator really does.

It sees patterns in language and identifies the other words that the alien words mean.

However it doesn't understand metaphor.

It is basically magic.

Like Mike Scott says, the alternative is every episode being about learning a new language.

The show would have been about language, not what the show is about now.

In Star Trek: Enterprise you view various clues to how the translator is built.

Hoshi Sato, supposed linguistic genuis, meets various alien races, and builds up the translator by adding in alien grammers combined with a speech processor and voice samples of the aliens language.

The translator would use AI, probably artifical, and similar to what is available in Google translate, (but much better, as it's set in fictional universe, but close it will be in this time frame) from a starting point, take a speech sample from the new alien, and use different search algorithms to match, on different alien database to find a similar or close matching grammer.

From the grammer, the speech processor can take the grammer and enunciate possible speech patterns that the new aliens may understood, and by iterating down the search tree, zero in on a closer, possible better match, as they get more speech back from the alien.

But it would break, if non of the grammer was even a close match.

Imagine two alien species seperated by say, 2000 light years.

Their speech would be a different as basque, say one of those languages on earth, where you click the tongue, like tagalog.

Very similar to the way IBM recent computer match against the Jeopardy winners would works.

Using search algorithms to map broken down question terms to possible answers.

In the Darmok episode of TNG, we get an insight into how it works.

Essentially, when encountering a new language, the universal translator takes samples of the new language and compares to known languages, and slowly builds up a database of words and phrases.

In the episode linked, the UT has trouble understanding the alien language because they speak mostly in metaphors.

See also Universal translator for a more in-depth explanation, and more examples of episodes which feature the UT.

Copied from my answer in If there are universal translators, why are some words/phrases not translated?

From http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Universal_translator (Which got it from TOS 2x02: Metamorphosis) Responding to Zefram Cochrane's question about the theory of operation, Kirk explained that there are certain universal ideas and concepts common to all intelligent life, and that the translator compared the frequencies of brainwave patterns, selected those ideas it recognized, and provided the necessary grammar.

Kirk further explained that the device spoke with a voice, or the approximation of one, that corresponded to the identity concepts it recognized.

Since it's already scanning brainwaves, presumably it can also detect intent (whether you want to be understood or not), and decide whether or not to translate as appropriate.

Plus my comment on that answer, addressing Darmok and similar languages

You're assuming their brainwave patterns were similar to general humanoids

Like how Betazoid's can't read Ferengi because of their brain structure, there's a good chance the UT couldn't correctly interpret the Darmok aliens' thoughts because it had nothing like that to compare to.

You might as well just think of it as magic.

Like many other devices in Star Trek (e.g. the transporter), it's there for plot reasons rather than being based on any kind of scientific or technological extrapolation.

In the case of the universal translator, it's so that they don't have to spend the first half of every episode with aliens on basic language lessons.

The same way that most codes are broken in real life.

It would search for frequently repeated words and sounds, and figure out what words would be used with the same frequency in the host language.

Star Trek Corps of Engineers explained it a little more than in the series.

I always felt that the Star Trek Universal Translator worked directly with the brainwaves.

It was similar to Farscape’s translator microbes, it makes you feel as if the other person was speaking in your language.

This is actually shown in an episode of Discovery , we hear the Klingon speaking in Klingon with subtitles and once the UT is activated we hear them in English (or whatever human language the dub is in), the Klingon even says “I did not expect you to speak Klingon” and Michael says it is the translator.

This would also explain why the Japanese heard people speaking in Japanese in “The 37” and how Picard and Data are capable of going undercover as Romulans into Romulus itself.

You don’t really hear anything over the other person’s voice, you hear the person’s voice in your language because the trick is that your brain itself changes the meaning inside your head.

Of course, this doesn’t explains the lip-sync, technically that should still be an issue.

But everyone who has seen a dubbed movie (and I don’t mean the terrible bad old times dub of Asian martial art films, but the careful quality dubbing you can see in Western media like between Spanish, English and French) your mind ignores the lack of sync.

I guess it could be hand-waved away that unless the language is too different and it takes you a lot of time to say one word your mind just overlooks the lack of sync like watching a dubbed film.

Question: It is stated that Star Trek characters can talk freely with aliens using the universal translators, later built-in their com badges; but is it also mentioned somewhere how this device is supposed to work?

How is the universal translator device in Star Trek supposed to work?

Hoshi Sato, supposed linguistic genius, meets various alien races, and builds up the translator by adding in alien grammars combined with a speech processor and voice samples of the aliens language.    Essentially, when encountering a new language, the universal translator takes samples of the new language and compares to known languages, and slowly builds up a database of words and phrases.  The same way that most codes are broken in real life, it would search for frequently repeated words and sounds, and figure out what words would be used with the same frequency in the host language.

Alien grammars are built in to the universal translators. Moreover, the translators work directly with the brainwaves. It is also possible the translator is there for solely plot reasons. Most importantly, the translator takes samples of new language and compares to known languages to build up a database.

Alien grammars are built in to the universal translators. The translators work directly with the brainwaves. The translator is there for plot reasons. The translator takes samples of new language and compares to known languages to build up a database.


Methusaleh's Children featured an experimental FTL drive by one of the characters that was essential to the plot; in Time Enough for Love , its sequel the same FTL drive is discovered to also work as a time-travel drive.

The Number of the Beast , The Cat Who Walks Through Walls , and

To Sail Beyond the Sunset all have a universe-hopping device that serves as an FTL stand-in Starship Troopers

involves FTL, as Michael indicated, the book doesn't really get into details.

Tunnel in the Sky

and, I think, Have Spacesuit - Will Travel and Starman Jones all involve FTL or similar systems, at least peripherally.

From the Faster Than Light and Normal Space Starship and Spaceship Drive List ... Number of the Beast .

Based in a 6-dimensional space, you can instantaneously travel to where you want to go provided you know the proper vectors.

Starman Jones .

The starship in question accelerated to the speed of light where itjumped elsewhere.

The Cat Who Walks Through Walls ,

To Sail Beyond The Sunset .

Drive is size of a sewing machine case and can instantaneously place the vessel anywhere, anywhen, in any universe with a velocity up to the speed of light.

Computer controlled and uses virtually no power.

Future History .

In one of the Lazarus Long stories an inertialess drive is used to go FTL.

Possibly Starship Troopers and Citizen of the Galaxy ...

but I don't remember the references.

In addition to those already mentioned: Friday Citizen of the Galaxy

The Star Beast

I believe Starship Troopers had FTL, but I am unclear as to how it works.

The book dealt more with planetary assaults than with space travel.

They were definately on other planets, though.

Another book of his had "gates" to other planets, through which colonization expeditions proceeded.

I do not recall the title - please edit or leave a comment if you know it.

It was Tunnel in the sky .

I think Time for the Stars is the only one no-one else has mentioned.

After they've spent most of the book travelling relativistically, an FTL drive is introduced at the end of the book.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4167/Ward - Reinstate Monica

Question: I'm a new Heinlein fan and also an FTL (faster-than-light) fan.  Did he write any books where FTL was possible?  All the ones I've read so far have been intra-system (Sol) only.

Heinlein book(s) with FTL travel?

Methusaleh's Children featured an experimental FTL drive by one of the characters that was essential to the plot. In  Time Enough for Love, the same FTL drive is discovered to also work as a time-travel drive. Number of the Beast, Starman Jones, To Sail Beyond The Sunset and Future History, as well as possibly  Starship Troopers and  Citizen of Galaxy all featured FTL.

Methusaleh’s Children, Number of the Beast, Starman Jones, To Sail Beyond the Sunset, Future History, Starship Troopers, Citizen of the Galaxy and Time for the Stars.


With the recently concluded (November 2012) acquisition of Lucasfilm by the Walt Disney Co., Disney is planning to release Episode VII of the Star Wars saga in 2015.

"Our long-term plan is to release a new 'Star Wars' feature film every two to three years," said Disney's Robert Iger.

George Lucas will not be directing the new films; he is retiring.

"It's now time for me to pass 'Star Wars' on to a new generation of filmmakers," he said.

EDIT: Plans for the new film have firmed up, with J. J. Abrams signed on as director and Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan to do the screenwriting.

John Williams will return to score Episode VII .

Shooting is expected to begin in the spring of 2014 and the film is scheduled to hit theaters 18 December 2015.

Source starwars.com .

When this question was originally asked, it looked like George Lucas didn't have any plans to make any more Star Wars films.

That hasn't changed, but we all now know that the franchise was sold to Disney , Episode VII has been released, and more Star Wars films and series are on the way.

Original answer:

Unfortunately it doesn't seem likely.

Here's a quote from an interview he gave in 2008.

(The article is Will Lucas Extend His 'Star Wars' Story Beyond 'Return of the Jedi'? )

"There really isn't any story to tell there.

It's been covered in the books and video games and comic books, which are things I think are incredibly creative but that I don't really have anything to do with other than being the person who built the sandbox they're playing in."

He continues, "I get asked all the time, 'What happens after "Return of the Jedi"?,' and there really is no answer for that.

The movies were the story of Anakin Skywalker and Luke Skywalker, and when Luke saves the galaxy and redeems his father, that's where that story ends."

Ther's is still rumor that there will be a sequel trilogy.

Here the last one I'm aware of : [...] fans can expect the new trilogy after the entire saga is released in 3D which is expected to be complete around 2015 or 2016.

Technically, George Lucas doesn't plan on making any more films, as he sold the rights.

However, Disney has multiple Star Wars films planned , with set release dates.

The first, Star Wars:

Episode VII:

The Force Awakens came out December 18, 2015.

The next, Rogue One will come out December 16, 2016.

Many years ago, I got a chance to talk to Anthony Daniels at a Gen Con .

I specifically asked him about the chance of episodes 7, 8, and 9, which Lucas originally had planned to make.

Daniels told me it wouldn't happen.

Question: Does George Lucas have any plans for more  Star Wars  sequels or prequels? Proper movie sequels, not any supplementary animated shows or stories.

Plans for more sequels to Star Wars?

Technically, George Lucas doesn't plan on making any more films, as he sold the rights.

Lucas sold the rights so there will be no more films.


Well for starters, he coined the term 'robotics'.

EDIT:

I would also add that the Three Laws have certainly sparked endless amounts of discussion in the field of robotics as relates to ethics.

I would say that Asimov is the first to document the challenges and pitfalls of debugging a system (especially with regards to black-box testing), and the illusion of malicious compliance that programs (robotic or computing) seem to take pleasure in.

I often think of SPD (Speedy) when trying to fathom a particularly bizarre pattern of behaviour.

Robots in SF that predated Asimov were mostly characterized in a Frankenstein or Golem fashion; destroying the robot would save the day and conclude the story.

He thus pioneered tolerance for non-human and non-organic intelligence.

By presenting intelligent, human-like robots, he advanced the field of thought as to what a robot is, how it relates to humans and its own human nature, and what role AI has to play in humanity.

I believe his contribution is very much similar to that of Roddenberry or any other successful sci-fi creator:

He inspired people to become scientists, to help build the future that only previously existed in fiction.

Big dog, DARPA cars, partial humaniform bots from the east, endless forms of miniaturization — they all have traces of Asimov.

But the kind Asimov had in mind?

I don't think this question can be answered fully at present.

For instance we have not even arrived at the point where any of the three laws of robotics are even relevant.

As mentioned above, he did coin the term "robotics."

Asimov coined the term "robotics" in his 1941 story "Liar!", though he later remarked that he believed then that he was merely using an existing word, as he stated in Gold ("The Robot Chronicles") ( Wikipedia )

However, that appears to be about it.

In that same essay in Gold , Asimov writes (page 167-168 in my (first, 1995) edition of Gold)

I myself have never actually worked with robots, never even as much as seen one, but I have never stopped thinking about them.

But, he contributed to the field of robotics in other ways:

Joseph F. Engelberger, studying at Columbia University in the 1950s, came across I, Robot and was sufficiently attracted by what he read to determine that he was going to devote his life to robots.

[...] I have met other roboticists such as Marvin Minsky and Shimon Y. Nof, who also admitted, cheerfully, the value of their early reading of my robot stories.

( same essay, page 167 )

The essay (according to the book) was copyrighted in 1990, two years before his death in 1992 , so it's doubtful that he started studying with robots at that late point.

Try running a search on Google Scholar for " three laws of robotics " and see what comes up.

While none of the actual tech (or, to be precise, techno-babble) that Asimov used is actually in evidence today ("Positronic brain" was coined as a play on "electronic", as positron <-> electron), the basic concepts are still brought up whenever people discuss autonomous systems and their responsibility towards their operators and bystanders.

Question: Isaac Asimov  is one of the (if not the most) important figures of  robotics  in science fiction. Has he had an influence on the development of real-world robotics (in science or industry)?

What was Asimov's contribution to real-world robotics?

Asimov coined the term 'robotics'. He may have been the first to document the challenges and pitfalls of debugging a system (especially with regards to black-box testing), and the illusion of malicious compliance that programs (robotic or computing)  seem  to take pleasure in.  By presenting intelligent, human-like robots, he advanced the field of thought as to what a robot is, how it relates to humans and its own human nature, and what role AI has to play in humanity.

Asimov coined the term "robotics" and he was the first to record the ups and downs of debugging a system and the role of AI in humanity.

Asimov coined the term "robotics". Asimov was the first to record the ups and downs of debugging a system and the role of AI in humanity.


" Universe " by Robert A Heinlein is a story along these lines.

Like most of RAF's work it is well worth reading.

" Orphans of The Sky " by Robert A Heinlein.

It is very different from most of his other books and does not seem to connect into his "universe".

It has a fast plot with a space opera feel to it.

" Non-Stop " by Brian Aldiss takes place aboard a generation ship.

And in the " Helliconia " trilogy by Aldiss there is a spaceship, where the inhabitants lose contact with earth.

Their society degenerates as well.

" Mayflies " by Kevin O'Donnell tells the story of a generation ship, built as an escape from a dying Earth. Without going into too many spoilers, the central computer fails and shuts off the main drive, making the journey take much longer than expected.

The passengers don't handle this well.

Hull Zero

Three by Greg Bear is quite similar to Pandorum.

Many people have remarked on the similarities, which has cause some bad reviews.

On the other hand, plenty of good reviews on Amazon too, so it's still on my list.

Product Description HULL ZERO

THREE is an edge of your seatthrill-ride through the darkest reaches of space, from one of thegenre's biggest names.

Perfect for fans of Arthur C. Clarke's RAMA orthe film EVENT HORIZON.

A starship hurtles through the emptiness ofspace.

Its destination - unknown.

Its purpose?

A mystery.

Its history?Lost.

Now, one man wakes up.

Ripped from a dream of a new home, a newplanet and the woman he was meant to love in his arms, he findshimself wet, naked, and freezing to death.

The dark halls are full ofmonsters but trusting other survivors he meets might be the greaterdanger.

All he has are questions: Who is he?

Where are they going?What happened to the dream of a new life?

What happened to the womanhe loved?

What happened to Hull 03?

All will be answered, if he cansurvive.

Uncover the mystery.

Fix the ship.

Find a way home.

I'd add The Book of the Long Sun tetralogy by Gene Wolf.

Question: Is there a novelization of Pandorum?  If not, did anyone else write about the inhabitants of a  generation ship  going feral?

Is there a novelization of Pandorum?

Suggestions include"Universe" and"Orphans of The Sky" by Robert A Heinlein;  and "Non-Stop" by Brian Aldiss, which takes place aboard a generation ship. "Hull Zero,  Three"  by Greg Bear is quite similar to Pandorum. Some may add  "The Book of the Long Sun" tetralogy by Gene Wolf.

“Universe" by Heineken, "Orphans of the Sky" by Heineken, "Non-Stop" by Aldiss and "The Book of the Long Sun" by Wolf are all novelisations. Moreover, "Hull Zero" and "Three" by Bear are also novelisations of Pandorum.

“Universe" by Heinelen, "Orphans of the Sky" by Heinelen, "Non-Stop" by Aldiss and "The Book of the Long Sun" by Wolf are all novelisations. "Hull Zero" and "Three" by Bear are also novelisations of Pandorum.


It would appear the author ignored lightspeed restrictions entirely.

The choice of wording is a clue of a lack of regard for basic physics -- the speed of light being a fixed speed in your medium of choice, rather than acceleration which is the rate at which your speed changes.

In the first book they are held to normal human accelerations with the engine pushing the ship, but in Skylark Three they find a way to accelerate everything at the same rate with no side effects.

They also get artificial gravity from it as well.

Early inertial compensation, I guess.

IIRC I think the first book said that the drive acted on every particle of the ship, though I'm not sure exactly what that drive did physics-wise but initially, they were going five times light speed.

Later on in the Lensman books Doc Smith came up with first,the partial neutralization of inertia, and then the complete cancellation of inertia.

I interpret the accelerations as being per second.

Thus, an acceleration of five times light speed would be 5 * 186,000 miles /second

/ second.

This was the acceleration of the Fenachrone ships.

Warning: spoilers below!

The Skylark Three had a Fenachrone style drive, which accelerated every particle in the ship and its contents equally, so no sense of acceleration was felt; the first two Skylarks did not, so their acceleration was limited by what the inhabitants could stand.

But Skylark Three actually had a higher acceleration than the Fenachrone ships -- 3.9186 times as high, according to the novel -- or it could never have gotten close enough to Ravindau's ship to fight it.

As for Einstein, relativity was ignored as being "just a theory".

Basically, special relativity says that an object's mass increases as the object moves at faster and faster speeds, so it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object up to the speed of light.

And do remember that Einstein doesn't postulate the speed of light as a speed that cannot be exceeded.

All the theory of relativity does is indicate that it's a speed that cannot be attained, it says nothing about what would happen if you found a way to reach a speed faster than light without first reaching the speed of light itself (thus some sort of discontinuity drive that would make you jump from say 0.8c to 1.2c without passing through c itself while accellerating).I've had in the past some interesting discussions with my university physics teacher about this subject, including what it would mean for accelleration and braking in an FTL environment.

Question: In  Skylark Three  by E.E. "Doc" Smith, the  Skylark  has an acceleration of five times the speed of light, and in  The Skylark of Valeron , it has nearly unlimited acceleration. Is there any indication of how the light speed limit was overcome? It seems to have been ignored entirely.

How did the Skylark deal with the Einstein light-speed limit?

It would appear the author ignored lightspeed restrictions entirely.

Lightspeed restrictions were ignored by the author.


They are magic.

It is all just magic.

Star Wars is fantasy.

I'm not sure what you are looking for?

A fantasy explanation?

Midichlorians are the explanation for the force.

It doesn't really do deeper than that.

I'm sorry.

If you really want to travel down this dead-end of illogical paradoxes, I will refer you to the wookieepedia

Let's think about this for a second.

Let's say we have a microorganism that happens to have a natural electromagnetic property that allows them to be influenced in a very very tiny way by electromagnetic fields.

Now let's say that a person becomes infested with a lot of these microorganisms but they just happen to be non-harmful to us...

Now every time there is a electromagnetic field (the earth, a magnet, a piece of machinery, a ball of plasma)...

the microorganism moves in response thereby moving our body or even causing some kind of reaction.

This is not unreasonable, and certain on the road to describing realistically a kind of force sensitivity.

So really, as much as I prefer a Zen like explanation to the force and Jedi... this could be plausible in a theoretical sense.

Midichlorians are the bacteria or organisms in the body that provide the connect to the "force".

These bacteria often would tell how much control over the surrounding world one has.

Take for example this: Anakin Skywalker had no father.

Darth Plagueis created him using Midichlorians.

This is why he was so prone to falling to both the light and dark side.

The Midichlorians tipped him off balance.

Midichlorians are a type of organism that have a closer link to the most fundamental elements in the universe.

All living creatures have a certain amount of these organisms in them.

A being that has a larger amount of midichlorians has a closer link to the universe and so is better equipped to manipulate the universe.

The ability to defy gravity and to see a certain distance into the future are typical.

I wish I could find the reference, so feel free to edit this answer and clean it up, but midichlorians were supposed to be micro-organisms which are attracted to people who are strong in the force.

They don't generate the force, they simply identify where it is strong.

And as it's possible to detect the midichlorians, it's possible to use them to identify strong force potentials.

Why Qui-gon couldn't simply use his force powers to detect that the force was strong with Anakin the same way Yoda and Obi Wan did with Luke is never explained though.

Question: Taking aside whether connecting a mystical energy to a biological basis is a good idea or not, how is it supposed to work? I know that generally the more midichlorians, the more Force potential. Is it explained in one of the expanded universe books?

In the Star Wars universe, how are midichlorians supposed to work?

It is all just magic.
It works by magic.


In Star Trek: Strange New Worlds IV , there is a TOS short story Tears for Eternity , that is set in the 523rd Century (about a new generation of Horta , sequel to The Devil in the Dark ).

However, (a) this perhaps isn't canon, and (b)

I don't believe there's any reference to the Federation at that point.

In Star Trek: Strange New Worlds II , there is a TNG short story I Am Become Death , that is set in the 44th Century (about a future with many Datas, prequel to Brothers ).

However, (a) this probably isn't canon either, and (b)

I haven't read this personally, so I don't know if the Data future has the federation, either.

In Living Witness (Voyager S4), an alternative Doctor is activated and heads off to the Alpha Quadrant in the 31st Century .

I don't recall (but it's been a long time since I saw it)

any mention of whether the Doctor knows that the Federation is/is not around at that time.

The ship from Future

Tense (Enterprise S2) is from the 31st Century , and had human/Vulcan crew.

I don't recall (also a long time since I've seen this)

any mention of whether it is a Federation ship (probably not, since Enterprise don't know about the Federation at this stage).

In Future's End (Voyager S3)

we see the U.S.S. Aeon from the 29th Century .

This presumably is the Federation, and is canon - but the timeline is wiped by the events of that episode.

In Relativity (Voyager S5), a semi-sequel to Future's End , we see the inside of the Federation timeship Relativity, in the 29th century .

This timeline was not erased by the episode's events.

In A Matter of Time (TNG S5)

we see a time pod from the 26th Century (via the 20th).

There's no indication of what the 26th Century is like, however.

In Crossroad (TOS novel) there's discussion of the Federation in the 26th Century : Starfleet and the Federation are corrupt and controlled by a private company.

A traveller from the future is trying to get rid of the Federation in Kirk's time to prevent this.

I'm not sure if this is canon or not, but it's probably the closest to addressing the future of the Federation itself, rather than just the future in general.

(As an aside: the novel is by Barbara Hambly , who has written many excellent non-Trek novels).

In terms of time travel, several storylines contain characters who travelled from ~500 years in the future back to the 'present' of the show, but most of the time travel episodes in which the cast travel through time send them to the past, not the future.

There are also a number of alternate timelines in which we see further into the future, but they don't really count, since they're alternate timelines.

The 2009 Star Trek film contains the furthest forward part of the actual storyline, when Romulus is destroyed in 2387, creating the alternate timeline that the film is set in.

The events of Nemesis take place in 2379, and the events of DS9 and Voyager take place in the 2370s

(Voyager between 2371 and 2378, and DS9 between 2369 and 2375).

See this Memory Alpha article for more details about specific parts of the timeline.

A brief scene in an episode of Enterprise took place in the distant future, aboard the Enterprise J.

I believe that's the further forward seen on the TV show/movies, as the Enterprise J wouldn't have been built until after the Enterprise E, F, G, H, and I had been destroyed.

Nemesis pretty well trashed the Enterprise E, but I don't think they moved on to 'F' yet.

I think the ships have an average lifespan of ~30 years (just a WAG).

Memory Alpha says the ship exists in the 26th century, when humanity is 'beyond transwarp' and 'exploring other galaxies, beyond the milky way'.

Seems to be Nemesis, according to the Star Trek timeline .

The Star Trek MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online) is supposed to take place in the original Star Trek universe after Romalus was destroyed, but I don't think it is offical consider canon.

It is the 31st century, 3040 to be exact: Ship from Enterprise episode

"Future Tense" commissioned.

Source:

Timeline of Star Trek (Wikipedia).

The furthest point in the future which has been depicted in any canonical Star Trek work so far has been in the two-part Enterprise episode, Shockwave .

Here, Archer and Daniels travel to the 31st century.

However, the view here is only of one possible future and the timeline has probably been significantly changed since.

Question: Star Trek: Enterprise  turned out to be a cool series, with some convoluted time-travel story arcs.  In one, you see the Federation far in the future fighting a battle against the  sphere builders .  I haven't read any of the  Star Trek  novels and I was wondering if any of them go any further into the future of the federation.  Are there any published Star Trek works that address the far future of the  Federation ?

What Star Trek work takes place the furthest into the future of the Federation?

The events of Nemesis take place in 2379, and the events of DS9 and Voyager take place in the 2370s. However, the 2009 Star Trek film contains the storyline furthest into the future, as Romulus is destroyed in 2387, creating the alternate timeline that the film is set in.

There are a number of claims for the furthest point in the future depicted in Star Trek: Nemesis, Shockwave, the 2009 Star Trek film and a brief scene in Enterprise.

The 2009 Star Trek film goes furthest into the future.

A scene in an episode of Enterprise took place in a distant future.

Nemesis seems to be the furthest point in the future according to the Star Trek timeline.

The furthest point in the future depicted in any  canonical  Star Trek work is Shockwave.


There are allusions to the fact that there may be more like River Tam, but AFAIK none were introduced.

Also, she is definitely the most powerful and least crazy of the psychics that I can tell from the way they talked about her, possibly the only one left alive.

The first 10 - 20 minutes of Serenity are probably the best place to look for these clues.

Remember, they were keeping all of the psychics in a top secret facility, and remember what it took to get River out.

There probably aren't too many of them left, but there definitely were other psychics in the 'verse.

I bet some of them would have turned up if the series kept going on, most likely as weapons, as it appeared that River was intended for.

I think, though this wouldn't be considered canon even if true, we lost a lot in Firefly when it the series was canceled.

When you look at Whedon's body of work, he plants story seeds that develop over years (think of Dawn in Buffy, she was alluded to years before she came on the scene and

Willow going evil -- the seeds for that were planted in season 2 when she resouled Angel).

So, I think Whedon had planned to develop this over several years, but the series was cancelled and a lot of what we would've seen over five or six seasons on the series was compressed into the movie.

There are girls who have been subject to same experiments as River In Serenity - Leaves on the Wind 1 , our heroes need to break into the facility where River was held.

Without spoiling too much, River definitely isn't the only one, although the good doctor that made her states that she had a unique mind.

We don't actually see any other displays of psychic powers, but the other subjects are described as complete (as opposed to River), and they're definitely on par with River when it comes to fights.

1 Written by Zack Whedon, produced by Joss Whedon, thus

canon

Sorry for the quality of the last one

The only potentially canonical source that directly states the possibility of more psychics is the roleplaying book Serenity , where Psychic is a trait any character can pick up.

A few sub-answers: A possible answer lies in the context of River's nightmare in the opening scene of the BDM.

When I first saw that scene, I assumed that we were seeing a nightmare set in the school.

If that's the case, then those other kids are in the same training program, and presumably have many of the same qualifications.

When Simon recounts to the crew the coded message that River wrote to him, his phrasing is "They're hurting us", with the plural pronoun.

However, given that Simon lies about other details in this same scene (specifically, concealing that it was in fact he who broke River out), the veracity of his account is nonverifiable.

Question: Since it's introduced quite early in the series, I was surprised that no further psychics turned up in Serenity (if there's one there's two).  Are there any other instances of psychics in the Firefly universe (or 'verse) in the rest of the canon?

Other than River Tam, are there any other Psychics in the Firefly 'verse?

There have been allusions to other psychics in the firefly universe and some consider that there are definitely more psychics. However, none of them have been introduced. Although you don't actually see any other displays of psychic powers, the other subjects are described as  complete  (as opposed to River), and they are definitely on par with River when it comes to fights.

It would seem there probably are other psychics in the Firefly universe although they are only alluded to rather than seen.


Most of the Semitic-language-derived terms in Dune are proximately from Arabic rather than Hebrew.

Looking over a glossary of Dune terminology , I see these that look relevant to your question: Aba has been Islamified, but the term (and/or "abaya") apparently shows up in Tanach as the garb of Hebrew prophets.

Arafel is Hebrew (ערפל).

Baraka is probably Arabic-derived, but has such closely related meanings in Arabic and Hebrew as to make little difference.

The "Bene" in Bene Gesserit and Bene Tleilax is, if pronounced with the stress on the second syllable, Hebrew for "children of" (more popularly transliterated b'nei or b'nai ).

It's remotely possible that "Bene Gesserit" is meant to allude to a distorted Hebrew for "children of the narrow path", but as others have noted, it's more likely straight from Latin.

"Tleilaxu" is not Hebrew (neither it nor Arabic have an X), but the "Bene" in "Bene Tleilax" is more likely to be from the Semitic "children of" rather than the Latin "good", the Tleilaxu being Zensufis and all.

Fedaykin is probably from Arabic "fedayeen", but Hebrew has pretty much the same word, פַדַאיוּן Sayyadina

I suspect of being derived from an Arabic term with Hebrew roots, but I can't prove it.

The Bene in Bene Tleilax is from Arabic (they were Zensufis , remember) but probably changed through analogy with the Bene of Bene Gesserit, which is Latin.

Kwisatz Haderach is Hebrew, see the link.

aba means "father" in Hebrew.

Baraka was the Hebrew Jewish Prophet, Dvorah or Deborah, husband in the original Hebrew Israel

scrolls (book of Deborah)

Bene may refer to "within" in Hebrew Jihad is "holy war" to certain Islam sectors or it may refer to just "war"

Most of the phrases came from Hebrew though the shemic languages are pretty similar.

When you say about someone that he made "Kwisatz Haderach" in free translation from Hebrew

it means he made a major leap forward,

let’s say at school.

when you say a person is a "Kwisatz Haderach" in humanity you actually mean that he is the next stage of evolution.

Also the word "mishmish" appears once - it's Hebrew for "apricot(s)

" but is quite possibly also from Arabic (the languages share a lot of words).

Question: Kwisatz Haderach is one example of a name that is inspired by a  Hebrew phrase . What is a complete list of terms that are used in Dune and share this property?

Which names and terms in the Dune series come from Hebrew-inspired phrases?

A number of words are considered to be derived from Hebrew or Arabic, with closely related meanings. These include Baraka, Fedaykin/Sayyadina, Bene, Arafel, Aba, and Jihad.

Terms in Dune obviously derive from semitic languages,. However, it is difficult to say if this is Arabic or Hebrew as the two languages share many similar terms.

Many words used in Dune are Arabic in origin, for example "baraka" and fedaykin from "fedayeen".

Terms in Dune may be Hebrew in origin, such as "bene" and "aba". Some words are both Arabic and Hebrew, e.g. "baraka"


H.G. Wells' The Invisible Man (the original) dealt with it.

The eponymous character tests his formula on a cat first, and the author notes 'there remained two little ghosts of her eyes'.

I seem to recall from somewhere that he injects his eyeballs with something to achieve the effect.

In the Recluce universe, LE Modesitt Jr deals with this.

his "Order Mages" can bend light to become invisible.

When they do, they are also blinded because they can not see.

EDIT

I have also remembered the TV show Invisible Man (aka I-Man) dealt with this as well.

the "I-Man", when invisible, could not see in the "normal" spectrum of light.

In the show, they hypothesized that he "saw" in the infra-red spectrum.

They often leveraged this "fact" in the show.

In Warren Ellis's Planetary he specifically addresses this with his version of the Invisible Woman from the Fantastic Four.

She needs special goggles to see -- otherwise she's blind while invisible.

A variant can be found in James Alan Gardner 's books Expendable and Ascending .

One of the characters, Oar, is translucent to humans.

However, it's made clear that this was only applicable in the wavelengths of normal human eyesight, and she's not completely invisible.

Well, there is one kind of invisibility that alleviates the problem.

If you don't bend the light but absorb it and create it anew on the other side of the body you want to conceal, then you can do whatever you want inside, including displaying the outside world.

This is nicely implemented in Ghost in the Shell.

You'd still need some way to record the light hitting you but

that's plausible with something like distributed light field technology that could in principle use a large number of microscopic, lens-free sensors.

This is actually the punch line of a short story (I guess by Robert Sheckley, but may also be Arthur C. Clarke's 'Tales From The White Hart').

It evolves at a bar where a guest confesses to another that he once helped an alien of a race that is known for its generosity with a paperclip and is granted a wish.

He asks for being invisible once a day for an hour and is persuaded by the other guest to stay on until it happens.

He stays put at bar stool eventually becoming both invisible and blind.

Question: One problem I've always thought of with science fiction characters becoming invisible is that they should go blind, because their retina does not catch any light.  Obviously a lot of soft SF or fantasy would gloss over this. But I'm sure that hard SF authors have had a go at it. How can invisibility and sight be reconciled?

Invisibility should cause blindness: how does hard sf cope?

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

H.G. Wells'  The Invisible Man  (the original) dealt with this issue, as did LE Modesitt Jr in the Recluce universe. This is addressed specifically in Warren Ellis's  Planetary, with his version of the Invisible Woman from the Fantastic Four.

A number of works, including The Invisible Man, Recluce Universe and Planetary deal with the issue of invisibility and blindness. Moreover, there is, apparently, one kind of invisibility that alleviates the problem of blindness.

The Invisible Man, Recluce Universe and Planetary all deal with the issue of invisibility and bindness.

There is apparently one kind of invisibility that alleviates the problem of blindness.


There is a DVD box set release that came complete with the unaltered original films as bonus material .

Each movie comes as a two-disc set—one disc is the 2004 remastered version of the film, while the second disc is a version that captures its original theatrical presentation.

If you heard that this 're-released' trilogy was not so good.

It's because it used non-anamorphic video sourced from the 1993 LaserDisc releases.

It's just not good as the restored 1997 Special Edition (Gold or Silver box) and any subsequent release, which you should avoid because it include many changes from the original theatrical version.

After that, I think your best bet would be to check garage sales or to go on Ebay for the first VHS release of Stars wars or The "1995 VHS THX Edition" (Black box).

The 1993 laser disc Star Wars Trilogy:

The Definitive Collection would be also OK, if you have the player to use it, but you wont have a better image than with the DVD, as the source is the same.

But, be notified even those versions has some small changes

, I recommend to check the wikipedia page about List of changes in Star Wars re-releases to pick the release you want.

Another great alternative is Harmy's Despecialized Editions.

Basically a guy called Harmy went and reconstructed the original versions from a variety of newer sources:

This is a reconstruction of the 1977 theatrical version of STAR WARS.

The original shots were painstakingly restored using various sources (listed below) and the film received an extensive shot by shot colour correction based on a fade free 1977 I.B. Technicolor Print.

You can find them here:

Star Wars Empire Strikes Back Return of the Jedi

If you want physical copies of them, there are printable covers and disc art included as well.

The end product looks like this:

LaserDisc will probably be the best quality you can find of the 'original' version of the first trilogy: http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trilogy-Widescreen-Collectors-Laser/dp/B000EDQCC8

I reckon that it will be easier to find hens' teeth, though.

Also - reputedly - Lucas has destroyed the original masters so that the only 'definitive' studio version available is the special edition which was released at the end of the 90s.

It really depends what you don't want.

If you want the movies as they appeared in the theaters, you'll have to hunt down one of the original film reels.

That's an expensive proposition but ALL of the at-home releases of the films are modified in some way.

Even if just to add "Episode IV: A New Hope" to the opening crawl.

The VHS releases up to the special edition are the only versions that don't contain the now infamous extra footage and Greedo shooting first.

The special editions and the DVD releases are all more-or-less the same.

And the new Blu-ray versions are different still.

Although exactly how they differ I am not sure.

The best recreation of the original version is Harmy's "Despecialized Edition", which is based primarily on the Blu-ray versions, with most of the SE content removed: http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Harmys-STAR-WARS-Despecialized-Edition-HD-V25-MKV-IS-OUT-NOW/id/12713

Certainly in the UK can can get these: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Star-Wars-Episode-IV-Theatrical/dp/B000FMH8UI/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1296458411&sr=8-9

They include both the original theatrical release and the Special Edition.

This restoration of an original 35mm film print is probably the best pre-Special Edition version currently available: http://www.thestarwarstrilogy.com/starwars/post/2016/01/15/Team-Negative-One-completes-35mm-Restoration-of-Star-Wars http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/team-negative1-star-wars-1977-35mm-theatrical-version-release-details-and-updates/id/14590

Question: In the early 90s I remember having "digitally remastered" versions of the  Star Wars  Trilogy on VHS (Letterbox/Surround/THX), it would be good to have higher quality versions of these but I'm unsure whether they are generally available.   I have heard some criticism of the 're-released' trilogy.

How can I watch the pre-"Special Edition" Star Wars?

It is recommended to check the Wikipedia List of Changes in Star Wars Re-releases  to pick the release you want. There is a DVD box set release that came complete with  the unaltered original films as  bonus material. However, apart from that, garage sales or eBay might be a good place to look for these versions. The DVD releases and special editions are considered to be more-or-less the same. However, Harmy's "Despecialized Edition", is a recommended alternative, based primarily on the Blu-ray versions, with most of the special edition content removed.

Pre-special editions of Star Wars can be found on DVD, VHS and LaserDisc. However, the best vversion is considered to be Harmy's "Despecialized Edition". The films as they appeared in cinemas are only available on the original 35mm reels.

Star Wars pre-special edition is available on DVD, VHS and LaserDisc.

Wikipedia has a list of the changes made in Star Wars re-releases.

The best recreation of the original is Harmy's "Despecialized Edition". For the movies as they appeared in the cinema, you would have to find the originala 35mm reels.