The change in terminal interfaces on star ships must have occurred some time before Nero arrived in the alternate timeline.

What drove the change is unknown, and will likely remain unknown.

However, you can see that there are significant differences between the Original Series bridge and the bridge on the USS Kelvin.

Here we can see that the Kelvin has multiple large screens all around the bridge, view screens in front and random displays at the side/aft stations.

Most controls, however, remain as individual key, switches and levers.

Later, when the USS Enterprise's bridge is revealed, although the aesthetic has changed dramatically, interface-wise the biggest change is to replace the physical switches and toggles with touch-panels.

There are still some physical manipulators, even at stations that wouldn't seem to obviously need them, such as communications (see the big sliding lever right in the middle of Uhura's panel).

Thus, from the Kelvin to the Enterprise the only major change was from physical to virtual buttons, and some holographic display upgrades.

Keep in mind too that it is unknown how old the USS Kelvin's bridge was, but at minimum we know that the roughly 20 years passed between the two bridge designs.

In the modern world of computers that would more than account for the changes and improvements in technology (think of a laptop from 20 years ago compared to a modern one with a touch screen).

So, as I said earlier the change in computer tech started before the Narada arrived, it's cause is unknown at this time, and the cause is likely to stay unknown for the foreseeable future.

It changed because they had a bigger budget, and contemporary expectations from high tech design has changed.

Looking any more into it is really nitpicking beyond realistic expectations of canon.

I doubt the reboot producers/writers intended for updates to the design to be viewed as an in-universe event

(you may as well ask what's the in-universe significance of Khan now being white).

But you're also comparing the wrong bridges.

The Enterprise and Enterprise-A bridge has evolved throughout the franchise, even in the prime universe.

Abrams clearly modeled his Enterprise on its most modern-looking incarnation from Star Trek IV :

It's somewhat similar to the Enterprise refit bridge style we begin seeing in ST:

TMP : —especially in this TMP toy set, which replaced the light grey color scheme with white: The ST V and ST VI updates to make the bridge look more "modern" in the eyes of late 80s/early 90s audiences, ironically, makes it look much more dated today:

Anyway... back to the Abrams/ ST IV bridge, here are the main similarities:

Obviously, the whitewashed walls, ceiling and stations immediately stand out from the other bridge designs, which all use off-white colors like egg-shell/beige, blue-grey, or gunmetal.

The absence of the tan/maroon/orange highlights found in other versions also makes the 1701-A from ST IV look a lot cleaner.

The newly minted Enterprise-A also eliminates all those awkward, outdated-looking toggle switches, keypads, dials and gauges and instead replaces them with an all-touchscreen interface, foreshadowing the introduction of LCARS/iOS/Windows 8 (apparently, Nicholas Meyer decided this looked too fake and reintroduced physical switches and gauges in ST VI ).

Anyway, the shiny black touch screens and white paint job are a dead ringer for the reboot Enterprise.

Notice the gently curved helm console just like the one in the reboot.

The Enterprise-D, Enterprise-E, Voyager, and the Defiant all share this trait as well.

So, just like the Klingons, the tricorders, the uniforms, and the ship's exterior, the reboot designers took inspiration from the old but updated them to look more futuristic to modern audiences while still being recognizable to old school fans.

And, frankly, they did a much better job with the bridge than they did with Klingons.

And the bridge is also much truer to the original than the reboot engineering section.

It's entirely an art direction thing, nothing more.

If the contention is true -- that Classic Spock was sent from the 'original timeline' to this altered one, then his ship and the Romulan mining ship should bear the familiar characteristics of TNG-like starships of the time.

Neither one does; the Jellyfish's controls and interior design are largely indistinguishable from 23rd century FederAbrams starships (save the insanely large viewscreen/windows/transparent aluminum/whatever-

that-is for the viewable areas) and the Romulan mining vessel looks like a big wet metallic version of the Goblin King's lair from Labyrinth .

Barring a decent onscreen explanation for why this is so (the canonical status of the Countdown comics are under contention; apparently the script writers for the new Star Trek movies can't decide whether or not they actual 'count' at all)

the only thing left to really surmise is that they just look different because this production crew likes their starships to look a certain way.

The effects of time travel in the Star Trek Universe are thought to have more than singular event happenings in some instances when you change the near past it may change the further past see

"Year in Hell" (particularly the ending where the scientist/mad man moves away from his work delaying the time wars) and "Before and After" (which is one giant retcon of Kes's life).

This is like a built in retcon .

As pointed out by Xantec and others, a lot of changes in technology were already there, before Nero arrived with the Narada.

However, there is an in-universe explanation for the dramatic technology change after the Narada/Kelvin incident (albeit non-canon), given by screenwriter Roberto Orci and director J.J. Abrams: Quote from Memory Alpha:

The scans the Kelvin took of the Narada's 24th century technology, that went with the survivors on the shuttles, were used by 23rd century Starfleet to reverse engineer the more "advanced" technology seen in the alternate reality, according to a post by Star Trek screenwriter Roberto Orci on Ain't It Cool News.

Director J.J. Abrams also said in an interview with MTV that readings from the Narada "inspired ideas and technology that wouldn't have advanced otherwise."

Source: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Narada

The AICN and MTV articles are linked on the Memory Alpha page.

Question: I know the obvious out of universe reason for the discrepancy in the computing systems in the reboot universe and TOS universe in ST, but is there an in-universe account for the substantial difference in the computing systems?

What prompted such a dramatic change in computing technology in the ST reboot universe?

The exact reason for the change is unknown, but it may be due to bigger budgets, contemporary expectations of high-tech design and art direction.

There is no concrete evidence as to what drove the change. It is suggested that high tech design and art direction played a part in the change.

There is no concrete evidence as to what drove the change but is suggested that high tech design and art direction played a part in the change.


Think this really depends on what you're "looking for" (pun intended).

There are examples where Geordi has the clear advantage (as mentioned by Richard: Generations being one example with the hidden door).

However, it's never really explained how Data sees things (as far as you could consider his perception seeing).

Geordi's vision is clearly augmented and he's unable to see "normally" (at least if you skip the latest movie adaptions, where he's got in-eye implants).

In Data's case I'd assume his vision is artificially limited (unless specifically modified for plot reasons), simply to make him more human.

So if you're looking for things invisible to the human eye, I'd guess Geordi has the advantage.

If you're talking about normal things perceivable by the human eye, Data seems to have the advantage (at least when considering "Visor Geordi").

Geordi's vision is better Per Compro01's comment about "Encounter at Farpoint", Data himself indicates that he considers his own visual abilities to be inferior to that afforded by Geordi's VISOR (which can apparently register electromagnetic signals across the entire EM spectrum between 1 Hz and 100,000 THz)

It would seem that Riker also concurs.

RIKER:

Tasha, you and the Counsellor.

And, Geordi, I want your eyes down there.

(to Data)

You and I will start with topside.

(As the three explore underground) RIKER: Have you noticed anything unusual?

DATA: I can't see as well as Geordi, sir,

but so far the material seems rather very ordinary.

Although Data does appear to have unnaturally good visual acuity (including depth measuring, the ability to "see" people's respiration rates and patterns, etc)

there's no real indication that he can see any better than the average human.

And in the original script for Star Trek : First Contact

we learn that although Data's vision is noticeably better than a normal human's (and that he can also see beyond the ultra-violet and infra-red)

this certainly doesn't compare with Geordi's range.

We follow his hand as it comes up and touches his FACE, which is also FLESH.

The gold color is gone, his hair is tousled and natural-looking.

Even his eyes are real now -- blue.

He touches his face tentatively, his expression confused... but intrigued.

As he talks, we can see that he's becoming seduced by his own newfound senses.

DATA : My visual acuity has been reduced by seventy-eight percent...

and I can no longer perceive light beyond the ultraviolet or the infrared... (beat) But I can see

To add further evidence to support the contention that Geordi's vision is better than Data's, in the episode Hide and Q , both Geordi and data are looking for Worf and Geordi is describing the scene: RIKER:

Geordi, can you see Worf? LAFORGE: I'd see the freckles on hisnose if he had them, sir.

He's at the third ridge.

DATA:

The third ridge? LAFORGE:

Moving well too.

Oh,

oh.

Good, he sees them.

(Source)

emphasis mine

The fact that Data is asking Geordi about the situation, as emphasised, suggests Geordi's distance vision is also superior to Data's.

I have some experience working with industrial assembly line cameras; those cameras can make amazing calculations on very little visible data.

Similarly, I think that Data's better-than-human vision does not come from better recording equipment (eyes), but better processing.

The human brain is adept at picking out patterns and differences; when Geordi found the hidden door (as mentioned by Richard), his human brain was able to quickly isolate and process the relevant visual information.

Data, on the other hand, has an advanced information processor; just like industrial cameras, Data may not be great at spotting tiny details on the first pass, but he can add post-processing filters and do side-by-side comparisons that no human could ever handle.

That is how he can accurately measure distances or sizes with only his eyes; he could measure a heartbeat by comparing the difference in pixels between frames in a heavily post-processed video of someone's wrist.

Thus, I believe that while Geordi may have a much wider vision spectrum, Data would easily be the fastest at a "spot the differences" puzzle.

While it isn't necessarily a canonical source, the ST:TNG video game for the SNES, Genesis, and Game Gear provides an idea of how well Geordi and Data see in the dark.

In the game, Geordi sees better than Data in the dark, and both of them see better than the other crew members - which sounds like it meshes pretty well with what others have mentioned from the series.

Question: I know that Geordi's blind, but with his VISOR, he has exceptional vision with a range for a wide subspace spectrum.  How does this compare with Data's android vision: Does Data have a comparable vision of the spectrum to Geordi, or is he limited to standard visible light like humans?

Who can see better: Geordi or Data?

Data's vision may be artificially limited to make him appear more human.  However, he does seem to have better vision than Geordi. However, Geordi sees better than Data in the dark, and both of them see better than the other crew members and there is some suggestion that suggests Geordi's distance vision is also superior to Data's.

In terms of seeing better by the human eye, it is clear Data’s vision is artificially limited, which renders him more human. However, Geordi, on the whole, has superior vision to Data.

In terms of seeing better by the human eye, Data has the advantage. Data’s vision is artificially limited, to render him more human. The fact Data asks Geordi suggests Geordi has superior vision.


The season seven episode of DS9 - Field of Fire - has a twist.

The killer is using a rifle that transports the bullet from the muzzle of the rifle - conserving the bullet's muzzle velocity and allowing the shooter to hit targets through bulkheads.

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least two occasions where transporter technology is used to commit mundane crimes (e.g. as opposed to using them as a weapon of war or as a tool of espionage ) In Gambit Part 1 , we learn that a criminal gang have modified their phasers to activate a transporter on their ship.

They're using this technology to steal religious artefacts from archaeological dig sites as well as kidnapping Picard in a way that makes it look like he's dead.

In Ménage

à

Troi , a Ferenghi Daimon named Tog uses a transporter to kidnap Lwaxana Troi and Deanna Troi.

He then transports them out of their clothes.

At the very least this would be considered a form of sexual assault.

Another DS9 example is from S05E11 , when the serial killer puts a remat detonator on one of his victims so she'd die horrifically when transported.

The remat detonator is a vicious weapon of sabotage that disrupts transporter rematerialization, causing a relatively slow and painful death that leaves the victim unrecognizable.

They're incredibly small devices that are easy to hide on someone without their knowing it and are allegedly popular with the Romulans

(I can definitely imagine the Tal'Shiar using this terrifying execution method).

I'm not sure if you consider it a crime or simply an aggressive act between warring parties, but in VOY: Maneuvers the Kazon Nistrim use an illictly obtained transporter module to execute the leader of a rival sect by beaming him into space.

In Data's Day , a transporter is used to mask the smuggling-out of a Romulan spy - a direct act of espionage that Picard and Data uncover in that very episode.

And more indirectly, in Devil's Due , Ardra uses transporter technology, along with many other space-faring technological tricks, to run a con on a devil-fearing planet and the Enterprise, which definitely counts as a crime.

In The Undiscovered Country ( The Final Frontier ) film the transporter is used to perform a murder on the Klingon ship by going there.

The transport is not the arm, but it is used for a crime, which is what you asked.

Captain Kirk uses the transporter in the course of committing most of his many violations of the Prime Directive.

I'll add another, TOS 'The Menagerie'.

Spock apparently uses the transporter to take Captain Pike to the Enterprise.

I say apparently since there's no scene showing the actual transport.

However, it appears likely since the female office depicted below is monitoring Pike in his room.

We see her viewing him in the room, she briefly turns away and when she turns back to the viewer, Pike is gone.

Almost immediately after that, Mendez gets a communication that the Enterprise is warping out of orbit (implying Pike & Spock are now aboard).

While some time compression for sake of TV time is understandable, this all happens quickly and appears to make use of the transporter the only viable explanation.

Pike consistently told Spock 'No' (using the light on his chair) to the escapade.

Although Pike decided in the end to stay on Talos IV, the initial act of taking him to the Enterprise would constitute kidnapping since Pike was not willing to go.

This is a direct example.

In one episode, Dr Beverly Crusher is helping treat illness in a remote lab, and becomes irreversibly sick due to damage caused by the pro-active immune systems of the experimental humans.

The transporter is used to reproduce her in the pre-ill state, based on the data held in the transporter memory from her last trip - the one to the lab.

The argument used to commit this serious breach of policy was that Dr Crusher was an essential crew member, and a replacement doctor was not possible.

However, because it is a fictional TV series, it isnt a "real" crime.

The Orwellian "1984" label "crimethink" could be applied.

Question: By their very nature,  Transporters  could be used for a variety of criminal means, such as:   distorting a person's appearance (for fraudulent or malicious acts)   or even destroying a person.     Is there any proof that a Transporter can be used to commit criminal acts? The answer can be from any Star Trek material.

Have any crimes been committed using a Transporter?

Transporter technology has been used in crimes including murder, execution, espionage and violations of the Prime Directive.

There is proof a Transporter can be used to commit criminal acts in the following: S05E11, VOY: Maneuvers, Gambit Part q, Data’s Day and the Undiscovered Country. Moreover, Captain Kirk uses the Transporter to commit crimes against the Prime Detective.

There is proof a Transporter can be used to commit criminal acts in the following: S05E11, VOY: Maneuvers, Gambit Part q, Data’s Day and the Undiscovered Country. Captain Kirk uses the Transporter to commit crimes against the Prime Detective.


Even if Stark sued the government and won, the most he could have received is reasonable compensation for his costs and/or damages.

Under US patent law , he can't stop the US government from using a patented product if it so chooses.

It is also possible Stark had not patented some of the suit components.

In order to receive a patent , you must make the details of your invention public.

The invention could then be copied, for example by supervillains who do not care about being sued for patent infringement.

Instead, Stark might effectively be keeping the suit as a trade secret .

In that case he would have even less protection against the government using the suit's technology.

(I Am Not A Lawyer, but a quick Google indicates the law is pretty clear on these points.)

He may or may not have sued.

Lawsuits, especially between large corporations or the government, drag on for years and years through the various trials and appeals.

It is likely that if a lawsuit was in progress, by the time of the events of Iron Man 3 it was still in progress.

Just because it was not mentioned in IM3, doesn't mean it wasn't going on.

You can't sue the US federal government unless they consent to being sued, under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.

The suit wasn't stolen.

Watch the movie more closely, during the donut shop scene it was very subtlety revealed that Tony Stark allowed Rhodey to take the suit because it was his legacy.

Tony was under the impression that he was dying, and it was also revealed in the same scene that he was just giving stuff away because of that.

It was stated that there were security protocols that prevented unauthorized usage, but Rhodey was able to access and use the suit because Tony made him an authorized user for when he died because, like I stated before, he was under the impression that he would die very soon.

What does being patented have to do with it?

Theft is theft.

Patents, and trade secret law would more come in to play when legally going after Hammer for stealing his design.

As far as legally going after the government for taking the armor, he wouldn't get very far.

The government would claim eminent domain.

Eminent domain can be for public safety concerns which the armor surely is.

Question: When James Rhodes took Tony Stark's armour in Iron Man 2, wasn't that stealing a patented product and if so why didn't Stark take legal action against the US government?  Pepper Potts was heard speaking to a lawyer about it when Stark visited her in her office but we know nothing ever came of that since the government still has the armour in Iron Man 3!

Why didn't Stark sue the government for stealing his armour in Iron Man 2

During the donut shop scene it was very subtly revealed that Tony Stark allowed Rhodey to take the suit because it was his legacy. Therefore, the suit wasn't stolen. Even if Stark was able to sue the government and won, the most he could have received is reasonable compensation for his costs and/or damages.

The fact is Stark allowed Rhodey to take the suit so the suit technically wasn’t stolen. Moreover, the US Government cannot be sued unless they grant the person suing them consent to sue them.

The fact is Stark allowed Rhodey to take the suit so the suit technically wasn’t stolen. The US Government cannot be sued unless they grant the person suing them consent to sue them.


Cersei stopped being Queen Regent when Joffrey married Margaery.

This is evidenced in the episode, around 39 minutes in, when Prince Oberyn Martell introduces his paramour, Ellaria Sand, to Cersei and Tywin.

He says: I don't believe you have met, Ellaria.

This is the Lord Hand Tywin Lannister and Cersei Lannister the Queen Regent.

I suppose it is former Queen Regent now.

This indicates that she is no longer the Queen Regent.

Of course, following the death of Joffrey, and the passing of the throne to Tommen, she once again continues to be Queen Regent.

Yes, Cersei was (probably) still Queen Regent.

The "Regent" part of her title means she is ruling on behalf of a King who is underaged.

She would not stop being Queen Regent unless Joffrey became an adult, or someone else replaced her in the job.

This would seem to be in contradiction with Oberyn's remark that Cersei is the "former Queen Regent", mentioned in Moogle's answer.

There are a few possibilities: Under the laws of the Seven Kingdoms, Joffrey was considered to be an adult as soon as he was married, so the regency came to an end.

This seems unlikely -- if he isn't considered old enough to rule, then being married should make no difference.

Joffrey was still underage, and Cersei was still Queen Regent, but Oberyn either misunderstood her position, or deliberately pretended to misunderstand, and took the opportunity to insult Cersei.

[Edit:]

Joffrey had already come of age before

he was married.

So in principle, Cersei had not been Queen Regent for some time.

However, given Joffrey's youth and mental instability, and Cersei's greed for power and disregard for the letter of the law, she might have held onto her authority as Regent and perhaps even continued to use the title.

tl;dr:

Cersei's position as regent ended when Joffrey turned 16, but exactly when that happened in the show isn't clear.

It certainly had nothing to do with Joffrey getting married.

In the novels, Cersei is still Queen Regent at this point in the story.

Joffrey won't be considered an adult until he is 16, and in the novels he's only 14 when he gets married and dies, at which point she is Tommen's regent.

In the show, the question is a lot more complex.

Most of the underage characters in the show are several years older than their book counterparts (largely because of Danaerys being only 12 when she marries Drogo and gets pregnant).

Thus, by this point in the show, Joffrey should already be 16, which means, he shouldn't have a regent, he is King in his own right.

I'm not exactly sure of the time scales in the show, but it possible that Cersei had no right to name herself regent in the first place.

Out of universe, I'd have to chalk this up to a continuity goof on the writer's part, stemming from their age advancement of Joffrey.

In universe, there's no real explanation for Cersei's title, or why Oberyn thinks she "lost" it, in any official capacity.

However, I can make a guess, based on the political maneuvering at King's Landing, that something like this is happening:

Cersei desperately wants to be Queen, so when her husband dies, she takes the opportunity to name herself regent for Joffrey, deserved or otherwise.

Given her connections both inside and outside King's Landing, no one argues with her.

Joffrey's behavior clearly indicates that he's not mentally mature enough to be King, regardless of his physical age, so when Cersei, and later Tywin, act on his behalf as Queen Regent and Hand to undo some of Joffrey's screw ups, people just listen to them.

Now, however, there is another powerful woman in Joffrey's life -- Margaery -- whom he is starting to listen to more than his mother.

This diminishes Cersei's control over Joffrey, which was probably never official to begin with.

As soon as Margaery marries Joffrey, she becomes Queen, and gains some official authority.

This, plus Joffrey's obvious support for her, basically pushes Cersei into the background.

Oberyn was basically making a dig at Cersei, letter

her know that he understands the dynamics going on in the King's court, and how much power she is losing there.

The line of succession falls to the other recognized children of Robert and Cersei:

Prince Tommen and Princess Myrcella Baratheon.

Tommen is the younger, but I believe he gets precedence for being born with a Y chromosome.

Myrcella may not officially be in the line, I forget if/when George Martin explains the role gender plays in Westeros Succession.

I know it's different among other lands.

At any rate, Cersei is mother to them both, so she would still be the Queen Regent, and you can bet that she wants to remain in power.

However, as Shevliaskovic points out, the line of succession is muddied by the events immediately prior to your question.

I'm not sure they get around to answering the exact situation before the end of A Storm of Swords , other than to overtly indicate some tensions between Baratheon/Lannister and Highgarden.

Cersei was not Queen Regent because the King's Wife, Margaery, was an adult (16 years old).

That means that she would be queen Regent.

The whole point of Cersei as Queen Regent was to rule the Kingdom (with Joffrey) until he comes of age.

Since he got married to a girl that was already of age, Cersei 'was no longer needed'.

Question: SPOILERS FOR SEASON 4 EPISODE 2! DO NOT READ AHEAD IF YOU HAVE NOT WATCHED THE EPISODE OR READ THE STORM OF SWORDS    After the royal wedding ceremony AND before Joffrey dropped dead (10 to 20 hours est.), was Cersei Lannister no longer the Queen Regent during this short period of time?

Game of Thrones: ex Queen Regent (season 4/Storm of Swords spoilers)

In the novels, Cersei is still Queen Regent at this point in the story. She would not stop being Queen Regent unless Joffrey became an adult, or someone else replaced her in the job.  However, some claim that Cersei was not Queen Regent because the King's wife, Margaery, was an adult.

Queen Regent is replaced by Margaery during this period because he married Margaery when she was of age at 16 years’ old.


Well we can rule out it being a temporary throne room, as it is described in immense detail in the following article (also referenced by Max's answer): "Emperor's Throne Room", Wikia

Considering the following excerpt: Surrounding the throne room and its neighboring rooms was the abyss, an open shaft surrounding the turbolifts, which led directly to the Death Star's power core, 400 km (250 miles) below.

The receiving area, or inner sanctum, was separated by a retractable walkway.

The Receiving area was used for meetings with local system governors and/or the Emperor's advisors.

From this I would surmise that, being a Sith Emperor who rules the galaxy through fear, the Emperor intentionally constructed his throne room with an "abyss" in it in order to intimidate the governors and other people who would enter that room.

The fact that he could so easily be thrown into it served as even more of a "fuck you" to those people as it showed that he considered them to be of utterly no threat to him at all.

Numerous areas throughout the Death Star consisted of vast air shafts.

These shafts helped circulate air, pressurise the battle station's habitable sections, and also channeled heat that expended from generators located within the shafts.

Imperial Death Star Owners Workshop Manual, p.82

If I remember correctly, the Emperor's chamber was at the top of a tall spire on Death Star II.

The "pit" was simply the tower shaft.

See: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_throne_room_(Death_Star_II)

Echoing WayzGoose's excellent answer, the Emperor had the pit in his throne room because, well, it's very impressive.

And if you're the evil Emperor of a Empire consisting of several trillion inhabitants, it certainly helps if your visitors are suitable cowed before they've even gotten to speak to you.

THE EMPEROR has called for his servant, and Darth Vader has come to the Death Star’s immense throne room to receive his orders.

To approach the Emperor’s throne, visitors must cross a narrow bridge over a vast chasm.

If they dare peer over the edge they will see, a mile below, the terrible glow of the space station’s main reactor.

Then they must climb several sets of stairs placed there for no reason other than their own inconvenience.

There is no luxury in this throne room.

It is all girders and catwalks and strange machinery that hums, buzzes, and sometimes growls.

Even the throne is menacing, more like a chunk of black rock than a chair.

It doesn’t even have a cushion.

This whole throne room was designed for just one purpose: to intimidate.

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi - Beware the power of the Dark Side

Intimidation.

Long, deadly drops cause unease in those coming before the emperor.

Especially when he has force powers to flick people off the edge.

It's the usual half-baked plan by an evil villain that backfires when he becomes a victim of it

Question: At the end of  Star Wars Episode 6: Return of the Jedi , Darth Vader threw the Emperor into a pit. Why was there a pit in the Emperor's VIP chamber on the Death Star?

Why was there a pit in the Emperor's chamber on Death Star?

One might surmise that, as a Sith Emperor who rules the galaxy through fear, the Emperor intentionally constructed his throne room with an "abyss" in it in order to intimidate anyone who would enter that room.

The pit is very impressive hence why the Emperor has it in his throne room which he uses to communicate his orders.


I found this source

but i don't know whether it is what you are after.

Thranduil’s sudden scars reflect a little emphasized of Tolkien’s lore: elves’ “Fëar” (a metaphysical concept analogous translatable as “soul”)

occasionally influences the “Hröa” (the fleshly, physical body), particularly under moments of extreme stress.

This can manifest as extreme physical changes that reflect the mind’s state, in this case deep war scars.

Source Edit : I have also found this reference which seems to state that Tolkien made no reference to the Scars on Thranduil's face in the books.

Thranduil's scars are decidedly non-canon.

According to Tolkien's texts, the last battle Thranduil saw (up to setting in

The Hobbit) was that of the last alliance at the end of The Second Age.

However, in the 1900's of the Third Age, according to text, the "serpents of the north" were fought and mostly slain.

In all likelihood, Peter Jackson is taking creative liberty with the story.

On a more symbolic note, the scars could represent the pain Thranduil has endured in war (he watched his father die in the battle of the last alliance).

Source

This is discussed in the Director's commentary.

Thranduil's prior encounter with dragons (which the Director happily admits is not from the books) was included to explain his deep isolationism and the reason why he wouldn't help the dwarves.

There's also the suggestion that a firedrake killed his wife, explaining her absence from the film.

As to the sudden appearance of his scars, the implication is that he normally uses Elven magic to disguise them.

To emphasise his little speech, he allows this 'glamour' to drop momentarily.

Peter Jackson:

What's interesting is that Thranduil's had this encounter with dragons before ... and his wife was ... Boyens:

There's a conceit we came up with.

Actors need that.

They need to feed on that backstory.

Where did this isolationism come from?

I also like the notion that this very 'closed off'

character is also oneof the greatest fighters on Middle Earth.

Thranduil mentions that (Paraphrasing because of memory) "Do not talk to me of Dragon Fire

, I have felt is wrath and ruin.

I have faced the Serpents of the North".

Although I don't think Tolkien made any canon mention of these fights, or none that I've found.

I think Peter Jackson did this to add some common ground between Thranduil and the Dwarves that I'm sure will play some part in the third film.

I read the Silmarillion many years ago, and I immediately assumed, when Thranduil mentioned the serpents of the north, that PJ concocted a history where Thranduil had a run-in with one of the dragons from Angband somewhere in the First Age, when he still lived in Doriath.

It is plausible.

I did not think the scars were real; I thought he summoned the memory of the wound

and it manifested on his face briefly.

But I really think the 'scar' was the illusion, not the reality as so many others think.

The book does not refer to any scar or to Thranduil being somehow disabled, but the movie makes it seem so ´cause the Movie!Thranduil has an extensive scar and an apparently blind eye as a result of the scarring (caused by the dragon fire).

What does it mean in the movie?

I dunno, I was baffled, too.

But I understand it in two ways:

he battled the dragon, it scarred Thranduil for life, and now he is forced to wear a glamour on his face to hide the ugly mark.

But it probably reveals itself after a period of stress or in times of anger.

he battled the dragon, it scarred Thranduil for some time, and the resulting mark on his face really did look like this for an unspecific long period of time.

However, the scar got already healed somewhere in the past, and now, when it revealed itself again, it must be just a manifestation of the venomous anger that Thranduil holds inside of him.

My guess is that PJ took the fear/hroa concept one step further to expose the hubris of Elven arrogance/beauty.

Translation:

dragon's fire is the one thing elves cannot fully heal and scars permanently.

Question: In the heated discussion between Thranduil and Thorin, for a moment, Thranduil's face suddenly turned very deeply scarred & wounded and then immediately returned to normal. What was this about? Is it a reference to anything that was cut out of the movies? (I have not read the books, sadly, but am very curious about this.)

What exactly happened to Thranduil's face while he was arguing with Thorin?

Thranduil’s sudden scars reflect elves’  “Fëar”. The implication is that he normally uses Elven magic to disguise the scars. In the film, this may have been to add some common ground between Thranduil and the Dwarves.

Thranduil shows Thorin his scars to prove his point during the argument and to show he has common ground with the Dwarves.


The Sorting Hat actually spent a long time deliberating over Hermione.

She mentions it when somebody asks her about a particularly complicated piece of magic in Order of the Phoenix :

“How come you’re not in Ravenclaw?”

he [Terry Boot] demanded, staring at Hermione with something close to wonder.

“With brains like yours?”

“Well, the Sorting Hat did seriously consider putting me in Ravenclaw during my Sorting,” said Hermione brightly, “but it decided on Gryffindor in the end.”

This is a rare event, but not unheard of.

Pottermore has some more information on other borderline candidates: Hatstall.

An archaic Hogwarts term for any new student whose Sorting takes longer than five minutes.

This is an exceptionally long time for the Sorting Hat to deliberate, and occurs rarely, perhaps once every fifty years.

Of Harry Potter’s contemporaries, Hermione Granger and Neville Longbottom came closest to being Hatstalls.

The Sorting Hat spent nearly four minutes trying to decide whether it should place Hermione in Ravenclaw or Gryffindor.

As for why Hermione is sorted into Gryffindor over Ravenclaw, I think she answers this herself in Philosopher’s Stone .

On the Hogwarts Express, she shows a clear preference for Gryffindor over Ravenclaw: ”

I’ve been asking around

and I hope I’m in Gryffindor

, it sounds by far the best, I hear Dumbledore himself was one, but I suppose Ravenclaw wouldn’t be too bad…”

We know the Sorting Hat takes your choice into account, so if it was struggling to place her, then it might use her preference as the deciding factor.

Later, in the dungeons as they’re trying to get to the Philosopher’s Stone, we have this particularly telling line:

“I’m not as good as you,” said Harry, very embarrassed, as she let go of him.

“Me!”

said Hermione.

“Books!

And cleverness!

There are more important things – friendship and bravery

and – oh Harry – be careful!”

Hermione holds the values of Gryffindor – courage and bravery – higher than those of Ravenclaw – raw intelligence and knowledge .

She doesn’t just value these traits; she exhibits them throughout the books.

She encourages Harry to start Dumbledore’s Army; she fights with him in the Ministry of Magic; she works alongside him in the hunt for Horcruxes.

But she starts off as a stereotypical know-it-all, and we don’t really see much courage or bravery.

The Sorting Hat placed her in Gryffindor because she has the traits of a Gryffindor within her, and placing her in that house can bring them out.

She’s already very studious and intelligent, more so than a lot of Ravenclaws, so I think she has more to gain from Gryffindor than Ravenclaw.

Hermione is smart, intelligent, but also, she is the "take matters into your hands" type person, which is not a very Ravenclaw-y trait.

She wasn't very hesitant to create polyjuice potions despite knowing that they are highly illegal.

She also went ahead and trapped Rita Skeeter in a bottle!

She just goes for the right thing if it fits her conviction.

If you think about it, She is actually the perfect combination of Ravenclaw AND Gryffindor traits.

She is also strong and courageous when it comes to the tough decisions.

Erasing yourself from your own parents memories is something that would take more than all the courage in the world.

I feel we see a lot of her stronger aspects throughout the series.

She has all the identifying marks of Gryffindor on top of her intelligence, smartness.

This makes her a Gryffindor.

I read an interesting theory on Tumblr, titled The Golden Trio House : The Harry Potter trio are actually representations of the other houses.

Hermione is Ravenclaw, Ron is Hufflepuff, and Harry is Slytherin.

They’re all in Gryffindor because they asked.

In fact, everyone in that house could have been in another houses if they hadn’t asked to be in Gryffindor.

You have be ask to be in Gryffindor because their most defining feature is bravery, and anyone can choose to be brave.

The author wanted to avoid a house hopping.

She wanted to have characters that interact.

It would have been more difficult to let them interact when Harry, Hermione and Ron would have been in different houses.

With the setup taken she could show them getting friends without too much interaction between Ravenclaw and Gryffindor.

If you will allow for Keirsian Temperament types , http://www.keirsey.com/sorthat.aspx , Gryffindor was Idealist and Ravenclaw was Rational.

Hermione is an INFJ.

Idealists often act like Rationals while they are growing up, especially until they learn to fit in.

Hermione, whose parents were not magical, worked very hard to fit in, acting much like a Rational to the untrained eye.

So, at first glance, she would fit into Ravenclaw, but on further analysis she was truly Gryffindor material.

Question: She's clearly the smartest person in her year, and the defining trait of Ravenclaw is intelligence. Why would she be in Gryffindor rather than Ravenclaw?

Why was Hermione not in Ravenclaw?

Hermione holds the values of Gryffindor – courage and bravery – higher than those of Ravenclaw – raw intelligence and knowledge. She has all the identifying marks of Gryffindor  in addition to her intelligence and may benefit more from being in Gryffindor House.

Hermione is not in Ravenclaw because she displays Gryffindor traits and lacks the creativity of thought of the Ravenclaws. Moreover, she is fearless and has strong convictions about right and wrong making her a Gryffindor and not a Ravenclaw.

Hermione is not in Ravenclaw because she displays Gryffindor traits and lacks the creativity of thought of the Ravenclaws. She is fearless and has strong convictions about right and wrong making her a Gryffindor and not a Ravenclaw.


The rise of the term Autobot differs with each continuity.

In the Aligned continuity (which is the most similar to the Michael Bay movies), the term Autobot is coined by Orion Pax as a description for the concept of abolishing the caste system that the Cybertronians were living under, not as a description for the race as a whole. "

Autonomous" as in deciding one's fate by themselves.

In the IDW comics continuity the Autobot moniker is given to the corrupt Cybertronian Empire by the galaxy's other races to describe these mechanical beings.

Auto from automatons, because in the other races' eyes the Cybertronians were long lived mechanicals who never changed in any fundamental way

(despite the name Transformers).

When both Optimus Prime and Megatron rise up against the corrupt government, Megatron chose to name his faction with a new name and a new sigil, while Optimus decided to repurpose the term Autobot and derive it from "autonomous" (from the people, by the people) and keep the old sigil.

Which, in essence, displays the philosophical differences between the two leaders.

In the 1984 cartoon continuity the two races were created separately by the Quintessons.

Autobots as consumer grade machines, and the Decepticons as weaponized machines.

So this makes this continuity the only one were the Autobots and Decepticons were never the same race.

In the Marvel comics continuity the Autobots were created by Primus and lived more or less peacefully on Cybertron.

When Megatron started his revolution he decided he needed to differentiate his faction, and so gave them a new name.

As far as I recall, no reasoning is given for the names.

In the Dreamwave comics continuity the two factions arose when Megatron started the civil war.

Those who sided with Megatron named themselves Decepticons, and those who sided with Sentinel Prime and the Council of Ancients named themselves Autobots.

Again no reasoning is given for the names.

Originally for toy reasons.

The Autobots were all cars in the original run in 1984, so Automobile-Robots.

Decepticons because they are the bad guys.

Bob Budiansky is crediting with naming the first batch of guys if I remember correctly.

The Transformers were created by a race called the Quintessons.

They originally created Autobots as general worker consumer bots and Decepticons as military weapons.

The Transformers eventually became sentient and rebelled.

This is far back in their past though.

The more recent factions are more political centric.

It is not uncommon for an Autobot/Decepticon to switch sides.

I think the Japanese naming is an interesting contrast (especially as TF started as a rebrand of two completely separate line of Japanese toys).

The Japanese name for the Autobots is (literally) Seibertron (or Cyberton) -

so Cybertronion is seen as synonymous with the "good guys".

The Decepticons on the other hand are known as Destron (from destroy/destruct) - an obvious anti-faction there.

Autobots have blue eyes or optics; Decepticons have red.

(At least, that's what I noticed in the 80's cartoon series - apart from their insignias)

Therefore, blue is good, while red is rude

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/59630/Nelson Josef T. Fernandez

Question: The title 'Autobot' is explained to be the short version of 'Autonomous Robotic Organisms'. Wouldn't that mean all Cybertronions are Autobots? Why then do the good "Heroic Bots" lead by Optimus Prime call themselves Autobots while the bad "Evil Bots" lead by Megatron call themselves Decepticons? Aren't they all the same race?

What is the difference between an Autobot and a Decepticon

In the Marvel comics continuity  the Autobots (car robots) were created by Primus and lived more or less peacefully on Cybertron. Autobots were created as general worker consumer bots and Decepticons were created as military weapons.

The Autobots become civilian vehicles and equipment while the Decepticons, for the most part, take the form of military vehicles.


In the American version published by Scholastic Press in chapter eleven there is the text: Ron and Hermione joined Neville, Seamus, and Dean the West Ham fan up in the top row.

As a surprise for Harry, they had painted a large banner on one of the sheets Scabbers had ruined.

It said Potter for President, and Dean, who was good at drawing, had done a large Gryffindor lion underneath.

Then Hermione had performed a tricky little charm so that the paint flashed different colors.

and a few lines later:

Out of the corner of his eye he (i.e. Harry) saw the fluttering banner high above, flashing Potter for President over the crowd.

His heart skipped.

He felt braver.

Annoyingly my niece has my UK edition so I can't check that - can anyone else check to see what text it has?

Anyhow, I don't think there is any great significance to the phrase "Potter for President".

It's just meant as encouragement for Harry, and indeed it worked.

Are you referring to the movie or the book.

I can not quite recall reading about this poster.

But I think they would have written "Potter for President" because of the reoccurring "P", as opposed by "Potter for Minister", which would maybe have made more sense in the british context.

Generally, "Someone for President" is a common cheer to promote a special person and it jokingly refers to the person becoming the President of the United States of America.

It's nothing related to Quidditch or even the Harry Potter Universe

I imagine you read the American Version as it is basically just a chant used for popular and/or successful people.

Something along the lines of "We like him so much

he should be President" President of the United States of America.

Although I don't actually remember that part you're referring to in the books.

I would echo the comments about it being meant as encouragement for Harry, and that the alliteration was snappy.

However I would also add that Hermione, Dean, Seamus and Harry himself all grew up having either one or two Muggle parents or guardians

(Ron and Neville are the odd ones out).

"Potter for President" may seem like something that would only make sense to a Muggle or somebody who had been exposed to a Muggle-environment, hence it looks incongruous in the book

(I'm not sure we are introduced to any other Wizarding presidents by this point).

But if you consider the backgrounds of the characters who made the banner, and the character who it was for (Harry), it explains why they would use these words that might seem more significant to a Muggle than a Wizard.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/13951/The Giant of Lannister

It's a generic term of support.

The phrase, 'x for President' is neither inherently political nor inherently American, despite what the other answers claim.

'Potter for President' is not an idiom that was created for the American editions.

It features in the original British Bloomsbury edition.

As a surprise for Harry, they had painted a large banner on one of the sheets Scabbers had ruined.

It said Potter for President and Dean, who was good at drawing, had done a large Gryffindor lion underneath.

Out of the corner of his eye he saw the fluttering banner high above, flashing Potter for President over the crowd.

His heart skipped.

He felt braver.

(Philosopher's Stone, Chapter 11, Quidditch) .

Its meaning is quite clear to a British reader. '

X for President' is another way of saying 'x is awesome' and incidating your support for x.

They were not actually suggesting that he should be elected president of any particular organisation.

They were just giving him personal encouragement to spur him on.

Question: Not sure, whether to ask here, or at English.SE, but at Harry's first Quidditch match his friends held up a banner saying: " Potter for President ".  What does it mean? I'm sure it must be some kind of cheer. But is it a common thing to say? Or does have it anything to do with Quidditch? Is the seeker who caught the snitch called President?

"Potter for President" - President of what?

"Someone for President" is a common cheer of encouragement and support. It is nothing related to Quidditch or the Harry Potter Universe.

Potter for President was simply intended as support and encouragement for Harry and wasn’t intended to be used to show any support for him actually becoming President.


Christopher Tolkien indicates that his father eventually decided there were no more than seven Balrogs.

"In the margin my father wrote: 'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed.'"

But as you noticed, there are plenty of references in earlier writings to the existence of a great deal of Balrogs.

Tolkien himself noted that in early writings, Balrogs were much more numerous and destructible than they later became.

Crucially, that note - which is invariably cited in any discussion of the number of Balrogs - was not necessarily Tolkien's final word.

We really can't know for sure because Tolkien changed his mind, and we don't know if he changed his mind again.

So it's up to you - 7 or "a lot."

According to Christopher Tolkien's note at the start of "The Earliest Annals of Beleriand" (SoME, p. 351), this is likely a much later work (although precise dating of these manuscripts is impossible.)

In this text, we find There came afresh a hundred thousand Orcs and a thousand Balrogs.

In fact, there is only one marginal note (which @Shamshiel pointed out) that EVER suggests the number should be considered limited, while there are dozens of references to "armies," "hordes," and even "thousand(s)."

This preponderance of evidence leads me to argue that there we are fully justified in stating there were, at some point, thousands of Balrogs - although this number clearly had dropped significantly after Fionwe crossed Sirion in the War of Wrath, wherein [t]he Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that fled and hid themselves in caverns inaccessible at the roots of the earth.

The number of Balrogs changed as Tolkien's conception of the world evolved, and we shouldn't take material from the Lost Tales or Quenta Noldorinwa too literally:

in the Lost Tales Beren was an Elf and the precursor of Sauron was a big cat, after all.

In the earliest concepts Balrogs weren't even Maiar, after all, so if we accept the numbers of them from those writings, should we also accept the contradiction of them not being Maiar?

By the time of Lord of the Rings the concept had changed, and a Balrog was now a destructive force capable of wiping out the mightiest Dwarf kingdom.

The figure of "3, or at most 7" comes from the Balrogs that we definitely know existed: Gothmog

The Balrog killed by (and who killed)

Glorfindel Durin's Bane

A fourth, "Lungorthin, Lord of Balrogs", appears in the early Lay of the Children of Hurin, but there is some doubt over him (is it another name for Gothmog?

is he just a Balrog lord?), and this work of course is more representative of the earlier concepts than the later.

There is, however, another named "Balrog" (not really a "Balrog", but the intention appears to be that we're talking about the same type of spirit, so I'll use "Balrog" as a convenient shorthand) in Tolkien's work who is rarely considered, but who survived to the end in all writings: Arien the maiden was mightier than he, and she was chosen because she had not feared the heats of Laurelin, and was unhurt by them, being from the beginning a spirit of fire, whom Melkor had not deceived nor drawn to his service .

As always, remember that we're dealing with legends from a mythical age rather than a precise history here (Tolkien himself calls them "the mythology and legends of the Elder Days" in his foreword to LotR).

Contradictory or confusing statements are to be expected.

TL;DR:

It is not known.

There are different mentions of the numbers of Balrogs.

Christopher Tolkien mentions that there were thousands or hundreds, whereas Tolkien himself only mentions seven.

The early conception of Balrogs makes them less terrible, and certainly more destructible, than they afterwards became: they existed in ' hundreds ' (p. 170), and were slain by Tuor and the Gondothlim in large numbers: "thus five fell before Tuor's great axe Dramborleg, three before Ecthelion's sword, and two score were slain by the warriors of the king's house.

The Book of Lost Tales Part Two, commentary by Christopher Tolkien on "The Fall of Gondolin"

There came wolves and serpents and there came Balrogs one thousand , and there came Glomund the Father of Dragons.

The Lost Road and Other Writings, Quenta Silmarillion, Chapter 16, §15

In the margin my father wrote: 'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed.' ― Morgoth's Ring, Section 2 (AAm*)

: note 50

The latter might be the most correct, since it's the only note from Tolkien himself

To ask these questions one has to take into account Tolkien's late ideas, not earlier, rejected ones.

The texts that speak of hundreds of Balrogs and of Elves killing them by dozens in Gondolin are all very early texts, or texts that were never fully revised.

At this time, Balrogs were still creations of Morgoth (and Gothmog was even his son).

That's why in the published Silmarillion, Cristopher removed most of the references to hosts or thousands of Balrogs.

When Tolkien decided that Morgoth couldn't create life, he turned Balrogs into Maiar, and as consequence, he reduced their number greatly.

That's why he said that only 3-7 ever existed.

This note may not be definitive (it's possible that there were 10 or 20, instead of 7), but certainly his last intention was that there weren't a lot of Balrogs.

It's even possible that he wouldn't have made Glorfindel fight a Balrog if he had rewritten the tale of Gondolin.

In one of Tolkien's last essays (found in History of Middle Earth vol.

XII)

he changed the name "Balrog" for "demon" when writing about this battle.

Question: There are guesstimates of their numbers ranging from as little as 3 all the way up to hundreds. Still other accounts say there were actually a thousand strong.   We know five were 'killed' by Tuor, three by Ecthelion, and two score (40) by the warriors of the king's house. Combine those with the one disturbed in Moria in the TA, that makes at least 49 Balrogs.  Is there any other indication in Tolkien's works of a total number or mentions of any others?

How many Balrogs were there?

There are different mentions of the numbers of Balrogs. However, Christopher Tolkien indicates that his father eventually decided there were no more than seven Balrogs.

In total, there were seven Balrogs, though this is only speculative.


" Time’s Arrow " Parts 1 & 2 [126th and 127th episodes] show how Guinan met Picard.

Star Trek:

The Next Generation - " Time’s Arrow " Parts 2

[Season 6

Episode 1] 1893

- Data followed by Guinan and Samuel Clemens, is able to follow the alien shapeshifters to the same cavern near San Francisco, where they discover that the aliens traveled to the 19th century to take advantage of a cholera outbreak, draining the life force from humans in infected areas to give the impression that their deaths were the result of an epidemic.

In an ensuing struggle over a cane-like device used to open the portal, Data's head is severed from his body and Guinan is injured .

As Picard tends to Guinan , the rest of the away team, carrying Data's body which continues to grasp the cane device, follow one of the aliens to the future, with Clemens also following them.

The events described above come from Wikipedia and were alluded to by Guinan sometime before in " Booby Trap "

[Season 3

Episode 6]

when Guinan says, "A bald man was kind to me once, when I was hurting."

According to the episode "best of both worlds" they are beyond friends, beyond family.

That would suggest a deep personal involvement, possibly romantic.

Or at the very least an extremely close trusted friendship.

TNG Season 2

Episode 1, Wesley Crusher asks Guinan about Picard, and she said that she never met him until she came aboard.

This oversight may have been intentional to help develop Guinan's character later in the series.

I suggest that anyone wanting an answer to this question reads the recently published "The Autobiography of Jean-Luc Picard", edited by David Goodman.

In this book, although it may not be canonical Star Trek, their friendship begins when, as a member of the crew of USS Stargazer, Picard saves Guinan from bounty hunters

The closest we get to a description of what events actually made them close is in "Engisn Ro", where Guinan tells Ro that when she was in trouble, Picard helped her.

But presumably there was a lot more than that over a long friendship.

There are no other details given.

The events depicted in "Time's Arrow" don't shed much light on their relationship, it's just Picard insisting that yes, they really will be super close in the future.

Guinan once said that she's attracted to bald men because one helped her when she was hurt

, most likely Picard, and the first incident (probably one among many) was portrayed in Time's Arrow part 2.

Some of their relationship is posted in various novels, but they're not considered canon.

Question: In the show they often allude to the history between Guinan and Picard but, to my knowledge, there has never been anything more than allusions.  What exactly happened that created this bond between the two?

What is Guinan and Picard’s history?

In "Time's Arrow", Picard insists that they really will be super close in the future. In "Best of Both Worlds" they are beyond friends, beyond family.  Picard said that he had helped her when she was in trouble.

Guinean and Picard had a relationship that went beyond friends and was either romantic or familial.


It might help to recall how and why transporting water (and food) has a very low cost–benefit ratio on earth¹:

Most humans, animals or plants consume their body weight’s equivalent in a rather short time.

On Arrakis, the benefit of water is arguably higher than on earth (and the art of recycling moisture has been brought to perfection) but so are the transportation costs – you cannot just build a pipeline from Caladan to Dune and there are several passages in the books indicating that space travel is expensive and its costs are a relevant factor when considering troup movements.

This alone might explain why importing water on ecologically relevant scales does not happen.²

As for importing water for individual purposes, I would expect it to be cheaper to acquire it locally.

If water were that expensive on Arrakis, everybody would use stillsuits except the very rich.

Still, there seems to be no effective ban on importing water as this would require a thorough inspection of the cargo of each ship transported by a heighliner, which I cannot remember to have read about.

So after all, we cannot exclude small amounts of water being imported to Arrakis and, for the books to make sense, we do not have to, as there is still reason as to why water is expensive.

One could argue that every traveller coming from a water-rich planet and staying on Arrakis for a while leaves the planet with some litres of water less in his body than when he arrived and thus effectively is a small water import.

A similar thing goes for food imports (which we read about once or twice in the books), which not only bring nutrients to Arrakis, as most food consists of water to a relevant percentage.

Admittedly, this is all very vague, but when reading the books, it never struck me as unrealistic that water imports are not mentioned. ¹

If it hadn’t, droughts and famines would be much easier to fight.

²

In addition, the Spacing Guild would almost certainly notice such water imports on conventional ways (as you cannot transport such huge volumes and weights unnoticed) as well as via prescience and prevent them.

I think part of the point of the book is that no one until Kynes understands the biology of the sandworms well enough to see how intimately spice production and the climate are related, so no one is keeping the planet dry for that reason.

I think the more relevant question is, who would be willing to spend money on that?

We're talking about a planet; you could spend decades hauling in water, and not make a dent, or you could put that money into buying more harvesting equipment, or spend more on soldiers to fight Fremen, to make more land safe to harvest on.

And the Harkonnens like oppressing people.

They aren't going to lift a finger to aid the people.

And if they hadn't invaded, it would have been decades before the Atreides could have thought of spending their money on anything but making more money, to shore up their position.

Water is poisonous to the sandworms.

Also the sand trout seal water away to protect the sand worms as this is their later stage of development.

The sandtrout ... was introduced here from some other place.

This was a wet planet then.

They proliferated beyond the capability of existing ecosystems to deal with them.

Sandtrout encysted the available free water, made this a desert planet ... and they did it to survive.

In a planet sufficiently dry, they could move to their sandworm phase.

Leto Atreides II

So importing water could destabalise the ecology like stated and threated "The Spice" which no one of course wants.

Any imported water would need sealing away to protect it from the sand trout but they could import it if they are careful with it.

Water is imported.

The first novel makes specific mention of water sellers, water shippers, and water smugglers.

But not a lot, and few could afford it.

When Leto II the God Emperor ascended and during his many millenia of rule, water was imported in vast quantities to terraform Rakis to the detriment of the sandworm-supporting ecosystem.

He(It?)

even died after having too much exposure to water, specifically immersion in the Idaho River from falling off a blown up bridge.

see (God Emperor of Dune)

Question: Why is water not imported in guild highliners to Arrakis? I can understand a reluctance to import water because it would upset the ecology, and endanger the spice production somehow, but surely they can import water for survival purposes?

Why is water not imported to Arrakis?

Any imported water would need sealing away to protect it from the sand trout. Water could be imported must this might be inefficient compared to investment in harvesting locally.

Water is imported to Arrakis in small quantities but not in large quantities because the worms need to be dry conditions. Also, importing large quantities of water would devalue the Fremen’s water holdings and the sand trout would lock up the water again so the importation of large quantities would be futile.

Water is imported to Arrakis in small quantities. It is not imported in significant quantities because the worms need dry conditions. Importing large quantities of water would devalue the Fremen’s water holdings. Importing water would not make a difference as the sand trout would lock up the water again.


In the Return of Bruce Wayne , there are time travel elements.

Batman also time-travelled a couple of times in The Brave and the Bold in order to team up with Kamandi in the future, for example in The Brave and the Bold #120 .

But then Brave & Bold was always in its own (lack of) continuity.

As other answers have pointed out, The Return of Bruce Wayne is probably the "biggest" example of a Batman time travel story, in terms of continuity.

It covers Bruce jumping through various different time periods, slowly returning to the future after having been apparently killed (but actually sent back in time) during the events of Final Crisis .

Since you asked for any serial, I'll also mention "The Once and Future Thing", a two-part episode of the Justice League animated series, which features members of the League (Batman, Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman) tracking down a time-travelling villain.

The first episode features various DC Western-era heroes such as Jonah Hex and the second is set in the future of the Batman Beyond cartoon (albeit with the timeline altered by the villain), which leads to the wonderful team-up between modern Batman and elderly Bruce Wayne .

A recent arc in the Batman '66 comic (starting in digital issue #22) also had King Tut travelling back in time to ancient Egypt, with Batman and Robin following him.

That's a handful of examples

but I've no doubt there are plenty more, even if Batman isn't as involved with time travel as the Flash (who has it as an inherent part of his powers, with the assistance of his Cosmic Treadmill, and who has several time-travelling enemies) or Superman (with his long-standing association with casual time travellers, the Legion of Superheroes).

Time travel stories and the alternate universes they create are a remarkably common occurrence in comics and Batman has been in a lot of comics over the years.

Batman time travels in both Justice League episode

The Once and Future Thing and the Batman the Brave and the Bold episode Menace of the Madniks!

The sheer volume of Batman fiction in print and video means that it will be difficult to give a complete answer to this question.

In the "Batman: The Animated Series" Episode "Time Out of Joint" Batman and Robin battle

The Clock King who has a device which can stop time allowing him to move through time quickly as if teleporting.

Later in the episode Batman and Robin meet up with the scientist who created the time device which The Clock King stole from him and have to end up using the same kind of time device to quickly get to their location in time to foil The Clock King's plan to kill Mayor Hamilton Hill with a bomb.

The episode can be seen here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48qyye

Question: Some of the main DC characters have time-traveled such as the Flash and Superman, has Batman in any serial ever traveled through time?

Has Batman ever time-traveled in any form?

Time travel stories and the alternate universes they create are a common occurrence in comics. Batman time travels in both  Justice League  episodes and in The Brave and the Bold, but  The Return of Bruce Wayne  is probably the biggest example of a Batman time travel story.

Batman time-travels a couple of times in the Brave and the Bold.


It is quite simple: Sauron did not expect, and could not conceive, anyone would actually try to destroy the Ring instead of claiming it for themselves.

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

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

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

- The Two Towers , "The White Rider" This complete lack of desire of any kind to master the Ring was the primary reason Frodo was chosen to be the Ringbearer.

Even Gandalf refused to touch the Ring for fear of being consumed by it and not being able to destroy it.

Edit:

During a re-read of The Fellowship of the Ring

I have come across these other relevant passages:

Well, let folly be our cloak, a veil before the eyes of the Enemy!

For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice.

But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts.

Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it.

If we seek this, we shall put him out of reckoning.

And this account from Isildur who could not even bring himself to put the ring in a fire:

The Ring misseth, maybe, the heat of Sauron's hand, which was black and yet burned like fire, and so Gil-galad was destroyed; and maybe were the gold made hot again, the writing would be refreshed.

But for my part I will risk no hurt to this thing : of all the works of Sauron the only fair.

It is precious to me, though I buy it with great pain.

Both excerpts from The Fellowship of the Ring: Book II:

Chapter 2: The Council of Elrond .

This was a key point of Gandalf and Aragorn's strategy, and the whole reason they led the army of Minas Tirith to the Black Gate of Mordor.

The hope was to draw not only Sauron's attention, but his armies as well, leaving Mordor itself unguarded.

Book 5, ch. 9: [Gandalf]

: ‘His doubt will be growing, even as we speak here.

His Eye is now straining

towards us, blind almost to all else that is moving.

So we must keep it.

Therein lies all our hope.

This, then, is my counsel.

We have not the Ring.

In wisdom or great folly it has been sent away to be destroyed, lest it destroy us.

Without it we cannot by force defeat his force.

But we must at all costs keep his Eye from his true peril.

We cannot achieve victory by arms, but by arms we can give the Ring-bearer his only chance, frail though it be.

In addition to all the other comments, guarding Mount Doom is difficult.

It regularly erupts, so having soldiers on guard duty near to it presumably raises the very real risk of them being burnt to a cinder.

The road to Mount Doom had to be regularly cleared and maintained at great effort according to the books, so the most likely group of Saurons servants you were likely to find there would probably be a highway repair crew...

Mordor itself was actually heavily guarded, with legions of Orc troops occupying it, as we learn in The Land of Shadow : Frodo and Sam gazed out in mingled loathing and wonder on this hateful land.

Between them and the smoking mountain, and about it north and south, all seemed ruinous and dead, a desert burned and choked.

They wondered how the Lord of this realm maintained and fed his slaves and his armies.

Yet armies he had.

As far as their eyes could reach, along the skirts of the Morgai and away southward, there were camps, some of tents, some ordered like small towns.

The fact is that Frodo and Sam had taken a little-known back-door into Mordor; the main entrance (via the Black Gate) was effectively impassable (from

The Black Gate is Closed ): Across the mouth of the pass, from cliff to cliff, the Dark Lord had built a rampart of stone.

In it there was a single gate of iron, and upon its battlement sentinels paced unceasingly.

Beneath the hills on either side the rock was bored into a hundred caves and maggot-holes: there a host of orcs lurked, ready at a signal to issue forth like black ants going to war.

None could pass the Teeth of Mordor and not feel their bite, unless they were summoned by Sauron, or knew the secret passwords that would open the Morannon, the black gate of his land.

And even the back-entrance they took was also well-guarded ( The Tower of Cirith Ungol ):

Since his return to Mordor, Sauron had found it useful; for he had few servants but many slaves of fear, and still its chief purpose as of old was to prevent escape from Mordor.

Though if an enemy were so rash as to try to enter that land secretly, then it was also a last unsleeping guard against any that might pass the vigilance of Morgul and of Shelob.

In order to actually do anything useful at Mount Doom, you obviously have to get into Mordor first, which is something that one does not simply do.

Recall that that was why the host of men challenged Sauron in open battle, knowing full well that Sauron is too greedy to not want to commit his forces to defeating Isildur's heir.

This led Sauron to take the bait by emptying his land to fight Aragorn and the armies of men.

Sauron believed not only that no one would want to destroy the Ring, but that no one could destroy it.

That is, that no one could summon the willpower to destroy the Ring at the very Cracks of Doom where it was created and where it would be at its greatest power; and he was right.

Question: This fact had always bugged me. When Frodo finally goes to the Cracks of Doom he is met with practically no resistance. This seems uncharacteristic of Sauron which in my humble opinion makes it a tiny flaw in the plot. Just to be safe, Sauron could have heavily guarded Mount Doom to prevent the destruction of the Ring: why didn't he do so?

Why didn't Sauron guard Mount Doom?

Sauron did not expect that anyone would try to destroy the Ring instead of claiming it for themselves.  He also believed that no one could  destroy it.

Simply put, Sauron believes that nobody would want to or would be capable of destroying the ring and so does not feel compelled to guard Mount Doom.

Sauron believes that nobody would want to or would be capable of destroying the ring.


The message Arya was trying to send is that the Hound doesn't deserve a clean, merciful death.

In my opinion, this action foreshadows Arya's future path in Braavos:

She is trained in the House of Black & White, the temple of the Faceless Men.

The Faceless Men call mercy kills "the Gift".

Without her knowing yet, Arya is denying the Hound this "gift".

In Chapter 74 of A Storm of Swords Arya tells him "You don't deserve the gift of mercy."

There may be more to it, but reasons she gives at the time are She never forgave him for killing Mycah, or for hitting her with an axe instead of trying to save her mother at the Red Wedding.

I have only watched the show, but to me it is clear that she is conflicted in many ways about killing the hound at this point.

Firstly, she wants him to suffer, he killed the butcher's boy as well as the farmer (who he nicked the silver coins from) and therefore she hates him.

However, he has also been her protector to a degree and she likely knows that she owes him her life to some degree while at the same time being his captive.

Lastly, I think she is still a young girl and while she has killed a few folks here and there, she has never killed someone who she has a relationship with.

In the end, I think she chose the easiest way out for herself, letting him die in the wilderness by lack of action on her behalf.

"It's pretty firmly established that she did have him on her list." – Monty129 Jul 9 at 0:14

I agree it was clearly established that the Hound was part of Arya's list, which is why NOT killing him was the only way to convey with certainty that she had removed him from it.

Whether she feels he doesn't deserve her mercy or whether she simply can't bring herself to kill someone to whom she has grown close is far less evident.

I personally believe she posses the strength of character to deliver mercy, therefore I suspect that, while she has developed an affinity for the Hound, she still harbors resentment about his past cruelty and is unwilling to intervene.

Arya developed a conflicted relationship with Sandor.

He taught her how to survive on her own.

He gave her the common sense and necessary evils she needed to stay alive

but she still had a heart.

As did the Hound.

I think she left him, took his silver, etc to make a point.

When they left the farmer, they were arguing...

the Hound was convinced that he would die.

Sandor:

Aye, he's a good man.

His daughter makes a nice stew.

But he's weak.

They'll be dead come winter.

Arya

: You don't know that.

By leaving him, she KNEW he wouldn't die.

But by taking his silver, she sent a poignant message.

That just because he is gravely wounded and "weak"... he won't necessarily die.

Which is why the Hound broke his own "code" and took the farmers silver.

Arya knows that Sandor has good in him.

And that's the reason he "will never be a real killer".

When his silver was about to be taken by Arya, he tried to take it back.

He had said in a previous episode that "dead men don't need silver".

When Arya saw this, she knew that the Hound still has hope that he will still live.

She decided to just leave him there without taking away that hope.

This is just what I think.

I've only seen the TV show

and I don't think TV show

Arya can resist caring for the Hound even just for a little bit.

I think it's both.

On the surface (and what she shows to him in her behavior and words), Arya is leaving The Hound to suffer and bleed prefusely, and die on her terms - devoid of mercy, similiar to how he treated his victims.

A part of her despises him, his previous malicious actions and what he stands for.

He killed her friend, served the Lannisters, failed to save Catelyn and Robb at the Red Wedding, he had her captive and up for sale - and he is an early name on her "

To Kill List".

On the other hand, deep inside she has developed feelings of friendship and gratitude towards him as well, knowing he saved Sansa from rape, he despises Joffrey and the Lannisters, he basically saved her from her mother and brother's fate at the Red Wedding

, he was her companion and some kind of a guide to her (teaching her mostly violence, naturally for Game of Thrones), and in a way she now owes him a debt which is problematic because he's on her list.

In my opinion, it's not that she couldn't do it morally...

It's that she didn't want to.

And she was convinced he was dying in agonizing pain anyway.

Watch Season 6

knowing all this...

I definitely feel like she didn't kill him because they grew close.

He's one of the first people to be on her list, and she has plenty of opportunities to kill him.

Everyone else she comes across who happens to be on her list meets their demise.

But she won't kill The Hound because he's not on her list anymore.

Although, she doesn't feel like she needs to help him either.

By not killing him Arya is conveying that she has forgiven him for his past crimes.

Killing him would have crossed him off her list and thus the 'forgiveness' would have been hard to show.

Yes she could have said it with words but that would have been 'weak' and the Hound would have felt shame by doing it.

In the TV show, she takes his silver.

I think this parallels what the Hound did with the farmer, the Hound said "Dead men don't need silver".

Someone mentioned above the farmer was still alive.

I don't remember that, but it would make sense if these scenes were meant to be related.

Question: In the book and the show things don't go too well for the Hound. In both cases, he gets horribly wounded and asks Ayra to kill him. However, she does not. Why is this? What message was she trying to send? All that Sandor is greeted with is silence. I thought it was a tad bit odd since originally the Hound was on her list of people to kill.

Why did Arya just walk away instead of killing this character?

She may feel he doesn't deserve her mercy or she may not be able to bring herself to kill someone to whom she has grown close. Also, she won't kill The Hound because he's no longer on her list and she is showing forgiveness. This also may have been the easiest option for her, letting him die in the wilderness.

Arya did not kill the Hound since she works off her list with all the names of the people she intends to kill and struggles to reconcile the act since he is no longer on her list which is her moral code.

Arya did not kill the Hound since she works off her list with all the names of the people she intends to kill. Arya can’t kill the Hound because she struggles to reconcile the act since he is no longer on her list which is her moral code.


Like in the show, in the books Ser Meryn breaks Syrio's wooden sword, and Arya flees the scene before they resume fighting, so we don't know for sure what happens.

Syrio isn't seen again, and Ser Meryn makes no reference to the incident throughout the rest of the series.

The general consensus seems that he is dead, seeing as, like the Hound so eloquently puts it, "Your friend's dead and Meryn Trant's not 'cause Trant had armor and a big fucking sword.".

But of course, it is possible that he escaped, as he displayed a supremely good prowess in combat, even when unarmed, versus the Lannister soldiers.

It has not been confirmed one way or the other in the books or show.

However, Race for the Iron Throne has an excellent post arguing Syrio's survival would be totally against the underlying themes of the story: Syrio Forel is dead, and has to be dead, and would probably be offended if someone tried to bring him back to life.

In a dramatic sense, Syrio has to die because he’s The Mentor – and the Mentor always dies in the hero’s journey to raise the stakes (since the hero is now alone and unprotected) but also to allow the hero to begin their process of maturity and becoming independent (since the hero now has to stand on their own two feet without hints).

It goes on to say: [What] matters is that Syrio stands up for the right and defies evil, even when that means facing a knight of the Kingsguard with a broken practice sword, not that Syrio succeeds.

The whole piece is well worth reading.

This is circumstantial, and as far as I know George RR Martin has neither confirmed nor denied it, but it makes a strong case that Syrio Forel is in fact dead.

One thing that I always thought suggested he was still alive was his total confidence.

He showed little regard for the Lannister guards he beat with his wooden sword, but after beating them and squaring up to fight a Kingsguard, he doesn't even bother picking up a steel sword of any of the guards he just knocked out.

I get the impression death came calling for him

and he said "Not today"

In 2005, GRRM pointed out that Syrio seems to have been left in a hopeless situation when he was last seen, and suggested readers should "draw your own conclusions" based on this, which seems to imply that Syrio Forel was in fact killed.

More recent reports (but, it should be said, unconfirmed) indicate GRRM does not understand why he gets asked the question repeatedly, pointing out that Syrio is not immortal; if accurate, this seems to more heavily imply that Syrio Forel is dead.

Source: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/FAQ/Entry/Is_Syrio_dead

It's quite possible that he is neither alive nor dead, i.e. perhaps GRRM never concluded in his notes or otherwise the true fate of Syrio.

We don't really have any evidence, but I believe that he has died.

The Lannisters killed all Stark partisans out of hand; they even killed Septa Mordane, who was completely harmless.

Syrio was a friend of the Starks and he even fought back, so it is not really hard to imagine that the guards killed him.

In the scene where Arya runs away and looks back you can hear metal swords falling down which hints that syrio could have made it out.

We finally have conformation.

Syrio Forel is dead and is not Jaqen H'ghar

I was really diapointed to hear this, but we finally have confirmation that he is neither Jaqen H'ghar or still alive.

Showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss have confirmed this.

"I always was like, 'Oh, no, I feel like he's still alive,'" Williams told IGN.

"I always had my own theory that he and Jaqen [the Faceless Man] were the same person."

But when she finally ran the idea by showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, they shot it down without hesitation:

Forel is dead.

"I was like, 'Oh, OK," Williams said, laughing. "

So that put that to bed really quickly, but I guess we can all still dream." Syrio Forel alive or dead?

Game of Thrones showrunners finally give definitive answer

I wondered the same myself when I read the scene of his alleged killing (I started reading after watching the show).

In the show it is clearly hinted that he's dead because we can hear his (probably) scream when Arya is running away.

But in the books there's no scream, his death is not shown in any way; in addition to that in the books he's shown to have killed and/or severely injured 5 of Lannister guards before he was attacked by Ser Meryn, in other words he's described to be much more dangerous and fast than in the show.

So, after watching the show I actually didn't even stop to think that Syrio may be alive, but the book made me wonder.

Of course it's unlikely that he could've survived a fight against a fully-armored knight.

On the other hand, judging from the movements and fighting stance, Bronn seems totally like a Water Dancer to me (he's decribed to be very fast and he uses a one-handed sword and doesn't use a shield, exactly like Syrio) and he defeated a fully-armored knight (of course, armored with a real sword; his style is also more passive and treacherous than that of Syrio's).

I think Syrio may be alive.

Ser Meryn Trant was in the King's Guard, while the defeated guards were Lannister guards.

Trant's skills may have surpassed that Lannister guards, but once Arya fled, he'd understand the value of interrogating Syrio rather than killing him.

After Arya's successful escape, Syrio would have little reason to continue fighting, unless his life was truly in danger.

With swords laying around from the bested guards, it seems likely that Syrio could grab one.

At the least, he could have escaped and outrun a larger man in heavy armor.

Question: In the episode 'The Pointy End' (Season 1 Episode 8) when Arya runs from the Lannister guards you hear the sound of a sword being dropped (around 4:56):     After that neither Syrio or Ser Meryn Trant is never mentioned or seen in the show again, except when Arya mentions to the Hound that Ser Meryn Trant killed Syrio.  Is there any mention in the books that Syrio actually dies?

Is Syrio Forel dead?

The general consensus seems that he is dead. It has not been confirmed one way or the other in the books or show.

Syria Forel is dead and is killed by Ser Merton Trant and the Lannister soldiers sent by Cersei to capture Arya though there is a minute chance he might be alive if he managed to grab a sword from the bested guards.

Syria Forel is dead. Syria Forel is killed by Ser Merton Trant and the Lannister soldiers sent by Cersei to capture Arya. Syria Forel, though unlikely, perhaps managed to grab a sword from the bested guards and is still alive today.


There's a couple of nice quotes from text 10 of the " History of Middle Earth " (Morgoth's Ring) that directly address the issue of orc immortality and orc lifespans: "

They needed food and drink, and rest, though many were by training as tough as Dwarves in enduring hardship.

They could be slain, and they were subject to disease; but apart from these ills they died and were not immortal , even according to the manner of the Quendi; indeed they appear to have been by nature short-lived compared with the span of Men of higher race, such as the Edain " Robert Foster's " Complete Guide to Middle Earth " notes that the average Edain lifespan is between 70-90 years, which suggests that average Orc longevity (barring illness and injury) is somewhere around 60 years of age .

It seems that the fact that certain (immortal) maiar were posing as Orcs gave rise to the myth that the orc race was immortal...

This last point was not well understood in the Elder Days.

For Morgoth had many servants, the oldest and most potent of whom were immortal, belonging indeed in their beginning to the Maiar; and these evil spirits like their Master could take on visible forms.

Those whose business it was to direct the Orcs often took Orkish shapes, though they were greater and more terrible.

Thus it was that the histories speak of Great Orcs or Orc-captains who were not slain, and who reappeared in battle through years far longer than the span of the lives of Men.

In his essay Myths Transformed , which can be found in The History Of Middle Earth vol.

Morgoth's Ring , Tolkien explicitly states that the Orcs have a lesser lifespan than the Numenoreans.

This would suggest that they are long-lived, but not immortal.

The main evidence for Orcs being long-lived is the well documented dates of death of the Azog and Bolg.

Azog was succeeded by Bolg after his death in the war with the Dwarves some 150 years before the Battle of Five Armies.

Bolg then leads an army in that battle, so he is at least 150 (and presumably somewhat older).

In The Two Towers , Shagrat and Gorbag were talking about the "good old days" before the Last Alliance: 'We'll see.

But anyway, if it does go well, there should be a lot more room.

What d'you say?

- if we get a chance, you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our own with a few trusty lads, somewhere where there's good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses.'

'Ah!' said Shagrat. '

Like old times.'

The Two Towers Book IV Chapter 10: "

The Choices of Master Samwise" So that would say they were over 3000 years old would it not?

Or am i wrong?

We don't really know for certain, but it seems unlikely.

The narrative purpose of orcs is to be hordes of disposable arrow-fodder and the optimum design for such is "short-lived and fast reproducing".

I see no particular reason to think that Shagrat and Gorbash were talking about a time 3,000 years past, rather than just the situation that applied before Sauron once again gathered the orcs to his banner.

Tolkien did in fact go back and forth about the origins of orcs, but even if they did start as corrupted elves there's no particular reason to think they retained their divinely granted longevity.

If they had retained the eivish traits of great longevity combined with low reproductive ability...then the amount of warfare they engaged in, and how good they were at it would surely have led to their extinction.

I don't know much about the orcs' life span.

But if indeed they were elves once, then they should be immortal because the gift of immortality and death was given by Eru.

Besides him, no one can change that, not even Manwë.

In his essay "The Unnatural History of Tolkien's Orcs", the author "Tyellas" references the same passage from "Morgoth's Ring" (without quoting it or giving an accurate bibliographic reference)

that states Orks are not immortal.

He also makes good arguments, with similar references, for their "creation" as corrupted Elves.

As stated in this conversation, I am also of the mind that while Morgoth could corrupt Elves, he could not deprive them of their nature imbued by Eru.

Elves are immortal and can choose to return to Arda.

After they "die", they go to the Halls of Mandos to wait to return or until the end of the world, because they are tied directly to the fate of the world.

In corrupting them, I think Morgoth tried to deny them the choice of how or when to return, and he may have denied them the ability to coexist in the spiritual and physical worlds.

Besides corrupting them to evil, he could have bound them to an endless existence of a harsh life, a harsh death, and the inevitability of doing it all over again.

Kind of like the Tom Cruise movie "Edge of Tomorrow" or Michael Morcock's concept of the Eternal Warrior.

In the aforementioned essay, the author also makes a case for the potential of Orks choosing to become uncorrupted, which is in keeping with the idea that Elves can choose how they evolve throughout their immortal existence.

Reducing them to base instincts ensures there is always some Ork somewhere looking for an opportunity to breed, which in turn provides an opportunity for a fallen Ork to return - no extinction!

Daniel "Vaco" Vacaflores' article "Quendi" in issue 12 of "Other Minds" magazine (othermindsmagazine.com) expounds on the nature of the various types of Elves based on analyses of professor Tolkien's works.

In the article he discusses the consequences of their immortality and their ability to choose how they personally evolve through the ages, which provides the basis for the idea that Orks could potentially, though perhaps highly improbably, choose to become uncorrupted.

Question: Orcs were the most commonplace villains serving the Dark Powers in all of Tolkien's Legendarium, a race of sentient beings bred by the evil Vala Melkor (Morgoth) during the time of the Great Darkness.  If Orcs were made by Melkor (by breeding Elves he had captured and corrupted) then are they immortal?

Are Tolkien's orcs immortal?

Orcs are long-lived, but not immortal.  The main evidence for Orcs being long-lived is the well documented dates of death of the Azog and Bolg.

Tolkien states that the Orcs have a lesser lifespan than the Numenoreans; they are long-lived but not immortal.

Tolkien states that the Orcs have a lesser lifespan than the Numenoreans. The suggestion is that the Orcs are long-lived but not immortal.