The biggest reason is that they weren't prepared for an attack.

The Lannister army wasn't supposed to be there, but rather defending King's Landing and Casterly Rock.

Lady Tyrell even goes on to say that fighting was never really the Tyrell's strong suit, so in-universe it wasn't a surprise that they fell so quickly.

Also, wealth doesn't equate to army size.

Just because the Tyrell's have a lot of money doesn't mean that they have a huge army.

In fact, house Lannister is in significant debt because of it's huge army and all of the fighting they've had to do over the last few years.

Adding to @DForck42's answer, not only the Tyrells were unprepared, as Lady Olenna points out, they were never very good at the art of war.

They lack good commanders; Ser Randyll Tarly, the most competent of their banner-men, sided with Jaime, providing the Lannisters with men, as well with expertise and knowledge on how best to defeat the Tyrells.

Possibly Inside Help Considering that High Garden is a castle, and High Garden was at least prepared enough that Lady Olenna watches them approach (without siege equipment)

so we can surmise that the gate would be closed.

I would posulate that either the Lannisters had someone on the inside to open the gate for them, or the directors and writers forgot that sieges take years and many, many

, lives even of poorly fortified castles.

The way that I remember this happening is that this house was one of the two that went to Daenerys and offered support.

She then had them send their army to King's Landing to lay siege.

While their army was doing that, it wasn't at home, defending their castle.

Meanwhile, they thought that the Lannister army was in Casterly Rock waiting for the Unsullied and the Dothraki.

But instead, it was taking Highgarden.

And they sent at least Jaime from King's Landing, as they relied on Euron Greyjoy to protect King's Landing by sinking the attacking fleet.

I remain unclear on whether the Tyrell army was with the fleet or not.

Maybe it's hanging out laying siege to King's Landing.

Or maybe they're dead and on the bottom of the ocean.

All of the in-universe reasons have been given so here are some out-of-universe reasons to consider.

Story:

Dani's Dothraki + Unsullied + Dorne + Reach +

Yara-Theon Ironborn fleet should have steamrolled the Lannisters and Dani should be sat the Iron Throne.

However, this would be rather linear and dull plot

so D&D had to do something to even up the odds between Cersi and Dani.

While the trap at Casterly Rock was no big surprise, the taking of Highgarden was.

Budget:

A one sided slaughter is a bit boring.

Having this off screen is a big money saver and can pay for more dragon CGI and Ice Zombie battles!

Time:

With only this 7 eps season and one more season the story needs to be moved on.

2nd tier characters such as Olena, Elaria and the Sand Snakes need to be culled in order to make room for Jon, Dani, Arya and Sam plots.

Since it's fiction, I guess it's because HBO wanted to even the odds for House Lannister.

The biggest reason why House Tyrell lost is because the Lannisters somehow magically acquired all troop movements of Daenerys's forces but masked their own.

I mean communication via ravens in GOT is pretty fast

and I doubt Lannisters could invade Tyrell without hitting any spies or picket forces.

And magically ambushing the fleet?

Really?

Did they have aerial reconnaissance in middle ages?

With Varys and Olenna, the Targaryen forces should have equal if not better intelligence network.

So no, I don't think it was possible for things to happen this way other than

author wanted it this way or the allies brushed aside all intelligence and said: they love Casterly Rock, no way they are going to take High Gardens.

Question: In Game of Thrones season 7 episode 3, we see    the Lannister army   invade and defeat    house Tyrell in Highgarden.    In fact, the fight is so one-sided that the writers of the show intentionally decided not to show the actual battle and instead jumped directly to the aftermath of fight.  It's established in season 7 episode 1 that     the Lannister army   is running short of supplies and money, and     house Tyrell   is now the richest house in Westeros. How was it possible that the former so easily defeated the latter?

How was a powerful house so easily defeated?

The biggest reason is that the Tyrell weren't prepared for an attack. The Lannister army wasn't supposed to be there, but rather defending King's Landing and Casterly Rock.  Lady Tyrell even goes on to say that fighting was never really the Tyrell's strong suit, so in-universe it wasn't a surprise that they fell so quickly. Just because the Tyrell's have a lot of money doesn't mean that they have a huge army. In fact, house Lannister is in significant debt because of it's huge army and all of the fighting they've had to do over the last few years.

House Lannister was not prepared for an attack. House Lannister is in significant debt because of it's huge army and all of the fighting they've had to do over the last few years. In-universe, fighting was never really the Tyrell's strong suit, so it wasn't a surprise that they fell so quickly.


It's quite rare, but yes , it has happened with Hollywood movies.

One example is Chaos (2005).

Chaos (2005)

Action, Crime, Drama Director:

Tony Giglio Stars: Jason Statham, Ryan Phillippe, Wesley Snipes

Distributed by:

Capitol Films, Lionsgate

Two cops, a rookie, and a grizzled vet, pursue an accomplished bank robber.

— Chaos (2005) , IMDB Crime, Horror, Thriller Director:

David DeFalco Stars:

Kevin Gage, Sage Stallone, Kelly K.C. Quann Distributed by: Dominion Entertainment, Dinsdale Releasing Two girls, looking to score some ecstasy at a rave, follow a young man to a house where terror awaits.

There, a gang of felons captures and torment the girls, drawing them into a nightmare of violence.

Chaos (2005) , IMDB The way Wikipedia disambiguates or distinguishes the two is by adding a distributor of the film in with the release date: Chaos (2005 Capitol film)

Chaos

(2005 Dominion film)

Incidentally, Wikipedia lists the Capitol film's release date as 2006, rather than 2005, based on a German release date.

Looking at the release dates for this film , you can see that this movie has been released in '05, '06, '07, '08

(in USA and UK) and '09, yet IMDB considers it a 2005 release because it was first released in 2005 in the UAE, which technically makes this fit your criteria.

Another piece of trivia: the Dominion film was first (August '05, versus Capitol's December '05).

Here is another example of the movies with same name and same release year.

Night Club (1989)

Genre:

Comedy Director: Sergio Corbucci Stars: Christian De Sica, Mara Venier,

Massimo Wertmüller

From IMDb, The nightlife of young carefree friends in a wonderful 60s

Rome Night Club (1989) Genre:

Drama Director: Michael Keusch Stars: Nicholas Hoppe, Elizabeth Kaitan, Ed Trotta

From IMDb, A young married couple try to convert an old warehouse into a nightclub, but face opposition from both the council and local mobsters.

Another example is two of the adaptations of Jane Austen's Emma that came out in 1996, both which retained the name "Emma".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118308/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116191/

In this case, one of them was made for Television in the UK, while the other was made for theaters in the USA.

In 1965, two movies about Jean Harlow, each named "Harlow" were released.

One with Carroll Baker and one with Carol Lynley.

There were two TV movies called 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in 1997.

In addition to Steven Spielberg's 2005 War of the Worlds film, there were two direct-to-video retellings of the story that year.

Black Rain (1989)

Genre:

Drama Director: Shôhei Imamura Stars: Yoshiko Tanaka , Kazuo Kitamura, Etsuko Ichihara From IMDb, Mr and Mrs Shizuma, and their niece Yasuko, make their way through the ruins of Hiroshima, just after the atomic bomb has dropped.

Five years later, Yasuko is living with her aunt and uncle, and her senile grandmother, in a village containing many of the bomb survivors.

Yasuko does not appear to be affected by the bomb, but the Shizuma's are worried about her marriage prospects, as she could succumb to radiation sickness at any time.

Black Rain (1989)

Genre: Action, Crime, Thriller Director: Ridley Scott Stars:

Michael Douglas, Andy Garcia, Ken Takakura

From IMDb, Two NYC cops arrest a Yakuza member and must escort him when he's extradited to Japan.

Question: I was thinking about the typical citation standard for referencing movies, where one writes the title and the release year, in the format " Title  (Release year)" e.g.  Jurassic Park  (1993).  This works quite well, except if there ever is a movie which has the same name as  another movie  that came out during  the same year .  Does there exist an example of two movies with the same name, and same release year?

Have there ever been movies with the same name, released in the same year?

There are a number of cases of films with the same name being released in the same year: Chaos (2005), Night Club (1989), Emma (1996), Black Rain (1989), among others.

There many examples for movies realeased in the same year and under the same title

Drama Director: Michael Keusch Stars: Nicholas Hoppe, Elizabeth Kaitan, Ed Trotta


I just watched the director's explanation and – as I expected although I've not yet seen the film – he intended it to be a playful sign of hope in the face of climate change and endangered species .

Murphy:

How did you decide that he would come across bees?

Villeneuve:

There are a lot of problems with bees in the world right now.

They are disappearing, so the fact that here you can see those creatures still alive and still present, was for me like a little spark of hope in this dystopian universe.

-New York Times, 2017-10-02 , Denis Villeneuve Narrates a Scene From ‘Blade Runner 2049’ , by Mekado Murphy

For background, this is one of many articles available about bees in the face of climate change and how they are endangered .

I interpreted this scene two ways, though I'm not sure the writers intended the second.

In the original movie, Deckard asks Rachael what she would do if a wasp landed on her arm.

She responds immediately that she would kill it; the desired human response.

In the new movie, when a bee lands on K's arm, he doesn't kill.

K stares at it fascinated.

This to me was the most outright indication that K was not Deckard's kid.

Rachael is used as a plot device to blur "what it is to be human.

She was a replicant that, by all rights, was indistinguishable from a human: she had empathy, memories, and functioning reproductive organs.

She basically was human.

So this scene overwhelmingly tells me that K wasn't the same as Rachael, and isn't her child.

This scene takes place at the peak of the script where the audience is supposed to believe he is the child, about to confront his dad, so this scene is a subtle nod to the original and a hint to the audience that he is not the kid.

Bees have been used as air quality control in German airports and have been shown to detect and function as bio-sensor for certain types of radiation.

In the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the radiation moves around through radioactive dust, so the bees could be Deckard's way of monitoring air quality and radiation levels

Although I am sure Livrecache has the right answer, it might be worth mentioning that bees sometimes appear in some of Philip K. Dick's other works so it could also be slight homage.

The Hanging Stranger - Is a short story about Bee People replacing humans.

Cosmic Puppets (revised from A Glass of Darkness) - Is a novel about people who were part of an erased town, who come to remember andtwo characters

have a small proxy war where both characters can onlyfight each other by using insects and some animals including bees,moths, cats, goloms, spiders, snakes, etc Valis - Novel about a lot of things pertaining to God and surveillance, but features mechanical floating bee & fly cameras.

Livrecache's answer would seem to be definitive, based on the Director's comments.

This technique of integrating current issues is a hallmark of speculative fiction, and mirrored in the use of grubworms as a major food source in 2049.

[See: "Starving People Should Eat Bugs" , Business Insider] Concerns over human over-population and food scarcity have resulted in speculation that insects will be an important food source in the future.

In terms of inspiration for the inclusion of bees as a symbol of hope: I wouldn't be surprised if this device was inspired by The Road In Cormac McCarthy's post-apocalyptic allegory, which shares themes relating to humanity, at the end of the book, the Boy notices a living insect.

(I believe it was a beetle.)

In a world where nearly all life has died-off, the re-emergence of the insect is a sign that that the biosphere is recovering, a symbol of hope.

There are excellent answers here, and all I can do is contribute a fragment of one possible interpretation (that surely pales next to those already provided, and might be purely coincidental though I'm not conivinced):

By loose analogy the bees in Blade Runner 2049 may serve as a reference to the standard tune, "A Taste of Honey", which waxes about a love that "awoke [the singer's] heart" with a kiss, and that the singer "will return" one day.

This mirrors Deckard's situation, and one of the notable recordings of this song was done by Billy Dee Williams, who played Harrison Ford's character's best friend (from his youth) from the Star Wars films.

As performed by Williams, the lyrics are: A taste of honeyTasting much sweeter than wineI dream of your first kissAnd

then I feel upon my lips againA taste of honeyTasting much sweeter than wineI will return,

yes I will returnI'll come back for the honey and youYours

was the kiss that awoke my heartThere lingers still, though we're far apartThat taste of honeyTasting much sweeter than wineOh I will return,

yes I will returnI'll come back

(He'll come back)For the honey

(For the honey)And you Further examination of the "bee" motif throughout literature and movies, and how it is interpreted in psychoanalytical contexts, may shed more light on this metaphor, although even concrete evidence as to why it was chosen for the film may never tell the "whole story" of a creative process.

A letter from C. G. Jung from 1934 to an "Elined Kotschnig" ( found here , in Volume

I of the Letters of C. G. Jung) explores how the symbol of bees may have had a particular relevance in one person's dream, but some of the themes discussed therein may be broadly applicable.

Being a historic document of some note, it is also not inconceivable that this letter itself may have had some direct or indirect influence on the film's use of the metaphor.

I would suggest it could be a reference to Sherlock Holmes, another famous literary character whose profession as a consulting detective (not unlike the blade runners who are affiliated with the police) set him on the heels of nefarious evildoers.

In his retirement, he became a beekeeper.

Question: I watched Blade Runner 2049 and while it was gorgeous there were a few things that left me scratching my head:  In one scene, K (Ryan Gosling) is walking through Las Vegas and find a dozen apiaries full of bees. The scene is beautiful, but never explained. I can't imagine that such a detailed movie with so much thought given to each shot has this for no reason. What's the meaning of this scene?

What is the significance of bees in Blade Runner 2049?

Bees have been used as air quality control in German airports and have been shown to detect and function as bio-sensor for certain types of radiation. In the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the radiation moves around through radioactive dust, so the bees could be Deckard's way of monitoring air quality and radiation levels. This scene takes place at the peak of the script where the audience is supposed to believe he is the child, about to confront his dad, so this scene is a subtle nod to the original  and  a hint to the audience that he is not the kid.

Bees have been shown to detect and function as bio-sensor for certain types of radiation

Bees have been used as air quality control in German airports. They have been shown to detect and function as bio-sensor for certain types of radiation. In the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the radiation moves through radioactive dust.


No.

As stated in other answers, Ricky told his father he was gay to disgust him.

What Ricky didn’t know, was his father had been harboring gay feelings himself, which he then tries to bring to fruition with Lester.

Once Lester turns him down and corrects his misinformation about being gay, the Colonel feels overwhelmed with guilt and shame brought on by internalized homophobia and murders Lester to assuage his own feelings.

Ricky couldn’t have possibly known his father would kill Lester.

Ricky knew him as a stern disciplinarian and a control freak, not a murderer.

According to the script, Ricky definitely did not rile up his father to get to get him to murder Lester.

However he did not even say those words just to hurt or piss off his father.

This is something that is not depicted in the movie properly but Ricky actually was trying to break free from his father for a long time and at that moment in the movie, he found out a way to do so.

According to the script - Ricky eyes the Colonel.

He's finally discovered a way to break free from his father, and he can't believe it was this simple.

If it wouldn't have been for the fulfillment of his long cherished desire to get out of the control of his father, Ricky, depicted in the movie as a street smart guy, would have avoided pissing off his father just for momentary pleasure because it would have then made his life even more complicated in the future.

Ricky told his father he was gay to hurt his father by repulsing him the harshest manner he knew how.

Convincing his father he was gay labeled his father an ultimate failure undermining his self defined masculinity as a man and US Marine.

It also burned the bridge and insulated him from any future temptation to return home forcing Ricky to fend for himself from that moment forward, he was sealing his own fate of independence and thus began his ascension into adulthood.

No, Ricky told his father simply to piss his father off, because his father was controlling and condescending, and he knew that would really bother his father.

He didn't know his father would kill Lester because of it.

No.

Ricky didn't tell his father

he was gay

so he could kill lester.

He just wanted to infuriate him.

Frank was gay.

As to why he was disgusted by it, he had probably been in complete denial about his true nature for years.

Many gay people are torn over their sexual orientation.

Adhering to a strict macho military image may have helped Frank mask his true feelings, and he probably considered gay people as being weak and loathsome, while denying he was one.

When he acknowledged his own homosexuality, he, in effect, despised himself and considered his life a failure.

He thought Lester was gay, a secret he's been keeping about himself for a long time.

When Lester spurned his kiss, he was humiliated and enraged.

So he killed lester

Question: During the scene where Jane and Ricky were talking about killing Lester in  American Beauty , Ricky zoomed into Jane's eyes. I understood this as a sign, that Jane was not actually joking about killing her father.  Do you think Ricky told his father, that him and Lester had sex, just because he knew that he would be pissed off and kill him? This would make sense, because Ricky was so obsessed with Jane and he knew she wanted Lester dead.

Did Ricky tell his father he is gay, so he would kill Lester?

Ricky told his father he was gay to hurt his father by repulsing him the harshest manner he knew how. Convincing his father he was gay labeled his father an ultimate failure undermining his self defined masculinity as a man and US Marine. It also burned the bridge and insulated him from any future temptation to return home forcing Ricky to fend for himself from that moment forward, he was sealing his own fate of independence and thus began his ascension into adulthood.

Ricky told his father he was gay to hurt his father by repulsing him in the harshest manner he knew how. Convincing his father of being gay labeled his father an ultimate failure. It also burned the bridge and insulated him from any future temptation to return home.


Are 3D glasses needed?

Yes.

While not as bad as the early days of 3D where viewing without glasses meant red and blue headaches for days, the video will look slightly off.

Note that many films have scenes, not the whole film in 3D, so you may still enjoy the experience overall.

If so are they provided?

Yes.

I am not aware of any theater that doesn't provide glasses.

The glasses will typically fit over prescription eyeglasses without modification.

If they are provided would a better experience be had, by purchasing 3D glasses?

You won't know until you try them--if you intend to make a habit of it

it might be worthwhile, but you run the risk that the technology used for the effect will change and you will have to repurchase your glasses.

So I am

I clueless, what do I need to know before walking up to the counter and purchasing a ticket to a 3D movie?

You may experience eye strain and motion sickness, and possibly discomfort due to poorly fitting glasses.

However it will be a novel experience, and hopefully as enjoyable as seeing a movie in 2D.

If they are provided would a better experience be had, by purchasing 3D glasses?

I wouldn't bother.

There is no one pair of glasses you can buy that

just "does 3D".

There are many different ways to display 3D , all of which would use slightly different glasses.

So basically, if I was hardcore enough to want to do this, I'd have to check every movie beforehand to make sure my glasses were compatible with how that movie's production company decided to encode 3D on the print of the movie sent to my theater (or to pick the right 3D glasses from my stockpile

I had to buy to support every 3D tech in use in the movie industry).

Glasses are required , but are provided .

I don't think buying your own will be worth it—the technology could change over time and may be different between theaters.

Many movies are provided in 3D, but not all scenes from a movie are shot in 3D .

Some CGI effects are slightly different between versions.

This usually does not make a difference and the movie looks great .

However, I prefer Rogue One in 2D because the CGI effects to make actors look young again didn't translate gracefully to 3D (maybe the details were just overlooked by the editors, I don't know).

Some people report motion sickness-type feelings.

It isn't common.

Personal preference: I bet you'll have fun and love it, but nowadays, I always prefer 2D movies: I don't hassle with holding and wearing glasses (especially the weird feeling of having glasses on over my normal glasses); I feel I can "take in" the movie better (see and understand the whole picture at once); and I don't worry about messed up CGI details.

You should be aware that while most people enjoy 3d movies, a significant minority either can't see the 3d effect, or have an adverse reaction to it.

Statistics vary, but about 10% of the population is stereo blind and as many as 1 in 4 report eyestrain, headaches, or motion sickness .

A recent study suggests that only a third of people have no problems at all viewing 3d movies, and that about 20% of 3d movies have technical errors that are likely to cause problems (e.g. scenes with the left and right images swapped).

Don't let that put you off, the chances are you'll be fine, but if you do feel unwell don't feel you have to stay in the cinema and suffer.

The worst experience I ever had in a cinema was trying to watch Avatar in 3d; I wish I'd left after five minutes.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/60547/Bob says reinstate Monica

If you have a vision impairment, you're gonna have a bad time.

The magic in 3D cinema technology relies on relatively good vision in both eyes.

If you have poor vision in even just one eye, you will barely, if at all, see any 3D effects and walk out of the film with a headache.

For people who don't know if their vision impairment is going to get in the way of a 3D film, a good test is to ask yourself if you could/can see the 3D effects on a Nintendo 3DS.

One other thing to keep in mind with current 3D technology is that it depends on stereoscopic vision—each eye sees a slightly different (flat) image, which your brain then integrates into a single, 3 dimensional image.

That might sound obvious, but it means that some folks with particular kinds of vision issues won't be able to see the 3D effect the way it is intended (one of my children has strabismus, and doesn't enjoy 3D movies as a result).

Some individuals may not even be aware of having a minor problem until they try to watch a 3D movie and discover that it doesn't work for them.

So I am

I clueless, what do I need to know before walking up to the counter and purchasing a ticket to a 3D movie?

Other answers already mentioned most of what you need to know, but there is something else you might want to consider.

If you're not comfortable wearing glasses (even if you're just slightly uncomfortable) or simply not used to wearing them, the 3D glasses will make you pretty uncomfortable throughout the entire movie.

I saw the Last Jedi in 3D last week, but I left with a pretty big headache due to this.

It doesn't take away much from the enjoyment from the movie, but it is something to keep in mind.

I personally tend to avoid 3D movies because of this.

Question: There is a movie I want to watch at the theater, it is offered in 3D.  I have never watched a theater movie in 3D, I think I want to try it.  Are 3D glasses needed?   If so are they provided?  If they are provided would a better experience be had, by purchasing 3D glasses?  So I am I clueless, what do I need to know before walking up to the counter and purchasing a ticket to a 3D movie?

What do I need to know before watching 3D for the first time

A  recent study  suggests that only a third of people have no problems at all viewing 3d movies, and that about 20% of 3d movies have technical errors that are likely to cause problems (e.g. scenes with the left and right images swapped). Statistics vary, but about 10% of the population is  stereo blind  and  as many as 1 in 4 report eyestrain, headaches, or motion sickness .

A third of people have no problems at all viewing 3d movies, but 20% have technical problems. 10% of the population is stereo blind, and 1 in 4 report eyestrain, headaches or motion sickness. The worst experience I ever had in a cinema was trying to watch Avatar in 3d. I wish I'd left after five minutes of watching Avatar in three-D  .


Though, the title itself is quite ambiguous , but we can go through the movie plot and conclude it.

Princess Leia is sensitive to the Force, but she is not a Jedi.

She didn't get training as Jedi.

Kylo Ren was trained as Jedi, but he was seduced by the dark side of the Force, so he is not a Jedi.

Rey was just learning the ways of the Force , but wasn't under actual Jedi training.

She might be a Jedi in future, but it's speculation for now.

When master Yoda died in Return of the Jedi , Luke was the last Jedi left.

Here is the conversation between Yoda and Luke.

Yoda: Luke...

Luke...

Do not...

Do not underestimate the powers of the Emperor, or suffer your father's fate, you will.

Luke, when gone am I (cough), the last of the Jedi will you be .

Luke, the Force runs strong in your family.

Pass on what you have learned, Luke... (with great effort) There is...another...

Sky

...Sky...walker.

When Kylo Ren fights with Luke near the end of

The Last Jedi , they have following conversation, Kylo Ren:

And when I kill you, I will have killed the last Jedi .

Luke Skywalker: Amazing.

Every word of what you just said... was wrong.

The Rebellion is reborn today.

The war... is just beginning.

And I will not be the last Jedi .

And the opening crawls of The Force Awakens says, Luke Skywalker has vanished.

In his absence, the sinister FIRST ORDER has risen from the ashes of the Empire and will not rest until Skywalker, the last Jedi , has been destroyed.

So, it is clear that the title is referring to Luke.

Luke Skywalker is referred to as "the last jedi" by the opening crawl of Episode VII:

The Force Awakens: Luke Skywalker has vanished.

In his absence, the sinister FIRST ORDER has risen from the ashes of the Empire and will not rest until Skywalker, the last Jedi, has been destroyed.

The text of the Episode VII opening crawl can be found on this wiki page: "Opening crawl", Star Wars wikia

Rian Johnson, the writer and director, seems to indicate that it is indeed Luke, though he seemed hesitant to do so in April 2017 During a chat with ABC News in April, Johnson wouldn’t confirm the title as a reference to Luke.

“Well, if you say so,” he said to the suggestion.

“I’m gonna take your word for it.

They say in The Force Awakens that he’s going to find the last Jedi temple, and Luke is the last Jedi.”

But another interview in September shows more certainty:

“It’s in the opening crawl of The Force Awakens,” he clarified.

“Luke Skywalker, right now, is the last Jedi..."

At the start of the movie, Luke Skywalker is The Last Jedi.

He is the only Jedi-trained individual in the Galaxy who has not fallen to the dark side.

At the end of the movie, Rey has everything she needs to become a Jedi and train a new generation.

She has the will, the ability to stand up against temptation, and the Jedi tomes stolen before Yoda burned the shrine down (beside the blankets in the Falcon).

There are children throughout the galaxy inspired by the tales of Luke and Rey and companions, including one who force-pulls a broom before striking a pose.

I suspect the real reason of the movie's title is the paradox it evokes: The Last Jedi has died, but he will not be The Last Jedi.

As of the end of The Force Awakens , we believed Luke Skywalker to be the last remaining Jedi in the galaxy.

Even the opening crawl of

The Last Jedi calls him this: Luke Skywalker has vanished.

In his absence, the sinister FIRST ORDER has risen from the ashes of the Empire and will not rest until Skywalker, the last Jedi , has been destroyed.

However, the name of the film is a twist, playing into the surprising (?)

events of the film's end: Luke dies, and in voiceover indicates that he is not the last Jedi.

Camerawork and events happening elsewhere indicate that, instead: Rey is .

Whether you believe this is good storytelling and/or actually makes any logical sense is quite another thing. :)

movies.stackexchange.com/users/4131/Lightness Races in Orbit

Well.

Even though the answers so far make sense, in all foreign translations into languages which differentiate between plural and singular "

The Last Jedi" was translated into the plural form, indicating at least two (arguably Luke and Rey).

The fact that it happened on every possible instance indicates that this was a deliberate top-down decision, though it could just be miscommunication between writers and marketing.

Question: New  Star Wars  film is titled  Star Wars: The Last Jedi . In this movie we can see "Kylo" has Force powers, "Rey" has Force powers at the end and Princess Leia also has Force abilities. Luke Skywalker is already a Jedi.  So, who is the "Last Jedi" referenced in the movie title? Is it:   Luke Skywalker  Kylo Ren  Rey  Princess Leia

Who is the titular "Last Jedi"?

At the start of the movie, Luke Skywalker is The Last Jedi.  He is the only Jedi-trained individual in the Galaxy who has not fallen to the dark side. At the end of the movie, Rey has everything she needs to become a Jedi and train a new generation.  Perhaps the real reason for the movie's title is the paradox it evokes:  The Last Jedi has died, but he will not be The Last Jedi.

The real reason of the film's title is the paradox it evokes:  The last Jedi has died, but he will not be The LastJedi.

At the start of the movie, Luke Skywalker is The Last Jedi. He is the only Jedi-trained individual in the Galaxy who has not fallen to the dark side. At the end, Rey has everything she needs to become a Jedi and train a new generation. But the real reason of the film's title is the paradox it evokes:  The last Jedi has died, but he will not be The LastJedi.


They don't know.

They don't care.

It doesn't matter what were the original colors.

As the movie was filmed in black and white, the set, the costumes, even the makeup was designed to look good in black and white and not to have correct color.

A famous example is the sets of the Addams Family which were built in pink, but the filming rendered them in grim colors.

The emulsion of early films (about 1920s and earlier) was almost completely insensitive to red (reds were rendered as blacks)

but on the other hand, it was overly sensitive to UV.

One can say that the movies were filmed in ultraviolet, so not only the colors were "lost", but even the luminance we see on the film is absolutely nothing like the actors and set looked like to a naked eye.

Here's an excellent article about peculiarities of early-film makeup, (credit to user151841 and 1006a for finding it) which explains how the actors were painted in colors resembling zombies in order to get a lively look on the film.

So when/if black-and-white movies are colorized, it's counterproductive to restore the way they really looked.

The new color has to reflect the way their creators wanted them to look, and there usually is no way to know that but guess.

Coloring process is not about "conversion" at all.

It's an artistic process in which color is added by coloring artist as they see fit and to match to their taste.

There are lots of ways they can determine the colors.

If those movies props are still available, they can take a look at it.

Usually, their descriptions are also available, they can guess the colors using them.

If there is not, then they will guess or see which colors will fit best.

It would depend on the producer or the person deciding on the colors to be original or better for TV.

Furthermore , if any of the production team or actors is available, they can simply ask them.

If they don't know, they can come up with a color that suits that frame.

We know the obvious colors of some things, like a green tree, blue sky, blue water, red blood, white marble (as in your example) etc.

However, besides those methods, colors are guessed and it's an art to select the most suitable color.

They usually do that frame by frame.

And once you know which one to use, you can copy it in other frames.

For example, the color of dresses that characters wear in the subsequent shots.

If you want to know how do they do that, take a look at this question at Signal Processing SE

There are three general situations: For material which was deliberately shot in black and white, there might not be any "true" intended color, so whoever is doing the colorizing may have to invent it.

For material that was shot in color, but for which no color copy survives, someone who is attempting to recreate the original may use any existing references as a basis.

Sometimes black and white films shot from color PAL video sources may end up with a "texture" superimposed upon it from the chroma signal.

Alternating scan lines will be shifted by amount which depends upon the exact hue.

If one merely examined a single character without knowing what color it represented, there would be four combinations of chroma and line phase that could yield it [and each possibility would yield different hues] but looking at a picture as a whole it would usually be possible to figure out which combination "makes sense".

The first situation above represents what's most commonly referred to as "colorization", but it's not the only way of adding color to images captured on black and white film.

First of all, remember that The Wizard of Oz was shot in color (except for the Kansas scenes).

But, for the general case, where the color isn't immediately obvious (sky, water, grass, trees, etc.), you have several resources:

For costumes, you may have access to period clothing, or color photographs of such clothing (such as

these amazing color photographs from Imperial Russia );

For building exteriors and sets, you may have photographs, notes, or descriptions;

Skin tones would be relatively straightforward; But,

yeah, sometimes you may not have an historical resource available, and go with something that a) makes sense, and b) fits in the overall aesthetic.

For example, the actor's tunic in the first image may not have originally been that shade of green, but it's lighter than the vest and yet not pure white.

Same thing with the actress' dress.

The chosen colors may represent something that's known to have been common at the time, and they look good together on the screen.

In the old days of colorizing film was done BY HAND.

Literally painting the negatives and reshooting it to make a new frame.

While color film was expensive, it wasn't for still images and records of the colors used in fabrics, and set pieces allowed them to pic the color they needed.

Now it's digital, software analyzes the gray in the movie and assigns a pixel a certain degree based on light level and darkness.

Thus a color hex pixel is assigned.

Question: In black and white movies that have been remastered to have color, how do they know what colors are what?

How is color determined when colorizing black and white movies?

There are a number of ways to decide colors when changing a black and white film to color. Obviously, the color of some things, like the sky, grass, bloos, etc. is obviously. For clothing, a look at the original props if available can help. Otherwise a good guess. Once a decision has been made, the colors are copied to subsequent frames.

S0: There are lots of ways they can determine the colors.

There are lots of ways they can determine the colors.  Furthermore , if any of the production team or actors is available, they can simply ask them.If you want to know how do they do that, take a look at  this question  at  Signal Processing SE


The last time we saw Hulk, he was overpowered and beaten badly by Thanos.

He doesn't reappear after the Bifrost transport to Earth and refuses to "come out" for Banner.

This is the first time Hulk has ever come up against an opponent that was stronger than him, and this has shocked him to his big green core.

Hulk seems to be afraid.

Even Banner states that Thanos, with the Power stone is already the strongest creature in the universe.

We will likely need to wait for the next Avengers movie to get confirmation but this seems to be the most likely reason based on what we know.

Definitive answer from the directors here:

Hulk doesn't want to fight for people who don't care about him.

Anthony and Joe Russo appeared on a May 6 episode of Happy Sad Confused with Josh Horowitz to talk Infinity War spoilers, and during the episode, they broke down exactly why we got a lot more Banner and a lot less Hulk in Infinity War.

Throughout the movie, Banner tries desperately to bring Hulk out, but the green guy refuses.

But it’s not because the transformation mechanism isn’t working.

“If the Hulk were to say why,” Joe Russo explained, “it’s that Banner only wants Hulk for fighting.

He’s had enough of saving Banner’s ass. ”

“People have interpreted as the Hulk’s scared,” Joe Russo mused, referring to how Thanos soundly defeated him in one-on-one combat in the film’s opening.

“But it’s really reflective of his journey from Ragnarok, that these two characters are constantly in conflict with each other over control.”

It has more to do with the internal conflict between Banner and Hulk than any bruised egos.

To expand on @Dave's answer , Hulk just had a downfall from hubris and isn't dealing with it too well.

Hulk is basically a big ball of emotions with the strength of a titan and the brain of a child.

His sense of self is wrapped up in being the biggest and the strongest and being invulnerable and winning fights.

He's lost fights before, to the Hulkbuster Suit and to Thor, but always after a good fight.

Thanos was different.

Thanos was almost dismissive of Hulk.

Hulk lost to Thanos badly .

Hulk does one thing well and he failed miserably at it.

This calls his entire identity into question.

Hulk's has never felt vulnerable before.

He doesn't know how to deal with it; so he's scared and hiding in his room.

Snow answered it pretty well but Joe Russo also said one more thing: "We have to be careful with the character of Banner," Joe Russo explained. "

Because if every time he's in trouble Hulk saves him, Hulk becomes the hero and he becomes whiny.

We wanted to force Banner to be the hero."

- businessinsider

I actually assumed it was the follow up to the Ragnarok plot point that he might not be able to turn back if he shifted then - which he did.

At the time, he thought he might not be able to turn back into Banner, but I assumed it was the consequence we never had for that in Ragnarok...

(See this article that describes this more clearly and with examples.)

Question: There are two scenes in the movie where Banner calls out to Hulk and Hulk denies him. These events happens after the first Hulk fight where Loki proclaims "We have a Hulk".   One is in New York during the fight with the children of Thanos. The other is in Wakanda.  When Banner called out to Hulk, he simply responds with a curt “Nooo”. What could be the reason?

Why does Hulk act the way he does in Avengers: Infinity War?

Avengers: Infinity War. This is the first time Hulk has ever come up against an opponent that was stronger than him, and this has shocked him to his big green core.

The last time we saw Hulk, he was overpowered and beaten badly by Thanos.  Hulk doesn't reappear after the Bifrost transport to Earth and refuses to "come out" for Banner. This is the first time Hulk has ever come up against an opponent that was stronger than him. Even Banner states that Thanos, with the Power stone is already the strongest creature in the universe.


This may be a reference to an obscure "trend" from Scotland.

The Glasgow Stonner Kebab

"The Stonner", a 1,000-calorie, deep fried pork sausage kebab has been dubbed the most dangerous fast food in Britain.

The connection is that Vision and Scarlet Witch are hiding in Edinburgh, Scotland and they got to make a reference to a local 10+ year old fast food trend.

Reading the article, these are indeed deep fried and not very good for you.

Probably only Hulk or Cull Obsidian should eat one while everybody else sticks to Chicken Schwarma

It just lets you know they are in Scotland.

If they were in Paris they might sit in a café somewhere that had the Eiffel Tower in view.

If they were in New York they might have yellow cabs going by or perhaps

if they wanted to indicate that they were in New York prior to 2001 they'd be somewhere

you could see the World Trade Centre.

All of these things let the audience get a sense of where in the world characters are.

While deep fried kebabs specifically are more of a Glasgow thing than an Edinburgh thing, Scots are well-known for their deep-frying of food that most people would not, so it serves as a signifier of the location just as a red double-decker bus would in London, and so on.

The St Andrew's Cross flag on the poster also serves the same story-telling purpose.

It's no different in this regard than Captain Rogers running laps past Sam Wilson at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in

The Winter Soldier telling us that the action is taking place in Washington DC, and so on, but people are making a bit more of a deal out of it because the Scottish fondness for deep-fried food, often already highly calorific and fatty even before it was fried, is something that amuses a lot of people already.

Within about a minute of this scene, at 38:02 into the movie, the Vision is impaled through the chest by Corvus Glaive's spear.

Like a kebab.

The scene is filmed in Edinburgh (this particular shot appears to be looking up Cockburn (pronounced coh-burn)

Street towards the Royal Mile, with other parts of the scene in the same area (including on the Royal Mile at the top of the street and Waverley Station at the bottom of it).

Throughout Scotland

the deep fried battered Mars Bar has become something of a meme (for good reason, they're delicious!)

in the last 20-30 years, with some fryers offering to deep fry anything from confectionery to Christmas dinners.

Some fryers are reluctant to fry chocolate (as it tends to come through the batter into the oil), but more will be prepared to fry savoury items (kebabs, pizzas).

(If you really want to maximise saturated fat intake, deep fried pizza whether battered or not is a good way to do so!)

Presumably this poster was put in shot to anchor the location as a Scottish city with a popular but not too cliched meme, (e.g. avoiding highland dress, bagpipes, haggis, heather and shortbread)

As discussed in other answers, it appears to have been placed as a fun reference to Scottish food culture.

See this list from The Telegraph, which includes such things as deep fried pizza on a list of 'Scottish Delicacies', as an example of the view of Scottish food.

The takeaway shop unit was set up for the film and isn't genuine.

If you are looking for the fast food shop that promises to "deep fry your kebab", you will be sadly disappointed.

These signs were set up specifically for Avengers: Infinity War, and were promptly dismantled after filming wrapped up. from https://edinburgh.org/edinburgh-on-film/filmed-in-edinburgh/avengers-infinity-war

Here's a quote from VisitScotland regarding the sign:

“The Marvel films are well-known for their tongue-in-cheek humour and it’s great to see the filmmakers having fun and playing on Scotland’s real quirky culinary creation, the deep fried Mars Bar, which has enjoyed something of a cult following among visitors,” Film and Creative Industries manager Jenni Steele told us. from https://junkee.com/deep-fried-kebab-avengers/156362

Question: In  Avengers: Infinity War , we see a poster about Scotland's deep fried kebab for a significant amount of time:   Is there any significance to it? Or is it just random?  Note: Inspired from  CinemaSins

What was the significance of the deep fried kebab poster in Infinity War?

The poster of the deep fried kebab in Avengers: Infinity War is probably a meme used to anchor the acyion in Scotland. It is a reference to the Scottish culinary habit of deep frying anything which started with the Mars Bar.

The Glasgow Stonner Kebab appears to be a reference to the scene being filmed in Edinburgh. The deep fried battered Mars Bar has become a popular meme in Scotland. Some fryers offer to deep fry anything from confectionery to Christmas dinners. Some are reluctant to fry chocolate, as it tends to come through the batter into the oil. The poster appears to have been placed as a fun reference to Scottish food culture. It appears to anchor the location as a Scottish city with a popular but not too cliched meme, (e.g. avoiding highland dress, bagpipes, haggis, heather and heather)


Why would they do it?

As you said, they hate Harry.

They want to be away from him as much as possible, and all he represents (i.e., Wizardry).

The Dursleys want to be normal above all else.

They want to be regarded as successful, but anything crazy sounding is a big no-no for them.

Mr and Mrs Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much.

They live much better by ignoring Harry and pretending he doesn't exist at all.

The Dursleys had everything they wanted, but they also had a secret, and their greatest fear was that somebody would discover [...] about the Potters.

Also, who would believe them if they said Wizards existed?

No one.

Child protective services would arrive much sooner than a squad of scientists to study poor Harry.

The Dursleys don’t want people knowing.

The Dursleys would never want to expose magic to the world, because they never wanted anyone to find out about their unusual relatives.

They were afraid of that happening, and intensely wanted to avoid it.

“The Dursleys had everything they wanted, but they also had a secret, and their greatest fear was that somebody would discover it.

They didn’t think they could bear it if anyone found out about the Potters.

Mrs Potter was Mrs Dursley’s sister, but they hadn’t met for several years; in fact, Mrs Dursley pretended she didn’t have a sister, because her sister and her good-for-nothing husband were as unDursleyish as it was possible to be.

The Dursleys shuddered to think what the neighbours would say if the Potters arrived in the street.”

- Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Chapter 1

(The Boy Who Lived)

They certainly wouldn’t reveal that secret by telling people that magic exists and they know about it themselves.

They took pride in their normalcy, and wouldn’t want to be known as being involved in anything so unusual and abnormal as wizards and magic.

“Mr and Mrs Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much.

They were the last people you’d expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn’t hold with such nonsense.”

- Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Chapter 1

(The Boy Who Lived) Telling people magic exists would be the exact opposite of what the Dursleys would want to do - they wanted it, and more importantly their tangential involvement with it, to stay secret.

They have no motive.

It wouldn't benefit them, other than spite, and although it wouldn't be out of character for them to act out of spite, they seem to be more wanting to ignore the wizarding world than harm it.

They are living in denial.

For the first ~10 years of Harry's residence, they simply pretended that magic didn't exist, and after he started attending Hogwarts, they tried as best they could to continue doing so.

They don't have much in the way of proof.

The wizarding world isn't going to do magic in front of them while they're holding a camcorder, and even if they got proof, the wizarding world likely could get rid of it.

That just leaves the Dursleys ranting like crazy people about wizards and witches.

They know little about the magic world.

When Harry first comes home from Hogwarts, they are afraid around him, worried about what magic he can do, until they find out that he'll get in trouble if he does magic outside of school.

Clearly, no one's going out their way to explain everything to them.

Maybe they can't be obliviated, but they don't know that, nor do they know whether there's anything else can be done to them.

If I'm not mistaken, in the "Harry Potter" books it was made clear that the Dursleys despised everything out of ordinary and one of their main aspirations in life was to be perfectly normal.

So they would definitely not want to do something as eccentric, as saying that wizards and witches exist.

Vernon's personality is described as very much in favor of normality.

He would much prefer to pretend magic doesn't exist.

As for Petunia, the magical world killed her sister.

She has chosen to consciously forget about it because it's too painful.

Question: We see in the Harry Potter universe, wizards or witches keep obliviating Muggles/No-Majs, because otherwise it may lead to chaos or persecution of witches/wizards.    However, the Dursley family cannot be obliviated since they have to give Lily's protection to Harry. Obviously they did not like Harry, so why did they not expose the magic world?

Why didn't the Dursleys make witchcraft and wizardry public?

movies.stackexchange.com/users/63699/Zaid Syed M Md

The Dursleys would never want to expose magic to the world, because they never wanted anyone to find out about their unusual relatives. They didn’t think they could bear it if anyone found out about the Potters. Mrs Potter was Mrs Dursley’s sister, but they hadn’t met for several years; in fact, Mrs Dursley pretended she didn’t have a sister, because her sister and her good-for-nothing husband were as unDursleyish as it was possible to be.  (The Boy Who Lived)   Telling people magic exists would be the exact opposite of what the Dursleys would want to do - they wanted it, and more importantly their tangential involvement with it, to stay secret.

The Dursleys had a secret, and their greatest fear was that somebody would discover it. They didn't think they could bear it if anyone found out about the Potters. They took pride in their normalcy, and wouldn't want to be known as being involved in anything so unusual and abnormal. Telling people magic exists would be the exact opposite of what they would want to do. They wanted it, and more importantly their tangential involvement with it, to stay secret. They wouldn't reveal that secret by telling people that magic exists and they know about it themselves. They were the last people you'd expect to be involved with anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn't hold with such nonsense. The Dursley's secret is revealed in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Chapter 1


Now that the movie is released we can finally really answer it:

it's a combination of projectors and drones, controlled by Mysterio

I saw this picture on reddit which was interesting.

Looks like it could be hydro-man since the reference is there.

Credit - https://www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/agtvu1/do_movie_trailer_details_count/

He could be named Hydro-Man

As Mr Sunday Movies noted in his trailer breakdown , there is a shot showing a boat with the name: ASM 212 Which is likely a reference to The Amazing Spider-Man , Volume 1, Issue 212, which featured the "Wet Threat of Hydro-Man!"

It's possible that the villian will be named similarly in the film.

Similarly, the other villain's identity may be The Molten Man , evidenced through a number plate that refers to a Spider-Man issue, released on September 28, 1965.

No one knows for sure at the moment What we do know is that The Elementals are in it.

Because...

well...

Who else could it be?

Magnum and Hellfire for sure are shown in the trailer.

And it'd be pretty confusing to moviegoers if they introduced both Hydro-Man and The Elementals at the same time.

However, they have similarities and so the talk on the street is that it's going to be Hydro-Man in The Elementals, replacing Hydron.

It's currently unclear, but IGN has a good breakdown of history of the character vs the elements and what they could do and why:

Oh, and there's also a guy called Hydro-Man who may or may not be in the mix here as well, so we'll talk about him too!

(It seems likely that he has been combined with Hydron for Far From Home, or we just aren't sure which water-based baddie

the film is using at this point.) ...

Yes, OK, it’s going to be Mysterio at some point, surely, but before that, another enemy rearing his wet head might be none other than Hydro-Man!

Given his powers, it’s highly likely that the movie will retrofit Hydro-Man into the Elementals, perhaps replacing Hydron and thus giving the team of villains a leader with a bit more name recognition.

You don’t remember him either?

Does that mean we have to…OK, then!

Question: Who is the Water villain being shown in the  Spider-Man: Far From Home  (2019)  trailer?  Is that Hydro-Man or an Elemental?

Who is the water villain shown in Spider-Man: Far From Home trailer?

The water villain shown in Spider-Man: Far From Home trailer could be Hydro-Man.

Hydro-Man could be a reference to The Amazing Spider-Man Volume 1, Issue 212. The other villain's identity may be The Molten Man, evidenced by a number plate that refers to a Spider- man issue. "Wet Threat of Hydro-Man!" featured in the issue.


Iron Man is constantly tinkering, and each suit evolution gets a new name - Mark 1 was built in the cave in the mountains, Mark 2 was built in his lab and has tech to deal with the icing problem etc.

In this scene, he is developing the Mark 42 suit ( https://ironman.fandom.com/wiki/Mark_42 ).

The suit can arrive in multiple pieces that can slot on individually, "tuned" to Tony, and even obey remote commands originating from Tony, and from great ranges - beyond just an AI being controlled by Jarvis.

The injections he is putting into himself seem to be part of that tech.

It's either a substance or a chip that is being injected into his forearm, to interface with his body - likely a neural interface.

Consider the following results: His initial gesture/command does not work as expected.

After tapping/awakening his arm, it does work.

This could be a direct result on the substance/chip itself, in the same vein as slapping a TV to get it to work, or slapping his forearm, designed to stimulate neural activity .

When he is asleep, and having nightmares about New York, he manages to "call" to the suit in his sleep - a direct connection to his brain activity.

The suit similarly "called" when he is imprisoned, from across the country.

In almost all of these instances, we are visibly shown a physical gesture (the sleep one not so much, but we are cutting in and out of flashback).

What Tony is injecting are the Subcutaneous Implants for controlling Mark 42, otherwise known as: JARVIS:

Mark 42, inbound.

Tony: I'll be damned.

The prodigal son returns.

Source: Springfield!

Springfield@ - Iron Man 3

The Mark 42 also features the unique ability to control itself when Tony Stark isn't inside his suit or when Mark 42 is A.I-deactivated.

The Subcutaneous Implant in Tony's forearms allow the armor to communicate with his nervous system helping the armor follow his commands.

Any action done by Stark is imitated by Mark 42 if he connects with it.

Source: Mark 42 >

Armor Capabilities > Subcutaneous Implants

we see the Mark 42 in the workshop at the start of the film and

after injecting himself we see him try to put on the suit.

where the wiki says it imitates tony's actions

we know it does more than that as Tony used it to fool Pepper that he was wearing the suit sitting in the lounge when really he was still in his workshop working on stuff

and when they are sleeping the Mark 42 enters the room and looks as if it's about to attack Pepper before Tony takes up, commands it to power down and then does a sorta sword slash motion which causes it to fall into the individual components.

so despite The Subcutaneous Implant being in his arms it seems to also be tied mentally to him and can react to certain moves by Tony (which as the sword cutting move he did in bed)

Is it ever explained, either in the movie or the comic book source, what he's injecting, and why he needed to rub it to get it to work?

i'm not sure where it's referenced to outside the wiki but

according to This Quora question on the same topic [the Subcutaneous Implants is] the equivalent of what "Extremis" was in the comic storyline.

so chances are the comic fans worked this out In regards to the rubbing, he's more cleaning his arm of from what i assume is blood after the injections, as for the sorta tapping/slapping either it's either sorta moving the implant(s) around to spread them out a bit more he's trying to mask the pain.

we see him saying "owe" when J.A.R.V.I.S is counting and J.A.R.V.I.S stopped counting at 47 and i think Tony does 2 more.

so he injected himself like 49 times

and they don't seem painless.

While the “technical” in-universe answer is he’s injecting subcutaneous implants to control the Mark42 armor, Stark performs many technical tasks they don’t show us on screen.

The entire Iron Man 3 storyline is about

addiction - Tony is addicted to his legion of suits, all the baddies are addicted to Extremis...

Showing Tony “shooting up”, basically, is a very direct filmmaker statement to that effect.

He’d be doing the same thing if he were shooting up (you slap to get a vein, and lick for a very crude sterilization).

See

The Addiction Of Tony Stark, Why Won’t Anybody Help Him or any other number of analyses of the movie for more in-depth on this.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/8399/mxyzplk - SE stop being evil

The answer starts with the previous year's movie, The Avengers , in the famous "offer Loki a drink " scene (cued up).

Note the bracelets he is clipping onto his wrists.

Continue watching that clip.

About 90 seconds later, Stark is thrown out a window by Loki.

The "Mark VII" suit knocks over Loki in hot pursuit.

The Mark VII locks onto the bracelets and wraps itself around Tony, just in time to brake his fall.

The bracelets are essential to the suit latching on to him .

Now, there's an obvious disadvantage, in that he has to wear those bracelets.

Wouldn't implants be nicer?

So let's return to the present movie.

In the very scene you speak of, around 00:05:17, he speaks the following: Micro-repeater implanting sequence complete.

That is exactly what those are: an implanted version of the bracelets.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/55308/Harper - Reinstate Monica

I didn't see the movie since months but from memory he injects the tracking chips that define the anchor points of his mobile armor when he calls it remotely.

So, you know, the crotch part doesn't anchor itself on his face by accident.

I guess he licks

/rubs it because the chip didn't align properly on the first try and he does this to put it in the right place.

Question: In the beginning of  Iron Man 3  (2013) , Tony injects something into his forearm.  He then attempts to get his suit to come to him.  After it fails, he licks his arm, rubs it and tries again, at which time it works.  Is it ever explained, either in the movie or the comic book source, what he's injecting, and why he needed to rub it to get it to work?

What is Tony Stark injecting into himself in Iron Man 3?

In Iron Man 3, Tony Stark injects himself with implanter version of the bracelets he wears for the Mark VII suit to latch on to him.

The answer starts with the famous "offer Loki a drink" scene from The Avengers. Tony Stark's bracelets are essential to the suit latching on to him. In the very scene you speak of, around 00:05:17, he speaks the following:    Micro-repeater implanting sequence complete. That is exactly what those are: an implanted version of the bracelets. The "Mark VII" suit wraps itself around Tony just in time to brake his fall.


Some info (mostly speculation) is available in this article : From Dunne’s comments and those schematics, this looks to be a spear-like weapon that can unscrew into being two short-range stabbing weapons as well.

Essentially, a double-ended spear that can also act as two daggers.

One tip is definitely dragonglass—we can tell that from Arya’s schematics.

Is the other end using her Valyrian steel dagger blade?

Is that flame?

Just an ornate handle?

Unlikely just a handle—that doesn’t seem like Arya’s style.

We’ve actually probably already seen Arya using this weapon in a few brief shots from the Season 8 trailer.

Tommy Dunne, the weapons master for Game of Thrones , has the following to say on what is almost certainly the weapon Arya asks Gendry to make:

In a recent interview with Vanity Fair’s “Still Watching” podcast, Thrones weapons master Tommy Dunne teased what is very likely this new blade: “There is one creation in Season 8 that is absolutely phenomenal.

It’ll be a showstopper.

That was great to finish.

It was great to make, great to design in that it was able to be reverse-engineered and made into two different items.”

Vanity Fair, Game of Thrones:

Gendry Is Making Arya a “Showstopper” Weapon As of now we don't know what it actually is, and all we have to go off is the schematic and Dunne's comments.

That said the schematic shows two pieces that fit together and can come apart with one end being tipped in dragonglass so it is likely a long weapon that can be split into two dagger like weapons.

Everybody seems to assume it's a spear - it's not, primarily, and she doesn't seem to use it as such most of the time.

Of course, it's sharp at both ends so you can poke it at people [

using dragon glass so would be effective against wights as well as humans], but that's not really how we see her use it.

Her weapon is basically the stick she learned to use so well fighting the waif in Bravos - with two pointy ends to stick them with as well.

This is all her years of training being put to use.

She used it to great effect on top of Winterfell's walls...

She split it in half when she first moved indoors, into more restricted space, but mainly she still wielded it like her stick.

I'd say ninja-style, even though that's not a discipline that exists in this world.

Why it was splittable

I'm not really sure about.

She split it when she went indoors, very briefly, but the next time we see her she's re-assembled it.

I checked some timings...

She actually loses the 'posh stick' as she dives over some wights down a flight of stairs, and is not seen again with it.

[cross-ref to https://movies.stackexchange.com/a/100243/25773 with gif]

She doesn't have it when she jumps off the parapet onto the sloped roof.

When we next see her again indoors, she picks up a dragon glass dagger from the floor behind some fallen furniture.

She keeps this right through the library scene & the chase afterwards.

She loses that when she's rescued by Dondarrion.

So she splits the stick for an entire 10 seconds & that's it.

All that for 10 seconds

She has the stick from 39:40, splits it at 40:00

She goes out of shot with it still split at 40:11 & the next time we see her

it's back together again at 40:18.

I first thought it split to be a long stick & a dagger, but it does split into two unequal sizes.

Splitting to a dagger didn't quite make sense to me, as she already was known to be carrying a Valyrian steel dagger; the one originally used on the attempt on Bran's life... ...and used, rather appropriately in the end, to kill the Night King and save Bran.

From comments -

In the godswood she doesn't have the stick at all [see timings above]

she has only the Valyrian steel dagger, which she drops from one hand and catches in the other.

While i cannot be certain, it appears it may be an Atl-atl or a Spear

Thrower

The user holders on end using a lever or rope to then propel the spear faster and further.

the spear itself is shorter and expendable so

perhaps that is what she wants.

the design doesn't look quite right for one but it looks similar at least I'll be honest its a bit of a stretch

but it was what first came to my mind when i saw it

It's a Dragonglass Spear according to the HBO - Making Game of Thrones website.

As of S08E03, "The Long Night", it is shown to be a spear with a dragonglass head at both ends and can be separated in the middle to be two shorter spears.

Question: In season 8 episode 1, Arya asks Gendry to forge her a dragonglass weapon (which we can see drawn).  What is the purpose of this weapon?

What is Arya's weapon design?

Arya's weapon in GOT season 8 episode 1 is essentially, a double-ended spear that can also act as two daggers,one tip is definitely dragonglass.

Some info (mostly speculation) available in  this article. Essentially, a double-ended spear that can also act as two daggers. One tip is definitely dragonglass.


It seems they were a kind of Easter-Egg.

In the novels, we received a long narrative about the elephants of The Golden Company, which was left out of the show.

In George R. R. Martin’s fifth GOT novel, A Dance With Dragons, we learn of The Golden Company through a rather long-winded side story that has thankfully been cut from the HBO show lest it get even more complicated.

Someone in the writer’s room clearly wasn’t happy with this decision, and so decided to throw in an elephant-sized easter egg for viewers who have also read the series so far.

Cersei’s need for elephants in the Game Of Thrones

premiere comes directly from the books - Metro UK

So, it seems like this is a special Easter-Egg for those who have read the series.

Elephants are always a funny kind of weapon Having a big weapon on your side is a terrible advantage.

Elephants are a good historical example: while they don't deal a lot of damage per se, they are terrible for enemy morale.

You can only have a few, and each of them won't deal a lot of damage.

But if you are on the other side, that's another topic.

Gosh, an elephant charging me!

Ok, so if we all keep the formation, the elephant will crush on our spear formation.

Sure, there will be casualties, but we will win.

The only thing we had to do is keep our formation.

Hey, what is Joe doing?

he can't escape the battle, can he?

Whatever, he was a coward.

We can keep formation without him.

But, wait, Jack is also fleeing!

He was the best of us.

If even he thinks we are lost...

But we need to keep the formation!

Oh, no, some others are also running.

The formation just broke up, the odds are very bad for me.

Yep, better run for my life.

Even if the elephant wouldn't do that much damage, it crushes the enemy formation, and you can now deal much more damage.

Why on earth wouldn't you want such a weapon?

Sure, the enemy also have a huge weapon, but that won't ensure that the foot soldiers will keep the formation.

And it's because she doesn't have dragons that she wants a similar, smaller armed animal that can afraid the enemy.

So that we don't expect elephants Golden company is well-known for their elephants.

Harry Strickland is proud of them, and as it's the final season, we expect massive battles.

This scene is also a way for showrunners to tell the spectators to don't expect any elephant.

Sorry, all CGI budget was burned on dragons.

Cyvasse G.R.R Martin is a massive chess fan, even working as a chess event organiser .

As a result, there are clear chess influences in A Song of Ice and Fire, the main one being Cyvasse .

It is suspected by many book readers that the outcomes of " on page " games, particularly those played by Tyrion, are of a prophetic nature.

Two of the most notable pieces are Dragons and Elephants.

Clearly, there is a potential for symbolism here with Targaryens (Dragons) and The Golden Company (Elephants).

Cyvasse isn't shown in the Game of Thrones world, so no in-show cyvasse prophecies will be fulfilled.

However, the story is based on the books so there is a very, very small chance that book readers could extrapolate on some of these prophecies on shoe horn them into the books.

The one that springs to mind is the Golden Company's missing Elephants .

Essentially, this would boil down to an Easter Egg for book readers but with a little more significance than, for example, Arya's Rat Cook pie.

I don't think it was an easter-egg or a joke.

Cersei demanded Elephants from Euron Greyjoy, because she wanted to give him an impossible task.

She would win either way, if Euron delivered or not.

Euron Greyjoy is obviously obsessed with fame, power and, for some weird reason, also with impregnating Cersei.

Knowing that, Cersei is full-on using his blind quest for power in her advantage to get as much military reinforcement as possible.

I bet even an office sitter like Cersei knows that transporting elephants with ships is a pretty heavy task.

But since she is not to keen on giving Euron the feeling, he did everything she ever wanted, she demanded elephants anway.

Best case: "Yay, elephants for my army."

Worst case: "

Oh you did not fulfill my request

.. guess you don't get to sit by my side then.

I'll take the rest of your army anyway, btw.

This does not fully explain why Cersei let Euron sleep with her in the end, anyway.

But I think she had a change of heart (figuratively, she obviously does not have a heart)

when Euron returned with his army, because she knew she was already pregnant and could probably use him some more.

(Does it show how little I think of Cersei?)

The scene you're talking about showed Cersei get visibly upset at the fact the Golden Company was only 20,000 strong.

Her mention of elephants was more like "did you at least bring tanks to the war?"

Since it's only mentioned once, and the captain quickly lets her know they don't have them, then these would seem more of something said out of spite than a real concern.

Question: In  Game of Thrones  S08E01, Cersei was so disappointed for not getting elephants and it's being part of so many memes and jokes now.  But why do elephants matter? Her competition/rivalry is with Daenerys/Starks etc. And they have dragons. So what purpose would elephants fulfill? What is the significance of this obsession?

Significance of Cersei's obsession with elephants?

Cersei's obsession with elephants could be related to Cyvasse as G.R.R Martin is a massive chess fan. As a result, there are clear chess influences in A Song of Ice and Fire, the main one being  Cyvasse . Two of the most notable pieces are Dragons and Elephants. However,  Cyvasse isn't shown in the Game of Thrones world, so no in-show cyvasse prophecies will be fulfilled.  However, the story is based on the books so there is a  very, very  small chance that book readers could extrapolate on some of these prophecies on shoe horn them into the books.

G.R.R Martin is a massive chess fan, even working as a chess event organiser. As a result, there are clear chess influences in A Song of Ice and Fire. Cyvasse isn't shown in the Game of Thrones world, so no in-show cyvasse prophecies will be fulfilled. However, the story is based on the books so there is a very, very small chance that book readers could extrapolate on some of these prophecies on shoe horn them into the books. The one that springs to mind is the  Golden Company's missing Elephants.


Because this is that one win scenario among 14 million futures Doctor Strange saw.

As director Joe Russo explains , Q:

In IW, Thanos used the time stone to reverse the time so he could the already dead Vision, and it didn’t cause any time parallax.

Why did no one use time stone to save Iron Man’s life in EG?

A:

It’s because even if you save Iron Man, it will still not change the fact that Thanos will eventually win the war.

Among the 14 million possibilities that Doctor Strange has seen, Iron Man’s sacrifice is a must for that one win scenario.

If Dr.

Strange tries to reverse time on Iron man, then he also reverses the snap and Thanos would be back again.

This is exactly correct.

Everyone using the Vision example as to supposedly suggest what Dr. Strange could do for Iron Man are disproving their own theory.

> Thanos wants to turn back time for stone, but must bring back Vision to do so.->

If strange uses time stone to turn back time for Iron man and undo snap, he must bring back Thanos in order to do so.

Because there's been more than enough meddling and destruction for one day By the point that Iron Man defeats Thanos and his minions with his own 'snap', there has already been massive loss of life, risk to the Earth, and interferences in time.

There is an argument here that Doctor Strange could re-appropriate the Time Stone and attempt to use it to reverse the physical damage Stark suffered from using the Infinity Stones.

However, if there was any risk that such an action could reverse Iron Man's decisive 'snap', then that risk is simply unacceptable .

Even if Strange was minded to attempt such an action, he would almost certainly have been blocked or dissuaded by the other heroes who would be fearful of re-entering the nightmare scenario of Thanos's invasion again.

The only action that is carried out with the Infinity Stones after Iron Man's 'snap' is their careful restoration to their various points in time by Captain America, in keeping with the original 'time heist' plan.

In the case of Hulk's damages, Joe Russo told : He's lost an arm (...)

That's permanent damage, the same way it was permanent damage with Thanos: It's irreversible damage.

From that we can conclude that even if Thanos didn't heal himself after the first snap in IW, that suggest that Time Stone can't manage to heal wound caused by Stones themself.

Time Stone alone can't undo what multiple stones did.

Doctor Strange had watched 14,000,605 possibilities and their was only one scenario in which they won.

Let's assume for a moment that Dr.

Strange did restored tony's wounds, and Tony Stark lives ... what would happen then?

Tony is the 'Futurist' in the MCU and he can't help but keep thinking on how to make the world a better place but we did saw where his intelligence led

(Ultron was his fault and all the death caused by Ultron is ultimately on him.....

Then he forced the avengers to keep together while he could have done that by explaining the future risks he feared and trusting his freinds...and as Cap said that tony tries to win the war before it starts and people end up dying and it's all their fault.....).

I'm not a hater of Tony Stark, he is definitely a great character and its his flaws and mistakes that make him able to learn.

But Dr.

Strange might have saw a danger in Tony being alive.

Moreover, messing with time can break the space time continnum as explained in MCU.

Maybe there is more to the character of Tony Stark than just being alive.

Maybe he can become a symbol or return as a fully independent working A.I

Tony Stark n fill in the gap created by Tony himself.

Hope he returns as A.I though.

Future movies might address this issue.

Question: At the end of the final battle in  Avengers: Endgame , Tony is damaged from the snap. All the stones are right there, and there are no bad guys left to distract Dr. Strange.  Why doesn't Dr. Strange use the time stone to reverse Tony's wounds?

Why doesn't Dr. Strange use the time stone to do this?

There is an argument here that Doctor Strange could re-appropriate the Time Stone and attempt to use it to reverse the physical damage Stark suffered from using the Infinity Stones.  However, if there was  any  risk that such an action could reverse Iron Man's decisive 'snap', then that risk is  simply unacceptable . Even if Strange was minded to attempt such an action, he would almost certainly have been blocked or dissuaded by the other heroes who would be fearful of re-entering the nightmare scenario of Thanos's invasion again. The only action that is carried out with the Infinity Stones after Iron Man's 'snap'  is their careful restoration to their various points in time by Captain America, in keeping with the original 'time heist' plan.

Because there's been more than enough meddling and destruction for one day.  By the point that Iron Man defeats Thanos and his minions with his own 'snap', there has already been massive loss of life, risk to the Earth, and interferences in time. Doctor Strange could re-appropriate the Time Stone and attempt to use it to reverse the physical damage Stark suffered from using the Infinity Stones. But if there was any risk that such an action could reverse Iron Man's decisive 'snap' then that risk is simply unacceptable.


Daenerys has decided to rain fire on the keep already, which prompts Grey Worm and the Unsullied to attack.

Jon does not command the Unsullied, so it is reasonable that they would not respond to his commands to hold back.

Once the Unsullied begin attacking, the Lannister army begins attacking back to defend themselves, and chaos ensues.

Jon alone is telling everyone to stop while the queen of the land and her army are attacking anyway, so Jon's men get caught up in the chaos and fighting.

Even Jon himself is forced to kill Lannister soldiers in order to defend himself in the craziness.

It's not unheard of in war for this sort of chaos to cause men to do all kinds of unthinkable things, and this is what we see happening with the soldiers of the North.

We see Jon try to stop one of them, but the man refuses to be stopped and Jon is forced to kill him in order to save the civilian woman.

In the bloodbath and chaos, orders are no longer relevant.

That's how invading cities looks like

All we know from historical experience shows that this is pretty much the default expected result if a city gets invaded as opposed to a clean surrender - the soldiers "take their share" in violence, loot and sex

; officer's orders get ignored, and officers who try to enforce order in such a scenario (as Jon did) are at risk of getting attacked by their own men (as Jon did) and murdered by them; there are historical examples of respected officers dying that way.

That's how real war looks like

, that's the nature of men at war, as shown time and time again in practice.

It takes unusual, exceptional circumstances and/or extraordinary discipline to prevent that.

There are historical examples of "clean takeovers", but they're exceptions from the usual course of events.

The Unsullied had a reputation of having that unusual discipline and probably could resist that temptation if their leadership hadn't shown them that they (Dany and Gray Worm) desire to raze the city, however 'armies of the North' (much less the Dothraki)

definitely would not.

They're not even "Jon's men" from Winterfell, they're multiple disjoint bands of bannermen from different places, there's definitely many people just like those who fought for Boltons.

The presence of large numbers of disciplined Unsullied could have prevented these events if they chose to enforce that, but Gray Worm chose the opposite.

It would be sloppy unrealistic writing if the invasion of King's Landing didn't degenerate in such bloody looting without a strong reason.

This is mentioned in the Inside the Episode here:

The utter chaos has led to a moral free-for-all.

This is meant to portray Jon as a morally superior character in juxtaposition to the terrible deeds done by ordinary soldiers.

Probably because the North had suffered a lot because of the Lannisters, and it was time for payback.

The surrender of the Lannister army was somewhat unconvincing after the tense standoff, so when all hell broke loose again, the rout was on.

The real question is, " Why did Greyworm specifically disobey Daenerys' orders? "

In the battle meeting with Tyrion, Greyworm and Dany, Dany clearly indicates that the Unsullied would retreat upon the ringing of the bells.

Here is the scene, at 16:34 of S8E5, Tyrion to Daenerys: Please, if you hear them ringing the bells, call of the attack.

Daenerys:

*looks to Greyworm and Tyrion and nods curtly, but sincerely** Greyworm: **micro-nod of acknowledgement** This order from Dany is clearly disobeyed by Greyworm when he throws the spear and kills the Lannister Ranking Officer when the Lannister forces have surrendered and the bells are ringing.

This initiates the pillage (not the burning) of King's Landing.

This is completely contradictory to what we known about the Unsullied, being "famed for their skills and discipline in battle" and "They never loot or rape"

1 .

It is worth noting, perhaps Dany meant to burn the city all along, and the retreat of her own forces was necessary to burn the city effectively, without loss or casualty to her own forces.

So, Why did the soldiers of the North disobey Jon? Once the Unsullied, the most disciplined of Dany's force, and Greyworm, the highest ranking general, start attacking it sends a message to all her forces to do so.

It would be very difficult for Jon, amidst the furore and din of the battle, to effectively control the Northmen.

There is of course the remote possibility that there was an off screen conversation between Greyworm and Dany to attack Lannister forces after surrender.

However, there was the opportunity to show this when Dany and Greyworm had a private meeting about Missandei.

Therefore, a secret plan between the two becomes even more a "logical leap".

This leads me to believe that this is not what the show intended to portray, but rather Greyworm initiated a killing spree out of revenge for Missandei.

Insanity in the sky, in form of the dragon pouring fire on civilians and army alike, is mirrored by the insanity on the ground.

After Dany attacks the city, and Lannister's army pick up their swords (after Grey Worm throws his spire), there is a close-combat in city streets.

At that point, everybody got concerned with their own survival, as well as chaos of the war kicked in.

Jon was forced to defend his life by killing enemy, but he has more leveled head than others, and was able to protect civilian from his own soldier (presumably soldier was going to rape civilian).

PS: answering following comment by @sanpaco, borrowing something from them.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/66650/aaaaa says reinstate Monica

Question: In  Game of Thrones  S08E05, we see that soldiers in the Northern army attacking the unarmed Lannister soldiers after they have surrendered. Jon is the warden of the North and he commands the Northern army to not attack. He tells them,   No. Get back. Get back   But no-one seems to obey it. Why did they not follow Jon's command?

Why did the soldiers of the North disobey Jon?

The Army of the North probably disoveyed Jon Snow's command in GOT season 8 because the North had suffered a lot because of the Lannisters, and it was time for payback. The surrender of the Lannister army was somewhat unconvincing after the tense standoff, so when all hell broke loose again, the rout was on.

The North suffered a lot because of the Lannisters, and it was time for payback. The surrender of Lannister army was somewhat unconvincing.


It symbolized the end of monarchy.

Here's a nice little summary.

The red-tinted dragon then unleashes a powerful stream of flame aimed right at the very thing that has been such a point of contention since season one.

He succeeds in melting all the swords down to a bubbling, molten puddle.

Just as Tyrion says later on in the episode when discussing why Bran would make a good king — "Sons of kings can be cruel and stupid as you well know . . .

that is the wheel our Queen wanted to break" — Drogon succeeds in symbolically erasing the idea of a monarchy, whether purposefully or not.

The Meaning Behind Drogon's Fiery Symbolic Gesture in the Game of Thrones Finale - PopSugar

As to whether or not Monarchy is actually gone, in the quote above it is to be interpreted that an elective monarchy is not a monarchy.

Here is Tyrion's quote.

(Tyrion)

From now on, rulers will not be born.

They will be chosen on this spot by the lords and ladies of Westeros to serve the realm.

Game Of Thrones, Season 8, Episode 8

(The Iron Throne)

Speculation: As far as official statements go, there has been no explanation as to Drogon's intentions in melting it.

It looked to me like he was trying to send Jon a message; if Dany couldn't have the throne, no one could.

Lazy writing and symbolism (Daeron explained the symbolism in his answer ).

A couple of in-universe explanations: He was going to incinerate Jon but at the last second decided against it.

He already generated the fire and had to release it, the Iron Throne was simply in the direction of his fire breath by coincidence.

Dragons are very smart, he realized that his mother died because she was chasing the Throne and burned it in rage.

Edit

After watching it again there were two separate fire breaths, Drogon first released the fire he was going to burn Jon with without harming the Irone Throne and then destroyed the throne on purpose with a separate fire breath.

This means the first option is wrong and leaves only the second.

Dareon's answer nails it in terms of symbolism.

My guess on an in-universe answer is that Drogon has spent so much time linked to Dany, he knows the throne was the object that led her to her death.

(Pure speculation, mind you!)

I watched this most emotional scene of the last season and in my opinion the reason is: he did not harm Jon, instead he burnt the Iron Throne because he knew that this throne is the reason behind his mother's death.

If he didn't know, then he would have burnt Jon.

The writer wants to tell the love of child for his mother.

No matter that Drogon is an animal; the love for the mother is same.

And the second case is: he knew his mother loved Jon, so he didn't harm him because Dany would not allowed him, if she was alive.

Initially Drogon had the full intention to incinerate Jon as he felt the pain his mother did in his heart.

The unexpected bitter reality made him cry and he wanted to turn the reason and the person behind it to ashes.

Still he did not harm Jon, but he did burn the Iron Throne because he knew it was the throne Dany had been running after her whole life

and Drogon knew how much the throne meant to her

but when Drogon saw her dead, he burned the throne intentionally as he thought, if Dany could not sit in it, no one ever will.

The love of child for his mother is shown.

His love for his mother is very much like own.

After his brothers' death, she was the only one left to him.

And he guarded her for good.

He allowed Jon to go to her alone just because he knew she loved him, and he loved her and wouldn't harm her.

But as we know, Jon was the one to take her life.

The reason why Drogon didn't harm Jon is that he knew his mother loved Jon, and wouldn't see him harmed.

The other reason was that Jon had Targayren blood and dragons have been ridden by Targayrens for centuries.

So he did not dare kill one of his own.

According to the script , Drogon did intentionally spare Jon, but the Iron Throne was just collateral damage as part of his rampage.

He looks down at Jon.

We see the fire build up in his throat.

Jon sees it as well.

He prepares to die.

But the blast is not for him.

Drogon wants to burn the world but he will not kill Jon.

He breathes fire on the back wall, blasting down what remains of the great red blocks of stone.

We look over Jon’s shoulder as the fire sweeps toward the throne– not the target of Drogon’s wrath, just a dumb bystander caught up in the conflagration.

We look through the blades of the throne as the flames engulf it, and blast the wall behind it.

However, just as Daeron's answer states, that doesn't mean that despite Drogon is NOT consciously aware of its symbolism, that it wasn't symbolically written this way for the story's benefit.

Question: In S08E06 of  Game of Thrones , we see Drogon burn down the    Iron Throne.   Why did he do that? Did he grow a conscience and see that it was a source of evil?

Why did Drogon do this?

The reason why Drogon didn't harm Jon is that he knew his mother loved Jon, and wouldn't see him harmed. According to the script, Drogon did intentionally spare Jon, but the Iron Throne was just collateral damage as part of his rampage.

he knew his mother loved Jon, so he didn't harm him because Dany would not allowed him, if she was alive. The reason why Drogon didn't harm Jon is that he knew his mother loved Jon, and wouldn't see him harmed. The other reason was that Jon had Targayren blood and dragons have been ridden by Targayrens for centuries.

he did not harm Jon, instead he burnt the Iron Throne because he knew that this throne was the reason behind his mother's death.

The writer wants to talk about the love of a child for his mother.

According to the script, Drogon spared Jon intentionally, but the Iron Throne was an incidental casualty of his rampage. Writer wishes to discuss the love of a child for his/her mother. In the second case, his mother loved him, so he couldn't have been harmed if she were still alive. Targaryens have ridden dragons for millennia, and blood has been in his family for generations, writer says. The writer says Drogan would have left Jon unharmed because he knows that his mother loves him, and doesn't want him harmed.


Jon Snow is a man of honor.

It's part of his core personality.

His own personal care is less important for him than being honorable and doing the right thing for the people.

Running away after killing someone (no matter who or what the reasons are) is a very cowardly act, so it's against his very nature.

Also keep in mind he didn't try to run away from the dragon, but instead faced it and was fully prepared to be burned alive as a consequence of his actions.

Another point is the "right thing for the people" part.

Suppose he would have fled and the people found out about what happened when he's away.

The Unsullied would surely act against the people, and likely many people would die until peace is somehow restored.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/106/Shadow Wizard is Ear For You

Because he is a man of honesty and it has been shown in his own words before (from season 7 finale):

"I'm not going to swear an oath I can't uphold.

When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything.

Then there are no more answers, only better and better lies.

And if you go by his arc he can lie and cheat easily to get away many times before but

he will not he is an honest man.

In addition to the other answers, we should remember that Jon was not just in a relationship with Daenerys but was in love with her.

He killed her despite his love for her, because of its importance to everyone's lives; but it was still absolutely heartbreaking for him not only to lose her but to be the cause of that loss.

I would imagine someone in that situation to feel absolutely desolate, to the point of not caring what happens to him next—perhaps even with the feeling that he deserves to and/or wants to die.

In addition to this being precisely in-character for Jon, there is precedent for Daenerys leaving with Drogon.

She did exactly that after the Sons of the Harpy attacked her in the fight pits of Meereen.

And what happened after is that everyone continued what they were doing until Dany returned.

Her regime was upheld, awaiting her return.

The same would have happened in this case.

So even if Jon had gotten away with it without being imprisoned; he would not have actually stopped the atrocities that were going on.

In addition to the other answers which I think are the primary reason (honour), consider that lying probably would have raised more questions anyway.

It would be very odd of her to simply fly away without saying anything, and in time the suspicion would only grow.

Question: Why did Jon admit that he killed Daenerys in  Game of Thrones  S08E06? Why didn't he just tell that she flew away with her dragon? He could say that, escape from the Unsullied and then tell the truth. I understand that there was blood and a melted throne, but he could come up with something.

Why did Jon Snow admit his fault in S08E06?

Jon Snow admitted to killing Daenerys at the end og GOT because of his honor. He was less bothered about his own safety than doing the right thing for the people. He killed her despite being in love with her. Moreover, it is unlikely that people would have believed she had just flown away.

The act of escaping after committing a murder is cowardly, so it goes against his character.

His own personal care is less important for him than being honorable and doing the right thing for the people. Running away after killing someone is a very cowardly act, so it's against his very nature. This is completely in character for Daenerys as well. Even if he had escaped being punished, he could not have stopped the violence. Lying was one of the other answers in addition to those that I thought was going to be raised. It would be extremely odd if she escaped and no one noticed.