Sounds like the Twilight Zone episode "

A Kind of a Stopwatch" .

Patrick McNulty is a self-important bore in his 40s who has accomplished very little. ....

McNulty goes to a bar, where he drives away the other patrons with his opinions about a sporting event.

The bar owner requests that McNulty patronize another establishment.

McNulty ignores him and buys a drink for the sole remaining patron, a drunk.

The drunk gives McNulty his stopwatch.

Thinking it an odd gift, McNulty quickly discovers that it can stop the passage of time. ....

McNulty attempts to rob a bank, but he drops the watch.

It breaks, freezing time permanently.

Unaware of a way to repair it, McNulty runs around in a panic, ultimately begging the frozen people to talk or move, vainly promising to change his ways if only they will recognize him.

It sounds like the made for TV movie " The Girl, The Gold Watch, and Everything " starring Robert Hays and Pam Dawber (of Mork & Mindy fame).

IMDB profile is here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080792/?ref_=sr_1

My first inclination was for Clockstoppers .

Though the watch doesn't actually stop time, rather it speeds up the users molecules giving the impression that everything else is stopped.

There are quite a few movies and TV shows that featured a pocket watch that could stop time as well as one movie featuring a digital wrist watch.

They all appeared to have been based on John D. MacDonald's 1962 sci-fi novel 'The Girl, the Gold Watch and Everything.'

John D MacDonald may have been influenced by Murray Leinster's short story 'The Eternal Now' from 1944.

And Murray Leinster may have been influenced by a short story by H. G. Wells, 'The New Accelerator' in 1901.

Here's a list of movies and TV

shows that feature a watch that can stop time.

I'm sure this list is not complete as there are probably stuff out there that I am not aware of.

Twilight Zone episode

A Kind of a Stopwatch 1963

The Girl, the Gold Watch, and Everything 1980 (TV movie adaptation of John D. MacDonald's 1962 novel)

Friday the 13th

The Series episode 13

O'clock 1988 Bernard's Watch 1997-2005

(British TV show) Clock Stoppers 2002 (the one with the digital wrist watch)

Could you be thinking of " Greatest American Hero ".

It was a TV sitcom from the '80's rather than a film, but there were several feature-length episodes.

Everthing turned red when he clicked the stopwatch and they played a ticktock sound and everyone froze in time except him.

Question: What is the movie or tv show about a man who has a stopwatch enables him to stop time..airplanes, people, etc? Eventually, he breaks the watch and cannot fix it?

Movie about a stopwatch that can actually stop time

Suggestions include "The Girl, The Gold Watch, and Everything ", an episode of the Twilight Zone, "A Kind of a Stopwatch", "Friday the 13th", "O'Clock", "Bernard's Watch", "Greatest American Hero", and "Clock Stoppers".

The movie or TV show may be the Girl, the Gold Watch, and Everything; the Twilight Zone; A kind of a Stopwatch; Friday the 13th; O’ Clock; Bernard’s Watch; Clock Stoppers; or Greatest America Hero.


I took the oath through Google translate today, cycling through all the languages and writing down likely substitutes for words.

A few were troublesome

and I treated them as contractions, which smoothed things out.

(Only a little, though.)

This is what I came up with: Dream-gate shade, and living wall, Natromo returns to watch the gap from within.

Having Lantern-vessels of Abin Sur, Enough playing games - from right now on!

I know it has no color reference.

This is as good a literaltranslation using Earth languages as I could wrench it into saying.

It doesn't even touch the language used in the comics.

I know little to nothing about the story line.

I was interestedbecause it was a linguistic challenge to me.

(And the Green Lanternis a cool dude.)

I will not cite it, as it took a good 3 hours to run all thesearches and checks.

Running it through Google Translate will giveyou an idea on how I started, just cycle the languages.

Here is the literal translation that I used, line by line: Tor lorek san, bor nakka mur, Gate shade dream, live and wall Natromo faan tornek wot ur.

Natromo return (to see the gap(gate))

from within Ter Lantern ker lo Abin Sur,

Having Lantern vessels (of)

Abin Sur Taan lek lek nok--Formorrow

Sur!

To game play enough - (fore tomorrow) on

There is no translation of the Indigo Tribe's oath.

It has been speculated it is not necessarily the Oath

that matters but the cadence which activates the power.

The Wikipedia Entry on the Indigo Tribe's adds some commentary from the writer Geoff Johns: As with the other Corps of the emotional spectrum, the Indigo Tribe charges its rings by reciting an oath, but uses a power staff instead of a power battery.

In its first extended appearance, the Indigo Tribe speaks a language that the power ring cannot translate, although Indigo-1 later explains that her Tribe can speak languages others can understand.

Regardless, the oath has only been rendered in the aforementioned fictional language.

Johns (the series' writer) has said that the Corps oaths have a tempo regardless of what language they are spoken in, adding: "

But speaking of languages, the Indigo Tribe speaks an interesting one.

“Tor lorek san, bor nakka mur, Natromo faan tornek wot ur.

Ter Lantern ker lo Abin Sur, Taan lek lek nok--

Formorrow Sur!”

—Indigo-1, Blackest Night #5 (January 2010)

It's evidently unknown, and there isn't a translator yet for the language.

Did find one forum post that has some translations of the language, but nothing definitive.

Looking through the comic books for direct translations, I got this: Tor lorek san, bor nakka mur, Natromo faan tornek wot ur.

Ter Lantern ker lo Abin Sur, Taan lek lek nok--

Formorrow

Sur!

Translated: [Tor]

[lorek]

following , [bor] blackest night .

Natromo

[fann]

[tornek]

[wot]

[ur].

His Lantern our guide Abin Sur.

[Taan] multiple lights

may compassion guide you--Indigo Power!

I know the word "nok" means "may compassion be with you".

It's kin of their catchphrase.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/45421/indigo triber resident of nok

In sorrowful day, in misfortunate night,We help those, who need our might,With the Lanturn power of Abin Sur,We rid your misery....

with compassionate might!

Perhaps this will help?

The Book of the Black:The Burned-

In Thoughts of William Hand Chapter 1, Verse 7 NEK-SAN "NOK?" NEKRON LOR LEK NEK NEK SURAGUARDIANS WA RET SCOPET.

KLEK KLEKNEE.

LOK NAK LORA LORUUTA GORGER RORO.

LOKOK NLETT ABIN SUR RATCH HALJORDAN ET SINESTRO DORO GREENLANTERNS.

SUR

MUNK HARK TE KEKAKEKOA LEDD MONROTT DORO SCOPET.NOK.

SCOPET LOR, "LET THEREBE LIGHT!"

KLEK OCTA ROQ?

LEKORA LEK LEK!

RET ROGORA LARFLEEZE ET ATROCITUSDORO SAINT WALKER ET STAR SAPPHIREKER QUR.

KLOK SINESTRO DEF

HART TEPARALLAX ET HECTOR HAMMOND.TUR HECTOR HAMMOND LOR LEKSUR SHARK.

ET DORO RADSAWLETT RESMUN AQUAWARR.

TOR LORKE SAN, BOR NAKKA MUR.NATROMO FANN TORNEK WOT UR.TER LANTERN KER LO ABIN SUR.TANN LEK LEK NOK -- FORMORROW SUR! NOK. - "MAY COMPASSION GUIDE YOU."

LER ORAK TE WILLIAM HAND.

-"MY

NAME IS WILLIAM HAND." LUCA.

- "PLEASE."

KLOK NER! - "HELP ME!"

Personally, after looking at what the direct translation has (which to me is a bit rough and literal)

I feel it would in an English style cadence would go like this..

Following empty day, the blackest night.

Natromo keeps the indigo's sight,Guided by

Abin Sur's guiding right,May compassion lead you, with every light.

Using the translated words as a rough guide and in the way a normal person would speak an oath it seems as though it would go like this.

following the empty use of emotion, it caused the blackest night.

while they fought natromo...

their guardian, protected the battery and their focus.

they set their values based on what abin sur said was truth.

"nok" is compassion with you, so a similar saying would be may it lead you instead of with you.

in this case with the compassion's ability to emulate every light.

Question: The  oath  of the Indigo Tribe is:   Tor lorek san, bor nakka mur,   Natromo faan tornek wot ur.   Ter Lantern ker lo Abin Sur,   Taan lek lek nok--Formorrow Sur!   Has it ever been translated?  If so, what does it mean in English?

What does the Indigo Tribe oath mean?

This is unknown, and there is no translation of the Indigo Tribe's oath. However, the word "nok" is said to mean "may compassion be with you".

There is no translation available though the meaning of "Nok" means may compassion be with you.

There is no full translation available. The meaning of "Nok" is "may compassion be with you".


It may be explored in Minions (film) which may act as a prequel or spin off to the Despicable Me franchise coming in 2015, as per the movie description in Wikipedia it states - Minions are yellow henchmen who have existed since the beginning of time, serving history's most ambitious villains.

Update:

As per then Minions (film)

Minions are small, yellow creatures who have existed since the beginning of time, evolving from single-celled organisms into beings who exist only to serve history's most despicable masters.

Note:

Copied from my own answer from Movies & TV Stackexchnage.

The short film "Minions : Orientation Day" explains that all of the minions are

[generically] engineered from the same strand of mutated DNA.

As has been pointed out by @DaveJOhnson

this is contradicted by the latest trailer for Minions (2014) which shows the minions having existed since the time of the dinosaurs, some 200+ million years ago

The minions are possibly made from humans by a ray that turns humans into minions as seen in the Minions Mayhem ride at Universal Studios.

This is generally considered as non-canon (or just something Gru invented for the express purpose of the ride).

However, one of the short films (in Orientation Day) suggests they are made from a single strand of mutated DNA Reference: Despicable Me Wiki

No, they evolved naturally.

A description of the film explained that they arose through evolution, but is scant on the details: Minions have existed since the beginning of time.

They have evolved from single (yellow) cell organisms into the familiar beings we know.

The film’s title include small, yellow cells that gradually mutate into familiar Minion shapes.

These cells are depicted following a series of larger organisms (as they evolve), presumably assisting and abetting them in whatever it is they do.

At the end of the film, it is made clear that they were not created by Gru, because They meet and follow Gru when he steals the Queen’s crown, but have been active long before they met him.

As we see in the trailer for the new movie, they have been on the planet for millions of years.

The movie itself may or may not go into more detail, as the trailer gives the impression that the bulk of the movie has to do with how they came to work for Gru.

Minions came from yellow single cell organisms that were created in the ocean.

Many animals originated from the ocean so it is not a surprise to see them walk out too, in the popular film Minions.

In the begging of the first film when the opening credits come on it shows how they evolve from being round cylinders to having little dangling arms and leg, then have one or two eyes with goggles, and so on until they stop at the usual normal-ish minions.

Question: I have recently watched the movie Despicable Me. Are Minions personally created by Dr. Gru?

Where did the Minions come from?

Minions are said to have existed since the beginning of time. They evolved from single (yellow) cell organisms into the beings we now know, serving history's most ambitious villains.   The film’s title include small, yellow cells that gradually mutate into familiar Minion shapes.

The minions have existed since the beginning of time from a single strand of mutated DNA. They came about as small, yellow cells from the ocean; hence they evolved naturally.

The minions have existed since the beginning of time from a single strand of mutated DNA. They came about as small, yellow cells from the ocean. The minions evolved naturally.


neilfein (a user here) directed me to this diagram for a reading order.

It can be regarded as the absolute minimum of the books that need to be read for the series to be coherent and make sense.

Note that it leaves out a lot of short stories as it's trying to be concise.

Also this isn't chronological - it just tries to give you an overall understanding of the series when you so you can understand the back-story.

Most of Asimov's books are actually inter-related, but many of them weren't written with the intention of being related.

For example, the Foundation series was originally not intended to bear any relation to Asimov's Robots series, but he later decided to link them.

I won't go into specifics, for obvious spoiler reasons.

The best way to read Asimov stories is to read them in the chronological order of when he published them.

That includes short stories.

Since this is obviously very difficult, just doing what Deleteman says above is easily the best bet.

Apart from the Foundation and Robot series, Asimov's works aren't interrelated very strongly.

So apart from the Robots quadrilogy ( Caves of Steel , Naked Sun , Robots of Dawn and Robots and Empire ) and the Foundation series (original trilogy, two sequels, and two prequels) which should be read in order, there is little in the way of spoilers.

Though chronologically the Empire books do fit in nicely between Robots and Foundation.

Nemesis has also been retconned into the main continuity.

A rough timeline would be something like this: Susan Calvin Robot short stories (collected for the most in I Robot ).

Nemesis (Standalone book for the most part, but briefly mentioned in Forward the Foundation ) Caves of Steel (Robots quadrilogy) Naked Sun (Robots quadrilogy) Robots of Dawn (Robots quadrilogy) Robots and Empire (Robots quadrilogy)

The Stars Like Dust (Standalone Galactic Empire book)

The Currents of Space (Standalone Galactic Empire book) Pebble in the Sky

(Standalone Galactic Empire book)

Prelude to Foundation (Foundation prequel)

Forward

the Foundation (Foundation prequel) Foundation (Foundation trilogy) Foundation and Empire (Foundation trilogy) Second Foundation (Foundation trilogy) Foundation's Edge (Foundation sequel) Foundation and Earth (Foundation sequel)

Then there are the standalone Asimov science fiction stories that haven't been worked in any way into the Foundation continuity, chiefly The Gods

Themselves and the Lucky Starr books

(although the latter do mention the three laws of robotics and has off-Earth colonies that are hostile to the their mother planet).

I think you're pretty much safe regarding spoilers as long as you keep the order for specific series, like Foundation: you should not read "Second Foundation" before the first book, and so on.

But regarding the whole spectrum of him work (from the Robot series, going through the Galactic Empire and finishing on Foundation)

you're safe reading whatever order you want...

sometimes that might be fun, because you might find references to the same world but with thousands of years apart.

At least, that's been my experience.

Years ago, okay, decades ago I read the books in the original three trilogies before the connecting books came out.

I recommend starting with the Elijah Bailey series (you can throw in I, Robot if you desire, but it's not necessary), followed by the Galactic Empire series, followed by the original Foundation trilogy.

The thought process behind this is that the Foundation was never even imagined to exist by the (fictional) humans through the first two trilogies.

After that, read the additional prequels and sequels in the order they were published.

It maximizes the "ah-ha" moments

and you're not reading a story that, in the fictional history sense, you already know some of the answers to.

Question: This question has been asked for the Foundation and the Robot series.. but I wanted to know if there are other works of Asimov that should be read in a particular order, so that I don't read the spoilers before reading the actual material.

What is the correct order for reading material of Isaac Asimov?

The best way to read Asimov stories is to read them in the chronological order of when he published them. However, apart from the Foundation and Robot series, Asimov's works are not particularly interrelated. Therefore, apart from the Robots quadrilogy (Caves of Steel,  Naked Sun,  Robots of Dawn and Robots and Empire ) and the Foundation series (original trilogy, two sequels, and two prequels) which should be read in order, there is little in the way of spoilers.

Most of the writer’s books are not strongly inter-related. However, it is recommended the books be read in chronological order.

Most of the writer’s books are not strongly inter-related. It is recommended the books be read in chronological order.


The word for Eagle in Czech is Orel, in Slovak it is Orol.

I think it can be assumed that this did inspire the naming of Orell, even though there are no quotes from GRRM to confirm this (as System Down wrote).

The name also sounds like oriole, as in the birds .

The connection of Orell to birds has a variety of connection points.

But, as mentioned, there is no confirmation from GRRM.

Without a confirmation from GRRM, it's possible that the name comes from the Orrell surname and the eagle part is a coincidence.

This unusual name is of early Medieval English origin, and is a locational surname deriving from either of the places called "Orrell" in Lancashire, one of which is situated in the parish of Wigan, and the other in the parish of Sefton.

Both places share the same meaning and derivation, which is from the Old English pre 7th Century word "ora", ore, and "hyll", hill; http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Orrell

I think it's best to avoid assumption and admire the synchronicity.

GRRM definently gets inspiration from real life words and names.

Some wildlings have nordic/norse names, like Tormund or Magnar.

I also know that Bran is welsh, meaning raven.

I'm sure there are plenty other cases of this that speakers of other languages notice.

My family name is 'Orrell' originally spelt 'Orell'.

The early medieval sheild that they used displayed a double headed eagle.

Maybe this is all just a coincidence?

They derived their name from Orrell-in-Makerfield in Lancashire of which manor, they were the Lords.

The shield comes from a stained glass window (now lost) from Wigan parish church which is thought to commemorate the marriage of Margaret, daughter and heir of William de Orell of Newton-in-Makerfield, with Sir Robert Langton of Hindley circa 1340.

An earlier seal of a different William de Orell of Haydock (a distant cousin of the first William) circa 1315 showed an image of a double headed eagle.

Question: In the  A Song of Ice and Fire , there is a character named Orell, who is a skinchanger in control of an eagle. Орёл (oryol) happens to be the Russian word for "eagle".  Is there any  other evidence that the name Orell derives from Russian or some other Slavic language?

Is the name "Orell" related to the Russian word for "eagle"?

The word for Eagle in Czech is Orel, and in Slovak it is Orol.

Orwell is derived from Orel in Czech and Orol in Slovak.


Sounds like

The Dead Past by Asimov, where there is a very rare device like a television called the Chronoscope that can look at events that in the very distant history.

The story goes on to reveal that the chronoscope can in fact: Only view up to a little over one hundred years in the past, but importantly it can view up to the immediate past, essentially the 'living present', making it a device that could destroy privacy for anyone on the planet.

As a result, in an attempt to keep this fact secret, and to prevent smaller and cheaper chronoscope's being invented, scientific freedom is rigidly controlled by the government, research outside your field being banned and with the techniques required to develop a Chronoscope being mysteriously unfunded.

You can see an adaptation of the story on YouTube .

There's also Damon Knight's "I See You" about an inventor who, as anonymously as possible, creates and distributes a machine which allows people to view anything that happened at any time, completely eliminating crime and also privacy.

It's not presented so much as a television, but Orson Scott Card's "Pastwatch: The redemption of Christopher Columbus" (one of Card's better books even if it is preachy

and I completely disagree with its premise) has a device that lets the past be viewed.

E for Effort by T. L. Sherred comes to mind.

This is unlikely to be the story you were thinking of as it is a full novel, but The Light of Other Days by Stephen Baxter, based on a synopsis by Arthur C Clarke, deals with the same premise.

I remember reading it and thinking it was overly similar to Asimov's The Dead Past , which was suggested above.

Question: I read a story a long time ago, I think in a short story collection.  The main idea was that a TV had been invented that could be set to any place and time in the past, and you could see what happened there and then.  Anybody know what it was?

Sci-fi story about a TV that works across time

This may be "E for Effort" by T. L. Sherred, or posisbly "The Light of Other Days" by Stephen Baxter.

The story may be E for Effort by T.L. Sherred or the Light of Other Days by Stephen Baxter, though less likely so.

The story may be E for Effort by T.L. Sherred. The story may be the Light of Other Days by Stephen Baxter, though less likely so.


No.

The Hulk is not a mutant.

He is a mutate .

The distinction is subtle and for all intents and purposes more a matter of how a metahuman acquired their abilities, not necessarily a marker of power, puissance or capacity.

The Hulk, a mutate, is one of the most powerful beings on the planet.

Magneto, a mutant, has a vastly different power, but no less powerful or dangerous than the Hulk, whose abilities are almost entirely physical.

There are mutates whose powers are similar to known mutants and whose powers and abilities may be alike despite their origins.

Compare Kraven the Hunter's enhanced senses with Wolverine's for example.

Mutate: a word few use at Marvel.

Mutate is a term used to refer to superhumans who acquired their superpowers by exposure to some mutagenic compound or energy (either accidentally or deliberately).

The first group explicitly called Mutates were the Savage Land Mutates; a group of humans native to the Savage Land that were genetically altered using technology created by Magneto.

Early Marvel heroes acquired their powers due to radiation, technology, unknown or unusual energies.

These heroes include, the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the Hulk, Daredevil, the Black Panther and Luke Cage, just to name a few.

Unlike Marvel's Mutants, Marvel's Mutates require external stimuli to acquire their powers (i.e. they weren't born with the potential to manifest powers).

However, once mutated, the potential to pass those ability to their offspring does become a possibility.

See:

Franklin Richards Unknown to nearly the entire population of the Marvel Universe, the powers and abilities of Earth's Mutates and Mutants alike are the direct result of the genetic manipulations of the Celestials in humanity's distant past, who placed dormant genes within one cross-section of humanity, and the active Deviant and Eternal genes in other cross-sections.

Mutant: Also known as 'Homo Sapiens Superior' Mutants , a sub-group of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, has shown both a diverse range of powers and a scale of power previously unseen in either Deviants or Eternals .

(Both were genetically divergent humanoid species utilized by the Celestials for the testing of their genetic manipulation capacities.)

In addition: Mutants have a wide array of physical abilities without distorting the physical shape of humanity (unlike the Deviants , where form often equaled function), there are also diverse ranges of energy manipulation, temporal manipulation, and vast psionic potential the ability to alter the fabric of space-time, for feats like teleportation and space-flight and even alter the fabric of reality, changing both the past and the future in multiple universes.

These powers are inconsistently scattered among the human populace and has on more than one occasion been potentially capable of destroying the entire species.

This is a question of terminology.

In the Marvel universe "mutant" means something very specific.

It is the casual term for Homo superior , people whose latent X-gene has become active.

The Hulk is not a Homo superior .

The superhuman abilities possessed by Dr. Banner are the result of exposure to gamma radiation.

He was not born with them, and they are not a manifestation of the X-gene.

Because radiation was involved, one could reasonably call Dr. Banner a "mutant" in the traditional real-world sense--but he is not a "mutant" in the sense which the Marvel universe uses that word.

Mutants are born, not made.

The Marvel definition includes people who were born with powers, even if those powers didn't appear until the mutant was a teenager.

Hulk, Spider-Man,

Venom - these are examples of mutates, not mutants.

Their bodies mutated due to radiation and chemicals, not a genetic mutation that was present since birth.

Wolverine wasn't born with the metal skeleton, but he was born with bone claws (the metal covered them) and his healing factor.

Therefore he is a mutant with an added impervious skeleton.

Actually according to John Byrne's run on Hulk in the late 80s, Banner is a mutant, he has the ability to survive a gamma bomb.

As we know,Hulk is not a mutant by birth.

At least he is not like that big monster by birth.

He had actually undergone a reaction of gamma rays which improves his genes and make them x-genes.

So he became a mutant then.

But still there is no change in his skeleton.

So he is technically not a mutant.

I would say that, according to the comic book definition, hulk is probably not a mutant.

For example, all the X-Men were born with the gene that codes for their powers, which were latent until a certain age and brought about by stress, puberty, or both.

The Hulk was essentially "given" his powers by a freak accident.

Now, one could argue that the Dr. Bruce Banner had a rare genetic disposition to accept gamma rays and become the green machine, but then the experiment shouldn't be reproducible.

One look at Doc Samson, She-Hulk (well actually she doesn't count because they're related and she could carry the same gene) and the Abomination (or is General Ross as the Red Hulk?

I forget which) tells us that the gamma-ray conversion process is, to some extent reproducible, and so Hulk isn't really a mutant.

Or so it could be argued.

In the everyday, colloquial usage of the term, Hulk is a mutant.

But that's outside of comic-dom, so....

Agreeing with the other writers, mutants are born not made.

Their powers manifest usually around puberty.

In the case of most X-Men, they were born with the mutation in their genes.

Hulk, according to the Marvel Universe, would be classified as a mutate, powers were bestowed upon him by external forces.

As indicated in Deadpool , Wade was not born a mutant, so technically he is a mutate as well, not a mutant.

However, the movie also suggested people are born with the gene, it just never manifested as powers or abilities.

Question: Hulk has extraordinary powers, well above that of a normal human being.   Can we say that Hulk is a mutant?

Is the Hulk technically a mutant?

According to the comic book definition, Hulk would be classified as a mutate, not a mutant, as his powers were bestowed upon him by a freak accident.


Per the third act of the film, the breach is normally a one-way doorway.

It only allows kaiju to go back through it.

Given that at the end of the film, the jaeger was able to tag along with the kaiju when it went back through the breach, it's safe to assume that some water would also go through with them.

But it wouldn't be a constant flow into the breach, water would only go through when a kaiju did.

The Breach appeared, at least to me, to be a one way barrier preventing anything not from the Anteverse to pass backward through to the alien universe.

But we are also forgetting that the Kaiju appear to swim from their universe to ours and appear perfectly adapted for living on Earth.

The Breach (also known as the Portal), is a fissure located off the coastline of China near Guam on the floor of the Challenger Deep of the Pacific Ocean.

It connects the Earth to the Anteverse; the homeworld of the Precursors and the Kaiju.

The Kaiju facility in the Anteverse appears to be underwater, as Gipsy Danger "floats" down after entering the Breach.

However, it is not; the facility simply has an artificially generated gravity column to allow access to the breach mechanism entrance .

This would mean the barrier doesn't have to work very hard because there is already equalized pressures on both sides, preventing water from rushing from our universe to theirs and vice versa except when a Kaiju crosses over.

Most importantly, the Precursors do not want to empty our oceans into their world.

They want to empty our world of life and migrate here.

Earth was likely chosen because of our great oceans, active tectonic plate structures (which power the Breach on our side), and the overall fragility of life on Earth.

How are all these aquatic kaiju coming through if there is no water on the other side?

I think the answer is simply that: the water doesn't rush in because there is already water on the other side.

There most definitely is water on both sides....

The Kaiju are aquatic, they swim up to and through the breach.

The Escape pods clearly rise due to the flotations devices attached to them when ejected from the Jaeger, which would indicate the presence of water.

The Jaeger clearly drifted down through the water when it was sinking into the Anteverse, as opposed to its fall from 50,000ft. & the icing on the cake....

when the reactor is going to explode, in the last scenes before the escape, you can clearly see water rushing into the mech from damage to the exterior.

Will one of the above posters, claiming that there isn't water on the other side of the breach, please explain why there would be water filling the mech and spraying around inside the Jaeger if it was not submerged?

(Don't tell me its left over from the ocean, it is clearly under pressure when sinking to the bottom of the Anteverse.)

That's a wrap!

P.s.

I just watched the movie again, when Mako's escape pod is released, a bunch of bubbles can clearly be seen escaping the Jaeger with the pod.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/62396/Steve Just Watched the Movie

Maybe the "portal" mechanism of the Precursors in the Anteverse have a way of floating the huge kaiju to exit their "portal" mechanism into our world & if the kaiju were to return to Anteverse, wouldn't the Precursors want their kaiju to float back down gently to their facility instead of free falling & the kaiju die with a huge 'PLOP!'

.... that would explain why Gipsy Danger floats down slowly in the ending scene before it explode.

As with the escape pod... the momentum from ejecting from the robot's head plus the "floating gravity" effect allows it to exit from the portal mechanism back into our world with quick pace and able to outrun the explosion.

You could say the same thing about whatever surrounds the other side of the portal.

Water would only go into the portal if there was a space to fill i.e. the other universe has a gas atmosphere or is a vacuum.

So the other universe is either filled with (near the portal) a liquid with a density similar to saltwater or the pressures of the substances around both sides of the portal are equal, meaning our stuff won't pass through into theirs & vice versa.

Unless the Precursors allowed any particles to accompany the kaiju.

Question: In the movie Pacific Rim, the breach is located at the bottom of the ocean.     This breach is a wormhole/portal/gateway to some other universe that giant monsters freely move though back and forth.   What keeps our ocean from just emptying itself into this breach or their atmosphere rushing out?

In Pacific Rim what is keeping the ocean from rushing into the breach

The breach can be seen as a one-way barrier. Another theory is that there is already water or a liquid with a similar density on the other side, and the resulting equal pressure prevents movement from one side to the other.

The breach is a one-way barrier supported by water on the other side which means the pressures are balanced and the breach is a one-way doorway.

The breach is a one-way barrier supported by water on the other side. This means the pressures are balanced and the breach is a one-way doorway.


I've always been under the impression that Parseltongue is an inborn ability, not a teachable language, and it appears that J.K. Rowling holds the same opinion.

I was just reading a transcript of her pivotal Q&A at Carnegie Hall (the one where she revealed that Dumbledore was gay), and it turns out

she addressed exactly this question: Q:

Since Ron is able to speak Parseltongue in the last book, does that mean that Parseltongue is a language that most witches and wizards can learn or must a person be born with some ability to speak Parseltongue?

JKR: I don't see it really as a language you can learn.

So few people speak it that who would teach you?

This is a weird ability passed down through the Slytherin blood line.

However Ron was with Harry when he said one word in Parseltongue, which I do not know

so I cannot duplicate for you, but

he heard him say "Open," and he was able to reproduce the sound.

So it was one word.

Whether he could learn to speak to snakes properly is a separate issue.

I don't think he could.

But he knew enough, he was smart enough, to duplicate one necessary sound.

She phrased it as an opinion rather than definite fact, but it's still hard to argue with.

Plus, there's the fact that non-Parseltongues can't hear snakes speak, which makes it physically impossible for them to hold conversations with a snake.

That means that as a language, Parseltongue would be limited to novelty secret-language status — hardly a useful thing to spend your time on.

Parselmouths are rare There are very few confirmed Parselmouths during the events of the Harry Potter books.

Harry himself, Voldemort, the Gaunts (Voldemort's relatives)

- I think Dumbledore was said to be able to speak Parseltongue as well, but I may be making that up.

That's a very, very small number.

Dumbledore had enough problems finding Defense Against the Dark Arts teachers to fill the position, I imagine it would have been even worse trying to find a Parselmouth to fill a teaching position as well; there are considerably more witches and wizards who know about (fighting) the Dark Arts than are able to speak Parseltongue.

Add to that the fact that it was seen as a talent only possessed by those who had an affinity for dark magic and people may not even be willing to publicly admit to it.

It's not a particularly valuable skill

Ignoring Harry's very unique situation as The Boy Who Lived and his relationship to Voldemort, there's really no need to be able to speak Parseltongue.

Your average witch and wizard could go their entire lifetime without being held back by not being able to talk to snakes.

Hogwarts student timetables were full enough already Between classes, homework and revising for exams (when applicable) students had more than enough to occupy their time at school.

I'm not sure they'd have enough time to dedicate to an additional lesson to learn a language.

I was under the impression that being able to speak Parseltongue was considered a sign of bad character; Voldemort was a Parseltongue for one, and as the Snake is both part of his motif and also his sidekick (In Nagini), snakes were considered bad news..

I think that during The Chamber of Secrets , certain Hogwarts students take this out of proportion (as Children are wont to do) and as such the stigmatism attached to Parseltongues is perhaps not as aggressively pursued in the rest of the Poterverse as it is in the highly charged microcosm of Hogwarts.

In short, I'm not sure it'd be encouraged because although perhaps useful, it could be frowned upon: similar in our universe to teaching children how to hypnotize other kids or picks locks...

Alohomora, however!

The language of snakes is Parseltongue .

As to why it isn't taught, there may be some contradictions in descriptions of Parseltongue; the Harry Potter wikia describes it as a very uncommon skill, and is typically hereditary which suggests it might not be so much that it isn't taught as that it can't be taught; you're either born a Parselmouth or you're not.

But the Wikipedia entry describes it as a skill acquired through learning or via a method of xenoglossia Being a Parselmouth is described as being an attribute of a Dark Wizard, which probably means prejudice in the normal wizarding community contributes to

it not being taught as a matter of course at Hogwarts.

It is possible that Parseltongue is not taught because it is associated with Salazar Slytherin and Voldemort.

And in the minds of the wizarding community, it is associated with evil.

Prejudice is probably the reason why Parseltongue is not taught.

There is the possibility that Parseltongue cannot be learned.

It is not a language, and it is magical in nature.

When Harry speaks it (or listens to a serpent speaking it) he doesn't even realize he's not speaking English.

This strongly hints that Parseltongue is actually closer to glossolalia (which is by definition miraculous / supernatural)

than to real language skills.

You are not born with knowing your mother language, you learn it.

however, you are born with Parseltongue.

When Ron imitated Parseltongue it was just how parrots imitate human speech.

Parrots cannot learn a human language, they just record and replay a few phrases as they would do it with any generic sound effect.

Another hint to it not being a real language is that WTF snakes are sentient ????

This means Parseltongue is either completely impossible, or extremely difficult to learn.

Question: Even though it is not a human  language  per se and that one had to be  gifted  to be able to speak to snakes, why didn't Parselmouths teach others Parseltongue, at least in Slytherin house at Hogwarts?  Ron spoke Parseltongue from watching Harry speaking it in  Chamber of Secrets . Hence Parselmouths aren't the  only  ones who can speak Parseltongue and be understood.

Why is Parseltongue not taught?

Teaching Parseltongue may not be considered enough of a valuable skill to dedicate school time to this subject. Ignoring Harry's unique situation as The Boy Who Lived and his relationship to Voldemort, there's really no  need  to be able to speak Parseltongue. It may also be a strange ability passed down through the  Slytherin blood line. Prejudice may also be a factor in the decision not to teach it as well as the difficulty in finding a Dark Arts  teacher able to teach it.

Parseltongue is a language that cannot be taught since it is passed down through the Slytherin blood line.

Parseltongue is a language that cannot be taught. It is passed down through the Slytherin blood line.


I'm pretty sure Jules Verne is going to be a frontrunner of this.

He wrote originally in French, and is the second most translated author in the world (after Shakespeare and just before Agatha Christie).

He has had a major influence on Science Fiction for more than a hundred years, with multiple screen adaptations.

EDIT:

The question asked for a work.

It's hard to choose between his most popular science fiction works (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea; Journey to the Centre of the Earth; From the Earth to the Moon) and I can't find sales figures for each, but if I had to guess it has to be 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

I would guess it is the works of Stanislaw Lem.

"Cyberiad" has been translated into English, widely published, and widely cited.

"Solaris" was made into a Hollywood movie.

Consider Jules Verne .

Considered by many to be one of the 'Fathers of Science Fiction', his works started being translated into English in 1852.

According to the Wikipedia article, he's the second most translated author in the world since 1979, and was probably the most translated during the 1960's & 70's.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't provide numbers on the translations by story/novel (and I don't know where that information could be obtained) but think about how many folks have read classics like '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea', 'Journey to the Center of the Earth' or 'From the Earth to the Moon'.

He is the most translated novelist in the world (148 languages according to UNESCO) see NAJVS

Not sure if Pierre Boulle would count.

Although the book La Planète des singes wasn't particularly popular outside of France, the various Planet of the Apes films which were (loosely) based on it have been extremely influential.

If think Karel Čapek with his play R.U.R influenced SF quite heavily with his univrsally recognized word robot .

Even though the question is tagged as "written", a 1927 film "Metropolis" by Fritz Lang definitely deserves a mention, being an exceptionally influential work of Sci-Fi and seen by a considerable number of people.

With Jules Verne and Stanislav Lem the best known non-english SF writers of the 19th and 20th century respectively, some earlier notable SF writers who were eventually widely circulated in English include: 18th century: Ludvig Holberg Danish/Norwegian author publishing Niels Klim's underground travels in 1741.

Describes a solar system inside the earth with several inhabited planets.

Widely published in several european languages Voltaire French writer and philosopher who wrote the 1792 short-story Micromégas where Earth is visted by two aliens from Saturn and Sirius.

17th century: Johannes Kepler German astronomer writing Somnium between 1620 and 1630.

Contains detailed descriptions of how the earth would look like from the moon.

Cyrano de Bergerac French dramatist who wrote Comical history of the states and empires of the moon , published posthumously in 1657.

Arthur C. Clarke credited this novel with the first description of rocket-powered space flight and the ramjet.

2nd century:

Lucian of Samosata (AD 125 - AD 180)

a Syrian satirist writing in Greek, who wrote True History a satire of contemporary works which manages to include space travel, aliens and interplanetary warfare.

We by Yevgeney Zamyatin (Russian, 1921), influenced e.g. George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Ayn Rand, Kurt Vonnegut.

That's quite a long reach.

Some sort of "honorable mention" for Arkady and Boris Strugatsky's Roadside Picnic which turned into, among other things, the Tarkovsky film "Stalker", and their book Monday [Begins|Starts] on Saturday (which is more soviet-science-fantasy)?

Heavily influential on me, at any rate.

Pretty small sample size.

Question: I'm trying to understand how big the influence of translated SF is in the English speaking world. Part of the question is which is the single most influential work from outside.  So, which story or novel that was not originally published in English has been most often cited in other works, as measured by number of citations in Google Scholar?

Which originally non-English novel or story has had the widest reception in English-language SF as measured in number of citations?

A number of originally non-English SF authors and works are considered to be influential. These include Jules Verne, Stanislaw Lem, Pierre Boulle, Karel Čapek,  Ludvig Holberg, Lucian of Samosata and  Yevgeney Zamyatin. Voltaire wrote 1792 short-story  Micromégas; Johannes Kepler  wrote  Somnium  between 1620 and 1630; Stanislaw Lem wrote Cyberiad and Solaris; and Cyrano de Bergerac wrote  Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon (1657).

Though there are many possibilities, Jules Verne is the most likely English novel or story with the widest reception in the English speaking world.


I am a medieval sword fighting instructor and have won a couple of tournaments so have a different insight than people who probably know the films better but in case you are interested: Sword (or lightsaber) fights rarely feature aiming at your opponent's sword.

If someone aims a shot at your sword you just attack with your sword, their sword flies harmlessly through the air where your sword was as your sword hits them.

It is like if you have your fists up and I swing a punch at your fists,

just by punching me back you have made me miss whilst I get whacked on the nose.

However, when you are fighting cinematically there are various ways you can fake the fight and one of them is to aim at your opponents weapon because it looks a little more spectacular and you get energetic (and reasonably safe) clashes as the camera can swing back forth tracking you both (I have trained people for stage fighting and you can see many of my group in Gladiator at the beginning).

In the battle scenes it might look like turning off the sabre and letting the opponent miss is a valid tactic

but this is only the effect of the cinematic show to make it look better.

It is rather like asking why someone does not just move faster when everyone is in slow motion :-)

If they were fighting 'for real' the tactic you describe would probably be quite effective.

Actually, in the extended universe this technique has seen some use, see Tràkata .

Regarding the movies there is also some variation how long it takes for the lightsaber to fully ignite.

Sometimes it took quite some time and one might imagine that this delay would be a serious drawback since it gives the opponent quite some time to react.

Because you'd then at the same time get hit by your opponent's blade that you just let past your defenses?

Besides, you can clearly see that it takes a little time to turn on a light saber - not much, but definitely too much to turn it off and on again within a single swing.

This is actually a recognised saber technique, described in The Jedi Path : A Manual for Students of the Force ) as 'Trakata' or ' Passing the Blade ' As to why it's not used more commonly, the answer is that it's a risky (and highly advanced) technique that seems prone to failure.

The Star Wars Wookieepedia page on Trakàta describes a number of occasions on which it has been used.

Note that all examples are from non-canon sources such as the EU novels and comics: Members of the New Jedi Order known to employ this technique includeJedi Master Mara Jade Skywalker.

Jedi Master Corran Horn used avariant of this technique during the Yuuzhan Vong War, one notableoccurrence being while he was battling Shedao Shai on Ithor.

Duringthe battle, Horn and Shai were locked in combat, and Horn deactivatedhis lightsaber, then reignited it into Shedao Shai, killing thetemporary Supreme Commander.

During her duel with Ben Skywalker,Sith apprentice Tahiri Veila used this technique to great effect.

Skywalker forced her lightsaber aside, so Tahiri switched herlightsaber off and on

so fast Skywalker barely had time to react,allowing her to extend the blade to where his throat had been justmoments before

Don't forget that it clearly says (in Phantom Menace if I remember rightly) that the Jedi reflexes come from being able to predict their opponent and react ahead of time.

If you tried a trick like this against another Jedi then they would know in advance that it is coming and be able to use it to either still parry/dodge or to kill you while you were yourself unable to block.

There are some very good answers here, but none of them address the fact that such a tactic would fall under the category of deception, which is a weapon of the Sith, not the Jedi.

Resorting to such tactics in battle is thus frowned upon by the order.

This however does not stop Jedi from using this or a similar technique when pressed.

My favourite example of a move along these lines is from the cinematic movies from SWTOR .

In a fight a Jedi is against two sith.

The Jedi wields single bladed light saber in one hand and a double in his other hand.

He starts with having both blades on the double-bladed saber active in addition to the single blade in his other hand, but later switches one of the two blades off on the double saber.

Then while an opponent was behind him he pointed the deactivated end at his enemy and activated it, which impaled the sith.

Also remember lightsabers have no weight in the blade, so unlike a heavy sword, swinging the blade and expecting contact but only hitting air might not have the effect you describe.

If you lock sabers with your opponent and then switch yours off, where do you think your opponent's blade is going to go?

The answer is "into you".

You can dodge, parry, or be struck.

Lightsabers have considerable gyroscopic effect, this makes them hard to handle and requires considerable force experience.

Switching them on and off would exacerbate the gyroscopic twist and make it extremely difficult to handle.

Reference : https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Tr%C3%A0kata

Philosophically, Tràkata involved practical combat and deception, rather than single minded determination or endless patience.

It was rarely used by the Sith, since the power of the Sith came from passion rather than practicality, and neither was it commonly used by the Jedi, because of their unwillingness to rely on deception.

The latter may, however, have utilized this technique on occasion, their purpose usually being to exert greater influence over the Force.

Sith don't use this because it breaks the momentum, since most of their power/strength comes from anger.

Jedi dislike this because it is deemed dishonorable.

Question: Since my early childhood I've been wondering about the answer to one question about Star Wars:   Why, when fighting with lightsabers, do they use them to parry attacks rather than turning the lightsaber off momentarily?   It seems like they would be able to use this to unbalance their opponent (who is expecting to make contact) then re-activate their lightsaber when their opponent's head is above the handle.

Why don't lightsaber duelists ever use the technique of turning off their lightsaber during a fight?

If they were fighting 'for real' the tactic you describe would probably be quite effective, although there may be a lapse in ability to block, a delay in turning the saber back on or problems with gyroscopic control. However, Sith don't use this technique because it breaks their momentum, since most of their power/strength comes from anger, and Jedi dislike this because it is deemed dishonorable.

Turning off the lightsaber is considered to be an act of dishonour and it would also exacerbate the gyroscopic twist making it tougher to handle the weapon. Moreover, the risk of being struck is much higher when the lightsaber is turned off. Finally, the Sith do not like to rely on deception and instead rely on the momentum of their anger which would mean the lightsabers would need to remain switched n.

It is dishonourable and would exacerbate the gyroscopic twist. The risk of being struck is much higher when the lightsaber is turned off. The Sith do not like to rely on deception and instead rely on the momentum of their anger which would mean the lightsabers would need to remain switched n.


I know of two possible answers (other than Jayce given by another user).

First Answer

That could be Captain Harlock (also called "Captain Herlock" in UK or "Albator" in France).

He is a space Pirate or Privateer.

The series was created by Leiji Matsumoto.

Added after 2 comments His ship called Arcadia (sometimes Atlantis) came in several different version , but essentially a green or blue type.

It always had the stern of an ancient galleon, probably early 18th century.

Late 18th century is less ornate (see Lafayette's ship ).

Captain Harlock is often shown holding the wheeel at the helm, which is much like the wooden wheel of a sailship (but wheels are found on other ships).

Second Answer

There is actually a space ship in the form of a sailship with sails in the Star Fleet

(in 2 words, not one) series, aka Bomber X.

It is The Skull , captained byCaptain Halley.

It appears in the 5th episode , and in others.

The date is 1982.

But the available information seems scarce.

Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors had a spaceship that, while not really looking like a sailing ship, had solar panels that looked like sails, that gave it a similar outline.

I think you might be looking for Odin Created in the mid-80s, all the ships look like sailing ships. :)

If it's a movie instead of a TV series it may be Treasure Planet.

I hope this was helpful.

The Bobobobs Set in the distant past, the plot revolves around a group of nomadic miniature humanoids known as the Bobobobs, who live in a part of the universe far away from the Earth.

One crew of these Bobobobs, led by Bob Wouter, the captain, sets sail in the Bobular Quest, their spaceship, described as a "galleon with a protective dome".[2] They head towards Earth where they plan to save the humans from being terrorised by dinosaurs.

Along the way they encounter a variety of different alien species, some of which are hostile, and use their psychic powers, such as their ability to become invisible and to teleport, to aid them.

I remember watching this in the early nineties.

It's an European cartoon.

There was a ship in Star Fleet/X-Bomber that was a sailing ship, called The Skull.

There's a few images of it and a description of both the ship and how it ties into the plot at http://www.sfxb.co.uk/mecha/theskull.html .

Could have been star blazers/Space ship Yamamoto.

Question: I remember an animated series back in the early 80s that included a space ship that looked like an old sailing ship. Thought it was Starfleet but none of the clips I can find include this ship. Ideas?

Looking for space series with sailing ship

Suggestions include  Captain Harlock, Odin, Treasure Planet or Star Fleet. The ship may be called The Skull, captained by Captain Halley.

The following space series are possible: Captain Harlech; Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors; Odin; Treasure Planet; the Bobobobs; Star Fleet/X Bomber; or Star Blazers.


I'm not sure why you think Hermione "never let slip" that she was Muggle-born.

She talks about it freely the very first time we meet her: "Are you sure that's a real spell?" said the girl.

Well, it's not very good, is it?

I've tried a few simple spells just for practice and

it's all worked for me.

Nobody in my family's magic at all,

it was ever such a surprise when I got my letter, but I was ever so pleased, of course...

" — "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", chapter 6, "The Journey from Platform Nine and Three-Quarters"

Malfoy wasn't present at that time, but if she saw no reason not to talk about her parents, he could easily have heard her mention it at any time — perhaps even that same day on the Hogwarts Express as she's going around trying to help Neville find his toad.

Draco Malfoy would probably use that insult on anyone who doesn't come from a well reputed ancient and noble wizarding family.

There are very few such families, and Draco might have researched all of them, so he can confidently guess and call anyone else a mudblood.

Alternately, he might have noticed that Hermione didn't get owl post from her parents during dinners in the common room.

The Malfoy family is a pure-blood family, and similar to many royal families and the upper strata of social culture (for good and bad) -

everyone knows everyone.

Think of the social interactions of The Hamptons or Beverly Hills, Mumbai, Cambridge, etc.

Draco probably would not have done much research (or needed to be told) because he would have grown up surrounded by those 'worthy' of associating with.

And just from the portrayal of the character I doubt Draco would have put that much effort in researching before slinging an insult at anyone, especially one of Harry & Co.

For snobs like the Malfoys, the only thing that would've counted was being part of the Sacred Twenty-Eight .

This is a directory of pureblood families, compiled in the early 1930s, by one Cantankerous Nott.

A British real world equivalent would be A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire , better known as Burke's Peerage .

Directories such as this exist in several European countries.

For instance, The Netherlands have the Nederland's Adelsboek and the Nederland's Patriciaat , Germany has the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels .

Assuming that pure-blood is modelled at least in part after blue blood, or nobility, Draco wouldn't even need to look up Hermione in any directory.

He would've known from growing up in that environment who the pure-blood and 'pure enough'-blood were.

And after all, the wizarding community isn't that big.

So anyone not already known to be a witch or a wizard, must be muggle born.

Also, as indicated in this answer , Hermione made no effort to hide it either.

I don't have the books to hand at the moment.

I am however relatively certain that in the diagon alley scenes Hermione's parents are around.

Something along the line of Arthur Weasley talking to them, after some research i found this on the wikia.

A few days later, the family, as well as Harry, went to Diagon Alley to purchase school supplies for the upcoming year.

While there, they visited Flourish and Blotts where Gilderoy Lockhart was having a book signing event, during which, Arthur got into a fist fight with Lucius Malfoy over Arthur's fascination with Muggles.

He was very excited to meet Hermione Granger's parents, both Muggle dentists, insisting on taking them out for a drink.

By this confrontation draco could easily recognise Hermiones parents as muggles.

We know he is explicitly told in Chamber of Secrets . ’‘

Though if his school marks don’t pick up,’ said Mr Malfoy, more coldly still, ‘that may indeed be all he is fit for.

’‘It

’s

not my fault,’ retorted Draco.

‘The teachers all have favourites , that Hermione Granger –’‘I would have thought you’d be ashamed that a girl of no wizard family beat you in every exam,’ snapped Mr Malfoy.

This takes place during Harry's accidental trip to Diagon Alley.

As other answers have pointed out she makes no point of hiding it.

Also the wizarding world is really a small tight-knit community and Hogwarts isn't really a huge school (okay the building's huge but the student population isn't....its probably less than 300 students).

Information (gossip) probably travels quite quickly through the whole of the community.

And given "pure-bloods" are all related they likely all know each-other and probably most "half-bloods" at least by reputation.

Quite simply, she doesn't have a last name associated with any (living) wizarding lineages.

There are a few known Granger wizards, but not for at least a couple of centuries.

Potter and Weasley were, no matter their reputation, magical at the root.

That said, it is likely her association with Harry that caused him to single her out for this insult.

I don't have anything in the text to support this, but I didn't want to leave it as a comment

: I think it's as simple as Malfoy not recognizing Hermione's last name.

If she were not Muggle-born, Malfoy surely would be familiar with the Granger family (or her mother's family, if only her mother were magical).

The entire Malfoy family is obsessed with bloodlines, so I've always assumed they just know, from memory, which families are Muggle-born and which are not.

Question: In  Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets , Draco calls Hermione 'a filthy little mudblood'. She never let slip she was muggleborn in the  Philosopher's Stone  book or film, so how does he know Hermione was muggleborn?  My theory is that Lucius Malfoy (who was a governor at the time) would have told Draco who all the muggleborns are.

How does Draco Malfoy know Hermione is Muggle-born?

Draco may not have done much research because he would have grown up in that environment who the pure-blood and worthy were. The Malfoy family is also obsessed with bloodlines. As "pure-bloods" are all related they are likely to all know each-other and probably most "half-bloods", at least by reputation. However, he was excited to meet Hermione's parents.

By meeting Granger’s parents, he could easily recognise her parents as muggles.

By meeting Granger’s parents, he could easily recognise her parents as muggles and Hermione made no secret of the fact she is a muggle. Malfoy will also know from growing up in an environment full of muggles that she is a muggle.


I hope someone can find a better answer, however until Winds of Winter is published

I believe the answer is simply that George RR Martin intentionally left the reason vague.

Possible explanations include: Physiological

The persistent cold found The Wall impaired his movement Someone drugged him Side effect of the burn he received while saving Mormont's life.

Jon's chapters mentioned the burn regularly Magical

A spell of Melisandre Interference by the Old God's Skinchanging into his direwolf

Psychological (John's shock at the events) However

unless someone can find more supporting evidence I believe it's pure speculation until we get more of the story.

This is being way over-analysed.

Swords stick in scabbards when cold.

This is true even in the real world.

In fact, it is mentioned in another part of ASOIAF where, whomever it was (maybe Jaime).

loosened their sword in the scabbard

so it would not stick - in case they needed it.

From the text: Men were screaming.

Jon reached for Longclaw, but his fingers had grown stiff and clumsy .

Somehow he could not seem to get the sword free of its scabbard.

-A Song of Ice and Fire: A Dance With Dragons, Chapter Sixty-One (Jon).

This is unfortunately all we have, since the explanation is not out yet.

Stiff and Clumsy

It is brought up many times in the books that Jon has to "flex his sword hand" to keep it active, and as brought up by Memnoch , his fingers must have gone stiff.

Somehow

And then GRRM throws in a little bit of a spanner in the works.

The phrase ' somehow ' alludes to something else holding Jon back.

Suspects/Explanations: Melisandre : could have cursed his hand, but it would defeat the purpose of her warning him of "daggers in the dark" Warging : into Ghost is a possibility; his mind was already half gone, so it couldn't control his body very well Poisoning / Intoxication : could have stiffened his reflexes, although Jon did not have anything to drink that night Someone : holds the sword in the scabbard.

Remember, there were multiple attackers Not just a scratch : Jon is injured, severely so.

Most people believe that the first couple of blows were really light/weak because Jon puts up a strong fight # ; but he could easily have been more injured than we think We will not know the true answer until Winds of Winter or beyond.

# I for one subscribe to the " Jon the Berserker " theory, which outlines that for some reason (Wolf Blood or Dragon blood) he has moments of near super-human strength.

I think Jon froze up because they took him by surprise.

I don't remember finding anything unusual about his reaction (or lack thereof).

He was being betrayed, it was clearly an ambush, and coming from people he basically trusted.

I think the point is that, in some way, Jon's still a kid.

He can fight well, and he can lead well, but he hasn't yet dealt with something like what was happening to him at that moment.

I think most people would freak out a little if they were in his place.

No poison or Melisandre magic necessary.

In fact, I think if in that scene Jon just sorta went "hayia!!" and started expertly hacking away at the people who were his friends a second ago, it would have been bad writing on GRR Martin's part.

If Jon carried Longclaw on his back, then it would be physically impossible for him to draw Longclaw from his back.

Else it could be the sword got stuck in the scabbard (maybe he didn't clean any blood off it?)

He was taken by surprise at close range by men with weapons better suited for fighting at close range.

Even if he had drawn it it would not change much.

Maybe he'd take a few with him, but GOT fight's are pretty realistic as far as such things go.

He'd still be stabbed to death.

This isn't an action movie where one guy can take 20 with no problem.

Also, swords can stick in their scabbards from cold Anyone who has watched Gladiator has seen Maximus take out two soldiers thanks to this.

Question: In  A Dance with Dragons :    Jon dodged the first attack with only a minor wound.  The second attack succeeded only because Jon's fingers were like stones and he couldn't get Longclaw out and then the kid got him in the belly.     Was there a reason for this?

Why couldn't Jon Snow pull out Longclaw?

Most people believe that the first couple of blows were really light because Jon puts up a strong fight; but he could easily have been more injured than we think. Other factors could be that swords can get stuck in scabbards when cold, or the element of surprise.

There is as possibility John was shocked at the events which prevent him from pulling out Longclaw. Also, his movement might have been impaired, he might have been drugged or the burn he suffered might have impaired him. Perhaps Melisandre even cast a spell on him. Furthermore, it is possible the Old Gods interfered and impaired his ability or that he skinchanged into his direwolf.

John was shocked at the events which prevent him from pulling out Longclaw. His movement might have been impaired. He might have been drugged. The burn he suffered might have impaired him. Perhaps Melisandre cast a spell on him. It is possible the Old Gods interfered and impaired his ability. It is possible he skinchanged into his direwolf.


The targ that Molly O'Brien had on ST:DS9 was, in fact, one of ours.

It was originally given to Rick Berman by the owner of New Eye Studios.

Berman decided to give it to Molly as a fun prop for the show.

We also gave one to Michael Dorn, but I have no idea whether he kept it or not.

The targ was modified from a warthog plush toy that was very similar to the one the other poster referenced , as were the other pets we "adopted out".

It's nice to know folks have kept them and their adoption certificates!

Here is the one i bought along time ago with the pedigree she gave out with it.

I don't know about the licensing

The booth I bought it from was a lady who had the two targs and a few animals from one of the paperbacks.....

she said she made it, and I have not found any manufacturer tag anywhere on it.

could be bought and modified....

I never saw another on until the one on the show That was in the O'Brien quarters and since then I have seen one on a site where a guy has one in his collection

but he doesn't say where he got it.

Googling "Toby the targ toy" results in this product on amazon .

The colorations and designs are off, but it appears to be the only officially licensed item that was mass produced.

It was released with the Star Trek Alien Beans line of toys, which seems to have been a limited run.

My daughter and I just finished making one.

We found a warthog on ebay matching the "Fascination" DS9 episode.

It is called "Walter Warthog", is made by Fundamental Too, is 18 inches from tip of nose to end of tail, and has a grunting mechanism inside.

They seem to occasionally show up on ebay.

Search for things like stuffed warthog , plush warthog , Walter warthog or warthog Fundamental .

We then bought some plushy upholstery fabric for the spines (the fabric store was happy to sell us 1/8 of a yard), sewed spines (sewing machine, but could also be done by hand), flipped them inside out, stuffed them and sewed them on.

It was surprisingly harder than it seemed:

flipping heavy-weight fabric inside-out was hard and sewing the spines amidst the fur isn't easy

(hint: use a curved needle).

Full instructions as well as a pdf with our sewing patterns are here .

I thought it would be nice to post a photo of some of my babies from years ago.

Hopefully, I can get it right this time!

I tried a link last time, but it didn't work.

The toy actually exists, but it looks like what they used for Toby

the Targ was a warthog plush.

I doubt they still make the exact toy that was filmed, but this is close .

It is an ebay link.

I have one....

just like the screen used one....bought it in ther 90's at a convention in D.C.

a fan had a booth and she made them supposedly.......

she had two at the time

and I bought 1

remember it was 50 dollars.

I will post a picture of it on Thursday when I return to work!

Question: Have you ever seen a stuffed Toby the Targ toy? It was a toy on star trek DS9 and voyager.   If one does exist, where could I find one?

Does a stuffed 'Toby the Targ' toy exist?

The targ was modified from a warthog plush toy.

The Toby the Targ toy actually does exist in the form of a warthog plush.

The Toby the Targ toy actually does exist. It exists in the form of a warthog plush.


I've redacted the transcript to just highlight the important bits.

The short answer is that neither Amy or River are especially keen on the idea of leaving Rory on his own in the past.

Both of them are (rightly) convinced that if she lets the Angel touch her, she'll rejoin her husband.

Although the Doctor is sad about this (as well as worried about her personal safety since he's unsure

where/when she'll turn up), he has no intention of physically stopping her from making her own decision.

The Angel standing behind RORY touches him and he disappears.

DOCTOR:

I'm sorry, Amelia.

I'm so, so sorry.

AMY:

No.

No, we can just go and get him in the TARDIS.

One more paradox.

DOCTOR:

Would rip New York apart

and I -- ...

With shuddering breaths, AMY walks towards the Angel.

DOCTOR:

Amy?

What are you doing? ...

AMY:

The Angel, would it send me back to the same time, to him?

DOCTOR:

I don't know.

Nobody knows.

AMY: (takes a step closer)

But it's my best shot, yeah?

AMY:

It'll be fine.

I know it will.

I'll -- I'll be with him, like I should be.

Me and Rory, together.

Melody.

(holds her hand out behind her) ...

AMY: (sobs) Raggedy man, (turns to the DOCTOR) goodbye.

(disappears)

Why didn't The Doctor just stare at the Angel and tell River to get Amy inside the TARDIS to save her?

Good question.

While I personally consider the curmudgeon's answer (i.e., "the writers messed up") to be the best one to cover that entire episode, there are a few intriguing possibilities.

After time suffering so many pardoxes, the Doctor was becoming essentially "allergic" to the ponds.

Similar to how he cannot bear to look at Captain Jack Harkness, the repeated "wrongness" that Amy carries with her was, by this point, more than he could stand and still think clearly.

(This also neatly answers "why didn't he just walk to New York".

It's not impossible for, say, River to do so -- it's something that the Doctor simply cannot physiologically endure.)

The Doctor knows that Amy loves Rory, and that he cannot stand in the way of his friend's last chance to spend her life with her one true love.

(See @Richard's answer for more on this.)

Clara distracted him, as part of her appearing throughout his timeline to help steer him towards her continuity.

(If the Doctor doesn't lose Amy, he doesn't sulk.

If he doesn't sulk, he doesn't meet the GI and Clara.)

And without Clara, he doesn't save Galifrey.

The Doctor is lying, and has known for some time that this is where he leaves Amy and Rory.

He's not crying out of fear; he's crying because, once she goes to NY without him, she's no longer his companion.

It's easier than that - Amy stepped between the angel and the doctor.

He couldn't see the angel.

She blocked his view with her body.

But River knew that it was the right thing to do so she blinked - for Amy.

River was willing to give up both of her parents just so they could spend their lives together.

Perhaps it's a also that The Doctor read the name of the last chapter of River's book, which I believe was "Amy's Goodbye".

He clearly believes that everything in the book must happen, as can be see by how River must break her own wrist earlier in the episode to free herself.

Now that he sees how Amy is definitely saying goodbye to him, wouldn't he realize that it all fits in to place and not try to stop her?

He is sad but realizes it was already destined to happen, according to River's book.

The short answer was that the Doctor was aware that Amy and Rory in the past had become a fixed point in time.

This happens when he reads the chapter name

"Amelia's Last Farewell" So he could do nothing to change that except play it out.

Although he tried to prevent the fixed point by refusing to break Rivers wrist to free her.

River then breaks her own wrist, thus fulfilling the storyline of the book.

There was also a fan theory for that season that the episodes were running in reverse order in relation to the doctors timeline.

So a lot of the actions the doctor takes in earlier episodes is because of the outcome in Manhattan.

This is certainly the case with River's timeline and she was the one who also told her to be with Rory.

Question: At the end of The Angels Take Manhattan, we see a surviving Weeping Angel taking Rory away right outside the TARDIS. Then Amy lets herself be touched by the Angel to join Rory in the past.  What troubles me is that both The Doctor and River were standing right there and witnessed the whole thing. Why didn't The Doctor just stare at the Angel and tell River to get Amy inside the TARDIS to save her?

Why didn't The Doctor just stare at the angel to save Amy?

The Doctor knows that Amy loves Rory, and that he cannot stand in the way of true love.  He clearly believes that everything in River's book must happen, as can be seen by how River had to break her own wrist earlier in the episode.

Amy stepped in the way of the angel and the doctor thus preventing this from happening. Also, the doctor couldn’t break the fixed point in time and had to play out the reality of what he already knew and thus could not save her.

Amy stepped in the way of the angel and the doctor. The doctor couldn’t break the fixed point in time and had to play out the reality of what he already knew which meant he couldn’t save her.


Hufflepuffs are quite resourceful and reliable, very good qualities to have for a teacher trying to teach a difficult subject.

Slytherines are quite tricky and manipulative, and knowing how to use that to slip knowledge into a student's mind would be quite like them.

Gryffindors are courageous, and what sort of courage it must take to teach a classroom full of spell-potent young wizards.

In short: There are more qualities to being a teacher than just "knowing everything".

And, more to the point, the most scholarly student of them all in the series, Hermione Granger, was in house Gryffindor.

So clearly there's more to being chosen for Ravenclaw than simply 'You are the smartest'.

Intelligence isn't limited to those who are in Ravenclaw, and it isn't the only characteristic that the Sorting Hat looks for when assigning students to Houses.

It's perfectly possible to be incredibly intelligent - more than enough to potentially be Sorted into Ravenclaw - but demonstrate something else that ultimately means you would be better suited in another of the four Houses.

Just look at Hermione, who was the smartest student in her year at Hogwarts, but was Sorted into Gryffindor because she demonstrated potential for great bravery, which evidently outweighed her intelligence.

According to Pottermore, Professor McGonagle was the premier Transfiguration academician of her time (and before her, we of course have Albus Dumbledore's academic achievements).

Both were in Gryffindore, and both - leaving aside all OTHER considerations - were clearly more academically qualified to teach Transfiguration than any competitor, from Ravenclaw or otherwise.

There are two or three assumptions here that need to be debunked.

Firstly, the idea that teachers have to be the smartest - in fact, if the wizarding world is anything like the real world, many of the smartest and brightest may well have shunned teaching for other pursuits.

Secondly, the idea that intelligence is inherently a bookish thing, and that it is the most important trait of a teacher (really it's just one of a number that teachers need).

And thirdly, the idea that the Houses and their students are all so obviously not alike.

The beauty of the different House traits is that they are all so broad as to mean that any one individual could show characteristics of all 4 of them.

ç

Yet he was also "the bravest wizard I have ever known" (according to Harry) due to his working as a spy against Voldemort (Gryffindor's primary trait).

His brilliance at school in potions (as demonstrated by the Half-blood prince book he left) show he had the ingenuity characteristic of a Ravenclaw.

And his loyalty to Dumbledore and to his affections for Lily, a loyalty and dedication that lasted right to the end, show he had a bit of Hufflepuff in him too.

And let's not forget the very real possibility that people change, with time.

Snape again, may be a good example of this.

What House would he have been sorted in, if he was Sorted around the time of the 7th book, instead of as a child?

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

This question begins with an incorrect assumption " Presumably, anyone who ended up as a Professor must have been pretty smart .

" This is easily dismissed by reviewing Professor of Divination, Sybill Trelawney , She clearly does not fit in the category " pretty smart ".

Another large character/professor may also be identified, as a tough fit for " pretty smart ", who I will leave unnamed for those who have not progressed through the entire series.

As " pretty smart " is not a requirement for professorship, a house has little to do with becoming a professor.

Not to mention the facts presented in other answers concerning the distribution of Intelligence across houses.

Question: Ravenclaw is for all the smart wizards. Presumably, anyone who ended up as a Professor must have been pretty smart. So why are there Professors not from Ravenclaw?

Why aren't all Professors Ravenclaws?

A person might be incredibly intelligent but demonstrate something else that ultimately means they would be better suited in another of the four Houses.  The different House traits are all so broad that any individual could show characteristics of all 4 of them. For example, Hermione was the smartest student in her year at Hogwarts, but was sorted into Gryffindor because of her potential for  bravery.

The Hogwarts houses were allotted based on values and being a Ravenclaw doesn’t automatically mean you are intelligent since intelligence exists in various forms depending on values.

The Hogwarts houses were allotted based on values. Intelligence isn’t limited to those solely in Ravenclaw. Being a Ravenclaw doesn’t automatically mean you are intelligent since intelligence exists in various forms depending on values.


On the show itself he hasn't if you don't count K9 and Kamelion.

In the Doctor Who comic strip, one of his long-running companions was Frobisher , from a shapeshifting race called the Whifferdill; he usually took the form of a penguin, so I don't think that counts as humanoid.

The Tardis wikia page on companions also mentions some other "obviously non-human species" in the "non-humans" section, but I think all the ones mentioned besides the Whifferdills would qualify as humanoid.

He does seem to have a preference for Humans

In fact, its what got him stranded here for a time.

However, it isn't an exclusive one.

At least not in the entirety of the series.

Since the reboot, his companions have been human and typically from somewhere or somewhen around the British Isles / United Kingdom.

This gets a little grey if you include Vastra and Strax as companions since they are clearly not from around here.

If you go back to the First Doctor and start counting , there have been many companions not from this Earth: Susan Foreman, Gallifreyan K9, Robot Dog Romana, Gallifreyan / Time Lady Adric from the E-Space planet Alzarius Nyssa from the planet

Traken Turlough, a political prisoner from the planet Trion Kamelion, a shape-changing sentient robot Some on that list may be "human" but just not born here - the Whoverse is a little fuzzy about the whole notion of why most aliens are bipeds who speak English, though many of them are simply humans who have ventured into space.

Adric and Nyssa may or may not be on that list.

I intentionally left out Leela , as a member of the Sevateem

she's almost certainly got ancestry here.

Also Jack Harkness, as he is from Boeshan Peninsula , a future human colony.

For non-humanoids entirely, the list is whittled down to K9 and (depending on her shape), Kamelion.

K9 (both versions) and Kamelion count as companions, of the Fourth and Fifth Doctors respectively.

The K9s were of course robot dogs, and Kamelion was an android.

Captain Jack isn't British and

being immortal isn't all that human because as Tennant stated 'dying is part of being human' so by the tenth Doctor's definition the inability to die is non-human.

Also to counter act the humanoid concept

yes jackis humanoid but his future self (the face of bo) is not.

The BBC, and television and movies generally, has/have a very strong preference for humanoid aliens, or larger aliens in lieu thereof: It's a heck of a lot easier to do a creature if you can put a human in the suit.

There have been exceptions involving puppetry or robotics ("animatronics") , but given that

Dr. Who originated so long ago and was a low-budget effort for many years, it shouldn't surprise anyone that there's a bias in this direction.

It's also easier for the most of the viewing audience to identify with humanoids.

"US Television features cardboard-cutout characters in front of three-dimensional scenery.

The BBC does it the other way around."

Question: The Doctor has traveled Universes and still seems to end up with an English /  UK  companion and befriends mostly humanoid--class entities. Are there any instances that deviate from this scenario?

Does The Doctor ever have a non-British companion or non-humanoid friend?

For non-humanoids, the list of companions only features K9 and Kamelion.

The Doctor has had non-British companions including Susan and Romana and Captain Jack. Moreover, K9 and Kamelion are both non-humanoid and companions of the Doctor.

The Doctor has had non-British companions. These companions include: Susan and Romana and Captain Jack. K9 and Kamelion are both non-humanoid and companions of the Doctor.


Heinlein's Number of the Beast features a vehicle that can travel through space and time and to fictional worlds such as Oz and Barsoom.

Depending on when in his career you're thinking of, and how complete an "all" you're insisting on, " Time Enough For Love " references many/most of his other books and embeds at least two sequences that are novella-to-novel-length in their own right.

For the sake of completeness (although I think accepted answer The Number of the Beast is the most all-encompassing of Heinlein's "multiverse" novels), I'll throw in The Cat Who Walks Through Walls .

It weaves together characters and storylines from a variety of other Heinlein novels, most prominently The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and Time Enough For Love .

In spirit and tone, though, it functions as a sort of sequel to The Number of the Beast .

Not for reasons of any narrative continuity between the two, but because each is a freewheeling parodic adventure within the conventions of a particular genre.

Where Beast was primarily a romp through the conventions of pulp sci-fi.

The Cat is Heinlein at play with the tropes of hard-boiled detective fiction.

Flawed tough-guy hero, mysterious femme fatale, inexplicable murder to open the action

- it's all swiped from the noir playbook.

Finally, the spacetime-travelling fictional-world-visiting Gay Deceiver from Beast also makes a reappearance in To Sail Beyond The Sunset , but there it's more of a walk-on cameo at the end.

I’m not sure whether this is what you’re looking for, but Wikipedia says, For Us, the Living contains many foreshadowings of Heinlein's later writings.

The 2086 of the book has a significant resemblance to both Beyond This Horizon and the Earth of Methuselah’s Children .

Other familiar elements include the "Covenant" from " Coventry ",a variation on Starship Troopers ’ suffrage only through federal service, rolling roads and a cat as a minor character. … (and more) … and there are similar remarks in the introduction to the book.

It sounds like they were talking about his collection The Past Through Tomororow .

It's not all the books he's ever written, but it's a really good overview of his future history.

The stories are presented in chronological order relative to one another.

Question: I remember a thread here in the SciFi Stack Exchange about the longest sci-fi series. Someone mention a standalone Heinlein book that seemed to somehow include all other books ever written in its story. Does anybody know which book is that?

What's the book by Heinlein that contains all other books?

This may refer to Heinlein's collection - The Past through tomorrow. However, this may also refer to The Number of the Beast, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls or Time Enough For Love.

The book of Heinlein’s containing all other books may be: The Past Through Tomorrow; The Number of the Beats; or Time Enough for Love.


Per the Wookieepedia page on Darth Sidious (AKA Chancellor Palpatine), his Entire life was the culmination of a thousand-year plan to overthrow the Republic and the Jedi Order from within. and that he headed both the Galactic Republic and, secretly, the Confederacy of Independent Systems.

so that As billions perished in the war, the vast majority of Republic citizens rallied behind Chancellor Palpatine, giving him enough support to amend the Galactic Constitution in the name of security and transfer most of the Senate's executive authority to his own office leading to Order 66 :

Wherein all members of the Jedi Order were accused of treason and betrayed by their clone troopers to the point of virtual extermination. with the ultimate result being Without the Jedi to oppose him, Palpatine declared himself Emperor of the first Galactic Empire, bringing an end to the Republic that had stood for over 25,000 years Simple really.

The whole story was just a political scheme to overthrow Republic and become it's leader (thus leading to a Sith Galactic Empire).

Sticking only to movies: In "The Phantom Menace", Palpatine needed the Federation of Commerce to attack Naboo in order to get a chance to become Chancellor.

The whole plot was meant to replace Finis Valorum as a head of Republic; In "Attack of the Clones", Palpatine use the breakout of the civil war to force the Senate to give him extra-powers (eventually leading to the formation of the Galactic Empire).

Without an ongoing war, he would have not been suitable to obtain such powers;

Moreover, as seen in "The Revenge of the Sith", the clone army would have been a decisive pawn in the incoming Jedi purge.

So, from his point of view, reaching the position of Chancellor of the Republic was just the first step to gain absolute dominion as a Sith lord over the galaxy.

Another way to explain it even more simply: No matter which side won the conflict, Separatists or Republic, Palpatine would have come out supreme leader.

Want to see a real world example of playing both sides.

Look at the USA foreign policy back in the 1980s.

The USA was OPENLY selling arms to Iraq and COVERTLY selling arms to Iran while Iran and Iraq were at war with each other.

he started the clone wars so he would get voted as the Supreme chancellor or leader of the entire Republic, as well as having an army with which answered directly to him so as to keep the galaxy under his control, and to later on kill the jedi.

He knew how to multi-task like non other.

Palpatine needed an army to control an empire: He could have used the droids, why not?

Droids are cheap and can be deployed in great numbers, but they are not good at fighting without their numbers, They are designed to overwhelm.

Second, droids were not made for advanced or complex thinking processes, as the separatists feared it would cause rebellion (imagine taking R2-D2's processing unit or OS into a B1 Battle droid - he would refuse to kill civilians or unarmed people, where as a B1 unit cannot not distinguish the difference between someone who is armed and someone who is unarmed unless ordered to do so.)

Palpatine could issue order 66 any time, why so late in the war?

Firstly, he knew the clones would be better fighters.

As humans, regardless of the upbringing, they would carry with them creativity and ingenuity, which would give them two advantages droids don't have.

Secondly, he needed the clones to be battle hardened so that they would be trained and ready to fight a war if need be at the republics expense.

He is basically getting an army for free here.

Thirdly, think of the vehicles, weapons, armor, and gadgets needed to fight a war.

They need to be battle tested.

See their weaknesses and strengths - which combinations of vehicles worked the best.

Which tactics worked.

Which didn't.

I can go on, but you get the idea.

In order for the chancellor to ensure he won all future wars, he must first ensure his potential army could win the current one.

Similarly, he also needed Anakin on his side, as well as the right time and reason to eliminate not only the jedi, but the jedi council.

The jedi council trying to eliminate him was the perfect excuse.

As you can see, had he not have waited, his empire would have been built on shaky and unsure ground, which would have been pointed out by the general public, who may have taken the advantage of the situation, and attempted to overthrow the new government.

Likewise, he would need the senates help to raise his empire, along with the public.

At the stage it was at, where most of the planets knew the republics power because the republic had enough time to get most planets involved in the war

the inhabitants of those planets would have known that to rebel against the republic would be a bad mistake.

So through those three years, he would be able to turn the sure knowledge that the republic would always win into fear that they knew the republic would always win - making the option to rebel out of the question.

Again, this is all speculation, however I felt that it should be adequately explained so that you can properly see just how meticulous Palpatine was in planning the whole charade.

Question: I'd like to know why did Chancellor Palpatine created the Clone Wars?  It doesn't make sense to me that the Chancellor was both head of the Republic  and  the Sith.

Why did Chancellor Palpatine create the Clone Wars?

He started the clone wars so he would get voted as the Supreme chancellor or leader of the entire Republic, as well as having an army with which answered directly to him so as to keep the galaxy under his control, and to later on kill the jedi. The whole story was just a political scheme to overthrow the Republic and become leader (thus leading to a Sith Galactic Empire). The entire Jedi Order was accused of  treason and betrayed by their clone troopers. The end result was that without the Jedi to oppose him, Palpatine declared himself Emperor of  the first Galactic Empire, bringing an end to the Republic.

He starts the clone wars to get voted as the Supreme chancellor or leader of the entire Republic and he wants an army answering directly to him to stay in control of the galaxy and kill the Jedi.

He starts the clone wars to get voted as the Supreme chancellor or leader of the entire Republic. He wants an army answering directly to him to stay in control of the galaxy and kill the Jedi.


Gandalf is not a "wizard" in the classical fantasy sense of the word, one whose power and wisdom is learned in dusty towers poring over old books.

He is a divine being, one of the Maiar, whose very essence is wisdom.

Indeed, it can be interpreted that the Ainur (the Maiar and the Valar) are all aspects of the universal divinity, each embodying some quality:

[Eru, the Creator] made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, [...]

But for a long while they sang only each alone, or but few together, while the rest hearkened; for each comprehended only that part of the mind of Ilúvatar from which he came, and in the understanding of their brethren they grew but slowly.

Yet ever as they listened they came to deeper understanding, and increased in unison and harmony.

(From the Ainulindalë, the Music of the Ainur, in the Silmarillion.

Emphasis mine).

So some of Gandalf's wisdom is inborn, a part of his essence.

But some he learned from other Maiar or the Valar themselves: Wisest of the Maiar was Olórin [=Gandalf's name in Valinor] .

He too dwelt in Lórien, but his ways took him often to the house of Nienna, and of her he learned pity and patience.

(From the Valaquenta, in the Silmarillion).

Gandalf was partially taught by the Vala Nienna, per the Silmarillion, Valaquenta: Wisest of the Maiar was Olórin.

He too dwelt in Lórien, but his ways took him often to the house of Nienna, and of her he learned pity and patience .

(My emphasis, with Olórin, of course, being Gandalf's original name as a Maia in Valinor)

This is, as far as I know, the most that Tolkien ever wrote on the subject.

Gandalf has no teacher.

He is a Maiar, something like a demi god.

He was born like this.

And he knows much more than what he showed on LOTR, because when he was in Middle-Earth he couldn't show his true power.

As you can see in the books and movies, he even killed the Balrog, which is a VERY powerful being.

As powerful as Gandalf.

I dare to say that Gandalf's power is similar to Sauron's, as both are Maiar.

Short answer:

Neither yes or no but kinda.

Adding to Avner Shahar-Kashtan's answer.

This is all off the top of my head

so I can't cite book/page

but Gandalf makes several comments and/or the narrative implies he has relied on the knowledge of others.

Though Gandalf is indeed Maiar and as such has a great deal of innate talent.

However it is clear that he learned much from Cirdan, Elrond and Galadriel aside from his own research and discussions with many human loremasters over the centuries.

Including specifically the casting of spells - cf.

his comment to Frodo before the Gates of Moria where he's trying to recall the password... that he once knew all the spells of elves, orcs, etc.

He speaks highly of Denethor's learning in LotR and seeks the council of Saruman, Elrond and Galadriel at numerous points in The Hobbit, LotR and The Silmarillion.

And even Saruman took centuries and expended great effort to learn what he knew.

Aside

(but related):

The Wizards as naturally "angelic" beings are in danger of being drawn into an inordinate passion for Middle Earth through their incarnation.

It is implied that the Blue Wizards have lost their way in the East, that Radagast has lost his purpose by being taken with the flora and fauna of Middle Earth, that Saruman's search for Ring Lore has made him weak to Sauron's sway of a promise of power.

Wisest of the Maiar was Olórin.

He too dwelt in Lórien, but his ways took him often to the house of Nienna, and of her he learned pity and patience.

Dwelt in Lorien above means that Olorin was a Maiar OF Irmo, the "Lord and Master of Dreams, Visions, and Desires, and Creator of the Oloré Mallé, or Path of Dreams,"

BUT he ALSO learned pity and patience from Nienna.

There is also this about Olorin, clearly resembling Irmo: For though he loved the Elves, he walked among them unseen, or in form as one of them, and they did not know whence came the fair visions or the promptings of wisdom that he put into their hearts.

So, IF you accept that Nienna was a mentor to Olorin, as presented by Avner Shahar-Kashtan and Darth Satan then you have to accept that Irmo (Lorien) was also a mentor, only more so.

There is also some controversy as to whether Olorin was of the people of Manwe or Irmo.

In any event he had contact with Irmo, was called his counselor and lived in Lorien.

So, mentors for Olorin would be Manwe/Varda (maybe), Irmo/Este, and Nienna.

While Gandalf certainly continued to learn in Middle Earth, I don't consider anyone there to be a mentor:

Galadriel, Cirdan and Elrond would have recognized what he was, and he was already considered the wisest of the Maiar before he left Aman.

While Olorin was Maia and came into being with considerable gifts the quote shows that he LEARNED patience and pity from Nienna

, I take that to mean he was mentored.

Question: Did Gandalf have a teacher/mentor?   If yes , who was his teacher/mentor?  If no , from where did he get his knowledge? How did he became so wise?   This question doesn't ask if he had a teacher to learn to become a wizard, though that may be implied. Gandalf is knowledgeable in things beyond just magic. Even a mentor may be considered a teacher, even if he is not taught about magic in specific.

Did Gandalf have a teacher/mentor?

Gandalf is a divine being, one of the Maiar, whose very essence is wisdom. However, while Gandalf continued to learn in Middle Earth, he did not have a mentor.

Gandalf is partially taught by Vala Nienna but has no mentor as such as his very essence is wisdom.