Let us assume normal physics.

The trappings of the Thor comic relies on the old adage about sufficiently advanced technology being like magic.

The only thing in normal physics we know of that might cause this kind of spacial locking is quantum levitation .

It is not simply being heavy, because his hammer has been used to pin people in place without crushing them.

This suggests that, like in the above video, Thor's hammer can 'turn on' superconductivity, and perhaps is so advanced that the geometry of the locking is stronger and effective even in a smaller magnetic field.

If this is the case, you'd have to go far into space before the effect would stop working.

And it would always be relative to the nearest strongly-magnetic source.

It also means that you might be able to overcome the locking with local magnets, if this is in fact the mechanics behind the hammer's ability to stay motionless when without Thor's grasp.

It also can explain the ability to toss the hammer.

See the video and use your imagination.

After reading some of the answers here, and further Google (re)searching, I came to the following:

There are two parts to wielding Mjolnir.

Lifting Mjolnir Wielding Mjolnir

(possessing Thor's power) Before wielding Mjolnir, it needs to be lifted.

As portrayed in much of the modern comics and movies, unless you are worthy, the hammer won't budge from where it is (Excluding the axe/hammer version of Mjolnir ).

But in most cases, there is gravity in place.

When there is zero gravity, it can be moved.

Two examples of this: Ironman and Red Hulk are two characters that encountered Mjolnir in outer space, and were able to move, grasp, and even use it on Thor.

Ironman encounters Mjolnir in space, grabs it, and moves it.

Upon entering Earth's atmosphere, gravity pulls Mjolnir towards the ground, and Ironman can no longer move it.

Red Hulk is able to swing Mjolnir in space.

Although there may have been a loophole also that Rulk actually took possession of the hammer from Thor.

However, being able to lift or move Mjolnir doesn't equate to being worthy nor is the same as wielding it.

The inscription on the hammer states: Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor .

It doesn't say that it cannot be lifted.

It states that it be held AND if is worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.

So we can interpret Odin's enchantment to generally apply to those that lift it and are worthy.

For the cases when it can't be lifted, it is a side effect when gravity is present.

TL;DR

So, in short, yes it can be moved in outer space, but not wielded.

The worthy can lift and wield it.

The unworthy cannot lift it when gravity is present, but they can move it absent a gravitational pull.

They also cannot wield it nor possess the power of Thor.

Sources: Mjolnir wiki entry

How did the Red Hulk lift

Thor’s hammer?

Revamped Thor Respect Thread: Section on Essential Mjolnir [dead link]

I think DampeS8N's answer provides a more thorough explanation, but even assuming that the hammer can't be lifted on Earth by the unworthy simply because it's too "heavy", that somehow the mass of the hammer is felt by anyone who isn't meant to wield it, then the same would apply in space.

In space, you may not feel the force of gravity from a large planet, but the laws of mass and inertia still apply.

So if someone who isn't worthy of wielding it tried to pick up or swing the hammer, they would just swing themselves around the hammer instead of moving the hammer itself.

The will of Odin overwrites the physics, if the all father has decreed only the worthy can wield it, then, outer space or not, the hammer is unwieldable ( not immovable ) by Odin's will, there is no room for puny human physics loopholes to the contrary.

According to Odin's enchantment only the worthy can wield it, just being able to lift it

it doesn't mean they can

wield it, the same way a caveman can use a Sniper gun to club somebody in the head, the unworthy are unable to use the true power of the Mjolnir.

To them it is nothing more than a simple hammer.

No, only by Beta Ray Bill , but he doesn't need to, because Odin made him his own.

Question: Thor's hammer,  Mjolnir , according to Odin's enchantment, can only be wielded by those deemed worthy.   Does this only apply when the hammer is subject to gravitational pull? What happens when it's in outer space away from any pull? Would those unworthy be able to wield it?

Can Thor's hammer be wielded by anyone in outer space?

When there is zero gravity, it can be moved.  Ironman encounters Mjolnir in space, grabs it, and moves it, and Red Hulk is able to swing Mjolnir in space. The unworthy  cannot  lift it when gravity is present, but they can move it if there is no  gravitational pull. However, it is said that the will of Odin overwrites the physics - if the all father has decreed that only the worthy can wield it, then, outer space or not, the hammer is unwieldable ( not immovable ), and there is no room for feeble human physics loopholes to claim the contrary.

Though the hammer can be lifted in zero gravity it cannot be wielded meaning that the powers of Thor will not be bestowed upon you.

There are instances of individuals who are unworthy being able to lift the hammer is zero gravity.

The hammer can be lifted in zero gravity, but not wielded i.e. they cannot use Thor's powers.


It does not directly mention an artificial food generator, but I think it is close and is is from the father of science-fiction: Jule Verne together with his son Michel wrote in "In the Twenty-Ninth Century:

The Day of an American Journalist in 2889"

(Au XXIXme Siecle:

La Journée d’un Journaliste Américain en 2889, first appeared 1889, but later modified and published again in 1891) about two things that come close to a food generator.

The story is about Francis Bennet, the owner of the "World Herald" (formerly "New York Herald") and a normal day in his life.

The Vernes actually anticipate quite a lot of developments and technologies.

You can find the full text here .

The first thing about food production that he mentions is not really clear to me.

It seems more like a distribution system for pre-cooked food, but might also be a replicator: Like everybody else in easy circumstances nowadays, Francis Bennett, having abandoned domestic cooking, is one of the subscribers to the Society for Supplying Food to the Home, which distributes dishes of a thousand types through a network of pneumatic tubes.

This system is expensive, no doubt, but the cooking is better, and it has the advantage that it has suppressed that hair-raising race, the cooks of both sexes.

Later Bennet is approached by inventors and owners of start up companies, requesting his opinion and funding.

One of these inventors found a way to transform all kinds of matters from one into another and even claims that creation of humans is possible: 'Sir,' he began, 'though the number of elements used to be estimated at seventy-five, it has now been reduced to three, as no doubt you are aware?' '

Perfectly,' Francis Bennett replied.

Well, sir, I'm on the point of reducing the three to one.

If I don't run out of money I'll have succeeded in three weeks.' '

And then?' '

Then, sir, I shall really have discovered the absolute.' 'And the results of that discovery?'

It will be to make the creation of all forms of matter easy - stone, wood, metal, fibrin . . .'

'Are you saying you're going to be able to construct a human being?' '

Completely ...

The only thing missing will be the soul!'

Only that!'

was the ironical reply of Francis Bennett, who however assigned the young fellow to the scientific editorial department of his journal.

He does not mention food, but all kinds of matter, hence describes a replicator.

If the guy gets his funding from Bennet and he gets it to work, he might be building the first replicator of science-fiction history.

Off the top of my head (and therefore probably not the earliest) Some of Niven's stories (e.g. At the Core ) from the 70's have "autochefs" that seem to synthesize food on demand.

Note that these are definitively not general purpose replicators: just moderately capable food synthesizers.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/231/dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten

Tom Swift and the Space

Solartron had a way of generating water, oxygen, and components of food via a cyclotron of some sort.

(The energy that relativity requires to accelerate closer and closer to the speed of light became stable mass, even after the items slowed down).

This is from 1958

(Second Tom Swift series.

My local used book store has some of the first series, but wants $600 a book for it.)

I can not say with authority (still working on reading everything)

however, please take a look at this: http://www.aliencuisine.com/commentary/food-and-science-fiction-science-fiction-and-food/

The original Buck Rogers comic strips had several instances where humans created food (and other material goods) through the use of "Electical Rays".

That was in the 1920's so it doesn't beat the Verne reference.

Charles Tanner's Tumithak of the Corridors (1932) describes a post-invasion underground society where ancient machines manufacture food from rocks.

Neat trick, no?

Question: I'm referring to devices like Star Trek  replicators  and matter compilers in Neal Stephenson's  Diamond Age . Are you aware of any earlier occurrences of such devices in literature or cinema?

What was the first known mention of artificial food generators?

Jules Verne alluded to this concept in "In the Twenty-Ninth Century. Some of Niven's stories (e.g.  At the Core ) from the 70's have  "autochefs"  that seem to synthesize food on demand. The original Buck Rogers comic strips had several instances where humans created food (and other material goods) through the use of "Electrical Rays".  Charles Tanner's  Tumithak of the Corridors  (1932) describes a post-invasion underground society where ancient machines manufacture food from rocks.

There are some references to synthetically producing food such as; Tom Swift and the Space, Buck Roger comics, Charles Tanner's Tumithak of the Corridors etc. Not all are exactly the same, but are similar in nature.


Wookieepedia - Star Wars:

Sith - Behind the scenes:

An issue of Star-Lord, published by Marvel Comics in 1973, featured a villain, Rruothk'ar, who was described as a "Sith-Lord".

As far as SW canon: BlueHarvest.net Scoops!

Star Wars:

A New Hope script: Star Wars: A New Hope script STAR WARS - Episode IV.

A NEW HOPE

From the JOURNAL OF THE WHILLS by George Lucas Revised Fourth Draft January 15, 1976 LUCASFILM LTD. ... INTERIOR: REBEL BLOCKADE RUNNER -- MAIN HALLWAY.

The awesome, seven-foot-tall Dark Lord of the Sith makes hisway into the blinding light of the main passageway.

I remember Darth Vader being referred to as a "Dark Lord of the Sith" before the prequel trilogy came out, probably before Episode V was released.

I don't think the Episode IV movie uses the phrase, but I think the novelization does.

(The novel is canon, right?)

But there was no explanation of what the word "Sith" means.

I believe Vader was called the Dark Lord of the Sith around the time of the initial movie's release, though I don't think mention of it was made in the film.

I believe there was mention in the original novel, though.

As Keith said, that concept wasn't expanded upon.

The question asks for 'real time'

as to when people would have known the term 'sith' DVK mentions the ANH scripts , but as far as I can tell these were not (officially) available until around the time of the special edition releases in 1997.

However, the official novelisation Star_Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker published November 12, 1976, does mention the Sith.

(and notably Palpatine's name for the first time)

Wikipedia notes:

The novel also refers to Darth Vader as a Sith Lord.

Although he was referenced as such in various merchandising tie-ins at the time of the original film , he is not referred to as a Sith Lord in the movie.

In fact, the term Sith Lord is not mentioned in the films until 1999's Star Wars:

Episode I –

The Phantom Menace

I've looked through the star wars vault but

the earliest mention I could see of Sith was on a lolly wrapper from 1980.

So I think the earliest 'canon' mention was in the novelisation in November 1976, but there would have been some unknown PR or merchandising that mentioned it before then possibly before the original film was even released.

Sith were in the initial scripts for the original Star Wars, as a honorable (tho dark) knightly order opposed to the Jedi (who were, at that time, called "Jedi Bendu", IIRC).

This was from before the movies were even made.

Their visible representative was a warrior called Prince Valorum (later, the unused name was recycled by Lucas for the chancellor of the Republic) who assisted the New Imperial general Darth Vader (yes, DV was the name of a repugnant, honor-less general, originally) to deal w/the protagonists of that early draft, tho Vader's vile behavior convinced him to join the heroes, instead.

I first heard the term "Dark Lord of the Sith" when I was like six or seven.

I saw Episode 4 in the Drive-

In theater.

Yeah

I just dated myself - LOL!

Anyway, I was a huge Vader fan after seeing Episode 4 as a kid, and was even him for Halloween 5 straight years before choosing Han Solo because a friend was Chewbacca.

But all things Vader, I had toys, comics and books, story 33 record albums, and trading cards and stickers.

In all the books and even on his original trading card, he is referred to as "The Dark Lord of the Sith".

Also in one of the story books he is referred to as a "Sith warrior".

And as said out here earlier, it's in the novels.

Everything I stated is from the original 70's releases.

However, nobody ever said what the Sith was in any of these original materials.

Oh, I just remembered asking my father what the Sith was, and he said it is probably "Vader's religion".

I guess my Pop was ahead of his time back in 77' - LOL :-)

Question: I don't remember any mention of the Sith in the original trilogy. The few expanded universe books I've read (which predate the prequel trilogy) refer to "Dark Jedi."  When were the Sith first mentioned in Star Wars canon?  (Real time, not in-universe time.)

When did the Sith enter the Star Wars canon?

An issue of Star-Lord, published by Marvel Comics in 1973, featured a villain, Rruothk'ar, who was described as a "Sith-Lord".  However, first "canon" mention of the sith was in the official novelisation, Star_Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker,  published November 12, 1976, does mention the Sith, but there may have been some unknown PR or merchandising that mentioned it before then, possibly before the original film was even released.

The two earliest mentions of a "Sith" were from a Marvel published comic in 1973 and an official novelisation of Star Wars published in 1976. These seem to be the two earliest references.

The earliest reference to any kind of "Sith" was published by marvel comics in 1973. This  featured a villain, Rruothk'ar, who was described as a "Sith-Lord".

the Adventures of Luke Skywalker  published November 12, 1976, does mention the Sith.


Short version :

No, all we know is that it's bigger on the inside.

Long version : The exact size, shape, and layout of the TARDIS has never been fully described, and the layout can change depending on season, and the writer.

The only fixed room in the TARDIS is the main control room (the room with the central console that is seen in almost every episode).

Even that room changes, usually getting a new layout, or slight improvements when there's a new Doctor (occasionally changing mid-Doctor, though).

There are a few other "known" rooms, including a Library, Wardrobe, Cloister Room/Bell (the Cloister Bell sounds when danger is imminent), a Holding Ring (which is where rooms of past companions could be found), and a Swimming Pool.

( Source ).

Additionally, there's various storage rooms, and it's implied that each companion, upon joining the Doctor in his travels, gets a room to store all their stuff.

There's also rooms that store food, a few bathrooms, lots of corridors, medical bays, and feasibly any number of other rooms used for any number of other purposes.

Additionally, there is at least one secondary control room used for a period of time by the Fourth Doctor.

In The Doctor's Wife, the TARDIS mentions that it has "archived thirty control rooms", only 12 of them had happened yet.

More details on the different control rooms can be found here: TARDIS Control Rooms

The only hard fact we have about the interior of the TARDIS is "Bigger than the outside."

It's been said several times that the Doctor can control the configuration of the TARDIS interior, and he has in fact changed it several times ("You've changed the desktop theme" from the 10th Doctor's Children in Need special).

The inside of the TARDIS has no real effective limit - we've seen tiny containers with space for millions of Daleks in the new series, and we know that (this being Doctor

Who) anything that's stated is subject to future retcon.

I'm not sure how accurate or serious was the Doctor, but in Journey to the centre of the TARDIS , the Doctor states it is infinite: -Picture

the biggest ship you've ever seen.

Are you picturing it?

-Yeah.

-Good.

Now forget it.

'Cause

this ship is infinite.

Edit : But the Doctor always lies....... Edit 2 :

Buuuut I don't see a reason why the Doctor would want to lie about that.

In a discussion at the Permuted Press forums, Peter Clines said: "The War TARDIS idea gets a lot of use in the books that revolved around the Time War (well... around the original Time War), like The Ancestor Cell .

One of the funny bits is that War TARDISes appear as massive, planet-sized battleships.

The Doctor's companions are terrified, but he brushes it off by explaining the Time Lords are just showing off and using the chameleon circuits to make the outside of each TARDIS match the inside."

I've yet to read that novel, but as it's an Eighth Doctor adventure, its canonicity is in question.

In the episode Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS , don't forget that the Eye of Harmony, or the main power source for the TARDIS is literally a decaying star sitting in what I can only describe as a Dyson sphere.

Big?

Big isn't the word for it.

Fracture the surface of the Earth?

I'd say closer to crushing it and terminating every speck of life on it.

Well, the Doctor once had to jettison a quarter of it (the TARDIS).

It was infinitely large, which caused a bit of cognitive dissonance for Adric.

("Castrovalva", 19th season, first serial, January 1982)

That the jettisoned portion contained the Zero Room caused quite a bit of physical dissonance for the Doctor.

(Then, bizarrely: Carpentry to the rescue!)

According to the 1983 Doctor Who Technical Manual , the TARDIS interior is infinite in size.

However, this would seem to be contradicted by statements in the show, including ones from the same era.

The most notable problem would be with the decision in jettison one quarter of the TARDIS in " Castrovalva ," which does not really make sense if the ship is actually infinite.

I asked Peter Davison about this at a Doctor Who convention, and he said that, as far as he was concerned, the TARDIS was very large, but finite in size.

"Big, big," was the way I think he phrased it.

He blew off whatever the Technical Manual said as irrelevant cruft.

Although I doubt Davison had ever looked at the book, dismissing it was probably not a terrible idea, since it contained some other obvious howlers—like placing the kaled mutant at the very bottom of the dalek interior it showed.

Maybe the Tardis is a procedurally generated world just like content is created in some computer games, where new rooms are automatically created as they are needed or discovered.

Effectively making it potentially infinite.

Wasn't there a episode a couple of years ago where they went into the future where the doctor was dead and the full tardis was acting as his tomb?

Also I recall a old episodes that showed the layout as a pyramid?

The question of size and mass makes sense in universe.

Time Lords can alter the size (dimension) of the TARDIS irrespective of the mass of the TARDIS.

(Time Lords being dimensional engineers after all!)

So while the TARDIS has infinite volume it does not necessarily have infinite mass.

This then allows for them to eject a quarter of the mass of the TARDIS even though it has an infinite volume in it's interior.

Question: Do we have any idea how big the  interior  of the TARDIS is?  Is it even a fixed size, since it was  recently renewed ?

How big is the interior of the TARDIS?

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

According to the 1983  Doctor Who Technical Manual and Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS, the TARDIS interior is infinite in size.

There are some references to the Tardis being infinite in size, however there is no way of knowing the actual size4 of the Tardis is still a mystery since it has never really been discussed in detail. So all be really know is "it's bigger on the inside".

There are some references in the show where the Doctor states the Tardis is infinite.

The specific size of the Tardis has never been fully explored or discussed. The only thing we really know is that "it's bigger on the inside"


I read a long time ago - too long ago to remember the source, unfortunately - that the reason C3PO and droids like him have that connector between the forearm and upper arm that restricts his movement is because it is a safety precaution.

The droids are programmed to serve, but if something went wrong, a humanoid made of metal with full articulation could pose a severe physical threat to most humans.

Constructing them so that they can't move freely prevents them from doing harm should they malfunction or rebel.

I believe Anakin built him this way because he was simply following a standard kit design.

3PO is a protocol droid series.

It is designed to look presentable in diplomatic situations, talk, provide information and walk around (and on occasion, maybe present something with his hands).

The limitations could not be technological because even the early trade federation droids had more agility.

Instead, the limited agility and strength seems to be a part of its design as a droid that can never attack or threaten, even in self-defense.

In addition to that it may have been a cheap model.

The PD-series seem to be able to extend its arms just fine!

As for episode

I, it seems that Anakin built C-3PO based on Cybot Galactica 's design, probably using spare parts from the same.

I think he has a fair range of articulation in his arms and legs, just not very precise control over it.

Looking at a few pictures, it appears to me that his extensor muscle hydraulics should be able to move his arm nearly straight, though because of the way the flexor appears to be attached, if his arms went completely straight, he may need a bit of help starting to retract them, but on the other hand, since they're hydraulic, maybe the extensor could reverse itself and provide the necessary push.

His hips and shoulders on the other hand, look fairly limited.

We can only speculate on why Anakin made him this way (when he was 9),but it seems to me a fairly good way to make him.

As Plutor mentioned in a comment, Anakin reassembled him from scratch, so it was droid designers (presumably) who made this decision.

And why not?

He has enough motion to do what he was designed for, translating and explaining protocol to diplomats and politicians.

Hydraulic or probably electric servomechanisms that serve to keep such type of droids from falling or other possible collisions are less precise and have slower reactions than human neural abilities.

That is why androids of that type could not be very attractive with their articulation.

Additionally the reason why Lucas made androids to look not like human exactly is that such a humanoid will not be such attractive as C-3PO do.

Here is an article called Plastic People that could explain this concept.

I'm tempted to say yes.

If you look at this picture, the hydraulic piston would lie horizontally next to his arm if he extends it fully.

If the piston is long enough, then he should be able to stretch them out.

Notice that both ends of the piston are on articulated ends that rise above the rest of the arm.

If they were embedded within the arm, then he would never be able to stretch out his arms (the piston could not be horizontal).

By elevating them with the articulation, the piston can lie flat, and he can stretch.

Question: Through all  Star Wars  movies,  C-3PO  seems quite limited in his movement. I noticed his elbow articulation even seems welded in place. What level of amplitude does he have in his arm articulation?  And why he was made that way?

Could C-3PO fully extend his arms?

It is said that the reason C3PO has that connector between the forearm and upper arm that restricts his movement is as a safety precaution. This  limited agility and strength seems to be a part of its design, as a droid that can never attack or threaten, even in self-defense.

He is designed this way as a safety protocal in the event that he malfunctions and attempts to hurt humanoids. With this design he is incapable of doing so.


Droids have personality, and that personality can be masculine or feminine.

and C-3P0 have (arguably) masculine personalities, either because they developed that way or they were initially programmed that way.

Or, potentially, because I have a cultural bias that paints the actions of both as 'more male' than 'more female'.

Therefore it's not incorrect to apply gendered pronouns to them.

'It', however, would also be accurate.

Some droids, rarely referenced, are more appropriate to be called 'male' or 'female' due to...

enhancements made to suit their primary purpose, but they are rarely touched upon even in the books.

There's more evidence that C-3P0 is male, quite famously.

As this NSFW photo attests to

According to the Star Wars: The Clone Wars Character Encyclopedia , droids can have programmed genders or no gender at all.

For example: (apologies for the poor image quality, no apologies for the free-hand red circles.)

Male: Female: None:

Varied:

Therefore, a droid should be referred to as "he," "she" or "it" based on what gender (if any) it had been programmed to have.

The script refers to both R2-D2 and C-3PO as male, and although we don't know what R2 is saying in his dialogue, we do hear 3PO refer to R2 as a male on several occasions.

An explosion rocks the ship as two robots, Artoo-Detoo (R2-D2) and See-Threepio (C-3PO) struggle to make their way through the shaking, bouncing passageway.

Both robots are old and battered.

Artoo is a short, claw-armed tripod.

His face is a mass of computer lights surrounding a radar eye.

Threepio, on the other hand, is a tall, slender robot of human proportions.

He has a gleaming bronze-like metallic surface of an Art Deco design.

And later: THREEPIO

That malfunctioning little twerp.

This is all his fault!

He tricked me into going this way, but he'll do no better.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/44025/Wad Cheber stands with Monica

FLO (WA-7), the waitress droid from Dex's Diner in Attack of the Clones, was obviously intended to look and sound female.

There are definitely droids that have an apparent gender.

There are definitely droids that have no gender as well.

Star wars.

I'd say a lot of the droids there have no personality, limited personality, or hidden personality.

Either way, they definitely look androgynous.

There's a cultural bias, that when a AI expresses a personality that has neither masculine or feminine traits, they are seen as masculine anyway.

See R2-D2.

The obviously female ones shouldn't be called 'droids' anyway, assuming that the term is a contraction of 'android'.

Strictly speaking 'androids' are male and 'gynoids' are female, so they'd be called 'noids'.

Question: Inspired by  this  question.  Are droids in the  Star Wars  universe referred to with gendered pronouns (i.e. he or she), or are they referred to as objects (i.e. it)?

Is a droid a ‘he/she’ or an ‘it’?

The script refers to both R2-D2 and C-3PO as male, and we  hear 3PO refer to R2 as a male on several occasions. Some droids appear to have a gender, while others do not.

Droids can be programmed with genders and can ever be designed to lean towards a specific gender or they can have no gender at all. There are cases of C-3PO refering to R2-D2 with male pronouns on a number of occassions.

It is a definite fact that droids can have genders programmed into them and can even be designed to work with certain gender coding.

There a definitely droinds who have genders and droids who do not. These droids exist as there are references of C-3PO using male pronouns to refer to R2-D2


When Lucas was talking about making three trilogies, he said that the droids (R2-D2 and C-3PO) were the only ones that would be in all three trilogies and in all nine movies (this was in the 70s, when he said there would be three trilogies).

He said the story was basically told through their eyes.

Excluding The Clone Wars (the movie and both animated series), here's the actors who were in both trilogies (but not always in all films): Anthony Daniels played C-3PO and Kenny Baker played R2-D2 in all six movies.

Frank Oz , as you have already mentioned, played Yoda's voice in five movies.

Ian McDiarmid played Senator/Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine (and Darth Sidious) in 4 movies (Episodes I-III and VI) originally, but was dubbed in for Episode V later .

So you could say he was in four of the movies when they were originally released, but is currently in 5 of the movies.

Also, as you pointed out, James Earl Jones was in four films as Vader's voice, and when Hayden Christensen was added in to Episode VI (replacing Sebastian Shaw at the end), he was in three films.

While some say Greedo showed up in 2 films , one in each trilogy, he was played by different actors in Episode I and Episode IV.

If the Special Editions are taken into account Temuera Morrison is in 3 films, playing Jango Fett and his clones in Episodes II and III and voicing Boba Fett in the Special Edition of Episode V.

What about Chewbacca played by Peter Mayhew, he was in III and IV-VI

You guys forgot Warwick Davis!

He played Wicket in Episode VI (in costume) and also had 4 (uncredited) appearances in Phantom Menace

He had four brief uncredited appearances in The Phantom Menace—one as W. Wald, the young Rodian friend of Anakin Skywalker; the other as Weazel, one of the gamblers at the podrace.

Davis also had a cameo as a "Tatooine street trader", and doubled Yoda in some of his "walking" scenes in Episode I

The only characters to appear in both trilogies were Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader, Obi-Wan Kenobi, The Emperor, R2-D2 and C-3PO, plus the muppet character Yoda.

The first two were played by other people, except the appearance of Hayden Christensen as you mention.

Ian McDiarmid played Emperor Palpatine (as Kev's answer mentions).

You also mentioned Yoda 's voice ( Frank Oz ).

On the subject of voices, James Earl Jones played Darth Vader 's voice in both trilogies.

Finally, Anthony Daniels played C-3PO and Kenny Baker played R2-D2 in both trilogies.

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

Ian McDiarmid appears as the emperor in episodes

I, II, III and VI in the original trilogy.

He is also in the amended version of episode V, but not the original theatrical version.

The only actor whose face can be seen in both trilogies is Ian McDiarmid (1, 2, 3, 6 added later to 5).

Another actor whose face can be seen is Hayden Christensen who was digitally added later into Ep. 6.

Others that appear on screen but with a body costume, are Peter Mayhew (3, 4, 5, 6), Anthony Daniels (all) and Kenny Baker (all).

And the actors that contributed with their voice are; James Earl Jones (3, 4, 5, 6) and Frank Oz (1, 2, 3, 5, 6).

Now that the cast for sequel trilogy is apparent, we might have some of these actors appear in 3 trilogies on top of obvious 4 appear in their 2nd.

As I remember from seeing "The Empire strikes Back" preview before the initial Australian cinema release in 1980, the Emperor appeared at least in holographic communication with Darth Vader.

Vader moved his Star Destroyer to where he could get better reception first.

I don't know if that was Ian McDiarmid or another actor.

Question: Apart from the voice of Yoda,  Frank Oz , have there been any other actors who played a role in both trilogies? I suppose  Hayden Christensen  counts, having been recently included in the Blu Ray version of Episode VI.

Which Actors Were Featured in Both Star Wars Trilogies?

Ian McDiarmid played Emperor Palpatine episodes 1,2, 3 5 and 6. Excluding  The Clone Wars, the following actors were in both trilogies (but not always in all films):  Peter Mayhew played Chewbacca, Anthony Daniels  played C-3PO and  Kenny Baker  played R2-D2 in all six movies, not forgetting Warwick Davis.  James Earl Jones and Frank Oz were both voice actors in both trilogies.

A number of actors make an appearance in both trilogies including Ian McDiarmid, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Peter Mayhew, Warwick Davis etc.

Ian McDiarmid appeared in both trilogies.

Anthony Daniels, Pete Mayhew and Kenny baker appeared in both trilogies.

Warick Davis makes un-acredited appearances in both trilogies.

James Earl Jones appears in both trilogies.

Hayden Christensen appears in both trilogies.


As far as canonical sources, I don't believe there's ever been an inorganic Force-sensitive (due to everybody's favorite M-word, as mentioned).

Non-canonically, there's always Skippy the Jedi Droid !

In Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy , Jedi Master C'Boath explains to Luke Skywalker that droids are simply holes in the Force - so, at least as far as c-canon goes, it looks like droids are not capable of tapping the Force.

We need some wisdom from Master Yoda on this one: My ally is the Force.

And a powerful ally it is.

It is what gives a Jedi his power.

It is the energy field created by all living things.

It surrounds us, penetrates us.

And: Life creates it, makes it grow.

Its energy surrounds us and binds us.

Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.

That seems to make it fairly cut-and-dried: the Force needs life.

Shards are Force-sensitive inorganic beings that sometimes had droid bodies: Iron Knight .

No, but perhaps there could be To the best of my knowledge, no Force-sensitive droids have been mentioned in canon , let alone Jedi or Sith droids.

In Legends, there is Skippy the Jedi Droid , but he was non-canon even back in the old EU days.

As to whether it’s possible for a droid to be Force-sensitive, we can’t be sure.

There exists at least one major obstacle to any potential Jedi or Sith droid .

The Force possesses a biological 1 factor: the midi-chlorians : Q: What are midi-chlorians?

A:

Midi-chlorians are tiny, intelligent life-forms that live inside the cells of all living things in the galaxy.

They do no harm, and help their host use the Force.

Star Wars: Absolutely Everything You Need to Know

These entities live inside all living cells.

Since droids have no cells, and are constructed from steel, silicon, and various other mechanical and electronic parts, they lack midi-chlorians.

As such, droids have no connection to the Force.

The droid 0-0-0 proposed a way around this, though, one which might enable a droid to use the Force.

If a droid were specially constructed to contain human blood, the Force could flow through it:

As such, while the average “droid on the street” could not be Force-sensitive, a purpose-built one might be.

It’s important to take this suggestion with several grains of salt, though: It’s untested.

It’s hard to know what would happen if it were implemented.

Would the midi-chlorians care?

The Force?

Maybe, maybe not.

Even if they both had no problem with a Force-sensitive droid, mass production might still fail.

Vader dismissed it out of hand.

The droid that thought of it was a psychotic torture technician with no particular expertise in the Force.

: There’s clearly a little more going on with the Force than mere biology.

While the Force can be inherited (Luke and Anakin; Talzin, Maul and Savage Opress), this doesn’t usually seem to be the case.

Force-sensitive people pop up, not only with with no Force-sensitive relatives, but quite possibly no Force-sensitives on their entire planet (don’t forget, there were only 10,000 Jedi).

It’s not at all clear that the opposite (Force sensitives having Force-sensitive children) is that reliable, either.

Don’t forget, Force sensitivity comes from a mystical energy field and magical, intelligent symbiotes.

Darth Vader 18

I just found out in Star Wars Saga Edition that at level 3, player droid characters may generate an Independent Droid Class which may produce a "Force" effect of up to 5 points.

MagnaGuards also possess a small amount of "Force" power (a default position of 1 point).

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/34848/The Guy with no hands

No droid in and of itself was able to use the Force.

However, there were droids that made use of biological components that were able to use the force in some way.

Specifically in the no longer canon (sorry EU/Legends) book The Cestus Deception "Bio-Droids" make use of an unusually Force-sensitive creature called a Dashta Eel granting them combat capabilities almost on par with Jedi.

Shards are droid with the Force:

Shards were a silicon-based species native to the planet Orax, who took the form of irregularly faceted cylindrical crystals thirty to forty centimeters in length.

Faint pulses of light—thought signals propagating through their "brains"—could be seen inside their bodies.

Shards were immobile in their natural state, but could be installed in specially modified droids.

Star Wars Wiki, Shard

Since droids are not considered living things, the force most likely won't exist with them.

But the way technology is in the Star Wars universe, I can easily see a droid use technology to imitate the results of using the force.

Like force lightning could be imitated by using an Arc Emitter to shoot and direct bolts of lightning.

An electromagnetic field or something like that can imitate the telekinetic form of the force.

In the original trilogy during Luke's training with Yoda, Yoda does tell Luke that all life creates the force but in the same breath he throws a monkey wrench into it and says rocks create the force.

Droids are technically living beings they have personalities and various mannerisms though programmed into them they do want to preserve themselves when endangered as is typical of any living being the only difference between a human/ alien and a droid is that droids are mass produced.

In S.W. K.o.t.

O.R. wearing any armor restricts the type of force powers you can use, like Darth Vader and his prosthetic limbs being unable to create blue force lightning but it doesn't say that he can't use other offensive force abilities I.E. force choke or telekinesis.

Droids are living but they are different type of life form

they are artificial.

Question: In the films, I only saw organic life forms become Jedi or Sith. Were there ever any droids who could use the Force?  Or is that impossible because of the  M-word ?

Are there any Jedi or Sith droids?

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

In the canon, it is not beliveed that there has been an inorganic Force-sensitive being. In Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy, Jedi Master C'Boath explains to Luke Skywalker that droids are simply holes in the Force. However, shards are Force-sensitive inorganic beings that sometimes had droid bodies, such as Iron Knight, not forgetting  Skippy the Jedi Droid !

There is a consideration for droids and droid like creatures that can use the force such as the Sharde's as well as the legend of Skippy the Jedi droid, but it is canonically considered that droids cannot use the force.

Shards are beings considered to be droids who can use the force. Aside from them there is the legend of Skippy the Jedi droid.

Droids are considered lifeless beings and thus cannot use the force.


In the book, they are much more explicitly vampires.

Even in the Will Smith movie, the creatures are vampiric (and referred to as such, I think)

- they hide from the sun, which burns them, they drink blood, and they are transformed from normal humans.

In the book, there's a difference between vampires - some are dead vampires and some are living.

The dead are mindless monsters, the living can be civil and have their own society.

This is not reflected in the Will Smith movie.

They are NOT traditional vampires, if that term really means anything anymore

(I'm looking at you, Buffy, Twilight, and Harry Dresden), but they absolutely are NOT zombies.

Zombies are not intelligent, do not have any form of social interaction, do not fear the sun, and can't become human again.

All of this runs counter to the movie.

In the earliest stories of the undead, they were purely creatures of magic.

There aren't many variants either, almost all of them are what you and I would recognize as vampires.

These are creatures that drink blood, kill and convert the living to what they are, can't abide the light of day, and can't easily be destroyed.

None of their traits or abilities need to be explained by physics.

In the modern movie, they are some sort of mutant or persons afflicted with a chronic condition.

Though they do not have any obvious magical powers, they seem to have much more energy than can be accounted for...

what are they feeding on?

Stronger and faster than the best athletes...

but they aren't eating Michael Phelps' 10,000 calorie diets (that we can see).

If they really do eat people...

why haven't they all starved?

If they are just feeding off what food is left in grocery stores and the like, why aren't they fighting each other over it (or if peaceful, cooperating with Will Smith)?

Other movies make vampires/zombies more clearly magical (remake of Dawn of the Dead).

Yet others don't care, they exist solely as a vehicle for horror and gore.

Everything considered, I Am Legend creates its own new creature that merely borrow from vampires.

In no way are they zombies mostly because zombies are not intelligent nor do they fear light.

We see intelligence when they stalk towards nevilles house and attack him there.

Even he said that they could follow him.

Also they are bright enough to know how to hunt and know how to defend themselves.

They are not quite vampires either.

For one they do not drink blood, going back to the deer they had caught only its head was remaining and all the meat was gone.

They also have the possibility of turning back into humans which is idiotic to even believe unless you are watching twilight.

They are simply infected.

The virus caught on because they believed they had a cure for cancer.

Which these mutated viruses became airborne.

It was a mix of different types of terrible diseases.

They are a new creature all in their own.

In the movie, they are classed as darkseekers.

Their own breed of monster.

In the book, they are classed as vampire-like creatures as they are based off of vampires, but they don't follow the classic scheme.

Also they can't be zombies as the book

I Am Legend gave rise to the zombie anyways.

I use closed captions while watching movies, and the captions actually referred to the creatures as "hermaphrodites"...

in my mind that is just politically incorrect, and it always had me wondering as to why the captioning company would refer to them as something like that unless they got that term from the moviemakers themselves.

Turn on your captioning and the part where the deer runs into the dark building, you will see in parenthesis (hermaphrodites panting) or something to that effect.

I think they are zombies because in I am Legend they die because of the disease contract, but then they come back to life right afterwards.

In the movie, the creatures are somewhat like vampires but we see no direct evidence that they drink blood although they seem to be attracted to blood (which is used as a lure) and perhaps they do explicitly drink blood since instead of "dark seeker" in the original script a term is used for them that involves the root "hemo."

(Hemocyte is the term that does not mean much afaik besides the root.)

Importantly, in the original book by Matheson, they are exactly "vampires" --

that is the central idea of the story, that what we used to call vampires were in fact victims of a bacteria that caused them to behave just like legendary vampires, minus the supernatural aspects, like they could not transform into bats, etc.

The closest thing to a supernatural characteristic is that people who die from the plague reanimate, driven by the bacteria and such reanimates behave differently than people who do not dies from the illness.

I Am Legend is based on the book I Am Legend by Richard Matheson.

It's a 1950s era book when the zombies as we know them today didn't even exist.

In the book they are basically vampires, he uses mirrors, crosses, garlic, stakes and the like to ward them off.

He researches their symptoms as if they are vampires.

The movie I Am Legend does talk about these strange creatures.

But, they die easily when shot by a gun, so that provides with another question to answer: "

Vampires don't die easily, right?".

Zombies, however, die easily.

So, are they zombies or vampires?

I believe they are zombies.

Because in the movie Will Smith and his family were driving to safety and one of the creatures

went through the window and bit the wife.

Normally, if it was a vampire the blood would have been gone immediately, but it took some time for her to die.

Question: Are the creatures in  I Am Legend  zombies, vampires, zompyres, or something else?

What are the creatures in I Am Legend?

In both the book and in the film, the creatures are vampiric, although some are dead and some are living. Mirrors, crosses, garlic and stakes are used in the book to ward them off and in the film they are classed as darkseekers. However, some claim that they are simply infected.

In "I am Legend" both the film and book refer to these creatures as vampire like creatures though they are not quite vampires. Instead the are more comonly known as the infected or darkseekers.

In both the film and book they are viewed as vampire like creatures though they are not entirely vampires.

They are more formally refered to as darkseekers or simply "infected"


The Wikipedia page appears to be out of date.

The latest season reveals that Zoidberg is in fact employed for a very specific purpose: To kill Dr. Farnsworth should he develop symptoms of hypermalaria, due to the gruesome death it entails otherwise.

While this proved ultimately unnecessary, due to the Professor not being infected with hypermalaria at all, but rather with Yetiism, he is likely kept on even after this, out of gratitude.

Besides all of this, he is a moderately competent knower of non-human biology, which is occasionally useful.

The very first episode gives ample evidence that he is employed by Planet Express.

We know that he is very poor, and expects doctors to be poor (From the episode where Leela begins dating a doctor).

Thus, he's not very well paid.

I suspect, but have no canon confirmation, that he is employed by Planet Express because he will give the results the management wants from any given procedure (his extreme pliability is demonstrated in How Hermes Requisitioned His Groove Back ).

It is likely FAR easier for this interstellar shipping company, which most likely must keep all medical records up to date and provide documentation of things like immunizations, biohazard clearance, etc to have a doctor on staff rather than bribe a different one each time they need falsified paperwork.

Season 6, episode 18, "The Tip of the Zoidberg" explains how the Prof and Zoidberg met and why Prof Farnsworth won't fire him.

As explained in the episode titled " The Tip of the Zoidberg ," he has a pact with the Professor to kill him once the effects of hyper-malaria set in.

I thought it was just a spoof on Star Trek, where a medical officer figures prominently in the cast of characters.

Zoidberg and the Professor are old "war" buddies, and the Professor thinks himself to have caught Tritonian Hyper Malaria.

Because of this, he wants Zoidberg to kill him when the symptoms begin (as shown in "The Tip of the Zoidberg).

However, the Professor really just has Yetism, so Zoidberg is really kept around from then on because he saved the Professor from that and cured him.

zoidberg did say in an episode something along the lines of printing a medical degree.....

and in the episode where leela suffers "squidification" zoidberg says "lets get you to a real doctor"......

though when they're hunting the tritonian yeti mom says "you want an alien hacked to pieces, he's the best we,ve got....

in the budget category" which makes me think the med school was probably a not good one and in the same episode Conrad suggested that if zoidy was to inject the toxin from the yeti that it would make him a double yeti......

guess what Conrad was right.

Question: For the most part, the Planet Express crew seems to actively dislike Zoidberg, and Professor Farnsworth and Hermes aren't exactly warm fuzzy balls of sympathy and compassion. They have to be employing him for a specific purpose - Amy is there for her blood type, the three main crew have their purposes given in the first episode, Hermes to run the company, Scruffy to clean (presumably) - but what is Dr. Zoidberg's actual job at Planet Express?

Why does Planet Express employ Dr. Zoidberg?

The latest season reveals that Zoidberg is employed to kill Dr. Farnsworth should he develop symptoms of hypermalaria, due to the gruesome death it entails otherwise.

Zoidberg is hired to kill the professor should his symptoms for hypermalaria set in. That is his real reason for staying.


According to Memory Alpha there were Vulcan ships being used for transport and exploration.

For instance, one Vulcan ship ventured into the Gamma Quadrant during the time of DS9.

In the old continuity of the new Star Trek, the Vulcan Science Academy built the extremely fast ship to facilitate Ambassador Spock's attempt to save the Romulan homeworld.

The ship (and the time worm hole it created) is the bridge between the old continuity and the new one.

In addition to the already mentioned Jellyfish from the 2009 Star Trek movie, We do see three Vulcan transport ships in the TNG episode Unification , although Memory Alpha describes them as Apollo class Federation vessels.

Also, in ST:TMP, we see a Federation long-range shuttle carrying Spock to the Enterprise.

Memory-Alpha has this quote from the man who designed the model for the movie:

"They were hopefully designed to be the new standard shuttle for the movie Enterprise-era.

The Vulcan shuttle is actually a Starfleet shuttle, co-designed with Vulcan engineers.

That's why it has subtle repetitions of that ceremonial 'gong' shape we saw in "Amok Time".

Perhaps it's reasonable to speculate that once the Federation was formed, Vulcan consolidated their starship design and construction with Starfleet.

We see Spock has a Vulcan ship in the Star Trek 2009 movie.

Although the movie creates an alternate timeline, his ship is from the original timeline and should then be considered canon.

That being said, in the new timeline I doubt very much Vulcan ships will be seen!

Your question isn't explicit about what you mean by "Vulcan ship" - if you mean Vulcan-designed and built, I can only think of the shuttle NorbyTheGeek mentions, but in TOS there's a Constitution-class cruiser, the USS Intrepid, crewed by Vulcans.

Besides ship in Star Trek: First Contact movie, I have seen many Vulcan ships in Star Trek:

Enterprise TV Series before establishment of Federation.

They can be identified by ring around ship:

The T'Vran was a Vulcan science vessel that was in service in the mid-24th century.

In 2369, the T'Vran was on an exploration mission of the Gamma Quadrant.

In that year, on its return trip to the Alpha Quadrant, the T'Vran offered assistance to the Starfleet runabout USS Ganges, located on the outskirts of the Chamra Vortex.

Although its pilot, Odo, required no assistance, he did request to have two Rakhari survivors aboard transported back to Vulcan.

(DS9: "Vortex")

Question: This  Star Trek  question popped up in chat today.  Setting aside  Enterprise , do we ever see in a  Star Trek  show or movie a Vulcan designed and built ship that was built after the Federation was established?

Are there any Vulcan ships?

As well as Jellyfish  from the 2009 Star Trek movie, there are three Vulcan transport ships in the  TNG episode  Unification , although Memory Alpha describes them as Apollo class Federation vessels.

There are Vulcan ships in the series built after the federation was established. You can even find one that's both Vulcan designed and built. The best reference point for Vulcan ships is the 2009 Star Trek movie.

The 2009 Star Trek movie is a good reference point to see Vulcan ships.

There are a number of instances of Vulcan ships in the series. Even a Vulcan designed and built ship is present in the series.


Dementors do not breed (No, there'll be no sweet sweet love in Azkaban tonight!)

but rather grow like fungi under certain conditions.

They multiply by feeding off human despair, unhappiness, hopelessness, and are akin to depression.

They are pretty insidious creatures.

Dementors have no soul themselves, thus their constant drive to suck the souls from others.

According to J.K. Rowling: You cannot destroy Dementors, though you can limit their numbers if you eradicate the conditions in which they multiply, ie, despair and degradation.

Dementors are JKR's representation of depression: JKR (Rowling is asked about dementors being “a description of depression”):

“Yes.

That is exactly what they are.

It was entirely conscious.

And entirely from my own experience.

Depression is the most unpleasant thing I have ever experienced.

It is that absence of being able to envisage that you will ever be cheerful again.

The absence of hope.

That very deadened feeling, which is so very different from feeling sad.

Sad hurts

but it’s a healthy feeling.

It’s a necessary thing to feel.

Depression is very different.

I think [dementors] are the scariest things I’ve written.”

Leaky Lounge Web Chat Transcript with J.K. Rowling Depression, Bipolar Disorder, and Dementors The Dementor at the Harry Potter Companion

The claim that dementors [don't] breed but grow like a fungus where there is decay has been canonically disproven , at least if you can trust Fudge's knowledge.

It seems to be an early idea by JKR, but has since evolved or been forgotten.

That quote by JKR was from an interview that happened in October, 2000, soon after the release of GoF.

Later, however, we learn from Fudge in the Half Blood Prince that dementors do breed : "

I thought dementors guard the prisoners in Azkaban," he said cautiously.

"They did," said Fudge wearily.

"But not anymore.

They've deserted the prison and joined He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

I won't pretend that wasn't a blow.

But," said the Prime Minister, with a sense of dawning horror, "didn't you tell me they're the creatures that drain hope and happiness out of people?

"That's right.

And they're breeding.

That's what's causing all this mist."

So while we thankfully do not know the specific details about how dementors breed, we know that: Dementors do, in fact, breed

It happens when dementors are "all over the place" [Fudge]

It seems to generate a lot of mist.

We do not know if the mist is a byproduct or instrument of their breeding processes, but the mist is at least associated with it.

I don't think it's answered in canon, but Rowling has been quoted as explaining that they "don't breed but grow like a fungus where there is decay."

Source

Spontaneous Generation Dementors form spontaneously from an excess of despair, fear, and depression.

The Pottermore article on Boggarts states: Like a poltergeist, a Boggart is not and never has been truly alive.

It is one of the strange non-beings that populate the magical world, for which there is no equivalent in the Muggle realm.

Boggarts can be made to disappear, but more Boggarts will inevitably arise to take their place.

Like poltergeists and the more sinister Dementors , they seem to be generated and sustained by human emotions .

I stole the quote from ThruGog's answer to Did Ekrizdis

create the Dementors?

Given the information, I'd say this mist acts as a spore-like cloud similar to what mushrooms and other Fungi release.

Thus I think what Fudge means by 'breeding' is that they are releasing their clouds of spores near places where hundreds and thousands of people are feeling depressed all at once.

Honestly, I don't think Fudge knows enough about science and biology to comprehend that a living creature could multiply in any way other than 'the human way' and some fellow nerds from the Dep. of Mysteries decided 'just tell him they are breeding, it's sort of true anyway'.

And it is.

breeding implies they are making more of their kind...

it's just not breeding like most creatures do.

Question: This is inspired by some discussions in  chat .  In the  Harry Potter  universe, how are Dementors born?  Or are they artificially created by some magical means?

How are Dementors created/born?

Rowling has been quoted as explaining that Dementors "don't breed but grow like a fungus where there is decay."  They multiply by feeding off human despair, unhappiness, hopelessness, and are akin to depression.

It is claimed that dementors reproduce like an evil fungus, however this has been canonically disproven by Fudge.

Dementors spontaneously generate  from excess of despair, fear and depression. They act a bit like fungi

Dementors breading like fungus has been canonically disproven by Fudge


The Patronus Charm, according to the Harry Potter series, is a powerful spell.

In Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix , during the O.W.L. exams, the reader learns many grown wizards and witches have difficulty successfully conjuring a Patronus Charm.

Upon witnessing Harry Potter learn and master that spell by the end of Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban , that is a glimpse ahead into the powerful wizard he will become.

People might think power is measured in terms of destruction and mayhem, but true power is that quiet intensity a wizard like Dumbledore displays.

Sure, you can blow things up and create fear in others, but there's nothing constructive in that endeavor.

I see Hermione's brand of magic as more tricky and charm laden.

Hermione is a wealth of knowledge and information, always in search of more.

She masters the small spells quickly, but the Patronus Charm requires you to dig into the mind and heart for happiness while under extreme fear and urgency in most cases.

A nuanced wand movement or special technique is not the requirement; raw emotion and energy are.

Hermione, when she faltered a little, couldn't have previously imagined being trapped in that situation.

She likes to be prepared; but no one can prepare for something not yet experienced.

An interesting note about otters that could be relevant or not: they are family oriented animals.

The entire family of them raises their young, and support each other.

Hermione is a huge support system to Harry and Ron.

Her wealth of information, orderly way of planning ahead, and keenly logical mind carry the trio through so many legs of Harry's journey.

Well, first, I think it's because Harry is better than Hermione at Defence Against the Dark Arts in general.

Even Hermione admits it: ‘Harry, you’re the best in the year at Defence Against the Dark Arts,’ said Hermione.

‘Me?’

said Harry, now grinning more broadly than ever.

‘No I’m not, you’ve beaten me in every test –’ ‘Actually, I haven’t,’ said Hermione coolly.

‘You beat me in our third year – the only year we both sat the test and had a teacher who actually knew the subject.

But I’m not talking about test results, Harry Think what you’ve done

* Order of the Phoenix - Page 292 - British Hardcover I see Hermione as extremely logical, organised, intellectual, and unusually perceptive when it comes to learning.

However, I think she struggles with regulating her emotions (as do we all here and there) and she is a teenage girl.

She demonstrates her emotional volatility throughout the series through her interactions with and reactions to Ron.

She also experiences fear and admits it.

The Patronus Charm is contingent upon conjuring happy memories, as everyone has mentioned, and because of her internal rigidity, I think Hermione struggles a bit more with spells and charms that involve emotion .

We never once see her cast an Unforgivable, IIRC, while Harry and Ron, who are both more overt with their emotions, do.

I would imagine that once she actually produces a full corporeal Patronus, that her Patronus has the same defensive capabilities as Harry's does.

I suspect, though, that she has a harder time actually conjuring one.

And that's my INFJ opinion :)

I don't think there's a fully canonical answer.

However some possibilities are: It's not Hermione's Patronus

that's unusually un-powerful (for her age), it's Harry's that is - possibly due to some inherited abilities, possibly to personality (his Patronus power rivals or exceeds most adult wizards,

whereas - absent weird entanglements with Voldemort - he is usually NOT that good/successful compared to experienced powereful wizards - look at him trying to duel with Snape at the end of HP6 for an example).

Related - Hermione's magic is not innately powerful - it's merely her skills are great.

Expecto Patronus is less of a technical skill spell and more of a raw energy/emotional one.

Sort of related to the last one - just like it requires a certain mindset to successfully cast Cruciatus, perhaps the same is true of Patronus.

I don't have the excact

quote

but it's stated that you need unusually positive memory.

Hermione, has happy memories, but she possibly doesn't have the required contrast between her generally not-unhappy life and her happiest memories that Harry has, or her emotional intensity may be on INTJ-typical lower level in general (source:

I'm basically half-Hermione :) .

Hermione didn't have the same driving need to perfect her Patronus, because the Dementors didn't affect her as strongly.

It wasn't the thing she feared the most against the Boggart.

She wasn't likely to see a Patronus Charm on a test either.

Harry had a lot of motivation to develop a powerful Patronus.

Both in terms of learning to protect himself and defending those he cared about.

Hermione's Patronus only seems weak when compared to Harry's.

And Harry had more practice.

Harry learned the Patronus charm back in "Prisoner of Azkaban", and it took a long time before he was able to cast it at all, longer before he became proficient at it.

But he kept practicing until he was satisfied that he could handle the dementors.

Hermione simply never got that amount of practice.

The Patronus charm was never part of their coursework, and it was never mentioned as being in any volume of "The Standard Book of Spells" so she couldn't learn it just by reading ahead.

I don't think Hermione had ever even tried casting a Patronus prior to the D.A., by which time Harry already had a huge head start.

I think I remember Hermione mentioning in "Deathly Hallows" that she had been practicing the talking-Patronus trick, but that's different from practicing the Patronus in the face of dementors (or boggarts), like Harry did.

Question: Hermione's Patronus is an otter, but it is not as powerful as Harry's. Being the best at everything she does, why is it that her magic isn't best at that particular spell? Does it have anything to do with her personality?

Why is Hermione's Patronus not as powerful as her other magic spells?

Hermione didn't have the same driving need to perfect her Patronus, because the Dementors didn't affect her as strongly. As a result, she did not get the same  amount of practice. In addition,  Harry is better than Hermione at Defence Against the Dark Arts in general.

There is no canonical answer there is only speculation. Some examples being that Hermione simply didn't practice the spell as much as Harry, Harry is better at defence against the dark arts, Hermione didn't have the same driving need to perfect the Patronus spell etc. This is all speculation.


Here's an excerpt of Time Out Joint from the blog called The Truth About Lies which contains a good review of the book as a launching point for an essay about Dick: Central problem in philosophy.

Relation of word to object . . .

what is a word?

Arbitrary sign.

But we live in words.

Our reality, among words not things.

No such thing as a thing anyhow; a gestalt in the mind.

Thingness . . .

sense of substance.

An illusion.

Word is more real than the object it represents.

It seems that once again Dick is asking us to question the nature of reality - all reality, not just the Truman Burbanks'

Sea Haven-like little town Raggle lives in.

Nor the wider world with its own particular problems And later in the story Raggle in conspiracy with his brother-in-law... shows his slips to him:

"What's this?"

Vic said.

"Reality," Ragle said.

"I give you the real."

Vic took one of the slips of paper out and read it. "

This says 'drinking fountain,'" he said.

"What's it mean?"

"Under everything else," Ragle said.

"The word.

Maybe it's the word of God.

The logos. '

In the beginning was the Word.'

I can't figure it out.

All I know is what I see and what happens to me

And maybe the point is that that is all we can ever really know.

Your question gave me an excuse to reread the book - not that I needed much of an excuse as I love (most of)

Philip K. Dick's books.

Anyhow, I can't see the logic behind the paper slips.

They don't seem to fit the story at all.

I wonder if Dick originally intended the town to be partly a hallucination imposed on Gumm, and then changed his mind halfway through the book.

As far as I can tell, the town is completely real.

PKD's strong suit is the surreal collapse of ordinary life.

He wrote an essay about it called "How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later" .

He gets into this a deeper in the Exegesis and there isn't a singular "right" answer.

In one way he is lampooning the mid-century obsession with neat little labels for everything, especially when the real world is becoming more and more disjointed and complex.

In another way it visualizes the defensive mechanism that protects Gumm from total collapse.

As long as he has familiar labels, his world is understandable and he is safe.

Elsehwere, he mentions a drug that causes people who read certain words to hallucinate that the objects they describe really exist.

This comes up in several of his novels (divine invasion, 3 stigmata, maze of death).

He is always ambivalent about whether this would be a good thing or a bad thing.

and the town isn't real.

It was specifically created to keep Gumm sane so he could protect humanity

The words/phrases on slips of paper could be interpreted as either - 1) Commenting on the relationship between the word and the physical object (or perhaps between Platonic ideal forms and physical represenations of the forms), and so the uncertainty regarding any physical reality. or 2)

As evidence that the 2nd layer of reality in the novel (the 'real world' rather than 1950's construct) is also unreal.

Is the world in which the earth is at war with the moon another construct to avoid facing a worse reality?

Personally I prefer the idea of the 2nd interpretation, but suspect that PKD with his interest in religious themes (eg reality as the manifestation of a divine word) might have intended the first.

I'm sure there are other interpretations valid on the basis of the available evidence, and PKD may have intended there to be more than one.

Best wishes, Malcolm

I agree with Malcolm above.

These paper slips are related to two things, which I'd say are: 1/ "

Ding an sich" (mentioned in the book)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding_an_sich 2/ the fake town, as with the bus passengers who are actually puppets.

Question: At a couple of points in this Philip K. Dick novel the main character experiences physical objects disappearing to be replaced by slips of paper.  He maintains a collection of these slips.  I cannot recall any explanation for this phenomenon and while I recognize that Dick did not place much emphasis on logical or rational explanations it seemed like such a bizarre concept that really added to the unreal nature of his environment.  Can anyone provide me with some in-story justification for this that I simply overlooked?

In "Time Out Of Joint" what's with objects turning into slips of paper?

There does not seem to be any logic behind the paper slips. However, PKD's strong suit is the surreal collapse of ordinary life.

There does not seem to be a difinitive answer for this question. PKD's strong suit is the surreal collapse of ordinary life. This pretty much means he put the scenario in there for no apparent reason other than to mess with the world. There is no logic behind it.

PKD's strong suit is the surreal collapse of ordinary life meaning he could just put it in his book for no reason at all.


This question might get closed as being too subjective - for any particular book, it depends on what the author chose to include in the Appendix and what your own preference is.

OTOH, by definition, an Appendix is supplementary , so the general rule would be to read any Appendix after

you've read the book.

A couple of exceptions: If the author clearly says something like "read Appendix 1 between Sections 2 and 3 of the novel."

If the Appendix is just a glossary, you'd to it if you forget a specific word,

e.g. (I can't think of a good Dune example, so here's one from "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant") the difference between lomillialor and lor-liarill.

For Dune (and for LotR, which also has substantial Appendices), I'd definitely read the Appendix after

- there's nothing in there you need to know to enjoy the book.

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

The only appendices I've encountered (Trudi Canavan's Magicians trilogy) have contained glossaries of the fantasy language (not something you see in non-speculative fiction) she has created which helped to explain a lot of things whilst I was reading.

Once I learned it was there

I read it through, but

I kept turning back to it.

There were no spoilers there, and I can't think of any appendix that would contain a spoiler.

That would probably be in an epilogue of similar.

One of the appendices of Dune would be a pretty big spoiler, as it was apparently written to address a pretty severe plot hole, so I'd save them for after.

Some books like House of Leaves have appendacies that are meant to be read at a specific time during the reading if the main book and the story isn't complete without it.

I would suggest that you read the appendacies when needed.

Like if there's a footnote that references them or if you're confused about an element in the book and you know it's addressed in the appendix.

In some cases though, the appendix is completely optional and is just there for hardcore fans.

Examples are some of the Lord Of The Rings appendacies that go over the different languages.

I doubt that you NEED to read them to enjoy the story, but they are there to make the universe more complete.

There is a good reason that the appendix is at the end of the novel and that's because it will often "spoil" major plot elements within the book or may even completely redefine the tone of the book.

A perfect example of this would be the " Principles of NewSpeak " appendix at the end of the book "1984" by George Orwell which places the entire book (e.g. that you've just read) into a historical context of having been written approximately 50 years prior to the defeat of Big Brother.

In specific relation to Dune, of the four appendices , the one labelled " A Report on Bene Gesserit Motives and Purposes " is probably the most spoilerish and should definitely not be read before the novel.

The glossary has no major spoilers and may help your general understanding, however it's largely unnecessary since most of the major terms are extensively explained in the book itself.

It's at the end, there's (generally) no indication in a novel that it is back there, and it tends to be optional material, so read it last.

I'd be worried about spoilers too when it comes to arbitrary appendices.

Question: I'm about 100 pages into  Dune . I noticed the novel has more than one appendix.  As a rule of thumb, when a sci-fi or fantasy novel has an appendix, should I:    read through it before I start the book;  reference it occasionally while reading the book;  or bask in its glory after I've read the book?   My main concern is running into some kind of spoiler back there!  What do you think?  Edit:  Dune has some  major  spoilers in its appendices!

In general, should I look through a novel's appendix(es) before, during or after reading?

It is doubtful that you NEED to read the appendices to enjoy the story, but they are there to make the universe more complete.  For Dune (and for LotR, which also has substantial appendices), some people recommend reading the Appendices  after  the book. Others suggest reading the appendices when needed. The appendices are at the end of books because they may "spoil" major plot elements.

It is, for the most part, suggested that the appendices be read at the end.


He doesn't need to get to King's Landing.

He needs to capture King's Landing.

King's Landing has very strong walls, and the most vulnerable point is the harbor.

However, Joffrey commands a fairly strong fleet.

Robb needs a fleet to take advantage of the best angle of approach.

The Iron Islanders have a very strong naval force.

The plan is for Robb to lead his armies by land to King's Landing, and then coordinate their attack with the Iron Islanders' fleet attacking the harbor.

Edit :

After re-reading A Clash of Kings , the correct answer is more that Robb hopes to have the Ironborn fleet attack the Lannisters directly, striking at their home in Lannisport.

Robb and his armies would march across the land to King's Landing.

However, in the meantime the Ironborn would sail towards Lannisport, the seat of Lannister power, and attack it from sea.

If the attack succeeds, it would be a crippling blow to the Lannisters.

Even if it failed, it would prevent Lord Tywin from committing more Lannister forces to King's Landing, making it much easier for Robb's armies to storm the town.

"By now Robb is at the Golden Tooth," Theon said.

"Once it falls, he'll be through the hills in a day.

Lord Tywin's host is at Harrenhal, cut off from the west.

The Kingslayer is a captive at Riverrun.

Only Ser Stafford Lannister and the raw green levies he's been gathering remain to oppose Robb in the west.

Ser Stafford will put himself between Robb's army and Lannisport, which means the city will be undefended when we descend on it by sea.

If the gods are with us, even Casterly Rock itself may fall before the Lannisters so much as realize that we are upon them."

This is explained more thoroughly in the Clash of Kings book.

Theon was sent by Robb Stark to Pyke (the Iron Islands) to have

Balon Greyjoy (Theon's father) attack Casterly Rock (the Lannisters' City), on the west side of Westeros, from the sea, while Robb's forces attack them from Land.

In return, Robb would have given Balon back his Crown as King of the Iron Islands.

Balon was made to bend the knee (by Ned Stark) and give up his crown some years before, after the Iron Islands rebelled against King Robert.

The idea was to hit the Lannisters at their home, and weaken them, and then with Renly, close in on Tywin's forces from north and south.

So it has nothing to do directly with King's Landing (which is on the east of Westeros)

I've not seen season 2 yet, it will not air here until May.

I think you should fill out your question with more detail, as it is not easy to understand the context here, seeing as the books and the TV-show differ somewhat.

Here's my reasoning that comes from knowing only the books:

Robb has White Harbour, which from what I understand is a great sea power on the east coast.

If Robb wanted to get to King's Landing, I doubt very much he would send to Balon Greyjoy, as he would need to sail halfway across the world just to get there.

Especially when White Harbour is much closer, and the allegiance of White Harbour is much less questionable.

However, the Lannisters have the Redwyne fleet, which reputedly is the strongest in Westeros.

I believe Stannis also controls a major part of the crown's fleet, which sits off Dragonstone.

Robb has White Harbour, which probably is the least of those fleets.

However, he holds the trump card: Theon Greyjoy.

With Theon, he can secure a fleet that is among the strongest in Westeros.

With such a fleet, he can keep the Redwyne fleet occupied in the west, taking pressure off White Harbour's fleet.

Controlling the seas is of crucial importance in the war.

And besides that, securing the alliance of the Iron Islands is nothing to sneeze at.

They are a martial and hardy people who make for bad enemies.

What's more, Robb considers Theon his friend and ally, and by extension probably considers the Ironborn his allies (we don't know exactly what Robb thinks, since he has no POVs).

Re-reading AGOT

recently, I read an exchange in a very early Ned chapter, where he tells Catelyn to tell Robb to strengthen Moat Cailin and keep a closer watch on Theon Greyjoy (for this very reason).

Robb wants the Iron Fleet so he can directly attack Lannisport, (just like Victarion did during the Greyjoy Rebellion.)

Raiding the port just a day or two's march from Casterly Rock would force Tywin's hand, especially with Robb's continuing march west.

He does not wish to attack King's Landing.

King's Landing is on the east of the continent whereas the Greyjoy ships are on the north-west.

The only help they could provide is by attacking Casterly Rock in the far west (the Lannisters' home).

It makes sense that Robb would turn west against the Lannisters if he is able to take out Tywin's current forces in the Riverlands, leaving Renly to go east and take King's Landing and having to deal with Stannis who is even further east.

Question: I am watching  Game of Thrones , and I am confused that Robb Stark needs to ask for ships from the Greyjoys. Isn't it all land between the North and King's Landing? It isn't like Stannis' position where there is a large bay separating him from the capital.

Why does Robb Stark need ships to get to King's Landing?

Robb Stark doesn't need to  get to  King's Landing - he needs to capture it. He needs a fleet to take advantage of the best angle of approach.  The plan is for Robb to lead his armies by land to King's Landing, and then coordinate their attack with the Iron Islanders' fleet attacking the harbor.  The Clash of Kings book reveals that Robb hopes to have the Ironborn fleet attack the Lannisters directly, striking at their home in Lannisport.   Controlling the seas is of crucial importance in the war.


The major theme I've always picked up from the original trilogy is: "The flow of Humanity is too large to be consciously changed by any (normal) single individual or group.

Instead, it is large social movements that shape history."

You can see it in the early days of the Foundation, where they manipulated the social structure around them (with the help of Seldon's Plan) to gain the upper ground on their more militarily and economically superior neighbors.

You can also see it in the failure of General Bel Riose in defeating the Foundation, and ultimately succumbing to the deteriorating politics of the Empire.

It took psychic (the Mule) to break the carefully orchestrated Seldon Plan, and it took a whole nation of psychics (the Second Foundation) to put it back on track.

The prequels are about Seldon coming to term with this theme, and realizing that he alone can't change the future.

Not even his Psychohistory is enough.

He needs individuals who can influence masses without themselves being influenced.

Thus his creation of the Second Foundation.

The sequels add another theme: "Human society is fundamentally flawed, and ultimately will be the cause of its own demise.

For Humanity to survive they must change their very nature."

Daneel's master plan of creating "Galaxia" as galaxy wide version of "Gaia" is indicative of this.

As alluded to by Sean's commentg to the first answer, another theme is one taken from Tolstoy's War adn Piece - the tension between the pressure of historical forces of the masses and effects of strong individuals.

The former is very thoroughly covered by SystemDown's answer, but while he mentions Mule as a mere "example that reinforces the concept", I view it as introducing this second competing dynamic (ala Napoleon for Tolstoy) of a strong brilliant individual who can try and shift the historical forces.

The theme that has stuck with me, was that it was not possible to stop the collapse, but that there would be a second foundation.

The only thing that Seldon could do was to try to ensure that the dark ages between the foundations was as short as possible.

For a non-fiction look at this idea see The Collapse of Complex Societies

I think Foundation is about Asimov questioning what a human ideal future society would look like.

He questions what it means to be human - he was from an early age entranced (as I have been) by robotics and how this affects what it means to be human.

If a mechanical being looks like a human and thinks like a human, is it human?

This is the same theme explored by Philip K. Dick in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

It is less about explaining his opinion on this matter and more about opening up the debate for his readers.

And this is what I have always loved about Asimov (which I have been reading since I was a little girl) - the desire to spark a debate.

What constitutes a human being?

What would an ideal human society look like?

Does Gaia represent an ideal or a nightmare?

I think it is no coincidence that he began this epic adventure during the war when prejudices about race were in the forefront of everyone's minds.

I think it is still an intensely relevant story even today, perhaps even more so today and remains for me the most exciting vision of the future.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Another is that the empirical practice of science and the arts is more important than the academic study of science and the arts - that in certain ways, you have to DO to KNOW.

See eg the scene in "The Encyclopedists" where a "scholar" who thinks that meta analysis of secondary scholarship is what is necessary to develop and maintain expertise, and disdains going into the field: Asimov sets him up for ridicule.

Question: I'm not very good at discerning themes from books, but one of the ones that I picked up from Foundation went something like this: "a culture that stops learning is doomed to fail."  What major themes exist in Foundation?

What are the major themes in Foundation?

A major theme in the original trilogy is that the flow of Humanity is too large to be consciously changed by any (normal) single individual or group. Another theme is that it was not possible to stop the collapse, but that there would be a second foundation. Some consider that Foundation is about Asimov questioning what a human ideal future society would look like.

Humanity is too large to be changed by an individual or group but Asimov questions what this would look like.


In Britain, most likely the PM was the only official.

He is certainly the only one mentioned specifically, but it seems highly likely that wizards in other countries would have a similar protocol.

We know that other countries have their own Ministries of Magic , and it only makes sense that the rules for contacting Muggle leaders should be consistent.

(The President in he U.S.A would be kept informed similarly for example)

The books only mention the British PM because the books and events take place in Britain, but of course, there are wizards all over the world.

The primary reason for contact between the Minister for magic and the PM was to keep the Muggle PM informed of events that could cause alarm or notice in the Muggle world.

Examples: the escape of Sirius Black, the rise of Voldemort, transporting dragons into the country for the Triwizard Tournament.

These types of things likely happen all over the world, so again, similar protocols must be in place.

I would bet, however, that none of the Muggle Leaders is ever told that the other Muggle leaders are aware of wizards.

It would help to maintain the secrecy if the Muggle leaders were afraid to talk about contacts from Wizards amongst other Muggle leaders.

I know it's not canon, but the HP Lexicon, which is a bit more reliable than other sources also contains the following statement in the Ministry of Magic page : The Muggle Prime Minister is aware of the wizarding world (HBP1) .

Presumably this is also true of the President of the United States and of other world leaders.

The answer is right there in that chapter (chapter 1 of HBP).

Here, the Prime Minister remembers what Fudge has told him the first time they've met: ‘The Minister for Magic only reveals him or herself to the Muggle Prime Minister of the day,’ […]

‘We find it the best way to maintain secrecy.’

This might of course apply only to the British Minister for Magic, with similar arrangements in some other countries.

The books only mention him, so it is highly likely that he is in fact the only one to know.

I think that the wizards would avoid telling him, but feel it necessary for some reason (maybe to help cover up any mess?)

The reason they may also avoid telling anyone else is that Muggles may begin to try and interfere, but with only one man, he will likely be to shocked/afraid to really do anything about it.

In addition to the current people in power, which the other answerers have covered, there is some debate among fans based on evidence from the Wizarding World of Harry Potter and some clues on JK Rowling's website about whether any members of the royal family are witches, wizards, or squibs; certainly a portrait of Bloody Mary appears in the films but that could just be random set dressing.

See the Harry Potter Wiki for more information on this, the Anne Bolyen and Queen Mary I entries are the most relevant ones.

Mary II certainly knew about them (according to the information from the WOMBAT exam on JKR's site).

All of these examples are, of course, several hundred years old and from before

the International Statute of Secrecy was enacted, so it's hard to tell how much these various royals knew and how much they dismissed as superstition, as Mary II's failure to send a delegation to the newly created Ministry of Magic could imply.

More information on historical relations between wizards and muggles-- particularly muggles of rank and power, such as royalty-- can be found in the Statute of Secrecy entry .

Considering that there likely are a lot of muggles knowing about the wizarding world, because some of their relatives are wizards or witches (e.g. the Dursley's, Hermione's parents, etc.)

It doesn't seem too unlikely that some of these people are "people in authority".

This is (well-founded?)

speculation though, and the only person we are explicitly told is informed about the existence of magic is the British PM, as mentioned in several of the other answers.

Question: I know that in Harry Potter it was said that the PM was notified of Sirius Black's escape. Was he the only muggle in authority to know about the wizarding world? What about the President of the USA or other World Leaders?

Was the PM of England the only muggle in authority to know about Wizards in Harry Potter?

The books only mention the British PM because the books and events take place in Britain, but of course, there are wizards all over the world.  Other countries have  their own Ministries of Magic , and it only makes sense that the rules for contacting Muggle leaders should be consistent.  The primary reason for contact between the Minister for magic and the PM was to keep the Muggle PM informed of events that could cause alarm or notice in the Muggle world.

Other wizards elsewhere have similar knowledge but the British PM is the only one mentioned.


Lightning strikes deposit somewhere on the order of a few Mega-Joules, not enough to power a flux capacitor, but it seems that the peak power of a bolt is about 1 terrawatt, a thousand times too large; you'd fry the delorean with that sort of energy.

It appears that 1.21 Gigawatts is roughly the energy of a nuclear power unit, though this sort of unit would be made of several rods, many more than those that fuel the Flux Capacitor.

Unless we find the dubious science correspondent referred to by the directors in the commentary (the one who pronounced it Jigowatt) we'll never know if they advised this number or it was plucked out for 'sounding nice'.

It is a large number, one which defies non-nuclear methods of portable generation (even to this day).

The number has some appeal visually, and could be spoken memorably by the actors involved.

It perfectly fit the story purposes, and is not outside of the bounds for a lightning strike, as Pureferret says.

A number low in the gigawatt range was exactly what was needed, and Doc Brown was equal parts crazy and brilliant - he would have calculated how much power is needed, and would also use the exact number (1.21) instead of rounding it as most people would.

Thus, 'one point twenty-one' - it's a good number to speak, it doesn't have too many syllables.

Most likely, one of the writers picked it at random (possibly along with several others) and the writers decided it fit best.

Bob Gale (the film's creator) spoke to this in a recent interview.

In short, the number "sounded good" and was evidently based on a brief conversation he had with an electrical engineer working as a consultant for the film about the amount of energy contained in a bolt of lightning.

MTV: OK, let's geek out for a minute.

1.21 giggawats.

Why 1.21?

Whynot 1.22 or 2.21?

Gale:

We did some research, and I think it's relatively accurate.

1.21sounded good.

It is like, why 88 miles per hour?

It's easy toremember.

As a writer, you want to find the words that'll sound rightso it'll be stuck in the audience's mind.

The electrical engineer wespoke with about how much electricity is in a lightning bolt, hepronounced it jig-a-watt.

We'd never heard the term before.

You cancall it gig-a-watt or jig-a-watt.

They're both correct.

I actuallymisspelled it in the script, and spelled it jigowatt.

That's why Docand Marty pronounce it that way. ' BACK TO THE FUTURE'

CREATOR BOB GALE ON EASTER EGGS, ERIC STOLTZ, SEQUELS AND THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY

( transcription errors corrected by me )

There's nothing magical about this particular number, it's just a lot of watts.

Note that the actual unit is "gigawatts," but the producers didn't how to pronounce it, so it became “jigowatts” in the movie.

To answer your direct questions its a MacGuffin just something to advance the plot.

How to answer the inferred question of why the need for so much power (in this case plutonium/

Mr.

Fusion/Steam which in fact is prove of the MacGuffin) and

the speech of 88MPH is this:

The speed is required seemingly to provide a object with the forward motion need to start a time dilation (i.e why traveling in a airplane you seem to be barely moving while someone standing on the ground sees a very fast plane).

The power is a requirement to generate a temporal flux to propel the object at the cusp of a time dilatation to another point in time.

My theory is that it's a joke combining Einstein's theory of relativity with Roman Numerals.

E=MC(squared).

M is 1,000.

C is 100.

MC is 1,100.

1,100(squared) = 1,210,000 or 1.21 million.

If the units were kilowatts, that would make it 1.21 Gigawatts.

Question: I asked why the  speed was 88 MPH , and it made a lot of sense.  Now I want to ask: Why does the Flux Capacitor need 1.21 jigowatts to travel in time? Is this a magic number?

In Back to the Future, why was the power required to travel in time 1.21 jigowatts?

Some say that apparently, the number "sounded good" and was based on a brief conversation with an electrical engineer working as a consultant for the film about the amount of energy contained in a bolt of lightning. Another theory is that it is roughly the energy of a nuclear power unit. Others say it is most likely that one of the writers picked it at random (possibly along with several others) and the writers decided it fit best. However, there may be nothing magical about this particular number, it's just a lot of watts. The number has some appeal visually, and could be spoken memorably by the actors involved.

It provides the energy of a nuclear power unit — nothing magical.