National City, in the TV show, is located somewhere on the west coast of the United States.

Most likely, it's located in southern California, just south of the Sierra Nevada mountains.

As you mentioned, there are only a couple of things we know for sure about National City.

Three of those things can help us locate it:

It is on the coast: it has a harbor big enough for a large oil tanker to dock there (the one Kara splits in half by accident).

This almost certainly means it's one one of the coasts, as I don't think any inland rivers are big enough.

It's near enough to some very arid regions that Alex can get there for work and back.

It's roughly a "two hour drive" from National City to Montecito.

From episode S01E06, "Red Faced": Cat's Mom:

Anyway, Toni's having an impromptu little dinner party at the house

she's rented in Montecito.

Just a few old friends.

Cat: Mother, that is at least two hours away, we're going to have to leave right now.

Fortunately, This last one really helps pin down a lot.

Since Montecito is in Southern California, we know National City has to be in the same area.

A ballpark estimate would put it within a 120 mile radius of Montecito.

If we further restrict ourselves to the coastline, that puts it on the coast, somewhere north of San Diego but south of Los Angeles.

The bottom end of Death Valley would be almost due north of that point on the coast.

And being on the coast likely means lots of bays or barrier islands where that bridge would be needed.

So, all of the pieces seem to fit a city located somewhere on the southern CA coast between LA and San Diego.

Since it takes around 2 hours to Ojai or Montecito in the show, and all the rest (giant bridge and bay allowing big ships), San Diego is the only place which satisfies all of these criteria in real life.

Plus, National City is, as already mentioned, part of San Diego in real life as well, just a few miles south of downtown.

So National City is a mix of Los Angeles (since it is filmed there and San Diego doesn't have the size or importance that L.A has), and San Diego, since it is located there geographically, i.e. no other place is two hours from Montecito and Ojai, with a deep bay and giant bridge.

There is a National City just south of San Diego on the interstate 5, it is located between San Diego and Chula Vista.

Its western edge borders the San Diego Bay, which has a bridge that connects the Coronado Island to San Diego mainland.

The bridge is about 3 miles south of the San Diego international airport, and Imperial Valley (a desert climate) is just east of the Laguna mountains (the mountain range just east of San Diego).

I would suggest that National City is located just south of Los Angeles, nearby or as a stand in for Dana Point/San Clemente.

Much like Gotham and Metropolis are south of New York, located in New Jersey and Delaware, respectively, but located where no large cities are in the real world.

National City would be near, but not part of Los Angeles; close enough for Cat Grant to get to Hollywood parties, but far enough that she can be the biggest queen bee in the city, which she would not likely be in L.A.

This also allows the DEO's desert headquarters to be out somewhere between Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake, about an hour's drive east along route 74 (Ortega Hwy), over the hills into the desert.

In the original DC comics, all of these locations were allegorical stand-ins.

Gotham and Metropolis were supposed to stand-ins for New York

(Metropolis, the sort of uptown, Gotham the older, grittier, more corrupt downtown).

Smallville is supposed to be a podunk town in Kansas.

National City, I initially thought of as a stand as a substitute for Chicago, given that there were several Chicago world's fairs, where a lot of new stuff came out.

It is geographically San Diego, but kind of a stand in for either Chicago or Los Angeles in terms of the general feel of the town (both cities have a lot of trade influence, whereas I get the impression San Diego is super into the Mexican American culture far more than being an international city).

We haven't had a whole lot of Mexican American stuff brought up, but definitely get the sense of an (inter)national city.

And yes, there is a National City, CA.

National City is LA, a few hours from Ojai and Montecito

it also has a large port and bridge also Long Beach (w/in LA) has a huge bridge as well and a very large port.

San Diego is pretty far from both Ojai and Montecito, most of their residents vacation a bit closer to that location.

Also the personal style of Cat is VERY LA.

When I first started watching the series I was taken aback because I live in National City.

I have lived here for 4 years, but it is nothing like the National City of Supergirl .

I agree that it is more like Chicago or Los Angeles, but don't forget about Central City, which is also like Los Angeles.

If we were to narrow it down, I feel it is more plausible that National City is a surrogate for Chicago, Illinois, but on the west coast given that it has a port.

In Season 1 Episode 19, “Myriad” we see National City labeled on a map on a news broadcast.

It appears to be near the West coast of the United States hugging the border between California and Oregon.

But then in season 1 episode 20, we learn that Nevada is to the northeast of the DEO.

So I’d say they’re inconsistent.

Question: Kara Danvers/Supergirl lives in National City, which appears to be at least a moderately large city, though smaller than Metropolis.   We know from various episodes that   it is relatively near a mountainous area with a dry/desert climate, where the DEO does training exercises (Supergirl can fly far quickly, but her sister Alex works at the DEO base and lives somewhere in National City)     it has a large enough waterway to allow oil tankers into port     it is on/near a river or a bay with a large bridge     Where is National City located?

Where is National City located?

In the TV show, National City is located somewhere on the west coast of the United States, probably Southern California. In fact, there is a place outside San Diego named National City in real life. In reality, National City is probably a composite of Los Angeles and San Diego, if not an allegorical stand-in for San Diego itself.

National City is located on the West Coast between San Diego and Los Angeles, but in the context of the stories it is what the place stands for that matters more than its actual geographical location.

There is general agreement that National City is geographically located on the West Coast between San Diego (near which there is an actual National City) and Los Angeles, but it is important also to remember that the geographical location is not a matter of primary relevance.


Yes

We see R2 pilot Mace Windu's Jedi Starfighter in "R2 Come Home", an episode of The Clone Wars Not only does he do some pretty fancy flying (surviving a dogfight with Slave I ), he docks with a hyperspace ring and flies all the way to Coruscant.

He also flies a Y-Wing bomber in "Nomad Droids", a later episode, and even blows up some vulture droids:

Yes

In Revenge of the Sith

we see Obi-Wan's R7 unit take his Starfighter back to the Republic ship with a message for Commander Cody, tricking General Grievous into thinking he has left Utapau so he can surprise the Separatist forces.

Yes In Revenge of the Sith Obi-Wan has his droid take control of the flying for a bit.

OBI-WAN:

All right, R4.

No, no.

Nothing too fancy.

and later he even says OBI-WAN:

Flying is for droids!

He has his droid fly the ship again on Utapau.

OBI-WAN

: Take the Fighter back to the ship In Empire Strikes Back

R2 also makes a suggestion about taking control of the ship.

LUKE: (into comlink)

Yes, R2?

R2 utters a soft, carefully phrased steam of whistles.

LUKE:

(into comlink, chuckling)

That's all right.

I'd like to keep it on manual control for a while.

The little droid lets out a defeated whimper.

Luke smiles, and continues on his course.

- Ep.

V script

So yes, droids can fly the ships they're mounted in, even without a pilot inside the cockpit.

Also answered by this scifi exchange post.

Does R2D2 Try to Trick Luke in Episode V - Empire Strikes Back?

R2D2 could control Luke's X-Wing in Episode V.

The answer is yes.

There are a few examples for this.

One is an episode in The Clone Wars where R2-D2 even outmanoeuvred the slave one.

Another is in the films in The Empire Strikes Back .

There R2-D2 during the evacuation scene flies the X-Wing towards the landing zone and Luke.

During Empire Strikes Back, after leaving Hoth: R2, set a course for the Dagobah system Also, a droid can handle more G-Forces than a human,so outmaneuvering a bounty hunter was no big deal for him.

Yes.

In the new (canon) novelisation of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes back, we have the following passage, just after the Battle at Hoth.

A short distance farther sits your X-wing, a spaceship outfitted for one pilot and one droid.

R2 is in his place.

He’s the one who piloted it out here to the muster site, to wait for you.

The Empire Strikes Back

: So You Want to Be a Jedi?

In addition to the above examples of droids piloting starfighters, droids are also capable of piloting capital ships.

There are many examples of Separatist capital ships being piloted by droids in The Clone Wars , not to mention the scene at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith .

Further, some droids are starfighters, again, at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith .

Obviously, a droid that functions as a starfighter is capable of piloting itself, and is therefore capable of piloting a starfighter.

Question: I was wondering if astromech droids (like R2-D2) could fully control any unmanned ship they're mounted in.

Can astromech droids control and fly the ships they're mounted in?

Yes, it appears that astromech droids can fully control any unmanned ship that they're mounted in. There are examples of this in various Star Wars films.

Yes, droids can fly ships they are docked into. There are many examples of this in the Star Wars films and the 'canon' series of novels, for example when Obi-Wan has his droid take over the flying in Revenge of the Sith.

Yes - and they are very skilled pilots. For example R2 piloting Mace Windu's Starfighter in "R2 Come Home" from the Clone Wars.

Yes - for example when Obi-Wan has his droid take control of the flying for a while.

Yes - for example when R2 flies an X-Wing in the Empire Strikes Back.

Yes - for example when R2 sets course for Dagobah in TESB. Droids can actually be better pilots than humans because they can handle greater G-forces.

Yes - for example in the official Star Wars novels there is a mention of how R2 flies an X-Wing after the Battle at Hoth.

Yes - and droids are also capable of piloting capital ships, for example in the opening scene of Revenge of the Sith.


As for two different characters in the MCU, there aren't so many: Aren't so many in significant roles that is.

For an extensive list including all the unnamed background characters, see here .

I've chosen to focus just on the characters with memorable roles who I can find pictures of.

Laura Haddock plays Peter Quill's mother, Meredith Quill ( Guardians of the Galaxy ), as well as a female fan of Captain America in the 1940's ( Captain America: The First Avenger ).

Damion Poitier played as Thanos ( The Avengers ) and also plays one of Crossbones Henchmen ( Captain America: Civil War ).

The twin sisters Imogen and Isabella Poynton play Rhomann Dey's Daughter ( Guardians of the Galaxy ) as well as Lila Barton ( Avengers: Age of Ultron ).

Nathan Fillion plays Monstrous Inmate ( Guardians of the Galaxy ) as well as Simon Williams/Wonderman ( Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.

2 deleted scene).

Douglas Robson plays the Horned Marauder ( Thor: The Dark World ) as well as the dark elf in The Collector's museum ( Guardians of the Galaxy ).

Seth Green plays Howard the Duck ( Guardians of the Galaxy ) as well as Expo Fan ( Iron Man 2 ).

Joe Russo plays S.H.I.E.L.D. surgeon

Dr. Fine ( Captain America: The Winter Soldier ) as well as psychiatrist Theo Broussard ( Captain America: Civil War ).

Benedict Cumberbatch plays Stephen Strange ( Doctor Strange ) as well as Dormammu ( Doctor Strange ).

Taika Waititi plays Korg ( Thor Ragnarok ) as well as the right head of Haju ( Thor Ragnarok ).

Stephen Blackehart plays the Knowhere Dispatcher that Drax incapacitates ( Guardians of the Galaxy ) as well as Brahl ( Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 ).

Clem

So plays a Kyln Prisoner ( Guardians of the Galaxy ) as well as a Kamar-Taj Disciple ( Doctor Strange ).

(Though I can imagine these being the same character.)

Kenneth Choi plays Howling Commando Jim Morita ( Captain America: The First Avenger ) as well as his grandson Principal Morita ( Spider-Man: Homecoming ).

Martin Starr plays a student at Culver University (identified in the novelization as Amadeus Cho)

( The Incredible Hulk ) as well as science teacher

Mr. Harrington ( Spider-Man: Homecoming ).

(Ignoring the novelization, I can can see these being the same character.)

Gemma Chan plays Minn-Erva ( Captain Marvel ) and will play Sersi ( The Eternals ).

Enver Gjokaj plays Officer Saunders ( The Avengers ) as well as SSR agent Daniel Sousa ( Agent Carter ).

Bridger Zadina plays bully E.J. ( Iron Man 3 deleted scenes) as well as Mordis ( Inhumans ).

Tony Curran plays Bor ( Thor: The Dark World ) as well as Finn Cooley ( Daredevil ).

Matt Gerald plays White Power Dave ( All Hail the King ) as well as Melvin Potter/Gladiator ( Daredevil ).

Alfre Woodard plays Mariah Dillard ( Luke Cage ) as well as Miriam Sharpe ( Captain America: Civil War ).

Rob Mars plays an hospital orderly who tried restraining Thor ( Thor ) as well as muscle-for-hire Jerome Zandow ( Agent Carter ).

Tom Virtue played Thomas Richards, a Roxxon accountant executed by the Mandarin ( Iron Man 3 ) as well as a motel clerk ( Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. ).

Clancy Brown plays Surtur ( Thor: Ragnarok ) as well as Ray Schoonover/

The Blacksmith ( Daredevil ).

There also are the people who cameo as different roles.

(e.g. Stan Lee) Outside of the MCU, there are a lot, for example:

Ryan Reynolds plays Deadpool in the 2016 movie Deadpool , as well as playing whoever this is supposed to be in X-Men Origins:

Wolverine : Also check out this great video by Mr. Sunday Movies.

(Although they're not all Marvel roles.)

Chris Evans played Johnny Storm (AKA Human Torch) and Captain America.

Ray Stevenson is the Punisher in Punisher: War Zone and Thor's Tight Buddy as Volstagg in Thor.

Volstagg

Ryan Reynolds plays both Deadpool and Hannibal King from Blade: Trinity . Also (half-jokingly), Stan Lee has played a character in many of the Marvel movies dating back to X-Men in 2000.

Some samples are in the image below.

Ben Foster plays both Spacker Dave in The Punisher (2004) and Angel in X-Men: The Last Stand .

Spacker Dave Angel

Enver Gjokaj plays a cop in the first Avengers film and Agent Sousa in the Agent Carter TV show.

Thinking laterally here, in any of the X-Men movies featuring Mystique, you'll find that several actors play her role in addition to their regular part in the same film - every time she disguises herself as one of the other characters.

Somewhat trivially, there is Patton Oswalt, who has had four different roles (Billy Koenig, Sam Koenig, Eric Koenig, and Thurston Koenig) on Agents of S.H.E.I.L.D.

Question: Has a single actor ever played two separate characters from the Marvel universe? If so, who?

Has one actor ever played two different characters from Marvel?

There are many, many instances of a single actor playing more than one character in the marvel universe. However, most of them include playing background or unnamed characters, rather than both parts being signficant lead roles. One example would be Damion Poitier playing Thanos in the The Avengers and a Henchmen in Captain America: Civil War. Another example would be Seth Green playing Howard the Duck in Guardians of the Galaxy and an Expo Fan in Iron Man 2.

Yes - a large number of actors have been identified who have played more than one role from the Marvel Universe. Just to quote one example: : Laura Haddock plays Peter Quill's mother, Meredith Quill ( Guardians of the Galaxy ), as well as a female fan of Captain America in the 1940's ( Captain America: The First Avenger ).

Yes - there are many actors who play more than one role from the Marvel Universe. Numerous examples are provided, covering both more and less memorable roles.


Yoda was a Jedi, which put restrictions on his life choices.

First, Yoda joined the Jedi Order as a youngling , which meant he was a Jedi since he was a child.

It is normal Jedi practice to take very young children from their families to begin Jedi training as soon as possible.

This is why Yoda initially opposed Anakin Skywalker's training as a Jedi, since Anakin was not discovered by the Jedi until he was nine years old .

Anakin was still a boy, but the Jedi considered him too old to begin training!

Also, the Jedi forbid marriage because the Jedi are required to avoid attachments and possessions

(this is why Anakin and Padme had to hide their marriage).

Technically, it's permissible for Jedi to have casual sex so it would have been permissible for Yoda engage in sexual relations with a member of his species or of a species with which he could reproduce.

That said, it would be extremely difficult to not become attached to your children so the Jedi would discourage having children as well.

In short, Yoda was a Jedi all of his adult life and the Jedi forbid attachments, so Yoda would not have been permitted to have a wife or children.

Yoda has no known family; his background is deliberately kept vague.

From an interview with George Lucas:

So he's a mystery character, he's a magical character.

He has no background.

He comes and he goes.

He's the subversive secret mysterious stranger that enters the film and then exits at the end.

Yoda's page at the Star Wars Databank lists his species as "unknown" and makes no mention of any family.

In this answer , @Richard lists all members of this species to have appeared in any licensed Star Wars media.

It's a short list (Minch, Oteg, Vandar, Yaddle and Yoda), and none of them are Yoda's kids.

And this page , claiming that "the Children of Yoda and Yaddle were a bunch of weird asshole frogs", is decidedly uncanonical!

I'm going to be the devil's advocate here and assume Yoda had a family on the side that he never told anyone about.

Maybe some six-inch tall kids, a little green wife, and a cozy home on some distant moon.

Let's assume this is true.

Now, look at the events of Episode III.

The entire army of the Galactic Republic has standing orders to kill all Jedi, at all costs.

Right before the vast majority of the Jedi were wiped out, a small team of them tried to assassinate the Emperor; after this failed, the Emperor told the story like the Jedi were trying to overthrow the government.

So, essentially, Yoda is a terrorist, probably public enemy #1 in the entire galaxy.

The last thing he'd want to do is go anywhere near his family; for one thing, anyone who knew about them would be expecting it, for another if he got caught, it's very possible his family would get killed in the crossfire.

The best thing Yoda could do for his family is make them think he had died on Coruscant; they would mourn his death, but they would be safe.

If Palpatine had not destroyed the Jedi, the Order would have taken care of Yoda in his old age, just as real-world monastic orders take care of their elders.

So, before the destruction of the Jedi, this would not have been a worry for him.

And after the destruction of the Jedi, Yoda could not return to his own kind, because he could not leave Dagobah.

There are plenty of old people, living in the real world, who have children that don't take care of them.

So it's faulty logic to say that because no children are taking care of him, that he has no children.

He also may have had children who failed to outlive him.

In the books of the Thrawn Trilogy another reason is given... Remember that weird cave that Luke entered in Dagobah ?

He fought Darth Vader in there, or at least, a being that looked like him that turned out to be Luke himself.

This cave is actually embedded with the dark-side and that fight was a lucid dream

Luke had (created by The Force).

Why does this relates to Yoda?

This cave can be considered as a dark-side nexus, which may be created when a strong dark-side user dies.

When Yoda was seeking a place to hide after the events following order 66 , he may have felt the presence of this powerful dark-side user and followed his trail to Dagobah.

Yoda eventually killed him in there.

Since Yoda's light-side power was too great to hide from the Emperor's perception and perhaps other force-sensitive beings from the Empire itself, he chose specifically to continue living in Dagobah, masking his light-side power with dark force emanating from that place.

I.e. a light-dark-force balance was reached.

Relating to the children's question...

I suppose a being of his age could have children, but one hypothesis given in the books is that Yoda was the last being from his own species (we have never seen any other being that looks like him and no mention to his species was ever given).

Adding to that, if he somehow had children, consider that they would most likely have been force-sensitive as well and could have been tracked down because of that....

Yoda is a hermit, and hermits live mostly alone.

Obi-Wan lived the same kind of life on Tattoine until Episode IV events.

Yoda just lived it more extremely, living alone in a whole planet.

Question: My son cried when Yoda died. He asked me why no one took care of him during his last days. Given that Yoda was around 900 years old, surely he would have lots of descendants to look after him. Why were his offspring so unfilial?

Why didn't Yoda have any children to take care of him during his last days given that he lived up to 900 years old?

There is no certainty that Yoda had any other family and in fact, it's possible that he was the last of his species. In general, Jedi's tend not to approve of emotional attachments such as family or parenthood. In any case, there are plenty of cases in real life of people having children who do not take care of them in old age, so there is no reason to suggest why this couldn't also be the case for Yoda.

There is no firm answer to the question. For example, it may be the case that Yoda has no children because Jedi rules forbid this, or it could be because he is the last of his kind or an out-of-universe explanation could be that the creators of Star Wars decided to keep this part of his life vague in order to heighten the mystery surrounding his character.

Yoda has no children because he has been a Jedi since he was a young and Jedi do not approve of emotional attachments such as family or parental bonds.

Yoda has no children because the rules of the Jedi order exclude parenthood.

Yoda's family background is deliberately kept vague in the stories. That is why we know nothing of a family.

In the real many old people are deserted by their children so the absense of any children to take care of Yoda does not mean he has no children.

Yoda might have children but a hypothesis is advanced in the books that he was the last of his kind - and if that was the case he would have no-one to mate with.


Found an answer myself.

According to J.J. Abrams, in an interview to Empire magazine , He is NOT a Sith (despite being a Dark Side user of the Force):

" Kylo Ren is not a Sith ," confirms JJ Abrams in the new issue of Empire.

He works under Supreme Leader Snoke, who is a powerful figure on the Dark Side of the Force.”

In addition, canon Visual Dictionary explicitly says that he's not a Sith on page 24: ...

His ability to use the Force grants him many impressive combat skills, but Kylo Ren is no Jedi, nor is he a Sith .

He is the archetype of a new generation of Dark Side users that have emerged to fill the void left by the Sith's demise

In the visual dictionary for The Force Awakens , it mentions that Kylo Ren "is the archetype of a new generation of dark side users that have emerged to fill the void left by the Sith's demise." Later on, it says: "The Supreme Leader [Snoke] believes Ren to be the ideal embodiment of the Force, a focal point of both light and dark side ability."

It says that Kylo Ren is the "embodiment of conflict, drawing upon contradictory teachings and deriving power from discord."

Based on the evil things he does in the film, however, and the way he uses the Force, it appears that Kylo Ren is much closer to being a Sith than a Jedi.

Nevertheless, this information proves that he is a different user of the Force, neither Sith nor Jedi.

Near the end of the film, when Rey has defeated him in their lightsaber battle, Supreme Leader Snoke orders General Hux to bring him to him so that he can complete his training.

Whatever Kylo Ren is aspiring to be, then, he isn't completely 'there' yet, and we'll probably get to see him in complete power in Episode VIII.

We don't have to go to the Expanded Universe / Legends to determine whether or not there are dark users of the force who are not Sith.

Both

The Clone Wars and Rebels both contain dark-force-users who are not Sith.

The Clone Wars featured Asajj Ventress and her sisterhood.

While she worked alongside Dooku for much of the series, he made it abundantly clear that she was not a Sith - that there were only two Sith, himself and his master, Sideous.

Rebels features characters known as Inquisitors.

These people are force-users, and definitely dark, but again, they're not Sith.

Given that there are force-using bad guys in established Canon who are not Sith, there's really no reason to believe that Kylo Ren is a member of the Sith simply because he's a bad guy who uses a lightsaber and the force. :-)

In this movie they begin to diverge from the EU by separating the dark side and the sith.

Instead of all dark side users being Sith, the Sith were just one manifestation of the dark side of the force at one point in time.

Yes, the Sith were behind the empire but the Sith are no more (so we think...) and now the Knights of Ren are the current manifestation of the dark side of the force.

The idea is that there are two sides of the force.

The light side and the dark side and that there is a balance that must be upheld.

Very Ying / Yang .

The Jedi were the manifestation of the light side while the Sith were the manifestation of the dark.

Both have been nearly obliterated from the universe but the force doesn't stop existing because of this and now the light side and dark side are now moving forward in new manifestations.

I will not post my "proof" as its all spoilers from the movie.

I'd say in Episode 7, Kylo is nothing more than a fallen Jedi with a healthy obsession with his grandfather's legacy, but isn't a full sith.

Snoke is the Sith; Kylo is a mere pawn for him to use the "face" of the sith but not a true Sith like Vader, Dooku or Palpatine.

The name "Sith" has meant a number of different things over the history of Star Wars, in-universe and out.

As of the time of The Force Awakens , the Sith were most recently an organization of Force-users bound by a number of traditions.

Their most famous tradition was serving the Dark Side of the Force, but they were also recently famous for only having two members at a time (though this rule seems to have been honored in the breach more often than not).

At this time, Kylo Ren is not known to be a Sith.

He does indeed serve the Dark Side, but the First Order is a different organization .

Given his obsession with Darth Vader, it is certainly possible

-perhaps even likely- that he would seek out knowledge of his grandfather's organization.

He may even hope to re-found it one day, or possibly to cast the First Order as "heirs to the Sith" in some way.

But if he has plans in this direction, then he does not seem to have made his move just yet.

Question: Kylo Ren is obsessed with Darth Vader and vows to finish what he started.  He wields a red lightsaber.  He opposes the Jedi.  He fights for the  Empire ... err First Order  Does that mean he is a Sith?

Is Kylo Ren a Sith?

Canon Visual Dictionary explicitly states that he is not a Sith, although it is generally accepted that Kylo Ren is closer to being a Sith than a Jedi.

There is no clear evidence that Kylo Ren is a Sith, but he does serve the Dark Force and may become a Sith at some point.

No - Kylo Ren is neither a Sith nor a Jedi - instead he is the archetype of a new generation of Dark Side users.

It is not possible to conclude that Kylo Ren is a Sith just because he has a light sabre and uses the Dark Force

No - the Dark Side is separate from the Sith and you can serve the former without being a member of the latter.

Neither - the Sith and the Jedi were opposites like yin and yang but the Dark Force still exists even after both the Sith and the Jedi have been obliterated.

Kylo is a fallen Jedi who is exploited by true Sith characters such as Darth Vader.

Kylo Ren is not known to be a Sith - but he may become one later as he serves the Dark Force.


This is explained in the film's Junior Novelisation .

The super-weapon is capable of firing a beam that travels faster than light.

Evidently it also creates an effect that can be seen faster than light, explaining why people in other systems can see it in realtime: Outside the castle with Chewbacca, Han surveyed a section of Takodana’s sky through a compact ponipin telescope.

He’d heard many theories about the origin of the star that had recently blinked into existence.

None made any sense.

New stellar bodies didn’t just brighten the sky all of a sudden.

Han’s ponipin measured that the new star was also many, many light-years away, which under normal astronomical circumstances meant that it had actually blazed to life years before.

Moreover, if the calculations proved correct, the stellar coordinates happened to be the same as those of the Hosnian system, where the capital of the New Republic was located.

Could the Hosnian system have gone nova?

Could it—dare he even consider—have been destroyed?

And if so, how had it happened so quickly?

This was confirmed in a tweet by the film's Creative Executive, Pablo Hidalgo

Apparently the explosions were... ...

Some weird-ass hyperspace-rip seen-across-the-cosmos kinda shit.

To answer your first question: it is NOT very close at all.

TFA Visual dictionary includes a map of the Galaxy, and Takodana looks to be about 1/4 of a galaxy diameter away from Hosnian Prime (sorry, no image yet to prove that).

In-universe answer: technical mumbo-jumbo.

MAYBE.

The novelization by Alan Dean Foster provides a possible explanation, from a certain point of view (the quoted paragraph was describing the operation of Starkiller weapon): Traveling faster than anything ever generated by artificial means, through a torn portion of space-time whose properties were not fully understood , the concentrated glowing ball of energy lit the night sky above Republic City.

Leia’s envoy Korr Sella was among those who gazed uncomprehendingly at the inexplicable phenomenon.

Disturbed space was energized and lit up by its passage.

It was as if a minuscule sun had suddenly appeared from nowhere, heading directly for the world on which she stood.

So, there's a possible somewhat "lasers make sounds in a vacuum" explanation, that somehow, that "not fully understood" space-time tear managed to allow people on Takodana to see the explosion of Hosnia Prime.

Despite being (according to Visual Dictionary map) not only something like a quarter of a Galaxy away, but also not even on a direct path from Starkiller to Hosnian (sorry - I don't have a digital map yet, so you'll have to trust me at my word for now).

That, or Midichlorians made them see it.

Out of universe answer: J.J. Abrams is hiding under a table ever since I asked him that question.

I overheard him mumbling something about lens flares.

There's a chance that they'll retcon that in one of 17,214 new Disney revenue sources canon books/comics/stories they planned.

Always in motion, the future is.

From all I can see, it's chalked up to artistic license.

The systems are not so close that they would see the attack; it was shown purely for dramatic effect.

This is likely among the biggest logistical problems in regard to space physics in the Star Wars film universe thus far (up there with the visibly-spinning "galaxy" at the end of Episode V).

I didn't have the benefit of the novelization's explanation at the time of my viewing; as a moviegoer, here's how I reconciled the events at the time I watched the film from a scientific perspective:

All orbs in the "Hosnian System" were so close together visibly that it strained credulity (at least for me) to think that they were all individual planets, but instead a "system" of celestial bodies that included a main planet and natural satellites within a larger star system (like how we call Jupiter and its moons the "Jovian System").

It would seem to me that the best retcon to fix this plot hole would be to have "Hosnian Prime" and its satellites lie within the same star system as Takodana.

That way, the propagation delay between its destruction and the visibility thereof from Takodana could be a matter of minutes rather than millennia .

That would be an elegant retcon that would only require the filmmakers to rewrite a map, but it appears as though the novelization's explanation (mentioned above) is the most official answer offered thus far.

It's clear that spacetime just works differently in Star Wars.

The millennium falcon can jump from system to system just by jumping to light speed.

So either light moves faster, time moves faster (as seen from our perspective, it explains the visibly rotating galaxy somewhat) or the Galaxy far far away is just very small.

Same can be said of other things.

Putting the mass of a sun in a rocky planet?

It's a fantasy universe.

There is even magic in it (the force).

So trying to put it into a scientific perfection is not relevant.

This is the reason the midi chlorians sucked.

The force is not scientific.

Nothing is Star Wars is!

Furthermore the New Order wanted people to see and fear the destruction.

So the projection of that destruction in other systems could be intentional.

Question: On Takodana,    the main characters and various bar patrons can see the planet Hosnian Prime being destroyed by Starkiller Base with their (respective) naked eyes.  How did they see this? Is the Hosnian system close enough to see?  If it's not very close and they could just see the explosion, how did the light from it reach them so quickly?

How is Starkiller Base's beam visible from Takodana in The Force Awakens?

It is generally accepted that the Hosnian system is not very close to Takodana. However, the superweapon used by the Starkiller Base is capable of firing a beam that travels faster than light. Therefore, any effects of this beam would also be seen faster than light, explaining why people in other systems would be able to see the destruction in real time.

There a number of possible explanations - the most authoritative comes from the film's Creative Director Pablo Hidalgo who explained that it is because the super-weapon fires a beam that is faster than ligjht.

The film's Creative Director Pablo Hidalgo has confirmed that this was because of a super-weapon firing a beam that travels faster than light.

It is not at all close but it may appear to be due to complex technical or physical processes at play, as suggested in the novelisation by Alan Dean Foster.

It's just artistic license - done for dramatic effect.

One possible explanation is that the orbs in the Hosnian System are actually a planet and its satellites rather than a star and its planets.

It is because spacetime works differently in the Star Wars universe.


According to the novelization, R2-D2 was indeed with Chewbacca aboard the Falcon, so the first scene must have had some OTHER R2 astromech.

Each time, Chewbacca would wave.

Had he been equipped to do so, R2-D2 would have done likewise. -

[From the novelization]

I could be wrong but I believe the character in the top image is shinier, newer (i.e. different) than the one in the bottom image.

During the film, I recall thinking that the character in the top image looked familiar, but couldn't be who you (and I) thought it was.

So the next image made sense to me.

I had the thought "Oh okay, must have been a different character."

Consider the placement of the individuals in the sending off scene.

Front and center are C-3PO and BB-8.

Off to the side (and behind another person) is an R2 unit.

One would expect, that if that was R2-D2, he would have been standing in close proximity to the two droids in the middle given R2-D2's importance.

That this expectation is not met indicates thats not R2-D2.

No, they are patently not the same droids.

As you can see, the one that leaves the Falcon (pictured to the right below) has a blue top and white legs.

Presumably it's R2-D2.

The one on the flight apron (pictured to the left) has a grey top and a grey body with a white trim.

To me the droid looks more like R2-Q2 who was also in the Force Awakens action figure set.

Question: In this scene, we see...     R2-D2 waving goodbye to Rey and Chewie in the Falcon      But, here, in this next scene we see...    That R2 is there with Chewie in the Island     So, is it a big mistake in the movie??

Is this the same droid in two scenes from the Force Awakens?

No these are not the same droid. The droid that leaves on the Falcon appears to be R2-D2 whereas the droid in the other scene has a different appearance and is likely a different unit. The other droid is possibly R2-Q2.

It must have been another droid that looked like R2-D2 - possibly R2-Q2 from The Force Awakens action set.


From the Star Wars: Visual Dictionary and Force Awakens: Visual Dictionary .

The "on button" is the big shiny thing on the handle.

Straightforward answer:

Yes , as Pablo Hidalgo of the Lucasfilm Story Group recently said here and here

, it's a mistake and that the lightsaber is still supposed to activate with the plate in the middle.

Q.

Why in the Force Awakens does Finn clearly press the blade adjustment button on Luke's lightsaber to turn it on?

Is it Snoke? @pablohidalgo -

It's a mistake.

Via Twitter and Q.

Will Anakin's lightsaber ignition button be corrected in futuremovies to fit how it was in the ot [Original Trilogy]?

@pablohidalgo - If you're asking if the same mistake made in TFA will happen again, I'd say I hope not.

Via Twitter

(with grammar corrected) One assumes the same applies to the TCW episode.

Let's say it has both the activation button and the length adjust control as depicted in the dictionaries.

Presumably the activation button would cause the blade to quickly jump up to the set blade length.

However, if you left it on, but turned the length to 0, maybe holding the length adjust button down would cause it to extend in a slow, cool, way!

That way, both the OP images could make sense.

In episode 2 of the unfinished episodes of the Clone Wars, which I believe are canon, Anakin turns his lightsaber on by pushing the big red button in the front.

This, added to the many ways you cited by which this lightsaber can be turned on, leads me to believe that there is in fact more than one way to turn it on.

It's like a TV remote - I can turn on the TV by pressing the red 'standby' button, or by pressing a channel number.

I would say it works like a dimmer switch.

One switch just controls off and on while the other can control blade length and intensity while also controlling the on off capabilities.

Redundancies built into the weapon to make it more useful.

This also explains why Darth Vader comes out at different speeds.

Sometimes he uses the blade length adjustment knob sometimes he uses the on off switch

Question: You can tell from  this video  that Finn is actually pushing that button to activate the lightsaber       It seems like there are different on-buttons or something because the toys say the big rectangular one near the middle is the on-button.   From  this video :    Is there more than one on-button? Or is this just a continuity error?  Where is the official on-button, and    why the seeming inconsistency?

Which button activates Skywalker's lightsaber, and why is it inconsistent?

It's possibly that this is a simple mistake and continuity error. However, another possible explanation is that one button is an "on" button whilst another is a "blade length" button that also functions as an "on" button. This way, it would be possible to turn on a saber with both buttons.

Opinions differ but the most authoritative view (from the film-makers themselves) is that the scene where an alternative button is used to switch on a lightsabre is a mistake and the actual on off button is the large red one on the handle.

The big shiny thing on the handle is the on button.

When Finn presses the adjustment button to turn a lightsaber on in The Force Awakens it is a mistake according to Pablo Hidalgo.

Both the activation button and the length adjust control are required to switch it on.

There are many ways to switch on a lightsaber - as there may be many ways to switch on a TV remote.

It works like a dimmer switch, with different controls for on and off, for blade length and for intensity.


It's not nearly as bad as you'd think.

Looking at it from the correct angle, you can see that the cockpit windows are above the mandibles.

I went to Disney's Launch Bay, where they have an official replica of the Falcon, took photos, and highlighted the cockpit windows versus the top of the Falcon.

As you can see, the cockpit could be better situated, but they have a largely unobstructed view out of the left side.

You're not wrong.

As this rather nice wireframe shows, by looking out from the cockpit we can determine that the view from the left side of the ship is almost totally non-existent (blocked by the mandibles) whereas the starboard and front views are completely unimpeded.

Based on the concept art below (and a quote from the fully canonical 'Force Awakens: Incredible Cross-Sections' factbook)

we learn that the cockpit position was a function of the ship's intended function as a freight-pusher.

With the mandibles holding a cargo pod in place, the cockpit is sufficiently far away that the pod doesn't block the view ahead and to the right, at the cost of a view of the other side of the ship.

The Falcon’s side-mounted cockpit and the front-facing mandibles recall her origins as an intermodal tug pushing containers in orbital freight yards.

But as with many YT-1300s, an enterprising captain saw that her powerful engines and modular construction made her ideal for carrying cargoes of dubious legality.

- Force Awakens: Incredible Cross-Sections

"What's the point in placing that capsule in such an extremely strange place?

This very question is (sort of) answered in Disney canon.

In an inner monologue, Chewbacca is listing the reasons Luke thinks the Falcon is a piece of junk; one of them is: Her cockpit, for reasons no one but the designers back at Corell Industries could understand, was posted to the starboard side, and jutted at an odd angle instead of being mounted on the center line.

- Star Wars:

Smuggler's Run: A Han Solo and Chewbacca Adventure

So if the question is "Why is the cockpit where it is?", the Disney canon answer is "No one but the designers back at Corell Industries knows, but it seems weird in-universe as well as out-of-universe".

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

As many pointed out in this question , the Falcon wasn't exactly designed for dog fights.

The ship has the body of a freighter and an engine that's likely the most overhauled in the galaxy.

As such, the cockpit placement was likely considered "good enough" for its intended function.

Also, starships are largely flown using a sensor array.

Pilots depend on their copilot and gunner as well as these sensors for input regarding situational awareness.

It's not an automobile.

Well I for one just think they didn't think of it...

I took this from Starwars.com - five things you didn't know about the Millennium Falcon :

The original design wasn’t a hamburger

The initial look for the Millennium Falcon was much different.

What was planned actually became the prototype for the Tantive IV.

After the crew realized that the design looked too similar to the ship from Space: 1999, they had to go back to the drawing board and come up with something else in a hurry.

Joe Johnston worked on the redesign, and that’s where the hamburger came in.

Johnston told Starlog Magazine, “It was the quickest ship we’ve ever done.

The Falcon was designed in one day.

We took some components from the blockade runner, like the cockpit, and stuck it on the side of a big dish with some mandibles out in front.”

and yes while it does start with "not a hamburger" it does go on to say -

“It was the quickest ship we’ve ever done.

The Falcon was designed in one day.

We took some components from the blockade runner, like the cockpit, and stuck it on the side of a big dish with some mandibles out in front.”

Not a lot of thinking about angles and the ability to see the other side of the ship...

But who cares!

It still looks great and is, I think we can all agree, the best ship in the Star Wars universe.

The falcon has an excellent roll rate (note the nifty immilmen maneuver at cloud city) and "alluvial" (inertial) dampers.

A bogey detected by sensors could easily be brought into the pilots field of vision with a flick of the wrist.

Course could remain constant there is no up or down in space.

Not bad for a souped up bulk freighter.

Short answer:

Right of Way.

On ocean vessels, the ship to the right has the right of way.

This ties into the natural human instinct to be more attentive to objects on their right (dominant) side.

When you consider maneuvering through a crowded terminal where there are numerous other ships also maneuvering, you would need to have the clearest field of view of the ships to which you must yield right of way.

Question: I'm surprised there's no question about this.  With the cockpit being located far to the right of the ship, there is a gigantic pile of metal blocking  a lot  of view for the pilot.  The Falcon seems to be (at least partially) maneuvered by vision (windows), so what's the point in placing that capsule in such an extremely strange place?

Isn't the Millennium Falcon's cockpit placed extremely inconveniently?

There is no clear agreement as to whether the cockpit is indeed positioned poorly. Some believe that there is a clear view of the left side of the ship whilst others believe that there is no line of sight at all. In any case, it's generally agreed that the Millennium Falcon was not designed to be a fighter and therefore the positioning of its cockpit might well be considered good enough for its intended function and indeed for ceding right of way from the right, as done on ocean vessels. Furthermore, the ship likely had a sensor array for navigation.

There are different views on whether the cockpit position really is a weakness, but the main reason for it according to the film's makers is that the Falcon was designed in a hurry and with the main aim of looking cool.

The position of the cockpit is not as bad as it looks, giving an unobstructed view to the left.

You are right - the cockpit is in a bad position but this is simply the result of the fact that the Falcon is a converted freight ship.

It is definitely a weird position but no-one seems to know why it is there.

The cockpit position shows that the Falcon was not designed for dog fights.

The Falcon was flown using sensors so the cockpit position was not important.

The Falcon was designed in a hurry and the main thing was for it to look cool so the cockpit position was not considered from any other perspective.

The cockpit position does not matter because the Falcon has an excellent roll rate.

The cockpit position is a result of the right of way rule, which determines that a clear view to the left is the most important thing.


We don't know that he is "low ranking" Finn is an odd trooper, or at least our conception of a trooper.

He says he was "in sanitation", however he was part of a ground assault on an important mission.

This could indicate that the First Order have a policy of having their entire work force combat ready, which would not be abnormal considering the rest of their depiction.

That alone indicates that their training and duties are probably not specialized but multi-faceted.

Well, multi-faceted in the strict confines of Starkiller given his lack of linguistics and basic ship mechanics.

More importantly, there are hints in the movie that he isn't just a basic grunt.

While he's clearly no officer, he: Again, is one of the few (comparatively given the size of the standing force on Starkiller, although apparently the his entire class considered above average) chosen for an important mission.

Is familiar with and is known by Captain Phasma.

Apologies for the second hand citation

(I'll shoot for an update later), but she mentions "FN-2187 has the potential to be one of the finest stormtroopers I have ever seen" in the novel.

Out of all of the people on the base, Phasma seems to have an eye on Finn (although @DVK notes it might be an eye of suspicion).

She probably doesn't ask for his blaster randomly but rather because she was actively keeping an eye on him during the raid.

In other words, Finn was an up and coming member of the First Order.

Since his first instinct to take down the Starkiller (or more accurately, to find Rey) is to go right to Phasma, it likely that his understanding of the base comes directly from her.

Finn does not know many details about the Starkiller Base , He only knows the 'base'-ics.

The Starkiller base is the size of a planet, it would not be uncommon for anyone on it to know where major points of interest are, such as Central Command or a Thermal Oscillator , just like you know where Canada or Australia are on our planet.

Finn also mentions that he helped build it, and if he worked in sanitation he must have seen maps to get around to clean specific places.

He did not know how to disable the shields, he needed a higher up, Captain Phasma to disable the shields for him.

So he did not know very many details regarding the base such as codes.

In the attack plan, the Resistance are talking about how they need to blow up the Thermal Oscillator, all Finn does is point to it and arbitrarily say there will be enemy fighters.

I think Finn just happened to know the right amount of information to help the Resistance, but no great amount of details above his rank.

I suspect that this is a case of lazy writing.

I mean . . .

the movie started out with the search for a map that could lead to Luke Skywalker and it became all about destroying the First Order's Starkiller base.

To make matters worse, why would a character who had been taken and raised to become a stormtrooper, conveniently had a job as a sanitation janitor.

Or perhaps he was lying about being a janitor.

Finn lies to the resistance about his knowledge of the base.

When they arrive at the base, he explains he was in sanitation as the reason he doesn't know that much about the base.

From here, the team comes up with an ad-hoc way to deal with the machine.

Finn knows about large structures and their basic purpose and is able to say "Yeah, we got one of those."

when asked directly about it.

Is there more to this story?

Probably.

But we don't know any of it yet.

Finn might be an example of how things are not always as they appear.

He may have been placed there by another authority to test ethical conduct or valour of its team.

Most of it is from overhearing things.

There are quite a few cases where he says as much in the novelization.

A lot of the technical knowledge was gathered after the Resistance surveyed the planet.

He also was bluffing the resistance quite a bit in order to be able to land on the planet and save the Girl.

For example, he doesn't even know where the shield generator control room is until they find Phasma.

Question: When the rebels are planning to attack the Starkiller base, Finn seems to know a lot about the security.  And yet, later on, he mentions he was in the sanitation department.  His rank was similar to a Private in the modern army. Would we expect a private to know all the details of how a nuclear base (for example) is guarded? So how come Finn knows all those details?

How does Finn know so many details about the Starkiller Base?

It is not clearly explained how Finn knows such detail about the Starkiller Base and it's quite possible that he was largely bluffing. However, nor is it clear what his original rank on the base was, and it's possible that he had much more information than we are led to believe. Finally, given that the Starkiller Base is the size of a planet, it wouldn't be difficult for anyone to know or overhear information about signficant points of interest.

There are many possible explanations. For example Finn is not just a low ranking trooper, Finn does not know that much about the base, it is just lazy writing, Finn is lying about his knowledge, Finn is a kind of internal spy or Finn picked up his knowledge from overhearing things.

Finn is not the low ranking trooper he appears to be - there are plenty of signs of this.

Finn does not actually know that much about the base - just where the main sections are.

This is lazy writing - his backstory is too convenient to be believable.

Finn lies about his knowledge of the base - and explains he was in sanitation to support his lies.

Perhaps Finn was not a sanitation worker but a kind of spy installed to check on the behaviour of other team members.

Finn picked up his knowledge from overhearing things - and there are still gaps in his knowledge.


First, please note that I have not been able to find any canonical information on why Kylo Ren was given that birth name, so my answer is based upon reasoning and conclusions drawn from watching the movies (ep. 4-7).

Answer While it's true that Han doesn't seem to like Kenobi nor agree with him on anything, Kenobi did disengage the tractor beam and gave his life to ensure that Han, Luke and Leia could leave the Death Star alive and, relatively, unscathed.

If nothing else, Kenobi is the reason (though not intentional)

Han and Leia met (by employing Han to transport them).

Leia knew Kenobi to be a great hero of the Clone Wars, a wise general and a great jedi.

She likely held Kenobi in high reverence and would probably think that naming her son after him would be a) a great homage to the late Jedi and b) give her son a namesake to look up to.

Although you may never hear this from Disney ever, it is very likely that Kylo Ren's real name is inspired by Legends' very own Ben Skywalker .

In Legends, Ben Skywalker is Luke's own son, and it was Luke who decided to name his son after the Uncle Ben who watched over him growing up.

Even though the Lars tried to keep Luke away from Obi-Wan because they did not want him to become a fallen Jedi like Anakin, Luke still managed to form a friendship with Obi-Wan when he could get away from the Lars' attention, developing an affection for the ageing man.

Later events in the Original Trilogy would only serve to deepen Luke's love and respect for Obi-Wan.

Kylo Ren was born 0-1 years after the Battle of Endor.

Leia had just recognised Luke as her brother and formally reunited with him.

Luke and Leia both greatly admired Obi-Wan (Uncle Ben to Luke and General Kenobi to Leia), so the two of them probably came to an agreement among themselves what to name Leia's son (I guess Luke's vote counted more than Han's), just like how it happened in Legends for Luke's own son.

But why Ben as opposed to Obi-Wan?

This quote from Legends' Luke may hint at an answer.

"I'm just afraid of placing an extra one on his shoulders.

Suppose I named him Obi-Wan, as a salute to my old master?

Would he think that means that I want him to grow up to be a Jedi?

Would he think he had to live up to Ben's reputation?

This line of thought aligns well with Disney-canon-Leia's mentality that she wouldn't want to over-burden her son.

Conclusion :

Drawing parallels from Legends, I believe Luke had a hand in deciding on Kylo's birth name, and the above quote explains why Ben instead of Obi-Wan.

Disclaimer :

My answer is based fully off of Legends material, as your question cannot be answered with Disney canon sources alone.

However, given that the name Starkiller is drawn from Legends, it is not the first time Disney drew inspiration from Legends without explicitly admitting to it even though it's blatantly obvious.

Given that this is also a case of a son of the Skywalker line being named after Obi-Wan Kenobi, the similarities are plenty enough to believe that strong parallels had been drawn by Disney from Legends for my suggested answer to be reasonable.

She trusted him enough to deliver the plans in A New Hope.

Which he succeeded in doing by sacrificing himself which allowed Leia and Han to escape with their lives ...

I was named after a TV character from MASH...

I'll posit another possible reason.

Leia makes clear in the movie that she was worried about Ben/Kylo going over to the Dark Side - perhaps from the start.

It was always a risk with Skywalkers, after all...

Naming him Ben may have been in the hope that it would help keep him on the Light Side.

People often name their children after famous people, in part in the hope that some of the virtues of the famous person carry on to their child - perhaps because the child looks up to their namesake, or perhaps for other reasons.

Naming him after a famous Jedi Knight who was always true to his word and was a great warrior for the Light Side may have been an attempt to guide their son to follow in his footsteps.

Of course, it didn't work out very well...

As thegreatjedi notes, his answer is non-canon.

Gunnar's answer is missing some key points in my opinion.

Yes, it's true that Leia never met Kenobi and that Han met him for a very short time, and didn't really like him.

However: As, Gunnar pointed out, Leia knew him as great hero of the Clone Wars At the time Han knew him, he was still in smuggle mindset and not committed to the Rebels

But after the events of A New Hope , you have a span of years where Leia and Han are both fully committed to the Rebel Alliance, and are working closely with Luke.

And we know Luke holds Kenobi in extremely high regard and as a father figure.

Then, even later (after Return of the Jedi ) Luke founds the new Jedi Academy.

So basically the entire success of Rebel Alliance, the downfall of the Empire, and the reason there are Jedi in the galaxy at all can be attributed partly to Kenobi.

Also, why would one assume you have to know someone well to name your child after them.

People do it all the time.

You just have to revere them or their ideals.

So, in light of all this, there's nothing surprising about Han and Leia naming Ben Solo after Kenobi.

Perhaps the only question is why they didn't name him Yoda Solo.

It's not uncommon for people to ask for opinions/suggestions from relatives when naming their children.

Ben was obviously a very important person, a mentor and a father figure, to Leia's twin brother Luke.

If Luke didn't have children of his own (we'll have to see about Rey), then it could be a way for Leia to honor her bond with her brother.

Question: Kylo Ren’s real name is    Ben, and was presumably given to him by his parents, Han and Leia, in reference to Obi-Wan “Ben” Kenobi.   But his mother never met the person he was named after, and his father knew the person just for a short time, and wasn't too fond of him then. Why would they name their son that?

Why would Kylo Ren be named after this person?

It is not clear exactly why Han and Leia named their son Ben, but there are some plausible theories. Firstly, although their bond with Obi-Wan might not have been particularly close, he certainly had a reputation as a Jedi and gave his life for them to escape the Death Star. Furthermore, it's possible that they felt that by naming their son after a virtuous Jedi, they might hope to steer him on a positive past and avoid him falling into the Dark Side.

Views vary, the main ones being that Ben was named out of respect for Kenobi - either directly or in recognition of Luke's respect for him - or out of concern over what may become of him in his future life.

Kylo Ren was named Ben as a way of honoring the sacrifice made by Kenobi in giving how own life.

Because she trusted him to deliver the plans in A New Hope.

Perhaps because she was worried from the start about Ben going over to the Dark Side.

They named him out of respect for Luke's opinion of Kenobi - and their respect for Luke.


So far the best answer I can find.

JOHN De LANCIE (Q) :

I actually think the judge’s costume was pulled off another show.

They did that kind of thing all the time, especially early on.

Studios have a bazillion costumes in stock and they’re just redone to fit whatever’s needed on the next show or movie.

So I believe that judge’s costume was a cardinal’s outfit from something else.

- See more at: http://www.startrek.com/article/encounter-at-farpoint-28-years-later-an-oral-history#sthash.wfllWqzK.dpuf

The in-universe explanation is that it is from the mid-21st century courts, specifically 2079.

Encounter at Farpoint DATA:

Historically intriguing, Captain.

Very, very accurate.

PICARD:

Mid twenty first century.

The post-atomic horror. ...

Q (JUDGE): Objection denied.

This is a court of the year 2079, by ...

Anglo's answer is a great practical reason for the costume choice.

I would like to add that the court also has a very sinister, guilty-until innocent feel that many Catholic Inquisition courts were / or at least portrayed to be as.

The costume reflects this idea rather successfully.

This is covered in the show's original script .

The decor and clothing are consistent with the year 2049 , prior to first contact.

[It is an immense courtroom meant to reflect strength and power.

(We'll discover that it dates back to the mid-21st Century post-atomic crisis era.)

Both decor and legal procedures reflect the time when a desperate humanity, still wounded and bleeding from nuclear war, sought answers to its pain and problems through the merciless strength of a new form of dictatorial government representing neither capitalism nor communism.] and "Q" (JUDGE):

This is a court of the year 2049, by which time more 'rapid progress' had caused all 'United Earth' nonsense to be abolished.

In the episode, the line is broadly identical, but for reasons known only to the writers, the setting (and Q's line) had been shifted forward to a point after the end of the Third World War "Q" (JUDGE):

This is a court of the year 20 7 9 [, etc]

The costume borrows styling from the traditional French academic robes still in use today.

I got my doctorate at Strasbourg and my shoulder sash (that bit coming over Q's left shoulder), while not the same color, is virtually identical in appearance.

The shroud covering the sides of the head is definitely not part of my set-up, however; it might be an attempt on the part of the producers to evoke that Inquisitional mood one of the other commenters mentioned.

Given what De'Lancie has said 'pulled it off another show', but at one of my first ever UK Star trek Conventions I was told with quick shift, that it was a set of French C16th Judges Robes and indeed it is only those robes are black.

Anyone making it, the hat the most difficault thing to make well

Question: What are the historical antecedents of Q's judge costume?   Specifically, does it come from a specific human time and location?

What are the historical antecedents of Q's judge costume?

There are two possible historical antecedents for Q's judge's costume. One is that it is a cardinal's outfit and was probably used on another show that the studio worked on. Another is that the costume is based on French academic robes that are still in use today.

Views vary, with possible sources identified as costumes recycled from another show, costumes dating back to 2049 or 2079 after first contact and costumes reflecting the French robes or robes used in Inquisition courts.

The costume was copied from another show where it was possibly a cardinal's outfit.

The costume is from courts in the year 2079 and reflects the sinister appearance of robes used in Inquisition courts.

The costume dates back to 2049, prior to first contact, as stated in the show's original script.

The costume is based on the styling of academic or judicial robes used in France.


There are 17 : Griphook : Verne Troyer -> Wawrick Davis Lavender Brown : Jennifer Smith -> Jessie Cave Elphias Doge : Peter Cartwright -> David Ryall Katie Bell : Emily Dale -> Georgina Leonidas

Tom

The Innkeeper : Derek Deadman -> Jim Tavare The Fat Lady : Elizabeth Spriggs

-> Dawn French Helena Ravenclaw :

Nina Young

-> Kelly Macdonald Pansy Parkinson : Genevieve Gaunt -> Scarlett Byrne Mafalda Hopkirk : Jessica Hynes -> Sophie Thompson Professor Dumbledore : Richard Harris -> Michael Gambon Voldemort : Richard Bremmer -> Ralph Fiennes

(this cost Voldemort his nose).

(Edit: it was a joke I heard, but after reading again the books, it appears that he was described as looking like a snake since GoF)

Angelina Johnson : Danielle Tabor -> Tiana Benjamin Padma

Patil :

Sharon Sandhu -> Afshan Azad Parvati Patil :

Sitara Shah

-> Shefali Chowdhury Alicia Spinnet : Leilah Sutherland

-> Rochelle Douglas Mr Granger :

Tom Knight ->

Ian Kelly Mrs Granger : Heather Bleasdale ->

Michelle Fairley Special section for young Tom Riddle actors :

11-year old : Hero Fiennes-Tiffin

16-year old : Frank Dillane 18-year old : Michael Berendt Young in CoS : Christian Coulson

Some recast roles and the actors are: Infant Harry Potter : Saunders

Triplets Dumbledore :

Michael Gambon, Richard Harris Rubeus Hagrid :

Robbie Coltrane, Martin Bayfield (

young version, CoS)

Snape :

Alan Rickman, Alec Hopkins(OotP), Benedict Clarke(DH)

Lavender Brown :

Jennifer Smith(PoA), Jessie Cave Angelina Johnson : Danielle Tabor, Tiana Benjamin(GoF) Ernie Macmillan : Louis Doyle, Jamie Marks (DH)

Padma Patil :

Sharon Sandhu(PoA), Afshan Azad Parvati Patil : Sitara Shah(PoA), Shefali Chowdhury Alicia Spinnet : Leilah Sutherland(PS), Rochelle Douglas(CoS)

Robert Pattinson appeared as Cedric Diggory, who was recast for GoF.

It doesn't look like the original actor for Cedric in PoA was identified.

I've not been able to find a credit for Cedric in PoA, in the film credits or on IMDb.

See his wiki page .

Bill Weasley.

From http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/William_Weasley#Behind_the_scenes :

Bill is portrayed by English actor Richard Fish in the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and Irish actor Domhnall Gleeson, son of Brendan Gleeson, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.

The only one I know is Albus Dumbledore , played by: Richard Harris (films 1–2) Michael Gambon (films 3-8) Toby Regbo (playing the young Albus Dumbledore) source Wikipedia

Question: Which characters in the Harry Potter films have been recast? As the same character being played by two different actors in different films.  Which characters from the Harry Potter films have been recast?

Which characters have been recast in the Harry Potter films?

There are a number of characters in the Harry Potter films that have been recast. However, some notable examples include Dumbledore, who was played by Richard Harris, Michael Gambon and Toby Regbo, and Griphook, who was first played by Verne Troyer and then by Warwick Davis.

There are many characters played by more than one actor - up to 17 by one count. Extensive lists are provided but one exampke would be Albus Dumbledore , played by:   Richard Harris (films 1–2)  Michael Gambon (films 3-8)  Toby Regbo (playing the young Albus Dumbledore).


There are multiple times to prove that some shenanigans were going on.

Let's dig into some of the comics: The time when he was narrating himself and he got caught, again:

The time when he invited +200 characters to his wedding.

Some of them are from other comic book universes/different studios.

And then there is this one.

He says what the other characters are supposed to say.

And I think this is one of the most obvious ones that can explain your question.

I think the characters around him would realise there is something weird going on, if he would just let them understand.

And one time, he just simply said it.

Deadpool Vol.

1 #34 by Christopher Priest

In the recent movie, Deadpool (2016), there's a scene where Deadpool is talking to the audience and Colossus says "Who are you talking to?

There's nobody around" to which Deadpool points at the camera and says "Them, over there!"

It happens all the time.

Sometimes, he is even fairly explicit with it:

Ultimate Spider-Man Season 2 Episode 15 Ultimate Deadpool - Funniest Scene Deadpool breaks 4th wall, then Spidey enters his break and is confused, how that happened.

Deadpools breaks 4th wall

Spidey entered Deadpool's break and is confused how, and breaks Deadpools break. -- And the other way round Spider-Man sees Deadpool breaking the 4th wall, and is confused, because Deadpool is painting on his thoughts and

Spider-Man sees it.

: Spidey breaks 4th wall

2.2 - Deadpool enters Spidey's break

2.3 - Spidey is confused by Deadpool's entering out of the same episode: 3.1 Spidey breaks 4th wall 3.2.

Deadpools entered Spidey's break 3.3 Spidey interacts with Deadpools's break

In Cable & Deadpool (the story arc in issues 43-50, I don't know which one specifically), he references Spider-Man's deal with Mephisto, even though the deal itself completely re-wrote the timeline to the point where no other character (including Spidey) was aware of it:

She-Hulk would be the only character to get what he's doing, since she has done it many times before herself.

Yes, she's also aware that she is in a comicbook.

Don't remember the issue, but one time there was a not-in-universe recap page that took the form of a talk show, and then in the actual in-universe comic later he references the recap page and the person with him at the time (who had also been on the recap page) is confused.

Question: Has it ever happened (in a comic book, or TV show, or movie or anything) where Deadpool breaks the fourth wall and another character responds to it? Whether it's joining in and breaking the fourth wall with him, or being confused by his strange remarks and questioning him, or anything else?

Has another character ever observed Deadpool breaking the fourth wall?

There are numerous examples of Deadpool breaking the Fourth Wall. These include the time that he invited 200+ characters to his wedding, some of whom were from other universes or studios. There is also an instance in the 2016 Deadpool movie where he talks directly to the audience.

The 4th wall is broken by Deadpool to the confusion of other in-universe characters many times and many examples of this are provided.

There are many instances of this, for example when Deadpool invited 200+ characters to his wedding.

Yes - for example in Deadpool (2016) when he talks to the camera and then explains to Colossus that he is talking to the camera.

Yes - all the time, and sometimes in a fairly explicit way.

Yes, for example in Season 2 Episode 15 when Deadpool breaks the 4th wall and Spidey is confused by it.

Yes, for example in Cable & Deadpool when Deadpool references a deal no other character is aware of.

Yes, and the only other character to get it would be She-Hulk, who is also aware of the 4th wall.

Yes, for example when Deadpool references a not-in-universe talk show and the in0universe character he is with finds the reference confusing.


Naruto does not use the Flying Thunder God technique at any point in the series.

Notable similarities: Gaining partial mastery over Kurama got him fast enough to be on par with the Third Raikage, who was said to be the fastest shinobi alive (Second only to Minato, when he was alive) Gaining full mastery over Kurama (and becoming friends with him) increased his speed even further, shown to be able to nearly instantly create a shadow clone and fly to the other side of the battlefield to stop two simultaneous attacks on his friends.

- During his time as Hokage we've seen him use the Body Flicker technique, which is a rather general name for "moving really really faster so that it looks like teleportation", but the distinction between Body Flicker and Flying Thunder God was made several times in the series.

To summerize

: Naruto is very fast, however, he cannot use the Flying Thunder God technique.

I think Naruto may have some knowledge of the Flying Thunder God technique, but has never showcased it in live combat.

However referring back to the scene where Naruto dodges the Raikage's punch; Naruto does not use the 'FTG' technique but instead uses his brute speed, in the nine tails chakra mode, to match that of the speed of the 'FTG' technique.

On an important note it is crucial to remember that, after Naruto received the Six Paths Sage Power and entered the Six Paths Sage mode; his speed has enhanced immensely when compared to that of the Nine tails chakra mode.

So the question is not whether Naruto knows the 'FTG' technique, but

whether is it really necessary for Naruto?

as he has already surpassed the speed of the 'FTG' technique using his acquired powers.

He used it in the movies, im not sure if that's canon or not.

The movie was Road to Ninja, where Naruto and Sakura where trapped in a tskyuomi.

Even Obito says "The last time I got hit by that Jutsu was 16 years ago." referring to when Minato used Rasengan combined with Flying Thunder God and hit Obito/Menma on the back before he could dematerialize that part of his body using close range Kamui.

The scene I am talking about occurs about 14 minutes or so before the end of the movie.

Not sure if it's Canon or not, I would assume it is since the plot of the movie was Obito wanting to test out a limited version of the Infinite Tsukuyomi which would have some relevance to the storyline.

In chapter 700 of the manga, the final chapter which takes place years after the events of the series, an adult Hokage Naruto uses Flying Raijin to stop his son, Boruto, from vandalizing the Hokage monument.

Naruto does not use the technique during the War, and in fact had never seen it until encountering the resurrected Minato at the end.

He uses Flying Raijin 2 times: against Menma in the movie and to stop Boruto from vandalizing the Great Stone Faces. Note-

He shares his and Kurama's chakra with his reanimated father to teleport the entire allied shinobi forces out of the barrier erected by Obito Uchiha during the Fourth Great Ninja War

used on Kisame right after achieving Kurama chakra form for the first time inside the sealing cave (referred to by Bee as Teleportation technique and seeing a yellow flash) used in the very last chapter of Naruto to stop Boruto from painting in the stone mural (Borito calls out the name of the technique) used in the movie "road to ninja" against Obito (referred to as the same Technique Minato hit him with 16 years ago)

So, yes.

Naruto knows that Jutsu and uses it.

But very rarely.

Reason probably being that he just learnt it during the Ninja war and still had trouble with controlling it and incorporating it into his fighting style seamlessly.

Question: This  technique is used by Minato Namikaze, but does Naruto use it as well? As far as I remember, he dodged a punch from Raikage who said that he has surpassed his father.  Is this technique something else?

Does Naruto use Flying Raijin Jutsu?

There is no clear agreement as to whether Naruto uses "Flying Raijin Jutsu", also known as the Flying Thunder God technique. If he does use it, it's at least agreed that he uses it very rarely. Some would argue that he has never used this technique.

Views vary - Karuto does appear to know similar techniques at least and possibly to know the Flying Thunder God technique, but he uses it only in the films and even then only rarely.

Naruto does not use the Flying Thunder God technique, but he does use similar techniques, such as his partial mastery over Kurama.

Naruto may have knowledge of the Flying Thunder God technique but he never uses it in combat. However, he does use brute speed to match the speed of the FTG technique.

He does use it in the movies, but that may not be canon.

There is a scene in Road to Ninja (14 minutes before the end) where this is mentioned, but it may not be canon.

Naruto does not use the technique during the War but he does use Flying Raijin later to stop his son from vandalising a monument.

Naruto does know it and he uses it - but rarely, perhaps because he cannot control it well.


No.

The closest the Federation has come was when Sisko poisoned the atmosphere of a Maquis settlement with four hundred kilograms of tricobalt resin, making it uninhabitable to Humans but not to Cardassians.

( For the Uniform ) Solosos III

Yes.

In the finale episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation ( TNG: All Good Things... )

the actions of Federation Captain Jean-Luc Picard result in the creation of paradoxical anti-time eruption in the Alpha Quadrant.

His incompetence leads to the Earth becoming incapable of sustaining planetary life.

Admittedly this was more ' planetary manslaughter through gross negligence ' than actual ' planetcide ' but the result is much the same.

Yes.

In the Season 1 finale of Enterprise, " Shockwave ", the Enterprise accidentally ignites a component of the planet Paraagan II's atmosphere and destroys all life on the planet.

Spoiler:

The Suliban really did it to get the Enterprise crew in trouble.

Likely not canon, but Kirk/ Enterprise destroyed an entire planet (converted it to debris, a la Deathstar) in "Operation -- Annihilate!" , published in Star Trek 2 by James Blish.

The story was based on an early version of the script; the version that was filmed and aired didn't trace the enemies back to their home planet and destroy it, but the version that Blish wrote into a story did.

Thanks to Gaultheria for spotting this for me.

Yes, sort of, for a few seconds Since OP specifically mentions destroying the atmosphere, in "

A Matter of Time" the Enterprise effectively ignites the atmosphere of Penthara IV to remove volcanic ash engulfing the planet and then "harmlessly discharging it into space like a lightning rod".

PICARD:

The good news.

DATA:

The motion of the dust has created a great deal of electrostatic energy in the upper atmosphere.

With a modified phaser blast, we could create a shock front that would encircle the planet and ionise the particles.

PICARD

: That would be like striking a spark in a gas-filled room.

DATA:

With one exception, sir.

The particles would be converted into a high energy plasma which our shields could absorb and then re-direct harmlessly into space.

PICARD

: Turn the Enterprise into a lightning rod?

DATA:

Precisely, sir.

PICARD:

And the bad news?

DATA: If our phaser discharge is off by as little as point zero six terawatts, it would cause a cascading exothermal inversion.

PICARD:

Meaning?

DATA:

We would completely burn off the planet's atmosphere.

Now, technically the atmosphere was not destroyed, but tension is intentionally heightened over the risk of completely destroying the atmosphere and there is an intentional beat after the planet is engulfed in red before the healthy blue glow ensues.

So let's call that a temporary destruction of the planet (at least in the eyes of the audience).

The original series episode, Obsession, must have left that planet in sorry shape.

Spock remarked that half the atmosphere would be ripped away.

Yes, when the genesis device proved to be unstable in The Search for Spock

During the timeline of the Original Series, Starfleet General Order 24 was an order to destroy all life on a planet.

In both instances where it was ordered or prepared the order was rescinded though and never carried out.

Question: The Federation is obviously capable of doing this, but have they? Such an extreme action need not be a belligerent act. It could be undertaken to save a nearby star system from a 'virus' originating from that planet, etc.  'Destroying' the planet could mean everything from destroying the atmosphere to turning it into a floating debris cloud. Basically a deliberate act making it incapable of sustaining planetary life or unmaking the planet.

Has the Federation ever destroyed a planet?

There is disagreement as to whether the Federation has ever destroyed a planet, but most people believe that this has not happened. However, there is an instance of the Enterprise igniting part of Paraagan II's atmostphere and therefore killing all life on the planet.

Views vary, as there have been incidents in which entire atmospheres of planets have been destroyed, but it is not certain whether that amounts to destroying the planet, and the instability of the genesis device in Search for Spock may also have destroyed an entire planet.

No - although Sisko did once poison the atmosphere of a Maquis settlement, making it uninhabitable for humans.

Yes - the Enterprise once accidentally ignited a planet's atmosphere, destroying all life there.

Yes - Operation - Annihilate Kirk destroys an entire planet, but this may not be canon.

Possibly, as half the atmosphere of a planet is ripped away in the Obsession episode from the original series.

Yes, when the genesis device proved unstable in The Search for Spock.

No - an order was given to destroy an entire planet twice in the original series, but each time the order was rescinded.


In the Inifnity Gauntlet comic series Thanos was able to smash Captain America's shield.

Admittedly at that point he had the full gauntlet.

So if the inifinity stones confer similar power levels in the MCU then Thanos could do it.

In the "Fear Itself" story arch, #5, the shield was broken by the Serpent, who is an Asgardian god.

The story shows Capt.

America throwing his shield to the Serpent, who catches it, then shatters it like glass.

(see below)

There is another example, but I will link the article where I got the pic from, for the other one : Broken Shield

With the release of Endgame , we now have confirmation that Thanos is capable of doing exactly this when he puts his mind to it, and he doesn't even have Infinity Stones at that point.

Just his brutal strength and double-bladed sword are enough.

Vibranium, while very tough, isn't usually described as indestructible (that's reserved for the equally fictional metal, adamantium).

Even such ultra-strong metals can be broken by individuals or gadgets that can mess with matter at the atomic (or sub-atomic) level.

Thanos breaking Cap's shield is doing it with his glowing gauntlet, so is probably destroying it with infinity gem energy, not through brute force.

I have found exactly what you want, caps shield in half, Another individual from Asgard, the Serpent is exactly as strong and menacing as he sounds.

He is the God of Fear and was freed during an "event" comic.

He begins to turn Marvel heroes into his mindless minions.

Naturally, it's up to the Avengers to bring down this tyrant.

During the epic battle, Captain America throws his mighty shield at the Serpent, but instead of taking a beating, Serpent just catches the shield and snaps it in half with his bare hands.

Luckily for Cap, after Serpent is defeated, some dwarves repaired the shield which left a scar on it from then on.

Cited from this website.

Question: In  Avengers: Age of Ultron , when Scarlet Witch tampers with Tony Stark's mind, he sees a nightmare of dead Avengers. There, you see Captain America's shield torn in half. It was like something cut it or broke it.   If vibranium is indestructible, then what could do this to the shield? Is there any weapon or person which is able to damage vibranium?  I'm not a fan of comics, so I don't know if there's been a mention of this.

Is there something in the Marvel universe that could cut vibranium in half?

It is generally agreed that Vibranium is not indestructible, although it is a very tough material. As a result, there are a number of instances of this material being broken. Captain America's Shield was torn in half by the Serpent, and also broken by Thanos, with or without Infinity Stones. As such, it could be argued that even Thanos' brute force would be enough to break the shield.

Yes, vibranium can be broken but only by a god or by an individual using a gadget that disrupts it at the atomic or sub-atomic level.

Yes - Thanos smashed Captain America's shield in the Infinity Gauntlet series.

Yes - the Serpent (an Asgardian god) breaks the shiled in the "Fear Itself" story.

Yes - Thanos can break it using brute strength alone (with his double-bladed sword).

Yes - it can be broken by individuals or gadgets that mess with matter at an atomic or subatomic level. This can be seen when Thanos breaks Cap's shield with his glowing gauntlet.

Yes - the Serpent breaks the shield in half but it is repaired later by the dwarves.


I do not have a citation, but probably so that he can pass himself off as human.

If the robots were lacking genitals, the rebels would probably include a strip search among their tests, and probably have in the past.

Kyle Reese notes that these are the top-of-the-line in infiltration units.

Skynet had spared absolutely no expense in making them look as human as possible, down to the smallest physical features.

REESE:

But outside, it's living human tissue.

Flesh, skin, hair...blood.

Grown for the cyborgs.

Pay attention.

The 600 series had rubber skin.

We spotted them easy.

But these are new.

They look human.

Sweat, bad breath, everything.

Very hard to spot.

I had to wait '

til he moved on you before I could zero him.

From a purely out-of-universe perspective, obviously the idea that the Terminator might be as smooth as a Ken-Doll would undermine how scary he is.

Sarah Connor Chronicles - (until I can get home and confirm the episode)

but I believe there's an ep where robots have replaced humans in marriages and have maintained the relationship for long periods of time.

It’s heavily implied sex was a part of that.

It’s the episode where a terminator has replaced the husband of a city planner and it’s his mission to ensure she completes a project that lays the foundation for Skynet (unknown to her at the time).

EDIT Episode 108:

Vick's Chip - http://terminator.wikia.com/wiki/Episode_108:_Vick%27s_Chip

The T-888's infiltration protocols are advanced enough to allow it to sustain married life with a key Skynet progenitor to remain close to her.

Time of his insertion into the SCC timeline is as yet uncertain, but is certainly long term in nature.

It is very likely that the Terminator Vick was based upon a real person.

This is touched upon in reference to an automobile accident that happened prior to the episode, and similar occurrences are seen in Season 2.

Disguise, attraction and entrapment.

May I direct you to Arnold Schwarzenegger's commentary on the 2003 "Terminator 3" movie.

"The scene with the enlargement of the breasts was fantastic.

Because there's some guys that like little breasts, and there's some guys that like big breasts, so it's just-

wouldn't it be nice if you could play both sides?

You know it's... sometimes even simultaneously.

This allows terminators to Blend in.

Disguise, if necessary.

Trick/trap or sex their way in to or out of situations.

The same reason it has ears, lips, skin, nipples or any other thing that humans have: It is supposed to look like a human!

I've seen this question asked or implied about Data, Andromeda and now terminators.

Why would you ever expect an android built to look like a human not to have genitals?

Consider Skynet: it collects thousands of humans, vivisects them and makes a truly perfect replica.

Then it takes this replica, puts a robotic skeleton inside and has created a perfect human-look-a-like killer.

Then, for no reason what so ever, Skynet makes the skin green.

Why?

Or more to the point, since Skynet didn't; why would you ask: "Why isn't the terminators skin green?"

They are made with a human skin for a purpose.

To infiltrate human encampments for intelligence gathering and dissemination of useful information.

If it was discovered and it easily could happen that an easy way to tell apart terminators from the real thing is to pull down their pants, people in such an apocalyptic situation would quickly resort to such a method.

Question: The title pretty much says it all.  At the start of  The Terminator  we see him fully naked and fully equipped.  He doesn't need them, so why does he have them?

Why does the terminator have genitalia?

The Terminator probably has genitalia so that he can accurately pass himself off as a human, allowing him to blend in and infiltrate human camps.

The Terminator has genitals in order to make it appear more human so that it can fool people and therefore perform its tasks more effectively.


As far as we know, Maul is Darth Maul's pre-Sith name.

He was born a Nightbrother and has brothers with similarly evil-sounding names: Savage Opress and Feral .

Maul's last name may be considered "Opress" since that's the last name of his brother Savage; on the other hand Maul's mother, Talzin , doesn't seem to have a last name.

Not all Sith change their names when they change their title.

There is at least one other example (albeit from Legends) of a Sith who used his birth name: Revan / Darth Revan .

Most Sith change their names in order to help hide their identity (which was especially important for, say, Palpatine/Sidious).

Maul didn't need to change his name because he didn't have a public identity that needed to be kept separate from his Sith identity (and he was conspicuous enough with his tattoos, which he received as a boy).

It may very well simply be Maul.

In Star Wars: Rebels , Mauls rejects the Sith and says this: Formerly Darth, now just Maul.

Since he no longer considers himself a Sith, and dropped the "Darth" title, it doesn't make sense that he'd keep his Sith name if it wasn't also his real name.

We may never know.

He mentioned in Rebels that he had a name once, but he has long since forgotten it.

I suppose he had to leave it behind when Palpatine made him into Maul

In the book Darth Plagueis, Maul is taken as an infant by Sidious from his mother.

The child was named Maul.

Palpatine, in his urge to know more about the dark side than what Plagueis teaches him, manages to make a visit to the world of Dathomir, where he encounters a Dathomirian woman who gives him a Zabrak infant simply known as Maul.

Palpatine later has Maul sent to Mustafar, where he could be nurtured at his young age in the dark side of the Force.

Later, Maul's existence is made known to Plagueis, who permits (and encourages)

Sidious to retain Maul, not as an apprentice, but merely as an assassin (akin to the relationship between Dooku and Ventris during the Clone Wars).

In the book, 'Darth Maul, Lockdown', in the prison he was known by the name 'Jangannath' this could be his first name.

The Wookieepedia Canon gives information.

Here's the exact text: "Their son was born on the planet Iridonia[3] and was given the name Maul—the same Maul who would later be feared and dreaded as Darth Maul, Dark Lord of the Sith as the Sith apprentice to Darth Sidious." http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Maul's_father

Question: When a person becomes a Sith, he changes his name. For example:   Palpatine took (or was given) the name Sidious  Count Dooku took (or was given) the name Tyranus  Anakin Skywalker was given the name Darth Vader.   What was Darth Maul's name before he became a Sith?   Note: the idea for this question came from  http://www.moviemistakes.com/member542/answers/page49

What was Darth Maul's birth name?

It may not be known what Darth Maul's original name was, although it is quite likely that Darth Maul's birth name was simply Maul or Maul Opress. Another theory is that his name was Jangannath, as this was how he was known in the book "Darth Maul, Lockdown".

There are grounds for believing his pre-Sith name was simply Maul, but he may also have had the surname Opress.

His pre-Sith name is Maul, as far as we know. He may also have had the last name Opress.

We may never know the name - it may have been forgotten.

He was called Jangannath in prison so this could have been his original name.