Many people (or Muggles, in this case) who generally do not believe in the supernatural or in anything of that sort still believe in God and Jesus.

Why would wizards/witches be any different?

They may see Jesus as a wizard, and his powers might seem similar to those of a wizard on the surface, but that does not necessarily mean that he is not the son of God or that he was a prophet.

Wizards can celebrate Christmas for the same reasons as muggles.

I believe that most every culture in the world has been shown to celebrate this day.

In history, cultures that believed in magic, like the Celts, also celebrated a holiday with themes similar to Christmas .

The holiday celebrated by various cultures was a celebration of the time when the Sun being out will begin taking up more and more of the day.

Since it's historically been observed by most every culture, there's no reason that wizards wouldn't also celebrate it, regardless that they called it christmas instead of Yule .

Additionally, from a sociological perspective, they inherited their culture from muggles and generally people stick to what they were raised with.

In my opinion, its to ensure that the muggles and the wizards have their schedule in sync to prevent any curiosity between muggle and wizard.

For instance, if a neighbor sees that another neighbor's kid doesn't have a winter vacation, questions will pop up. Investigations and the works, until the Wizards are exposed.

So basically its just make the kids seem normal to the muggle world.

Simply because wizards seem to actually believe in Jesus

The fact that wizards do things that once were being considered diabolic by the Catholic Church does not necessarily mean that they do not believe in God.

We can see cases that wizard priests appear in the books (e.g. the pastor at Dumbledore's funeral, the priest that married Bill and Fleur), and are very alike to the ones that British and the American people are used to in their everyday lifes.

That logically points to that wizards also believe in Jesus, or in some variation of Him and the three predominant christianic dogmas (Western Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and British).

Although that celebrating Christmas in order to be "in-sync" with the Muggles is a good point, there's no sense in exchanging gifts, decorating trees and having dinners just for suspision avoidance.

Maybe there is a part of the British Church that operates in the wizard community secretly and their hypothetical change of heart to the beliefs and the condemns of the Dark Ages' "Witch Hunt" can be paralleled to the modernization that happened on the sexual direction of the priests (gay marriage, homosexual priests etc) that once were considered deadly sins and sicknesses.

Assuming that the stories told about Jesus in the Bible are accurate, Jesus may have been a wizard.

There is good reason that he would have been revered among wizards, because he did things that none of them could do.

For example: He was able to transfigure food

He resurrected While performing magic in front of muggles is frowned of today , that wouldn't have been taboo in Jesus's day, because the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy wasn't adopted until 1692.

Perhaps they are celebrating Yule, which is what the Christmas holiday is based off of.

Yule is a celebration of winter solstice and would seem like a natural fit for witches and wizards to celebrate.

Perhaps the wizarding community adopted the name of Christmas as it seemed less conspicuous to muggles (even though Yule is now a recognized holiday)

when they went through a Christianization.

We don't actually see anything about what wizards/witches do on Christmas other than have a tree inside their house (a Yule tradition) and exchanging of gifts.

We aren't given other clues as to any rituals or spiritual traditions that would say if they are Christian or not.

I believe it is similar to the real world, where (at least in Europe)

people who are not very religious still celebrate Christmas to some degree.

As other people mentioned, in the ancient times people celebrated the winter solstice and later Christmas was established by Christianity.

In the XX century people in western Europe became less and less religious, some calling themselves atheists or agnostics, some just didn't visit church too often.

But still these people followed some Christmas traditions like decorating a Christmas tree, singing carols, giving themselves gifts or having a festive meal.

We still can find some Christmas decorations in public places like shopping malls and radio stations keep playing themed songs.

We can tell that Christmas has become a secular holiday for the whole societies: for somepeople it has a religious dimensions, some people are just having some rest and fun.

The religion is never mentioned across Harry Potter books, but it doesn't imply that magic society is 100% atheist.

It is possible that some of the wizards are religious, but it is not explicitly shown in the canon.

Most of them may just follow the tradition and enjoy the occasion to spend some time with family.

Probably there are some wizards who don't celebrate Christmas at all (I can't imagine Voldemort singing carols or preparing a pudding).

As for Hogwarts, it seems that Christmas is a good opportunity to have a longer break, allowing students and teachers to visit their families

they don't see for most of the year and to have some rest in the middle of a school year.

It is also an occasion to have some social integration for the lonely employees and students staying at Hogwarts, satisfying their emotional need for belongingness, providing some substitute of the family.

Question: Every winter, Hogwarts students return home and celebrate Christmas with their families. However, given their extensive use of magic, it does not seem likely they'd understand Christianity the way muggles would.  How and why do wizards observe Christmas?

What is the nature of Christmas observance in the Potterverse?

Wizards may celebrate Christmas for the same reasons as muggles and sync their schedules to avoid any curiosity. Most of them may just follow the tradition and enjoy the occasion to spend some time with family. Religion is never mentioned in  Harry Potter books, but it doesn't imply that magic society is 100% atheist. However, some wizards may not celebrate Christmas at all (I can't imagine Voldemort singing carols or preparing a pudding).

Wizards generally simply believe in Jesus and most follow the Christmas tradition.


Except for the first & last few minutes, Captain America takes place during World War II, which I believe predates the modern day.

Thus, as Captain America was the first of the Avengers to go around avenging things, he is the first Avenger.

This is a case of marketing hyperbole and careful parsing of the facts.

Captain America precedes the existence, as a character of both Iron Man and Thor, in fact, he precedes the existence of all of the Avengers being one of the first and most successful of the Avenger's properties.

Yes, technically the Avengers formed and THEN they found Cap but in our real world, Captain America appeared first in print.

Captain America is a fictional character, a superhero who appears in comic books published by Marvel Comics.

The character first appeared in Captain America Comics #1 (cover-dated March 1941), from Marvel Comics' 1940s predecessor, Timely Comics, and was created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby.

Thor first appeared in Journey into Mystery #83 (Aug. 1962) and was created by editor-plotter Stan Lee, scripter Larry Lieber, and penciller Jack Kirby.

The mythological Thor had appeared previously in Venus #12-13 (Feb-Apr 1951).

Iron Man is a fictional character, a superhero who appears in comic books published by Marvel Comics.

The character was created by writer-editor Stan Lee, developed by scripter Larry Lieber, and designed by artists Don Heck and Jack Kirby.

He made his first appearance in Tales of Suspense #39 (March 1963).

The Avengers is a team of superheroes, appearing in comic books published by Marvel Comics.

The team made its debut in The Avengers #1 (Sept. 1963), and was created by writer-editor Stan Lee and artist/co-plotter Jack Kirby, following the trend of super-hero teams after the success of DC Comics' Justice League of America.

One major reason why the first Captain America film was subtitled The First Avenger was for the sake of international marketing.

Marvel were concerned that a film called Captain America would not do particularly well in a some countries and added the First Avenger subtitle so that local distributors would have the option to drop Captain America from the title entirely.

In the end this only happened in Russia, South Korea and Ukraine.

There's not necessarily any in-universe logic to why he would be regarded as The First Avenger except for maybe his involvement with the Strategic Science Reserve setting in motion the creation of the Avengers Initiative.

However, I suspect that it was simply the best alternate title for the film that Marvel could come up with.

In the Marvel Movie universe canon Steve Rogers was recruited into the Scientific Strategic Reserve, a division of the US military with elements that would be absorbed into S.H.I.E.L.D. As he was technically "avenging" acts against humanity during WWII well before the creation of the Avengers Initiative he would have been considered the First Avenger.

Nick Fury used the concept of a gifted individual or group of individuals protecting humanity from threats that conventional means could not achieve.

Also if you will remember neither Tony Stark or Thor had agreed to working with S.H.I.E.L.D. until Loki threatened Earth.

Capt.

America was the first actual superhero and most likely Avenger initiative was based on his success.

Not the first to join Avengers though.

Captain America was NOT the first Avenger.

He didn't join in until the 4th Avenger comic.

He was frozen in ice and the Avengers saved him and recruited him.

The original Avengers are: Iron Man, Ant-Man, Wasp, Thor, and Hulk.

Question: Why was Captain America called  The First Avenger , when Hulk and Iron Man were enlisted by Nick Fury before him?  Or are the times between the Hulk & Iron Man movies meant to have taken place after Captain America's return?

Why was Captain America called "The First Avenger"?

Captain America precedes the existence of both Iron Man and Thor. In fact, he precedes the existence of all of the Avengers being one of the first and most successful of the Avengers properties. Technically, the Avengers formed and THEN they found Cap but in our real world, Captain America appeared first in print.


James Doohan lost a finger on D-Day at Juno Beach.

It's unclear as to where Montgomery Scott lost his...

Here is a still shot of Scotty's right hand from the 1967 TOS "Cats Paw" episode and another from 1967's "The Trouble with Tribbles.

" You can also see his right hand clearly at 19 mins 10 secs (Star Date 3498.9) in the 1966 "Fridays Child" TOS episode .

If you count the movies, you can clearly see the space where the missing finger would have been when Scotty reaches out to shake the plexiglass plant owner's hand in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home .

The reason you don't remember Scotty missing a finger is that Scotty, the character, is not supposed to be missing a finger.

Any scene where you can see the missing finger are filming goofs.

Close-ups of his hand were filmed using a hand double.

Eddie Paskey, who played TOS background character Lt. Leslie, stood in for Doohan for some episodes requiring closeups of Scotty's hands.

From Memory Alpha:

He was the hand-double of James Doohan in "Wolf in the Fold" and "That Which Survives".

Doohan was self-conscious about the fact that he was missing the middle finger of his right hand (due to a D-Day combat injury while serving with the Royal Canadian Artillery), so Paskey's hands were used in close-ups.

Screenshot of Scotty's Hand Doubled hand from TNG Relics:

A list of filming errors from wiki: Despite his efforts, the injured hand can be seen in several Star Trek episodes: "

The Trouble With Tribbles", "Tomorrow Is Yesterday", "The Enemy Within", "The Ultimate Computer" and "Catspaw", as well as in The Search for Spock when giving parts from the USS Excelsior to Dr. Leonard McCoy, in The Final Frontier when Nyota Uhura brings him dinner on the bridge of the USS Enterprise-A, and in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Relics", when the missing finger is clearly apparent as Scotty offers Captain Jean-Luc Picard a drink while on a re-creation of the original Enterprise bridge.

You can see his missing middle finger of his right hand in the original series episode " The Corbomite Maneuver " as he reached for a beverage pitcher.

This can be observed in that episode at 8:28 on disk 4 of the remastered DVD.

Also in "The Lights of Zetar" from season 3

Question: We were just discussing, in the SF&F chat room here, that James Doohan was missing a finger, but there's no reference to this and I remember watching the series over and over, whenever I had the chance, up through the 90s.  I don't remember ever seeing anything to tip me off that he was missing a finger.  Are there any shots in any episodes of the original  Star Trek  where it is clear he has a missing finger?

Is James Doohan’s missing finger ever noticeable in Star Trek?

James Doohan lost a finger on D-Day at Juno Beach. You can clearly see the space where the missing finger would have been when Scotty reaches out to shake the plexiglass plant owner's hand in  Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.  You can also see his missing middle finger of his right hand in the original series episode " The Corbomite Maneuver " as he reached for a beverage pitcher.

In Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home and in the Corbomite Maneuver we can see clearly evidence of the missing finger.


Jaqen H'ghar might have been referring to R'hllor when he mentions the "Red God", but later on in the series, a different god is revealed to be the patron of Jaqen's order, the God of Many Faces.

It could be that acolytes assume that R'hllor is an aspect of their god, but it's never explicitly mentioned, and there is a temple to both R'hllor and the Many-Faced God in the city of Braavos.

For Syrio Forel, it could be that he means it less from a religious point of view, and more from a martial point of view - "don't die today

" sounds like a pragmatic soldier's prayer.

R'hllor is supposed to be the antithesis of death - he's the god of life and fire, but that doesn't mean Syrio worshiped him.

Sorcerer13 is right.

You will understand more fully after reading A Feast for Crows .

Syrio Forel's "religion" doesn't get explicity revealed, though that's what makes the plot so good.

If there were an IRL equivalent, I would say its pretty Buddhist (no flamers please, just my opinion!)

Jaqen H'ghar's "seems" to be a worshipper of the Many-Faced God of Braavos (though never explicity stated), he does give her the coin and the phrase "Valar Morghulis"-- actions which will reveal themselves in later books/episodes.

Melisandre is a priestess of R'hllor, which to me seems pretty unbending in its lack of tolerance of other gods/deities.

After thinking on this question for a few days, I think it's worth pointing out that Jaqen H'ghar saying that Arya "stole three deaths from the red god" might refer to the fact that Arya saved them from death by fire, which is what Melisandre's god R'hllor is typically associated with.

The other answers have done a great job pointing out that they do not worship the same god (assuming they are not the same god, or that those gods even exist in the first place).

It was my understanding that by "the red god", he meant the fire that Arya saved him from.

According to GRRM, Jaqen was a bit influenced by his recent experience...

Jaqen refers to the Red God, and elsewhere to the god of fire.

Is he referring to R'hllor?

When we see Arya being educated by the Faceless Men, R'hllor doesn't seem to be particularly important to them.

(George thinks for a moment)

Well, remember when Jaqen names him: he had very nearly burned to death recently... ASSHAI.COM INTERVIEW IN BARCELONA - July 28, 2012 but the Many-Faced God is called because he represents all the other gods.

There are roughly 30 statues of other gods in the House of Black and White.

"Then you have come to the wrong place.

It is not for you to say who shall live and who shall die.

That gift belongs to Him of Many Faces.

We are but his servants, sworn to do his will.

Oh.

Arya glanced at the statues that stood along the walls, candles glimmering round their feet. "

Which god is he?

" "Why, all of them," said the priest in black and white.

A Feast for Crows - Arya II While on the other hand it seems the worshippers of R'hollor are intolerant of other religions, as evident by Mellisandre burning the effigies of the Seven.

The red woman walked round the fire three times, praying once in the speech of Asshai, once in High Valyrian, and once in the Common Tongue.

Davos understood only the last. "

R'hllor, come to us in our darkness," she called. "

Lord of Light, we offer you these false gods , these seven who are one, and him the enemy.

Take them and cast your light upon us, for the night is dark and full of terrors.

A Clash of Kings - Davos

I

So in conclusion...

They do not worship the same gods.

here are the answers: Jaqen:

In the temple of the Many Faced God, there are statues of many different gods.

The priests believe that these 10 or so gods are really just different faces of the same god.

Thus, someone from the South of Westeros might call the Many-Faced-God, "The Stranger."

Someone from Asshai would most likely call the God-of-Many-Faces, "The Red God.

" To them, they are the same thing.

So if Jaqen if from Asshai, then the Red God and the Many-Faced-God are interchangeable names.

Syrio:

In regards to Syrio, it seems that everyone from Braavos has a healthy respect for the Faceless men (and more than a little fear of them).

For example, Jaqen tells Arya to give the coin to anyone from Braavos, not just a religious person.

Syrio just seems to be relaying the philosophy that everyone from Braavos grew up with.

Jaqen serves the Many Faced God.

He and two companions were saved from a terrible death by fire by Arya.

He simply mentions the "Red God."

The Red Priests and their god are evil.

The Many Faced God gives the gift of death to those who are in too much pain(physically/emotionally).

It is not taken lightly.

Those who serve the Many Faced God also mete out death to individuals:

that take advantage of people, those deemed evil, etc.

But in no way is R'hollor is not interchangeable with the Many Faced God.

Syrio certainly knew of many gods.

However, was his god the Many Faced God?

I don't think so.

I think he told Arya that the only god is death to help her with her "Water Dancing."

"Just so!"

Question: Melisandre worships R'hllor, the Lord of Light and god of fire. That much is clear. According to the  Game of Thrones wiki , R'hllor is also known as the Red God.  After Arya saves Jaqen H'ghar from death, he says she stole three deaths from the "Red God." Is that a reference to R'hllor?  Also Syrio Forel, the Braavosi water dancer tells Arya that there is only one god - the god of death. Is he also talking about the same god?

Do Syrio Forel, Jaqen H'ghar and Melisandre all follow the same religion?

Jaqen H'ghar might have been referring to R'hllor when he mentions the "Red God", but later on in the series, a different god is revealed to be the patron of Jaqen's order, the God of Many Faces.

A different God is revealed later in the series but it is very possibly a reference to R’hllor.


I think this has to do with the original purpose of the Night's Watch, which is to protect the realm from the mysterious others from beyond the wall, who come out at night.

That's why it is called the Night's Watch, and at night wearing black is the perfect camouflage.

Also, there is an interesting contrast (or balance?)

between the brothers of the Night's Watch, who wear black, and the knights of the Kingsguard, who wear white.

Both take pretty much the same vows to hold no lands and father no children, but their purpose is quite different.

“There are thousands,” someone called from behind Chett.

“We’ll die.”

That was Maslyn’s voice, green with fear.

“Die,” screamed

Mormont’s raven, flapping its black wings.

“Die, die, die.”

“Many of us,” the Old Bear said.

“Mayhaps even all of us.

But as another Lord Commander said a thousand years ago, that is why they dress us in black.

Remember your words, brothers.

For we are the swords in the darkness, the watchers on the walls . . .”

Excerpt From: George R. R. Martin.

“A Storm of Swords.”

Bantam Dell, 2003-03-04.

iBooks.

This material may be protected by copyright.

Is that what you were thinking of?

The Night's Watch is on the order of 8000 years old and was formed at a time that was toward the end of a Long Night.

It's probably safe to assume that they chose black back then to have perfect camouflage in the darkness / near darkness, and when the Long Night ended it had become a tradition that they chose to preserve --

Agreed to possible detriment, or perhaps to instill fear in their enemies by way of reputation.

I'd guess they wear black

so as not to color-clash with any other force.

All the other nobles' forces have other color combinations - in their banners and their uniforms; not all-black.

As some other people brought up in response to suggestions that it was to camouflage them, my theory is the exact opposite, THAT

IT IS MEANT TO STAND OUT AGAINST SNOW.

In battles against white walkers, Night's Watch men are likely to be risen again if they die and the main force retreats, and it would be in the best interest of the brothers guarding the wall if fallen brothers stand out against the snow when they attack again as ghouls.

Black is the absence of Colors.

Different houses in Westeros prefer different colors in their sigils, which become part of their identity.

For example: Baratheon: Black on gold Stark : Grey on white Lannister: Gold on red Arryn: White on blue Night Watch vowed not to take part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms.

They do not take any sides, hence the lack of colors.

Question: I think I remember a line in  A Clash of Kings  or  A Storm of Swords  where some guy talked about why (at least, why he thought) the Night's Watch wore all black. I think it had to do with something about when they die? I can't quite remember, and it's bothering me. On the other hand, perhaps I fabricated this memory entirely or I'm mixing it up with something else.

Why does the Night's Watch wear black?

I think this has to do with the original purpose of the Night's Watch, which is to protect the realm from the mysterious  others  from beyond the wall, who come out at night.  This is why it is called the Night's Watch, and at night wearing black is the perfect . By the time the Long Night ended, wearing camouflage had become a tradition that they chose to preserve.

Black is the perfect night-time camouflage.


From the book talking about why Draco was chosen: His mother asks Snape whether he has been chosen as punishment: “That’s because he is sixteen and has no idea what lies in store!

Why, Severus?

Why my son?

It is too dangerous!

This is vengeance for Lucius’s mistake, I know it!”

“That’s why he’s chosen Draco, isn’t it?”

she persisted.

“To punish Lucius?” Then Snape agrees: “I cannot pretend that the Dark Lord is not angry with Lucius.

Lucius was supposed to be in charge.

He got himself captured, along with how many others, and failed to retrieve the prophecy into the bargain.

Yes, the Dark Lord is angry, Narcissa, very angry indeed.”

“Then I am right, he has chosen Draco in revenge!”

choked Narcissa.

“He does not mean him to succeed, he wants him to be killed trying!”

When Snape said nothing, Narcissa seemed to lose what little self-restraint she still possessed.

and then Snape informs them of what he thinks Voldemort's real intentions are.

“He intends me to do it in the end, I think.

But he is determined that Draco should try first.

You see, in the unlikely event that Draco succeeds, I shall be able to remain at Hogwarts a little longer, fulfilling my useful role as spy.”

“In other words, it doesn’t matter to him if Draco is killed!”

Voldemort didn't think Draco could do it.

Voldemort wanted to punish Lucius, and chose to do it by giving his only son an impossible task that would almost certainly be a suicide mission.

Voldemort didn't think that.

Voldemort wanted Draco to fail and another Death Eater to kill Dumbledore.

He asked Draco in order to punish Lucius for being utterly useless at being a Death Eater.

He never expected success from Draco.

He wanted to punish Lucius as much as he could for his failure to secure the prophecy.

He took Lucius' wand, took over his manor house and treated him like something he had stepped in.

Voldemort knew that, whilst all these things were humiliating, that the best punishment was through a special kind of torture and that torture was knowing that his son had been given an important task that he was sure to fail at and that would mean certain death.

We have to remember that Voldemort was an expert in torture.

He would have known that this was a living hell for Lucius and also for Narcissa.

It would also have been a living hell for Draco and we can see that he did indeed suffer in HBP.

Knowing that their son was suffering would have added to the Malfoy's pain and distress.

Voldemort would have used Draco's failure as an excuse to kill him and probably the rest of his family, unless Bellatrix would have interceeded on Narcissa's behalf though I doubt that she would have being in such awe of her beloved master.

The fact that Voldemort sent other Death Eaters into the castle I think confirms that he expected Draco to fail, wanted his team of Death Eaters to kill Dumbledore and wanted Draco's capture secured in order for his punishment to be meted out.

The original plan was for Draco to succeed so Snape could retain his position, or for Draco to fail and for Snape to take over.

Either way, it would be a good lesson for the Malfoys.

Snape says as much at the beginning of the HBP.

But then, in the same scene, Snape makes the Unbreakable Vow with Bellatrix's assistance, no less.

She practically goads Snape into it.

Which is very intriguing.

Bellatrix is Voldemort's most loyal follower, so she probably wouldn't go against her master's wishes just to protect Draco.

At the least, she believes her master wishes for Snape to assist Draco and it could be

she even does it by direct orders.

(She may be jealous and distrustful of Snape, but she gets that her master has a different opinion.)

So things are looking good from Voldemort's perspective at the beginning of the school year.

He had chosen Draco for a hardcore mission, teaching Lucius (and other death eaters) what happens if someone fails him.

Still, the mission is in good hands, as the boy has the assistance of his beloved potions master, the friend of the family he knows from childhood and trusts.

Snape is competent enough to whip up some deadly poison and come up with an effective plan, hopefully one that will allow him to stay in the background so his cover wouldn't be blown so Voldy's got to keep his valuable spy in Hogwarts.

Except Draco refuses to listen to Snape, concluding that his teacher has his own reasons to offer help.

"I know what you're up to!

You want to steal my glory!"

(HBP, CH15)

So Draco runs unsupervised and sure enough, he messes up.

Twice.

Maybe it's good for the pacing, but it probably drove Voldemort crazy.

Well, crazier.

Draco's assassination attempts are described by Dumbledore as laughable, and with good reason.

"Forgive me, Draco, but they have been feeble attempts ...

so feeble, to be honest, that I wonder whether your heart has been really in it..." (HBP, CH27)

And those attempts weren't just feeble, they were painful to watch, a complete disaster.

Anyone less cavalier about students being in danger and getting hurt than the illustrious headmaster, would've traced back the necklace to B&B, and found the wannabe assassin in record time.

As we know, the reason Dumbledore didn't stop Draco is because he chose not to.

But from Voldy's POV, Draco is fooling around in the castle, endangering the mission and putting Dumbledore and the Order in alert and risking to blow the cover of his most valuable spy.

Good thing Voldy had no hair by that point else he'd pull it all out.

And all he could do is to sit back and wait how things will turn out.

After all, he himself gave the mission to Draco :)

Question: Voldemort gave Draco task to kill Dumbledore. Why did he choose Draco for this no-joke job?  Draco wasn't a highly skilled wizard like most of other DEs. And, killing Dumbledore wasn't a joke. Plus, he already tasted battle with Dumbledore before. He knew what Dumbledore was. Even experienced DEs were nothing in front of him.

What made Voldemort think that Draco Malfoy could kill Dumbledore?

Voldemort wanted to punish Lucius, and chose to do it by giving his only son an impossible task that would almost certainly be a suicide mission. He never expected success from Draco.  The fact that Voldemort sent other Death Eaters into the castle I think confirms that he expected Draco to fail, wanted his team of Death Eaters to kill Dumbledore and wanted Draco's capture secured in order for his punishment to be meted out.

Voldemort fundamentally didn’t believe in Draco’s ability to do it.


Well, first off, they will use more shadows, so your question is premature.

Not quite sure if that should be in a spoiler tag or not.

I assume this is a question regarding the TV-show, and not the books.

Secondly, the shadows are costly to summon.

Later on in the books, it is mentioned that Stannis seems drained and skeletal, and there are also other references, which I will not post here for their very spolerific nature.

But suffice to say, it concerns people getting hurt to fuel Melisandre's magic.

Also, as we shall see, the shadows will not help Stannis as much as he would hope, because the majority of the lords and people are against him.

So, combined with their high cost, they do not provide a real answer to his problems.

Besides those reasons, I think Stannis is a good guy, deep down inside.

At first, I did not like him at all, but throughout the books, he is solid, honourable, harsh and grumpy, and it is hard not to like him when he scorns and scolds his sycophants, but praises Davos for telling the truth.

All he does, he does for a reason, not for personal greed or ambition, but because it is right and just.

Yes, I admit, I am a bit of a fan of Stannis.

So, I am siding with Andres F and also saying that Stannis is not quite comfortable with it.

He admits at one point that it is better to kill one man dishonourably, than to allow thousands to suffer, but I think it does not sit well with him just the same.

Not sure if it's the only reason, but Stannis isn't completely comfortable about it.

At least in the books, he is never completely comfortable about the whole Lord of Light deal, or Melisandre; his queen is way more fanatical about this exotic religion.

I think Stannis sees himself as a harsh but fundamentally honorable man (we the readers may disagree with him, though!), and internally he acknowledges the shadow babies are an underhanded tactic.

He does use them more than once in the books, though.

In part, Stannis doesn't even believe the shadow monster really works!

If I remember it properly, he awakes shaken, feverish and ill and tells Davos he dreamed about being in Renly's tent and killing him, but that it MUST have being a dream.

It must, right?

In the books, Stannis is not exactly greedy.

He is unhappy, a man who saw his titles and inheritances stolen by Robert to be put in his brother Renly, despite his loyalty, for one single reason: being boring!

That, my friend is a grudge and self-esteem issues...

Because Stannis was too weak.

Mellisandre explains in S3E3, Walk of Punishment .

Stannis: Make me another son.

Melisandre: I cannot.

Stannis:

Why? Melisandre: You don't have the strength.

It would kill you.

Stannis: I'm not so easily killed.

Men have been trying for years.

I want you.

Melisandre: Your fires burn low, my king.

There is another way.

A better way.

Stannis

: You told me your magic requires a king's blood.

Melisandre:

Yes.

Stannis: I'm the one true king.

Melisandre: You are.

But there are others with your blood in their veins.

You will sit on the Iron Throne, but first there must be sacrifices.

The Lord of Light demands it.

Melisandre worships R'hollor and uses blood magic.

it does not require "sacrifice" in the sense that someone has to die for a positive outcome.

The sacrifice is blood, most potently, royal blood.

This is why Melisandre and Stannis resort to leeching Edric Storm, bastard of Robert and Stannis' nephew.

The death of Edric is not required, only his blood

but it is believed if he were killed during rites that the magic would increase in strength.

These leeches full of Edric's blood are tossed into the fire during a magic ceremony and a name is to be recited when the royal blood burns.

3 leeches burned, 3 names recited and 3 deaths in a Storm of Swords.

So it appears that even small amounts of royal blood are potent enough to cause death.

hope this helps.

They could make hundreds if they wanted, but Stannis did not have enough "life", if they made any again Stannis would die.

The magic requires a percentage of a man's life, shall we say 40% of his life gets drained, and I think Stannis at his current age has a percentage of 80% judging by his age.

Some of Melisandre's skill set consist of "blood rituals" such as sacrificing 3 leeches that have the blood of the King that ended the life of Joffrey, Robb and Lord Frey.

Question: Melisandre (the fire priestess) and Stannis used a shadow monster to    kill Renly Baratheon.   The creature is seemingly a very effective assassin. So why don't they create more of them (or make the one that already exists) kill other of enemies Stannis' like King Joffrey?

Why don't Melisandre and Stannis create more shadow monsters?

Although unsure that this is the  only  reason, but Stannis isn't completely comfortable about it. In part, Stannis doesn't even believe the shadow monster really works!  They could make hundreds if they wanted, but Stannis did not have enough "life", and if they made any again Stannis would die.

Stannis doesn’t believe the monster even works so lack of confidence prevents him from creating more.


Neither Harry is neither particularly "good" or "lucky".

He is the opposite of a tragic hero.

Maybe "opposite" is incorrect, but Harry's story is basically one of love conquering hate.

While Voldemort is consumed with hate, Harry's life was altered by love in positive ways.

Not only did love save his life, quite literally apparently.

It also bound Harry to Voldemort in such a way that it ensured the "dark lord's" eventual defeat.

Harry isn't "lucky" to have friends, he has them for a number of reasons, mostly because of the kind of person he is, and how he values his friends.

Unlike the person opposite of him in this respect "Draco".

Draco's friends are a stark contrast to Harry's.

Not the point.

Anyway, so, while he has some magic skill, albeit not super powered like some characters, he also doesn't simply stumble through life with unexpectedly happy results.

A tragic hero is somewhat destined to fail with love as some complicating factor, while Harry's destiny was somewhat written by love to various extents.

So, yes, Neither.

To some degree, both.

Harry was a talented wizard, though not a particularly good student.

He excelled specifically at Defense Against the Dark Arts, managing to summon a corporeal patronus in his third year (a feat that many adult wizards aren't capable of).

He didn't excel in the classroom in the way that Hermione did, but I think that is due more to personality than ability.

And, of course, focusing on stopping Voldemort, or his supporters, during the course of every school year no doubt didn't help with his studies.

His magical ability certainly helped him through some of the situations he found himself in.

Where his knowledge or ability failed him, he was fortunate enough to either have more knowledgeable people there to assist him or to simply get lucky.

Harry was both lucky and good at magic.

Harry as a child had a lot of magical power being able to use magic in a state of extreme emotion.

Luck:

Harry was lucky in a lot of situations such has the Voldemort killing the Horcrux, Faweks healed the basalisk wound.

The Hippogryph respecting him.

Even flying he was abnormally talented.

Basically Book 5 or 6 (luck potion).

He got Snape's book.

Talent:He recieved a score higher than Hermione in the Defense of the Dark Arts class.

All

it comes down to is that the main character is lucky to be talented/ have good support.

He does have skill but it is never emphasized enough for a person to buy into the idea that he has more extraordinary talents at all.

He did not seem to grasp many spells in the first book and only learned useful ones later on like the Disarming Charm in the second book and the Patronus Charm in third book.

Also in the third book Harry does excel at Defense Against the Dark Arts but most of that knowledge apart from spells was not used in the series.

While he learns more spells in the fourth book they were just spells anyone can learn to cast but throughout the series (if you have already read), he does not dabble or experiment, making him really just average, too average.

Frankly there were many instances of Deus Ex Machina, some of which were foreshadowed like in the first book Voldemort's Killing Curse rebounded on Harry and we learn why because of the his mother's love protection charm.

And this in turn allowed him to defeat Quirrell and Voldemort very quickly.

In the second book Harry gets help from Fawkes, thanks to some information Dumbledore provided, even though its not clear whether or not phoenixes have very good hearing.

In the third book he uses the Time Turner (which gave Hermione the mysterious ability to appear at more than one places) to save Sirius.

In the fourth book Harry was saved by effect of the twin cores which was mentioned in the first book.

The seventh book uses the wandlore idea that the wand chooses the wizard to allow Harry to gain the Elder Wand without really knowing it.

It was mentioned in the first book but was not quite expanded-on properly although it was most likely to keep things mysterious.

And also in the seventh book Harry's wand saves him from Voldemort all on its own even though such a level of wand sentience was not touched upon often making genuine instance of Deus Ex Machina.

He is a great wizard, but it is mostly luck.

Volume 1

: Harry gets lucky that his mom's enchantment is still intact, and Voldemort can't touch him.

Volume 2

: Harry gets lucky that Fawkes shows up and saves him from the venom.

Volume 3:

Harry doesn't get lucky, and lets the only antagonist of the movie, Peter Pettigrew, escape.

Volume 4: Harry gets lucky that the ghosts (I know they're not technically ghosts) show up to distract Voldemort so he can escape.

Volume 5:

Harry gets lucky that Dumbledore shows up to fight Voldemort so he won't have to.

Volume 6:

Harry gets lucky that Dumbledore revived in time to save Harry from the inferi.

Volume 7

: Harry gets lucky that all the events led to him being the owner of the elder wand, so the wand backfires Voldemort’s curse back to himself that definitely would've killed Harry.

Harry found at least once that he used magic he didn't know or intend to use when his life was threatened, when he was flying with Hagrid away from the Dursley's - there may have been other times as well.

It seems the horcrux was protecting itself.

I don't think everything he did or was capable of, including destroying Voldemort, can be chalked up to luck and skill - the horcrux Voldemort unintentionally placed within Harry played a significant role.

Question: Was he really any good at magic, or was he just lucky (as the book seems to imply) and he had very good and powerful friends to back him up?

Is Harry skilled, or just "lucky"?

Harry is neither particularly "good" or "lucky". His magical ability certainly helped him through some of the situations he found himself in. Where his knowledge or ability failed him, he was fortunate enough to either have more knowledgeable people there to assist him or to simply get lucky. However, as a child had a lot of magical power being able to use magic in a state of extreme emotion and he was also abnormally talented at flying.

A combination of the two: Harry is both lucky and abnormally talented.


The concept can certainly be dated as early as 1978, with the first mention of Eccentrica Gallumbits, the triple-breasted whore of Eroticon Six in the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy .

Aelita: Queen of Mars , a 1924 Russian silent film directed by Yakov Protazanov.

Nothing direct, but perhaps the different environment of mars has allowed females to develop a third breast as highlighted in the costume of the leading lady, Yuliya Solntseva

There have been a number of multiply-breasted female characters seen in science-fiction and horror films.

Be warned, NSFW links below... Four -breasted characters are seen in; Earth Girls are Easy (1989)

The Warrior and the Sorceress (1984) Six -breasted character are seen in Necropolis (1987)

Star Wars : Return of the Jedi (1984)

However, he first appearance of a three -breasted character seems to be Star Trek 5:

The Final Frontier

from 1989, released over a year before Total Recall.

A cat-like alien woman with three breasts is seen in the cantina scene on Nimbus III.

There's an even earlier match for a three-breasted character in the Sci-horror film " Vicious Lips " from 1986.

A band finally gets the opportunity for that breakthrough gig if they can make it to an "in" club on another planet.

They encounter a variety of strange aliens .... UPDATE

I've found an even earlier match in the Sci-smut thriller Galaxina from 1980.

Our (ahem)

heroes visit an alien brothel where they encounter many attractive alien females:

It is too in the Volume 1 (1962-1965) of « Little Annie Fanny » in the story from december 1964 called « Astronaut Annie » published originally in Playboy.

If you can speak Italian this is from the '60s: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupazza_frascatana

La leggenda legata alla pupazza vuole che rappresenti una mammana, una balia che teneva a custodia

i bambini delle donne impegnate nella vendemmia.

Questa mammana era in grado di ammansire

anche

i bambini più agitati e capricciosi: a differenza delle sue colleghe, infatti,

li imboniva allattandoli ad un seno finto

con del buon vino di Frascati.

Così, il dolce raffigura una donna con tre seni, due per il latte e uno per il vino.

La leggenda, nata negli anni sessanta, oltre a legarsi goliardicamente alla viticoltura, una delle maggiori realtà produttive frascatane, si è diffusa in pochi anni come patrimonio iconografico locale.

Sul territorio italiano si

producono altri dolci detti pupazze, ma la pupazza frascatana è l'unica pupazza a rappresentare la figura femminile con tre seni.

This describes a mythical midwife who uses he three breasts, of which dispense milk and one of which dispenses wine, to soothe children.

Question: I am trying to figure out who implemented the first three-breasted character, as seen in  Total Recall  (1990).  I know someone who says there was such a character in the original  Battlestar Galactica  series but he has no proof to back up his claim.  Does anyone know anything about that, or of any other instances where it might have first happened?

Who first implemented the three-breasted character?

There have been a number of multiple-breasted female characters seen in science-fiction and horror films.  This can  be dated as early as Aelita: Queen of Mars , a 1924  Russian silent film  directed by Yakov Protazanov.  This was also seen in 1978, with the first mention of  Eccentrica Gallumbits, the triple-breasted whore of Eroticon Six  in the  Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy .

The concept was first introduced in a film by Protazanov as early as 1978. There has been several instances of mutiple-breasted characters.


They didn't make a microjump because Hyperdrive doesn't work in a gravity well.

They probably didn't jump directly to a spot where they could target the moon immediately because they didn't know the precise location of the moon within Yavin's orbit, and they happened to come out of hyperspace on the wrong side of the planet.

Besides, they were (at least Tarkin was) very overconfident, so what if it takes them a little bit to get around the planet?

I believe that Han Solo said it best: Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy!

Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova, and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?

From this we can infer a number of things:

Hyperspace is dangerous , and even more so if you get your calculations wrong.

You need to be real careful about where you come out.

Flying through or near objects with large gravity wells is really not a smart thing to do.

If Han, as one of the better pilots in the galaxy and with a specially modified ship, exhibits this kind of caution, then of course Imperial pilots of a larger ship are going to be even more cautious.

Common sense would therefore seem to dictate that you come out some distance from your objective and make a normal flight from there.

With the computing power they have it seems unlikely that they wouldn't know the position of the planet when they arrived.

However, it would be silly to go out of their way in hyperspace just so that they could come in to the system with the moon already in range.

Their arrival in the system would have been based on a most-direct hyperspace jump, which would be standard practice for hyperspace navigation under all but the most unusual circumstances.

Considering the balance of forces, the destruction of the Death Star would have been inconceivable and certainly wouldn't have sweated the 30 minutes it took to orbit the planet.

As per the comic, you can't orbit faster without increasing the orbital altitude.

You can't just stay at the same altitude and "go faster".

Orbital motion doesn't work like that.

Also, moving large ships is very often a slow and imprecise task.

To give a nautical example, it's not unusual for a fully loaded modern supertanker to take 3~8 km to complete a braking maneuver from its normal cruising speed.

This means if you're cruising along and decide you need to stop, and you throw your engines in full reverse, it's going to take 14 minutes or more to stop.

And while some large ships have maneuvering thrusters or bow/stern thrusters that help it turn without moving forward, they're mainly used for docking.

For normal turns out at sea, a large tanker usually has a turn radius of over 3km .

A space station like the Death Star is going to have a lot more momentum and even less agility.

Plus, it's much harder (takes more energy and time) to brake in space.

So simply waiting for the orbit of the Death Star to put itself in position for the shot does make sense.

Even in space, there are gains and tradeoffs when it comes to size.

Pseudo-scientific explanation:

The strong, complex tidal forces near Yavin IV present a significant hyperspatial navigational hazard to a vessel as large as the Death Star.

To mitigate this, the Death Star dropped out of hyperspace at a point where Yavin, Yavin IV and Yavin's sun were all roughly in alignment, and then orbited the planet to reach Yavin IV.

This is a standard manoeuvre for ultra-large vessels.

The real reason: George Lucas thought it would be more exciting that way.

Question: We are talking about battle station with a hyperdrive. And there we have to wait till it orbits around Yavin to get a shot at the moon.   We know why they didn't blast the gas giant with the superlaser out of the way .  But why didn't they navigate DS1 so that it had a clear shot at the rebel moon in the first place?  And why couldn't it orbit faster?   ( Source :  Irregular Webcomic Strip #507 )

Why did Death Star need to orbit around Yavin for so long?

They probably didn't jump directly to a spot where they could target the moon immediately because they didn't know the precise location of the moon within Yavin's orbit, and they happened to come out of hyperspace on the wrong side of the planet. They may not have made a microjump because Hyperdrive doesn't work well in a gravity. Hyperspace is  dangerous , and even more so if you get your calculations wrong.

Hyperdrive does not function well in gravity and the exact location of where they were landing on the moon was unknown.


Strangely enough, this is an actual quote from the book: '

Of course, it is likely enough, my friends,' he [Treebeard] said slowly, 'likely enough that we are going to our doom: the last march of the Ents.

But if we stayed home and did nothing, doom would find us anyway, sooner or later.

That thought has long been growing in our hearts; and that is why we are marching now.

It was not a hasty resolve.

Now at least the last march of the Ents may be worth a song.'

In the book, though, the Ents were going into battle against Saruman himself:

the Orcs and Men had marched away to Helm's Deep by the time they attacked Isengard.

But Treebeard knew well the power of Saruman, amd was anticipating the worst: he hadn't realized how much Saruman now depended on his armies and his machinery, and he had good reason to fear.

As it turned out, Saruman had - as Pippin pointed out - totally left the Ents out of his calculations.

Still, he was able to inflict some damage - Pippin again: 'Several of the Ents got scorched and blistered.

One of them, Beechbone

I think he was called, a very tall handsome Ent, got caught in a spray of liquid fire and burned like a torch: a horrible sight.'

While @DanielRoseman has it largely right, I think there was a sense that the Ents were dying out, and that this was going to be their last real involvement with other beings.

They were going to march on Saruman, and probably not all survive ( and they didn't ) -

although I think they anticipated their losses as being higher than they were.

But then they retreated to the woods, and died out soon after - soon in Ent terms at least, which may have been hundreds of years.

They lost some of their youngsters, and without the Entwives, there was never going to be any more.

I think they realised that this was their last chance to do something before they passed out of memory.

So it probably was their doom, but only when you look at it from an Entish perspective, not a human one.

They probably barely survived another millenia after that, hardly worth talking about.

Treebeard is trying to convey that going against Saruman is the Ent's destined role, or their purpose, in the War of the Ring.

Tolkien often uses more archaic definitions for words.

In this case doom most likely means destiny, fate or some kind of end, but not always a tragic end.

Perhaps worth to note that in the books, the whole fight of the Ents is skipped, we only hear of it after it's all over.

I guess that the Ents had pretty much resigned by the time the Hobbits entered the forest.

Saruman had pushed them back for decades and they had obviously very little hope or interest on what was going on outside their forest.

They were not aware of their strength, and Saruman being completely off-guard surely helped.

Since Tolkien sometimes uses doom in the old sense of fate or judgement or legal sentence, perhaps Treebeard partially meant that the Ents might be judged for reward or punishment when they died, however soon or late that might be, based on how they reacted to the threat of Saruman and if they helped the other free peoples in their time of need.

He might have meant that in addition to meaning he expected that it was probable that the Ents would all be killed.

Why should Tolkien write two sentences with two meanings when he could write one sentence with two meanings?

The Ents going to war uses up a lot of their energy reserves - reserves that they hoarded for a VERY long time.

How would these Ents be able to replenish their energy and life stores back to what they used to be?

Compound this with the lack of Entwives and the consequential lack of offspring Ents - a key point for this discussion

, I think, the march of the Ents really could be seen as a hastening of their future doom - the impending doom related to their extinction as a race.

On page 958 in my paperback Return of the King , Treebeard says: 'Forests may grow,' he said. '

Woods may spread.

But not Ents.

There are no Entings.'

At some other earlier point, this urgency is also reflected when he encourages Legolas to return to Fanghorn Forest for a visit before too much time passes.

While I would normally agree that Tolkien frequently uses the word "doom" in the archaic sense, meaning something like "destiny, judgement, fate" etc, I don't think that is the case in this particular instance.

I think Treebeard genuinely believed that he and the other Ents were going to be killed in the battle.

But another peculiarity of Tolkien comes into play here

: We generally hear what the individual characters think about things, and almost never what Tolkien, as the narrator and "voice of god", thinks about things.

This is an example of Treebeard saying what he believes, but being wrong.

It was, of course, quite possible that the Ents wouldn't have done so well in the battle, and that many of them-

perhaps even all of them - would have died.

The Ents are certainly powerful, but a wizard is an extremely formidable adversary, even for the Ents.

Treebeard was wrong about going to his doom, but I'm sure he was happy to be proven wrong.

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

Question: When the Ents marched on Isengard in the movie version of  The Two Towers , Treebeard said that "it is likely that we go to our doom". In the battle itself, however, the Ents seemed to do better than anyone else. They didn't appear to be anywhere near their doom.  Did I miss something in the movie? Is this a quote from the book where things go differently? Or did Treebeard simply misjudge or misrepresent their chances of surviving?

Why was it likely that the Ents went to their doom?

Treebeard is trying to convey that going against Saruman is the Ent's destined role, or their purpose, in the War of the Ring.  Since Tolkien sometimes uses doom in the old sense of fate or judgement or legal sentence, perhaps Treebeard partially meant that the Ents might be judged for reward or punishment when they died, however soon or late that might be, based on how they reacted to the threat of Saruman and if they helped the other free peoples in their time of need.  Treebeard may have genuinely believed that he and the other Ents were going to be killed in the battle.

Treebeard suspects the Ents are going to die in battle.


There is no explicit answer, but in the Hobbit, the following passage occurs: "

Of course there is a mark," said Gandalf.

"I put it there myself.

For very good reasons.

You asked me to find the fourteenth man for your expedition, and I chose Mr. Baggins.

Just let any one say I chose the wrong man or the wrong house

and you can stop at thirteen and have all the bad luck you like, or go back to digging coal.

He scrowled so angrily at Gloin that the dwarf huddled back in his chair; and when Bilbo tried to open his mouth to ask a question, he turned and frowned at him and stuck out his bushy eyebrows, till Bilbo shut his mouth tight with a snap.

"That's right," said Gandalf.

"Lets have no more argument.

I have chosen Mr. Baggins and that ought to be enough for all of you.

If I say that he is a Burglar, a Burglar he is.

or will be when the time comes.

There is a lot more in him than you guess, and a deal more than he has any idea about himself.

You may (possibly) all live to thank me yet.

Now Bilbo, my boy, fetch a lamp, and let's have a little light at this.

So the dwarves wanted another member for their journey, and Gandalf thought Bilbo would fit (presumably a full-sized man or elf would be out of place among the dwarves).

Bilbo was a relative of a slightly 'less respectable' group of hobbits - the Tooks, who were known to be adventurous.

This question is answered in full in the book Unfinished tales : The quest of Erebor.

As far as defeating the dragon goes Gandalf had his own reasons aside from the Dwarves for seeing the dragon dead.

Gandalf feared an alliance between the Necromancer (Sauron) and Smaug would lead to the dragon attacking the Elvish strongholds of Lothlórien and Rivendell.

Thorin initially wanted to take an army of dwarves to slay the dragon Gandalf counselled against this.

Advising that a smaller stealthy party approaching the mountain would have more success.

He said Thorin needed two things first: a secret entrance which he told Thorin where to find and secondly he needed a thief trained in the arts of stealth who could get Thorin and his companions inside the mountian and he persuaded Thorin that Bilbo was such thief.

Because Bilbo asked him to go (or at least Gandalf believed so)!

"All the same I am pleased to find you remember something about me.

You seem to remember my fireworks kindly, at any rate, land that is not without hope.

Indeed for your old grand-father Took's sake, and for the sake of poor Belladonna, I will give you what you asked for."

"I beg your pardon, I haven't asked for anything!"

Yes, you have!

Twice now.

My pardon.

I give it you.

In fact I will go so far as to send you on this adventure.

Very amusing for me, very good for you and profitable too, very likely, if you ever get over it."

Sorry, I am not satisfied with the answers given here to that question, because Tolkien knew exactly the answer to that question.

It has 2 levels.

First the rational one for Thorin: in Unfinished Tales - "The Quest to Erebor", Gandalf insists on this: "Take a hobbit with you!

Smaug has probably never heard of hobbits and he has certainly never smelt them.

" That is the reason Gandalf gave to Thorin….

Then, there is the metaphysical one: Gandalf was the wisest of the Maïar and was specifically chosen by Manwë for the Istari mission because of that (see Unfinished Tales - "The Istari").

Also of course, like all Valar and Maïar, having been one of the singers of the music of Illuvatar at the beginning of time

he knew much of what would happen in Arda throughout time.

And even if in his human form as a wizard sent to Middle-Earth by the Valar he didn't have the full memory of these things and his full Maïar powers, he was still the wisest of them and somehow knew in his heart that the Hobbits would play a great role in the events to come.

In The Silmarillion - "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age", he said this to Elrond after a council of the wise that happened before the quest to Erebor:

"Many are the strange chances of the world, and help oft shall come from the hands of the weak when the wise falter".

And that is the reason why he insisted so much on the dwarves taking Bilbo with them.

He didn't really knew the why, but his instinct told him the how.

That is even why he was interested in that quest to begin with.

Else, he wouldn't even have bothered about dwarves wanting their gold back, that was of no interest to him, that is quite obvious from his attitude with them.

Gandalf didn't have the Ring in mind for the quest, but he did obviously have Sauron in mind, and as stated before, preventing an alliance between Sauron and Smaug was one of his reasons for helping.

Really there's no special answer to this very important question.

Gandalf didn't "consult" anything to pick Bilbo.

He picked him as an educated guess, or even a hunch.

Bilbo simply had the qualities that Gandalf was looking for.

He was the best candidate.

So in a way, yes, the fact that Hobbits aren't easily corrupted, regardless of the ring, their simplicity and goodness is also one of the reasons why Bilbo was picked.

A Hobbit was needed.

It's just because Gandalf is wise, this is one example of where he makes a truly wise decision that's not easy to explain.

In the Quest for Erebor chapter of Unfinished Tales while visiting Hobbiton his attention is brought about Bilbo because he' 'gone off' and disappeared, talks to Sam's grandfather & asks him where Bilbo's gone.

He needed an adventurer & knew Bilbo was one instinctively since he was young.

Question: I wonder if Tolkien ever explained why Gandalf insisted that Bilbo should go with the dwarves on their journey to reclaim Erebor. Gandalf didn't know about the One Ring and Gollum at that time. Did Gandalf foresee something or was he just thinking that Bilbo would be crucial for defeating Smaug (which Bilbo in the end of course was)?

The Hobbit: Why did Gandalf insist that Bilbo go with the dwarves?

Gandalf needed an adventurer and instinctively knew that  Bilbo was one since he was young. Also, Gandalf was under the impression that Bilbo asked him to go.

Gandalf believes it is Bilbo’s wish and as an adventurer Bilbo is a good choice.

Gandalf believes it is Bilbo’s wish. Bilbo is an adventurer and fit the build.


In the episode "A Big Piece of Garbage" Fry finds a pile of Bart Simpson dolls and he comments about them as if he is aware that "The Simpsons" is a TV show.

Also in the episode "Mars University" you can see Simpson dolls hanging in one of the booths when Fry has his flashback to the carnival.

These seem to indicate that The Simpsons is a show in the Futurama universe, and not a real place.

In the crossover books w/ the Simpsons the Futurama cast gets projected into Simpsons merchandise and the creator states in the foreword that The Simpsons is a fictional TV show in the Futurama universe.

Oddly enough, Futurama merchandise shows up in The Simpsons indicating it's a show in that universe.

When Bender showed up in The Simpsons they went through a dimensional gateway, indicating that it's not the same universe.

I agree with Andres that they do not exist in the same universe.

In A Big Piece of Garbage there are Bart Simpson dolls as an indicator of 20th century culture(specifically 20th century not 21st century).

This means that The Simpsons are a TV show in the Futurama universe just as they are in ours.

Actually, in the audio commentary for I believe Mars University (it has been a long time since I've watched early eps)

Matt Groening explains alongside David Cohen that the Simpsons is technically "fake" while Futurama is "real" as in multiple episodes, you see Simpsons characters as stuffed dolls.

Originally, the character designs for all humans for Futurama were also going to have 5 fingers, but in the end, it was harder to animate, and looked strange.

So no, in the world of Futurama (read: our world) the Simpsons, and the town of Springfield are fictitious.

Note that Springfield is referenced in The Simpsons as being in all the states that there is actually a Springfield (as a running gag).

So, if The Simpsons is just a show in Futurama, then it is likely that there are just as many Springfields as there are in our time.

But there hasn't been any reference to any of them in Futurama so far.

I don't think the Springfield from the Simpsons TV show exists in Futurama's future at all.

Why?

Because I don't think the Simpsons and Futurama exist in the same universe at all .

In The Simpsons' world, people are yellow.

In Futurama, they aren't.

Of course, that doesn't preclude some tongue-in-cheek TV show reference ;)

Another note that supports that The Simpsons and Futurama are different universes is that the characters have different physiologies.

This is clear because Futurama characters have natural skin tones, while Simpsons characters do not.

Question: Does Springfield still exist in the Futurama future? I don't expect to see the characters travel to the future, but if Fry's descendant could survive, so could the Simpsons.

Does Springfield still exist in the Futurama future?

Springfield from the Simpsons TV show is not though to exist in Futurama's future at all.

Springfield does not exist in the Futurama future.


Most Klingons would rather be armed than eat.

You can't get into Stovokor wielding a bowl of Gagh.

I would consider this a possibility for most species in the Alpha Quadrant who are using Federation-level technology.

Building modular holdout weapons does not seem to be a stretch for Klingons, covert agent Romulans, or Federation-space mercenaries such as the Breen.

It would also make sense since Klingons are always wearing armor and their honor sashes, which could under the right circumstances, double as bandoliers and ammunition harnesses.

It certainly seems plausible given the nature of Klingons and their desire to have a weapon available.

The technology of most advanced Alpha Quadrant races appears to have a modular nature.

We see such modularity on any number of Star Trek series shows where one group of parts is able to be substituted with only a little effort and very few tools on the part of the engineering crew to serve a completely different purpose.

This makes sense in a society where standardization has become a norm rather than an exception.

It makes altering and repairing equipment with similar basic parameters possible and easy especially under adverse conditions.

I would imagine that this is something that these two renegades cooked up.

If all Klingons, or even just all members of the military, regularly carried the equipment to build a disruptor, you can be pretty sure that people would know about it.

Every Klingon ever captured would be stripped naked and be given a thorough cavity search.

Because that didn't happen, it is safe to assume that building a disruptor out of scraps of armor and uniform is a rare enough occurrence.

The Enterprise and Voyager crews have also fashioned phasers out of random raw materials laying around when the situation (and/or plot) requires it, it's just them doing what they need to survive.

As for being able to use armor for such a purpose, Memory Alpha doesn't have anything to say about that.

It's possible, but I suspect from the nature of Klingons they'd be more likely to have hidden melee weapon pieces than disruptor parts in their armor.

Even Spock (in Patterns of Force ) used the crystals from his and Kirk's subcutaneous transponders to create a crude laser beam to cut the bars from their holding cell.

So Klingons with disruptor parts hidden as apart of their uniforms should not be a big surprise.

Not all Klingons use this, but ANY Klingon who can use a weapon in their culture has hidden weapons, in fact, in the STRIKE ZONE novel, Worf tells JLP the number of hidden weapons he has stacked in his Federation uniform (much more of a challenge than in Klingon uniforms) and he gains honor points with the klingon ambassador for that.

This conversation came out due to the need to have all delegations, Klingon and Kreel alike, go into the talks without weapons.

If I remember right, it's actually a competition of honor to see who can hide more weapons.

Just remember: there are civilian Klingons who can't use weapons, so not all klingons are special opps :)

I think this answers the question

As far as stripping a warrior and not having any weapons are concerned, it is not true as a warrior is a weapon by his very nature.

Giving him a blade or energy weapon is merely an extension of that weaponry and not diminishing it by any means.

Training and experience are what hone his abilities and makes him a more efficient weapon.

The Mok'barra is a prime example of this as it teaches non-armed combat techniques much like the arts of Karate, Jujitsu and the like.

Being skilled in combat, armed and non-armed is what makes one a warrior.

Anyone can become skilled in these techniques and therefore it's not a strictly military action, but a dedication of the individual to regiment, training and experience that makes them a living weapon.

As for someone using pieces from their normal duty dress and piecing together a weapon, that is strictly a matter of planning for every contingency and any warrior worth his house is going to do that.

Having them there simply means they have had experiences where this was necessary for them to succeed in their mission.

That it passed the transporter scanners is not amazing as it was broken down into it's base components and the computer didn't recognize it as a weapon because of this.

Once more it's a matter of the mind of a being versus the memory of a computer.

The computer knows what a weapon is, basically once its assembled, but its parts can be used for so many things that it doesn't consider it as that until it's assembled.

A disruptor's power sources can easily be used for communications devices as well since they are simple batteries.

just as most of the other parts are used for everyday other devices.

Question: In "Heart of Glory," two captive Klingons form a disruptor beam out of pieces taken from their armour and clothing.  Do  all  Klingons have this system? Only members of the military? Or is this something special the renegades cooked up?

Do all Klingons have piece-meal disruptors?

This certainly seems plausible given the nature of Klingons and their desire to have a weapon available. However, they may be more likely to have hidden melee weapon pieces than disruptor parts in their armor.  It would also make sense since Klingons are always wearing armor and their honor sashes, which could under the right circumstances double as bandoliers and ammunition harnesses. For example, Worf told JLP the number of hidden weapons he has stacked in his Federation uniform.

It is likely they have piece-meal disrupters but it is more likely that they have hidden melee weapon pieces.


The staff needs to make contact with skin (as vsz says, skin near the heart) to affect the person.

Tony's skin wasn't touched, it hit the reactor instead.

While the magic can penetrate a thin layer of clothing, apparently the metal of the reactor was sufficient shielding.

The reason Loki's staff will not work on Tony has nothing to do with the ARC reactor technology per say, and everything to do with the core element of the 4th generation reactor, Vibranium .

One of the main abilities of the fictional element is absorbtion of energy directed at it.

This is also why Thor's mystical lightning bolt overcharges Tony's reactor to "Over 400%"

It is stated in the novelization of Iron Man II that the metal is indeed Vibranium.

From the comments Loki made when converting previous victims, it seems he has to poke very close to the heart with his staff .

Tony Stark just had his arc reactor in the way.

In all previous "conversions" Loki touched his victims on the chest, very close to the heart, so it seems that this was necessary, and it was not enough to touch the victim's skin on their hand, for example.

From the metallic clack, Loki could assume Tony has something there (e.g. a cuirass), so if it weren't necessary to "touch the heart" he could have instantly touched Tony elsewhere (on his arm, on his face, etc.), instead of trying once or twice again and then giving up.

When he takes over Hawkeye at the beginning of the film, Loki says Barton "has heart".

When it doesn't work on Tony Stark the director is poking fun that Stark is 'heartless' in the emotional sense that he is extremely vain or self interested.

Although the movie shows the staff always touching close to the physical heart of the victim, the only time Loki explains its workings is in regard to Hawkeye, speaking of a metaphorical 'heart' vs a physical one.

We can confirm this through the reasoning that the arc reactor is in the center of Stark's chest where the physical heart lies to the left, Loki would have the sense to tap the second time on the left of Stark's chest if near physical contact with the heart is required.

I believe it was because of the energy field produced by the arc reactor in Tony's chest.

The metal had nothing to do with it.

It just interfered with the manipulation of energy that occurs when Loki uses the staff to augment his mind control.

I have something to add, as I went back to watch all the other movies and something came to me.

If you look closely at the book Tony is reading in Iron Man 2 , you will see the Tesseract

and I thought the new element his father was talking about might have been the Tesseract.

I think that he was able to create his own Tesseract for his heart and suit.

That is why the staff didn't work on him.

Question: In the Avengers movie, why didn't Loki's staff work on Tony Stark?  My theory is that it had something to do with the Arc Reactor, given the 'clink' sound it made when Loki tapped Tony on the chest.

Why didn't Loki's staff work on Tony Stark?

In all previous "conversions", Loki touched his victims on the chest, as it seems that he has to poke very close to the skin near the heart with his staff. From the metallic clack, Loki could assume Tony has something there (the arc reactor). However, some people feel that this may be due to the energy from the arc reactor in Tony's chest, or even due to the core element of the 4th generation reactor, Vibranium.

Skin contact close to the heart is needed for the staff to work.


It pulls elements from multiple Batman arcs, like the other Nolan Batman films have.

The obvious one is Knightfall .

This storyline introduced Bane to the comics, who proceeds to wear down Batman by freeing all the occupants of Arkham Asylum and eventually confronting him personally.

During that confrontation, Bane famously breaks the Bat.

This leaves Bruce a paraplegic, who spends a chunk of the storyline recovering, while having someone else take the mantle of Batman.

The next storyline that it pulls from is

The Dark Knight Returns , which has an elderly Batman return after a decade of being retired.

The last one is No Man's Land .

Following a devastating earthquake in the storyline leading in to No Man's Land , the government evacuates Gotham and abandons those who choose to remain.

It's sealed off, and all bridges into the city are blown up.

People are then forbidden from entering or leaving the city.

Inside the city, Jim Gordon and some cops remain, and they struggle to maintain order.

Batman and allies fight the gangs who are battling for control over Gotham.

The obvious influence is the Knightfall story arc.

This introduces Bane and includes the part where Bane injures Batman's back.

A link could be drawn between the prison breaks in both movie and comic, but that is tenuous given the standard of prisoners released.

Batman has a romance with Talia Al-Ghul in the Son of the Demon story arc but with a significant difference - Batman is aware of who Talia is in that.

He might have borrowed from the Death of Batman story arc as well, where Batman presumably dies from an explosion at sea.

In the comics it is a helicopter, the movies it's a nuclear blast.

He doesn't really die in either, but it's a fun little coincidence.

Knightfall, No Man's Land, Legacy, Batman: The Cult, Dark Victory, The Dark Knight Returns...

Honestly thats not even all of them.

Chris and Jonathan Nolan very obviously read the entire Modern Age run (which I've been trying to do) and took things, even sometimes almost unnoticeable things from many storylines.

People don't usually mention The Cult, but it is just as much of an inspiration as Knightfall, NML, and DKR are once you read it.

Having Bane as the main antagonist of the film, his comic origin story 'Vengeance of Bane' was sourced.

The story details how he was born in a prison for the crimes of his father and would escape as an adult.

The iconic moment of Bane breaking Batman over his knee, was paid homage to from the pages of 'Batman #497' (Knightfall).

Having said that Bane's actions in the film, mimic those mostly of the villian Deacon Blackfire.

He features in 'The Cult', which seems to have influenced the film the most.

Gordon is hospitalised and visited by Batman, an underground army of homeless rise from the sewers to take Gotham by force in a uprising lead by the charismatic leader.

Batman is imprisoned underground too.

Many more elements from this comic feature in the film.

'The Cult' is as much as an inspiration 'Year One' is to Batman Begins or 'The Long Halloween' is to The Dark Knight.

Question: The Dark Knight Rises sees Batman fight    Bane and Talia al Ghoul, who are part of a plan to finally complete R'as al Ghoul's mission of burning Gotham to the ground.   What, if any, storylines in the comicbooks did The Dark Knight Rises borrow from?

What, if any, storylines did The Dark Knight Rises borrow from?

The Dark Knight Rises takes elements from multiple  Batman stories. The obvious one is  Knightfall, however, it may also be influenced by story arcs from No Man's Land, Legacy, Batman: The Cult, Dark Victory, The Dark Knight Returns and Death of Batman.

The Dark Knight Rises is borrowed from Knightfall, among other possibiliies.


I've always taken from the relevant passages that she was not human.

Specifically, that she was some form of water or river nymph, as both she described herself as the daughter of the River: '

Come dear folk!'

she said, taking Frodo by the hand. '

Laugh and be merry!

I am Goldberry,daughter of the River. '

as did Tom: By that pool

long ago I found

the River-daughter, fair young Goldberry sitting in the rushes.

(Both quotes from the Fellowship of the Ring .)

Letter 210 has a brief comment on Goldberry and her significance, which reinforces the fact that it's not likely that she is human: Goldberry represents the actual seasonal changes in such lands.

It seems to stretch belief that a human would represent seasonal changes when we do not see such conceptual representation by humans anywhere else.

The wikipedia article states that her origins/race is uncertain but it does have this to say about her: Although Goldberry's origins are uncertain, Bombadil clearly identifies her as having been found by him in the river and her title "River-woman's daughter" strongly suggests that she is not a mortal human being , but rather a spirit of the river Withywindle in the Old Forest of Tolkien's Middle-earth.

Frodo certainly reacts to her as something special: He stood as he had at times stood enchanted by fair elven-voices; but the spell that was now laid upon him was different: less keen and lofty was the delight, but deeper and nearer to mortal heart; marvellous and yet not strange.

I'm prepared to call her the river daughter and be happy with that.

There's no point trying to square Tom Bombadil with the rest of Middle-earth.

He's a delightful enigma, and so is his wife.

According to Tolkien's Letter #210: We are not in 'fairy-land', but in real river-lands in autumn.

Goldberry represents the actual seasonal changes in such lands.

This fits with Tom calling her "River-daughter".

So she's a spirit of nature, as is Tom Bombadil himseld -

at least Tolkien said so in one of his earlier letters written before LotR. Later, he seems to have favoured keeping Tom's nature a mystery.

Goldberry is a nature spirit, with one possible source given in the late essay "Of the Ents and the Eagles", which was taken up in the published Silmarillion, Chapter 2: "Of Aule and Yavanna": Behold!

When the Children awake, then the thought of Yavanna will awake also, and it will summon spirits from afar, and they will go among the kelvar and the olvar, and some will dwell therein...

(This is also a possible source for Bombadil).

There are many quotations that suggest she is not a mortal human being, but in fact a nature spirit or a Maia.

From the Adventures of Tom Bombadil:"Go down!

Sleep again where the pools are shadyfar below willow-roots,

little water-lady!"She is clearly able to live IN the river, but also on land, suggesting that she is not completely human.

From The Lord of the Rings‘But

I see that you are an elf-friend; the light in your eyes and the ring in your voice tells it.’

Here Goldberry recognises the goodness in Frodo, but makes an allusion to the one Ring, hearing its power working on Frodo as she speaks to him as she has not yet seen it.

Her and Tom both seem to sense the ring and perhaps see the 'shadow' realm, meaning that they are more than simple humans living in an ANCIENT forest.

I think it unlikely that they simply humans.

Her singing, for example, is described "as young and as ancient as spring".

Personally I believe that her and Tom are nature spirits, sent to act as protectors for the diminishing natural world.

They live in 'The Old Forest' which many find an unpleasant place, which makes me believe that they have lived there since before corruption made the trees hateful, otherwise they would encounter many problems.

Furthermore, Goldberry's voice implies that she has lived close to the birth of the river, and has seen it through many seasons, giving her the appearance-and voice- of a youthful woman wise beyond her years, when she is in fact, immortal.

She also states that Tom Bombadil 'Is', meaning that he just exists, and is tied to the land.

As the world around us simply 'is' there, so is he, and he will only die when it 'is not'.

Question: Having read the Lord of the Rings a number of times I was always curious about the significance of Goldberry. I have not managed to find any reference to her origins within the other Middle-earth books that I have read.  Is she was just a mortal woman, or is there was some deeper significance to why she ends up living with Bombadil, or is she just a token female character designed to add a little balance to the overwhelmingly male character count?

Is Goldberry a regular mortal woman?

There are many quotations that suggest she is not a mortal human being, but in fact a nature spirit or a Maia.  This is inferred in the late essay "Of the Ents and the Eagles", which was taken up in the published Silmarillion, Chapter 2: "Of Aule and Yavanna":   Behold!

She is more likely to be a nature spirit or a Maia.


The Istari essay in Unfinished Tales answers this: But the last-comer was named among the Elves Mithrandir, the Grey Pilgrim, for he dwelt in no place , and gathered to himself neither wealth nor followers, but ever went to and fro in the Westlands from Gondor to Angmar, and from Lindon to Lórien, befriending all folk in times of need.

Also the headnote to the Tale of Years for the Third Age in RotK: Mithrandir was closest in friendship with the Eldar, and wandered mostly in the West, and never made for himself any lasting abode .

In so much as Gandalf could be said to have a home, it is the Gardens of Lórien in Aman, where he lived as Olórin; see the Valaquenta:

Wisest of the Maiar was Olórin.

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

Even then he did journey about somewhat, as the quote given above shows, and also further from Unfinished Tales:

Then Manwë asked, where was Olórin?

And Olórin, who was clad in grey, and having just entered from a journey had seated himself at the edge of the council...

Lórien in Aman, which should not be confused with Lórien in Middle-earth, is presumably where Gandalf eventually returns to at the end of Lord of the Rings.

It's an interesting question.

His home would definitely be considered Aman, where he returns at the end of the Lord of the Rings.

However I assume you mean within Middle Earth.

We know Saruman had set himself up in Isengard and Radagast has a home called Rhosgobel, so it's already more common for Wizards to have a home than not.

However Gandalf is a special case, and I don't think he had a home beyond residing for a time in places like Rivendell or Lorien.

He's travelling for over a year solid in the course of the Hobbit: March 15, 2941

- Thorin Oakenshield meets with Gandalf the Grey at the Prancing Pony in Bree, the Quest of Erebor begins July, 2941 - Bilbo Baggins obtains the One Ring; the White Council drives Sauron out of Dol Guldur October, 2941

- Esgaroth is attacked by the dragon Smaug, who is consequentially killed by Bard the Bowman; Thorin Oakenshield, Fíli, and Kíli killed at the Battle of Five Armies along with Bolg son of Azog; Dáin II Ironfoot becomes King of The Lonely Mountain; Town of Dale reestablished by Bard June 22, 2942 - Bilbo Baggins returns to Bag End

He'd been hunting Gollum on and off for 17 years by the start of the Lord of the Rings, and then obviously spends close to 18 months travelling in the course of the Lord of the Rings: 3001 - Bilbo Baggins turns 111, passes the One Ring on to Frodo Baggins, and leaves the Shire.

From now on Aragorn and Gandalf intermittently hunt Gollum April 11, 3018 - Gandalf reaches Hobbiton.

He returns to the Shire, telling Frodo Baggins he must take the Ring away September 21, 3019 - Hobbits arrive in Rivendell.

At no point in any of this do we hear mention of a home, nor is there reference to upkeeping of one in his absence or any concern for what might be happening to it.

I'd conclude that Gandalf didn't have a fixed place of residence in Middle Earth.

All dates sourced from the Timeline of Arda .

One hint that he has no home is that one of his names is "The Grey Pilgrim"

These first two quotes were provided in another answer, but I include them here to build on their line of thought, because there are a few other relevant quotations that give us a definitive answer to Gandalf's dwelling and why .

From Unfinished Tales :

But the last-comer was named among the Elves Mithrandir, the Grey Pilgrim, for he dwelt in no place , and gathered to himself neither wealth nor followers, but ever went to and fro in the Westlands from Gondor to Angmar, and from Lindon to Lórien, befriending all folk in times of need.

From

The Return of the King : Mithrandir was closest in friendship with the Eldar, and wandered mostly in the West, and never made for himself any lasting abode .

The wording in the second is closely echoed in a passage from The Silmarillion , in the chapter Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age .

First, when describing the arrival of the Istari into Middle-earth: Mithrandir was closest in counsel with Elrond and the Elves.

He wandered far in the North and West and made never in any land any lasting abode … And in the next paragraph: Mithrandir refused the office [of head of the White Council], since would have no ties and no allegiance, save to those who sent him, and he would abide in no place nor be subject to any summons.

Notice the surrounding context of each passage:

Gandalf (i.e. Mithrandir) never settled in a permanent home, was closest of the Wizards with the Elves, accumulated no wealth, did not seek out followers, and refused defined leadership roles.

Based on these passages, Gandalf was explicitly transient, and for a reason: he did not settle down anywhere because he did not want anyone thinking he specifically 'owed' them his service simply for living in their land.

His service was due only to the Valar, so it is reasonable that he considered only Valinor to be his true homeland.

The closest places Gandalf had to a 'home' was when he resided with the Elves of Elrond or Galadriel, because they most of all understood who he was (a Maia) and why he needed to come and go (he was sent by the Valar to guide and help all of Middle-earth against Sauron's evils).

Gandalf has many times expressed an affection for hobbits; the hobbit children are raised on stories of him.

It is at least mildly implied that when Gandalf is not off seeking knowledge/questing/kicking ass, which is not exactly often, he prefers to hang his hat so to speak in the shire.

Question: Does Gandalf have his own home or does he just live where he goes?  Is there a place that he prefers to live and calls home most of all?

Where does Gandalf Live?

In so much as Gandalf could be said to have a home, it is the Gardens of Lórien in Aman, where he lived as Olórin. However, there is a hint that he has no home in "The Grey Pilgrim" and in the Istari essay in Unfinished Tales.

Gandalf lives wherever he goes; he has no fixed abode.


Well, it depends on the level of canon you are looking for..

and, yes.. I know, with

Doctor Who, that's a tricky issue.

But, still.. If you are willing to accept one of the comic books , then we have an example of an adult:

Nothing is said about it's weight, but it's appearance

is basically just a larger version of the baby ones we saw in the episodes.

The size is even questionable, since there really isn't anything to compare to to, to get a good idea of the scale.

But in appearance, it's very similar to the baby version.

I don't believe this was every mentioned so far.

However something to consider, when the 10th doctor was dying he visited Jack at a bar.

There was an adipose creature there; your first reaction would be to think 'oh and adipose baby' -

but why would a baby be in a bar?

Maybe the adults look exactly the same.

Doctor

Who screenwriter Russell T. Davis drew a rough concept art sketch of the ' Shadow Proclamation debating chamber ' for the two-part episode

The Stolen Earth/Journey's End .

Although it was ultimately filmed differently, to the right you can see an adult Adipose, basically identical to the child Adipose, but roughly twelve feet tall and presumably weighing a metric ton.

" The Shadow Proclamation, as Russell imagined it".

Illustration by Russell T Davies - From Doctor

Who: The Writer's Tale

On the wikia page it says that the adult adipose look the same as the children but are twice the size of adult humans

I personally think they would stay the same.

They are made of human fat so to speak, but once they "become" adipose, they wouldn't consume any more of the humans fat so would probably not develop any more.

I suppose if they stayed inside the human for longer they could grow and become larger, but it makes sense that they stay the same once no longer a part of that human - unless they were able to "feast" on more human fat which we never really find out

Question: In the episode Partners in Crime we see numerous "baby" adipose:  It's made clear these are infant adipose and are all about 1kilo in weight and are about 6-8inches tall.  But we never see what an adult adipose looks like (at-least in that episode), so what do they look like, how big are they, how much would one weigh?

What does an adult Adipose look like?

Nothing is said about it's weight, but it is basically just a larger version of the baby ones we saw in the episodes.

An adult adipose is a larger version of a baby one; there is no exact information available on its weight.

Nothing is said about it's weight, but it's appearance.


There were plenty of R2 type droids .

However, R2-D2 was a unique instance of that designation in existing canon .

Googling for "other R2D2 units|droids" returns nothing; as an extra proof.

However, conceptually, there COULD have been other R2D2 units.

As I noted in my answer here , according to canon (Pablo Hidalgo - Internet Content Provider for starwars.com - Q&A in Star Wars Insider #58 (Page 97); as well as Disney canon "Rogue One novelization) , the 4-letter designation is merely an owner extracting easy to use name from a much longer serial number.

From the various uses in canon, the "R2" part is normally the model number, and the "D2" portion is the serial number.

Other R2 units are seen on screen, as well as plenty of R5 units.

R5-D4 is the unit that blows its motivator in Ep IV, for example.

Other R2 units from starwars.fandom.com's R2-series_astromech_droid and R2 Category page includeR2-0,R2-4B,R2-5,R2-A3,R2-A5,R2-A6,R2-B1,R2-B3,R2-B4,R2-BDE,R2-C2,R2-C3,R2-C4,R2-C9,R2-D0,R2-D2,R2-D5,R2-D6,R2-D609,R2-D7,R2-D9,R2-E7,R2-F2,R2-F7,R2-J8,R2-K7,R2-KT,R2-L1,R2-L3,R2-M3,R2-M5,R2-MK,R2-N3,R2-P3,R2-PU,R2-Q2,R2-Q5,R2-Q5,R2-Q8,R2-QU,R2-R7,R2-R9,R2-RC,R2-RD,

R2-S4,R2-T0,R2-T7,R2-V0,R2-V6,R2-W3,R2-X0,R2-X2,R2-X3,R2-X9,R2-Y9,R2-Z1,R2-Z13,R2-Z4.

Of these named R2's, R2-D2, Both R2-Q5's and R2-KT are on film (KT is in clone wars, Q5 #1 in Ep V, #6 in Ep VI).

A very few Extended Universe materials have R2 units with non-conforming names, such as B3-TA in The Clone Wars Adventures video game.

A Similar list of R5-units is seen as well; R5-D4 is seen in Ep IV, blowing his motivator...

Several are seen on film, and they are quite popular in the Extended Universe materials.

It's also noted that some R2 units are in R5 chassis, to cover up the gaff in Ep IV where Luke calls R5-D4 an R2 unit, saying "Hey!

This R2 unit has a bad motivator!"

I believe that they are not unique and that there are many R2-D2s out there in the galaxy.

Lets assume that all R2 units have a R2-XX name where XX can be any number or letter.

That gives us 67600 possible R2 units.

Wookieepedia states that there are around 1.75 million planets in the Empire .

Which means only 3% of them would have an R2 unit anywhere on the planet.

For such a common droid it seems very unlikely that they'd constrain themselves to selling them in such small numbers.

My suggestion would be that it works more like a software versioning system.

(Major-Minor).

R2 represents the model D2 represents the version of the droid

There is then some specific serial number identifying each droid (presumably much bigger).

As to why they're not referred to by this unique version number?

Would you rather call your droid R2-D2 or R2-D2-57073805371805317857832075501?

Assuming that the names of R2 units follow the pattern R2-XX, where X is a character in A-Z or 0-9 (37 possible characters), there are 37^2 or 1369 possible R2-unit names, which certainly wouldn't be enough to make them unique across thousands of star systems.

My best guess is that people tend to use the model number as a name as a short-hand, much as Luke referred to R5-D4 by color when referring to it as 'Red'.

In fact, R2-D2 is usually referred to simply as Artoo, which is a specifier used as a generic for all astromech droids.

The interesting thing is that C-3PO introduces R2 as R2-D2, without any further specificity, indicating that either C-3PO is using the human naming convention, or that R2-D2 is in fact unique.

It seems pretty clear that the answer is "yes", given the information others have dug up about the Star Wars universe.

I wanted to chime in and suggest how this could be possible while still allowing many droids.

As evidenced by aramis' list above, some of the units have more than one digit (R2-Z13, R2-D609), and some have only letters (R2-MK) or digits (R2-5, R2-0).

To me, this implies that "D2" is something akin to a hex number (or rather, at least base 36, since we can see "Z" being used).

"0xFF" is considered a number, not a letter designation, in hexidecimal; the missing numeral glyphs are replaced with letter glyphs.

The second half of the designation is probably a numeric serial number in base 36, starting at R2-0.

That gives us serial numbers in sequence:

R2-0, R2-1, [...]

R2-9, R2-A, R2-B, R2-C,

[...] R2-Z,

R2-10, R2-11, and so on and so forth.

If my math is right, that would make R2-D2 the 470th droid produced, and the highest droid number on @aramis' list (D609) is the 614,313th droid of that type.

The millionth R2 unit would be R2-LFLS, still pronounceable by humans in a hurry.

Bumping up to five digits would get you 60 million droids.

Considering that doesn't count alternate lines like the QT, R2-AG, or R2-R, (and considering that sci-fi writers have no sense of scale ),

I think that's more than enough serial numbers to be plausible.

There are dozens of R2-D2 units in the galaxy, otherwise 2-1B would not have his 'own' sw wiki page and 2-1B Medical Droid having its own.

If R2-D2 is a unique number then logic would say 2-1B is unique as well, but the medical droid in SW3 is apparently not the same one from SW5.

If there are several 2-1Bs in the SW Universe, there's probably a few dozen R2-D2s running around.

Question: I know there are different versions of R2 droids but are there multiples of each version of those droids? In other words were there any other R2-D2 droids manufactured in the galaxy or is there only one? For instance I can have the same model cellphone as someone else but my phone will have a serial number making it unique. Is this true for R2-D2 or is it the "D2" after the "R2" that makes the droid unique?

Is there only one R2-D2 droid in the galaxy or were other R2-D2 droids made?

There were many R2 type droids. Assuming that the names of R2 units follow the pattern R2-XX, there would not be enough variations available to make them unique across thousands of star systems. Also, if there are several 2-1Bs in the SW Universe, there are probably a other R2-D2s. The "R2" part is normally the model number, and the "D2" portion is the serial number.

There are many R2-D2 droids that exist — into the dozens.