George R. R. Martin's blog had a link recently to a site with some information about the title sequence.

It includes an interview that gives some insight into the process of building the sequence.

Game of Thrones (2011) , Art of the Title

To summarize: The original idea was to show a map, but this was too… flat.

So the artists decided to depict intricate miniatures — denoting top-notch craftsmanship as a metaphor for GRRM's writing.

The style evokes the kinds of miniatures that could have been built with about the technology in the story.

It's as if a talented and devoted artist from the GoT world had made them.

The world is shown as the inside of a sphere to make the “camera” movements look better — zoom out from a location, rotate the camera, zoom into a different location, without risking showing an edge of the world.

The miniatures depict locations that are seen in the episode.

Thus the intro sequence varies from episode to episode: it depends on the visited locations.

In addition, there are minor variations in the cuts, just to introduce a little unpredictability.

They don't explain how the title music is able to lodge in your brain and linger there for days after you watch an episode though...

One interesting thing to note, the intro changes in each episode.

It shows only the aspects of the world that will be shown in that episode.

Watch episode 5 intro and you will not see anything across the narrow sea in the intro, but you will see a closer view of the Eyrie.

If you look carefully at the center of each "city", the ruling Houses' Crest/Symbols are shown.

For instance, at Winterfell, you can see the DireWolf, King's Landing has the Stag of Baratheon.

As far as I can tell, the only point of the intro sequence is to show the viewers the map of Westeros, so that they have some idea of what happens where.

I think the mechanical castles are just there to look cool.

One important interpretation I made from the title sequence was that how much it makes Westeros look like a little kid's build yourself kind of puzzle.

That really reinforces the concept that the whole thing is a game, with different players and locations being game pieces.

It appears that the title sequence was originally intended to be used as transitions to indicate the movement of the plot to different parts of the world.

Unfortunately it disrupted the narrative flow too much, so they decided to use it as titles instead.

Interestingly the map is on the inside of a sphere with a light source in the centre.

It would be difficult to impossible to replicate this as a real world object, so it's fairly safe to assume that any design features are there to make for a more interesting visual experience rather than any plot related reason.

The proportions of the map are from original maps drawn by Martin himself.

One thing I noticed about the way the titles were designed was that, when they showed the name of an actor, they put the sigil of the house of the character he/she is playing before it.

For example, in front of Sean Bean we see a direwolf, in front of Mark Addy a stag, in front of Peter Dinklage a lion and so on.

After the Season 6 Finale we also see that the orbs and rings we see in the opening are most likely an astrolabe

(aka armillary sphere, armilla, or armil).

We see the same object hanging in the Citadel at Oldtown.

This can be determined by seeing the same markings on the rings.

The meaning of this is still not fully known, but there is an interesting fan theory ...

"The overarching saga is called A Song Of Ice

And Fire after all,

and in the world of Game of Thrones songs are used to pass on heroic stories and legends.

So does that mean somebody is telling this story of Dany, Jon, Arya, Cersei, and the rest to future generations?

If that’s how it ends, some fans might be mad about the set up of the story.

But if this theory is right, does it make sense for Sam to be the one that devotes his life to passing along the heroism and cruelty of everyone in Westeros?

Or could it be Sam’s son who was told the story by his father and then passes it on to his own children?

If this theory is accurate, there are any number of options that would make sense.

But for now it is just another theory." Opening astrolabe Citadel astroslabe

The map is clearly westeros, and all the houses and their seats, also the free cities and such, but the important is the sun, with the rings around it, it tells the story of westeros, like aegon's conquest, or roberts rebellion..

There is also the consideration that in Book 1 of the series, when Bran is unconscious and at the tipping point of death, he takes a metaphysical journey through the 7 kingdoms, accompanied by a three eyed raven; the narrative describes scenes extremely close to this title.

Also, if you notice, there is a kind of 'blinking' during the opening sequence; I see this as a 'Dragon's-eye view of Westeros.'

I think the idea behind the rising and falling elements (doors, drawbridges, walls, ladders, etc.)

used around the map is to emphasize the levels of complexity in the Westerosi political system.

It is a complex world.

Question: The intro to Game of Thrones episodes includes a model mechanical world sprouting up buildings at Kings' Landing, Winterfell, and other key locations.  Does this have any significance other than something cool to look at?

Does the intro sequence to the Game of Thrones TV series have any meaning?

It appears that the title sequence was originally intended to be used as transitions to indicate the movement of the plot to different parts of the world. The map is clearly Westeros, but the important thing is the sun, with the rings around it, as it tells the story of Westeros, including Aegon's conquest, or Robert's rebellion. If you look carefully at the center of each "city",  the ruling Houses' Crest/Symbols are shown.

The title sequence shows the map of Westeros with the ruling families. However, it changes with each episode, showing the movement of the plot to different parts of the world.

The title sequence changes each episode and was intended to indicate transitions in the plot to different parts of the world.

The title sequence shows the map of Westeros and the ruling families to give viewers an overview of the world.


I'm pretty certain that there has never been a mention in the series about a brother.

There have been mentions of the Doctor's family in that he has said he had to leave his family.

The End of Time implied that the woman that appeared and talked to Wilf was the Doctor's mother - although this is not stated explicitly.

I think Joe (in the comment) is right in that the implication is that the reference to "brother" was a reference to the Master.

Lots, if you know where to look, er, listen.

The Doctor's brother, Irving Braxiatel has quite a storied history IF you have listened to any of the audio products/broadcasts of the Dr Who Series.

Irving Braxiatel, or simply Braxiatel, was a Time Lord and the older brother of the Doctor.

He maintained the Braxiatel Collection .

At one time he held the office of Lord Cardinal in the High Council on Gallifrey.

He also briefly served as Lord Chancellor and Lord President of Gallifrey.

He was an associate of Bernice Summerfield .

Irving Braxiatel appeared in " The Inquiry " as Cardinal Braxiatel, produced by Big Finish Productions in 2004 and is played by Miles Richardson.

Some of these stories appear to take place in an alternative timeline called The Axis .

It is mentioned that at least in one alternative universe the Doctor may have had to kill his brother during a time when the Doctor was "The Burner", a temporal assassin for the Gallifreyan Council.

This could explain the Doctor's cryptic "not anymore statement".

Irving Braxiatel has also appeared in a number of novels as well.

He appears in The Empire of Glass , Tears of the Oracle and Dragon's Wrath to name just a few.

Irving Braxiatel does not appear to have made any onscreen appearances since the reboot of Doctors Nine through Twelve.

The Empire of Glass is a Virgin Missing Adventures original novel written by Andy Lane based on the long-running British science fiction television series Doctor Who.

It features the First Doctor, Steven Taylor, Vicki and Irving Braxiatel.

Tears of the Oracle : The shattered world of Dellah, once a thriving place of learning, has only one aspect of the university left.

This is under siege by religious fanatics.

Bernice Summerfield has to deal with this, a mad collector (Irving Braxiatel), her ex-husband and an Oracle that could lead to priceless information.

You can partake of the Doctor's brother Irving Braxiatel's complicated history at the Tardis Data Core where they track his appearances both in print and in audio.

You can also reference Big Finish Productions for other Dr. Who audio appearances.

Thus far, there has been no explicit mention of a brother.

The only information we have on any immediate family of the Doctor is: Susan, his granddaughter, who appears regularly in the first ten serials or so (season one and start of season two).

A great-grandson by Susan, who appears only in some Eighth Doctor audio episodes

His mother, who appears (not acknowledged on-screen, but has since been confirmed) in the Tenth Doctor's final season finale.

Jenny, his cloned offspring, whom he has acknowledged as his daughter.[1]

Presumably he has at least one natural son/daughter, Susan's parent, but we are never told which.

Of course, if you buy the New Adventures novels, then Time Lords aren't born, they're "loomed" in batches of 40-50, all of which are called "cousins", but its usually best to just pretend that stuff never happened.

As @Mr.

Lister correctly points out, Jenny is not strictly a "clone" of the Doctor; she was produced by some unspecified replication process based on his DNA, but obviously including some genetic variations.

She appeared physiologically to be Gallifreyan, so it's not clear where the alterations to her DNA came from.

Calling her a "daughter" is probably the closest term we can come in English.

Given that the Doctor may be a clone, via Looming, of The Other (as hinted in the book Lungbarrow) it's conceivable that he had a brother that way.

The Doctor's Brother might be this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Braxiatel

While it has never been officially stated, Dr

Who scripts were written where it was reveal

The Doctor and The Master are half brothers.

Paul McGann read one as part of his audition for his role as the 8th Doctor.

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Irving_Braxiatel This link states that Braxiatel IS the Doctor's older brother.

I remember long ago in a store looking at a Dr. Who novel or more likely a serial novelization, with a scene set in an alien underground city I think, where the Doctor and the Master were said to be brothers.

For along time I thought that was canon in the TV series.

If my memory is correct the Doctor and the Master were brothers in at least some part of Dr. Who literature.

Question: In the 10th Doctor episode  Smith and Jones  when Martha asks the Doctor if he has a brother, he says   No, not any more.    It seems like if there had never been any mention of a brother, and no plans to introduce (a history of) one, a simple "no" would have worked for the purposes of this episode.   Has there been mention of a brother in any other episode or any of the novels?

Is anything known about the Doctor's brother?

The Doctor's brother, Irving Braxiatel has quite a storied history. It is mentioned that at least in one alternative universe, the Doctor may have had to kill his brother during a time when the Doctor was "The Burner", a temporal assassin for the Gallifreyan Council. The Doctor and the Master were said to be brothers in some part of Dr. Who literature.

There do not appear to be any canon references to a brother in Dr Who. However, there are some suggestions that either Irving Braxiatel or the Master may be the Dr's brother.

It would appear there has been no explicit mention of a brother in the Dr Who series.

There are references to a brother in other Dr Who sources. One possibility is  Irving Braxiatel, another is the Master. However, it is not clear if these references are canon.


The exact timeline hasn't been listed yet, but there are a few assumptions we can make.

It has to be after the Pandorica events.

(Melody is conceived in the TARDIS on their honeymoon).

There has to be enough time for The Church (and Madame Kovarian) to find out about the pregnancy and make a plan.

(Although it's most likely that Kovarian has time-travel capability on her own, "time" becomes a much more flexible requirement).

The Doctor doesn't know about Amy's pregnancy until towards the end of Impossible Astronaut.

Amy then tells the Doctor she was mistaken in Day of the Moon, three months later.

At the end of that episode is the first time we see the "positive/negative" result.

That means that the absolute latest that the swap could be made is between Impossible Astronaut and Day of the Moon (while Amy's on the run).

Plenty of opportunities for a swap to be made, and it's plausible that people out to get the Doctor would know about it by that point.

It also explains why Amy thinks she's not pregnant (three months later and not showing is pretty convincing).

It also matches up with the Doctor's comment about Amy being gone "since America".

The second window is pre-Impossible Astronaut (while Rory and Amy are hanging out at home between adventures).

This is slightly less likely, as it's implied that Amy's only finding out about the pregnancy either during or just before this episode (remember, Rory doesn't know about it).

This makes it more difficult to explain how The Church would know about it as well.

It was before the season began because Amy saw Madame Kovarian before the Silence took her.

The Doctor says in A Good Man Goes to War that it must've happened 'before America'.

He obviously can't know for sure, but I guess that's the information we're supposed to accept as truth for now.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/95/Jouke van der Maas

Amy shoots the little girl in the spacesuit, then three months pass and suddenly Amy's running through the desert and running from Canton and the silence.

There were (presumably) several times

she was alone during those three months,

so I think that's the most reasonable time for her kidnapping to have occurred.

Also, in "impossible astronaut" the Silence instructs her to tell the doctor "what be must know," and she tells the doctor she's pregnant.

Then, after "day of the moon" she isn't pregnant any more, and this is the first time we see the doctor being suspicious of her and concerned for her wellbeing, almost as though he knows something isn't right.

It happened in the three months that occur between 'Impossible Astronaut' (season 6 episode 1) and 'Day of the Moon' (season 6 episode 2).

She was at least two months along in her pregnancy but could have been as far along as five months.

I can support this logically with facts.

Amy got pregnant on her wedding night in the TARDIS.

The future Doctor summons Amy and Rory to Lake Silencia two months after they got married.

Future Doctor says Amy had gained a few pounds.

(He would have known she was pregnant)

If the Silence had already captured Amy they would have kept her ganger from gaining weight.

In 'Impossible Astronaut' Amy tells the Doctor that she is pregnant.

Three months take place between 'Impossible Astronaut' and 'Day of the Moon' When she is in the orphanage (Day of the Moon)

she sees Kovarian, the eye patch lady.

That means she had already been captured.

It HAD to have happened in Day of the Moon, because that was the first time Madame Kovarian was introduced, and the only time when Amy wasn't with Rory or the Doctor.

It probably occurred while she was with the Silence, and the one rescued from the Silence was the ganger.

Additionally, Steven Moffat has been quoted as saying that the Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon are meant to be prequels to every episode in the current series.

Question: In the series 6 episode of  Doctor Who ,  The Almost People , we learn that there had been a swap at some point.    Amy at some point was swapped with a Ganger, a duplicate of her made of the Flesh.  After the swap happened, the Amy Ganger kept seeing the eye-patch woman whenever she checked on the real Amy.  So my question is, when did Amy get kidnapped and replaced with the Ganger?   When did this swap happen?

In series 6 of Doctor Who, when did the Amy swap happen?

Some assumptions may be made about the timeline for the swap. Some say it was  before the season began because Amy saw Madame Kovarian before the Silence took her,  in the three months that occur between 'Impossible Astronaut' (season 6 episode 1) and 'Day of the Moon' (season 6 episode 2). It must have happened in Day of the Moon, because that was the first time Madame Kovarian was introduced, and the only time when Amy wasn't with Rory or the Doctor.

There are few possibilities for when Amy was snatched and replaced by the Ganger. It was either before the season started, between season 6 episode 1 and season 6 episode 2 or it happened in Day of the Moon.


Per the series 6 finale

The Wedding of River Song , the TARDIS was in his eye.

Where 'his eye' is in fact the Teselecta's eye, as the thing we thought was the future Doctor was in fact just the Teselecta.

The Doctor was inside, along with his TARDIS.

Well, consider that the TARDIS is a living thing, and moreover one that is in love with the Doctor.

She could always just throw herself into a sun or land on some remote asteroid, but that still leaves the chance (however small) that someone might run into her and remember.

To correct what appears to be an oversight, consider also what happens during "The Parting of the Ways" (or is it the one just before that?).

The Doctor sends Rose home in the TARDIS and (by way of his answering machine), tells her to just leave it, essentially letting it die.

His description of how it will be forgotten and ignored could explain why the existence of the Cowboy Hat Doctor's TARDIS isn't a big deal.

Additionally, does another TARDIS in the universe actually mess anything up?

If you think about it, almost any time the Doctor does anything , there's at least one other Doctor out there with a corresponding TARDIS.

Time travel does not lend itself well to avoiding multiples of oneself.

Consider Rule Number One:

The Doctor Lies.

With that in mind, we don't know that the Cowboy Hat Doctor is who he claims (or the age he claims) at this point

and he may be the "Oblivious" Meet-in-the-Diner Doctor

we see later who just staged earlier events for the benefit of that one figure on the hill who was watching and whom Amy saw, then forgot.

In other words, we really know nothing about Cowboy Hat Doctor, much less that he got there in a later or earlier version of the Tardis.

We first see that particular version of the Doctor without the TARDIS (and in a cowboy hat?).

Given that, it's fairly safe to assume that until we find out otherwise, the Doctor most likely arrived in some other fashion, considering we weren't given evidence that the TARDIS is around.

It does beg the question - where is the TARDIS at that point in time?

Considering it's likely the Doctor won't actually follow that full timeline and die, we may not ever know.

EDIT:

As Keen states, the Doctor does not actually die, but he is present when the Teselecta is "killed.

" The implication is that the Doctor and the Teselecta traveled to the location in the TARDIS, then the Doctor and TARDIS relocated into the Teselecta's eye.

Well, perhaps this isn't in the spirit of the question, but I suspect that the most accurate answer will turn out to be "because the writer didn't think of that."

Made all the more glaring by the fuss they make over disposing of the body.

Maybe the future version of the doctor fixed the chameleon circuit and the car is the Tardis!

Not really likely, but it would work. :-)

Wikipedia notes that: In the Big Finish audio play Omega, the Doctor meets a TARDIS which "dies" after its Time Lord master's demise.

So, it's possible that a TARDIS tends to die when its Doctor dies.

There is not such a thing as a extra TARDIS.

The fixed point was that the Doctor pretended his death, but to enyone the fixed point is that the Doctor is dead.

There is not such a thing as a machine that extract the fixed points in timeand explain them.

In other words, what it was written to happen in the Lake Silencio

was that the Doctor is going to pretend his death, and when River stop this "act", that fixed point, it cause a paradox breaking the fixed point.

And that act, is what Amy, Rory, Canton and River see in the first time, that "first death".

Question: The following question is about the S6E1 episode of Doctor Who,  The Impossible Astronaut , where we see a character for a few minutes.   At the start of the episode we meet a future Doctor.  He proceeds to die shortly thereafter.  But he had to have gotten to Earth and that time somehow.  Usually he travels via TARDIS, so where's his TARDIS?  There should be an extra TARDIS parked on Earth somewhere.

Where's the extra TARDIS?

The implication is that the Doctor and the Teselecta traveled to the location in the TARDIS, then the Doctor and TARDIS relocated into the Teselecta's eye. Some say there is no such thing as an extra TARDIS, and that a TARDIS tends to die when its Doctor dies.

Debate rages about what happened to TARDIS when Dr Who died. Some believe TARDIS relocated with the DR in the Teleselecta's eye. Others say TARDIS died with the doctor. Regarding an extra TARDIS, it seems there is no such thing.

It could be that the Dr and the TARDIS are in the Teleselecta's eye.

It could also be that TARDIS dies when the Dr dies.


Magneto controls magnetic fields to a ludicrous degree .

In the comics, this has been extended to the point of knocking people unconscious by slowing/stopping the flow of iron to their brains.

He cannot control non-ferrous (non-magnetic) metals.

This HAS been used against him, notably in the construction of the later-stage Sentinels, which were made of non-ferrous metal and plastic.

Most of the common metals used today, are magnetic to some degree.

Iron, Aluminum, Copper, Titanium, Chromium, you name it.

So having magnetic powers does give you power over most of metal-based objects.

Yes!

In the original X-Men comics Magneto was able to throw lightning bolts!

In the sixth X-Men comic Magneto made a mental version of himself out of pure magnetic energy.

Just like how Professor X can create a mental version of himself with his mind.

Magneto's power is to control electromagnetic energy, not metal.

In the first movie when Storm said she was going to fry him, instead of using his brain he could have just put a magnetic field around himself.

In the second movie, when Magneto was in that room made without metal, he could have just blasted that plastic gate open with electromagnetic force.

And in the third movie he could have just crushed those plastic cure guns by putting a magnetic field around the guns and crushing them.

I know that because I read the X-Men comics from 1963 written by Stan Lee and illustrated by Jack Kirby.

You should do the same if you want to know about Magneto.

But I do think the guy who played Magneto in the movies was great.

Magneto has control/power over both magnetic fields and metal.

Toward the end of the first half hour of X-Men (released in 2000), as Charles Xavier is talking to Logan about what the school is, Xavier reveals his history with Magneto thus : When I was seventeen I met a young man named Erik Lehnsherr.

He, too, had an unusual power.

He could create magnetic fields and control metal.

Believing that humanity would never accept us, he...

he grew angry and vengeful.

He became Magneto.

This at least is his explained power set in the X-Men Movie Universe.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/383/Eight Days of Malaise

I think being called "The Master of Magnetism" is pretty clear.

Magnetism has been extended to all electromagnetism, so he should be able to throw lightning bolts too if he wanted to(ie.

his electrical looking shield he uses sometimes).

Well I believe his power is defined as being able to create magnetic fields.

But in both the movies and the comics, there are moments when he is able to manipulate metals that are questionable as to being magnetic or not.

So I don't really know, maybe he has the power to magnetise non-magnetic metals so that he can manipulate them with the magnetic fields.

Question: I just watched the third movie and humanity ends up using plastic to counter Magneto.   That made me wonder why they didn't use non magnetic metals?  Is he able to manipulate non magnetic metals and has this been used against him?  Similar to how Storm can make mist or sunny weather, but being called 'Weather' would be less strong sounding than 'Storm'.

Is Magneto's power magnetism or can he manipulate all metals?

Magneto's power is to control electromagnetic energy, not metal and he was even able to throw lightning bolts in the original comics. However, he cannot control non-ferrous (non-magnetic) metals and this has been used against him, notably in the construction of the later-stage Sentinels, which were made of non-ferrous metal and plastic.

Magneto's power is to control magnetic fields. Although this means he cannot control non-ferrous metals, most metals are magnetic to some extent and hence his powers are amazing.

Magneto's power is to control magnetic fields not just metal.

Magneto cannot control non-ferrous metals and this has been used against him in the past. However, most metals are magnetic to some degree, so his powers are far-reaching.


In the Star Wars Universe, the difference between the light side and dark side is...a gray area.

Essentially, if you are using the Force out of anger, lust, greed, vengeance, or fear, you likely channel the dark side.

If you are using the Force to defend you are using the light side.

There are very few techniques which are unambiguously light or dark.

The ability to stimulate cellular regeneration ('Force Heal') is generally considered light, but a malicious individual could use it to restore health to a torture victim, for instance, to prepare them for more.

The only truly unique powers to either side are, I believe, Force Choke and Force Lightning.

These are unambiguous mainly because they use the Force explicitly to kill.

No other power seen uses the force for that purpose, and it can even be seen as mildly damaging to the Force itself to do so (since the Force is generated by life, using it to bring death is abominable).

For the most part, Force powers are tools, neither good nor bad on their own.

Their USER is light or dark.

The Force is different things to different cultures:

The Old Jedi Council considered any Force use that requires emotion to be of the dark side, and the light side to be that which requires knowledge and control with the absence of emotion.

Several cultures believe that the Force is magic and that any attempt to use it is evil.

The Sith believe the Force is nothing more than a tool to be used for the wielder's ends.

In New Jedi Order and beyond there has been a lot of experimentation with techniques that would have been banned under the Jedi Council.

The current Jedi Order seems to have taken an approach akin to the Shao-Lin seeking Discipline and Control over Emotion, allowing for slips and mistakes and having the belief that the fallen can be redeemed if brought back early enough.

It is not uncommon to see the different Jedi straying towards the dark side (including Leia) only to be brought back by the masters.

Drawing a line between the light and dark side is a very subjective decision.

For example, we know that Mace Windu used a fighting technique he called Vaapad, which channeled raw ferocity from the opponent back at them.

This is described as stepping over the line into tapping into the dark side of the force, but is an acceptable Jedi technique (although dangerous).

So light versus dark is really a personal if not organizational designation determined by subjective ethics.

The Force is ambiguous (do Midichlorians really pick sides?).

It is the desire of the person using the Force that can be considered "Light" or "Dark".

The reason why some powers are associated with Sith (or Dark) vs Jedi (or Light) is likely because some are easier to enact using one method over another (raw emotion versus mental discipline).

A gun is neither good nor evil, nor is any 'thing' (and with this I would include a "power" as a thing) .

It is all about HOW it is used and perhaps more importantly WHY it is used.

Several examples have been provided already about how a power can be used for good or evil, I would challenge anyone to suggest a power of the Force that could NOT be used "for good".

Leaving us with " the difference " being in the heart or mind of the person using the Force, and in 'the Force' itself.

I hate bring feminism down on the crew here, but the overwhelming gist of the Force seems to me to be very Old Testament.

I mean, where are the chicks in positions of power?

Princess Leia never gets to fly in battle, and Padme just wrecks everything.

Oh, yeah,

and she dies in childbirth yawn .

I guess the force is just to keep me in my place.

There's some hope though.

Since the rights of black men generally precede the rights of women, there is a Black man jedi.

A.

The dark side gets laid.

The difference between the light and the dark side of the force is life itself.

The force may appear neutral but since the dark side is usually used to kill or do harm to other beings while the light side respects and protects life as much as possible, then those who used the light side in the long run will probably be in a stronger and better position to triumph because of the more numerous allies they are able to make and instruct, over time compared to the Sith Lords who only live to dominate and do harm to others, Sith included.

They are always fighting each other for survival or power.

Why do you think the Jedi are able to establish an order and high council while the Sith regularly stepped on one another and have to abide by the famous "rule of two" of Darth Banes?

That means, while a Jedi, no matter how strong he can become is no threat to another one, and are allowed to freely multiply themselves by the thousands and become a very strong force, the Sith can only be allowed to be two of them at the same time:

One Sith lord and his apprentice.

Thus, no matter how strong the dark side, on any given day, a dark lord, no matter how powerful will have to confront thousands of Jedi at the same time.

Then, because of their strength in numbers, the Jedi can only be defeated by the Sith lords only through extraordinary means of treachery, surprise or treason.

The servant of the light side would win 9 battles out of ten.

Ultimately, eventhough the dark side of the force may appear more appealing and more powerfull on a personal point of view, it is nonetheless self destructive and doomed to be defeated by too many enemies(the Jedi).

Question: We know that Dark side is linked to emotion like fear and anger, but the interesting point here is the between line the two side of the force.  As an example, what make Mind tricks a "acceptable" force power for a Jedi? How could you hurt someone, like Obi-Wan does in the Mos Eisley Cantina when he slashed a alien's arm off with his lightsaber, and still be a Jedi?

What's the difference between the Light side and the Dark side of the Force?

In the Star Wars Universe, the difference between the light side and dark side is a gray area, subjective and ambiguous.  Essentially, if you are using the Force out of anger, lust, greed, vengeance, or fear, you likely channel the dark side.   If you are using the Force to defend you are using the light side.  The USER of the force may be is light or dark and the desire of the person may be light or dark.

In the Star Wars universe the difference between light and dark forces is a grey area. It is considered that the User is light or dark rather than the force. Moreover, where to draw the line between light and dark is very subjective.

Certain forces are considered "dark" forces and others "light" but this is a grey area in the Star Wars universe.

It is the User that is "light" or "dark" not the force.

The between light and dark is very subjective.


Space is full of radiation.

Its probably one of the greatest dangers we face in space exploration that we do not have a good solution for .

In 1962 the US Detonated a nuke in space .

The radiation from this is just background noise.

While there are likely to be some highly radioactive particles as a result of the explosion these will disperse so quickly that there would be far greater damage from the explosion in any area where these would be of a concentration to be a concern.

In space, you'd expect much the same effect from blast, radiation, and heat as in atmosphere.

Of course, with no atmosphere to "carry" the blast effect, it's going to be greatly limited.

There will be little or no effect from what you might call "shrapnel"...

The bomb itself is going to be vaporized and you're not going to get chunks of stuff flying around at high velocity.

Both we and the Russians experimented with the effects of nuclear weapons in space, if you get a chance there's a documentary on Netflix about the development of the hydrogen bomb.

It covers these space-based tests.

Compared to everyday celestial events, the energy of an H-bomb is laughably tiny.

The sun is something like a billion H-bombs per second.

A gamma ray burst may be a billion-billion times that.

So anything humans can construct is like an single ant (not a colony) attacking mount Everest (or if you want to compare to a gammaray burst a single virus attacking the enture mountain range).

It just won't be noticable except in a small local area.

The one thing a nuke does that is different, is generate fission products, which for the most part aren't found in space (

although other radioactive isotops yes).

And even these isotopes, are probably generated in much greater volume by supernovas, but unless you are in the neighborhood of a recently exploded one, they have long since decayed away.

The earth based space tests, were significant, because they happened in the very rarified earths exosphere/magnetosphere, and generated high energy particles (mostly electrons), trapped in the earths radiation belts.

At the time it was feared we might have to wait decades for the activity to settle down to the undisturbed state.

The biggest hazard would have to be any macroscopic particles left over.

Gamma rays, X-rays, and other ionizing radiation would spread out at the speed of light, or nearly so for electrons, alphas, etc., and within moments be less than the radiation that always present in space.

After an hour, any such radiation will be smeared out to a volume as large as the orbit of Jupiter.

I.e., it's effectively gone .

You'd have to worry more about minor solar flares than space nukes.

On the other hand, although most of what's in the immediate vicinity of the explosion would be vaporised to atoms (or parts thereof), it seems possible that you could end up with significant amounts of debris.

Perhaps the solar wind would blow the smaller ones away, much like the effect with a comet, but some of the larger chunks would present major navigational hazards.

NASA gets very concerned when millimeter sized bits float away in orbit.

Obviously anything larger will be more of a concern.

If you're moving around at planetary speeds, 10's of km/sec,

the kinetic energy in such space junk could easily put a hole your hull.

Purely for informational purpose, there has/had been some consideration of using nuclear detonations as primary propulsion for a space-faring craft.

Wikipedia:

Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) Short term effects: propulsion (most likely)!

Long term effects: ?????

The Atomic Rockets website has a whole section devoted to describing the effects of nuclear explosions in space.

Basically, conventional nuclear weapons are far less destructive in space than they are in an atmosphere.

However, there are some neat things you can do to make them more deadly.

Chief among these ideas are: Form a nuclear shaped charge (called Casaba Howitzer).

Use enhanced radiation (i.e. neutron) bombs.

Here's an interesting description of how a nuclear explosion attack might look in space: First off, the weapon itself.

A nuclear explosion in space, will look pretty much like a Very Very Bright flashbulb going off.

The effects are instantaneous or nearly so.

There is no fireball.

The gaseous remains of the weapon may be incandescent, but they are also expanding at about a thousand kilometers per second, so one frame after detonation they will have dissipated to the point of invisibility.

Just a flash.

The effects on the ship itself, those are a bit more visible.

If you're getting impulsive shock damage, you will by definition see hot gas boiling off from the surface.

Again, the effect is instantaneous, but this time the vapor will expand at maybe one kilometer per second, so depending on the scale you might be able to see some of this action.

But don't blink; it will be quick.

Next is spallation - shocks will bounce back and forth through the skin of the target, probably tearing chunks off both sides.

Some of these may come off at mere hundreds of meters per second.

And they will be hot, red- or maybe even white-hot depending on the material.

There's a lot more interesting material at the link.

Including discussion of radiation survival and other aspects.

Obviously intense EM rad close by but the intensity decreases as the root of distance from the point source so unless you were close, as others have said, normal space rad would be a greater threat.

No debris either as all matter would be vaporized and ionized.

Would prob be kind of like a ripple in the solar wind.

Really it's far worse exploding one at ground level and creating all those isotopic by products with nowhere to go.

I think it looks close to the video linked in this article because what was filmed in Siberia on November 14, 2014, a very big flash, was probably a high-altitude nuclear test - perhaps 50 km to 80 kms above the ground.

Take a look at the video of the flash

: it expands very quickly then disappears.

The light is extremely bright.

Question: In the Honor Harrington universe, ship-to-ship combat takes two forms: missiles and direct energy weapons.  Missiles come in two forms - bomb-pumped lasers and contact nukes.  Both use multi-megaton nuclear initiations to damage enemy ships.  While this sort of event on a planetary surface will obviously have lasting effects, what long-term effects could be expected in a vacuum environment, aside from the destructive force associated with the explosions themselves, and the resulting EMP?  Especially, would there be lingering (or spreading) radiation?

Effects of nuclear explosions in space?

In space, you would expect much the same effect from blast, radiation, and heat as in an atmosphere.  Of course, with no atmosphere to "carry" the blast effect, it's going to be greatly limited. The bomb itself would be vaporized and there would be no chunks flying around at high velocity. Although most of what's in the immediate vicinity of the explosion would be vaporized to atoms (or parts thereof), it seems possible that you could end up with significant amounts of debris. Basically, conventional nuclear weapons are far less destructive in space than they are in an atmosphere. Compared to everyday celestial events, the energy of an H-bomb is tiny. The sun is the equivalent of something like a billion H-bombs per second.

The dangers from nuclear explosion in space are small end there power is dwarfed by normal celestial event. For example, the sun is like a billion H-bombs. The greatest danger after a nuclear explosion may come from any debris.

Nuclear weapons are far less harmful in space than they are on Earth. The greatest danger may come from any macroscopic particles left over.

Normal celestial events are much more powerful than a nuclear explosion. The sun is like a billion H-bombs per second.


I believe that the only way to kill someone so that they cannot be revived or cured is with Avada Kedavra .

It also has no counter-curse, so you cannot deflect it.

However, without immediate medical attention, there are plenty of other things that would kill wizards or witches.

You could cut their throats ( Sectumsempra ), throw stuff at them that breaks bones, poison them, etc.

A skilled mediwitch or mediwizard could cure them if they got treatment in time, but they're not going to be getting that treatment during the middle of a battle.

There are probably also spells that have counters to nullify them -- but that would require someone to cast that nullifying spell.

From the wikia page, This battle ended in the death of Bellatrix, who continued laughing derisively at the efforts of her opponent until the moment she realised Molly had defeated her.

Hence, it can be clearly inferred that Bellatrix treated Molly as a weak opponent and her overconfidence led her to death.

On the other hand, Molly was highly angered as Bellatrix was torturing Ginny at that moment and the motherly love gave her the courage to face a death eater.

I can see only psychological reasons behind Bellatrix's death as it was difficult to overpower her when she was in a sane state of mind.

An extract from the wiki page: ... fires a curse that hits Bellatrix right over the heart, killing her.

Though the exact curse used is unknown, I believe she used a legal curse(such as the Stunning curse) and the placement directly over the heart is what killed Bella.

If you remember back to OotP, someone (perhaps Madam Pomfrey) remarks that it was a wonder that McGonagall did not die from so many Stunning spells.

So, perhaps it is possible for one to die from a well placed Stupefy or some other type of Stunning Spell, and this is what I believe happens here.

Avada Kedavra is a sure way of killing someone, and illegal, but is hardly the only way someone can be killed using a spell.

There are a few examples of this over the series: When Filch's cat is assumed dead inBook 2

, Lockhart names some obscurespell (the *Transmogrifian Torture)as the one to have killed her.

When McGonagall is attacked by Aurorsin Book 5, Hermione says that she washit straight in the chest and she'snot young, showing how even a stunnermay cause damage.

Avada Kedavra is highly illegal because - It's meant only to kill.

It has no counter.

The book doesn't specify what spell was used.

I see no reason to rule out Avada Kedavra though.

The curse killed Bellatrix almost instantly which implies Avada Kedavra.

The book also notes that Jets of light flew from both wands, the floor around the witches' feet became hot and cracked; both women were fighting to kill.

(emphasis added) Molly was outraged that Bellatrix was attacking her daughter; everybody was under the impression Harry was just murdered (he hadn't made his reappearance yet).

Could it have been something other than Avada Kedavra?

Of course - but I see no reason to rule it out especially given the circumstances.

The answer does lie in the fact that death by the brute force of other spells must have done the job.

In the movie, it seems Molly hit Bellatrix with a Petrificus Totalus (body binder) rendering her absolutely and totally vulnerable and the force of a general explosive spell like bombarda or reducto gave her the works.

In the book, the author did not specify the curse used.

However, in the film, if you'll take a close look at Molly Weasley's wand (watch a clip of it on youtube), the light coming from it is green, which means, Avada Kedavra is being cast nonverbally, and the reason for Bellatrix's body to tear into pieces might be reducto , which is being casted nonverbally.

Molly DID use Avada Kedavra

This question was just answered by Pottermore today:

There’s no dearth of magical talent among the Weasley brood, but Molly and Ginny each have impressive and specific magical skills.

Molly’s, of course, tie in with her own personal preferences – so she’s not only marvellous at the magical assembly of feasts fit to feed five hundred

, she’s also a dab hand at the killing curse if there’s a witch-gone-wrong in need of offing.

Avada Kedavra is the only spell referred to as " the killing curse " ‘Ah,’ said Moody, another slight smile twisting his lop-sided mouth.

‘Yes, the last and worst.

Avada Kedavra ...

the killing curse .’

Molly used Petrificus Totalus, the body binder spell, hence the fact Bellatrix was frozen, then she used a strong exploding spell, probably Reducto or Diffindo, whch destroyed Bellatrix.

I believe that Molly used some sort of body binding curse, but it could have been a curse of her own creation, or simply a spell

she did not even know and cast out of anger,

the spell that made her explode was most definitely reducto and not diffindo .But

the correct answer has not been stated by the author, so we shall never know for sure.

From what I saw in the movie, it seems that Molly hit Bellatrix with Petrificus Totalus, and then finished her off with Reducto.

Question: It seems that the only officially known way to instantly kill someone with a curse was "Avada Kedavra".   So, (spoilers):    considering that was definitely NOT what Molly Weasley used to kill Bellatrix Lestrange at the end of Battle for Hogwarts, how did she kill Bellatrix?

How was this character killed without Avada Kedavra?

One theory is that as in the film, the light coming from Molly's wand  is green,  Avada Kedavra  is being cast nonverbally. However, the reason for Bellatrix's body tearing into pieces might be the use of  reducto.  Another theory is that Molly hit Bellatrix with a Petrificus Totalus (body binder) rendering her absolutely and totally vulnerable, then finishing with the force of a general explosive spell like bombarda or reducto. A legal curse such as the Stunning curse may have been used, placed directly over the heart. However, this is not specified in the book.

Although the book does not specify what spell Molly Weasley used to kill bellatrix Lestrange, many believe it was the killing spell, Avada Kedavra. Alternatives to this include Petrificu Totalus with bombarda or reducto.

Avada Kedavra seems the most likely curse used by Molly Weasley to kill Bellatrix Lestrange.

Molly may have used other curses to kill Bellatrix, such as Petrificus Totalus and bombarda or reducto.

The book does not specify what spell was used.


Like many of the house mottoes in the series it can carry multiple meanings.

One more literal meaning could refer to the fact that the Iron Islands, the area ruled by House Greyjoy, are sparse and rocky, and the thin soil makes it hard to plow and grow any crops.

Another literal interpretation could refer to the fact that the majority of the ironborn are seafarers and survive by raiding and pillaging.

They "do not sow" - they only reap.

Ok, forget the biblical quote, for someone to reap, someone must sow but it doesn't have to be the same someone.

The Words of house Grejoy aren't in fact missing a noun.

The Greyjoys, and all of the Iron Islands, are seafarers who've traditionally survived by plundering all along the shores of Westeros.

They take joy and pride in their strength and ruthlessness, which is why they only wear jewelry they've won in battle (they don't buy such things).

The words, "We do not sow" are at once a very literal reminder to all who hear them that the Greyjoys are not farmers (like the rest of Westeros.

Keep in mind most of Westeros' population are agriculturalists or traders) whom they disdain and they show contempt for those farmers.

Obviously the phrase could be changed to "we do not sow crops" without really changing the meaning too much, although it would change the tone.

The word "sow" itself when used alone generally implies sowing some sort of crop

so it's not really necessarily.

Probably the only thing that the Greyjoys have ever sown is discord, and as I said, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the kind of sowing they were talking about.

House Greyjoy does not sow -- they pay the iron price and they take what they need.

They do not believe in money or trade -- just pillaging and plundering.

Hence, they do not sow.

They only reap.

They're pirates, if that makes it easier to understand.

Theon reflects on the motto of his house and the legacy from which it came... When we still kept the Old Way, lived by the axe instead of the pick, taking what we would, be it wealth, women, or glory.

In those days, the ironborn did not work mines; that was labor for the captives brought back from the hostings, and so too the sorry business of farming and tending goats and sheep.

War was an ironman's proper trade.

The Drowned God had made them to reave and rape, to carve out kingdoms and write their names in fire and blood and song.

A Clash of Kings

- Theon I

As seen the saying is quite literal, the Iron Islanders (at least those of yore) did not bother themselves with menial labor.

They took what they wanted and more from those who were too weak to protect it.

This is backed up by the historical account of Westeros by Maester Yandel...

Whenever autumn waned and winter threatened, the longships would come raiding after food.

And so the Iron Islands ate, even in the depths of winter, whilst oft as not the men who had planted, tended, and harvested the crops starved.

"We do not sow," became the boast of the Greyjoys, whose rulers began to style themselves Lords Reaper of Pyke.

The reavers brought more than gold and grain back to the Iron Islands; they brought captives as well, who would henceforth serve their captors as thralls.

Amongst the ironborn, only reaving and fishing were considered worthy work for free men.

The endless stoop labor of farm and field was suitable only for thralls.

The same was true for mining.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Iron Islands One should note that this style of life did not apply to only "nobles" on the Iron Islands but to all "iron born".

Regardless of your status on the islands, you were still better than those weakling mainlanders.

Another interpretation here: If you look back into history and our own middle ages, to sow had connotations of servitude, as those who would sow were the lowliest peasants, locked into servitude to every other social class.

In this regard, "We Do Not Sow" is a satement of defiance meaning "we bow to no man".

It's the words that make the Greyjoy sigil my favourite in the whole world of 'Ice and Fire' even though the family themselves are less than likeable.

I personally believe that the House motto literally means that "they do not sow", sowing commonly referred to as the task of planting seeds in a field, this most often being a job for a slave or a commoner acting under the whim of their lord.

This being said it implies that House Greyjoy will never succumb to such arduous tasks, and were in fact born to rule and not to serve under someone else.

In essence it means that they will not serve as a commoner and will risk their very lives to rule and not serve.

Question: What does the motto of House Greyjoy, "We Do Not Sow", in the TV series  Game of Thrones  mean?  It seems to be missing a noun, to me.   Is it something like,  we do not sow discord ? Or  we do not sow ,  we reap the whirlwind ?

What does House Greyjoy's motto, "We Do Not Sow", mean?

The Greyjoys, and all of the Iron Islands, are seafarers who've traditionally survived by plundering all along the shores of Westeros. They do not believe in money or trade -- just pillaging and plundering. They took what they wanted and more from those who were too weak to protect it.  Therefore, the saying is quite literal, the Iron Islanders did not bother themselves with menial labor.

The motto of the house of Greyjoy emphasises that they are pirates and live by plundering and pillaging rather than farming.

The Greyjoys are pirates. They live by pillage and plunder and prey on the weak.

"We do not sow" emphasises that they are not farmers or commoners. Moreover their land was too sparse for cultivation.


My best guess would be Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion by Dan Simmons, if your "spacegates" were called farcasters in the book.

Harry Harrison's "One Step From Earth" is a collection of short stories exploring the discovery and use of a "portal system".

While the first story is more "hard" in trying to explain the uses of the technology, the remain eight are more "soft" and concerned with how the technology changes society and people.

I distinctly remember a man fleeing from a crime he had just committed, skipping across many worlds in an attempt to lose his persuer.

Probably not what you are thinking of, but in the Ringworld books, the Puppeteers used teleporters called 'stepping discs' - you step onto it and it teleported you to another location.

They seemed to be mostly for local use, though.

Pandora's Star by Peter.

F. Hamilton uses portal technology to step between worlds, but the general application was Train stations, not individual rooms.

But it is a good example of this technological mechanic.

I seem to remember a similar technology being used in The Dosadi Experiment by Frank Herbert, I'm not sure if it was used in the book before it, Whipping Star.

There is a similar mechanism, initially presented as a natural phenomenon but later revealed to be perhaps technological in origin, in Doris Piserchia's "Spaceling".

It's not the book you're thinking of, in part because the portals drift and can be unpredictable, but if you're interested in the theme you may like it.

If memory serves, the James H. Schmitz Telzey Amberdon story "The Lion Game" has a world where most "buildings" are actually groups of rooms in various locations connected by portals and are not actual buildings as we know them.

The heroine ends up trapped in a hotel called the Luraal where some of the portals are traps.

She is trying to deal with hostile aliens and escape the building.

Question: I am trying to identify the name of a book that involved a civilization that utilized spacegates to instantly travel across space, literally stepping from one world to another. In the book, a family home could have different rooms located throughout the galaxy and the people simply walked through the doorway to move from room to room (and planet to planet)

Book has spacegates that a person can walk across

This may be "Hyperion"  and  "The Fall of Hyperion"  by Dan Simmons. Other suggestions include Harry Harrison's  "One Step From Earth"; "The Dosadi Experiment"by Frank Herbert;  Doris Piserchia's "Spaceling"; or the James H. Schmitz Telzey Amberdon story "The Lion Game".

A number of books seem to fit the bill as having spacegates in the story. These include Hyperion, One Step from Earth, The Dosadi Experiment and The Lion Game.


Finally tracked down the short story I mentioned in my comment to the original question, and that Jeff mentioned in his answer:

See if this sounds about right: "The City" — A rocket expedition from Earth lands on an uncharted planet to be greeted by a seemingly empty city.

As the humans begin to explore, they realize that the city is not as empty as it seems.

The city was waiting for the arrival of humans; the contingency plan of a long dead civilization, put in place to take revenge upon humanity after their culture was wiped out with biological weapons by humans long before recorded history.

Once the city captures and kills the human astronauts, the humans' corpses are used as automations to finalize the city's creators' revenge; a biological attack on the Earth.

It's from Ray Bradbury's 'The Illustrated Man' compilation.

I read a fantastic short story that sounds similar and I've wanted to rediscover it for years.

The plot was about a planet created as a trap.

Long-dead victims of Earth(?)

aggression, realizing they would be wiped out, create a giant trap to wipe out Earth generations in the future.

Over the eons, the people of Earth forget about the war and the enemy planet but eventually rediscover it - just as their ancient victims foresaw.

The machine eviscerates the explorers and fills their bodies with a virus or other nasty thing and then sends them back to Earth to exact revenge.

I remember my brother and I talking about it enthusiastically around, oh, 1978 or so.

No idea of the name, but it would have been in a SF anthology.

There are a couple of similar instances in Simon Green 's Deathstalker saga.

An expedition is sent into an alien city to retrieve some bio-weapons, and many people in the expedition are killed or vanish due to a variety of horrific alien traps.

Similarly, attempts to navigate the " Madness Maze ", another alien artifact, result in people being lost, physically rearranged, driven insane, etc..

Sounds a bit like Robert Silverberg 's The Man in the Maze but only a little bit.

Might also be Rogue Moon by Algis Budrys.

Question: Many years ago I read a book or story where a group of people discover a dark city - maybe on another planet - which appears devoid of life but is in very good condition. As they gradually explore the city one of the them falls into a trap and is cut to pieces by something mechanical. This detail I can remember as it was a pretty gruesome idea. I don't know the ending but my guess is that none of them make it out alive.

Book or short story about an empty city with deadly traps

Similar instances are said to occur in  Simon Green 's  "Deathstalker" saga. Robert Silverberg 's  "The Man in the Maze" is another suggestion, as well as "Rogue Moon" by Algis Budrys.

The book in question with the death traps may be Deathstalker Saga, The Manin the Maze or Rogue Moon.


Yes, provided there is an oxidizer .

A spaceship with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen will blow up quite well in the vacuum of space.

Chemical explosives will also explode in space since they function by breaking weakly bonded chemical components; no oxygen is necessary.

Nuclear explosions can of course occur in space, too.

However, in space, there is no atmosphere to transmit sound from the explosion to the observer, so it would appear to be silent.

The United States military in the 60's performed a series of nuke tests in outer space, and found out what EMP can do, when they wiped out Hawaii's electrical grid for a few hours.

Explosions can happen, just not in the way that is depicted in the movies.

(this is how stars are created/destroyed, etc.)

Here is some nuclear testing in space.

For an example of an explosion happening.

A ship which has lost structural integrety and is no longer able to contain the pressurized gas of its atmosphere will indeed explode.

The pressure of the escaping gasses would likely rip apart any structure that had been weakened.

In addition rapid expansion of gases from the heat generated by an explosion as well as the increased pressure from it would add to these forces.

For a small time the area around the ship would no longer be a vaccuum until the pressure from the atmosphere had been disipated.

During this time smoke and fire would be reasonably expected.

This probably goes on longer for the movie than it would in real life and more dramiticaly.

The fire will most likely be extinguished in short order when exposed to the vacuum of space as the O2 will dissipate quickly.

A fire inside of a space ship will form a spherical shape until extinguished as shown at http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/microgravity/MGprim1.html

Yes, not all explosions require oxygen as a fuel.

Your standard flame requires fuel, space, and oxygen, but chemical fires can happen without the need for oxygen.

If there is damage to their main power plant, it's possible for that system to explode.

Given that they're worked on by unsuited people, the power plants are surrounded by breathable atmosphere.

This could provide the fireballs we see, as the explosion consumes the ship's own life support.

Flames are gases so hot that they glow and emit visible light.

Flames are heated by intense combustion - fire.

If the same gases are heated to the seme temperatures and pressures by other means,, they will glow the same.

Spaceships can explode from various causes in outer space.

Some types of explosions cold causes release of gases heated to the right temperatures to look like flames.

Some types of explosions could release lots of dust or soot, etc.

looking like clouds.

Some of the experts who answered before have said that e chemical explosions in a vacuum will not look like special effects explosions filmed in an atmosphere.

So fiery and smokey explosions in space are rather so-so in plausibility.

I personally prefer to see a blinding flash and then part or all of the spaceship vaporized and expanding from the site in a rapidly growing sphere which at first looks as bright as the sun but

as it expand and become thinner and thinner becomes less bright and begins to be transparent.

Question: Take for example the opening of  Revenge of the Sith . We see spaceships fighting with other spaceships using laser canons and missiles. Then when one spaceship is destroyed, we see fire and heavy black smokes coming from it.    Does that mean in space, fire can still burn, even though there is a vacuum?  If there would really be a space war, can spaceships really be destroyed and explode?

Can spaceships really explode in space?

Spaceships can explode from various causes in outer space.  A spaceship with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen will blow up quite well in the vacuum of space. Chemical explosives will also explode in space since they function by breaking weakly bonded chemical components - no oxygen is necessary. Nuclear explosions can occur in space, too. Not all explosions require oxygen as a fuel. Some types of explosions cause release of gases heated to the right temperatures to look like flames, or release a lot of dust or soot, for example.

It is possible for explosions to happen in space even in a vacuum and in the absence of oxygen: chemical and nuclear explosions for example. There may also be the appearance of what looks like flames and soot or dust. However, the explosion will not occur and burn like they do in the movies. Spaceships may also explode if they have lost their structural integrity or their main power plant is damaged.

Explosions can happen in space. These could be with oxygen, or chemical and nuclear explosion that do not require oxygen.

There may be some gases heated to the right temperature that look like flames and explosions tha release lots of dust, however, they would not happen as they do in the movies.

A spaceship that loses its structural integrity or that has a damaged main power plant may explode.


As explained on the Wikipedia article , there has not been a movie.

The reasons why a movie has not been made for a book or series generally (including this case) come down to one thing: money -- or more specifically, a lack thereof.

The Foundation series appears to be in what is often called development hell , characterized by repeated (failed or stalled) attempts at making a movie since 1998.

Right now, the rights for a Foundation series of films have been given to Roland Emmerich and he plans to get to development on them after his next movie.

It seems he is planning a CGI/3D opus (ala Avatar) and will likely over-convolute the story with action and special effects =/

(This is not really a movie and it is not explicitly referencing the Foundation series from Asimov, but it is directly inspired from it and heavily borrows its key concepts, so it could be something of interest)

There is an episode from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine , named Statistical Probabilities (Season 6, Episode 9) that is inspired by the concept of psychohistory.

In the episode, a group of genetically augmented persons is so intellectually advanced that is able to predict and calculate the outcome of the Dominion War.

Quote from the Deep Space Nine Companion , as reported by Memory Alpha (bold text by me):

The story line was based on Isaac Asimov's classic Foundation Trilogy.

Asimov based his work on issues raised in Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and the basic plot involves a scientist (Hari Seldon) who develops a branch of mathematics known as psychohistory which he uses to calculate that galactic civilization is doomed to fall, leading to 30,000 years of darkness and barbarism.

Seldon, terrified at this prospect, takes action to attempt to minimize the oncoming "dark ages" to only 1,000 years, but his plan fails to foresee that the actions of a single individual could render his predictions invalid.

Psychohistory is based upon mass action, and it can only predict the future when dealing with large groups, predicting trends in large masses of people, which is why Seldon is unable to take into account the actions of individuals – when it gets down to individual people, the variables become so vast as to be impossible to calculate, so the predictions become unstable.

In the novels, a character called The Mule, who has psychic abilities, becomes intimately involved in events, and directly influences their outcome, something which Seldon's psychohistory could never have predicted.

This is exactly what happens in the episode: the savants make large scale predictions based upon mass action, but they fail to take into account the actions of one single individual, who comes to directly affect everything they have predicted .

Emmerich has been saying he is going to make a movie since 2009, the movie is slated for 2013 (according to IMDB) and so for not a single actor/set/premise/detail has been disclosed.

Emmerich is quite frankly a terrible director who lacks the ability in making anything good.

I hope it stays in movie hell until some competent hands are capable of dealing with it.

MORE RECENT NEWS

Some more recent news report that Apple is developing a TV series based on Asimov's Foundation Cycle.

( Link - Link ) Deadline reports that the project from Skydance Television is “in development for straight-to-series consideration,” with David S. Goyer and Josh Friedman attached as showrunners.

Goyer is best-known for comic book adaptations like Blade, Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, while Friedman was the creator of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

OLD POST

According to TheWrap , Jonathan Nolan is writing a TV series based on the Foundation Cycle to be produced by HBO.

Anyway, that article is rather old (November 2014), and as far as I know, there have been no other concrete news about this project.

An article from iDigitalTimes (July 2016) doesn't really add anything, besides assuming that there is no any real reason to believe that this project was canceled (but, I can add that we don't even have any proof that it is going further).

A discussion on Reddit also contain nothing more than a bit of speculation.

The only tangible outcome of this rumor is a fan-made opening titles video .

It is extremely amazing , but is just a fan product, unfortunately id doesn't really have a meaningful significance about the status of the project.

Question: Have any movies been produced based on Isaac Asimov's Foundation series? If not, why not?

Have any movies been based on Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series?

A movie has not been made.  Emmerich has been saying he is going to make a movie since 2009, and the movie is slated for 2013 (according to IMDB). However, not a single actor/set/premise/detail has been disclosed.

There is no information on a film already existing and there seems to be nothing in development due to either a lack of funds or Roland Emmerich being doing busy or not doing anything with his ownership rights. That being said, Apple plans on developing a TV series on Asimov's Foundation Cycle.

Information provided has stated that there is no film and there is nothing in production even though plans for a movie to be made are on IMDB

Reasons that a film hasn't been made is either due to a lack of funds or Roland Emmerich is too busy to do anything with his movie idea.

Apple seems to of had the idea of developing a TV series based on Asimov's Foundation Cycle.


I think the issue is the Primer.

I don't think X truly understood what he was giving them: he thought they would be educated, sure, but looking back from a more mature perspective, the sort of education the Primer dishes out is serious stuff.

The Mouse Army is doing it's own thing.

They're a bunch of self-actualizing badasses, not following the sort of simplistic ideology of the Fists.

Remember that a key part of the Primer - kept secret by Finkle-McGraw - was that the book was intended to be "subversive."

Dr. X didn't know this; also, toward the end of the book, he explicitly says he regrets educating all the girls via the book, presumably because they are not cooperating.

All these answers miss the point that when Hackworth is being sentenced by Judge fang he subverts the books to be linked to the missing primer (the one owned by Nell).

"At this point, John Percival Hackworth, almost without thinking about it and without appreciating the ramifications of what he was doing, devised a trick and slipped it in under the radar of the Judge and Dr. X and all of the other people in the theatre, who were better at noticing tricks than most other people in the world.

“While I’m at it, if it pleases the court, I can also,” Hackworth said, most obsequiously, “make changes in the content so that it will be more suitable for the unique cultural requirements of the Han readership.

But it will take some time.”

He basically takes a subversive book

makes it more Chinese and respectful of authority but he makes the authority the owner of the missing book.(Even

Hackworth has no idea who owns this book at this stage.)

Thus the hunt for Princess Nell by the mouse army.

"Hackworth sat down across the table from Dr. X.

A young woman padded out of the kitchen on silk slippers and gave Hackworth his own tumbler full of green tea.

Watching her mince away, Hackworth was only mildly shocked to see that her feet were no more than four inches long.

There must be better ways to do it now, maybe by regulating the growth of the tarsal bones during adolescence.

It probably didn’t even hurt.

Realizing this, Hackworth also realized, for the first time, that he had done the right thing ten years ago."

So the girls will become Leaders of a new way, with out the foot deforming etc, but with the use of the seed.

"The provisional commanders of her divisions stood foremost, as did her provisional ministers of defense, of state, and of research and development, all of them bowing to Nell, not with a Chinese bow or a Victorian one but something they’d come up with that was in between." The book of the seed is inside Nell's Primer at the end and being worked on by the drummers even as they remove Miranda from the Drummer community. "

“Hackworth is the Alchemist,” Nell said, “and he is using the wet Net to design the Seed.”

As for them both leaving the Middle Kingdom they attack the fist checkpoints while Hackworth is watching and tie them up.

This is after they discover their leader in the Primer after Nell breaks the last turing machine and the land beyond disappears.

So they meet Nell in the book get turned into humans in their primers and then in real life head to where Nell is as an army of followers.

The very beginning of the book, where Lord Finkle-McGraw and John Percival Hackworth discuss the idea for the primer, made clear that it was intended to produce not just educated girls but subversive ones who can think for themselves and take charge.

Then the first set of orphaned girls got old enough for the high-tech "foot binding" process to be used on them.

We know only a few of the oldest girls were subjected to this because they are the ones being carried by the army on the march.

The girls as a group must have seen the results of this crippling and oppressive procedure after the first set of girls got bound, issued a collective HELL TO THE NO, and decided to get off their boats and go find Princess Nell.

It seems that they are meant to represent the melding of two cultures.

The Boxer Rebellion was lead by The Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists, and was anti-foreign.

If the novel draws from this event, then we can see this as antagonistic towards the Victorian principles and "colonization".

From Wikipedia : "The Confucian solution of the Primer was hierarchical, while the Victorian was highly individualistic."

So the Mouse army, can be thought of as the combination of the best elements of both cultures/worlds.

On top of this, the networked Primers form a sort of communication network for the Mouse Army (similar to the Drummer network).

The Fists are going to try to hold back this new group and use them for their own benefit.

The only way to combat this is through... combat.

Question: I have just finished rereading  Neal Stephenson 's  The Diamond Age  for about the fourth time and am still confused about the ending.   The part that is confusing me is as follows:   Both the Fists and the Mouse Army come from the Celestial Kingdom yet they seem opposed - surely Dr X would have wanted the Mouse Army to support the Fists. Maybe I misunderstood?

The ending of The Diamond Age

The Mouse Army, can be thought of as the combination of the best elements of both cultures/worlds.  The Mouse Army was doing its own thing and the  anti-foreign Boxer Rebellion  was led by The Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists.

The mouse and fist armies seem to represent the melding of two cultures, thus they were intended to be different and appose each others views. For instance the Righteous and Harmonious Fists could be seen as "anti foreign" while the Mouse Army was perceived as a culture with the best elements of both worlds.


Renly Baratheon pragmatically summed it up in A Clash of Kings (p. 265/761 of the 1999 Bantam paperback):

Tell me, what right did my brother Robert ever have to the Iron Throne?

Oh, there was talk of blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters.

No one but the maesters care about any of it.

Robert won the throne with his warhammer.

Robert had a Targaryen grandmother, and was the closest person to the legitimate line of succession who wasn't a descendant of Mad King Aerys.

So he had a much better claim than Tywin.

See the Targaryen family tree .

Tywin wasn't part of the rebellion, at first - he was the Hand of the Mad King till he switched sides.

Robert led the rebellion against the Targaryens, and by that virtue seized the Iron Throne.

I'm sure the fact that he also had the largest army, and his brother Stannis

the fleet assured him the throne.

I don't think the act of killing the heir was the reason - the king was killed after the heir apparent, by a Lannister

, you'd think that would influence who gained the throne.

"Tell me,

what right did my brother Robert ever have to the Iron Throne?

" He did not wait for an answer.

"Oh, there was talk of the blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters.

No one but the maesters care about any of it.

Robert won the throne with his warhammer."

A Clash of Kings - Catelyn II

This quote is always the starting point when talking about how Robert came into the crown, and I think we all know the general overlay of Robert's Rebellion well enough.

The answer I believe is both , but also I don't think it could have happened any other way.

Remember Robert did not start the rebellion!

Sure he was upset at the "abduction" of his promised Lyanna, but it was Rickard and Brandon Stark who rode to King's Landing to demand justice and Jon Arryn who first called the banners.

Instead of granting them fair hearing, King Aerys had them brutally slain, then followed these murders by demanding that Lord Jon Arryn execute his former wards, Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark.

Many now agree that the true start of Robert's Rebellion began with Lord Arryn's refusal and his courageous calling of his banners in the defense of justice.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Fall of the Dragons:

Robert’s Rebellion

We know the ending...

the rebels won and Robert was crowned king, even if did not quite want it himself.

Robert sat down again. "

Damn you, Ned Stark.

You and Jon Arryn, I loved you both.

What have you done to me?

You were the one should have been king, you or Jon.

" "You had the better claim, Your Grace." A Game of Thrones - Eddard VII

But why did Robert have a better claim?

To answer this let us think like a Maester and ask what the Iron Throne represents...

It represents the Targaryen rule of a united Seven Kingdoms.

So the ruler sitting on the Iron Throne should be a Targaryen.

Well, all the of true Targaryens were dead or in exile, and of the victors who had at least some Targaryen blood in their veins...

it wasn't Tywin Lannister , it wasn't Jon Arryn , and it wasn't Eddard Stark .

It was of course Robert Baratheon .

Robert's lineage didn't even need to go back that far, only to his grandmother Rhaelle Targaryen , to find it.

As they say history is written by the victors and since Robert was the ultimate victor the stories and songs will focus on his exploits.

Robert was instrumental on the battle field but he also had the right blood in his veins to ensure a decisive and complete tranisiton of the Iron Throne to a non-Targaryen family.

Robert won the throne.

He killed Rhaegar Targaryen on the Ruby Ford and Jaime Lannister killed King Aerys in the throne room in King's Landing.

Eddard Stark sacked King's Landing.

He went into the throne room still on his horse and Jaime was sitting there on the Iron Throne.

Jaime yielded to Eddard Stark's icy stare.

Tywin Lannister was allowed to come into the gates of the city when Varys tricked Aerys into believing he was there to help him.

He wasn't.

Tywin gave the order for the murder of Rhaegars children and Elia Martell.

Later, Robert and Eddard spoke: A Game of Thrones - Eddard VII

Robert sat down again. "

Damn you, Ned Stark.

You and Jon Arryn, I loved you both.

What have you done to me?

You were the one should have

been king, you or Jon.

" "You had the better claim, Your Grace.

" "I told you to drink, not to argue.

You made me king, you could at least have the courtesy to listen when I talk,

damn you.

Look at me, Ned.

Look at what kinging has done to me.

Gods, too fat for my armor, how did it ever come to this?"

So, Ned could have taken the throne but did not want it.

Robert didn't really want it either, he wanted Lyanna.

He did have a better claim than Eddard but even so, many called him a usurper.

Question: How did the crown come to land on  Robert's  head versus  Tywin's , say?  Was it because Robert killed the heir apparent and/or had command of a sizable army?

Did Robert Baratheon earn the crown by his exploits or was it his right by succession?

Robert won the throne with his warhammer. He  led the rebellion against the Targaryens, and by that virtue seized the Iron Throne.

Robert had won the throne by leading the rebellion against the Targaryens. So in the end "Robert won the throne with his warhammer".


There is no in universe explanation form the cartoon continuities.

For the comics, it look like there is one.

Form the Transformers Wiki, Note section of the Trailer article

When Optimus Prime transforms into robot mode, his trailer usually disappears, only to reattach itself to Prime whenever he goes into vehicle mode.

Many fan theories about this disappearance have arisen over the years, with the most popular being that Prime stores the trailer in subspace.

IDW comics gives a nod to this, by having the trailer arrive at Prime's location using the orbital jump .

The General consensus is that it just goes over there, i.e. just out of camera shot.

Funnily this is subverted in the original Marvel Comics four issue run, where Prime's trailer just sits there clearly visible not doing anything while the action takes place around it.

The second bullet point on this tfwiki page says: During the entire battle at the Witwicky's house, Optimus Prime's trailer sits parked, frequently in view.

This is in stark contrast to the more fantastical cartoon, where it would just roll off-screen and vanish.

There is now an official answer, the: Subspace Storage Pocket Greg Sepelak and Trent Troop used this phrase in two of their stories for the official Transformers Collectors' Club comic.

Hence this phrase is now canon.

The subspace storage pocket is used by multiple transformers, eg for weapons storage, gestalt parts and mass changes .

Source; this rather awesome video 1 : 1

The whole YouTube channel is great.

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

Another theory produced by a Transformers fan is that the trailer is created each time by the creation matrix .

To quote from the end of the video : I think the matrix gives Optimus Prime and Rodimus Prime the ability to manifest a trailer whenever they transform into a truck.

Personally I'm not convinced that the creation matrix has the ability to manifest real world objects; I think its purpose is to impart life to Transformers.

But I like the theory and the fact

that the fan has, rightly, also taken Rodimus Prime into account.

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

Optimus Prime has people to take care of these things Here

we see his loyal subordinate Huffer towing his trailer:

Theory 1: inside every transformer is the ability to shrink--but not enlarge--themselves and any of their components in robot or disguise mode (This would also explain why Sky Fire and Astro Train can fit groups of transformers who shouldn't fit inside them--and why Megatron and Sound Wave transform into things much smaller than their robot modes.).

Theory 2: Optimus stores his trailer in another dimension and can bring it to this dimension at will--either because any transformer can or because the matrix allows him.

Theory 3:

like the Allspark in the first Michael Bay film, Transformers can fold themselves and different components over into very small objects; in Optimus's case, he would store the condensed trailer in his body.

Theory 4:

like Mirage, Optimus's trailer can turn invisible and follows Optimus around everywhere while he's in robot mode.

Question: When (the original, G1) Optimus Prime transformed into robot mode, this trailer just seemed to disappear. When he went back into truck mode, there was his trailer again!  I'm guessing this was to help the animation and story telling. But what was the  in-universe  explanation? Where did it go?  This question is applicable to both the comic and the cartoon continuities.

What happened to Optimus Prime's trailer when he transformed into a robot?

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

Many  fan theories  about this disappearance have arisen over the years, with the most popular being that  Prime stores the trailer in subspace. The  subspace storage pocket  is used by multiple transformers. However, another theory is that Optimus stores his trailer in another dimension and can bring it to this dimension at will -either because any transformer can or because the matrix allows him.

Greg Sepelak  and  Trent Troop have confirmed that transformers use Sunspace Storage Pockets to store things they do not need when they transform. This was once regarded as a theory, but is now canon due to its confirmation during two of Greg Sepelak and Trent Troop's stories.


I think the typical zombie walk tries to convey a sense that the zombies are no longer human and that all of their physical forms are no longer fully functional.

It seems that the limp goes back even to the very earliest movies

and I don't think I can recall too many movies (I Am Legend being an obvious sample of the opposite) where they didn't limp.

It's true that zombies do not move fast or agile.

In most zombie culture they seem to be far more deadly in the fact that they never sleep, never stop moving in their pursuit of the living, while the survivors have to sleep, have to stop to eat and rest, which is when the zombies usually catch up and assimilate their victims.

The slow, shuffling gait associated with classic zombies both adds an element of suspense (zombies pursuing a cornered victim give the film-makers plenty of time to squeeze out every drop of drama from the scene, as the monsters slowly close in), and allow a clear identifier to distinguish zombies from the uninfected without a heavy reliance upon expensive special make up effects.

From an in-story perspective, it would be expected that most injuries would be to the legs and feet.

Zombies are defined by single-minded pursuit of prey, with complete disregard for pain or injuries, as well as overall poor motor function.

Fully healthy humans are capable of stumbling, tripping, and falling even under good circumstances.

Zombies would be far more prone to such falls, resulting in a much higher incidence of ankle sprains, broken bones, and lacerations to the feet.

It also seems unlikely that a zombie would be able to tie his shoes, so any person who is not wearing footwear at the time of zombification, or which subsequently lost footwear, would shuffle around in bare feet, and would also not make any effort to avoid stepping in dangerous areas (broken glass, etc.).

Since zombies do not posses the normal healthy healing process, they would form no callouses, and any wound on their feet would not close, resulting in more and more flesh being stripped from their feet as they shuffle along.

The classical 'Romero-style' zombie moves slowly, almost reluctantly.

It was deliberately created to give them the effect Romero wanted.

Zombies play to the core human fear: the human-looking inhuman thing.

They are so like us in appearance, and so different in behavior.

Their sad appearance - large, staring eyes, obvious wounds, slow motion, inspires pity and/or revulsion.

The way they move was initially intended to seem almost reluctant, as if the people they once had been were trying to resist their body's actions.

The slow motion also mimics many other monsters - notably Michael Myers and Jason Vorheese.

Like the zombie horde, these iconic monsters are slow and implacable.

They kill without remorse, look human but aren't, and you can seemingly escape them - only to turn the corner AND

THERE THEY ARE.

The zombie moves slowly, glacially, maddeningly, implacably.

They stalk humans as Death's harbinger, and they're all the scarier for not needing to move quickly to destroy you.

I've always imagined it being due to their muscles and such having decomposed some.

I can't come up with any examples but the tv series

The Walking Dead, if you take a look, "fresh" (maybe new is a better world, lol) zombies without any major damages but

a bite or such don't limp, they're just quite clumsy.

Other than the scary effect, I think their slowness can give the other characters a chance to escape.

If they are fast, what's their difference with other humanoid monster?

Usually zombies are in big troops and their number is plenty.

They are single-minded and don't care for wounds, they could not be underestimate.

Even for characters with guns, they require unlimited supply of bullet in order to defeat the whole troops.

Because the zombies are slow, the best way to due with them is to run.

However, as the scene may not be in an open area, their escape route could be blocked or unavailable.

It is troublesome to due with a hell lots of zombies in a medium-size room like locker room/changing room.

Imagine that they were FAST as normal people.

Think about Half life 2 episode 1.

I think that zombies are always using full human strength which in turn, deteriorates the tendons and since they're always running after you (in modern instances) that their tendons would be reduced to practically nothing.

This in turn with what everyone else says that a zombie`s muscles are basically rotting away.

Question: I've noticed this trend that most, if not all, zombies in films tend to limp or walk extremely slowly.  In fact, doesn't this take away from their "scariness" as they aren't fast and don't seem to be agile?  Where did this stem from?

Why do Zombies in films generally have limps?

The typical zombie walk conveys a sense that the zombies are no longer human and no longer fully functional. The slow, shuffling gait also adds an element of suspense and makes a clear distinction between them and the uninfected. Their slow speed may also allow their prey to escape.

The classical Romero zombie was intended to move the way it did in order to create a feeling of conflict between the human mind and zombified body resisting its urges. From a logical stand point zombies were designed to move that way, because it made sense from the persepctive of the logic i.e a decomposing body shouldn't be able to move with agility and it made sense from the perspective of the film i.e creates suspense, gives other characters a chance to escape.

The main use of the slow shuffle is so the audience and other characters can identity who the zombies are without the use of expensive makeup effects. In addition it also gave other characters a chance to escape and even created and extra bit of suspense.

Even inuries do not stop zombies from pursuing their prey so from a logical perspective you could assume that zombies move the way they do due to a heavy build up of injury in places like the feet, which causes them to limp and shuffle.

The classical Romero-style zombie was designed, in Romero's image, to move slowly almost reluctantly like their human brains were trying to stop their zombified body from pursuing its prey.


The issue is one that the Star Wars Galaxy must have 3rd generation (Population I) stars to exist, meaning it's at least many billion years post-Big-Bang.

Given the current estimates of 13.75 billion years of age, it's likely it's not more than 8 billion years ago (BYA), in order to allow for the relatively modern shape portrayed in the films.

Moreover, the Milky Way has lots of Population II stars, but those can't give rise to life as we know it in their worlds, as the needed high-metal mixtures won't be present to coalesce into terrestrial worlds until the nova of Population II stars forms sufficient metals to generate the population

I stars which gave birth to us all.

Note that the oldest Population I stars have less than 2% of the metal content, and that we are, as a life form, carbon, calcium and iron with significant smaller amounts of other stuff, but the lower metalicity of the older stars implies a lack of iron.

So, we can rule out the oldest.

Getting to the 5 BYA point, we start looking at stars that might have life as we know it.

Not so much heavy metals, but still, enough to have stuff we would recognize.

So, I'd say the "Galaxy Far Far Away" had its "long time ago" no more than 5 BYA and probably no more than 1 BYA, because it looks like galaxies of that age.

There is absolutely no way to pin this down.

As Roger Ebert pointed out, we're not even necessarily the frame of reference to which the "A long time ago..." refers to.

That is to say, this is all a story being told to us from an unseen narrator, from whose point of view the events of the story happened "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away."

Because we don't know where (or when)

the narrator exists, we can't know where or when the events occurred.

It could well be right around the corner, just a couple of years from now (or ago).

No.

I think Lucas wanted to remove all links to our world.

Though I found a decent Star Wars timeline explaining when the various events happen in the Star Wars universe.

Star Wars Tales Volume 5 was a comic that was written a few years ago.

According to its Wikipedia article : Han Solo and Chewbacca are aboard the Millennium Falcon when they are attacked by Imperials.

They are forced to leap to hyperspace blind and end up in our solar system, where they crash on Earth's Pacific Northwest.

Believing they are on Endor due to the large trees, they venture out to investigate, when Han is killed by Native Americans.

The mourning Chewbacca leaves the Falcon to live in the trees, where the natives believe him to be Sasquatch.

126 years later, the wreckage of the Falcon and Han’s remains are found by the intrepid American archaeologist Indiana Jones and his sidekick, Short Round.

Indy, spooked by how 'eerily familiar' the remains are, decide to leave them in peace.

That would put it somewhere near 1800 because the adventures of Indiana Jones takes place in the '20s and '30s.

I heard an unrelated story about it taking place 5,000 years ago, as well.

Unfortunately I can't remember where I read this and can't provide a reference.

But I did read that Lucas originally planned for Star Wars to take place in our future, in the year 3000 or thereabouts.

But then the idea struck to set it "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." and Lucas realized it freed him from having to tie the history of Star Wars to our real history, he could simply make everything up from scratch.

He didn't even really have to worry about being entirely faithful to the laws of physics (sound in space, gravity and breathing on an asteroid, etc.).

So no, Star Wars doesn't take place in "our" time at all, and that was a conscious choice.

(Didn't stop me, as a kid, from thinking ROTJ would end with someone discovering Earth.)

Question: We know Star Wars happened,  "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" . Is there any information on exactly  when  that was, relative to our time?

When did Star Wars take place?

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

It is believed that there is no real way to ascertain when Star Wars took place, as there is no frame of reference, and that this was a conscious choice. However, some say that it took place between 1 and 5 billion years ago, due to the appearance of the galaxies.

Most people state that there's no way to pin point the time frame where star wars takes place, however some fans have come up with theories based off of the information they can get from the series. Some have hypothesized that stars wars took place no more than 1 billion years ago.

There is no way to pin point the time when star wars takes place.

Fans like to come up with theories based on information that is provided in the series.