Until someone comes along with a better answer based explicitly on Tolkien's writing, I will simply suggest the link to the Norse Midgard .

Remember that Tolkien drew a lot of inspiration from Nordic sagas and myths, and Midgard is the Nordic name for the world of men, the one that stands in the middle of Yggdrasil the world tree.

There are worlds below it and above it, ones inhabited by gods or giants, but this is the middle one, mainly because it was myths by humans and for humans.

No.

Middle-earth is a continent on Arda .

In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium, Arda is the name given to the Earth in a period of prehistory, wherein the places mentioned in The Lord of the Rings and related material once existed.

It included several seas and oceans, and the continents of Middle-earth, the Dark Lands, and Aman (The Undying Lands), as well as the island of Númenor and other lands, left largely unnamed by Tolkien.

Middle-Earth is generally regarded as a continent If I remember correctly.

Besides Middle-Earth there is also Aman, where the elves (specifically the Noldor) came from, and Numenor, where Aragorn's ancestors came from.

No, but there is a Left and Right Earth.

More specifically, there is an Eastern continent and a Western continent; Middle-earth is the one between the two (i.e in the middle ), separated from them by sea on either side.

The 1930's Ambarkanta contains a number of world-diagrams, including the following one, illustrating the concept:

Also refer to Letter 165 : 'Middle-earth', by the way, is not a name of a never-never land without relation to the world we live in (like the Mercury of Eddison).

It is just a use of Middle English middel-erde (or erthe ), altered from Old English Middangeard : the name for the inhabited lands of Men ' between the seas '.

Middle-Earth is a continent within the larger domain of Arda, which is described as "Earth at some point in its prehistory" or something along those lines.

Arda was originally flat, until it was made round after the destruction of Numenor.

If memory serves, the continent Middle-Earth lay roughly in the center of the primordial, flat Arda (Arda Unmarred), although it is obviously impossible for it to be in the center of the spherical Arda Marred.

The other continents of Arda did not follow this naming scheme (Aman and so on), so no, there is no "East Earth" of "Left Earth" or anything like that.

Yes, all of Arda at creation was "flat".

Middle-Earth was Beleriand to (roughly) the Mountains of Shadow.

This Middle-Earth was the land bathed in the light streaming from The Undying Lands (a.k.a. Aman) across the sea.

Beyond Middle-Earth (going East away from Aman) were the lands seeing only the light of the stars at creation.

Middle-Earth was the place of embarkation (e.g. the Grey Havens) for the First-born (Elves) - having awoken in the uttermost East under the stars and wandered West, drawn toward the light of Aman.

Númenor was created by the Powers (Valar) as a reward to those Second-born (Humans) who aided in the battle against Melkor/Morgoth.

It was an island continent located nearer to Aman than Middle-Earth but not in the Blessed Realm proper.

Númenor

(a.k.a. Atalantia in the Adûnaic language) was later destroyed by the Valar as punishment of the rebellion of the Númenorians.

Question: I have always wondered are there more types of earths besides Middle. Is there an Upper and Lower?

Is there an Upper- and a Lower-earth along with Middle-earth?

There are worlds below it and above it, ones inhabited by gods or giants, but this is the middle one, mainly because it was myths by humans and for humans.  Besides Middle-Earth there is also Aman, where the elves (specifically the Noldor) came from, and Numenor, where Aragorn's ancestors came from.

Middle Earth is a continent within Arda also comprising Aman and Numenor. As such, there is an Eastern continent and a Western continent besides Middle Earth or a Left and Right Earth.

Middle Earth is a continent within Arda also comprising Aman and Numenor. There is an Eastern continent and a Western continent besides Middle Earth or a Left and Right Earth.


It's definitely Shadow of the Minotaur because I've just read it and its great!

They are working for a person called Glen Recede who is the game master and the body-suit

is like a second skin as they say and they get stuck in a video game in a labyrinth which is the final level, with a Minotaur!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killobyte by Piers Anthony sounds like the story to me, memory says the main character that had the death issue was a paraplegic, and also that the "kill" of the game was supposed to get progressively worse as a discouragement.

It could be that you are talking about the Otherland series by Tad Williams.

Throughout the second and third book, the protagonists travel from one virtual reality to another, although they never really are in an actual labyrinth.

It only differs a bit in your description of how they are interacting with this reality (spoiler ahead)

Firstly, they are not all wearing bodysuits.

Secondly, it's not the suit that could kill them If this is not what you are talking about, could you give some more info?

Caverns of Soctrates by Dennis L. McKiernan also has a similar idea, though it's a fantasy world that they enter, and the characters are a group of gamers who are supposed to be testing the virtual reality and end up getting stuck inside it instead.

It was quite fun.

Here are some additional details (spoiler): I don't recall if they were wearing bodysuits, but the story did have the characters trying to survive in the VR while the people who had developed it were on the outside trying to get them out.

There was also a horrific storm occurring at the same time to complicate matters in the real world, and a scene where ball lightning was floating throughout the building at the climax of the storm.

At the end, after the gamers escape, it's revealed that one of the magic users has somehow retained their abilities in the real world.

This sounds very similar to Dream Park , or maybe one of its sequels.

The series is built around the concept of high-tech LARPing .

Characters do end up trapped in mazes in at least some of the novels; they also use high-tech bodysuits a lot of the time, since they're basically playing an advanced interactive RPG.

Question: I remember several years ago coming across a story where the characters get trapped in a virtual reality labyrinth where they were wearing a prototype/demo bodysuit that simulates pain responses, to the degree it could even kill the user. Also it could simulate smell.  I think it was in written form, but I can't be sure. Can anyone identify the title?

Story about getting trapped in virtual reality labyrinth

There is a strong suggestion that this is "Shadow of the Minotaur". However, other suggestions include the  "Otherland"  series by Tad Williams, "Caverns of Socrates" by Dennis L. McKiernan or "Dream Park".

The title is either: Shadow of the Minotaur; Otherland; Caverns of Socrates; or Dream Park.


This is going to be anecdotal, but I would say at this point it's impossible to draw a conclusion.

As far as I know

Heinlein never said if the Mobile Infantry is based on any specific branch.

Heinlein's military service in the Navy would push me towards the Marine Corps as the influence.

The quote "Come on you Apes, do you want to live forever?"

is generally attributed (it's possible other versions were uttered before) to Dan Daly, a Marine. Roughnecks, is a play on Leatherneck, a moniker for Marines.

Even their employment within the story, flying along with "the Fleet" until being inserted at their destination is very Marine like.

But without the Roughneck pun and the Dan Daly

quote, I could draw conclusions that would face me towards the Army.

Starship Troopers is on the Commandant's Reading List, also on the Navy Recommended Reading List as well.

My opinion is skewed as I am a Marine, but after reading the book and seeing the movie, the portrayal always seemed Marine Corps biased.

That would be more familiar to Heinlein considering his service in the Navy.

I'd note the comparison he makes in passing - that an MI is selective in a way that orbital bombardment simply isn't - implies that he considers both to be weapons deployed by the Navy, as opposed to merely transported by them on occasion.

That fits the Marines much better.

Further, the lack of armor support makes it harder to reconcile the MIs with the GIs.

(Admittedly, the point of the MI suit is to be armor support, but it feels more like an upscaling of elite infantry rather than a downscaling of tanks or choppers.)

A rapid, well-armed unit supported only by naval gunship batteries?

Sounds like Marines to me.

One thing that leans more to a naval/marine flavor would be when Rico was going through his officer candidate school.

Right before shipping off for his tour as a "temporary, probationary and supernumerary" third lieutenant, Rico and several cadets were having a conversation with Colonel Nielssan.

Many of the stories of the pips each cadet would wear revolved around naval actions or combat involving officer’s assigned to the fleet.

Additionally, ranks, customs and spoken verbiage all decidedly revolve around a naval theme.

While a modern airborne ranger battalion would be assigned some of the raiding/take and hold missions as an M.I. unit does, this book was written in the late 50's, much earlier the modern concept of heli-born assaults.

Taken as a whole, I would say that Heinlein leaned more towards a marine styled always deployed always ready force than an army styled airborne unit.

Contrasting some other answers, I feel that the sheer number of MI, the lack of another separate force of ground troops, and their basic status as the "regulars" of Earth's military, generally lends itself to an Army-style designation for the Mobile Infantry.

Their landing-craft-style insertion is vaguely Marine-ish, but they're space-faring soldiers; other than space-jumping Airborne-style (hinted at in the book, absent in the movie)

I can't think of another viable way to get boots on the ground.

In space, there would be no significant distinction between air and sea as there is with the modern military, and so being ferried into combat via space landing craft is roughly analagous to being delivered either by C-130 or by LCAC.

The modern Marine Corps is a semi-self-sufficient "first response" force that can field comprehensive military power quickly, and as such are composed of land, air and sea vehicles, designed and chosen with an eye for portability and versatility.

The amphibious assault ships they commonly use, of the Tarawa, Wasp and brand-new America classes, are technically under the control of the Navy, but their sole purpose is to get Marine Expeditionary Forces into the theater.

In terms of manpower, though, the USMC is the smallest of the US Armed Forces branches, roughly one-fifth the total size of the U.S. Army (not counting the Army's civilian manpower component, which is about the size of the USMC just by itself).

The modern Army is well-used to being carried into battle however they can get there; in WWII, Army troops and their materiel were delivered by troopship, Duck landing craft, C-47 paratroop plane, and even glider.

Once they land, they're pretty much walking, much like we saw in ST.

However, why does it have to be one or the other?

There may be one "Mobile Infantry", but there are various units within it, some of which may be better suited for "hopping" from place to place instead of maintaining a more static "front line" like an army is normally thought to do.

All the branches have elite special forces, and traditional units of same: Army Rangers, Navy Seals, Marine Force Recon, etc.

All of the branches now contribute complements to SOCOM, which, taken as a single unit of "Special Operations", could very readily be replicated within MI.

The Mobile Infantry concept is based on Heinlein's own experience as a Naval officer and contemporary military doctrine.

At that time, military leaders were experimenting with the 'pentomic' army.

They were concerned with survivability on the nuclear battlefield.

The most notable aspect of the pentomic system was the five part manning and C2 system vs the more flexible and successful three part system, five squads per platoon, five platoons per company, etc.

Combine this with his interest in space travel and a good imagination

he came up with the Mobile Infantry.

Rocket ships replace Dakota's; atomic rockets replace bazookas; flamethrowers are still useful.

The infantry still dies.

Interestingly, the US DoD is actively pursuing many MI concepts, most notably, the mobility suits used by the infantryman in the 23rd Century.

"Starship Troopers" is an excellent book on leadership as much as it is a future history.

It is required reading in many military schools.

Question: A comment on  this question  got me thinking - was Heinlein explicitly modeling Mobile Infantry on US Marines? Or More the Army?  I'll accept either a word-of-god answer (e.g. sourced from Heinlein himself), or a good analysis showing how specific details of MI are patterned more on the Army or the Marines of the time.  The question specifically pertains to the Heinlein book, not the movie that accidentally shares the same name with it.

Was Mobile Infantry in Starship Troopers modeled on the Marines or the Army?

Heinlein never said if the Mobile Infantry is based on any specific branch. However, the portrayal seemed Marine Corps biased.

Although it is impossible to draw a form conclusion, the Starship Troopers is modelled more on the Marines.


During the first dropping of the atomic bomb over Japan, there was a fleet of 7 aircraft who assisted in some way, including two in the detonation zone.

The other one carried a sensor package.

They both executed the required maneuver to avoid the blast of the bomb.

The other aircraft carried weather, photographic equipment, and other sensors.

I would assume that all aircraft executed the required maneuver to avoid getting blasted, although only the two had to execute a very sharp maneuver.

As to why they did it in the movie, it could have been as happened in World War 2, or simply as a backup in case one (Or more) of the planes was destroyed.

It is also remotely possible that the other planes did drop bombs that weren't seen, or they were saved in case of a different strike order being given.

Some could have been decoys as well.

There are a number of possibilities.

Based on what we see in the script , we can assume that they simply returned to base : On the monitors as well, we can see the target remain.

The air is let out of the room, everyone deflated.

PRESIDENT :

Call them back.

NIMZIKI :

The other bombers might have more luck.

We shouldn't just give up... PRESIDENT :

I said call them back.

As the technicians call the bombers away, the President sinks into a depression.

His last hope of survival gone.

In the official novelisation , the tone is rather darker.

President Whitmore is clearly contemplating using the remaining nuclear weapons to make the world uninhabitable for the aliens, even at the cost of making the world uninhabitable for the remaining human population:

“Call the other planes back,” Whitmore said softly.

Nimziki couldn’t believe it.

“The other bombers might have better luck,” he argued.

“One of their destroyers is enroute to Chicago.

We still have time to intercept it and deliver multiple warheads.

We can’t just give up!”

“I said call them back.”

The president sank into a chair and stared up at the ceiling.

The failure to inflict any damage on the aliens’ ship convinced him there was no way to prevent them from landing.

Suddenly, he felt like there was plenty of time.

Somehow, he knew from his mind-meld experience with the captured alien, it would take them a couple of years to move the entire population down to Earth from the mother ship.

In light of what happened in Houston, it seemed to be time now to rethink the strategy of fighting the aliens and time to begin organizing ways to resist them once they began their invasion.

The only logical course of action Whitmore could see was to wait for them to establish their cities, then blow the world to smithereens.

Mankind was going to be exterminated, he knew, without mercy.

If we’re lucky, he told himself, we might be able to take them down with us.

In universe, they probably wanted to see if one weapon would be enough and go on to the next target if it were.

Silly militarily, but under pressure people are known to make silly desicions.

Out of universe, it just looks nice on film.

If one B-2 is canonical of US airpower, 5 are even more so (and larger groups are easier to spot on the big screen as well).

While solo weapons by design, it's not unheard of for such to be used in groups.

Take the B-52 which was in its current form designed as a solo penetration bomber to strike deep in the USSR with nuclear weapons, is now used almost exclusively in groups for conventional bombing missions.

As to the aircraft being more visible in groups than alone on radar, it doesn't really matter.

One B-2 looks like a small bird at any distance where detection could mean interception before it can launch its weapons, in a group they'd look like a flock of small birds, not something radar operators are trained to be alarmed about (and I'd not be surprised if many radar installations are set up to filter out such small size targets to avoid cluttering the displays, and/or operators trained to ignore them).

If I remember the film correctly, there was a dispute about the other bombers.

After seeing that the first bomb didn't work, the president had the others turn back.

I distinctly remember something along the lines "Maybe the others will have more success".

The dispute ends with the president firing his military counselor, or whatever position that was.

The bombers took off in formation.

they then split off to there individual targets.

the bomber who launched its nuke on the L.A. ship was the first to reach its target.

when the recon unit on the ground reported that the ship was intact the president recalled the other planes.

he knew that they would have no effect on there targets.

Question: In the movie 'Independence Day', they decided to launch a nuclear strike against the alien craft hovering over L.A. and the scene cuts to five B2 bombers flying at about 10k feet in tight formation like fighter planes. When the order is given to 'launch', a single nuke is fired at the craft. The burning question is; What were the other four bombers doing and where did they go? That plane is for solo high altitude bombing missions, not pack hunting.

Where did the bombers go in Independence Day?

Based on what we see in  the script , we can assume that they simply returned to base. One might assume that all aircraft executed the required maneuver to avoid getting blasted, although only the two had to execute a very sharp maneuver.  After seeing that the first bomb didn't work, the president had the others turn back.

The test was to see if one weapon would be enough instead of putting all four bombers on the firing line. The likelihood is the others returned to base


As far as I know there is no canon reference to how the wandmakers get the core into the actual wood of the wand; J.K. Rowling doesn't address this through Pottermore either.

However, I noticed that Ollivander (in the Pottermore links above) references his father 'wrestling' to get the core material into the wand, which would perhaps suggest that the process is difficult.

Just as a Harry Potter fan, I would imagine that getting a wand core into a wand is exceedingly difficult and, yes, is a magical process.

Too bad it's not detailed further.

The second thing I noticed was under unicorn hair.

JKR says that the unicorn hair core is most prone to melancholy (meaning it will mope and die if not attended to on occasion) and must be replaced, so clearly there must be a way, by magic and the wandmaker's skill, to remove a wand core and somehow get a second, new wand core into the wand itself.

How this happens, though, at this time is unclear.

Here's a picture from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One that shows Voldemort holding Lucius Malfoy's wand as it breaks apart.

I don't think the movies are considered primary canon by everyone, but this scene is pretty much the same in the book as it is in the movie.

The point is that wand woods are not impervious and they can be breached.

I always assumed they were made like lead pencils Today, most wooden pencils are mass produced from large blocks of cedar cut into slats.

A machine cuts eight grooves, half as deep as the graphite-clay rod is thick, into the slats, and then places rods in each groove.

Once the rods are in place, a second grooved slat is glued on top of the first.

When the glue dries, the slats are fed through a cutting machine that cuts the wood into various shapes and divides the slats into eight separate pencils.

The seams where the two slats are joined are sanded down and several coats of paint are applied to the pencil, giving it the appearance of a solid structure.

To make a wand they could just substitute the graphite for whatever material they wanted to use for the core.

The same way as a muggle: with specialized tools.

One would need to drill carefully in the end of the wand, hollowing it out.

Then the "core" would be inserted.

Finally, a small cap of wood putty would cover the hole, be sanded down, and then the handle fashioned to hide this.

I had always assumed from the books that wands were twigs or small branches taken from specific trees.

Even some of the pictures show wands as looking something like a carved twig.

If this is the case, nearly all the woods named in the books produce pithy twigs.

It would be a simple matter to run a wire through the twig, removing the pith, then pulling the core through the interior using string or thin wire.

The wand would then be capped at each end and decorated...at least, that's how I always imagined it was done.

In fact, when I was a child I used the very same inferred method to make myself a wand with a core of an owl feather :-)

We can assume that wands aren't mass produced because there would be no need for so many wands.

Wizard usually uses his first wand their entire life so hand-made wands are not much of a stretch.

I

d say a wand blank must be prepared in advance (long, thin, straight branch without bark and hollowed out).

Then inserting material to be aligned with length of wand, and magically sealing it with handle.

Perhaps wrestling with it means aligning the core of the wand to sit just right inside of the wand.

Question: One of the sellers of magic wands, Ollivander, sells wands with Dragon heartstring, Phoenix feather, or Unicorn hair cores in them. What does JKR say about how the wandmakers get the core materials into the wands?

How do the wand makers get the cores into the wands?

There is no reference to how the wandmakers get the core into the actual wood of the wand, however, one would need to drill carefully in the end of the wand, hollowing it out.

The wand would be drilled using specialised tools and put together in the same way as lead pencils, though there is very little available information on the process.


The Space Jockey is there as a form of world-building, while also establishing some foreshadowing.

By including an unknown alien there, it shows that the in-universe situation is larger than the characters or audience is aware, that there is something more that's happened there.

The specific point of having its suit show damage that was directed outward shows that something bad happened to it, and it was unexplained.

Weapons usually attack from outside inward, but that wound suggests something happened from inside outward.

Why was the engineer fossilized in the chair?

To show the great deal of time that had passed since it had died.

Something bad went down here, and no one came to retrieve/save them in that long time since it happened.

Why did the engineer's bio suit show an outward explosion?

It was because the Space Jockey got infected by a facehugger.

Then a xenomorph grew inside it, and burst out of its chest.

By showing this before the facehuggers were discovered, it foreshadowed the threat they posed to the humans.

This is very similar, thematically, to the start of the classic film

The Thing when the Norwegians fly in and try to kill the dog.

They both foreshadow a cycle of infiltration and eventually death.

An out-of-universe explanation : the Space Jockey was meant by designer H.R. Giger to be a biomechanoid creature fused to its chair and inseparable from it by design .

The Engineers from Prometheus are thus a retcon; the Jockey wasn't originally meant to look so humanoid, or meant to walk away from its seat.

Unfortunately, I don't have a primary source for this, but secondary sources : Quotes by H.R. Giger:

"The creature we finally ended up building is biomechanical to the extent that he has physically grown into, or maybe even out of, his seat, - he's integrated totally into the function he performs.

"The pilot is conceived as one of my biomechanoids, attached to the seat so as to form a single unit" Quote by Brian Muir (one of the movie's sculptors):

"I have fond memories of working with Giger.

He explained to me and my colleague Peter Voysey that the pilot and cockpit were to be as one, as if merged together.

The inspiration for the final Space Jockey design is one of Giger's earlier drawings from his books Necronomicon , where the biomechanoid nature of the creature is apparent:

Why was the engineer fossilized in the chair?

He was there for a long time.

Why did the engineer's bio suit show an outward explosion?

The space jockey was infected by a Facehugger, so an Alien chest-buster had made his way out of his torso and bio suit.

What happened to this Alien?

He probably died from boredom.

Because despite whatever Scott might claim today, his intention wasn't for the "space jockey" to be one of a race of 9 ft tall anatomically perfect humans.

The implications are quite clear: The "space jockey" was some bizarre life form (engineered or not) to be attached to that station in the ship, never to leave.

Even to get up and go to the bathroom.

We're not even seeing a suit, but some sort of (endo?)

exo-skeleton.

It wasn't a suit in Alien , that was the alien itself.

The suit thing was just a retcon in Prometheus which someone has already mentioned.

It means that the ship and the Space Jockey were in LV-426 for maybe hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

The outward explosion shows that a facehugger attacked the being, and maybe the reason it crashed landed on LV-426

Question: Despite watching  Prometheus  and understanding the purpose of the navigation machine, I'm still not sure what was the significance of the space jockey in  Alien , specifically...   Why was the engineer fossilized in the chair?  Why did the engineer's bio suit show an outward explosion?

What's the meaning of the fossilized engineer in the Alien space jockey scene?

It means that the Space Jockey and ship had been on LV-426 for a great deal of time since death.  The space jockey was infected by a Facehugger, so an Alien chest-buster had made his way out of his torso and bio suit.   This may have been the reason for the crash landing on LV-426.

The Space Jockey is infected by a Facehugger and outwardly explodes. The Space Jockey’s suit fossilises to show the amount of time that has passed since his death.

It means that the ship and the Space Jockey were in LV-426 for maybe hundreds of thousands or millions of years.


Noa Briqualon from Ewoks: The Battle For Endor . and Saun Dann from the Holiday Special In lower canons, the Wookieepedia entry for spectacles lists a few others, noting that Spectacles were very rare, as advanced surgery and cybernetic implants were more efficient in many ways.

In addition to an abundance of Legends examples, spectacles have made the jump to new Disney canon: Nuvo Vindi, the mad Faust scientist from "Blue Shadow Virus" and "Mystery of a Thousand Moons", episodes of The Clone Wars Although he doesn't wear them all the time (he appears to only use them when looking at something close-up), he does occasionally pull out a pair of pince-nez glasses.

Gorga

the Hutt, a member of the Hutt Council, wore a monocle Though unclear whether or not they were corrective (rather than for safety or magnification)

, the Parwan Doctor Gubacher wore some manner of lenses in "Secret Weapons", an episode of The Clone Wars and his only appearance:

We also have:

Lonn Idd in Star Wars Droids 2:

The Ultimate Weapon and C-3PO (as a disguise):

Noa Briqualon from Ewoks: The Battle for Endor wears glasses :

Doctor Pershing Doctor Pershing (

The Mandalorian , episodes 1x01 and 1x03) wears tinted eyeglasses:

The doctor's reason for wearing these glasses is not yet apparent as of episode 1x03.

The glasses do not cover his eyes as laboratory safety goggles would, and they have not been shown to display electronic images.

Given that the lenses are not particularly dark and that he wears them indoors in very dimly lit rooms, it's reasonable to suppose that they are not primarily for protection against bright light.

Also the Kel Dor : They also wore goggles to protect their eye fluids from evaporating.

Question: Does anyone in The Galaxy Far Far Away wear eyeglasses?  (specifically to correct for bad vision, NOT sunglasses or some special optics designed to enhance you natural senses ala whatever optics Vader's suit or Mandalorian armor provided).  (this arose out of random comment in Chat)  The question is mostly for G-canon, though I'll accept answers from T-/C- canons

Does anyone actually wear eyeglasses in Star Wars?

Noa Briqualon, Nuvo Vindi, Dr Pershing and Saun Dann all wear glasses in Star Wars.

The following wear eyeglasses: Noa Briqualon, Nuevo Vindi, Shaun Dann; and Kel Dor.


A very old Dr. McCoy appeared as an admiral in the "Encounter at Farpoint", the first episode of Star Trek the Next Generation.

Presumably he was promoted to captain at some point before that.

Do alternate realities count?

If so then we have Captain Beverly Crusher :

In an alternate future (the final episode, All Good Things ), Beverly had been promoted to captain and was commanding the medical ship USS Pasteur.

And back in the usual reality, Crusher was given explicit command in the episode Descent : When asked by La Forge who would be in command of the Enterprise

, Doctor Crusher enters the bridge and asks for last orders.

[...] Both officers wished each other good luck, with Picard adding "captain" to her title.

Of course that's the title of Captain rather than the rank of Captain.

There's also Captain Krasnovsky from the ST:

TOS episode Court Martial : Captain Krasnovsky [...] wore a blue sciences division dress uniform, making him the highest-ranking officer to appear wearing science division dress colors, as admiral McCoy's uniform could be either sciences or command.

All other science officers seen on Star Trek were commanders or below.

Krasnovsky was just a bit part

so we don't know if his blue uniform is "medical doctor blue" or "scientist blue"

but I thought I would mention it anyway.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/13106/mu is too short

In the later movies of TOS team, Kirk, Spock, McCoy & Scotty all held the rank of Captain, even though only Kirk was the actual Captain of the ship.

Do not mistake the rank of Captain with the position/title of Captain.

They are two separate things.

Anyone who is in official command of a ship, regardless of actual rank, holds the position of Captain.

In the US and other navies today, it is common practice that on smaller ships, such as destroyers and frigates, for officers of lower ranks, such as Commander or Lt. Commander, to be in command.

They hold the title and office of Captain, despite not holding the rank.

It is also not unheard of for someone in command of a large ship, such as a carrier, to be of the rank of Admiral.

They still hold the title of Captain on that ship.

There are a couple of officers who hold the rank of Captain yet do not command a starship: Phillipa Louvois, who was the judge in Data's "trial" in "Measure of a Man".

Krasnovsky, who conducted Kirk's court martial in "Court Martial".

He also wore a blue (science) uniform.

Also, Vice-Admiral Toddman, who worked for Starfleet Security on earth, wore a gold uniform, perhaps implying that he was at one point a non-command captain.

I don't see why not.

In the US Navy, the senior medical officer is the Surgeon General of the US Navy , who holds Vice-Admiral rank.

Rank doesn't necessarily denote command responsibilities for a ship.

Well if Starfleet patterns its ranks after the US Navy, or Navies of the world, then having physician with the rank of Captain (Colonel), or even Admiral would not be too far.

Since the Captain of a ship is a Naval Officer with Surface Warfare/Underseas Warfare experience, they would be the chief officers of the ship.

Since McCoy would have risen to the rank of Captain, or even Admiral, he could serve as the overall Medical Officer in charge of a major medical Department, on board a much larger Starship.

As for an Admiral, he could be assigned as the overall Medical Officer of a much larger parsec of space, and would have his own staff or floor that would have his own personal offices, or offices for his administrative staff, and his flag would be on that ship.

Now, if McCoy were the senior officer on board a Starship, and all of a sudden all of the senior officers were killed, he may be authorized to take command of the ship for a certain period of time, to get the ship and crew away from the danger.

Then if the ship were now in StarFleet territory, he would probably return command to one of the junior officers, or even a senior Petty Officer.

Because it seems that the writers based the Rate/Rank system in the show on the real U.S. Navy, it's entirely plausible to have a person who holds the captain(O-6 Rate) aboard who is not in overall command of the vessel.

In fact, it's commonplace to have the Commanding officer of an Aircraft Carrier to be a Captain while the Executive officer is also a Captain.

It's just that one is in command and the other is subordinate.

Its the same thing all the way down the line.

I would imagine that Starfleet can, and does, work the same way.

Question: In TNG, Beverly Crusher has the rank of Commander.  Since she is a high-ranking officer, it got me thinking about doctors in general.  Is there a rank for doctors that is higher than Commander?  Could a doctor make it to Captain, even if they are not in command of a starship?  Of course, a doctor with a rank higher than Commander couldn't be on a ship because of command conflict, but I don't see why a doctor with the rank of Captain couldn't serve on a starbase.

Can Starfleet doctors make Captain rank?

If  Starfleet patterns its ranks after the US Navy, or Navies of the world, then having physician with the rank of Captain (Colonel), or even Admiral would not be too far.  It is also not unheard of for someone in command of a large ship, such as a carrier, to be of the rank of Admiral.

A doctor can indeed make it to a rank higher than Commander (Admiral): Dr McCoy being the number one example. Also, Phillipa Louvois is a Captain who does not yet command a starship.

A doctor can indeed make it to a rank higher than Commander (Admiral): Dr McCoy being the number one example. Phillips Louvois is a Captain who does not yet command a starship.


I don't have the book handy to specifically check this, but...

Enderverse lists Rackham as Half-Maori while Wikipedia says Mazer Rackham is described in the book as a half-Maori New Zealander

This article confirms that the tattoos are meant to be Maori.

So while the book does not seem to ever actually specifically say that he has such tattoos, they DO make sense in terms of his character.

Yes, it seems to be added just for the movie.

I just searched a digital version of the novel.

Although the name "Rackham" appears 40 times, the word "tattoo" appears zero times.

Here's how Rackham is described the first time Ender meets him:

He looked to be about sixty, by far

the oldest man Ender had seen on Eros.

He had a day's growth of white whiskers that grizzled his face only slightly less than his close-cut hair.

His face sagged a little and his eyes were surrounded by creases and lines.

He looked at Ender with an expression that bespoke only apathy.

There's nothing about tattoos on his face, and that would be the moment to mention it.

SECOND UPDATE :

Found what could be considered canonical answer in a Marvel Comic ( Formic Wars: Burning Earth 01 ).

There, Mazer has no tattoos at all .

This should be considered canonical since Marvel's "Ender's Game" comics - including "Formic Wars" series - were done with Card's full cooperation and

were his idea, he clearly had some say in the way characters looked

We know that the comics were strongly affiliated with Card from first prequel book's Afterword, as well as the fact that they were directed by Card: To add to Pixel's excellent answer,

the prequel book ( Earth Unaware ) showed Lieutenant Mazer Rackham, and didn't mention any tattoos (UPDATE: checked against soft copy).

UPDATE:

Just read the second book in the prequel series ("Earth Aflame").

The books heavily centers on Rackham.

He was NOT described as having any tattoos.

However, the book goes into great detail of his background, which CAN be compatible with the tattoo theory:

His mother was Maori, his father English

His mother had to separate from the tribe because they objected to her marriage

As a result, until her death, she

**raised him fully immersed in Maori culture - language, legends, songs, warrior ethos, and all. After her death, his father raised him "full-on-Enhlish".

#3 means that it is quite possible that Rakham would have gotten Maori tattoos upon reaching adulthood, the age when Tā moko (maori tattoos) typically apply, out of respect for his mother's memory; but #4 means that it wasn't a certainty.

Again, the book doesn't describe any outward features (tattoos OR lack of thereof), the only physical description was weight and lack of fat (duh).

The tattoos may be consistent with Mazer Rackham's Mom's ethnicity, but NOT with his character's preferences or work as represented in the books (though maybe he had meaningful tattoos somewhere discreet and invisible to the other characters?).

Mazer does extensive undercover work in Shadow of the Giant .

Hardly anyone who sees him suspects what a badass he is (including Ender, at their first meeting).

He seems to cultivate this stealthiness, which makes sense considering that at first his existence and then his continued presence on Earth remain classified.

His appearance needs to support that premise in order for that premise to work.

The facial tattoos are therefore IMHO not only not appropriate for Mazer's internal character but also actively take away his powers to do undercover work as well as being inconsistent with his storyline.

So basically they seem to be an arbitrary way for Hollywood to emphasize the "Mystic Native Life Coach" trope more than it was emphasized anywhere in any of the books, at the expense of the character's other dimensions.

I'm personally not so happy with the decision.

While not truly authoritative, I found it interesting that official artwork for Card's short Mazer in Prison explicitly shows him without facial tattoos.

The art was apparently featured in Card's emagazine Intergalactic Medicine Show .

Question: The first image of Ben Kingsley as Mazer Rackham  has surfaced recently :   I did not remember him described has having a tattooed face in the book. Is this an addition made to the character especially for the movie?

Did Mazer Rackham have a tattooed face in the Ender's Game book?

This seems to be added just for the movie.

The tattoos were added to the character solely for the movie.


Spoilers: None of the new armors being developed used the internal power supply from Tony's internal arc reactor.

All of his more recent suits (the ones he made AFTER New York) ran on their own independent power supplies.

Note the fact they flew, used repulsors and fought Extremis soldiers whether Stark was in them or not.

The complex design of the Mark 42 made for some unique properties: Each piece of independent armor had to have its own power supply to utilize the repulsor/anti-grav flight capacity.

Each piece of armor had to be able to independently and cooperatively know where it needed to be and in what order it needed to arrive to make the suit viable upon receipt.

This mean they were all capable of managing their own power resources.

Each unit is capable of functioning independent of any other pieces (see Tony's unconventional one hand, one foot aerial ballet of destruction) and thus they are likely not able to be easily recharged unless the suit is in one piece.

The Mark 42 did not seem to be as physically strong as some of the other designs, possibly because of its very modular nature.

Since the suit was designed to fit more than Stark, we see Pepper using it quite well, it makes sense to have the suit function without a direct link to the Arc reactor in Tony's chest.

It also makes sense to allow the suit to be recharged on ordinary electricity in the event Stark is not around (as it proved to be a useful feature).

Recharging on ordinary electricity was a feature of the comic version of Iron Man from the very first designs.

His suits were designed to absorb solar energy constantly, absorb some electromagnetic energy from his enemies or to be powered directly from land-based power supplies.

He could even hook his armor to land based power supplies to augment his strength briefly.

Additional References: The Iron Man

Armory

Why did Tony Stark build arc reactors into his extra Iron Man suits?

First, the mk42 is a experimental armour, it's not conceived as one monolithic exoskeleton, but multiple semi-autonomous parts that assemble themselves to form the armour.

Therefore, each part of the armour needs its own power source.

My hypothesis about why he doesn't use the arc reactor in his chest to charge the armour is that, as an experimental armour, there is no built-in interface with the arc reactor.

So, considering its presumably complex power grid, Tony Stark don't want to directly link it to his life-sustaining device.

To add to what Thaddeus has already elaborated on: To charge the armors from his internal ARC reactor Tony need J.A.R.V.I.S. to regulate the charge.

However, J.A.R.V.I.S. was malfunctioning, so it is possible that Tony did not feel comfortable putting his life in danger of the reactor failing mid charge.

Plugging the suit into a conventional power source is the safer option.

It also allows for Tony to remain mobile to continue his investigation in to the attacks, their source, and how to stop the situation.

My hypothesis is that the MK42 armor is designed to be controlled either remotely or by persons other than Tony himself.

In the movies, you see various scenes where the armor was controlled by Tony remotely.

There was even a scene during the attack on Tony's house where Pepper was in the suit to protect her from harm.

Therefore, Tony cannot presume that whoever is in the armor will have an arc reactor and designed the armor accordingly.

It may not have been designed that way, but there is no reason Tony could not have improvised on the fly and figured out a way to hook it up to his chest.

It would have been much faster since the arc reactor is a far more powerful source than the other energy sources he was using (and he knows how much to power it without putting his life at risk)

It is because Tony needed the arc reactor to keep him alive.

Charging his suit from his chest reactor would cause a power drain that might threaten his life.

Question: In Iron Man 3, it shows Tony Stark having trouble charging his MK42 armour. At one point he even had a car battery connected to it. Why couldn't he use the arc reactor in his chest to charge his armour?

In Iron Man 3, why couldn't Tony Stark use the arc reactor in his chest to charge his armour?

Charging his suit from his chest reactor would cause a power drain that might threaten his life.  All of his more recent suits (the ones he made AFTER New York) ran on their own independent power supplies. Since the suit was designed to fit more people  than  Stark it makes sense to have the suit function without a direct link to the Arc reactor in Tony's chest.  Each unit is capable of functioning independent of any other pieces and it  had to have its own power supply to utilize the repulsor/anti-grav flight capacity.

Tony’s MK42 armour has its own independent power supply. Also, the suit is designed to be worn by people other than Tony so it is not controlled by the arc reactor for this reason and it is deemed safer to plug it in to a conventional power source.

Tony’s MK42 armour has its own independent power supply. The suit is designed to be worn by people other than Tony so it is not controlled by the arc reactor for this reason. It is safer to plug the suit in to a conventional power source.


I'm reasonably sure the only person other than Frodo who Tolkien mentions being stabbed with a Morgul-blade is Boromir, a Steward of Gondor.

The section of Appendix A to Lord of the Rings about the Stewards says: In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath.

Boromir son of Denethor (after whom Boromir of the Nine Walkers was later named) defeated them and regained Ithilien; but Osgiliath was finally ruined, and its great stone-bridge was broken.

No people dwelt there afterwards.

Boromir was a great captain, and even the Witch-king feared him.

He was noble and fair of face, a man strong in body and will, but he received a Morgul-wound in that war which shortened his days, and he became shrunken with pain and died twelve years after his father.

That is, not everyone stabbed with a Morgul-blade

becomes a wraith; some of them just end up with painful and eventually-deadly wounds.

Since becoming a wraith is otherwise correlated with Rings of Power, it seems like a reasonable guess (though not one otherwise supported, to the best of my knowledge) that Frodo would only have become a wraith because he was stabbed while being a Ringbearer, as Jardyn suggests in the other answer.

Aside from the other answers, it's wrong to think of a Nazgul as some kind of Mr Stabby Mc Stabstab that likes to run around Middle Earth creating little wraiths.

Nazgul are sinister, not psychopaths.

They're a tool, a weapon that is only used at the greatest need.

Witness Radagast's conversation with Gandalf in FotR: '

"I have an urgent errand," he said.

"My news is evil."

Then he looked about him, as if the hedges might have ears.

Nazgul," he whispered.

The Nine are abroad again.

They have crossed the River secretly and are moving westward.

They have taken the guise of riders in black.

'I knew then what I had dreaded without knowing it. '"

The enemy must have some great need or purpose," said Radagast; "but what it is that makes him look to these distant and desolate parts, I cannot guess.

" "The Nine are abroad again" - "The enemy must have some great need or purpose" - these are not beings that run around willy-nilly, as I said.

"Purpose" is a key word here, we need to look at what the Witch King's purpose was in stabbing Frodo.

Was it to make him a wraith?

Certainly not.

His purpose was to get the Ring back for Sauron; making Frodo a wraith was a means to an end, not an end in itself .

We learn a good deal more in The Hunt for the Ring, published in Unfinished Tales.

First of all: At length he resolved that no others would serve him in this case but his mightiest servants, the Ringwraiths...

This backs up my first statement - the Ringwraiths are not a tool that Sauron uses lightly; they are his mightiest servants that he uses only for the gravest tasks.

Next:

Yet this weakness they had for Sauron's present purpose: so great was the terror that went with them (even invisible and unclad) that their coming forth might soon be perceived and their mission be guessed by the Wise.

So, if the Ringwraiths did run around Middle Earth creating little wraiths, their presence would very soon become known.

That would hugely impair their ability to act in secret:

his (Sauron's) chief purpose was that the coming forth of the Nazgûl should appear only as part of his policy of war against Gondor...

the Nazgûl were commanded to act as secretly as they could.

It's clear that running around Middle Earth creating little wraiths would be quite contrary to Sauron's purpose.

So in conclusion we have two reasons against running around creating lots of little wraiths: there's no additional purpose to doing so, and doing so would risk comprimising the Nazgul's secrecy, and thereby go against Sauron's plans.

As I understood it the reason that Frodo was in danger was because a fragment of the morgul blade snapped off and remained in his body , working its way towards his heart.

In the books it is mentioned that at that point he would have become a wraith and was only saved because Elrond removed the fragment.

This would not necessarily happen in all cases though, so I have never inferred that simply being stabbed by such a blade could cause this to happen - only if it fragmented in the wound.

As Gandalf explains to Frodo in Rivendell: They tried to pierce your heart with a Morgul-knife which remains in the wound.

If they had succeeded you would have become like they are, only weaker and under their command

My understanding of it is that if the person stabbed does not have a ring of power, he will die, however if he/she does, then the blade has a sort of corrupting and enhancing power on the ring.

Sauron gave 9 rings to 9 powerful leaders of Men.

These 9 all became Ring Wraiths upon their deaths because of the Rings.

Frodo being the Ringbearer, if he would have died while holding the ring would have become a Wraith as well.

Further if Frodo would have died due to to wound inflicted by the Nazgul, he would have been subservient to the Nazgul as a Wraith.

My understanding is that there were wraiths... and then there were wraiths.

The Nazgul were powerful and feared as wraiths because of the rings they possessed.

But a typical person who became a wraith would exist only as spirit, with little ability to influence the physical world.

Note that fragment of the Morgul-blade snapped off and remained in his body.

The remaining part of blade "seemed to melt and vanished like a smoke in the air".

This weapon almost certainly may be used only once and probably is troublesome in storage (destroyed by light) and hard to produce.

Therefore producing new wraiths, probably far less powerful than Nazgûl using this method is inefficient use of available resources (both Ringwraiths and materials necessary to produce blades).

Question: My understanding is that those stabbed by a Morgul blade slowly turn into a wraith.  Is there a reason the Nazgûl and the Witch King of Angmar did not go around stabbing people and turning them into wraiths?

Why didn't the Nazgûl stab more people to create more wraiths?

Nazgul are sinister, not psychopaths.  It's clear that running around Middle Earth creating little wraiths would be quite contrary to Sauron's purpose.  In addition, this weapon may be used only once and probably is troublesome in storage (destroyed by light) and hard to produce.

The reason more people are not being stabbed and turned into wraiths is because the Morgul blade may only work once and may not be effective. Nazgul might be sinister but they didn’t necessarily want to turn everyone into a wraith and this would not have been in line with Sauron’s purpose.

The reason more people are not being stabbed and turned into wraiths is because the Morgul blade may only work once. The person being stabbed also needs to be holding a ring to avoid dying. Nazgul might be sinister but they didn’t necessarily want to turn everyone into a wraith and this would not have been in line with Sauron’s purpose.


I suspect that in the Walking Dead universe there are the expected number of zombie children roaming about, we just don't see them in the TV show

(I haven't read the comics so I can't comment on those) for a couple of out-of-universe reasons.

I imagine working with adult actors is easier than working with child actors.

No need for parental consent, less restrictions around working hours, etc.

If you need a whole host of extras to act as zombies, adults are just less hassle.

The audience is more likely to be comfortable seeing an adult zombie being killed than a child zombie.

While they're reasonably dehumanized, the show having zombie children walking around and being killed by the survivors in every episode is likely to put some viewers off.

Plus, honestly, who wants to see at least one of the group agonize over killing a child in every single episode?

Getting your grub on, as a zombie, is a competitive sport.

And like most competitive sports, the strongest and fastest persist and continue to feed.

The zombies in the Walking Dead have not had enough explanation given to their movement, their continued existence or how they retard the destruction of their now barely-living flesh

but if we were to consider them viable, if undead, organisms, the reasons we don't see more children becomes more apparent.

If the lives of the undead are sustained through the consumption of flesh, child zombies are at a disadvantage.

Smaller, slower, and weaker simply by being children, they get less flesh to eat, have to work harder to get it and will be pushed aside by larger adult zombies with greater strength/mass (such as it is) to work with.

With that in mind, they will eat less often and thus have less fuel to work with.

Child zombies have less mass so their rate of decay may actually be faster because there is less of them TO decay.

Given they weigh half of what the average adult does, I would expect them to decay faster, lose flesh faster and during cold weather, freeze faster and more solidly than their larger counterparts.

If brain destruction is part of the process of rendering a zombie dead, a child brain should freeze faster than an adult one because there is less zombie flesh and bone to get in the way.

Humanitarian (again, a relative term)

parenting: If people were able to suss out that dying meant coming back as a ravaging, flesh-crazed attacker of the living, parents might opt to put their sick children down upon death (chopping off heads, impaling brains, or shooting them in the head) to prevent them from rising up.

This act of kindness/self-preservation, may be the simplest and most effective reasoning for the lack of child zombies from an in-world prospective.

Other answers have tapped the production rationales for not seeing as many child zombies.

Workload, scheduling, parents, school schedules and the like.

Single-serving children don't leave enough corpse to become zombies.

In the Walking Dead universe the primary way one becomes a zombie is to be bitten by a zombie and expire from the ensuing infection.

The thing is, it was the intent of the zombie that inflicted the bite to eat said individual.

One must possess the wherewithal to end one's encounter with a zombie in few enough pieces to become a viable zombie oneself.

Defenseless, bite-sized children are unlikely to escape said encounter alive and unlikely to be enough of a meal to satiate a zombie before becoming an unreanimateable collection of bones.

So far I think they've had 1 zombie kid per season...

Season 1- the little girl Rick killed in the 1st scene, Season 2- Sophia and Season 3- Penny.

Season 4, they are pretty much implying "all bets are off" & there's a lot more people at the prison now

that came from Woodbury, mainly Women & kids, because The Governor took all the others with him to attack the prison & ended up killing the ones who ran, so with the population at the prison

, you might see more of it this season...

I think it is mainly an production decision.

People (especially parents) are likely to respond negatively at seeing children's corpses walking around eating people before being shot in the head.

As an example I can cite my wife.

She was never a big WD fan

but once she saw the Governer's daughter she was unable to watch the show again and does not even like me talking about it

(we have two young children ourselves) -

luckily she missed the one about Sophie

and I was able to lie to her about what happened.

When zombies bite children, they do not just bite, they eat it all!

It's probably mostly a production thing.

As a mother myself, it tore me apart to see what happened to Sophia, whom we were given time to bond with as a character.

It shocked me to see what Rick had to do to the little girl in season 1.

Over time, maybe, I've become a bit desensitized to the zombie slayings (Penny didn't bother me) but the scene of the empty carseat on the highway and bits of flesh scattered ripped through me.

Mothers, especially, would struggle to stay with the show if too many kids were eliminated, either by attack or shot after zombification.

Sometimes I have to pause and take a break from it as is; I can't imagine that I'd be able to keep watching if there were more kids in it.

They are in good part waist high or shorter and just get overlooked.

Not only that but when a zombie starts eating kids they don't leave a lot to be turned as they can be eaten more quickly especially in a crowd.

Question: In The Walking Dead, why aren't there more children zombies?

In The Walking Dead....why aren't there more children zombies?

Although they are reasonably dehumanized, the show having zombie children walking around and being killed by the survivors in every episode is likely to put some viewers off.   Also, child zombies would decay or freeze faster due to their lower mass.

The audience is not likely to respond well to more children as zombies due to the killing of zombie children that has occurred in the past. Also, from a production perspective, adults are easier to cast. It is also a consideration that children are eaten whole and decay faster than adults so we see fewer of them — they are also shorter and less visible than adults.

The audience is not likely to respond well to more children as zombies due to the killing of zombie children that has occurred in the past. From a production perspective, adults are easier to cast. Children are eaten whole and decay faster than adults so we see fewer of them — they are also shorter and less visible than adults.


The short answer : Yes he does To answer your question properly, we would have to know what Superman you are talking about.

See As of 2012, how many different canon versions of the Superman character exist? for more details.

If you are talking specifically about that Superman/Batman Apocalypse, then the question should be why does he keep his power, because he obviously does.

Anyway, I'm going to give you a few possibilities as to why Superman does keep his powers outside of our solar system.

If you want more details, there are a lot of questions on this site about Superman’s powers.

First possibilities that come to my mind

: Superman's powers come from a yellow star.

Not particularly our sun, just a yellow one.

And the range of a star is pretty good...

The more bright is the star, the further its range would be.

So even outside our solar system, either it is the Sun or another yellow star that gives him his power, Superman does keep them.

Second possibility :

Superman's skin allow him to store energy.

His skin stores the Sun's energy when it is exposed to its beams, and this energy can be used later.

When there is no more energy, Superman loses his power.

This is one of the answers to How did Doomsday killed Superman?

Superman gets his powers from a "yellow sun" not necessarily our sun ( Sol ).

He absorbs the solar radiation to power his abilities, and stores it for later use.

So as long as he's either near a "yellow sun" or doesn't expend his solar reserves he will be able to access his abilities.

This is how he retains his abilities indoors, or at night time.

The only thing I would add to all the above, is that in some earlier stories, he either wasn't near a suitable sun or our sun became red and he used his Supermobile which provided him with all the power he needed.

in the comics it duplicated his powers and in the cartoon it provided him with power

IIRC

Here's a link supermobile

Superman doesn't go out of super powers at night, it means that he doesn't need continuous solar radiation like Nuclear Man to have his super powers.

Superman can consume yellow radiation generated by anything which includes yellow stars other than Sun and even artificial objects .

In Justice League , once Toyman sent Superman in future when the Sun was red.

In that situation, he got his super powers back from an artificial energy generator which was similar to Sun.

Such thing has been happened many times in the canon.

I concur with most posted answers above.

Kalissar especially did a good job.

The only thing I would add is this: 1] If we are dealing with pre-crisis, not all of Superman's powers are solar related; some come from the difference in gravity between Earth and Krypton.

Krypton is theorized to be between 33 to 150,000 times heavier in gravity than earth.

As such, a kryptonian on any planet not similar in size and density could be anywhere from 33 to 150,000 times stronger, faster, and more durable than a human on earth, and any corresponding earth-like planet or environment.

We are uncertain of any other biological, chromosomal or evolutionary adaptations Kryptonians have as opposed to Earthlings...

these could be something as mundane as night vision or a general broader visual spectrum, to a natural healing factor to antibodies which we don't possess which could affect their immunity and ageing.

As such, a Kryptonian [Post-Crisis, and thus almost totally solar powered] without the yellow sun could, foreseeable, still be hundreds of thousands of years more evolved than humans that allows them to use subtler "enhanced human" abilities...think of Superman in a non-yellow sun environment being more like Captain America or a Wolverine than a human, but nothing near the God-like potential they have now.

It's been stated that different stars can affect his power levels differently.

Most commonly, stars run from Red to Orange to Yellow to Green to Blue to White to Blue White.

A chart for simplification follows here:

This basically relates to how much energy the star puts out.

And Superman has been shown, in canon, to be empowered by those up to an Orange star, if only half as powerful as a yellow star makes him.

Blue Stars have been shown to actually increase his powers, as shown here....

So it is not inconceivable that yes, he would have some form of abilities depending on where the environment is, but its most likely once there isn't a Red Star or or significantly heavier gravity present.

In the 2003 comic Birthright , they updated the origin story and gave a combination of the Gravity/Sunlight explanation, saying his cellular structure, which was essentially designed to absorb and draw some form of energy from an older, less powerful star, would essentially "drink in the radiation of a star so young.

" That, combined with his molecular density due to it being formed and evolved for a higher gravity environment means even without solar radiation, on a planet not as heavy or dense as Krypton, he'd be naturally stronger and more durable.

In the Richard Donner film (1978) Jor'el said the yellow sun's radiation would affect his son's body chemistry giving him his powers once he was exposed-

he didn't say he had to be exposed to the sun 24/7.

In the limited comic series Superman/Aliens, Superman battles a colony of chest-burster Xenomorphs from the Alien film and comic series.

Most of the action takes place in deep space without the benefit of direct sunlight and Superman's power fades the longer he stays away from the sun.

Eventually he is so weakened that aliens are able to impregnate him with a chest-burster of his own.

This was a cross-over series with Dark Horse Comics

so it's probably not canon

but it at least suggests that Superman stores power like a rechargeable battery and will slowly run down without solar energy.

Question: As far as I know, Superman has super powers because of Sun in our solar system.In  Superman/Batman: Apocalypse  he goes out of the solar system to fight Darkseid. I don't know if this happened before.  So, if he gets power from our Sun, how was he able to go outside of solar system?  EDIT:  I am not suggesting that Superman need a direct sun rays on his skin, but just to be "near" our Sun, i.e. in Solar System.

Does Superman have super powers outside of our solar system?

Superman's powers come from a yellow star, or sun. However, different stars can affect his power levels differently. His skin stores the Sun's energy when it is exposed to its beams, and this energy can be used later.

Superman’s powers come from various sources including different yellow stars/suns and he can leave the solar system as his skin allows him to store the radiation to power his abilities.

Superman’s powers come from various sources including different yellow stars/suns. He can leave the solar system as his skin allows him to store the radiation to power his abilities.


The ARC reactor is definitely fusion.

The industrial size one on the Stark campus is obviously modeled after a tokamak-type fusion reactor, and Vanko's schematics at the start of Iron Man 2 reinforce this.

The one used in the base of Stark Tower in Avengers similarly matches a tokamak reactor.

Him making a tiny one that fits in his chest is basically magic.

That Stark's had one running for decades on the campus is super-science (

in real life we currently don't have fusion reactors that generate more energy than they take in).

Although of dubious canonicity, during San Diego Comic Con 2014, Marvel had a science-focused MCU presentation.

They state :

Although never permitted to investigate it directly, Dyches suspects that the reactor uses a tokamak design paired with low-temperature fusion.

It runs on Applied Phlebotinum (TV Tropes link).

But the use of palladium seems to imply some kind of cold fusion , or at least inspiration therefrom.

Another candidate would be triggered isomer release , but both of these are maybe a half level up from snake oil, unfortunately, at least in regards to actually breaking even in energy production.

The ARC reactors shown are low-radiation source fusion reactors.

This implies strongly LENR (low energy nuclear reactor), as does the use of palladium.

The lack of high powered magnetic fields rules out traditional tokomak reactors.

That said, the brilliant glow in operation is counter to LENR, so it's some form of mid-energy nuclear reactor.

According to the Marvel Wikia , it's a repulsor based fusion system.

That said, it's comic book physics.

It works because the story needs it to.

Note, however, that while repulsor fields are as yet fantasy, the use of repulsors to cause fusion should work; magnetic tokomaks work by magnetic compression of hydrogen plasma.

(At present, sustained fusion is an energy losing phenomenon - it takes more energy to generate the containment/compression than can be extracted from the resulting reaction.) http://marvel.wikia.com/Arc_Reactor

Before I answer this, let me make one important point clear: It is already commonly assumed that IronMan's reactor uses (fission and/or) fusion.

With that in mind, it is further assumed that the latter is the primary reaction, and that the former is a secondary reaction if mentioned at all.

The arc reactor depicted onScreen may use a bit of 'comic book' physics, but it does still have underlying principles that relate to actual science.

As such, the arc reactor can be theorized about in five main ways: the color of the light emitted its state(s) of operation its effects on the operator the fuel/elements needed to operate it its overall appearance onScreen

The reactor depicted does the following throughout IronMan I, II, and III:

glows blueish white while operating normally can discharge energy directly from its core looses energy more rapidly when doing so runs low on energy at certain times was poisoning Tony Stark after prolonged exposure is keeping metal outside of his heart

is small enough to fit in his chest or in a portable armor With this delineated, certain things can be assumed.

One, the reactor is able to produce and/or store energy for prolonged periods.

Two, the reactor is emitting a harmful bi-product of some sort during its operation.

Three, the reactor has to be able to produce (electrical) energy directly - there's no room for secondary energy-conversion processes here.

Fourthly, the reactor (is covered in coils that look like magnets and) appears to be controlling a glowing substance of some sort - could this be plasma?

Fifth, if it is plasma, and does resemble a Tokamak, this could be a reaction that relies off of energized collisions.

That would also explain the poisoning partially (radiation and trace elemental bi-products).

Also, why else would it glow like that?

But the question then becomes, what type of fuel/energy source is it using?

The answer is, Palladium isotopes.

The reactor ionizes and accelerates palladium isotope 103, and uses other Pd isotopes to facilitate electron release and/or capture.

The resulting radiation that is released is usually used to aid in catalyzing the reaction further, producing more energy.

This process changes somewhat, however, when he does his famous "Unibeam".

Instead, the resulting energies from the reactor (mainly gamma and electricity) are sent outward in a focused beam.

The verdict: Tony Stark used (comic book) physics to create a Pd Decay Plasma Nuclear Reactor .

But wait - there's more!

Tony then created his own element to stave off the harmful effects of the old Pd reactor.

This synthesis of a new element is not as fictional as it may seem -

many elements and isotopes have been created in colliders before: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6435/20140503/super-heavy-element-117-confirmed-heres-how-scientists-made-it.htm

And that is the simplistic version of how the Arc Reactor (theoretically would) work.

Please see this article for more details: https://www.quora.com/What-is-theory-concept-behind-the-Miniature-Arc-Reactor-built-by-Tony-Stark

There are good answers been provided already, but maybe you are interested in a youtube video of a phsicisist talking about Iron Man and also about the Arc Reactor (starting at about 2:00 min)

The Reality of Iron Man

It is a mini muon-catalyzed fusion reactor.

As things are mentioned that it totally doesn't create any waste and it is known that the muon-catalyzed fusion reactor produces very little waste and releases almost no radiation.

Question: In the film we can see him making a miniature simplified Arc Reactor with palladium and so on.  I know it is like a mini nuclear reactor, but what exactly are its inner workings or principles?

How does Iron Man's Arc Reactor work?

Tony Stark used (comic book) physics to create a  Pd Decay Plasma Nuclear Reactor .  According to the  Marvel Wikia , it's a repulsor based fusion system.  The reactor ionizes and accelerates palladium isotope 103, and uses other Pd isotopes to facilitate electron release and/or capture.

While the ARC reactors are said to be fusion reactors, the simplified Arc Reactor Stark creates is made using comic book physics and is a mini muon-catalysed fusion reactor. Since the reactor doesn’t have high powered magnetic fields, it is not modelled on a tokamak-type fusion redactor but rather is said to be modelled on a repulsion based fusion system.

While the ARC reactors are said to be fusion reactors, the simplified Arc Reactor Stark creates is made using comic book physics and is a mini muon-catalysed fusion reactor. The reactor doesn’t have high powered magnetic fields so it is not modelled on a tokamak-type fusion redactor. It is  said instead to be modelled on a repulsion based fusion system.


According to the Memory Alpha article on apartments : James T. Kirk's San Francisco apartment was the home of Admiral James T. Kirk in 2285.

It was in a tall skyscraper in San Francisco and featured sweeping views of the city, the bay, Alcatraz, the Golden Gate Bridge and at least two other prominent 23rd century skyscrapers.

It dives a bit further into the backdrop itself:

The backdrop view of San Francisco from Kirk's apartment was previously used in the movie The Towering Inferno (1974).

The backdrop in that movie was used for a 135th floor restaurant overlooking San Francisco.

The metallic sculpture in Kirk's apartment near the fireplace bears a striking resemblance to the "Glass Tower" skyscraper in the movie.

His apartment is in Russian Hill.

The view from his apartment is looking north towards Marin County from the Russian Hill neighborhood in San Francisco.

According to FilmInAmerica.com , This behind-the-scenes picture shows the translight used on stage to create the view out Captain Kirk's window.

It appears as if the view is from Russian Hill since we can see the Marina and Presidio on the left, the Golden Gate Bridge next, and then Mount Tamalpais in the distance on the right.

The Marin County lights, many of which were probably added by the effects crew, are coming from Fort Baker and Sausalito.

View looking northward toward Richardson Bay.

View looking more north-by-northwest, showing left view from Kirk's apartment.

Here is a picture of two artists creating the backdrop for Kirk's apartment.

A few oddities which you can check by comparing the image above to a Google Map of the region .

Angel Island is missing.

It is between Russian Hill and Marin County.

It should be at the far right of the translight backdrop.

(Unless the building lights at the shoreline are on Angel Island, which would be odd since Angel Island is a state park.)

Lights from several cities are missing.

There are no lights along Richardson Bay even though that currently has the cities of Sausalito, Marin City, Belvedere, Tiburon, and Strawberry.

The Golden Gate Bridge is missing.

It should be visible on the far left side of the translight backdrop.

We know from subsequent movies, TNG episodes, and Deep Space 9 episodes that the iconic bridge survives until it was destroyed by surprise Breen attack during the Dominion War sometime around stardate 52,600.

I think it's on the Mare Island golf course looking inland.

I'm not sure there's anything within either The Wrath of Khan or The Search for Spock that explicitly says where Kirk's apartment is.

The existence of both fast atmospheric shuttlecraft and transporters mean that it could actually be anywhere at all!

The simplest explanation, though, is that it is in fact in San Francisco or at least in the Bay Area.

Presuming that he actually has a "day job" as an administrative admiral at Starfleet HQ, or as a teacher at the academy, or both, it would certainly be the most convenient location for him.

I was wondering the same thing after watching Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan on SyFy last night.

Here are a couple shots of Kirk's apartment on Memory Alpha.

The windows look out onto the Bay, but I don't see the Golden Gate Bridge or Alcatraz.

Does the ridge behind the bay look familiar to anyone?

That could help pinpoint where in the Bay Area Kirk's home is located.

Question: This would also have been his home in "Wrath of Khan"; because it seems to havethe same view out the window. I assume it is in the SF Bay Area but it kind of looks like it is looking back towards Sausalito and I want to know if I'm right.   However I can imagine that his home in the movies is somewhere other than it was in the original series since he is semi-retired.

Where is Kirk's home on Earth in "Search for Spock"?

It was in a tall skyscraper in San Francisco with sweeping views of the city, the bay, Alcatraz, the Golden  Gate Bridge and at least two other prominent 23rd century skyscrapers. The view is from between Russian Hill and Marin County, looking towards Richardson Bay, since we can see the Marina and Presidio on the left, the Golden Gate Bridge next, and then Mount Tamalpais in the distance on the right.

Kirk’s apartment is in Russian Hill or between Russian Hill and Marin County looking northward towards Richardson Bay and the Marin County lights are coming from Fort Baker and Sausalito.

Kirk’s apartment is in Russian Hill or between Russian Hill and Marin County looking northward towards Richardson Bay. The Marin County lights are coming from Fort Baker and Sausalito.


IIRC, the end of the movie was like a trip through hell, purgatory, heaven etc.

They fused because they are both the same, they are both villains (in Hell) and to borrow a phrase from another movie, "Evil always finds its truest form."

And I want to say that Max had a copy of the doctor's brain which is another reason why they are as one in Hell.

And yes, that could be seen as the doctor's punishment to be trapped inside a gibbet in hell.

You can also see what I think is the crew of the Cygnus below Max and the doctor on the stone bridge.

The religious and metaphysical themes are confirmed on Wikipedia .

In the novelisation of the book (by Alan Dean Foster)

there's no mention of the ultimate fate of Reinhardt beyond his death

Reinhardt’s eyes bulged from sudden, savage decompression as he and the tower were thrown off into space.

From decompression of flesh, from decompression of dream " however we do see the fate of the crew of the Cygnus as they merge consciousnesses to form a gestalt entity

" Kate was Kate;

Charlie, Charlie, and Dan Holland still Dan Holland.

Even Vincent was there.

They were themselves … and yet something strange and new, a galactic sea change that produced all the above and a new unified mindthing that was KateCharlieDanVincent also.

Dimly they/

it perceived the final annihilation of a minuscule agglutination of refined masses—the Palomino.

It was gone, lost in an infinite brightness.

They/

it remained, content and infinite now as the white hole itself "

It's therefore likely that the final vision in the film (of Reinhardt's eyes within Maximillian's exoskeleton) is that they've also joined their consciousnesses to form a single thought-based entity rather than the more literal interpretation of him using Max's outer shell as a makeshift spacesuit.

As the movie earlier mentions that Reinhardt had murdered Kate's father, and he had used the crew to create his zombie crew, I alway got the idea that he had used Kate's father to create Maximillian, and he eyes

you see inside Max's face were actually those of Kate's Father, as he finally gets his revenge on Reinhardt.

I just watched it last night.

I think the Hellscape is actually the wreckage of the Cygnus, trapped forever somewhere near the event horizon of the black hole, and Reinhardt merges with Maximillian because the law of physics have broken down in that place.

It's horrible and poetic.

That he's on a "mountaintop" while the demon shards of his crew shamble below suggests he's the eternal ruler of some private corner of hell.

Meanwhile, a white hole seems to open up in the midst of all that, and an angel guides the survivors of the Palomino's crew to a new part of the galaxy.

What is the angel?

Kate's father?

God?

And how will the humans survive without supplies in what might even be an entirely separate universe?

I know it's supposed to be a a "good" ending for them

but I worry for their safety.

My impression from the end of the film was more that Reinhardt encountered Maximillian beyond the Black Hole, and put himself inside the robotic suit more for the purposes of an environmental suit.

This is why we see Reinhardt's eyes through the visor of Maximillian's helmet.

The Dr. had asked Kate to protect him from Maximillian earlier in the movie, which I think was because he feared that it would eventually kill him.

However, he wasn't afraid of the black hole which was deadly.

So by merging with it, he was trapped with the object of his fear.

This fate was worse than just death.

His true punishment was becoming the kind of creature that he had turned his crew into...

they were more robot than human.

Now the Dr. is in the same kind of hell that he had trapped his crew into.

This was compounded by the fact that he was trapped inside his own creation and trapped inside his greatest fear.

Question: At the dreamlike end of  The Black Hole , Reinhardt fuses with the robot Maximillian, appearing to be trapped inside him like a gibbet. What does this mean?

In Disney's "The Black Hole", why do Reinhardt and Maximillian fuse together?

It is likely that the final vision in the film (of Reinhardt's eyes within Maximillian's exoskeleton) means that they've also joined their  consciousnesses  to form a single thought-based entity rather than the more literal interpretation of him using Max's outer shell as a makeshift spacesuit.

Reinhardt and Maximilian are both evil forces and merge together to join their consciousness to become a single thought-based entity.

Reinhardt and Maximilian are both evil forces. They merge together to join their consciousness to form a single consciousness and become a single thought-based entity.


Published in 1952 , Isaac Asimov's David Starr, Space Ranger , the first novel of the Lucky Starr series, has aliens that have shed their material bodies and became beings made of pure energy.

Out of the Silent Planet (1938) has beings without material bodies, although they don't evolve that way.

The classic 1956 film Forbidden Planet likely gave the energy being thing a good boost when it turned out that the Krell's attempt at peaceful discorporation was disrupted by "Monsters from the Id!"Energy beings, and beings of light have been around for a long time, but it looks like usage of 'being of light', got a big and sustained boost around 1974:

Whether this answer is acceptable to you will depend on how you define "advanced race," "fantasy," and "beings of light," but here goes...

As most modern stories which talk about "beings of light" tend to do so with some sort of religious or spiritual overtone, it is probably no surprise that the concept would have originated in the realm of religion and spirituality.

Stories of people turning into angels, demons, ghosts, gods, or other spirtual beings have been around for millennia, and in many cases these types of spirit-beings (especially angels and gods) are portrayed as "beings of light".

A few examples I could find, in roughly reverse chronological order: 1843 - A Christmas Carol ~500 AD - Christian artwork begins to show the ressurected Jesus as a "being of light" 61-115 AD - An Ancient Ghost Story by Pliny

the Younger ~500 BC - Greek mythology has the myth of the phoenix , which dies, to be regenerated as the sun ???

By some accounts ( 1 ) at least some segments of Hindusm hold that god-like or angelic devas may have been humans in past lives 2494 BC -

The Egyptian god Ra was the sun, or represented by the sun, although he was not, to my knowledge, believed to have been a lesser person/being previously 2780 BC -

The Egyptian god Atum , also represented by the sun 3000?

BC - Egyptians believed the deceased Pharoahs would become gods after death and "ascend to the sky and dwell among the stars

" I think this last one is both the oldest I can find, and the closest match to your description, leaving only the question of how you define an "advanced race."

I think a very important, fitting term that's still missing in this Q&A is Transcendence .

This article discusses that sci-fi trope in detail and names

a bunch of early stories that qualify.

For example, Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End" (1950 orig.), Theodore Sturgeon's "The Cosmic Rape" (1958), Alfred Besters' "Tiger!

Tiger" (1957)

Transcendence can be considered as a wildcard symbol for what comes after human/AI intelligence soars (by definition) beyond the comprehension of pre-singularity minds [...]

humanity departing or evaporating into unknowable realms

However, they also note a difference between the positive transformation of transcendence and becoming immaterial in general: Not every story of escape from the bonds of matter achieves transcendence:

in Isaac Asimov's "Eyes Do More Than See" (April 1965 F&SF), humans who have attained Immortality as energy beings mourn the loss of bodies and bodily sensations.

- See more at: http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/transcendence#sthash.kYMdCuMx.dpuf

But out of universe, why does this happen in many sci-fi stories?

A tonal shift towards transcendence can be a convenient way to conclude a story whose narrative crescendo can increase no further.

[...] "... you build to a certain climax and there's no way to go to finish it off, except mystic [...]

you gotta go mystic".

Though not the first because of its 1975 publication, the Illuminatus!

Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson features accounts of human beings becoming beings of pure energy through a process called "transcendental illumination", which is usually triggered by the deaths of hundreds or thousands of human beings.

It also draws heavily upon the Cthulhu Mythos, and both is and contains hilarious parodies of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged .

Hail Eris!

Question: In the Malloreon of David Eddings, Star Trek, and the game Loom, among many others, there are races of beings who are shown as being highly advanced, who have the goal of becoming beings made of pure light (although in Loom, some became light, some became birds, etc,).  When did evolving into beings of light first occur in Scifi or fantasy?

What is the first instance of advanced races becoming beings of light in scifi and fantasy?

Beings of light can be found in Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End" (1950 orig.), Theodore Sturgeon's "The Cosmic Rape" (1958), Alfred Besters' "Tiger!", "Trilogy"  by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, Asimov's "David Starr, Space Ranger", the 1956 film "Forbidden Planet" and "The Illuminatus".

Beings first evolved into light in Childhood’s End in 1950, though Tiger by Besters and Trilogy by Shea and Anton Wilson may have been earlier.

Beings evolving into light occurred in the following: Space Rangers (1952); Forbidden Planet (1956); Childhood’s End (1950); the Cosmic Rape (1958); and the Illuminatus (1975). Tiger by Alfred Besters and Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson are also possibilities.


Joffrey considers himself a Lannister, as much so, if not more than a Baratheon.

This is probably due in large part to Cersei's influence, and Robert's seeming indifference towards him.

It is commented on as unusual by several characters throughout the books.

It's actually common heraldic practice and it would be called marshalled arms.

The simplest is a division per pale, then inserting the different charges on either side, as Joffrey's is divided with the lion and stag.

This is usually done to show a union of two groups or to join your arms to a symbol of office.

It could be either in this case, as Joffrey's a product of both houses, or he's not really a Baratheon, and he's joining his true arms to those of the current royal family which has been functioning as the royal device to further his claim.

While there may be deeper symbolism behind it, I expect the fact that is traditional heraldic practice to be the main cause.

While reading the books, I have noticed Martin paid particular attention to description of devices and followed other common themes such as canting.

This is basically putting puns in your device, such as house Waxley having candles, or Heigh (which sounds like 'hay')

having a pitchfork.

Three people were flying the stag.

Stannis changed his as well.

Not sure how Renly the guy with the weakest claim wound up with the old school stag though.

The lion was probably added as a PR move to remind people where the most powerful house stood.

The reason why is because Joffrey is of House Baratheon of King's Landing.

Stannis flies the banner of House Baratheon of Dragonstone because Robert installed him there and made him Lord of Dragonstone, thus creating a cadet branch of House Baratheon.

His banner and sigil is a stag surrounded by a heart of fire, appropriate for a follower of R'hllor.

Renly thus becomes the Lord of Storm's End, which has also been relegated to being a cadet house, and continues to fly the traditional banner and sigil of House Baratheon of Storm's End.

Thus the reason why Joffrey changes his banner and sigil is to distinguish his house, House Baratheon of King's Landing, which represents the union of House Lannister and House Baratheon, from the cadet Baratheon houses.

Robert most likely maintained his old sigil as he felt he was from Storm's End.

However, given Joffrey's pride and arrogance, it would make sense for him to adopt a new sigil and banner for himself, as the first heir of House Baratheon of King's Landing to have been born in King's landing.

He views himself as the culmination of both house's, evidenced by his mockery of Tywin's "hiding under Casterly Rock" and his general disdain for Renly and Stannis.

During the War of the Five Kings, this new banner and sigil served to both distinguish himself from the other claimants of the Throne, Renly and Stannis, as well as to remind the kingdom of his Lannister ties.

Expanding my comment: Splitted coats of arms usually created by inheritance of a realm by maternal side, which traditionally by heraldics placed on the right side of the shield next to the paternal side.

For Joffrey if fulfills this rule, the Stag goes to the left side facing right, and the lion goes to the right side facing left.

Also express the claim the rightful rule on the Lannister house, unlike his father who had nothing to do with Lannister realm, since he had a wife from there without direct right of rule over it.

Furthermore it is clear that Joeffry is the next in succession in the Lannister house, since his uncle (Jaime) is in the order and Tyrion won't inherit Lannister's realms because of his conflict with his father.

Therefore he rightfully has claim on Lannister realms as well as Baratheon realms.

Joffrey, although a Baratheon heir by lineage, does not enjoy any actual, meaningful support from the Stormlands.

This is split between Renly and Stannis intially.

Beyond birth names and symbolism, the true dynamics of power in A Song of Ice and Fire are that Joffrey is a Lannister king put and kept on the throne by Lannister wealth and resources.

He has no true Baratheon support.

And that is why the Lion is as prominent as the Stag for Joffrey.

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

Question: When Joffrey becomes king, he seems to give equal weight to both the Lannister and Baratheon sigils.  Why is this?  Robb Stark doesn't consider himself a Tully.  It's almost as if Joffrey himself knows he's not a Baratheon.

Why does Joffrey Baratheon wear both house sigils?

While there may be some deeper symbolism, traditional heraldic practice is likely to be the main cause. He views himself as the culmination of both houses, evidenced by his mockery of Tywin's "hiding under Casterly Rock" and his general disdain for Renly and Stannis.  During the War of the Five Kings, this new banner and sigil served to both distinguish himself from the other claimants of the Throne, Renly and Stannis, as well as to remind the kingdom of his Lannister ties.

Joffrey considers himself to be a Lannister and a Baratheon. Joffrey feels the need to remind the kingdom he is also a Lannister which is common heraldic practice. He is a Baratheon by lineage but a Lannister by wealth and resources.


The Batman encountered in the Flashpoint universe, the lead-up to the New 52 reboot is actually Thomas Wayne , Bruce having been killed on that fateful night instead of Thomas, which explains his motivation for fixing whatever created the Flashpoint universe.

In Flashpoint.

Spoilers (but you already know that)!

Basically, Flash changed the timeline to save his mama.

So instead of Thomas and Martha Wayne getting shot, Bruce got shot.

So Thomas, out of veagneance, became Batman.

The difference is that Thomas is not afraid to kill, and is darker.

Extra: the Joker here is Martha.

If you are interested in seeing this Thomas Wayne on screen in action as Batman, I suggest you check out the animated film called Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox.

Flashpoint is the comic event that birthed the New 52-niverse (or killed the original DC universe, if you're being negative about it).

Here's the official synopsis, if you're not worried about spoilers: When time travel allows a past wrong to be righted for Flash and his family,

the event’s

temporal ripples prove disastrous, creating a fractured, alternate reality where the Justice League never formed, and even Superman is nowhere to be found.

Amidst a new world being ravaged by a fierce war between Wonder Woman’s Amazons and Aquaman’s Atlanteans, Flash must team with a grittier, more violent Batman and government agent Cyborg to restore the continuity of Flash’s original timeline.

I love that Thomas Wayne is Batman, mostly because I love the idea that all members of the Wayne family are genetically predisposed to fighting crime while dressing like bats.

Anyways, Flashpoint does have a pretty epic voice cast:

Primetime television stars Justin Chambers (Grey’s Anatomy) and Kevin McKidd (Grey’s Anatomy), the voices of Barry Allen/Flash and Thomas Wayne/Batman, respectively, unite with numerous greats of television and film to fashion the famed animated roles.

Adding to the celebrity-laden voice cast and providing thrilling additions to the Justice League series are Michael B. Jordan (Fruitvale, Friday Night Lights, Chronicle) as Cyborg, C. Thomas Howell (Southland, The Outsiders) as Thawne/Professor Zoom, Nathan Fillion (Castle) as Hal Jordan/Green Lantern, Ron Perlman (Hellboy) as Slade and Deathstroke, Dana Delany (Body of Proof) as Lois Lane, Cary Elwes (The Princess Bride) as Aquaman, Danny Huston (Magic City) as General Lane, Sam Daly (The Office, The Daly Show) as Superman, and Kevin Conroy (Batman: The Animated Series) as Batman.

Way back in Detective Comics #235 (September, 1956) in a story entitled

The First Batman Thomas Wayne wears a bat-like costume to a costume-party (complete with mask but with large wings instead of a cape and no Bat-emblem on the chest).

Whilst wearing this he fights off some thugs who abduct him.

Years later as an adult Bruce discovers

old home film-footage of the incident and realises this may actually have led to his father's later murder.

He also reasons that a subconscious memory of the incident may have played a part in his decision to adopt a bat as his symbol and crime-fighting persona.

I read this story as a child - I wish I still had it.

To see Thomas Wayne in all his glory as The Batman, there are two essentials you should get.

I've provided Amazon links to both here for your convenience.

The first is the trade paperback version of Flashpoint, the event leading up to DC's New 52 universe launch.

The second is the animated film version of the event.

Flashpoint Justice League:

The Flashpoint Paradox

Here's the spoiler(ish

) summary of what happens in both: Barry Allen (aka The Flash) uses the Speed Force to go back in time and prevent his mother from being murdered.

This single change causes ripples throughout time, such that when Barry returns to the present, he never became The Flash and there is no Justice League.

The world is being ravaged by a war between Atlantis & Themyscira, and it appears that humanity may be destroyed regardless of the victor.

Barry sets out to gather his former colleagues, beginning with Batman (now Thomas Wayne instead of Bruce), in an attempt to fix the timeline before the world is destroyed.

And even if Barry DOES manage to fix his mistake, things may never be the same again.

Suffice to say, there's much more to the story - including who's ultimately behind it all, how the war really started, etc., but I don't want to give it ALL away here.

It seems everyone knows Thomas Wayne was Batman in Flashpoint, but he was also Batman in the New 52 series Earth 2.

In this universe the attack on the Waynes was a mob hit.

Thomas survived but faked his death went into hiding.

Bruce, not knowing his father was alive, became the Batman, but he died when the forces of Darkseid invaded.

Thomas Wayne then took up the mantle of the Batman to honor his son and atone for his own misdeeds.

Flashpoint is not the only arc where this happens.

It happens somewhere in the eighties, maybe in a one off alternate timeline story.

Edit Looks like Thomas Wayne wore a bat costume to a party in the main timeline, and it's referenced a few times over the course of the comics.

Question: I've heard people say that there is a series of comics where Batman is actually Thomas Wayne instead of his son, Bruce.   Where can I find this? What is the series called?

In which Comic Book series is Batman actually Thomas Wayne?

Thomas Wayne was Batman in Flashpoint, but he was also Batman in the New 52 series, Earth 2.

The series in which Thomas Wayne is Batman is called Flashpoint. However, there is also another series in which Batman is Thomas Wayne in Earth 2.

The series in which Thomas Wayne is Batman is called Flashpoint. There is also another series in which Batman is Thomas Wayne in Earth 2.