There are many novels that outline the events that occur after the Battle of Endor.

Luke's development as a Jedi features in many of these.

In general, he learns by: Self-development.

For example, in Star Wars 92: The Dream we see that Luke stayed on Endor for a while, honing his Force powers.

Visits from Jedi spirits.

These are more hints as to what to do next than actual training.

For example, Obi-Wan tells Luke to seek out the Lost City of the Jedi on Yavin IV.

Force visions.

For example, also in The Dream , we see Luke have a vision that leads to him taking up an apprentice.

Artefacts, documents, books, and so forth that belonged to Jedi of the past.

For example, in The Lost City of the Jedi , we see that the city contains a vast Jedi library.

There's a lot of "searching for old Jedi stuff" in the various novels.

Luke is a Jedi Master by 11 ABY (when he proposes the New Jedi Order in Jedi Search ).

There is the possibility that the force ghosts of Kenobi maintained a link with Skywalker for a time after the events of Return of the Jedi -

although, it is shown that by about 10 ABY (in the Expanded Universe), it was increasingly difficult.

Also, it may well be that he has reached the point where advancement is beyond mentoring - in most disciplines, this can only take you so far.

Finally, by taking on the training of other force users, he starts to learn more again, both from having to learn how to teach the ways of the force, and also by the insights of his students.

Again, this parallels real-life - I find you learn a lot more trying to teach others than you ever do being taught.

He spent a brief period of time on the Dark side as the apprentice to the resurrected Emperor Palpatine, who I'm sure provided quite a bit of training as well.

Can't remember what book series that was though.

Luke had learned enough during his time on Dagobah to be able to continue his training on his own.

He had a solid enough foundation so that while he did go back to Dagobah to complete his training, but leaving against Yoda and Obi-Wan's wishes, he lost the chance to fully complete his training under Yoda.

Luke gained a new maturity after he lost his hand on cloud city.

He got TOTALLY serious in his Jedi training and in the six months between Empire and Jedi, his powers had grown significantly as outlined in the Shadow of the Empire book.

About two years after ROTJ, Luke went to a planet called Dathomir (The Courtship of Princess Leia) to help rescue Han and Leia.

This was one of the best single books out there.

On that planet Luke encountered a huge crashed ship about the size of the Victory class star destroyer.

In it he saw an entire ship that he eventually realized was a mobile Jedi training ship called the Chuonthor.

With the Jedi being relatively small in numbers overall, they needed a mobile training ship as they traveled the galaxy searching for new recruits.

Later on after he helped defeat a large group of evil witches (The Nightsisters) that were very powerful, with the leader Gethziron being nearly as powerful as Palpatine, the leader of the light side witches, the Singing mountain clan, gave Luke an ancient box that Yoda had entrusted her for safekeeping over 300 years earlier.

Yoda had foreseen that Luke would come to the planet and help destroy the evil Nightsisters.

When Luke opened up the box, he found hundreds of information disks containing more information on Jedi training, techniques, knowledge, lore, history, powers and more, than he could ever study in a lifetime.

This was the main way that Luke was able to fill in all of the gaps in his training that he had because he had left Dagobah to try and save Han and Leia on Cloud City.

It was not long after that that Luke was now a Jedi Master, especially after defeating the resurrected Emperor a couple of years after that.

He then began to search the galaxy for other force sensitive people to start to rebuild the Jedi order throughout the galaxy.

As others mentioned, there were some other discoveries that Luke made as well which also furthered his own knowledge of the Jedi, the force and

it's capabilities.

Luke later learned new force powers from groups such as the Ang-Ti Monks, the Falanassi which taught Luke how to create powerful force illusions, black holes and much more.

Lukes array of powers and skills are quite amazing which is why he is without a doubt, one of the most, if not THE most powerful Jedi to ever have lived, with Yoda likely being second on that list.

He took the title of grand master after the Yakusan Vong invasion.

Proir to this he kept the title of Master and all Jedi masters were technically equals though Luke was recognized as the unofficial leader of the order.

During the war it became clear that the order needed a single voice of leadership and direction.

Luke assumed the title without dissent.

Question: In the Star Wars Expanded Universe, Luke Skywalker is shown to have become a "Jedi Grand Master". However, he was not even what could have been called a Jedi master after the Emperor's defeat in  The Return of the Jedi .  He obviously continued to learn the ways of the Force afterwards - so where did he get his training from? From books? Other people?

How did Luke further his training after the Empire's defeat?

In general, he learned through self-development. Luke had learned enough during his time on Dagobah to be able to continue his training on his own.

Luke did a sustancial amount of train using different means. Though mainly through self development he did have assistance from Jedi Spirits, The dark side, Ang-Ti Monks as well as artifacts left behind by other jedi.

Luke was well trained enough to engage in self development to hone his Jedi skills.

Other individuals taught him whether it was from spirits, the dark side ir tge Ang-Ti Monks.

Force visions would give him direction as well as artifcats and documents left behind by previous jedi.


Those wings are called S-Foil Historically, S-foils had been developed to address overheating issues on wing-based starfighters.

Because of the proximity of engines and weapons systems to narrow wiring that fit inside the thin wings, an excess of heat could cause mechanical meltdowns that would be devastating to the capacity of the fighters to function.

also They [X-wing] had two pairs of wing-like strike-foils, or S-foils, mounted at the rear of the craft on opposite sides.

The foils on each side locked in place flush against each other; during combat, however, the foils were folded out to increase the spread coverage of the laser cannons

mounted at the tips of the foils.

This gave the craft its distinctive "X"-like appearance when viewed from the front or rear.

The cannons on some earlier models could not be fired with the S-foils in locked position, perhaps as a safety feature.

During hyperspace travel, the S-foils remained locked to conserve energy.

T-65 X-wing on starwars wikia.

For an in-world explanation, I would posit the theory that the wings close for normal travel and hyperspace for the purpose of strength and stability in the wings and they open during combat for two reasons.

First is that by spreading the blasters apart they give it a greater field of fire and greater chance of hitting the enemy.

Second, by moving the engines a bit further apart it could aid in making the craft more maneuverable and better able to change its angle of attack with less thrust.

I'm seeing some suggestions about increased maneuverability.

Well... no good can really come of applying real-world science to Star Wars.

Case in point, get ready to fall asleep:

Aerodynamically speaking, the change in configuration would have a negligible effect on maneuverability or, if anything, could make the X-wing LESS maneuverable when flying in an atmosphere.

In sciency terms, maneuverability is the inverse of stability; if a plane is more stable, it's less maneuverable, and vice versa.

So first we look at the TOP wings.

If we look at the design of most real-world private and commercial airplanes, the wings are constructed with a slight upward angle--referred to as "dihedral"--when viewed from the front.

This is the greatest contributor to stability on the roll axis of an airplane because the inward tilt of each wing's lift vector tends to roll the plane back to a wings-level attitude.

Next look at the bottom wings.

Since someone's already mentioned the Harrier, let's use that

: The Harrier's wings are built with a heavy downward angle--or "anhedral.

" This makes the aircraft extremely maneuverable, which implies a huge loss of stability due to the outward cant of the lift vectors.

The result seems like an equal and opposite effect on maneuverability: the dihedral top wings negate the effect of the anhedral bottom wings, leaving us with an unchanged situation.

BUT--without jumping too far down yet another aerodynamic rabbit hole--

the addition of another wing plane adds a complication suffered by real-world biplanes, in which the top wing tends to undermine the lift of the bottom wing, leading in THIS case to a net increase in stability--in other words, a net decrease in maneuverability.

Ergo, under the shackles of real-world science, the change in wing configuration has, at best, no effect, and at worst, a negative effect on the X-wing's maneuverability.

Best to just drink the koolaid.

I've read that the closed position was required for atmospheric flight.

The Z-95 was the X-Wing's precursor.

There were likely many design choices in the Z-95

that made it cheaper to design the X-Wing as a transformer then to redesign it from scratch.

The reason may be for accuracy.

According to the X-wing series by Michael A. Stackpole, the weapons are calibrated to a certain distance (usually a few hundred meters).

It seems to me that it would be most effective for these four blasters not to fire in two closely grouped pairs, but to be more spread out.

Additionally, the purpose of the wings coming together likely makes atmospheric flight easier (more airplane-like), so the reason for them being separate in attack position may be less significant than the reason for them being together in standard flight mode.

Landing?

As they are never shown flying in the atmosphere in a lift generating motion.

They seem to take off more like a harrier(with endless fuel).

So never any need for them to generate lift.

Pretty good question.

I think the model builders just came up with something cool and lucas said ok.

Wings closed: all energy to engines, weapon capacitors empty and cool.

Wings being closed is for landing and storage purposes as well, and maybe wings closing when weapons are disabled is an automatic feature e.g 'Navigation mode' usually engaged prior to landing/docking.

Wings open: provides cooling for weapons energy capacitors which are stored in the wings, the capacitors and Taim&Bak lasers produce massive amounts of heat so both the weapons and capacitors are kept at a distance from each other to better dissipate heat and radiation.

Since the X-wing didn't see combat every time it flew, its wings remained mostly in closed position, seldomly activated for combat.

How's that for a theory?

In real aerial dog fights, the wing cannons of an aircraft are calibrated to have the bullet´s trajectory converge at a certain distance before the aircraft.

This is where the ideal shooting distance is indicated in the gunsight.

Moving the guns further apart in fighting configuration gives the engineers a wider range to tilt the guns to form a firing cone.

From a movie makers point of view, unfolding the wings to attack gives the spaceship a more menacing, warlike appearance, similar to a japanese judoka assuming fighting stance.

Question: The X-wing fighters can change their wing configuration, from the X shape during battle to flat wings (the wings on the same side fold together) during FTL travel.  I'm guessing that the real world explanation is something like, "it looks cool". But what is the in-universe explanation?  There is no (little) resistance in space, so wing configuration wouldn't make that much difference. I can't see it making much change to performance, e.g. in angular momentum, either.

Why do X-wings change wing configuration?

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

Wings closed is for landing and storage purposes and wings may close when weapons are disabled is an automatic feature. Wings open provides cooling for weapons energy capacitors which are stored in the wings, the capacitors and Taim&Bak lasers produce massive amounts of heat so both the weapons and capacitors are kept at a distance from each other to better dissipate heat and radiation. During hyperspace travel, the S-foils remained locked to conserve energy.

There are a number of theories that speculate over why the wings open and close in the forms. Theories include Closed wings are better for hyperspace travel, landing, sotrage while open wings are better for weapons accuracy, better weapons cooling capabilities etc. All in all there is no in-universe explanantion. There are only theories.

The theory could be that the wings are closed for normal hyperspace travel

There are written documents that state the closed position was required for atmospheric flight

Closed wings may be better for landing and storage based purposes

Wings open: provides cooling for weapons energy capacitors


Yes.

In Star Trek:

The Next Generation 's " The Chase ", the Federation, Klingons, Cardassians, and Romulans are all on what amounts to a treasure hunt:

Representatives of all three races are together when all the pieces are put together and it turns out to be a program that takes over a tricorder and projects an image of an ancient alien who tells them that they found the galaxy empty, other than themselves, so they spread seeds of DNA throughout so there would be other races and that the existing races would be descendants of that seeding.

In addition to "The Chase" , in the original series episode "Return to Tomorrow", Sargon says that his race had seeded other planets, and that humans and others could be their descendants.

Quoting the Wikipedia article:

Sargon repeatedly refers to the landing party as his children.

When Kirk asks why Sargon refers to them as "my children," Sargon says it is probable that human beings actually are descendants of his people.

Six thousand centuries ago, they explored and colonized the galaxy just as Earth people do now; he speculates that Adam and Eve were two of their travellers.

Dr. Mulhall objects that life on Earth evolved independently, but Spock says the colonist idea would explain certain enigmas in Vulcan pre-history.

Either way; Sargon can't confirm either legend.

All this would have happened half a million or so years ago, long after the events referenced in "The Chase".

During the Voyager episode 'Death Wish', the crew is transported back to the big bang by two

Q. One

Q jokes that if they did stick around their DNA would be spread through-out the universe and perhaps that is how there are so many humanoids.

Then he covers his mouth, like it was a slip up that he said it.

The voyager is transported back to the future

so it wasn't their DNA that was spread.

But the idea seemed interesting that pieces of DNA could be spread more or less ubiquitously over the entire universe.

In TOS, there was a race called the Preservers in the episode

The Paradise Syndrome .

They transported groups of endangered indigenous people across the galaxy and terraformed the planets as well (a possible explanation for all those earth-like planets).

TNG

The Chase , was written by Ronald D Moore.

In the Star Trek TNG Companion

he mentioned that he intentionally did not specify that these aliens were The Preservers and left it up to the viewer to draw the connection.

The Preservers are mentioned quite often in the trade paperbacks, and it's generally assumed that seeding is how the galaxy was populated.

The extraterrestrial seeding theories are all a bit suspect to me from a scientific point of view (besides the Adam and Even nonsense from Return to Tomorrow ).

We already know that modern humans descended from primates which have been on earth for 65 million years, and their evolutionary roots can be traced back to the common ancestor of all mammals, the Synapsids, which lived 250 to 300 million years ago.

So any exogenic explanation for the origin of humanity has to be set much earlier than half a million years ago.

And the "seeds" themselves would have had to been single-celled organisms to explain what we know from modern genetic analysis of life on Earth.

A more plausible explanation is one that attempts to explain why so many species on different alien worlds have near-identical analogs on Earth (hawks, dogs, lizards, beatles, worms, etc.), and that would be convergent evolution .

It's possible that due to similar environments existing on different worlds, evolution has independently found the same "solutions" in terms of general body layout and organ function.

Physics (for the most part) follows the same rules no matter what planet you're on, so that in itself is going to eliminate certain body designs while gravitating towards others.

That would explain why most complex life forms are bilateral-symmetric and only a few are radial-symmetric.

It also explains why most animals have an even-number of limbs and heads are placed at the front or top of the body.

So the reason why humanoid species are so common in Star Trek is probably because the humanoid body shape is the natural upright evolution from a quadriped bodyshape, and it's one that allows one to use their hands for manipulating the environment (e.g. creating and using tools).

And we don't see any sapient aliens with 2-mouths or eyes on their back because it's just inefficient to have these designs.

My understanding - although I cannot quote particular evidence - is that the seeding argument is the reason for this.

I think that the understanding is that some species was responsible at core for seeding the entire galaxy.

This includes earth, and explains why many creatures have the core bipedal approach to life.

Of course, many of them have evolved in a range of ways to make them more of less humanoid.

Most have forgotten that there was a seed race, some have stories that explain it.

I think the question of who the initial seed race was is deliberately avoided - not that anyone actually knows for certain.

It may be extinct except in its many seed forms.

This is explained in The Paradise Syndrome , the 25th episode of Season 1 of The Original Series : MCCOY : Were you able to make sense out of the symbols?

SPOCK :

Yes.

The obelisk is a marker, just as I thought.

It was left by a super-race known as the Preservers.

They passed through the galaxy rescuing primitive cultures which were in danger of extinction and seeding them, so to speak, where they could live and grow.

MCCOY : I've always wondered why there were so many humanoids scattered through the galaxy.

SPOCK :

So have I. Apparently the Preservers account for a number of them.

Question: The vast majority of intelligent species in the Star Trek universe are bipedal, humanoid creatures.  From the lot I've seen of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and the movies, it seems that this coincidence goes largely unquestioned.  Metaknowledge grants that it is  much  easier to have human actors portray human-like beings, and so this was probably done due to budgetary/technological limitations.  However, I'm wondering if an in-universe reason for this was ever given or explored?

Is the humanoid appearance of most alien species in the Star Trek universe ever canonically addressed?

In addition to  "The Chase" , in the original series episode "Return to Tomorrow", Sargon says that his race had seeded other planets, and that humans and others could be their descendants

There is an in-universe episode that explains the humanoid aspect to most alien races. A master race was responsible for seeding the galaxy and even mixing with other species at the time.


The Emperor was very, very paranoid about the status of House Corrino.

He was the emperor, yes, but Leto was his cousin, also of noble birth, and Leto was vastly more popular than anyone else at the time in the Landsraad.

Leto was the unofficial spokesman of the Landsraad, in fact, their "highest position".

That alone sent Shaddam into fits, someone who was able to claim the throne by virtue of noble blood was popular and well supported among most of the noble houses.

However, Leto also had a huge private army, and, House Atreides developed training that made their soldiers superior to the Sardaukar.

"The Padishah Emperor turned against House Atreides because the Duke's Warmasters Gurney Halleck and Duncan Idaho had trained a fighting force -- a small fighting force -- to within a hair as good as the Sardaukar.

Some of them were even better.

And the Duke was in a position to enlarge his force, to make it every bit as strong as the Emperor's.

This is a quote from Thufir Hawat.

If the Atreides had managed to train their entire army in this manner, they would have had a force bigger than the army of House Corrino that was also better in combat than the Sardaukar.

I assert that they would have been better because they were clever where the Sardaukar were brutal.

Shaddam IV knew all of that when he set in motion the plan to lure the Atreides to Dune and use their age old vendetta with the Harkonnens to destroy them.

You see, your question asks why the Emperor agreed, but, really it was his plan.

Hence, "plots within plots".

He had plotted all of this and made the Harkonnens think it was their own idea!

As to "why does it have to be on Arrakis but not Caladan"?

If you're asking why the emperor or the Baron can't attack until after the Atreides leave Caladan, it's because Caladan is a huge planet with billions of people and wantonly attacking the fiefdom of a noble house with billions of witnesses is certain to bring censure from the Landsraad.

On Dune, the only real witnesses who aren't Atreides are the Fremen, and they aren't going to say anything.

The Emperor was suspicious of the Duke Leto and wanted him gone.

He could not move against him directly as the Lansrad should not approve due to the popularity of Duke Leto.

So, the Emperor used the vendetta between Baron Harkonnen and Duke Leto as a tool to hide his true motives.

This had a dual purpose:

destroy House Atreides and put House Harkonnen in the emperor's debt for a long long time.

Keep reading the book, it is all explained therein.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/2682/Sardathrion - against SE abuse

The subliminal part of the plan and true goal... Economics.

Leto: "Imagine what would happen if something should reduce spice production.

"Whoever had stockpiled mélange could make a killing."

Paul said.

"others would be out in the cold" ...He nodded. "

The Harkonnens have been stockpiling for more than 20 years.

"They mean Spice production to fail and you to be blamed." "...

Knowing that the Harkonnens stockpile mélange, we ask another question: Who else is stockpiling?

That is the list of our enemies.

Certain houses we Knew were unfriendly and some we'd thought friendly.

We'd need not consider them for the moment because there is one other much more important: Our beloved Padishah Emperor."

The Emperor is the only person authorized by law to hold spice stockpiles.

A major reason for the Emperor's unpopularity is that he launched several military operations against Landsraad nobles in possession of illegal stockpiles.

One such raid used forbidden atomics and provoked legal backlash against the Emperor from the Landsraad.

The basic economic principle of supply and demand dictates that if supply is reduced the value increases.

House Corino's wealth and thus power would be greatly improved by a spice production bottleneck.

Ridding himself of the popular Duke Leto is just a bonus.

Arrakis is so remote and relatively uninhabited that the Emperor could do as he wished there

(ie: assassinate Duke Leto), and then write the "history" of the event to suit his own purposes.

House Atreides was forced into moving to Dune because they could not refuse Shaddam's request without appearing either foolish or disloyal or both.

House Atreides fully understood the defensive situation that they were put in by the Emperor (Hawat was no fool), and the first book begins with this given assumption.

The tenets of Kanly were always closely followed, as a matter of honour amongst the Landsraad.

Shaddam is trusting that he can discredit or destroy House Atreides with his "magnanimous" decision.

Leto is acting very boldly by taking an even greater position of power offered by one who is surely uncomfortable with the level of power that the Atreides already exhibit.

Shaddam was also recovering from the amal scandal that occurred 15 years prior to the events in book one Dune (read the House Chronicles, house Atreides, house Harkkonnen, house Corrino, in that order).

Shaddam was placed under sanctions for his role in the debacle that was exposed by Duke Leto's attack on the Tlelaxu who had conquered Ix 35 years prior to the book Dune .

Duke Leto was also the one who suggested sanctions against Shaddam instead of outright removal from the throne, in order to ensure that the imperium did not fall into a massive civil war by members of the Landsraad trying to claim the throne for their selves.

Due to all of these events where Leto was perceived by the emperor as an enemy, and the fact that Shaddam had no sons but was not sterilized by his bene Gesserit wife.

Accompanied by Leto's rising popularity, Shaddam was not only feeling threatened, he was guaranteed to ceed the throne to some one not bearing the Corrino name and he didn't want his nemesis cousin Leto to be the one to marry Iralan and become the next emperor.

Thus, by tricking the Landsraad into thinking the Harkkonen were jealous of the CHOAM contract being taken from them two decades earlier than expected, and given to their arch rivals the Atreides and the attack was simply spite, Shaddam kept his already sanctioned butt from falling back into the hot seat.

Question: I am reading book 1 of the Dune series. I just read the chapter in which the Harkonnen took control over the house of Atreides in Arrakis with the help of Yueh.  I know the Emperor sent a legion of Sardaukar (disguised as Harkonnen troops) to help the Baron Harkonnen to kill Duke Leto and his men. Why does the Emperor agree to do so? And why does it have to be on Arrakis but not Caladan?

Why did the emperor send the Atreides to Arrakis, then the Sardaukar to remove them?

The Emperor was very, very paranoid about the status of House Corrino.  The Emperor was suspicious of the Duke Leto and wanted him gone.

The Emperor was paranoid about the status of House Corrino. Moreover, the Emperor was suspicious of the Duke Leto.

The Emperor was paranoid about the status of House Corrino. The Emperor was suspicious of the Duke Leto.


The movie does not directly explain how Thor gets to Earth.

It is hinted that Odin uses up considerable personal power to get Thor to Midgard and that it may have a time limit.

Here is an interview where the writers and actors talk briefly about it here .

Loki says, '

How much dark energy did the All-father have to muster to conjure you here?'

Tom Hiddleston recalled in a recent interview.

"The Bifrost is still down, he can’t just be riding down the rainbow bridge, Heimdall [is gone], it’s all changed since the end of 'Thor'

so it’s obviously cost Odin a significant amount to get there," he explained.

"I guess he’s been sent down by Odin to go and deal with this crazy cat that is his brother." Chris Hemsworth reveals that while the movie doesn't really go into the specific details of Thor's return, his time on Earth is actually limited.

"It’s not really explained, but it’s assumed that he can only be there for a window of time.

Odin has had to call in some favors from around the realm.

And he turns up.

That or the bus," he joked.

As an aside, Mjolnir has always been able to open portals between Asgard and Earth, so I wonder why no one there did their homework and just put the line out there in the script.

As Thaddeus correctly states, The Avengers doesn't explain how Thor got to Earth, except making brief references to “dark magic”.

Since then, a prelude comic to Thor 2 was published which explains this in more depth.

Thaddeus’ answer was written in June 2012.

In June 2013, Marvel published a comic called Thor: The Dark World Prelude .

It spans the gap between Thor and (presumably) Thor: The Dark World , covering events of The Avengers (which occurs between the two).

This comic explores the destruction of the Bifrost, and the effects that has on the nine realms, and Asgard's ability to keep the peace.

Here’s a page from the first issue, which mostly confirms Thaddeus’ theory:

Odin uses his staff (and dark magic) to send Thor to Earth (called Midgard above), after witnessing Loki’s plans and realising that humans had the Tesseract.

In the second issue, Thor and Heimdall use the power of the Tesseract to rebuild the Bifrost.

This allows them to restore peace to the nine realms, and presumably sets the scene for Thor’s return to Earth in Thor: The Dark World , The Avengers 2 , et al.

The question is a little confusing.

As far as I know, the specific plot that played out in the film Thor didn't occur in the comics, it was largely an original story.

So the particular issue of Thor needing to get to Midgard (i.e. Earth) from Asgard without using Bifrost may not have happened in the comics.

In the film, it's clear that the Bifrost is still not functional.

Loki asks Thor how much "dark energy" Odin had to summon to "conjure" Thor to Earth, but we don't see the process happen.

At the end of the film, Thor returns to Asgard by using the power of the Tesseract (the cube from Captain America ).

This conveniently confirms the fate of the Red Skull at the end of Captain America .

In an interview with Empire Magazine about Thor: The Dark World , Director Alan Taylor said: When the Bifrost was broken at the end of the first film, Odin had to conjure a lot of dark energy and go through a lot of personal sacrifice to try and get his son back to Earth.

And it was a one-shot deal.

If Thor didn't succeed, without the Tesseract he couldn't have got back again.

The amount of energy Odin expended to get Thor to Asgard was significant , so much so that he couldn't bring Thor back.

I think dark energy should be read as magical energy, for all intents and purposes, in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

If so, the powerful sorcerers such as Loki, Odin, Dr. Strange, etc.

would kinda be like mutants with the natural ability to draw on and manipulate dark energy to achieve various "supernatural" effects, with the use of different "focuses," such as Loki's staff in Avengers, to allow for a finer level of control, more powerful effects, and/or a broader range of effects.

Assuming this, Odin basically used his natural powers to channel a large amount of dark energy into a spell to send Thor back to Earth, probably leaving him exhausted just as Loki was at the beginning of the movie.

Side note, Loki is basically the most powerful sorcerer in Asgard, so he can probably draw on much larger amounts of dark energy at a time than Odin, which would explain why he was able to connect with the Cube and open a portal from so far away without direct access to the Cube.

In the movie Loki jokes about how much dark energy Odin had to use to send Thor back.

My guess is Odin used the infinity gauntlet that was seen in his weapons vault in the Thor movie.

The gauntlet controls space, time, soul, mind, reality, and power so it could be used to transport Thor back.

This also ties in to the easter egg with Thanos in the credits because the infinity gauntlet belonged to him in the comics.

Loki said to Heimdall that there were other dark and hidden ways from where one can go into other realms...

at the end

Heimdall repeats this to Thor...

maybe Thor succeeded in finding a similar path back to earth.

Question: In the comics, Thor is on Earth and the bridge between the two worlds of Asgard and Earth is intact.  I haven't read the comics, but in the movie, the gateway collapses. If that's so, how does Thor get back to Earth to become an Avenger?  Or did the movie mess that up?

How does Thor get back to Earth in the Marvel comics?

The movie does not directly explain how Thor gets to Earth, except for making brief references to “dark magic”.

Dark magic explains how Thor got to Earth.

Dark magic explains how Thor gto to Earth.


Because it means a member of the military that he himself commands is... Stupid .

There, I said it.

We're talking about a 7ft tall maniac who can, merely by thinking about it, choke you from across the room without touching you.

And that certainly wasn't Vader's first demonstration of such.

Even if they thought he was a con, merely 20 years prior the entire galaxy knew about the Force and considered it a given.

It would be like having one of your employees in charge of running the factory telling you

"I don't believe in electricity".

First, you're astonished at the utter contempt for popularly known truths.

Second you're shocked that anyone could willfully deny a phenomenon for which there was evidence all around him.

Third, you begin to doubt your own judgement of character (which Vader probably and rightfully considers paramount to his continued rule).

Finally, it is something that would anger him that someone would both call him a liar and presume his own weakness.

Vader's comment was sardonic; the young officer taunted Vader and Vader responded in kind.

He was not disturbed, except to the extent that he was annoyed by an obviously ignorant and arrogant officer who dared challenge him.

Excerpt from the exchange: Officer:

Any attack made by the rebels against this station would be a useless gesture no matter what technical data they've obtained.

This station is now the ultimate power in the universe.

I suggest we use it.

Vader:

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.

The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

Officer: Don't try to try frighten us with your sorceror's ways, Lord Vader.

Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes.

Or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels hidden fortre-- (face contorts, gasping)

Vader: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Vader can only be in one place at a time

so it's possible for someone to come up through the Imperial ranks without seeing Vader's mojo in action.

Right up until the moment the Force tendrils seized his neck the officer assumed Vader was some sort of witch doctor.

This station is now the ultimate power in the universe.

There it is; the cause of Vader's reaction.

All through his training as a Jedi, his fall to the dark side, and subsequent career, one thing would have held true - the Force as a power.

A claim of something else as the "ultimate power in the universe" doesn't just go against his training; it's something he knows to be untrue.

So when someone shows a lack of faith in the power of the Force - well, he's got to be put right, hasn't he?

As any Sith, Vader took his Dark Side seriously.

It was a way of life, more so than a religion or ideology.

Therefore, having the most important thing in his life being dismissed as old timey superstition is... disturbing.

Remember what drove Vader/Anakin all this way.

The vision was using the Force to unite the Galaxy and bring order to it.

The officer relying on some pimped out technology as a solution was basically undermining that approach.

I think you are right that Darth Vader didn't really care what Admiral Motti thought of the Force - it was only important that Motti had an intense fear of Vader and the Emperor.

The Sith ruled the galaxy by fear and their Imperial officers were held in check by it.

Vader does not care what Imperial Officers believe, only that they are fearful of him and the Emperor to the point of complete submission.

He demonstrates this consistently throughout the trilogy.

It is very similar to the phrase

"The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am."

Whether Vader or the Emperor is the more forgiving person is really not the point.

The point is to remind the officer of his intense fear (of both Vader and the Emperor) in order to keep him motivated in a subservient manner.

Unless I'm mistaken Vader is finding the lack of faith his subordinate has in Vader's abilities to complete the tasks the subordinate outlined.

A complete phrase would sound more like, "I find your lack of faith in my abilities, disturbing."

Something like that.

This is the exchange as printed in the script (my emphasis added): MOTTI:

Any attack made by the Rebels against this station would be a useless gesture , no matter what technical data they've obtained.

This station is now the ultimate power in the universe.

I suggest we use it!

VADER:

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.

The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

MOTTI:

Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Vader.

Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebel's hidden fort...

Suddenly Motti chokes and starts to turn blue under Vader's spell.

VADER: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Vader was disturbed by two things: Motti's lack of faith in the Force to help Vader fight the Rebels.

Motti's undue faith in the Death Star over the Force.

Motti thought the Death Star cannot be destroyed (obviously Motti would shortly be proven wrong) and that it was the "ultimate power in the universe" instead of the Force (which is blasphemous to Vader, and also incorrect).

As Vader indicated, the Force is still more powerful than the Death Star -- the Force cannot be destroyed and, while the Death Star can destroy a planet, the Empire owed its existence to the (dark side of the) Force.

Vader was disturbed by Motti's overconfidence in the Death Star at the expense of faith in the Force.

Question: I find your lack of faith disturbing   -  Darth Vader   What a great Quote! This inspired his own  meme .   But does it make any sense?  Why would the fact that an officer didn't believe in the force disturb Vader in any way? He is not a preacher or a missionary trying to propagate the  Good News of the Dark Side .

Why would Darth Vader find someone's lack of faith (in the power of the Dark Side) disturbing?

Vader was not disturbed, except to the extent that he was annoyed by an obviously ignorant and arrogant officer who dared challenge him.  As would any Sith, Vader took his Dark Side seriously.

The officer challenges him which in turn irritates him. He is irritated by the officer; not disturbed.


It seems that if the TARDIS is in normal flight, it has fixed up/down orientation.

However, if it is being acted on by some outside force (Angels, crash, impact with the Titanic), then the contents are affected by the movements of the TARDIS due to that force.

While I can't recall the TARDIS ever being turned completely upside down, or even on its side, it does not stay fixed vertically while flying, yet there is never any indication, on the inside, of the g-forces caused by its movements, or of any impingement by the external gravitational field.

This video shows what happens when 4 Weeping Angels tilt the Tardis back and forth.

The people inside are thrown about.

Every room in the TARDIS apparently has it's own gravitational controls.

The clearest example of this is in

The Doctor's Wife when House has taken over the TARDIS (presumably looking for Vicodin?)

and Amy/Rory are running through the halls.

At one point House turns off the anti-grav on a room that is apparently tilted sideways, and Amy/Rory almost fall down a very long shaft.

However, they are able to climb into an adjacent room where gravity is normal.

It's less clear how River does her high-dive trick in Day of the Moon .

When the TARDIS matrialized on the side of the building, The Doctor and Delaware are still in the control room, which appears upright.

Amy and Rory have to go open all the doors to the pool, which I interpreted as meaning "open all the doors between the front door and the pool", but of course we never see River actually move through the TARDIS, so it's not clear what happens to her direction of movement when she goes through the doors.

My suspicion -- not really supported by canon but the most logical -- is something of a Portal effect.

Her vertical momentum was converted 100% into horizontal momentum the minute she passed through the door, and the TARDIS's fine gravity controls kept her aloft long enough to splash down in the pool.

In season 19 "Castrovalva" episode 2/4, the tardis lands tilted and the control room was tilted, the companions and doctor all walked inclined to get out of Tardis.

BUT in 2005 series S07E10 "Journey to the center of the tardis" everything was level inside, after you walk in.

In Journey to the centre of the Tardis it is made clear that the Tardis has its own gravity system.

At the start of episode 1 of The Romans (1964), the TARDIS lurches violently and the floor tilts crazily, throwing the Doctor and his companions to the floor, as the TARDIS topples off the edge of a cliff and tumbles into a ditch.

In the 1968 serial The Web of Fear , episode 1 begins with the TARDIS tilted over on its side in the time vortex, lurching and off balance, because the doors have been opened in flight: the Doctor and his companions struggle to avoid being ejected through the open doors due to the sloping floor.

In The Curse of Peladon in 1972, the TARDIS lands half way up a mountain, and begins to topple over the edge of the cliff in a storm.

The Doctor and Jo have to struggle against the tilted floor to escape , in the moments before it falls into the chasm.

In Castrovalva (1982), as mentioned, the TARDIS lands on its side in episode 2 (at a 45 degree angle), because the newly regenerated Doctor is ill, leaving Tegan to attempt the landing.

In the novel: Tegan picked herself up from the floor, which was now leaning over at a crazy angle...

Since the outside and the inside of the TARDIS are in two separate dimensions, the inside can be locked to the outside.

Meaning that if the outside rocks the inside rocks.

But it can be unlocked, so if the TARDIS was sideways the contents wouldn't necessarily be sideways.

Though most of the time it is probably locked.

The Doctor can choose which room is connected to the Real World-interface (the main doors) and orient the said-room to match the situation.

An anti-grav mechanism is likely used.

But seeing as the TARDIS is old, and sometimes malfunctioning, the anti-grav can sometimes not work.

That's how River did it...

The TARDIS has it's own gravitational field inside which would keep any of the contents (including lifeforms) fixed to the floor.

For more watch 'Journey To The Center Of The TARDIS' with matt smith and that explains the question in which you are asking better

Question: If the TARDIS is turned upside down or is laid horizontally, what happens to the contents - including people?  Does the TARDIS up / down orientation change? Or does it have an artificial gravity so that internal down is always down as experience by those on board?

What happens to the people inside when the TARDIS is tilted?

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

An anti-gravity mechanism is likely used. The TARDIS has it's own gravitational field inside which would keep any of the contents (including lifeforms) fixed to the floor. Also, The Doctor can choose which room is connected to the Real World-interface (the main doors) and orient the said-room to match the situation.

When TARDIS is in normal flight, the orientation is fixed and an anti-gravity mechanism is used.

When TARDIS is in normal flight, the orientation is fixed. An anti-gravity mechanism is used.


While one of C3PO's primary abilities is translation, as a protocol droid he would be capable of many additional functions.

For example, a protocol droid is seen serving drinks to Qui Gon and obi Wan in episode 1.

With that in mind, I had always assumed that the original intent behind Anakin building C3PO was to assist with chores around the house.

As a slave, I would imagine that Shmi Skywalker typically worked long hours doing hard, menial work such as cooking, cleaning, etc and likely was often very tired and not wanting to have to do all the same activities when getting home.

So C3PO would have taken care of all that for her.

Anakin was a mechanical geek.

He assembled C3PO for the same reason some car geeks restore antique cars, or computer geeks upgrade ancient PCs

- it's just how they express themselves and what their hobby is.

Anakin saw a cool droid in a junk heap, and it was a Project Worth Exploring.

He probably didn't come by all THAT many almost-functioning droids in the junk that he could afford to be picky.

Maybe part of her work is buying supplies at the markets.

So, given that they live on a world where most of the demographics aren't human, she would need to know how to communicate (haggle) with the buyers and sellers.

Anakin built C-3PO to be his friend CANON:

In the Revenge of the Sith novelization by Matthew Stover, when he offers C-3PO to Padme, Anakin says he built C-3PO to be his friend since he didn't have many friends as a child.

Without anything of his own to give except his love, all he could bring her was a friend .

" I didn't have many friends when I was a kid ," he'd told her, " So I built one. "

And C-3PO had shuffled in behind him, gleaming as though he'd been plated with solid gold.

Padme had lit up, her eyes gleaming, but she had at first tried to protest.

"I can't accept him," she said.

" I know how much he means to you. "

- Revenge of the Sith p. 113

In

The Phantom Menace , back when he barely knew Padme, Anakin claims to have built C-3PO to help his mother.

However, this could simply have been his justification he provided adults.

After creeping on getting to know, falling in love with, and marrying Padme, he finally reveals that his personal motivation for building C-3PO was actually to fashion himself a friend.

His personal reason for building him was to stave off loneliness.

Any help C-3PO would be able to provide Shmi was likely just an added bonus.

"I didn't have many friends when I was a kid, so I built one."

Question: C3P0 is a protocol droid that seems to be used mainly for translations.  Anakin said he built it to help his mother do her work.  What use would a protocal droid be to a slave?  (Please note that this is not a question on how he managed it, merely why he bothered).

Why did Anakin build C3PO?

Anakin was a mechanical geek and he assembled C3PO for the same reason some car geeks restore antique cars. Although one of C3PO's primary abilities is translation, as a protocol droid he would be capable of many additional functions.

Anakin is a geek and assembled C3PO for fun aside from its ability to function as a translator.


It is just something that Dragons do in Tolkien's legendarium.

It's in their nature.

From

The Hobbit : Dragons steal gold and jewels , you know, from men and elves and dwarves, wherever they can find them; and they guard their plunder as long as they live (which is practically forever, unless they are killed), and never enjoy a brass ring of it .

Indeed they hardly know a good bit of work from a bad, though they usually have a good notion of the current market value; and they can't make a thing for themselves, not even mend a little loose scale of their armour.

There was a most specially greedy , strong and wicked worm called Smaug.

Dragons are simply greedy by nature, and that combined with an inability to "make a thing for themselves" has apparently driven them to horde precious items made by others.

Aside from dragons gathering treasure being a generic mythology trope (e.g. Fafnir's hoard, which Tolkien would have been well aware of), an in-universe explanation is also appropriate.

Dragons in Tolkien do gather treasure; his other major dragon from the legends of the First Age - Glaurung - did the very same after he sacked Nargothrond - piled up all the treasure and sat on it.

In the Third Age Scatha the Worm is also mentioned as having a hoard, which led to a fued between the Northmen and the Dwarves (the horn that Merry was given is mentioned as having come from this hoard).

So it's just something that Tolkien's dragons do.

But why?

As creatures of Morgoth there is very likely an element of his spirit in them

(this is nowhere confirmed in canon, but I'm imagining Morgoth feeding reptiles to create dragons in much the same way as he fed a wolf to create Carcaroth, although their obvious intelligence and sentience suggests a possible Maiar source (I'm deliberately ignoring the Lost Tales concept of dragons here); either way we don't know and we've moved away from the topic a bit now); when Morgoth lusted after and stole the Silmarils from Formenos, he also took a lot of other jewels with him, which he also did not need and which he begrudged having to feed to Ungoliant.

So there's a clear element of basic avarice, especially avarice for items one does not actually need, running through Morgoth and his dragons.

It's an expression of Smaug's power.

Collecting something you value is an intrinsically motivated act.

You build up a collection of things you enjoy purely because you enjoy them.

The opinions of others have no impact.

To collect something valued by others shows extrinsic motivation.

Not only do you deprive others of the contents of your collection, but by gaining their admiration or envy, you gain power over them.

Tolkien's day job was as a teacher of Old English literature, among other things.

The third part of the Old English saga/poem 'Beowulf' tells how the hero had to deal with a dragon who was angered because some low-life had sneaked in, and stolen a golden cup from his cavern-hoard of treasure.

The dragon emerged and devastation ensued.

Eventually the dragon is slain, but the hero dies.

The idea of dragonish desire for treasure was certainly present in literature before 1000AD, and was also picked up in C.S. Lewis' Voyage of the Dawn-Treader.

Perhaps it was all metaphorical for humans with an overwhelming lust for glittery stuff.

We all know some bling-heads!

They probably had them back then too.

Some of the Anglo-Saxon gold-work with enameling and carnelian insets are unbelievably intricate and beautiful, check the Sutton Hoo treasure on google images.

I can see why dragons would covet it.

There are a lot of scholarly articles on the dragons of Old English literature, try google scholar.

The bibliographies of a few articles should get you on the road to a better answer.

Not a Tolkien source, but I fondly remember the explanation used in The Flight of Dragons , a favorite movie when I was a boy.

Breathing fire, dragons tend to burn up bedding made from conventional materials.

They make their beds of gold as it is a softer metal that won't ignite.

Wikia states (no Tolkien quote) that there was one side benefit to the hoarding (possibly not intentional) -

the jewels stuck to Smaug's scales when he was lying atop of his treasure, making him even less vulnerable to damage than scales alone.

Question: In  The Hobbit ,  the Dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf are on a mission to rob Smaug . But why did he have so much to steal from? He's a Dragon! He is not the kind of dragon that  eats gold and gems . He doesn't need wealth to buy a luxury cavern and/or pay his servant.   Why did Smaug gather his treasure?

Why did Smaug gather a treasure of gold and other precious objects?

This is just something that Dragons do in Tolkien's legendarium and this can be seen as an expression of Smaug's power.


This is an allusion to the Argonauts As well as this image by Oliver Coipel where Tony demonstrates his ability to control several armors at once using tech similar to the NTU-Telepresence armor.

You can see in this still shot he is wearing what I believe is a Telepresence headset.

Elsewhere in that same trailer, we see a flying Iron Man suit that Tony jumps into .

The back of the suit is open, and he leaps into it, then takes over.

This suggests that these suits may be remote controlled, so it's likely that most of them are empty in that image.

It's unlikely that if there are pilots in the suits that they would be Avengers, as Kevin Feige, Marvel Studios President stated in an interview : Journalist:

After cell phones came out horror directors had to come up with elaborate ways to explain why people wouldn’t call someone on a cell phone for help, now that all The Avengers know each other do you have to come up with excuses for why Tony Stark wouldn’t reach out when he needs a hand?

Feige:

It’s a good question, and it’s sort of half and half.

I am betting that like the comics you don’t have to keep – if you are reading a standalone

“Iron Man” comic, they don’t spend every page explaining where every other Marvel hero is.

The audience kind of accepts that there are times when they’re on their own and there are times when they are together.

I’m betting that movie audiences will feel the same way.

That being said, there is a little bit of lip service here and there to that.

There is also just the very nature of Tony wants to, once he barely survives that house attack

you saw today, and even you saw it in the message he left for Pepper

, he’s basically saying “I’m going off the grid to try to figure something out.”

It's currently unknown who is controlling them remotely (Tony, JARVIS, a villain, etc.), as the film is not yet released.

It's likely that Tony is doing so, as in a previous trailer (Trailer 1 at 0:27)

we see him wearing a device on his head and remotely guiding components of a new Iron Man armor onto himself.

In addition, it's been discussed in interviews that the movie will adapt the Extremis storyline.

In that storyline, Tony gets some augmentations to himself, which allows him to remotely guide and control Iron Man suits.

Spoiler:

They are remotely controlled by him: Operation "House Party" The movie came out last week in japan (4/26/2013)

Armors in the film were mark 25 striker mark 33 silver centurion mark 38 igor mark42 mark 17 heartbreaker

mark

40 shotgun mark 39 starboost mark 35 red snapper mark

37 hammerhead..

These are the armors Stark built in the film.

The suits were all (almost all) unmanned, and controlled remotely by JARVIS as part of operation "House Party".

They are all the various prototype and production suits Tony had built.

During the battle in which they participated, Tony jumped from suit to suit, as needed, which is why I say "almost all" are unmanned.

We've had an example of someone else wearing Iron Man Armour in War Machine, if a big enough threat makes it's self apparent

there is no reason Tony couldn't have a military unit suited up in a set of Iron Man suits.

About 1:50 in this trailer

we see what looks like people being measured for suits?

That could hint at an army of Iron Men?

Although the conversation between Tony and Rhodes: "We do need backup" "

That's Your department" And

"There's my boys" Imply that it might not be military, and might be as other have suggested remotely controlled, or AI controlled Iron Men.

There is precedent for this, the suits that Vanko puts together in Iron Man 2 are remotely controlled.

Question: It looks like there are about fifty Iron Men in the new Iron Man Movie:  Iron Man 3 .  Who are all these Iron Men? Is Pepper Potts one of them? Or is it all The Avengers, but wearing Iron Man costumes?  Here's a snapshot from the  international trailer :

Who are all the other ‘Iron Men’ in the Iron Man 3 trailer?

They are all various prototype and production suits Tony had built. During the battle in which they participated, Tony jumped from suit to suit, as needed, so "almost all" may be unmanned. I tis also unlikely that if there are pilots in the suits that they would be Avengers.

The suits Tony had built are mostly all unmanned and controlled remotely by JARVIS.


The fact is, we are still not sure if those deaths were caused by the blood ritual.

Unlike Renly's death, where there was a supernatural being directly involved in the death (the shadow baby).

Robb's death was due to the machinations of Tywin Lannister, and executed at the hand of Walder Frey.

Nothing supernatural here that we can see.

Book spoilers:

Joffrey was poisoned, possibly by the Tyrells.

Again, nothing supernatural.

Balon Greyjoy on the other hand

we have no first hand account of his death.

But its timing coinciding with the return of Euron has led many to speculate that it was an assassination ordered by Euron.

It could simply be a lucky guess on Melisandre's side, or a self fulfilling a prophecy.

Melisandre can kill anyone just by drawing leech

Says who?

Leeched blood is a small sacrifice, and would only yield a small favour from the red god/blood magic.

Generally with blood magic, you need a "fair trade", i.e. sacrifice a life to give life to another (as with the birth of Daenerys' dragons), or if you "cheat" the red god of a death (Arya saving Jaqen & co.), it should be repaid with another life so that you "return balance".

Mellisandre is a cunning lady though.

She gets visions of the future from the flames.

So if she knows that someone is going to die, she can make it seem like it was her doing.

This way she seems more powerful, furthering her agenda.

Or so the theory goes.

GRRM doesn't give much explanation about the nature of magic and gods.

Melisandre believes that Stannis is Azor Ahai .

There is a prophecy that says that Azor Ahai will be The Lord of Light's champion, and fight the Great Other in a large upcoming battle.

There will come a day after a long summer when the stars bleed and the cold breath of darkness falls heavy on the world.

In this dread hour a warrior shall draw from the fire a burning sword.

And that sword shall be Lightbringer, the Red Sword of Heroes, and he who clasps it shall be

Azor Ahai come again, and the darkness shall flee before him.

It is said that Azor Ahai will "wake dragons from stone", which is doubtless the prophecy that Melisandre is trying to coerce into existence.

She has already tried to coerce Lightbringer into existence, but we know (as Maester Aemon also noted) that it is a glamour, not a true burning sword.

We also know that Daenerys has already awakened her dragons from the stone eggs, thus fulfilling the prophecy.

As for the bloodfilled leeches...

We know for a fact that Melisandre can see the future in her fires, and that this is something she is very good at.

So what most likely happened is that she saw that Robb, Joffrey and Balon would die, so she decided to put on a show for Stannis, to convince him that he needed to give her the boy to work her magic.

To convince him of the power of King's Blood.

She believed that if she did indeed sacrifice the boy, a dragon would awaken from stone, and the prophecy would be fulfilled.

From a more pragmatic point of view, a dragon is also a sign of power, and it would be easier to get support from the lords of Westeros with a dragon.

I thought he was the illegitmate son of Robert Baratheon.

In her magic she uses there is 'power in a king's blood' and hence she uses his blood to power her magic.

We don't necessarily know that she does want to kill (Edric Storm Book/ Gendry TV), just that Davos is worried that she is going to kill Edric/Gendry and so takes him to safety.

We haven't actually seen her kill anyone (other than Renly)

just that her mutterings about the power of King's blood makes everyone else think she is planning to sacrifice people.

Melisandre can just be seeing into the future where see catches glimpses of what is to come and then use that to "convince" others that by sacrificing Edric and Gendry she could do much more.when in fact she just wants to REMOVE any threat the her Kings rule.

Both Edric and Gendry could in theory lead an uprising and overthrow Stanis as king.

Melisandre names 3 names as she performs her blood ritual.

Melisandre: The usurper Robb Stark.

The usurper Balon Greyjoy.

The usurper Joffrey Baratheon.

Game of Thrones, Season 3

Episode 8

, "Second Sons" Lets look at how each of those died.

Robb Stark Died in the Red Wedding as planned by House Frey, House Bolton and House Lannister.

The Frey's did it to gain power with the Lannister.s and to take revenge on Robb betraying them by marrying Talisa instead of a Frey girl.

The Bolton's because they've had a long history of fighting with the Stark's, to take power in the North by claiming Winterfell and to gain power with the Lannister's.

The Lannister's did it because they were at war with the Stark's and it gave a nice neat ending for them.

Balon Greyjoy Was killed by his brother Euron Greyjoy who did it in an attempt to take power of the Iron Islands.

It was a risky move as the next king is chosen by a Kingsmoot and Yara

was favourite, especially as Euron had been AWOL for a while.

Joffrey Baratheon Killed at the Purple Wedding by Petyr Baelish and the Tyrell's by poisoning his wine.

Petyr did it to cause chaos so he could climb the ladder.

Also so he could sneak Sansa Stark away with him in the following chaos.

The Tyrell's did it as Ollena did not want Margaery to marry Joffery.

As you can see as each died because of someone else, that was already seemingly planning to kill them

it's unclear if there deaths were due to the ritual.

As for why she wants to kill him, well more of a sacrifice equals a more powerful outcome.

A great gift requires a great sacrifice.

Game of Thrones, Season 3

Episode 10, "Mhysa"

Question: If Melisandre can kill anyone just by leeching Gendry, why kill him rather than keeping him alive?  If he is alive he can be leeched at will and allow her to kill as many people as she likes.

Why does Melisandre want to sacrifice Gendry?

Melisandre may just be seeing into the future where catches glimpses of what is to come and then uses that to "convince" others that she could do much more by sacrificing Edric and Gendry. However, she just wants to REMOVE any threat to her King's rule.  In theory, both Edric and Gendry could lead an uprising and overthrow Stanis as king.

Melisandre knows she is capable of so much more if she sacrifices Gendry and the threat of his rule.


There are two parts here: 1)

Why human?

How do you know it's a human voice?

Out of universe, we know Majel Barrett is human, and we know that she also played Christine Chapel and Number One

(the unnamed second officer under Captain Pike), both humans.

But she also played Lwaxana Troi, a Betazoid.

And there's nothing in the voice (as far as I can tell) to distinguish it from that of a Bajoran or a Vulcan or any other species.

The voice doesn't seem to be Klingon or Ferengi, but that might just be because it's flat, emotionless, and, well, computer-like.

Why female?

In-universe (although quasi-canonically), it was Number One who installed the first voice device on the Enterprise and programmed it with her own voice.

(This is from Memory-Beta , which cites the novels "The Rift" and "Enterprise: The First Adventure").

She's a human female, so there you go.

Somewhat speculatively, there is some evidence that both men and women find women's voices more pleasing.

Research suggests that this might be due to the early bonding between fetuses/infants and their mother.

I bet that in a galaxy where there are hundreds of starships using a single programmed voice to get information from the computer -- sometimes in the middle of crisis -- the exact pitch and timbre of the voice has been thoroughly researched.

From "The Making of Star Trek", written by Stephen E Whitfield, and Gene Roddenberry (first published 1968, ISBN 1-85286-363-3, in the "Part II, An Official Biography of a Ship and its Crew", Chapter 2, page 152 it says: It [the computer] uses a feminine voice, a familiar occurrence, even today.

The pre-take-off system on today's F-105 Fighter, for example, speak to the pilots in a female voice because it has been discovered that the feminine voice penetrates noise better and results in improved response by men (and women).

If that's enough for a TV show being made in the 60s, it'd probably be a good enough in-show reason :-)

While I'm not sure it's ever noted during an episode, in "Mirror, Mirror", in TOS, this was the reason why the Mirror Universe computers spoke with a male voice - because it was suggested that in the mirror universe they never did that piece of research, and as a result just used a default male voice instead.

(You also see Kirk & McCoy doing a double take when they hear the computer talking)

There's never any in-universe reason given for the computer's voice being female but in the real world female voices are easier to understand and more pleasant to listen to according to this CNN article.

I believe this is also the reason most police dispatchers are female.

Though it's entirely possible that the use of female voices for computers was influenced by Star Trek itself.

Low-pitched audio frequencies ("bass") are harder to reproduce (cf. subwoofers - dedicated equipment for that)

than the high-pitches ones.

So, when it does not matter who the speaker is - e.g., when the sound is computer-generated - it is easier to use female voices.

This is why the vast majority of voices coming out of loudspeakers are female.

It was the voice of Gene Roddenberry's wife, who also played Nurse Chapel on the original show.

Gene thought it would be cool to have a sexy computer voice, since at that point, voices of comupters were robotic and male.

He thought his wife's voice was very sexy, so he asked her.

It was also a way to show how futuristic Star Trek was, too

, i.e. - you could make the computer sound any way you wanted.

And Kirk, being a lady-killer would naturally choose a sexy-lady voice.

ships are called with women names.

and even though the enterprise is not a woman name they refer it as "she".

humanity might follow traditions and traits of the older kind and respect the old times so that would mean a woman voice in the ship is tradition and respect, as for real life story Gene Roddenberry loved hsi wife

so he deiced to make her the voice of the computer

One reason for a female voice: real world aircraft cockpit warning systems use recorded female voices because they're known to be more effective at getting flight crews' attention in complicated situations.

I'm not sure if this applies equally to female pilots, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Flight systems (fighter jets) have female voices because they (used to) stand out of the radio chatter (which used to be all male).

Nowadays there's some systems that use a male voice.

Given there's translation everywhere I'd imagine only humans hear a human voice, the rest something more suited to their species.

Why female?

Ask the guys who designed the communication system ;).

My other answer is: it was 50/50 and then it just became standard.

If you don't like it ask the computer to reconfigure for you personally.

Not specific to Star Trek, but general to most computers in movies or real life having a female voice: A voice system for most of them fills the role of a secretary.

You make the decisions, the secretary collects/handles/organizes/reports the information.

Most secretaries were and still are, female.

While probably not the sole cause, traditions can have an important effect on shaping our views and expectations.

Question: In Star Trek all Federation computers have a human female voice, provided by Gene Roddenbery's wife Majel Barrett.  This, of course, is the out of universe reason; however is there ever an in universe reason given?  With the Federation being a multi-gender, multi-species organization why a humanoid female voice?  Is the voice based on someone related to the LCARS systems?

Why does the computer have a human female voice?

Gene Roddenberry thought it would be a good idea to have a sexy computer voice, since up to that point, voices of computers had been robotic and male. This is a tradition in Star Trek and a tribute to Gene Roddenberry's wife.

Female voices are easier to understand and to listen to. Furthermore, a female voice in the ship may be based on older traditions and traits which would mean a woman’s voice might be considered to be sexier by Gene.

Female voices are easier to understand and to listen to. A female voice in the ship may be based on older traditions and traits which would mean a woman’s voice might be considered to be sexier by Gene.


It's not atypical that the same address can be both affectionate when used in friendly jest, and derogatory when used in malice ("shrimp", from real life, or "seaweed brain" from Percy Jackson novels).

Wormtail clearly falls into the same cohort - it may be an affectionate (to an extent) nickname when used by Marauders but works equally well as an expression of contempt for a weak worthless thing that DE's saw Peter as.

Here's the quote illustrating it from Percy Jackson:

But Thalia held out her spear.

“You want some, Seaweed Brain?”

Somehow, it was okay when Annabeth called me that— at least, I’d gotten used to it—but hearing it from Thalia was not cool.

At least part of it is probably due to the fact that Peter Pettigrew was supposed to be dead.

Voldemort and the Death Eaters couldn't talk to or about him using his real name without risking being overheard and exposed, but everyone who knew him as Wormtail was either dead, discredited, or in hiding, so it would certainly have been more convenient than coming up with a new codename, which would have taken effort he wasn't really worth.

I figured he was called Wormtail by anyone that knew he could turn into a rat (which has a worm-like tail).

Since he spent so long as Scabbers, they likely call him Wormtail in jest at him being a rat almost as long as a human.

‘Wormtail’ sounded like an insult, so it’d be easy to use it as one.

Though it’s theoretically possible that the Marauders meant it affectionately, it would be very easy for the Dark Lord to start calling Pettigrew ‘Wormtail’ in an insulting way, because it inherently sounded like an insult.

Worms themselves are lowly creatures, and the name is also related to his Animagus form and connection with rats, creatures that are considered vermin.

“Wormtail has a curious affinity with rats, do you not, Wormtail?

His filthy little friends told him there was a place, deep in an Albanian forest, that they avoided, where small animals like themselves had met their deaths by a dark shadow that possessed them …” - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 33

(The Death Eaters)

However it was originally meant, it’d be very easy for a name like Wormtail to be used as an insult, as it has inherently negative connotations, so would be suited to call someone considered vermin.

The Death Eaters likely called him Wormtail as the Dark Lord did.

That the Dark Lord called Pettigrew Wormtail was likely at least part of the reason that the Death Eaters did.

When the Dark Lord refers to him to the Death Eaters, he always calls him Wormtail.

“Some of the Death Eaters he passed in silence, but he paused before others, and spoke to them.

‘Macnair … destroying dangerous beasts for the Ministry of Magic now, Wormtail tells me?

You shall have better victims than that soon, Macnair.”

- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 33

(The Death Eaters)

The Dark Lord only ever calls him Wormtail - at no point does he call him ‘Peter’ or ‘Pettigrew’, including when addressing him in front of the Death Eaters.

Since the Dark Lord always calls him Wormtail, it seems likely that the Death Eaters would then consider this the accepted way to refer to him, and would call him the same thing the Dark Lord does.

Maybe he introduced himself as it.

I just have the hunch,

eventhough

I don't know whether DE's could use their real name 'as-is', or could have nicknames within themselves (If there is another example of DE's being called by nicknames rather than their real names, I don't know of it) Because it was a traitorous act the one he made by running to Voldemort with the potter's adderess, maybe he didn't want to be entitled also to be called by the name...

Okay scratch that!

Why would he want to be called by his nickname which will remind himself of his friends, by the very hand that killed two of them?

Masochistic and antic nature maybe?

I can't talk with much fact from here on, maybe it was a mere mockery thing from Voldemort to use his nickname, so he could bother Pettigrew with it.

I tried my best at answering...!

Question: Title says it all: I can't imagine why they would; it was an affectionate nickname given to him by his school friends, and seeing as Voldemort and other DEs view Wormtail as a coward and worthless I can't imagine why they'd use what is supposed to be, (or, what originally was) an endearing nickname for him like that.

Why do Voldemort and other Death Eaters call Peter Pettigrew his Marauder name, Wormtail?

Although a nickname can be used in a friendly manner, in jest, or maliciously, one reason for using the name Wormtail may be that Voldemort and the Death Eaters couldn't talk to or about him using his real name without risking being overheard and exposed. Voldemort always used that name, and it is likely that the Death Eaters followed his example.

Voldemort and the Death Eaters can’t use his real name because Pettigrew is supposed to be dead. Given that the The Dark Lord called him Wormtail, the Death Eaters did so too out of respect for the Dark Lord.

Voldemort and the Death Eaters can’t use his real name because Pettigrew is supposed to be dead. The Dark Lord called him Wormtail and the Death Eaters did so too out of respect for the Dark Lord.


It's a reference to the First Doctor's regeneration.

The First Doctor's explanation for why he had to regenerate was that "this old body of mine is wearing a bit thin.

" It's the end of a harrowing adventure (his first encounter with the Cybermen), and the man's had a really rough time of it all around.

The idea is supported because Hartnell's failing health was becoming increasingly obvious to those watching the show.

Hurt isn't as feeble as Hartnell was, not by a long shot, but he plays the part of an equally ancient, tired man who has seen many lifetimes' worth of struggle in that body.

But in the end, it's a callback line more than it is a good explanation.

The real reason is that he's the Doctor again.

As we saw in Night of the Doctor , the War Doctor does not consider himself the Doctor and never has.

He specifically regenerated into that form so that he could do un-Doctor-y things.

The events of Day of the Doctor restored his ability to be the Doctor, and he couldn't do that in the War Doctor's body (which was tailor-made to be a warrior by the Sisterhood of Karn).

Regeneration is not only available at time of death.

In fact, the only other Time Lord we saw regenerate on screen in Old Who (Romana I to Romana II, at the beginning of Destiny of the Daleks ) seems to have done it on a whim.

Regeneration can be triggered "manually," and it seems that many Time Lords treated it pretty casually.

The Doctor's dangerous life of adventure (one which sets him apart from nearly every other Time Lord) leads him to use it more sparingly, keeping regeneration as an emergency get-out-of-death-free card.

It's his reward isn't it?

At the beginning of the story the Doctor Hurt tells Rose/Bad Wolf/Moment -

"I have no desire to survive this" and she/

it replies "Then that's your punishment

, if you do this, if you kill them all, then that's the consequence:

You live ."

Given that this specifically refers to the destruction of Gallifrey ("... killing them all, Daleks and Time Lords alike" as she/it says) and he doesn't do it, then logically he shouldn't be punished, so should die rather than live.

Thus he doesn't have to continue being the Doctor who fought in the Time War, but can be a new man who can put some distance between himself and the other things he did in that War ("I've been fighting this War a long time; I've lost the right to be the Doctor," he says.)

Of course, it's a bit double-edged, because the Eccleston Doctor is a bi-polar PTSD sufferer who thinks he's committed double genocide (due to not being able to "remember that I tried to save Gallifrey rather than burn it") and it takes a second Bad Wolf induced regeneration (in The Parting of the Ways) to allow him to get over that.

Outwith

the fiction, I suspect it comes from a combination of the fact that we know this story was conceived (Moffat has said as much in DWM) with Eccleston's Doctor in the Doctor Hurt role (and thus there was no regeneration at the end originally) and a desire from the production team to 'cap off' the War Doctor with a regeneration scene.

After all, Moffat has spoke of his own fannish desire to see McGann regenerate, surely the same impulse applies?

It means that what happens is thematic rather than strictly plot-based, but it does work, I think.

Albeit it is very surprising the first time you see it.

(Doctor Hurt's line "

Of course.

I suppose it makes sense. '

Wearing a bit thin'!" feels more like placeholder than explanation.

It also leaves the rather odd disconnect in the story that Tennant and Smith do not realise that Doctor Hurt is from before the end of the Time War, even though we later see he dies immediately it ends.

They think he could be from after it.

That makes sense if he's Eccleston.

Less so if it's Hurt.

There is no clear indication as to why he regenerated at the end of the episode...

All he said was something along the lines as "I suppose this was wearing a little thin"...

Perhaps the answer lies in the question

why did the War Doctor age so much from the prequel to the Day of the Doctor...

There is some speculation that he had aged a lot during The Time War or that perhaps he was hit with some sort of ageing weapon by The Daleks..

Because the time war was over.

There would be no need for a warrior anymore, but a return to the Doctor.

It has been shown several times old series and new

that time lords can use their regeneration energy at will.

I think it was to do with the fact that he was old, but it might be also that he actually wanted to regenerate, because he accepted himself as the Doctor, and wanted a fresh start.

The War Doctor did not exist as a normal regeneration, but as one specific to the elixir given to Eight in 'Night of the Doctor'.

He existed to fight the Time War.

With it ended, his time was over.

It is possible that is why he had more of a demeanor of acceptance for this regeneration than many of the others.

He thought he had doomed Gallifrey

The War Doctor was forgetting what really happened during his interaction with his later incarnations, as his true memories were being replaced by the false memories of pushing the button that had ended the war and doomed his world.

He was dying from the stress of guilt and grief.

The War Doctor's comment about "wearing a bit thin" may have been a reference to his true memories.

In the next scene, the Tenth Doctor remarked that "I won't remember either".

Question: At the end of "The Day of The Doctor", we see John Hurt's War Doctor step into his TARDIS and start to regenerate into Christopher Eccleston's 9th Doctor.  I always thought that Time Lords can only regenerate when they are close to their death (old age, severe physical injury, etc.,) which isn't what's happening.  Other Time Lords can also enforce a regeneration, but that's clearly not the case here since they are "gone."  Why then did this regeneration begin?

Why does the War Doctor regenerate?

He specifically regenerated into that form so that he could do things uncharacteristic of The Doctor. The events of  Day of the Doctor  restored his ability to be the Doctor, and he couldn't do that in the War Doctor's body. The Doctor's dangerous life of adventure  leads him to use it more sparingly, keeping regeneration as an emergency get-out-of-death-free card.

The reason for this is he’s the doctor again and he regenerated into that form so that he could do in-Doctor-y things. However, the events of the Day of the Doctor restored his ability to be the Doctor.

The reason for this is he’s the doctor again. He regenerated into that form so that he could do in-Doctor-y things. The events of the Day of the Doctor restored his ability to be the Doctor.


According to Lauren Faust , creator, writer and Senior Animator of "Friendship is Magic", the pigs were kept for humanitarian (pigitarian?

ponitarian?

) reasons as well as to help the ponies to locate truffles.

Obviously it can't be for food, given that ponies in Equestria are

strictly vegetarian

Equestrian ponies are not exclusively herbivores.

That looks like a meat sandwich to me, and Pinkie Pie references hot dogs in Fall Weather Friends .

One could argue that they're vegetarian equivalents, but that just pushes the notion back to "equivalent of what ?

" The presence of a vegetarian hot dog implies an original meat hot dog for it to be mimicking.

Equestrian ponies aren't like real-world ponies in many ways.

Being omnivores is one of these differences.

(It doesn't seem that they eat a lot of meat.

Faust's justification of pigs as truffle-hunters is probably also true, perhaps even primarily true, but it probably isn't the entire truth.

Please note, even in an unofficial off-the-cuff answer Faust didn't indicate that ponies don't eat meat).

The ponies are shown several times baking and cooking various meals and dishes.

Some of these require some kind of fatty substances that could be pig lard.

They also wear clothes sometimes, for which they could use pig leather.

Pig hooves can be used to fabricate buttons that can also be used to make dresses.

What are pig farms used for?

To dispose of the bodies!

(see Snatch and True Blood , for example)

In this context, as previously mentioned , no graveyards - so where do the corpses go?

Let's see what non-pork uses are there for raising pigs.

Truffles!!!

Plowing/land clearing Fertilizer Boar's hair for brushes Waste products can be used to generate electricity

Question: From everything I've seen so far, the ponies seem to be herbivores. We never see them eat meat products of any kind. But the Apple family raises  pigs  in their farm (Season 3 Episode 10 "Spike at Your Service"). It makes sense for ponies to raise sheep (for the wool), cows (for the milk) and chickens (for the eggs), but why would they need to raise pigs if they don't eat meat?

If the ponies are vegetarian, why do they raise pigs?

According to  Lauren Faust , creator, writer and Senior Animator of "Friendship is Magic", the  pigs  were kept for humanitarian reasons. Faust's justification of pigs as truffle-hunters is probably at least partly true.

The pigs were kept for humanitarian purposes. Moreover, the pigs were also kept to help the ponies locate truffles.

The pigs were kept for humanitarian purposes. The pigs were also kept to help the ponies locate truffles.


My answer here provides the reason; I'll repeat the relevant quote from Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age : ...

there was a fiery mountain in that land that the Elves named Orodruin.

Indeed for that reason Sauron had set there his dwelling long before, for he used the fire that welled there from the heart of the earth in his sorceries and in his forging; and in the midst of the Land of Mordor he had fashioned the Ruling Ring.

In summary: Sauron chose Mordor for his lair 600 years before he made the One Ring.

The reason why he chose it was to use Orodruin for his "sorceries and forgings".

Sauron had used Orodruin for these for some considerable time before making the Ring.

There's no reason to suppose that he didn't continue to use it afterwards.

Potential evidence of a future use of it was for making the battering ram Grond in the War of the Ring.

Sauron's returns to Mordor are normally accompanied by eruptions of Orodruin, which may indicate Sauron using it for something.

In other words, it's wrong to think of Orodruin as being solely connected with the Ring:

Sauron had other uses for it too.

Tolkien answered that himself: "He is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place.

That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind.

That we should try to destroy the Ring itself has not yet entered into his darkest dream.

Why didn't he destroy Orodruin?

Morgoth couldn't do it

and he was the mightiest of the Valar.

Why should Sauron, a Maia, be able to?

I also imagine it may have something to do with its creation by Eru Ilúvatar.

Notice that there are

very few geographical things are actually destroyed in the mythoi.

Even the lands that lie under water still exist, but are difficult to access. :D

I have answered that question here in detail, the answer also got accepted.

I will provide a section from my answer here and include it in this answer:

Brief overview :

He ' used the fire that welled there from the heart of the earth in his sorceries and his forging .'

The most famous result of his forging, and in fact the only one we know of for sure, was the One Ring.

Mount Doom was much more than just any volcano - Sauron seems to have extended his own power into it , just as his former master Melkor had extended his own power into the flesh of Arda as his means of corrupting the Valar's shaping of the world.

In his case, it was probably due to his use of it as a foundry for the forging of the Ring, and was able to control its fires.

It seems to have lain dormant when Sauron was away from Mordor, and sprung into life when his power grew.

It's an important place for Sauron as it represents the instrument for his ruling of the world.

The more his power grows, the more roaring and fizzing the fires become.

We can offer two conclusions.

First one, that Sauron's own powers are tied into Mount Doom along with his sorceries.

Second one, that he needed Mount Doom for the construction of other items, preservation of his power, form

or he was attempting other things with it.

Additionally, we can offer a conclusion that every spawn or forgery of Mount Doom was destroyed or perished with its final eruption...

The world was bent, so that thereafter, only Elven-Ships could sail into the Utter West.

Sauron's body was destroyed, but his spirit was not diminished, and he fled back to Mordor bearing the Ring, where he slowly rebuilt a new body and his strength during the time known as the Dark Years.

From this point on, he lost the ability to assume a fair shape, and ruled now through terror and force. ...

even Sauron's ability to assume any kind of shape or form again.

But while Sauron had much of his former strength, he was still much weakened without the One Ring and remained hidden in the shadows, directing his armies from afar.

Furthermore, we can conclude that he needed it running in order to forge something else, when he grew more stronger, and tie his strength and power into it once more.

The Road approached the east side of the base at a causeway and then wound up like a snake; at that point the Road seemed damaged by the lava and re-repaired several times.

It is also placed deep inside Mordor and thus needn't much protection.

He was seeking The Ring with the Eye and flying Nazgul over it as he was rebuilding and wanted to maintain it for himself, only his purposes, whatever they may be.

He didn't even consider that someone planned to destroy the One Ring.

"Sauron never considered that somebody would do anything other than try to claim it" In my opinion, a more phylosophical approach would apply better, as implied by Anthony Grist.

A complementary reason for the ring's creation was to corrupt and therefore get valuable information.

Sauron in the end represents corruption itself and not necessarily the effects of it.

It wasn't even thinkable for it to be destroyed.

Who would even dare to think and try to destroy it, apart from an "innocent" and pure hobbit.

It is an amazing parallelism of modern society's egoism an concentrated power i.e. political leaderships etc.

Why didn't Sauron Guard Mt. Doom answers this pretty well.

He could not conceive that anyone should seek to destroy it.

Not to mention the magic of the ring is so powerful that even Frodo could not throw it into the fire at Mt. Doom.

Question: Sauron knew that the One Ring could be destroyed  only  in Mount Doom, where it was forged. From Sauron's perspective, no one would think about destroying the One Ring. But if someone did, then Mount Doom would be the only place to do so.  Why did he keep Mount Doom active? Wasn't the risk too high?

Why did Sauron keep Mount Doom alive after forging of the One Ring?

He didn't even consider that someone planned to destroy the One Ring. Who would even dare to think and try to destroy it, apart from an "innocent" and pure hobbit?

Sauron knew that One Ring could be destroyed in Mount Doom. To his mind, nobody would think about destroying One Ring. However, if someone did, Mount Doom would be the only place.

Sauron knew that One Ring could be destroyed in Mount Doom. To his mind, nobody would think about destroying One Ring. If someone did consider destroying One Ring, Mount Doom would be the only option.


Since it's never happened on screen, any answer would be pure speculation.

However, since we've frequently seen the Doctor open the Tardis door in deep space - in both classic and modern series - without the air rushing out, we can speculate that the same force would stop the water rushing in.

We actually see this in " Listen ", where the TARDIS is opened underwater.

With all of its systems working correctly, it simply remains trapped inside its own air bubble with the water held at a safe distance outside.

As to how this is achieved; in the episode " Logopolis " there is a lengthy discussion of the doctor's plan to open the TARDIS doors underwater.

From this conversation we can deduce two main facts; A substantial number of systems need to be shut down in order to allow water to enter through the doors ∴ Under normal circumstances, the doors can be opened without suffering a catastrophic influx of water DOCTOR:

No, how can we with the Master in the Tardis?

They're a retiring people.

They like a quiet life.

There's no telling what acreature like that would do on Logopolis.

ADRIC:

So how do we flush him out?

DOCTOR:

And there's no saying what that might do to the Tardis systems.

Can you swim?

ADRIC:

Yes.

DOCTOR: Good.

Materialise the Tardis underwater and open the door.

(Down in the Cloister Room, Tegan walks round the police box.

The dooropens invitingly.

The Doctor calls up an aerial view of London on thescanner.)

DOCTOR:

That's the River Thames.

We'll put down there.

ADRIC: And water sluices in and floods out the whole Tardis.

DOCTOR:

Yes.

Adric, shut down everything.

Fold back the Omega configuration.

(Adric gets on the floor underneath the console.)

ADRIC: Folded back.

DOCTOR:

Good.

Exponential cross-field? ADRIC: Halted.

DOCTOR: Good.

Pathways to conditional states seven to seventeen?

ADRIC: Closed.

DOCTOR: Excellent.

Main and auxiliary drive?

ADRIC: Ended.

DOCTOR: Good.

Now, we're partially materialised, so there'll be a slight jolt.

Are you ready?

ADRIC: If you are.

DOCTOR:

What?

Well, I'd feel more confident if you just said yes.

ADRIC:

Yes.

DOCTOR:

Good.

Here we go, then.

[Cloister room](Tegan gets jolted.)

TEGAN:

This is too much!

[Tardis] DOCTOR: A gentle splash-down.

(Thud!

They fall to the floor.)

DOCTOR:

We must have touched bottom.

ADRIC:

Touched bottom?

DOCTOR:

Yes.

Good thing the water was there to break our fall.

[Cloister room]

TEGAN: Crazy idiot of a pilot!

Wait till I have a word with him.

(Laughter comes from the open door of the police box.)

TEGAN:

Who's that?

[Tardis]

(The Doctor is standing braced across the doors.)

DOCTOR: Careful, now.

The water pressure could send us both flying.

Ready?

ADRIC:

Yes.

DOCTOR: Now!

(Adric presses a button and runs to join the Doctor.

The doors do not move.)

DOCTOR:

That's odd.

There's no pressure on those doors at all.

ADRIC:

Perhaps we aren't down very deep.

(The doors swing open and they step outside [onto dry land])

In the episode The Beast Below , the Doctor references an " air shell ".

This allows a sustainable environment for the TARDIS and the residing occupants to have the ability to open the doors and be on the immediate outside.

The reason we often see the TARDIS constantly filled with water, I presume, is that the air field must be enlarged manually, otherwise it is automatically at a minimum.

Or it just looks cooler.

In Logopolis the fourth Doctor tried to land the TARDIS underwater in order to flood the TARDIS.

Unfortunately we never saw what happened as the TARDIS materialised on a barge instead of dropping to the bottom of the Thames.

We see this at the start of Series 8, Episode 4 "Listen" where The Doctor does open the TARDIS doors underwater.

Nothing happens.

The TARDIS maintains a shell around it which doesn't let any water in.

TECHNICALLY, in the episode with Donna Noble, when she opened the TARDIS when David Tennant was Doctor, she asked why they were breathing.

The doctor replied with the fact that there was an oxygen field surrounding the TARDIS, which would also mean that no water would be able to get inside when the shields are up.

Disney mermaid in the second left picture has the tardis also opening underwater

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/117818/Sunday 16th June in Aus

Question: I've always wondered what would happen, and have asked my friends a few times, but without a satisfying response.

If the Doctor were to open the TARDIS under water in the ocean, what would happen?

The TARDIS maintains a shell around it which doesn't let any water in. With all of its systems working correctly, it remains trapped inside its own air bubble with the water held at a safe distance outside.

Nothing happens as the TARDIS maintains a shell around it thus preventing any water from getting in.