Does the nature of the Apocalypse in The Umbrella Academy change from the first to the last episode?In The Umbrella Academy who does Number 5 owe a debt to?Have the writers of The Umbrella Academy discussed if they have been influenced by these 2 story lines?

How to write ı (i without dot) character in pgf-pie

Why is computing ridge regression with a Cholesky decomposition much quicker than using SVD?

Why does Captain Marvel assume the people on this planet know this?

Error during using callback start_page_number in lualatex

In the quantum hamiltonian, why does kinetic energy turn into an operator while potential doesn't?

Definition of Statistic

Recommendation letter by significant other if you worked with them professionally?

Signed and unsigned numbers

Are babies of evil humanoid species inherently evil?

Does this video of collapsing warehouse shelves show a real incident?

Motivation for Zeta Function of an Algebraic Variety

Hotkey (or other quick way) to insert a keyframe for only one component of a vector-valued property?

Accountant/ lawyer will not return my call

They call me Inspector Morse

Doesn't allowing a user mode program to access kernel space memory and execute the IN and OUT instructions defeat the purpose of having CPU modes?

Why doesn't this Google Translate ad use the word "Translation" instead of "Translate"?

In the late 1940’s to early 1950’s what technology was available that could melt a LOT of ice?

Conservation of Mass and Energy

How to detect if C code (which needs 'extern C') is compiled in C++

How did Alan Turing break the enigma code using the hint given by the lady in the bar?

Do I really need to have a scientific explanation for my premise?

Was Luke Skywalker the leader of the Rebel forces on Hoth?

Single word request: Harming the benefactor

What wound would be of little consequence to a biped but terrible for a quadruped?



Does the nature of the Apocalypse in The Umbrella Academy change from the first to the last episode?


In The Umbrella Academy who does Number 5 owe a debt to?Have the writers of The Umbrella Academy discussed if they have been influenced by these 2 story lines?













12















While it's reasonably clear that




Vanya




is the root cause of the Apocalypse in both the timeline where Five lived after the event and the timeline where he came back to try to stop it, is the mechanics of the event different each time?




It would seem a missing moon would be something Five should have noticed and would have provided some big rabbit holes to chase dead ends down especially given that Luther spent years living there.











share|improve this question
























  • If anyone has a good idea of where to put spoiler tags for this I'd be happy to see it edited. Everything I think of either gives something away, or is just one big Spoiler block.

    – Jontia
    11 hours ago











  • I think I remember a throw-away line by 5 about the moon. After he returned from working for the handler, maybe. Definitely later in the series.

    – eshier
    11 hours ago






  • 3





    @eshier At some point, Luther says "I have a feeling it has something to do with the moon". Of course, he says this because he was sent there for a few years, but it's good foreshadowing nonetheless.

    – Parrotmaster
    11 hours ago






  • 3





    @Parrotmaster It's more than Luther's comment. In the final episode, after the mansion's destruction, Number 5 says, "When I found it, I assumed this place came down along with everything else. But here we are. The Moon's still shining, the Earth is in one piece, but not the Academy." From this transcript site (emphasis mine).

    – eshier
    10 hours ago







  • 3





    The comment from 5 struck me since it was really the first implication I caught that the moon might not be shining. Tied in to Luther's time there and our general lack of knowledge about what or how Hargreeves knew about the apocalypse, I just sort of blew it off until the ending. Practically, it seemed like the moon discussion was something that got cut for time/flow issues. "The Moon's still shining" is an odd enough turn of phrase that it's noticeable and, frankly, deliberate.

    – eshier
    10 hours ago















12















While it's reasonably clear that




Vanya




is the root cause of the Apocalypse in both the timeline where Five lived after the event and the timeline where he came back to try to stop it, is the mechanics of the event different each time?




It would seem a missing moon would be something Five should have noticed and would have provided some big rabbit holes to chase dead ends down especially given that Luther spent years living there.











share|improve this question
























  • If anyone has a good idea of where to put spoiler tags for this I'd be happy to see it edited. Everything I think of either gives something away, or is just one big Spoiler block.

    – Jontia
    11 hours ago











  • I think I remember a throw-away line by 5 about the moon. After he returned from working for the handler, maybe. Definitely later in the series.

    – eshier
    11 hours ago






  • 3





    @eshier At some point, Luther says "I have a feeling it has something to do with the moon". Of course, he says this because he was sent there for a few years, but it's good foreshadowing nonetheless.

    – Parrotmaster
    11 hours ago






  • 3





    @Parrotmaster It's more than Luther's comment. In the final episode, after the mansion's destruction, Number 5 says, "When I found it, I assumed this place came down along with everything else. But here we are. The Moon's still shining, the Earth is in one piece, but not the Academy." From this transcript site (emphasis mine).

    – eshier
    10 hours ago







  • 3





    The comment from 5 struck me since it was really the first implication I caught that the moon might not be shining. Tied in to Luther's time there and our general lack of knowledge about what or how Hargreeves knew about the apocalypse, I just sort of blew it off until the ending. Practically, it seemed like the moon discussion was something that got cut for time/flow issues. "The Moon's still shining" is an odd enough turn of phrase that it's noticeable and, frankly, deliberate.

    – eshier
    10 hours ago













12












12








12


0






While it's reasonably clear that




Vanya




is the root cause of the Apocalypse in both the timeline where Five lived after the event and the timeline where he came back to try to stop it, is the mechanics of the event different each time?




It would seem a missing moon would be something Five should have noticed and would have provided some big rabbit holes to chase dead ends down especially given that Luther spent years living there.











share|improve this question
















While it's reasonably clear that




Vanya




is the root cause of the Apocalypse in both the timeline where Five lived after the event and the timeline where he came back to try to stop it, is the mechanics of the event different each time?




It would seem a missing moon would be something Five should have noticed and would have provided some big rabbit holes to chase dead ends down especially given that Luther spent years living there.








the-umbrella-academy






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago









eshier

7,49222747




7,49222747










asked 11 hours ago









JontiaJontia

5,12431943




5,12431943












  • If anyone has a good idea of where to put spoiler tags for this I'd be happy to see it edited. Everything I think of either gives something away, or is just one big Spoiler block.

    – Jontia
    11 hours ago











  • I think I remember a throw-away line by 5 about the moon. After he returned from working for the handler, maybe. Definitely later in the series.

    – eshier
    11 hours ago






  • 3





    @eshier At some point, Luther says "I have a feeling it has something to do with the moon". Of course, he says this because he was sent there for a few years, but it's good foreshadowing nonetheless.

    – Parrotmaster
    11 hours ago






  • 3





    @Parrotmaster It's more than Luther's comment. In the final episode, after the mansion's destruction, Number 5 says, "When I found it, I assumed this place came down along with everything else. But here we are. The Moon's still shining, the Earth is in one piece, but not the Academy." From this transcript site (emphasis mine).

    – eshier
    10 hours ago







  • 3





    The comment from 5 struck me since it was really the first implication I caught that the moon might not be shining. Tied in to Luther's time there and our general lack of knowledge about what or how Hargreeves knew about the apocalypse, I just sort of blew it off until the ending. Practically, it seemed like the moon discussion was something that got cut for time/flow issues. "The Moon's still shining" is an odd enough turn of phrase that it's noticeable and, frankly, deliberate.

    – eshier
    10 hours ago

















  • If anyone has a good idea of where to put spoiler tags for this I'd be happy to see it edited. Everything I think of either gives something away, or is just one big Spoiler block.

    – Jontia
    11 hours ago











  • I think I remember a throw-away line by 5 about the moon. After he returned from working for the handler, maybe. Definitely later in the series.

    – eshier
    11 hours ago






  • 3





    @eshier At some point, Luther says "I have a feeling it has something to do with the moon". Of course, he says this because he was sent there for a few years, but it's good foreshadowing nonetheless.

    – Parrotmaster
    11 hours ago






  • 3





    @Parrotmaster It's more than Luther's comment. In the final episode, after the mansion's destruction, Number 5 says, "When I found it, I assumed this place came down along with everything else. But here we are. The Moon's still shining, the Earth is in one piece, but not the Academy." From this transcript site (emphasis mine).

    – eshier
    10 hours ago







  • 3





    The comment from 5 struck me since it was really the first implication I caught that the moon might not be shining. Tied in to Luther's time there and our general lack of knowledge about what or how Hargreeves knew about the apocalypse, I just sort of blew it off until the ending. Practically, it seemed like the moon discussion was something that got cut for time/flow issues. "The Moon's still shining" is an odd enough turn of phrase that it's noticeable and, frankly, deliberate.

    – eshier
    10 hours ago
















If anyone has a good idea of where to put spoiler tags for this I'd be happy to see it edited. Everything I think of either gives something away, or is just one big Spoiler block.

– Jontia
11 hours ago





If anyone has a good idea of where to put spoiler tags for this I'd be happy to see it edited. Everything I think of either gives something away, or is just one big Spoiler block.

– Jontia
11 hours ago













I think I remember a throw-away line by 5 about the moon. After he returned from working for the handler, maybe. Definitely later in the series.

– eshier
11 hours ago





I think I remember a throw-away line by 5 about the moon. After he returned from working for the handler, maybe. Definitely later in the series.

– eshier
11 hours ago




3




3





@eshier At some point, Luther says "I have a feeling it has something to do with the moon". Of course, he says this because he was sent there for a few years, but it's good foreshadowing nonetheless.

– Parrotmaster
11 hours ago





@eshier At some point, Luther says "I have a feeling it has something to do with the moon". Of course, he says this because he was sent there for a few years, but it's good foreshadowing nonetheless.

– Parrotmaster
11 hours ago




3




3





@Parrotmaster It's more than Luther's comment. In the final episode, after the mansion's destruction, Number 5 says, "When I found it, I assumed this place came down along with everything else. But here we are. The Moon's still shining, the Earth is in one piece, but not the Academy." From this transcript site (emphasis mine).

– eshier
10 hours ago






@Parrotmaster It's more than Luther's comment. In the final episode, after the mansion's destruction, Number 5 says, "When I found it, I assumed this place came down along with everything else. But here we are. The Moon's still shining, the Earth is in one piece, but not the Academy." From this transcript site (emphasis mine).

– eshier
10 hours ago





3




3





The comment from 5 struck me since it was really the first implication I caught that the moon might not be shining. Tied in to Luther's time there and our general lack of knowledge about what or how Hargreeves knew about the apocalypse, I just sort of blew it off until the ending. Practically, it seemed like the moon discussion was something that got cut for time/flow issues. "The Moon's still shining" is an odd enough turn of phrase that it's noticeable and, frankly, deliberate.

– eshier
10 hours ago





The comment from 5 struck me since it was really the first implication I caught that the moon might not be shining. Tied in to Luther's time there and our general lack of knowledge about what or how Hargreeves knew about the apocalypse, I just sort of blew it off until the ending. Practically, it seemed like the moon discussion was something that got cut for time/flow issues. "The Moon's still shining" is an odd enough turn of phrase that it's noticeable and, frankly, deliberate.

– eshier
10 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















14














The nature of time in the Umbrella Academy seems to be somewhat malleable with the exception of key "events" that must happen (according to the Commission). The Handler notes that the Commission struggles between keeping the timeline intact and giving the humans free-will. So a time-traveler could go back in time and change events as long as they don't change key events.



Spoilers about the entirety of the final episode so read at your own will



There were actually some changes between what Number 5 witnessed and how events unfolded:



  1. In the future, Luther was holding a glass eye. In the present, Leonard lost his eye, but never got a glass one. There was no other character that had a glass eye so Luther could not have grabbed one.

  2. In the future, Leonard would have been at the concert for Luther to have removed his eye. In the present, he was not there.

  3. In the future, Number 5 did not find himself in the rubble indicating that he was not there. In the present, he was clearly there.

  4. In the future, he found everyone's bodies. In the present, everyone was transported away.

  5. (I may be remembering this wrong). In the future, Number 5 found everyone at the mansion. In the present, they were at the concert hall.

The important thing was that the apocalypse had to happen and that Vanya had to cause it. That was what the Commission sent Hazel and Cha-cha to ensure. How it happened didn't matter. Number 5 even states:




The apocalypse will always happen and Vanya will always be the cause, unless we take her with us and fix her.




He doesn't mention that Vanya had to blow up or destroy the moon. Just that Vanya had to set off a series of events that causes the apocalypse. So it is possible that if they go back and try again without trying to "fix" her, then instead of destroying the moon, she would cause some other kind of apocalyptic event.






share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    "In the future, Luther had a glass eye." It might be better to word that as "holding" to avoid the interpretation that he had one of his eyes replaced with a glass one.

    – Acccumulation
    9 hours ago











  • It wasn't guaranteed that Luther removed Leonard's eye. Up until Number 5 smashed it, I thought Luther would somehow get the eye from him and end up holding it anyway.

    – MartianInvader
    3 hours ago


















9














It's more than Luther's time on the moon or his assumptions earlier that it had to do with that.
In the final episode, after the mansion's destruction, Number 5 says,




"When I found it, I assumed this place came down along with everything else. But here we are. The Moon's still shining, the Earth is in one piece, but not the Academy."




From this transcript site (emphasis mine)



The comment from 5 struck me since it was really the first implication I caught that the moon might not be shining. Tied in to Luther's time there and our general lack of knowledge about what or how Hargreeves knew about the apocalypse, I just sort of blew it off until the ending. Practically, it seemed like the moon discussion was something that got cut for time/flow issues. "The Moon's still shining" is an odd enough turn of phrase but close enough to a common one (The sun's still shining) that it's noticeable and, frankly, deliberate.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    The whole moon thing bothers me. The moon is in orbit around the Earth. If a beam from the earth split off parts of the moon, those pieces would not lose their angular momentum. THey would enter an elliptical orbit around the earth. When that orbit decays enough, they will graze the atmosphere and burn up harmlessly. They would not fall straight from the moon down to the Earth as depicted.

    – Paul Chernoch
    9 hours ago







  • 2





    Also consider that the moon piece took a handful of seconds to reach earth. The moon fragment was somehow propelled directly towards Earth at an appreciable percentage of c (for reference, the Apollo missions took about 3 days to cover the same distance). Any event energetic enough to cause that probably wouldn't leave much of the Moon left afterwards.

    – azurefrog
    8 hours ago



















3














The specifics of the timing/and or trigger may have been somewhat different however:




Look at Grace's embroidery back in episode 3.
I'll try to find an image to include when I'm off of work, but for now you can see one here:The Umbrella Academy's Ending Was Revealed In Episode 3




I think it must be clear that Sir Reginald Hargreeves




knew more then he was ever able to pass on. His meeting with Klaus was interrupted just as he was about to start spilling important info.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Mr.Mindor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



























    1














    This isn't an answer, precisely, but I would say that the in the television series it is demonstrated that events can change. In the finale, Luther never met anyone with a prosthetic eye to yank out, so even if they had been caught in the apocalypse Five never would have found him clutching the eye in his hand. The timeline has been altered. Also, it's only my opinion, but I think that the destruction in the finale would have been much more complete than the shots of the ruined world we saw Five wandering in during the series. The world was relatively intact in Five's lonely post-apocalyptic world. The events of the finale were worse for the planet than the events Five escaped from.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Seneca is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.



















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "186"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f207054%2fdoes-the-nature-of-the-apocalypse-in-the-umbrella-academy-change-from-the-first%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      14














      The nature of time in the Umbrella Academy seems to be somewhat malleable with the exception of key "events" that must happen (according to the Commission). The Handler notes that the Commission struggles between keeping the timeline intact and giving the humans free-will. So a time-traveler could go back in time and change events as long as they don't change key events.



      Spoilers about the entirety of the final episode so read at your own will



      There were actually some changes between what Number 5 witnessed and how events unfolded:



      1. In the future, Luther was holding a glass eye. In the present, Leonard lost his eye, but never got a glass one. There was no other character that had a glass eye so Luther could not have grabbed one.

      2. In the future, Leonard would have been at the concert for Luther to have removed his eye. In the present, he was not there.

      3. In the future, Number 5 did not find himself in the rubble indicating that he was not there. In the present, he was clearly there.

      4. In the future, he found everyone's bodies. In the present, everyone was transported away.

      5. (I may be remembering this wrong). In the future, Number 5 found everyone at the mansion. In the present, they were at the concert hall.

      The important thing was that the apocalypse had to happen and that Vanya had to cause it. That was what the Commission sent Hazel and Cha-cha to ensure. How it happened didn't matter. Number 5 even states:




      The apocalypse will always happen and Vanya will always be the cause, unless we take her with us and fix her.




      He doesn't mention that Vanya had to blow up or destroy the moon. Just that Vanya had to set off a series of events that causes the apocalypse. So it is possible that if they go back and try again without trying to "fix" her, then instead of destroying the moon, she would cause some other kind of apocalyptic event.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 3





        "In the future, Luther had a glass eye." It might be better to word that as "holding" to avoid the interpretation that he had one of his eyes replaced with a glass one.

        – Acccumulation
        9 hours ago











      • It wasn't guaranteed that Luther removed Leonard's eye. Up until Number 5 smashed it, I thought Luther would somehow get the eye from him and end up holding it anyway.

        – MartianInvader
        3 hours ago















      14














      The nature of time in the Umbrella Academy seems to be somewhat malleable with the exception of key "events" that must happen (according to the Commission). The Handler notes that the Commission struggles between keeping the timeline intact and giving the humans free-will. So a time-traveler could go back in time and change events as long as they don't change key events.



      Spoilers about the entirety of the final episode so read at your own will



      There were actually some changes between what Number 5 witnessed and how events unfolded:



      1. In the future, Luther was holding a glass eye. In the present, Leonard lost his eye, but never got a glass one. There was no other character that had a glass eye so Luther could not have grabbed one.

      2. In the future, Leonard would have been at the concert for Luther to have removed his eye. In the present, he was not there.

      3. In the future, Number 5 did not find himself in the rubble indicating that he was not there. In the present, he was clearly there.

      4. In the future, he found everyone's bodies. In the present, everyone was transported away.

      5. (I may be remembering this wrong). In the future, Number 5 found everyone at the mansion. In the present, they were at the concert hall.

      The important thing was that the apocalypse had to happen and that Vanya had to cause it. That was what the Commission sent Hazel and Cha-cha to ensure. How it happened didn't matter. Number 5 even states:




      The apocalypse will always happen and Vanya will always be the cause, unless we take her with us and fix her.




      He doesn't mention that Vanya had to blow up or destroy the moon. Just that Vanya had to set off a series of events that causes the apocalypse. So it is possible that if they go back and try again without trying to "fix" her, then instead of destroying the moon, she would cause some other kind of apocalyptic event.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 3





        "In the future, Luther had a glass eye." It might be better to word that as "holding" to avoid the interpretation that he had one of his eyes replaced with a glass one.

        – Acccumulation
        9 hours ago











      • It wasn't guaranteed that Luther removed Leonard's eye. Up until Number 5 smashed it, I thought Luther would somehow get the eye from him and end up holding it anyway.

        – MartianInvader
        3 hours ago













      14












      14








      14







      The nature of time in the Umbrella Academy seems to be somewhat malleable with the exception of key "events" that must happen (according to the Commission). The Handler notes that the Commission struggles between keeping the timeline intact and giving the humans free-will. So a time-traveler could go back in time and change events as long as they don't change key events.



      Spoilers about the entirety of the final episode so read at your own will



      There were actually some changes between what Number 5 witnessed and how events unfolded:



      1. In the future, Luther was holding a glass eye. In the present, Leonard lost his eye, but never got a glass one. There was no other character that had a glass eye so Luther could not have grabbed one.

      2. In the future, Leonard would have been at the concert for Luther to have removed his eye. In the present, he was not there.

      3. In the future, Number 5 did not find himself in the rubble indicating that he was not there. In the present, he was clearly there.

      4. In the future, he found everyone's bodies. In the present, everyone was transported away.

      5. (I may be remembering this wrong). In the future, Number 5 found everyone at the mansion. In the present, they were at the concert hall.

      The important thing was that the apocalypse had to happen and that Vanya had to cause it. That was what the Commission sent Hazel and Cha-cha to ensure. How it happened didn't matter. Number 5 even states:




      The apocalypse will always happen and Vanya will always be the cause, unless we take her with us and fix her.




      He doesn't mention that Vanya had to blow up or destroy the moon. Just that Vanya had to set off a series of events that causes the apocalypse. So it is possible that if they go back and try again without trying to "fix" her, then instead of destroying the moon, she would cause some other kind of apocalyptic event.






      share|improve this answer















      The nature of time in the Umbrella Academy seems to be somewhat malleable with the exception of key "events" that must happen (according to the Commission). The Handler notes that the Commission struggles between keeping the timeline intact and giving the humans free-will. So a time-traveler could go back in time and change events as long as they don't change key events.



      Spoilers about the entirety of the final episode so read at your own will



      There were actually some changes between what Number 5 witnessed and how events unfolded:



      1. In the future, Luther was holding a glass eye. In the present, Leonard lost his eye, but never got a glass one. There was no other character that had a glass eye so Luther could not have grabbed one.

      2. In the future, Leonard would have been at the concert for Luther to have removed his eye. In the present, he was not there.

      3. In the future, Number 5 did not find himself in the rubble indicating that he was not there. In the present, he was clearly there.

      4. In the future, he found everyone's bodies. In the present, everyone was transported away.

      5. (I may be remembering this wrong). In the future, Number 5 found everyone at the mansion. In the present, they were at the concert hall.

      The important thing was that the apocalypse had to happen and that Vanya had to cause it. That was what the Commission sent Hazel and Cha-cha to ensure. How it happened didn't matter. Number 5 even states:




      The apocalypse will always happen and Vanya will always be the cause, unless we take her with us and fix her.




      He doesn't mention that Vanya had to blow up or destroy the moon. Just that Vanya had to set off a series of events that causes the apocalypse. So it is possible that if they go back and try again without trying to "fix" her, then instead of destroying the moon, she would cause some other kind of apocalyptic event.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 3 hours ago









      Antal Spector-Zabusky

      1034




      1034










      answered 10 hours ago









      DeeVDeeV

      610516




      610516







      • 3





        "In the future, Luther had a glass eye." It might be better to word that as "holding" to avoid the interpretation that he had one of his eyes replaced with a glass one.

        – Acccumulation
        9 hours ago











      • It wasn't guaranteed that Luther removed Leonard's eye. Up until Number 5 smashed it, I thought Luther would somehow get the eye from him and end up holding it anyway.

        – MartianInvader
        3 hours ago












      • 3





        "In the future, Luther had a glass eye." It might be better to word that as "holding" to avoid the interpretation that he had one of his eyes replaced with a glass one.

        – Acccumulation
        9 hours ago











      • It wasn't guaranteed that Luther removed Leonard's eye. Up until Number 5 smashed it, I thought Luther would somehow get the eye from him and end up holding it anyway.

        – MartianInvader
        3 hours ago







      3




      3





      "In the future, Luther had a glass eye." It might be better to word that as "holding" to avoid the interpretation that he had one of his eyes replaced with a glass one.

      – Acccumulation
      9 hours ago





      "In the future, Luther had a glass eye." It might be better to word that as "holding" to avoid the interpretation that he had one of his eyes replaced with a glass one.

      – Acccumulation
      9 hours ago













      It wasn't guaranteed that Luther removed Leonard's eye. Up until Number 5 smashed it, I thought Luther would somehow get the eye from him and end up holding it anyway.

      – MartianInvader
      3 hours ago





      It wasn't guaranteed that Luther removed Leonard's eye. Up until Number 5 smashed it, I thought Luther would somehow get the eye from him and end up holding it anyway.

      – MartianInvader
      3 hours ago













      9














      It's more than Luther's time on the moon or his assumptions earlier that it had to do with that.
      In the final episode, after the mansion's destruction, Number 5 says,




      "When I found it, I assumed this place came down along with everything else. But here we are. The Moon's still shining, the Earth is in one piece, but not the Academy."




      From this transcript site (emphasis mine)



      The comment from 5 struck me since it was really the first implication I caught that the moon might not be shining. Tied in to Luther's time there and our general lack of knowledge about what or how Hargreeves knew about the apocalypse, I just sort of blew it off until the ending. Practically, it seemed like the moon discussion was something that got cut for time/flow issues. "The Moon's still shining" is an odd enough turn of phrase but close enough to a common one (The sun's still shining) that it's noticeable and, frankly, deliberate.






      share|improve this answer


















      • 1





        The whole moon thing bothers me. The moon is in orbit around the Earth. If a beam from the earth split off parts of the moon, those pieces would not lose their angular momentum. THey would enter an elliptical orbit around the earth. When that orbit decays enough, they will graze the atmosphere and burn up harmlessly. They would not fall straight from the moon down to the Earth as depicted.

        – Paul Chernoch
        9 hours ago







      • 2





        Also consider that the moon piece took a handful of seconds to reach earth. The moon fragment was somehow propelled directly towards Earth at an appreciable percentage of c (for reference, the Apollo missions took about 3 days to cover the same distance). Any event energetic enough to cause that probably wouldn't leave much of the Moon left afterwards.

        – azurefrog
        8 hours ago
















      9














      It's more than Luther's time on the moon or his assumptions earlier that it had to do with that.
      In the final episode, after the mansion's destruction, Number 5 says,




      "When I found it, I assumed this place came down along with everything else. But here we are. The Moon's still shining, the Earth is in one piece, but not the Academy."




      From this transcript site (emphasis mine)



      The comment from 5 struck me since it was really the first implication I caught that the moon might not be shining. Tied in to Luther's time there and our general lack of knowledge about what or how Hargreeves knew about the apocalypse, I just sort of blew it off until the ending. Practically, it seemed like the moon discussion was something that got cut for time/flow issues. "The Moon's still shining" is an odd enough turn of phrase but close enough to a common one (The sun's still shining) that it's noticeable and, frankly, deliberate.






      share|improve this answer


















      • 1





        The whole moon thing bothers me. The moon is in orbit around the Earth. If a beam from the earth split off parts of the moon, those pieces would not lose their angular momentum. THey would enter an elliptical orbit around the earth. When that orbit decays enough, they will graze the atmosphere and burn up harmlessly. They would not fall straight from the moon down to the Earth as depicted.

        – Paul Chernoch
        9 hours ago







      • 2





        Also consider that the moon piece took a handful of seconds to reach earth. The moon fragment was somehow propelled directly towards Earth at an appreciable percentage of c (for reference, the Apollo missions took about 3 days to cover the same distance). Any event energetic enough to cause that probably wouldn't leave much of the Moon left afterwards.

        – azurefrog
        8 hours ago














      9












      9








      9







      It's more than Luther's time on the moon or his assumptions earlier that it had to do with that.
      In the final episode, after the mansion's destruction, Number 5 says,




      "When I found it, I assumed this place came down along with everything else. But here we are. The Moon's still shining, the Earth is in one piece, but not the Academy."




      From this transcript site (emphasis mine)



      The comment from 5 struck me since it was really the first implication I caught that the moon might not be shining. Tied in to Luther's time there and our general lack of knowledge about what or how Hargreeves knew about the apocalypse, I just sort of blew it off until the ending. Practically, it seemed like the moon discussion was something that got cut for time/flow issues. "The Moon's still shining" is an odd enough turn of phrase but close enough to a common one (The sun's still shining) that it's noticeable and, frankly, deliberate.






      share|improve this answer













      It's more than Luther's time on the moon or his assumptions earlier that it had to do with that.
      In the final episode, after the mansion's destruction, Number 5 says,




      "When I found it, I assumed this place came down along with everything else. But here we are. The Moon's still shining, the Earth is in one piece, but not the Academy."




      From this transcript site (emphasis mine)



      The comment from 5 struck me since it was really the first implication I caught that the moon might not be shining. Tied in to Luther's time there and our general lack of knowledge about what or how Hargreeves knew about the apocalypse, I just sort of blew it off until the ending. Practically, it seemed like the moon discussion was something that got cut for time/flow issues. "The Moon's still shining" is an odd enough turn of phrase but close enough to a common one (The sun's still shining) that it's noticeable and, frankly, deliberate.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 10 hours ago









      eshiereshier

      7,49222747




      7,49222747







      • 1





        The whole moon thing bothers me. The moon is in orbit around the Earth. If a beam from the earth split off parts of the moon, those pieces would not lose their angular momentum. THey would enter an elliptical orbit around the earth. When that orbit decays enough, they will graze the atmosphere and burn up harmlessly. They would not fall straight from the moon down to the Earth as depicted.

        – Paul Chernoch
        9 hours ago







      • 2





        Also consider that the moon piece took a handful of seconds to reach earth. The moon fragment was somehow propelled directly towards Earth at an appreciable percentage of c (for reference, the Apollo missions took about 3 days to cover the same distance). Any event energetic enough to cause that probably wouldn't leave much of the Moon left afterwards.

        – azurefrog
        8 hours ago













      • 1





        The whole moon thing bothers me. The moon is in orbit around the Earth. If a beam from the earth split off parts of the moon, those pieces would not lose their angular momentum. THey would enter an elliptical orbit around the earth. When that orbit decays enough, they will graze the atmosphere and burn up harmlessly. They would not fall straight from the moon down to the Earth as depicted.

        – Paul Chernoch
        9 hours ago







      • 2





        Also consider that the moon piece took a handful of seconds to reach earth. The moon fragment was somehow propelled directly towards Earth at an appreciable percentage of c (for reference, the Apollo missions took about 3 days to cover the same distance). Any event energetic enough to cause that probably wouldn't leave much of the Moon left afterwards.

        – azurefrog
        8 hours ago








      1




      1





      The whole moon thing bothers me. The moon is in orbit around the Earth. If a beam from the earth split off parts of the moon, those pieces would not lose their angular momentum. THey would enter an elliptical orbit around the earth. When that orbit decays enough, they will graze the atmosphere and burn up harmlessly. They would not fall straight from the moon down to the Earth as depicted.

      – Paul Chernoch
      9 hours ago






      The whole moon thing bothers me. The moon is in orbit around the Earth. If a beam from the earth split off parts of the moon, those pieces would not lose their angular momentum. THey would enter an elliptical orbit around the earth. When that orbit decays enough, they will graze the atmosphere and burn up harmlessly. They would not fall straight from the moon down to the Earth as depicted.

      – Paul Chernoch
      9 hours ago





      2




      2





      Also consider that the moon piece took a handful of seconds to reach earth. The moon fragment was somehow propelled directly towards Earth at an appreciable percentage of c (for reference, the Apollo missions took about 3 days to cover the same distance). Any event energetic enough to cause that probably wouldn't leave much of the Moon left afterwards.

      – azurefrog
      8 hours ago






      Also consider that the moon piece took a handful of seconds to reach earth. The moon fragment was somehow propelled directly towards Earth at an appreciable percentage of c (for reference, the Apollo missions took about 3 days to cover the same distance). Any event energetic enough to cause that probably wouldn't leave much of the Moon left afterwards.

      – azurefrog
      8 hours ago












      3














      The specifics of the timing/and or trigger may have been somewhat different however:




      Look at Grace's embroidery back in episode 3.
      I'll try to find an image to include when I'm off of work, but for now you can see one here:The Umbrella Academy's Ending Was Revealed In Episode 3




      I think it must be clear that Sir Reginald Hargreeves




      knew more then he was ever able to pass on. His meeting with Klaus was interrupted just as he was about to start spilling important info.







      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Mr.Mindor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.
























        3














        The specifics of the timing/and or trigger may have been somewhat different however:




        Look at Grace's embroidery back in episode 3.
        I'll try to find an image to include when I'm off of work, but for now you can see one here:The Umbrella Academy's Ending Was Revealed In Episode 3




        I think it must be clear that Sir Reginald Hargreeves




        knew more then he was ever able to pass on. His meeting with Klaus was interrupted just as he was about to start spilling important info.







        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Mr.Mindor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          3












          3








          3







          The specifics of the timing/and or trigger may have been somewhat different however:




          Look at Grace's embroidery back in episode 3.
          I'll try to find an image to include when I'm off of work, but for now you can see one here:The Umbrella Academy's Ending Was Revealed In Episode 3




          I think it must be clear that Sir Reginald Hargreeves




          knew more then he was ever able to pass on. His meeting with Klaus was interrupted just as he was about to start spilling important info.







          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Mr.Mindor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.










          The specifics of the timing/and or trigger may have been somewhat different however:




          Look at Grace's embroidery back in episode 3.
          I'll try to find an image to include when I'm off of work, but for now you can see one here:The Umbrella Academy's Ending Was Revealed In Episode 3




          I think it must be clear that Sir Reginald Hargreeves




          knew more then he was ever able to pass on. His meeting with Klaus was interrupted just as he was about to start spilling important info.








          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Mr.Mindor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer






          New contributor




          Mr.Mindor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered 6 hours ago









          Mr.MindorMr.Mindor

          1335




          1335




          New contributor




          Mr.Mindor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          Mr.Mindor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          Mr.Mindor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





















              1














              This isn't an answer, precisely, but I would say that the in the television series it is demonstrated that events can change. In the finale, Luther never met anyone with a prosthetic eye to yank out, so even if they had been caught in the apocalypse Five never would have found him clutching the eye in his hand. The timeline has been altered. Also, it's only my opinion, but I think that the destruction in the finale would have been much more complete than the shots of the ruined world we saw Five wandering in during the series. The world was relatively intact in Five's lonely post-apocalyptic world. The events of the finale were worse for the planet than the events Five escaped from.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              Seneca is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                1














                This isn't an answer, precisely, but I would say that the in the television series it is demonstrated that events can change. In the finale, Luther never met anyone with a prosthetic eye to yank out, so even if they had been caught in the apocalypse Five never would have found him clutching the eye in his hand. The timeline has been altered. Also, it's only my opinion, but I think that the destruction in the finale would have been much more complete than the shots of the ruined world we saw Five wandering in during the series. The world was relatively intact in Five's lonely post-apocalyptic world. The events of the finale were worse for the planet than the events Five escaped from.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Seneca is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                  1












                  1








                  1







                  This isn't an answer, precisely, but I would say that the in the television series it is demonstrated that events can change. In the finale, Luther never met anyone with a prosthetic eye to yank out, so even if they had been caught in the apocalypse Five never would have found him clutching the eye in his hand. The timeline has been altered. Also, it's only my opinion, but I think that the destruction in the finale would have been much more complete than the shots of the ruined world we saw Five wandering in during the series. The world was relatively intact in Five's lonely post-apocalyptic world. The events of the finale were worse for the planet than the events Five escaped from.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Seneca is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.










                  This isn't an answer, precisely, but I would say that the in the television series it is demonstrated that events can change. In the finale, Luther never met anyone with a prosthetic eye to yank out, so even if they had been caught in the apocalypse Five never would have found him clutching the eye in his hand. The timeline has been altered. Also, it's only my opinion, but I think that the destruction in the finale would have been much more complete than the shots of the ruined world we saw Five wandering in during the series. The world was relatively intact in Five's lonely post-apocalyptic world. The events of the finale were worse for the planet than the events Five escaped from.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Seneca is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  Seneca is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 11 hours ago









                  SenecaSeneca

                  1236




                  1236




                  New contributor




                  Seneca is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  Seneca is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  Seneca is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f207054%2fdoes-the-nature-of-the-apocalypse-in-the-umbrella-academy-change-from-the-first%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -the-umbrella-academy

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Mobil Contents History Mobil brands Former Mobil brands Lukoil transaction Mobil UK Mobil Australia Mobil New Zealand Mobil Greece Mobil in Japan Mobil in Canada Mobil Egypt See also References External links Navigation menuwww.mobil.com"Mobil Corporation"the original"Our Houston campus""Business & Finance: Socony-Vacuum Corp.""Popular Mechanics""Lubrite Technologies""Exxon Mobil campus 'clearly happening'""Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search""The Lion and the Moose - How 2 Executives Pulled off the Biggest Merger Ever""ExxonMobil Press Release""Lubricants""Archived copy"the original"Mobil 1™ and Mobil Super™ motor oil and synthetic motor oil - Mobil™ Motor Oils""Mobil Delvac""Mobil Industrial website""The State of Competition in Gasoline Marketing: The Effects of Refiner Operations at Retail""Mobil Travel Guide to become Forbes Travel Guide""Hotel Rankings: Forbes Merges with Mobil"the original"Jamieson oil industry history""Mobil news""Caltex pumps for control""Watchdog blocks Caltex bid""Exxon Mobil sells service station network""Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited is New Zealand's oldest oil company, with predecessor companies having first established a presence in the country in 1896""ExxonMobil subsidiaries have a business history in New Zealand stretching back more than 120 years. We are involved in petroleum refining and distribution and the marketing of fuels, lubricants and chemical products""Archived copy"the original"Exxon Mobil to Sell Its Japanese Arm for $3.9 Billion""Gas station merger will end Esso and Mobil's long run in Japan""Esso moves to affiliate itself with PC Optimum, no longer Aeroplan, in loyalty point switch""Mobil brand of gas stations to launch in Canada after deal for 213 Loblaws-owned locations""Mobil Nears Completion of Rebranding 200 Loblaw Gas Stations""Learn about ExxonMobil's operations in Egypt""Petrol and Diesel Service Stations in Egypt - Mobil"Official websiteExxon Mobil corporate websiteMobil Industrial official websiteeeeeeeeDA04275022275790-40000 0001 0860 5061n82045453134887257134887257

                      Frič See also Navigation menuinternal link

                      Identify plant with long narrow paired leaves and reddish stems Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What is this plant with long sharp leaves? Is it a weed?What is this 3ft high, stalky plant, with mid sized narrow leaves?What is this young shrub with opposite ovate, crenate leaves and reddish stems?What is this plant with large broad serrated leaves?Identify this upright branching weed with long leaves and reddish stemsPlease help me identify this bulbous plant with long, broad leaves and white flowersWhat is this small annual with narrow gray/green leaves and rust colored daisy-type flowers?What is this chilli plant?Does anyone know what type of chilli plant this is?Help identify this plant