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












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
    10 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
    9 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
    9 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
    9 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
    9 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
    10 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
    9 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
    9 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
    9 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
    9 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 3 hours ago









eshier

7,49222747




7,49222747










asked 10 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
    10 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
    9 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
    9 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
    9 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
    9 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
    10 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
    9 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
    9 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
    9 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
    9 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
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
10 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
    7 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
    1 hour 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
    7 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
    7 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
        7 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
        1 hour 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
        7 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
        1 hour 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 2 hours ago









      Antal Spector-Zabusky

      1034




      1034










      answered 8 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
        7 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
        1 hour 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
        7 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
        1 hour 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
      7 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
      7 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
      1 hour 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
      1 hour 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
        7 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
        7 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
        7 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
        7 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 8 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
        7 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
        7 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
        7 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
        7 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
      7 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
      7 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
      7 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
      7 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 4 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 9 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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How did Captain America manage to do this?

                      迪纳利

                      南乌拉尔铁路局