MovieChat Forums > Loki (2021) Discussion > but this doesn't explain...

but this doesn't explain...

posted 3 years ago by exatera (3944)
17 replies | jump to latest

HOW did He Who Remains know everything that would happen, up to every word that would be uttered?..

They didn't say he was the god of time or something. If he was just a regular man, then how did this happen?

[–] DeeRagon (45) 3 years ago

He's Kang the Conqueror, from the 60s comics.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

This is correct

[–] exatera (3944) 3 years ago

Well, I don't want to read the whole story to understand.

I only watch Marvel, I never read any of the comics.

[–] asom (6558) 3 years ago

And how does this explain his abillity to know the future, but only up to some random point?

[–] exatera (3944) 3 years ago

Is anyone willing to offer a brief explanation?

[–] fc31 (4664) 3 years ago

Kang the Conqueror is from the future, his abilities are from advanced technologies, he was also tutored by time keepers (they are not androids), so he specializes in time manipulation. He is just a person, no super power.

[–] asom (6558) 3 years ago

Nope, doesn't explain it.

He knows things that will happen "at the end times" as well, like what Lokis will say. But ONLY up to certain point after which he is blind.

How? Why?

What makes him blind post that particular point?

[–] fc31 (4664) 3 years ago

Not sure. Time travel is not always very consistent in Marvel universe. But one thing is for sure, there is no way to be certain of future, no matter what technology you have, otherwise everything is really pointless.

Thanos would be able to see he is going to be killed after destroying infinity stones, he might as well not destroying it.

Stark would be able to get advance technologies from future, why bother with research? Pym particle running out, what about time stone?

Dr Strange should be able to see Thanos coming, there is no need for Hulk warning him.

[–] fc31 (4664) 3 years ago

There are also 2 of them: Immortus and Kang the Conqueror, they are the same person but from different time. I suspect in the end the statue is one of them, the one killed was the other.

[–] exatera (3944) 3 years ago

It's interesting that you mention that - I actually just read an article stating specifically that the person we met on the show was not Kang:
https://www.thewrap.com/no-that-wasnt-kang-the-conqueror-in-the-loki-finale/

[–] fc31 (4664) 3 years ago

I think that is because if that were Kang they would have to following the comic book story line of Kang, which they did not.

They have a lot of more flexibility if that is a variant of Kang. But that does not make sense either, because there are only 2 prominent variants of Kang: Kang and Immortus. The rest were killed by them as said in the show, so it has to one or the other.

So everything confirmed that was Kang, but they are not going to confirm it offically, only hint it in the show, that way nobody can say anything.

Nobody said that was Kang, and nobody said that wasn't.

[–] exatera (3944) 3 years ago

Primarily, it's because the story did not actually return to this variant of Richards being behind the TVA after Sylvie killed him.

[–] fc31 (4664) 3 years ago

I wouldn't be so sure. That statue speaks volumes.

[–] exatera (3944) 3 years ago

The statue was Kang, who openly ruled the timeline.

The man they were talking to was not Kang.

[–] fc31 (4664) 3 years ago

Could be. Like I said before, that could be Immortus.

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 3 years ago

But the article also says he's a variant of Kang. He's just not Kang the Conqueror. He even mentioned that he's been called many things and says "conqueror" specifically. The reason he knows everything that has and will happen (up to the point he didn't) was because he's been around for eons and Kang's whole deal is time travel which has allowed him to essentially be all seeing and all knowing.

It doesn't exactly spell all this out, but it definitely infers it.

[–] exatera (3944) 3 years ago

More precisely, a variant of Nathaniel Richards.

I wasn't disputing that.