fantastic_four

Was there a clear heroic figure in Loki? They ALL seemed morally grey from what I could tell. My guess is that she would say it was Sylvie and possibly Loki, but I can't cast either as heroes in the story, nor can I cast Immortus as a villain or someone who "won" anything since he had a knife plunged into his chest--even if that was his own design. Is there any reason for us to think Immortus believed anything aside from the fact that Sylvie would kill him? He kidnapped her as a child and kept her alive, so the way her entire life was controlled seemed aimed at killing him.

Yea, this is the good version at the end of Avengers 269 that pretty closely matches the one from the episode aside from the actor's comedic take.

I read through quite a bit of that, but I saw no explanation for why Immortus and Kang would have different names. Do they have different names because it was a ret-con to merge the two characters together, or did someone give another reason at some point?

Are we to assume that the branch Loki was sent back to was one where he never picked up the Tesseract and was arrested by the TVA? That seems like the simplest explanation for why Mobius didn't know who he was. Not sure where they're going with that idea...his very presence back at the TVA makes that quite weird.

I've always called them all Kang just to keep things simple. I'm generally aware Immortus is the 31st century version of the character, Kang is the time-traveler, Rama-Tut is the version who went back to ancient Egypt to rule, and maybe there are more. Why did his name keep changing? Should I just read Avengers 8 through 10, does that explain him fully in a way that fits with modern incarnations?

Episode 5 was my favorite episode of the Disney Plus shows...and episode 6 blew episode 5 away. The actor playing Kang is HUGELY likable, loved loved LOVED him and I LOVE his take on the character. So glad they decided to have him in the entire episode. The finale looks like it is pointing the entirety of Phase 4 straight towards Multiverse of Madness and No Way Out, but I'm EXTREMLY confused about something. Look at the original pre-Covid release order of the content in the picture below. Note that it shows Multiverse of Madness being released BEFORE Loki. Doesn't that tell us something about the loose ends from the finale? It looks as if that finale set up a big conflict between multiverses, but how does that fit if it occurs AFTER Multiverse of Madness? Did they change the Loki finale given the new ordering, or was it always going to happen like we just saw it happen? Also, I need to re-watch the episode. Did Kang make a reference to Shuma-Gorath without using his name, or is every reference he made warning about the danger of letting the timelines play out without the TVA pruning them entirely about variants of himself and the cloud-monster Alioth?

Oh, and after two decades of using glass display cases I've decided I really don't like clear glass shelving very much. Opaque shelving means when you're looking at one display on one shelf you're not distracted by the displays on the shelf above or below it as much, whereas if it's clear the other shelves just visually clutter the shelf you're looking at. This is particularly problematic if you're photographing a display, so unless you take the photo at the exact level of the shelf then the other display visually clutters the picture, too. For comic displays there's one other nice thing about opaque shelves--they frame the scene in a way that's directly reminiscent of comic panels. That's why for comic displays I really love black shelving best, because black lines is the most common framing for comic panels. If you look at the Billy bookshelf picture from my previous post you can see that the black borders around the figure are directly reminiscent of comic panels. You don't even necessarily need glass doors on bookshelves, but aside from looking really nice they provide one main functional advantage--they keep dust off of the interior. Dust still gets in but at a FAR lower rate. I usually end up having to dust the interior of glass display cases once a decade, sometimes even less often than that. Just to talk technical with Ikea Billy shelves versus Detolf--they're taller than Detolfs and can get even taller (up to 8 feet, I think) if you buy the extra shelf extension Ikea sells for Billy, plus they're MUCH wider so there's tons more room to put stuff on the shelves.

Since you guys are talking about display rooms thought I'd share something I found last year--I don't think the Detolf is Ikea's best display piece, I think it's their Billy bookshelf with glass doors installed. It's FAR more space efficient and maximizes space used. The advantage of the Detolf is that you can view it from the sides and back, and ideally you'd place a Detolf either completely away from walls in the middle of floor space, or at minimum you'd place it with nothing on either side of it for several feet to facilitate viewing from the sides. I see people with 3, 4, or even 5+ Detolfs all lined up next to each other a LOT, and that really kills the purpose of a Detolf; those collectors would almost always be better served by Billy shelves with doors because they're not getting much use out of the side or back glass. You can also get glass shelves for Billy shelves if you like the look of clear shelving. Below is an example of multiple Ikea Billy shelves with glass doors. This guy is using standard black shelves, but the shelves could be clear if he wanted. The amount of display space this affords is FAR greater than any equivalent Detolfs.

I was just thinking that when I read the announcment, lol...but I wish him the best at both endeavors. That was my first thought as well. Great guy, I hope he's happy with the responsibility.

Including the Target-exclusive Cobra Trooper. That thing was SO hard to get I'm surprised it's available so easily now. That guy is the best army-building action figure I've ever seen...SO well done with fantastic accessories and customization options.

Loki episode 5 is probably my favorite among all of the Disney Plus show episodes so far. So much zany goodness and Marvel geek-outery to be had, I HAVE to watch it again today. I'm so ticked I missed the Thanoscopter and Throg the first time around.

I would fully embrace streaming if 4K worked well with it, but it just doesn't. That's why I still buy true 4K movies on disc--sometimes. Unfortunately the main films I want in 4K are superhero films, and since Disney does such a cruddy job with 4K I don't end up buying much. Warner Brothers does MUCH better, but of course the movies themselves aren't as good so it's a mixed blessing. The gold standard for superhero movies in 4K is the Nolan Batman trilogy on UHD disc. If you watch those and can't really tell the difference between the 4K and 2K versions then you're in the majority that just can't tell and probably shouldn't care about 4K at all.

If you're using the apps built into your Smart TV and did nothing else you're probably not actually watching anything in 4K. Which is fine, because even if you jump through the hoops you're unlikely to be able to tell either way unless you switch back and forth between resolutions--which itself is non-trivial to do. I test it by watching Netflix and Disney Plus on my smart TV then flip to watching both via my XBox One X. Here's what you should know: Netflix doesn't give you 4K streaming for free; you have to subscribe to their "Premium" service that is $4/month more expensive. The only thing you get for the $4 is 4K content. Disney Plus does provide 4K for free, but actually getting it usually ranges from difficult to impossible. My Samsung TV's Disney Plus app either rarely or never streams in 4K. I don't know why, it just doesn't and I haven't been able to fix it. I can really only tell when I flip back and forth between the TV app and the XBox app. I get it fairly consistently through my XBox, but the Samsung app is in 2K for whatever reason. On top of compatibility issues Disney flips you down to 720p or 1080p whenever they want to. Could be in the middle of viewing or right from the start. The reason they say they do it is if they detect that your bandwidth is too low to support 4K, but who knows if that's the only reason. You'd have to have separate tech equipment that monitored your streaming resolution to know when you're getting 4K and when you're not. Netflix's 4K service is worth it--sort of. It's mostly worth it because they do a much better job of actually streaming in 4K when it's available and IF you're on the right device. It's only "sort" of worth it because only a tiny fraction of their content is actually in 4K. I watched the first season of Punisher in 4K and thought it was worth it, but very little of what I've watched aside from Netflix originals is in 4K. The last thing to know is that Disney barely produces anything in 4K anyway. They SAY it's 4K, but it isn't because most of the Marvel movies are 2K translated to 4K, and that means it's not really 4K. Some are in 4K--Black Panther is--but most of the others aren't. Black Panther on UHD is spectacular. I've compared it side-by-side with the same film streamed from Disney Plus--which, by the way, SHOULD have been 4K, but as is usually the case, wasn't--and the 4K version is noticeably better--but that's when you're viewing side by side. If you're not comparing I usually don't notice because 2K is pretty darned good to begin with. If anyone wants to watch every Marvel movie in 4K there's an odd paradox with regards to Fox. Almost EVERYTHING Disney has ever released that they say is 4K is actually 2K that is up-scaled. Oddly many of the Fox films ARE in 4K. It seems like Fox wanted to embrace the new format, but Disney decided something along the lines of their customers either don't care or can't tell so they don't really care either. The original Deadpool movie and several X-Men movies are in full 4K, and they're great if you're watching from disc. But even the Fox films are spotty...roughly half are in 4K, half are upscaled from 2K like Disney's movies typically are.

Can you give a spoiler-free generically-stated hint as to why? The original release order of the works was supposed to be Black Widow first and Falcon and the Winter Soldier second.

What 4K content are you watching? Is it via UHD discs or streaming? I ask because 95% of people who think they're watching 4K content almost always aren't.

Maybe they're viewing the heavy easter egg characters as hints for future works. There are over two dozen High Evolutionary references in Wandavision, so all of the Kang references--and there are close to two dozen total--may just point towards the Ant-Man film. At most we'll probably see Kang in a post-credits sequence.

I first thought Doom when I saw the castle, but Kang seems more likely. Who it actually ends up being could be anyone now that we know they're constantly trying to mislead us with easter eggs.

Oh wait, I'm reading that Mjolnir is also half-buried in that dirt outside the jar, but it's not tiny, it's full-sized and you don't see it in either of our shots of Throg, you see it near the jar as the camera pans up. Better angle here showing Mjolnir and the top of the Throg jar.

Wow, really hard to see. I can't see Mjolnir at all, even blown up and lightened up.

I missed that, when was it?

Definitely not, but 4K fans need to realize we're a very rare breed. The chart below is published weekly for the previous week, and the Ultra HD market share usually varies widely between 5% and 20%. Not many people have 4K Blu Ray players. I didn't realize how rare 4K was until Sony declined to build a 4K Blu Ray player into their PS4 system due to lack of consumer support--and Sony is the company that created the format! I switched to XBox One X specifically for that reason, although now Sony's new PS5 does have Ultra HD support built in.

I know two REALLY compelling reasons for them that explain why they're not converting older films to 4K disc: It costs money. At minimum the cost is in the tens of thousands, but for some film stocks it could be hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions if there's clean-up to do. The average person can't tell 2K from 4K, and only the smallest percentage of people can even tell what resolution their streaming content is anyway--even among videophiles. I can't always tell myself, and while casually watching I usually wouldn't notice. I can only tell when I'm specifically looking for evidence of resolution. VERY few people are getting full 4K streaming content from Disney, Netflix, or anywhere else, so by not converting older films to 4K they're almost certainly saving more money than they're losing. Many if not most people aren't even getting full 2K at 1080p, and many are only getting 720p.

Doesn't the paragraph below from your article suggest that Black Widow WILL get an Ultra HD release? This bit lists several exceptions with Marvel and Star Wars being among them. It seems to mostly say they're not planning to convert older movies to 4K disc.

Maybe that was his intent, but when you're using black outlines as comics do to render your subjects coloring their outfits a deep black wasn't really possible so they would use some similar dark color instead. I've heard him claim he wanted them to be black, but don't think I ever understood why he would do that anyway. Below is the panel from FF #256 where the team returns from the Negative Zone to find their costumes have "become negative," whatever that means. Their classic collars were black and the rest blue, so I get the black collars flipping to white--but why would blue flip to black? The opposite of blue on the color spectrum isn't blue, it's yellow. You can't really tell what Byrne's intent as communicated to the colorist was in the panels below...maybe black with a bluish sheen? No idea. Maybe his idea was that the Negative Zone saps ALL color and that's why he didn't go yellow. OK, but blue still wouldn't convert to black, it would be some shade of grey. So I really don't understand what he was going for, he didn't have Reed clarify it in the panels, and from his complaining I guess future artists didn't understand his intent, either.