Something doesn't quite add up with the concept of the "End of Time" in Loki.

He Who Remains, aka Kang the Conqueror, dies at the End of Time. Killed, I wager, is more precise. That was Season 1. Season 2 begins, and, clearly, there are events in Season 2 that occur AFTER Kang died. Yes, Loki time slips both in and out of the TVA. But the whole season is basically "Temporal Loom is bad. We need a He Who Remains variant to fix the darn thing," and they find one in Victor Timely. With all these brilliant minds and centuries for Loki to gain all that knowledge, you'd think someone would have asked if the temporal loom plot device could handle infinite timelines, coupled with the throughput multiplier plot device.

But the point is that it defies logic to say that the "End of Time" is the actual end of time. Whose time? Which timeline? If anything that could ever happen was orchestrated by He Who Remains up until the End of Time, that would mean Season 2 and the finale itself all happened before Kang dies at the End of Time. Once time ends, it ends, and everything becomes nothing. The act of being, existing, becomes non-existent or incomprehensible for beings such as us, who can only experience or perceive what we call life in 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. To my brain, it's illogical that what He Who Remains claims is the "End of Time" is the actual end of time.

Does anyone have an explanation as to what this so-called "End of Time" is and if it's on a timeline? Perhaps this has been explained in the comics? 

  • 3
  • 2
    But then it's not really the end of time. If the End of Time is X, then the events of Loki Season 2 are X + 1, which makes declaring the End of Time as the end of time impossible. It's more like a place than a time. X + 1 should result in undefined because everything ceases to exist after the end of time. But it doesn't. Therefore, the End Of Time = the actual end of time isn't true. Commented Jan 11 at 3:20
  • 1
    After reading the last answer in that link, it postulates that the End of Time is on the Scared Timeline. That could be plausible, since the TVA exists outside the Sacred Timeline. Then it would make sense since we're not saying End of Time = end of time for every single thing in every single Universe. The End of Time then is more like an asymptote approaching the actual end of time albeit for the so-called Sacred Timeline. Ergo, every Universe (the branches) has its own End of Time. Commented Jan 11 at 3:30
  • 3
    There's no "but" about it; that's the whole point of my answer. The Citadel at the End of Time does not literally exist at end of time. If you want to be charitable, you can interpret the "end of time" part as a reference to the point at which the Sacred Timeline stops flowing in a single, scripted direction and starts branching out into multiple, unscripted futures. Or if you want to be uncharitable, you can write the "end of time" part off as an outright lie; just another example of the pseudo-religious dogma that the TVA staff were indoctrinated with. Commented Jan 11 at 3:41
  • 1
    As the doctor said, "wibbly wobbly timey wimey"
    – Separatrix
    Commented Jan 12 at 13:15

2 Answers 2


Its the End of Kang's Time

HE WHO REMAINS: We just crossed... the threshold. Oh. So, I fibbed. I fibbed earlier when I said I know how everything's going to go. I... I know... I knew... everything up to a certain point, and that point was about... seven, eight, nine, ten seconds ago. But now I have no idea. No idea how the rest of this is going to go.

Loki (2021) - S01E06 - "For All Time. Always."

The End of Time was "seven, eight, nine, ten seconds ago"; the point at which Kang's prescience ended. From that point, there are infinite citadels in an infinite number of timelines, but the Sacred Timeline ended "seven, eight, nine, ten seconds ago".

And remember, infinity is bigger than you think - it contains everything and it's only just getting started with that.


I think it was just a time around the farthest point he who remains had gone. Recall that he knew exactly what was going to happen up to a point. That could have been considered the "true end of time". But really, people give things all sorts of names. Those names are useful, asthetically pleasing or both. But they are not always strictly descriptive or accurate. I think people are reading to much into it. In stories for some reason people seem to expect that all terms are strictly accurate and often try to retcon terminology that was casually dropped in a movie. Look at all the discussions about "binary language of vaporators". (even going to the effort of writing in books about it. You will find whole discussions about "Binary" being the name of the language of droids. But really, just take it at face value. It's the language of vaporators. Is it a programming language? A communications protocol? Both? Probably both. And it's probably composed of two characters.or maybe not. Maybe it's for point to point communications between two devices so binary refers to that. But it's a computer sort of thing and you need something that talks that to perform some sort of maintenance. And my guess is, that's all Lucas I tended when he wrote it. (He's not Tolkien, who honestly DID plan things that carefully)

Similarly, Tolkien didn't write Loki either, so I doubt there is a 50 page document, written in pencil and then written over in ink describing how The One Who Remains arrived at "The End Of Time" and took up residence. It's just a name that sounds cool and describes the general timeframe that He Who Remains lives in. Perhaps there's some technical reasons you can't travel farther than that. Perhaps not. In fact, I think that whether or not that's true actually depends upon whether a writer writing a Marvel story decides at some point that it is relevant to the story. Think of it as being in an indeterkibant state until some writer decides they need it to be this way. At which point, it solidifies into "cannon" and everyone else has to follow it to maintain continuity.

  • 1
    Hi, welcome to SF&F. This is long and rambling, and includes a large and unnecessary digression into Star Wars, but if you're arguing that it's meaningful to the character then continuing with the suggestion that it's essentially just writer fiat doesn't help.
    – DavidW
    Commented Jan 13 at 0:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.