Upper Deck ePack, Trading Card, “Breaks,” and the Question of Just What the Future Holds for Sport and Nonsport Cards

It started in early 2024, or so. I didn’t follow any sports besides Hockey, and figured I would dabble in hockey sports cards. I’d mainly collected some nonsport cards at other times in my life, such as superheroes (I’ve always loved comics) or things that were funny, such as the Garbage Pail Kids. I saw on some internet forum/Reddit/Twitter/whatever that because Upper Deck was the sole company with a hockey license, you could buy the physical boxes and packs in stores or do this thing called, “ePack.” It was a way to buy the cards online–but not some weird digital card/currency. You couldn’t do much with, “Base,” cards, but could always mail any inserts home. Plus, you could easily trade with anyone on the site–no more waiting for mail or worrying someone will flake and rip you off! Plus, besides the hockey, there was nonsport from X-Files to James Bond, Marvel (then, when Topps got Marvel, Upper Deck started doing DC-themed stuff), and more. Almost any boxes in stores (that were Upper Deck-branded) could also have packs, boxes, or a whole case bought online; how great! Right?

A great infographic from a Nova Scotia organization.

Let’s take a step back and talk about slot machines. They are designed to make you want to keep playing. You get a bad spin and mumble to yourself, “One more try.” You get a big win and say, “Well, now I’m on a hot streak!” It is gambling, and the lights, sounds, and so forth make you want to keep playing as well. Trading cards are gambling-adjacent to a degree, no matter what some claim. People buy a pack or box, rip it open, and hope they get something good. Perhaps to trade, sell, or keep. Unless you only buy singles or sets online, if you ever buy a pack or box with nothing more than the hope some odds are in your favor, you’re engaging in a gamble. Once you open up your cards, however, you’re done. Now, what happens when you combine the thrilling sights and sounds of the slot machine with trading cards? A perfectly addictive and patented process (Topps can't do it) cocktail known as ePack.

If you pull a card most would subjectively consider, “Good,” on ePack, it will glow red and make a sound effect. With hockey, it is the horn of a goal; with nonsport cards,  it is a bit like a triumphant symphony. It is easy for some to buy a pack or back, digitally, “Rip,” it and be done. However, what if you rip a pack or two and get nothing? All you have to do is charge your credit card the price of another pack (which can vary immensely depending on the set) and see what happens. Then again. Maybe once more, because at this point you’re chasing something, anything. Perhaps you do get a, “Flasher,” and a sound effect, but it is not that great of a card. You could keep going, and before you know it, about an hour has passed where you just dropped a few hundred dollars on thirty bucks worth of cards–that you’d have to ship home to then list! That, or you can transfer the cards to a digital storefront also associated with ePack, who takes a cut of your profits as well, of course.

It adds up quickly.

If you’re not big on using the internet for much more than checking in on family or reading the news, this all sounds complicated and unwieldy to have these digital-but-physical cards, and it is! When you sit and think about it logically, the only benefit to ePack is that you’re saving space with thousands of cards in some warehouse instead of your house, and trading stuff is a bit easier with its little trading marketplace. Otherwise, it is a hassle to get the cards in your actual hands. That’s logic, however. Once you get that first amazing, “Grail,” card, sensibility melts away. You put another twenty in the trading card slot machine and hope luck is on your side. As with all gambling, however, the, “House,” eventually wins.

Spend even more money and get extra bonus cards as thanks for the debt!

You don’t end up totally empty-handed when you do ePack. You always get some trading cards, and you can get cool ones! Autographed cards, sketch cards, and so forth. The thing is, outside of a small number of ePack-exclusive sets and pricey, “Achievements,” for acquiring certain cards…you generally can buy a physical pack/box/whatever of the thing you like for cheaper. It is the ease of access where you just hop on your computer and smartphone that is the, “Blessing,” that is more of a curse for those with an addictive personality. You don’t have to find a liquor store like with booze. You don’t need to be 21 and go to a casino, or be in a state with legal online gambling, because this is totally not gambling, right? I mean, never mind the sounds and flashing when you, “Win.”

Bye bye money.

From 2024 through 2025, I spent more than I should have on ePack. I didn’t drive my family to bankruptcy, but I was irresponsible. I had to talk with my wife and other loved ones about how it was becoming an issue. I quit at the start of 2026 for a good six months, and tried to dabble in it just a little this Summer, but saw there was no way for myself to just barely engage in it when there was always some sale, promotion, or cool new metaphorically shiny thing to pursue. I am not opposed to ePack for those who find it easier to do or like the social aspect of it. I met some really nice and cool folks I am still friends with whilst doing ePack–and some of them quit it as well eventually or still enjoy it with healthy moderation of their spending. For me, however, ePack doesn’t make sense. I don’t have the funds for it, it takes up a ton of my time, and the fact that it is so easy (too easy) to open a browser and rack up a big ol’ credit card bill in less than an hour is worrisome too–for me at least. 

"Breaks," are getting to be a big thing.

One thing that nags at me about ePack, though, is whether it's a niche of the trading card industry or a sign of what is to come with the gamification of sports cards, especially, but nonsport to a degree as well? For those of you who seek out the newer releases of stuff and aren’t just buying the older sets, you’ve probably seen, “Breaks,” on Facebook, the Whatnot app, eBay Live, or other spots online. People buy dibs/a reservation of sorts on a specific character/insert/whatever, and when the, “Breaker,” opens a box or case, should that person/character get pulled, the person who purchased the mere chance of such a card gets it. Yes, someone could spend a bunch of money to guarantee they get any cards with, say, Wolverine in a new Topps Marvel set, only to find nothing gets pulled they put up all that cash towards. I, personally, think breaking is inane, even more equivalent to gambling (it is currently a legal gray area), and even worse than ePack. You may as well simply throw your money down a sewer drain. Some card companies, the aforementioned Topps especially, have really embraced this, “Trend,” however. 

He makes some good points.

We’ve got Upper Deck with ePack, Topps with breakers, and the whole idea of trading cards has become less about, “Trading,” to make a fun little set and more about, “Winning,” some notable card that you can sell for a big payday. It all starts to sound more like buying a lottery ticket and praying for the best than it does a hobby about actually, you know, collecting! Is this how sport and nonsport card collecting changes with the times, or does it create a new bubble reminiscent of the, “Junk Wax,” era of the 90’s–for all cards, not just sports? Some may say, “Card collecting needs to evolve, sports and nonsport.” Sure, but is this an evolution, or does it put the hobby on a path to extinction?

Shoutout to Jesus for getting me a pack!
I'm not making a silly joke either; it is his name.

I still enjoy buying a pack or box of nonsport cards when they’re inexpensive (getting rarer and rare these days) and something that interests me. I was excited when a friend picked up a promotional pack of, “DC Absolute Universe,” cards at the latest Comic-Con International/SDCC and sold them to me for retail plus shipping. It was something I liked, for a good price, with little worry about it having any kind of big resale value or such. Is buying a card/some cards for cheap simply because you enjoy them an outdated idea now, however? Will sports cards manage to, “Flourish,” in this new gaming-styled ecosystem, but us nonsport folks will see our hobby fade away except for the handful of fandoms (superheroes)  that lend themselves to gambling-style methods of breaks or ePack? 

Is a market like this sustainable?

As for me, I quit ePack and refuse to ever, “Invest,” in a break. I know that I would love to see more people in their teens or twenties getting into nonsport cards (besides Pokémon) and picking up a publication like, “The Wrapper,” as I've discussed before, to learn fun facts about nonsport cards, do physical trades, and build relationships with other collectors. There has to be a happy medium in all this where everybody enjoys the hobby in their own way; I just have no clue how that happens. Do you? 

Film Friday: Superhero Movie Actors Who Did a Good Job With Weak Material

On occasion, I will think of an actor who nailed their role as a superhero or villain but just didn't have the best material to work with. They're great, but everything else around them is just not at the same level. From past to more recent...

Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin in, "Daredevil."

"Daredevil," is a mediocre movie. You are forgiven for forgetting it came out back in 2003. Even the R-rated Director's Cut edition is merely an improvement upon an already, "Meh," foundation. That said, Duncan was always an incredible actor whether being comedic, serious, or coming across as one of the most imposing and intimidating Marvel villains around. A number of amazing actors have shown their skill with the Kingpin, and I'd argue Vincent D'Onofrio deserves his accolades for what he did with great material and Duncan should be applauded for all he did with so little to work with. If we'd gotten a sequel and Duncan were still with us perhaps they could've built on how great he was and had less of Ben Affleck's so-so Mattt Murdock. More on Affleck in a minute, however.

William Hurt as, Thaddeus, "Thunderbolt," Ross in Various Marvel Productions

This one isn't exactly Marvel's fault so much as it is our own human mortality. William Hurt was fantastic as Thunderbolt Ross in one of the decent-but-weaker early Marvel films, "The Incredible Hulk," in 2008. When Edward Norton's Bruce Banner was recast with Mark Ruffalo, a lot of that movie seemed to be disregarded for years. However, eventually Hurt did reappear as Ross in a new role working with the UN during Marvel's, "Captain America: Civil War," and had a small presence in, "Infnity War," "Endgame," and all the way up to the 2021 prequel, "Black Widow." Clearly, Marvel had further plans for Ross, but in 2022, William Hurt passed due to complications from cancer. Hence, when Ross popped back up again with a major role (President of the United States) in, "Captain America: Brave New World," he was now portrayed by Harrison Ford. Ford is an amazing actor, but I wish the slow-burn that had been Hurt as Ross could have truly paid off with him still as Ross all those years later.

Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman in, "Batman V. Superman," "Justice League," and so forth

I did not hate Zack Snyder's take on the DC Universe; I enjoyed it to a solid degree. I also see it had immense flaws, and I look at the so-called Snyderbros who hate anything done with the DC Universe since Snyder left (or was fired, depending on whom you ask) and wonder what they see in these flicks to consider them masterpieces. That said, Ben Affleck did a remarkably solid job with a shaky interpretation of Bruce Wayne AKA Batman. He had a good mix of pathos, snark, and calculated rage. He just lacked much to do with it.

Brie Larson as Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel in Various Marvel Productions

Marvel and the general fandom really did Brie Larson dirty. This woman had won an Academy Award for the superb (but terribly depressing) movie, "Room," and was scooped up by Marvel to star in the first female-starring solo production in the franchise. The movie was fine. Then, besides having a remarkably small role in, "Infinity War," and, "Endgame," plus being relegated to serving as part of a trio with the first MCU box-office bomb, "The Marvels," she hasn't been given much to do. She tried, ya'll. I think between not being given that great of material and the astounding amount of hate and harassment she received from, "Fans," that Larson could very well be ready to wash her hands of any Marvel movie business. I wouldn't be surprised if she requested to be quickly killed off in, "Avengers: Doomsday," so she can go perform where her talents are appreciated.

Advance Review: "Santos Sisters," Volume 2

I am a big fan of the, "Santos Sisters," and their tales. Created by Greg and Fake, this creative duo crafts a weird hodgepodge of superheroics, slice-of-life moments, and generally zaniness to bring us a stellar series. I adored the first volume, and the second is on the way (releasing on October 7th). This will collect the further Adventures of Ambar and Alana as originally published by Floating World Comics and now put in a gorgeous hardcover released by Fantagraphics. It's good stuff.

If you pictured a vaguely absurd blend of Archie-esque artwork, silver age-styled baddies, a bit of raunchy humor, and some topical riffs (cryptocurrency and memecoins get called out repeatedly), you'd begin to visualize the, "Santos Sisters." That said, you really need to read their adventures to totally absorb the twisted brilliance of Greg and Fake! I will compliment how this second volume stands alone pretty well, with any references to previous adventures given a little footnote. I was quite into a Halloween special that features appearances by other popular horror-styled characters that the creators were willing to let pop up, including the awesome Cassie Hack of, "Hack/Slash." Especially wild was the multi-part tale of Todd (the boyfriend of Alana) being wrapped up into a strange combination of prymaid scheme-meets-global-spy-conspiracy that the Santos Sisters help rescue him from. It is very silly as well as clever.

This second volume collection of the "Santos Sisters," is an utter delight. I continue to be a huge fan of Greg and Fake's superb creation, and would encourage you to purchase a copy of this book on October 7th, or you can always ask your library to order a copy!

5 out of 5 Stars.

Wrestler Dustin Rhodes Did Something We All Worry We'd Do, He Liked a Post Without Realizing It's Whole Context

Have you ever seen a post online that made you laugh, caught your eye for some reason, or seemed interesting? Did you click that you, "Liked," it or shared it with followers? We all have often done that, but sometimes a post that looks harmless at first glance has other content we missed, and our liking or sharing of it looks bad. I often worry I won't read a whole post/examine a picture and caption closely enough, and I'll indicate my enjoyment of something I totally missed some context of. Well, Dustin Rhodes had that happen to him and I 100% believe his apology that it was an accident because it sounds like something we'd all do with anything that interested us.

Dustin Rhodes was on Twitter/X and is known for liking firearms and women, but not for being transphobic or Islamophobic. He saw a picture that featured a woman with a large bust and a gun he thought was cool, so he clicked, "Like," and went about his day. However, what Rhodes missed with his selective reading was a caption saying, "Hey ISLAM, come at [sic] take it. I dare ya," and he failed to notice the text on the woman's shirt, which featured a women's restroom sign and more, "Come and take it," text. Rhodes saw a pretty lady with a gun when he was skimming the internet but failed to notice how much hateful context was packed into the image and caption. Uh oh. Observe the tweet:

"The controversy quickly drew a response from TNA star Mustafa Ali, prompting Rhodes to publicly explain his actions and issue an apology." Ali is Muslim and was confused seeing a fellow wrestler who has only ever shown him respect, "Liking," a tweet packed with so much hate. Rhodes clarified he had selectively read the tweet, liked the firearm, and paid little attention to the rest of the post. He's a 57-year-old dude who likes women and guns; I can buy that his primal brain overrode any logic or taking the time to read the tweet. Ali accepted Rhodes' apology, and Rhodes said he was, "100% against," the messages in the post. The response from wrestling fans on assorted sites has varied from, "Glad they worked it out civilly," to, "I totally missed the text as well in that tweet," to, some whining that Rhodes didn't have to apologize for a simple misunderstanding. At the end of the day, it goes to show that taking an extra second to make sure you really read a tweet/post/whatever is smart, lest you end up appearing to agree with something far and away from your actual views.

The Ugliest Dog of 2026...Isn’t Even Ugly

Jinny Lu is a six-year-old pug with a big tongue. She has the standard odd-but-cute features of a pug and an aforementioned big and floppy tongue. She is not remotely ugly. Yet, she was crowned as the World’s Ugliest Dog for 2026. Huh?

The whole point of the contest is that there are dogs who have really, really ugly visages, but are at their heart sweet and loving. Some dogs that are admittedly terrifying in their appearance but still very affectionate and friendly have won. Jinny Lu ticks the boxes of being a, “Good girl,” but…she ain’t ugly.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I guess, “Bad,” looks are subjective too. That said, if I saw Jinny Lu somewhere, I wouldn’t do a double-take about her appearance. She’s a pug, with a large tongue; that’s it! I congratulate Jinny Lu on her win, but I’ll argue she’s as cute as a button, making it so bizarre she got an award for being the ugliest dog around. Perhaps my affinity for pugs just makes me unable to see if they’re, “Ugly.”

DSTLRY is Still Doing Single Issues, but Also Plans to Release Inexpensive Trade Paperback Collections Sooner than Later

UPDATE: I have been informed that the trade paperbacks will be the same size as the oversized and gorgeous comics, which is good news!

DSTLRY is an interesting publisher. They arrived with a splash, struggled a bit, but survived and have been putting out quality comics. They generally use a big oversized format for single issues, which I, personally, like. I know some people hate the big magazine-ish look and want the stories in a more standard format. Well, DSTLRY did announce recently that they'll still be doing their individual issues, but also plan to make cheap trade paperbacks (apparently in a standard size format) collecting their comics (plus they still have plans for their fancy hardcover collections if someone wants those). I do find DSTLRY's comics often quite different (in a good way) and am impressed they had tough times but recovered. The history of comics is full of publishers that hit the scene with a ton of fanfare only to be gone/bankrupt/etc. a handful of years later, after all.

The History of the Spector Club Comic Show is Fascinating

My friend Dave, of Callisto Comics, has been working on a website all about the Spector Club Comic Show and its history. It is the Midwest's oldest comic show, and he's been hard at work already doing interviews to build a detailed oral and print history. I always love going to the Spector Club shows and encourage anyone who can plan on going to be sure and attend the next one on October 11th. In the meantime, I look forward to any updates Dave posts!

D23 Released the Latest, "Avengers: Doomsday," Teaser and a Surreal, "Visionquest," Trailer

Disney kicked off D23 last night and announced a bunch of upcoming projects, showed more of other things in the works, and so forth. As Marvel is a big part of Disney, that had some topics of discussion, including an official reveal (finally) of an X-Men movie coming in 2028 and the public release of a big, "Avengers: Doomsday," trailer that was previously only seen by attendees of CCI//SDCC. I am intrigued by what I've seen. Give it a look:

The part where Reed Richards asks Doom what he's done gives me vibes of when Johnathan Hickman's run on the, "Avengers," and, "New Avengers," comics was leading toward, "Secret Wars," and the Earths in different Universes were being destroyed by heroes as well as villains to try and save other realities. The flicks have hinted at these, "Incursions," being an issue before, so imagine with those X-Men around too, we'll be watching folks from different spots in the Multiverse trying to save their own homes as this all leads into the, "Avengers: Secret Wars," movie a bit after this one (just like the comic event/events)! Robert Downey Junior's take on Doctor Doom seems solid, although I am still unsure why they got the former Iron Man to play this role but imagine, "Avengers: Doomsday," will address this in some fashion. The release date of December 18th will bring many answers and probably raise even more questions!

Oh, plus we've got a trailer for, "Visionquest," which looks to be an absolutely absurd treat. Paul Bettany and James Spader's Ultron (now sporting more of a human-styled form) in a weird virtual World, arguing about concepts of humanity and morality whilst getting into various hijinks? I'm down for it and will check it out this October on Disney+. View that trailer here:

I've been iffy on what Marvel's got going on with their comics and have felt unsure about their movie/television productions, but it at least looks like this Fall and Winter will have some fun stuff. I'm hopeful, "Avengers: Doomsday," is great and its follow-up, "Avengers: Secret Wars," then sticks the landing.

Film Friday: 3 Bad Scenes in Otherwise Enjoyable Movies

It's Been Some Years

Way back in 2011, I wrote about awesome scenes in two movies that were otherwise terrible. Six years passed, and in 2017, I discussed two movies that contain fantastic scenes, even if the flicks are otherwise merely passable. Four years later, I touched upon three movies that were, "Good," but did have one extra great scene. At the end of that post, I joked that in another four or five years I would possibly make a post talking about strangely bad scenes in movies that are, apart from those scenes, stellar. Well, almost five years later, I was, in fact, thinking about some movies I am a fan of but which have that one scene that threatens to bring the whole thing down. Let's discuss...

The Notebook

Even if it is argued by some to be, "Escapist fluff," I would argue that of any movie made from a Nicholas Sparks story, "The Notebook," is the best, and a damn fine flick in and of itself. The cast is killer, from Ryan Gosling (as Noah) to Rachel McAdams (as Allie), and James Marsden (Lou) as the guy who gets left for Gosling's character and is shockingly mature and understanding about it. Much of the movie has a framing device of an old man telling an older woman with dementia the story of how this couple in the past came together. It is obvious fairly early on he is telling their story, and that's sweet, but not in a cloying manner. Then, the movie has to go and screw it all up with an ending scene so cheesey-yet-kind-of-dark that you're better off going with the book's conclusion. 

Basically, the elder Allie freaks out and attacks Noah, but then calms down, remembers him, and they die at the same time, holding each other in their arms. That is certainly...something. As for how the book ends, Noah telling Allie the story helps give her a flicker of memory, and they spend the night together making love as they did all those passionate years ago despite their age and ailments. I'm not saying the film version of, "The Notebook," had to end with a scene of two elderly folks bumping uglies, but it is just a weird downer of a note to conclude an otherwise great movie.

Showgirls

Look, I am not going to argue that the movie, "Showgirls," is necessarily "Good," but it is extremely silly and entertaining. This summary of it works well if you don't want to sit through its madness. It also takes a hard left turn near the end (you may see a theme forming here) with an extremely unnecessary gang-rape scene. It seems to be in the film so that the protagonist (Elizabeth Berkley as Nomi) can learn her best friend Moly (Gina Ravera) has been sexually assaulted so that she has the motivation to go beat up the perp before leaving Vegas (as she was going to do, but now she also kicks some ass first). It just seems like lazy writing (and something we've seen often in movies/television/etc.) to want to go, "This character is extra evil because they're out here engaging in rape and we need the hero to stop them." Multiple folks involved with the movie continue to have strong feelings about the scene and how out-of-place it feels in an otherwise campy delight. My advice to anyone watching, "Showgirls," who could be triggered by such a brutal scene or who just doesn't want to suddenly go from a fun vibe to feeling like they are watching a horror movie is to fast-forward through that scene.

Pyscho

Yep, we're going to talk about a scene near/right at the end again. This time the studio system is more to blame than anyone involved in the creation of the movie itself, however. Throughout, "Psycho," the director, Alfred Hitchcock, twists and subverts our expectations. The person whom we think is the main character ends up killed before the first hour concludes. The young man who manages Bates Motel, Norman Bates, seems like he is trying to keep his murderous mother in check while guests stay, but it is revealed in a shocking climax that his mother is long dead and he is killing folks whilst dressed as her. Why is he doing this, though? Well, any possible mystery flies out the window when a psychiatrist is called to evaluate Norman after his capture and reveals it is a violent personality disorder where Norman truly thinks he is his mother. 

This moment is in the original book the film adapts, but Hitchcock felt it ground everything to a halt, providing an overly clinical explanation for all the preceding suspense and horror. He kept it in the movie to appease Paramount, however, as he'd already pushed a ton of boundaries regarding censors upset about a variety of the movie's content (from unmarried couples in bed, to the peephole, a toilet flushing, and the now-legendary shower scene). Hitchcock knew how to pick his battles, and if he had to spoon-feed audiences an info-dump at the end of his movie instead of leaving things up to interpretation so he could get it released, he was willing to do so. Damn, the movie biz in 1960 sounds a lot like 2026 in some regards! Debates persist decades later about how useful or unnecessary that scene is. Clearly, I feel the credits could've rolled the moment the cops nab Bates, leaving us viewers in a shocked stupor, but that's just me.

I Love Ya, Flaws and All

Even if "Showgirls," hits a speed bump 3/4 or so of the way through and the other two productions end in a manner that leaves a sour taste in my mouth, I'm still a fan of all these of these. We've got a camp classic, a cozy romance yarn, and a masterpiece of film. It shows that no matter what kind of movie you make, it can be awesome even if somebody made a questionable choice with the flick. Now, I'll think up what the theme should be when I do one of these in another four or five years. Perhaps three hilarious scenes in otherwise serious movies? I dunno, I've got time to mull it over.

"Gastronomique," #1 is Quite Sexy, Extremely Political, and Kind of Gross. I'm a Fan!

I'm going to sound a bit like the character Stefon from, "Saturday Night Live," whenver he describes a nightclub that, "Has it all," because when discussing the first issue of, "Gastronomique," it really does have a lot--and that's a good thing! It contains historical fiction set that reimagines real people in different situations; it's got a lot of body horror, it has lesbian lovers enjoying each other's company in an old-timey tub, and it has a bit of supernatrural/metaphysical vibe riffing on concepts of evil, right versus wrong, and such. Oh, and the comic opens with people parading through the street with Marie Antoinette's bloody, decapitated head as they sing a cheerful tune about her death, just to give you an idea of the visceral vibe.

Published by BOOM! Studios, this new series is written by the immensely talented Marguerite Bennett and illustrated by Helena Masellis. With the French Revolution serving as the setting, the main focus of, "Gastronomique," seems to be following Lady Charlotte (a spy and assassin) as she attempts to hunt down Tarrare, a quite real and infamous individual who could eat seemingly anything (he ripped apart and ingested live animals in front of scientists amazed at his insatiable hunger). Tarrare is thought to have even engaged in cannibalism, with the idea he possibly ate a young child serving as a big motivator for the Lady's efforts to kill him. If you're into a queer, erotic, horror-thriller and aren't too squeamish (Masellis illustrates one detailed incident of Tarrare swallowing a live snake, whole), this looks to definitely be worth a read.

5 out of 5 Stars.