The Boys - An Amazon Prime adaptation of the Ennis comic series

[Memes Cat]

So weirdly the leaks about the finale were partially true, but also wrong for the second half of the episode so wtf? Did Kripke leak them himself so he could pull a Rian Johnson swerve or something? Anyways it's over now and yeah no way am I invested enough to watch any of the spinoffs they have planned so that's it for me. Well done Amazon I mean JFC you got HBO, Netflix and Disney around on examples on what NOT TO DO with your most popular series/franchise and you still go full retard anyways. But hey these streaming services know better every time of course huh?

 

[Memes Cat]

Even if homelander would have lost his powers wouldn't he still be physically strong it takes 2 punches to finish him lmao he could have also escaped in 2 seconds and the deep was killed by a regular octopus and oh father was killed by someone holding a ball gag over his mouth the logical outcome would have been that the plastic ball explodes and kill hughie not his face exploding

Kripke was all "I DON'T GIVE A FUCK JUST END IT ALREADY" basically so the villains were killed off in pathetic and unsatisfying ways.

 

[Gay Sex Enjoyer]

So weirdly the leaks about the finale were partially true, but also wrong for the second half of the episode so wtf?

Reshoots possibly.

A lot of leaks are taken from scripts and early-mid production edits so it's not uncommon for leaks that were accurate at one point to become less so (if not outright incorrect) by the time the actual thing comes out.

If leaks come out and are only partially correct it's safe to assume that there were changes made midway through production.

 

[BubbaRobot887]

Two words: Seth Rogen

Seth Rogan just did that whole speech about how if you use AI at all in your writing you shouldn't be allowed to write and then gives us a series final that is so bad people wish it was written by AI.

Just based on the meme clips and seeing three episodes of this show on an airplane I have to say if I really wanted revenge on Homelander I would have let him live without his powers since it seems to me he never figured out who he is without his powers, so that would be worse for him than dying.

 

[ratduckowlgymnastics]

A true villain is someone you begrudgingly respect, not someone pathetic. But then again, this is not good writing, but some kike fetish fantasy.

Massive case of being buck-broken by Trump

 

[BubbaRobot887]

Massive case of being buck-broken by Trump

Yeah, look at Sauron in The Lord of the Rings for a perfect example of how to write a villain well. Everything he does is wrong but you respect his inelegance and it gives him a sense of danger and you also understand why he did the things he did.

Look at Lex Luthor in the Superman and JL cartoons, so much better written than any villain in this "adult" show.

 

[Not A Bunny]

Yeah, look at Sauron in The Lord of the Rings for a perfect example of how to write a villain well. Everything he does is wrong but you respect his inelegance and it gives him a sense of danger and you also understand why he did the things he did.

Hans Gruber in Die Hard as well. Even Jack Nicholson as the Joker is a pretty solidly written villain - it's easy to say it was an eccentric performance, but every bit of villainy was written with a purpose.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Yeah, look at Sauron in The Lord of the Rings for a perfect example of how to write a villain well. Everything he does is wrong but you respect his inelegance and it gives him a sense of danger and you also understand why he did the things he did.

Here's a more current example of how to portray a villain well:

The villain stands his ground like a rock, pushing back multiple skilled opponents, demonstrating his immense power for all to see, and the most they can do is run.

That is how Homelander with V1 should've been like. To the point where the most the Boys can do is throw rubble in his face to delay him.

Imagine the Boys and the Army running from a silent Homelander. No words, no taunting, just him and his V1-enhanced laser vision tearing apart jet fighter squadrons, tank columns, missiles, and any poor fool that dares to stand in his way. Imagine how cool that would've been, how horrifying it would've been to his enemies.

That is the Homelander that should have been once he got the V1, not a wimp who is weaker than the Homelander who fought in Herogasm.

Look at Lex Luthor in the Superman and JL cartoons, so much better written than any villain in this "adult" show.

We've gotten to the point where the superhero stories that play it straight are more thoughtful and mature than the so-called "deconstructions" of them.

 

[BubbaRobot887]

Hans Gruber in Die Hard as well. Even Jack Nicholson as the Joker is a pretty solidly written villain - it's easy to say it was an eccentric performance, but every bit of villainy was written with a purpose.

Giving away all that money was a masterclass in how to be a villain. He wanted to be loved while also proving the people of Gotham were all just as nasty and self centered as he was deep down and he did that by proving they would over look all of his murders if he just gave them cash and then he would punish them by murdering them. That was a really great piece of villain writing.

 

[Overly Serious]

Yeah, look at Sauron in The Lord of the Rings for a perfect example of how to write a villain well. Everything he does is wrong but you respect his inelegance and it gives him a sense of danger and you also understand why he did the things he did.

Look at Lex Luthor in the Superman and JL cartoons, so much better written than any villain in this "adult" show.

When a story is one of a hero triumphing over a great enemy, that story is ennobling. It elevates the reader. It appeals to those of us who admire persistence and struggle and courage.

When a story is one of abusing and humiliating someone pathetic, it disappoints the reader at best and degrades him at worst. Such stories appeal only to those who fantasise about petty vengeance and power over others.

I stopped watching this show around episode 4 or 5 of season 1. I found none of the characters admirable.

 

[BubbaRobot887]

When a story is one of a hero triumphing over a great enemy, that story is ennobling. It elevates the reader. It appeals to those of us who admire persistence and struggle and courage.

When a story is one of abusing and humiliating someone pathetic, it disappoints the reader at best and degrades him at worst. Such stories appeal only to those who fantasise about petty vengeance and power over others.

I stopped watching this show around episode 4 or 5 of season 1. I found none of the characters admirable.

Exactly, this is why for instance we cheer when Robin Hood gives Sir Guy back his sword in The Adventures of Robin Hood instead of making Sir Guy beg for his life. It ennobles the hero and thus us and shows his ultimate faith in the triumph of good over evil and shows that Robin Hood was fighting for something more important that the momentary emotional high of revenge.

 

[Not A Bunny]

Giving away all that money was a masterclass in how to be a villain. He wanted to be loved while also proving the people of Gotham were all just as nasty and self centered as he was deep down and he did that by proving they would over look all of his murders if he just gave them cash and then he would punish them by murdering them. That was a really great piece of villain writing.

I wish I still had the Batman movie trading cards I had as a kid. There were a couple of little details on the cards that I guess didn't make the final cut of the movie, but for the better (for instance, he followed up the line about "Where does [Batman] get those wonderful toys?" by demanding his goons go and ask him). I could swear that one of the cards said that the money he was dropping all had his face on them - going back to having his face on the $1 bill, but the way it worked out was so much better.

More than that, though, I like the fact that at least half the Joker's motivations come from wanting what someone else had (Bruce getting Vicki, Batman stealing attention from him).

When a story is one of a hero triumphing over a great enemy, that story is ennobling. It elevates the reader. It appeals to those of us who admire persistence and struggle and courage.

Also, it causes the hero to grow because there's a challenge to rise up to. If your villain is sad and pathetic, it almost seems like the story wasn't even worth telling. I could step on an ant, too. But nobody's writing a five-season television show about me.

When a story is one of abusing and humiliating someone pathetic, it disappoints the reader at best and degrades him at worst. Such stories appeal only to those who fantasise about petty vengeance and power over others.

That's why every time The Deep showed up, it really soured me. He was framed as "pathetic" from the outset, and it was clear he persisted just to be Eric Kripke's punching bag ("oh look at the incel that hates women. How can we humiliate him this episode?"). It's like, you've already told us the character is irredeemable. Why the fuck would I want to see even more of him?

 

[Kyria the Great]

My ultimate question is why wasn't Hughie the main character like in the comics? He's the moral anchor the show is desperately missing given he's the only one who is conflicted about everything.

 

[Not A Bunny]

My ultimate question is why wasn't Hughie the main character like in the comics? He's the moral anchor the show is desperately missing given he's the only one who is conflicted about everything.

Honestly, it's because modern writing. Butcher and Homelander were probably a lot more fun to write, and writers think audiences only want flash and quippy one-liners.

It doesn't help Jack Quaid's case that he's not as good an actor as either Karl Urban or Antony Starr.

There might also be a little bit of "We're putting Homelander front and center so it's obvious to the chuds that we're making fun of him, because they're not smart enough for satire."

 

[Kyria the Great]

Honestly, it's because modern writing. Butcher and Homelander were probably a lot more fun to write, and writers think audiences only want flash and quippy one-liners.

It doesn't help Jack Quaid's case that he's not as good an actor as either Karl Urban or Antony Starr.

There might also be a little bit of "We're putting Homelander front and center so it's obvious to the chuds that we're making fun of him, because they're not smart enough for satire."

Though the whole point of the comic was Homelander and Butcher were two sides of the coin and both are monsters that pushed to the edge by forces outside their control. As flawed as it was, I think it was very fitting that Hughie was the last survivor of the Boys and Starlight (barring the Deep) was the last survivor of the 7.

 

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

Just gonna leave this for all the "comic book was bad anyway" faggots here

 

[Not A Bunny]

Though the whole point of the comic was Homelander and Butcher were two sides of the coin and both are monsters that pushed to the edge by forces outside their control. As flawed as it was, I think it was very fitting that Hughie was the last survivor of the Boys and Starlight (barring the Deep) was the last survivor of the 7.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.