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

[Zenos Yae Viator]

Exactly. That is how V1 Homelander should have been. Not this pathetic farce that was weaker than Homelander at Herogasm.

What the fuck was the V1 plotline even for? If he's not going to be ten times as strong (remember, that is Sage's exact description for V1 when compared to regular V) then Homelander getting the V1 is completely pointless.

the fact the plan was the same from when they had Soldier Boy on their side.. just hit him with the Radiation Beam, and it just works, is so baffling it really has to be studied.

Mind you, the plot of Homelander's might being overcome is the entire point of the whole series, and he's done in by something anyone could have cooked up at any time by studying what they did to Soldier boy, making all the tension of it moot.

and he's never even depicted as this world ending threat anyways, in terms of Marvel Scaling, Homelander would be a 2-10 ton range character.

Someone Spider-man could whoop.

 

[Tyronneasaurus Rex]

The Boys TV series isn't even a deconstruction of superheroes. That whole concept went right out the window by season 2.

On-the-nose political "commentary," endless pop culture references, modern slang ... It's one of the most "Current Year" shows ever made, and it's already aging like an avocado.

"OH MY GOD! THIS SHOW IS REGURGITATING MY POLITICAL BELIEFS AND IS DEPICTING MY VIOLENT REVENGE FANTASIES! OH MY GOD IT'S SO FUCKING REVOLUTIONARY! EVEN IF THERE'S 90 OTHER SHOWS WHERE THE WRITERS CIRCLEJERK EACH OTHER OVER HOW LEFTIST THEY ARE!"

- Some TDS-riddled faggot on X somewhere, likely Kripke.

 

[Samuel Fuller]

Am I the only one who thinks the show could have earned the tiniest bit of my respect back if they had of just ended with Butcher getting shot, somewhat matching the ending of the boys comic. But no, we needed a "happily ever after" ending with Hughie getting the girl & his life getting back to normal.

You are the only one, because it’s “could have” and “had have”

 

[Buckaroo]

Am I the only one who thinks the show could of earned the tiniest bit of my respect back if they had of just ended with Butcher getting shot, somewhat matching the ending of the boys comic. But no, we needed a "happily ever after" ending with Hughie getting the girl & his life getting back to normal.

I think the funeral scene for Butcher was worse than that. Annie, Kimiko, and MM all should have been beyond fed up with him after his plan.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

The fact that the final battle caused even less damage than a battle from Season 3 is baffling.

Hell, you want scorched earth? Here's a guy who managed to do that by just yelling:

And he's not even a bad guy. He's just powering up so he can face a villain with regenerative powers. Yet he caused more damage in that 5-minute warm-up than Homelander did in his entire career, despite the fact that Homelander promised scorched earth to Butcher and even described to Starlight how he could easily decimate the United States if he wanted to, which was why she couldn't release the flight video, because he'd fucking end her world if she did.

the fact the plan was the same from when they had Soldier Boy on their side.. just hit him with the Radiation Beam, and it just works, is so baffling it really has to be studied.

Mind you, the plot of Homelander's might being overcome is the entire point of the whole series, and he's done in by something anyone could have cooked up at any time by studying what they did to Soldier boy, making all the tension of it moot.

Even with the V1, Homelander was so retardedly easy to kick the shit out of. Hell, remember Season 3, where a mid-tier supe like Queen Maeve could hurt him and make him bleed?

Get a couple dozen Starlighters, give them physical combat training, dope them up on Temp V, then lure Homelander to them. He'll be torn to pieces, V1 or not, and you can have an even bigger propaganda win by saying that the Starlighters took on Homelander at the peak of his powers and won. It's a more sure-fire victory than beating a man to death after he begs for his life.

and he's never even depicted as this world ending threat anyways, in terms of Marvel Scaling, Homelander would be a 2-10 ton range character.

Someone Spider-man could whoop.

More than half the playable cast of Marvel: Cosmic Invasion can rip Homelander into shreds in a 1v1 fight. Not just Spider-Man. I'm willing to wager that even Iron Man or Wolverine can kill him, much less Jean Grey or Storm.

Hell, if Homelander was in that game, he'd be one of the punks that Annihilus would take control of with a psychic control slug, and the heroes would have to beat the shit out of him to free him.

 

[Overly Serious]

The modern approach to "deconstruction" comes from many writers simply being unable to understand that noble people exists or that they aren't interesting. I guess that comes from their inability of trying to improve themselves, due to the current push for telling people that they're all perfect just as they are. They want to be heroic, but they don't want to stop being assholes, so that's how they portray many superheroes. Or worse, they "deconstruct" characters to the point of changing all they are just because they're projecting their own negative views on what they represent, Charles Xavier being one of the biggest examples I can think of.

And from that it's easy to see why leftist writers get so upset at the criticism and lash out with such vitriol - the ("good") characters were meant to be them, or at least partially inspired by themselves, so when audiences criticize and mock them, they react in typical narcissistic fashion.

With respect to both, what I think Progressivism is about, is more demoralisation. It's about tearing down any role models and heroes. That even applies to anti-heroes or even villains like Homelander, because what they really want is to remove images of individual strength. The group above all, the individual the abomination. That's why even though @LORD IMPERATOR 's alternate endings are better, they would never do them. Because he is consciously or unconsciously trying to find ways to add back strength and dignity to Homelander. This is antithetical to what Kripke wants.

There's the eternal gold standard comparison for Rorschach in these discussions. Over-used as an example but for good reason. He's a murderer willing to let millions die in vain for his principles but... he does have principles. He does have strength of character. And people love him for it.

In such an environment, the Boys comic was just another violent comic filled with caped characters. Which ironically made it not-so-different from the many comic books that came out at the time. The comic followed a similar pattern as the TV show that was originally parodying hero-centric cinematic universes before evolving into one.

I've mentioned it before but the actually subversive show would be The Tick, because it has all the commercialisation and deconstruction of heroes that The Boys has but without the shit and penis jokes.

The problem is, what the authors see as good, the audience doesn't always agree, especially when the bad guys have some decent charisma or do good at aura-farming, then you're stuck with authors who want the audience to love their scrappy underdog heroes, but the audience love the villains instead.

Here I respectfully disagree because I don't think it's about them having a different view on Good, but disliking the notion of Good all together. For someone to be good, someone must have agency, must have will and that opposes their blank slate philosophy, opposes their war on people you can look up to. Everything must be about the group and the system.

It makes me wonder if Kripke on some level resents Starr or Jensen for making people be compelled by Homelander and Soldier Boy.

Wouldn't be the first time a show creator loathed an actor, Joss Whedon notoriously hated James Marsters for making Spike so popular and Kripke is just Whedon without the actual talent.

I also think this is very, very likely on the mark. Kripke very definitely resents Starr for elevating the role and bringing actual charisma to it. The actor doesn't deserve what is being done and I hope people very quickly separate the two and put the blame on Kripke where it belongs.

 

[LightDragonman1]

One guy actually tried to analyze the body language used in Homelander’s final moments.

 

[God of Nothing]

All of this business and curiosity got me reading Alan Moore's Miracle Man.
dude must've been a fucking schizophrenic when writing this, but it's deeper and more well-told than the modern slop of today, especially the goys

I will say Moore's inability to decide whether to be whimsically abstract, autistically grounded, and classical in regards to comic plot elements, i.e nonsense, drags it down with how it feels like it's up its own ass at times.

Light years beyond Ennis still. It'd be impossible to take this mishmash of directions seriously if the old man wasn't being sincere and meticulous with each. Something like this is simply beyond the potato. And Kripke's multi-million dollar masturbation disaster is nonsensical scribbles of shit on an asylum patient's wall compared to it.

 

[Sirfaggot]

The comic is really just western hentai. It's a Tijuana Bible with a budget and some gore-fest action. They justify the overt violence against the Supes or blackmailing them by saying that they're just perverts/Nazis/pedos/freaks, and that justifies Butcher, Hughie, and the gang taking photos of them in sexually compromising positions or just outright killing them.

I'm reading the comics out of morbid curiosity at the moment and feel compelled to speak in their defense on this point. First of all, the comics' supes are more morally "grey", or neutral, than their TV show counterparts; in the former, superheroes are essentially young, sex-addled adults in their teens-early thirties, living out the vapid, hedonistic fantasies of your typical frat bro with parties, drugs, and boatloads of money from their cynical corporate overlords. They're egotistical and neurotic, but you never get the sense that they're "bad", let alone evil enough to deserve death. Even in the few instances where they do something that truly marks them out as terrible people - sexual assault, unintentional murder - they're portrayed more as the dopey instruments of a power-grubbing defense contractor than villain Numero uno. Some factions are even portrayed as being sweet, innocent, or blissfully naive. It's only at the end, when they join Homelander in his coup, that they're villainized. Overall they're far more one-dimensional because the comics' focus is on the boys.

The Boys blackmail them with compromising photographs and wiretap recordings because the US government needed a means by which to retain control over this extraordinarily-abled class of citizens. There is no moral dimension to the reasoning there.

It makes me wonder if Kripke on some level resents Starr or Jensen for making people be compelled by Homelander and Soldier Boy.

Wouldn't be the first time a show creator loathed an actor, Joss Whedon notoriously hated James Marsters for making Spike so popular and Kripke is just Whedon without the actual talent.

Starr also seemed to possess better writing instincts than Kripke. He'd at numerous points pushed back on the showrunner's attempts to make Homelander a caricatured stand-in for Donald Trump, with his input being responsible for the sliver of tragic nuance that made the villain so captivating when the show was at its best. When Homelander revisited his childhood "home" in season 4, Kripke wanted to portray him as an unhesitating sadist who took revenge without even a shade of sentimentalism, guilt, or despondence. It was Starr that prevented Homelander from becoming a cardboard cutout. I imagine it drove Kripke insane that Starr's edits are what garnered the show such acclaim.

Overall, though, I think the decision to make Homelander grovel was just Kripke living out his darkest fantasies about Trump. He likely resents Starr but he hates Orange Man even more.

 

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

Lol, TWD never had a "good" season. It was always unevenly written. The missteps simply hadn't had time to accrue in the first season.

And the cast was almost uniformly great, and the show looked great, and it sounded great, and the premise was compelling. That kept it feeling worthwhile until I couldn't stand it anymore.

I don't think I'll ever have another chance to use it, so here it is

We could speculate forever about what the show could've been, what other choices they could've made in writing etc, but there's no point. There's a lot of talented people who could do a better job than the ones who gets hired, ultimately this is all part of the same machine hellbent on turning everything into woke slop.

 

[Overly Serious]

Starr also seemed to possess better writing instincts than Kripke. He'd at numerous points pushed back on the showrunner's attempts to make Homelander a caricatured stand-in for Donald Trump, with his input being responsible for the sliver of tragic nuance that made the villain so captivating when the show was at its best. When Homelander revisited his childhood "home" in season 4, Kripke wanted to portray him as an unhesitating sadist who took revenge without even a shade of sentimentalism, guilt, or despondence. It was Starr that prevented Homelander from becoming a cardboard cutout. I imagine it drove Kripke insane that audiences celebrated the results after his ambitions were foiled by Starr.

You know reading this I become even more convinced that @Tyronneasaurus Rex has hit the nail on the head. It certainly wasn't showbusiness but in my career I've been in the situation where I have argued for doing something or not doing something against the guy in charge's ideas, got enough backing from colleagues that guy in charge has to allow it and then it proven right by audience customer feedback. And boy did that guy hate me for it every time it happened. Which was more than once.

If Starr has been nudging the character and story to be better liked by the audience over Kripke's original direction, I can absolutely see the guy writing this ending just to humiliate the actor and character in one go.

We've had comedy AI endings, but how long before someone does an actual serious take on a better ending with it? Not long, I imagine.

 

[Sirfaggot]

You know reading this I become even more convinced that @Tyronneasaurus Rex has hit the nail on the head. It certainly wasn't showbusiness but in my career I've been in the situation where I have argued for doing something or not doing something against the guy in charge's ideas, got enough backing from colleagues that guy in charge has to allow it and then it proven right by audience customer feedback. And boy did that guy hate me for it every time it happened. Which was more than once.

If Starr has been nudging the character and story to be better liked by the audience over Kripke's original direction, I can absolutely see the guy writing this ending just to humiliate the actor and character in one go.

We've had comedy AI endings, but how long before someone does an actual serious take on a better ending with it? Not long, I imagine.

The fans have already come out with reimaginings of the finale that are far superior to the real thing. This is also why their arguments about budgetary concerns really fail to resonate with me.

 

[Zenos Yae Viator]

With respect to both, what I think Progressivism is about, is more demoralisation. It's about tearing down any role models and heroes. That even applies to anti-heroes or even villains like Homelander, because what they really want is to remove images of individual strength. The group above all, the individual the abomination. That's why even though @LORD IMPERATOR 's alternate endings are better, they would never do them. Because he is consciously or unconsciously trying to find ways to add back strength and dignity to Homelander. This is antithetical to what Kripke wants.

There's the eternal gold standard comparison for Rorschach in these discussions. Over-used as an example but for good reason. He's a murderer willing to let millions die in vain for his principles but... he does have principles. He does have strength of character. And people love him for it.

This, you know it when you see it, "Heroism" isn't just being good, its ideals and actions, sacrifice.

In My Hero Academia, an anime that "gets" super heros better than Marvel/Disney does today (not that it doesn't have story telling or writing flaws) there are numerous moments that get it.

when the Kitty Pride-esque powered Hero Le Million is depowered, it does nothing to quell his desire to save the little girl who was experimented on from the villian's, and is depicted emotionally and properly for a hero.

This is not something Leftoids are interested in depicting, its individual might, not just their physical strength, but strength of character, and willingness to go beyond any concept of self interest for others, for free.

Also best depiction of phasing powers ever, was that so hard Marvel?

 

[ArthuriusMartyrius]

Feels like I'm the only person here who is completely fine with Homelander going out begging like a little bitch and don't think he needed any kind of "dignified" end.

My problem is more so that Homelander is way too weak and incompetent even before being depowered and is defeated too easily. If he was some kind of massive threat tearing up the streets and being seemingly unstoppable before he is stripped of his abilities then it would pack much more of a punch seeing a god-like figure of terror and destruction reduced to a cowardly and scared child in a man's body the moment he loses said power.

I also would've made Homelander's defeat less of a "look at this Drumpf-stand-in getting his just desserts" moment and more of a situation where Butcher and the rest of the crew see Homelander as the pitiful figure that he actually is. It would be less of a triumphant gloating moment and more of a "look how messed up this whole situation is and look what Vought has done to this guy". I would've also had more of a focus on Vought as the actual true evil here but that's a discussion for another time.

Like you can see Anthony Starr had similar thoughts for the character which is why Homelander begging for his life at the end still manages to elicit some degree of pity no matter how much Kripke tried to make him as unlikable as possible.

 

[Salt_Merchant]

What the fuck was the V1 plotline even for?

to dig themselves out of the hole they dug for themselves with the supe killing virus plot point, and to have a character rock up who will be in vought rising.

 

[starborn427614]

Feels like I'm the only person here who is completely fine with Homelander going out begging like a little bitch and don't think he needed any kind of "dignified" end.

My problem is more so that Homelander is way too weak and incompetent even before being depowered and is defeated too easily. If he was some kind of massive threat tearing up the streets and being seemingly unstoppable before he is stripped of his abilities then it would pack much more of a punch seeing a god-like figure of terror and destruction reduced to a cowardly and scared child in a man's body the moment he loses said power.

I also would've made Homelander's defeat less of a "look at this Drumpf-stand-in getting his just desserts" moment and more of a situation where Butcher and the rest of the crew see Homelander as the pitiful figure that he actually is. It would be less of a triumphant gloating moment and more of a "look how messed up this whole situation is and look what Vought has done to this guy". I would've also had more of a focus on Vought as the actual true evil here but that's a discussion for another time.

Like you can see Anthony Starr had similar thoughts for the character which is why Homelander begging for his life at the end still manages to elicit some degree of pity no matter how much Kripke tried to make him as unlikable as possible.

The beating was nowhere near brutal enough.