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

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
LORD IMPERATOR said:
Given how they're making Homelander's side more religious, wouldn't the slogan "Faith sets you Free" be more precise? Especially if you're sticking people in there for not being good Christian Americans. You could even make it so that the goal for the camps is to force the inmates to become good Christians or die.
Click to expand...
As retarded as that sounds (and I don't mean it as a criticism) it is still too smart for the Goys Soys Boys
 
LORD IMPERATOR said:
Given how they're making Homelander's side more religious, wouldn't the slogan "Faith sets you Free" be more precise? Especially if you're sticking people in there for not being good Christian Americans. You could even make it so that the goal for the camps is to force the inmates to become good Christians or die.
Click to expand...
Because there’s a psyop to make the word “freedom” bad. Us Europoors will giggle and use it to laugh about Burgers like somehow the best thing Americans have is somehow a negative.
 
I can't wait to see how unhinged Kripke is going to be especially since he clearly thinks he's doing Punk Rock with this show , and being rebellious. Especially with how each season kept going downhill from Season 2.

Between Season 3 having the dumb betrayal plot where Butcher betrays Soldier Boy for the sake of having Homelander live for another season along with Starlight lecturing Hughie that he's toxic masculinity for wanting to at least have a fighting chance.

Season 4 just having political references that are as subtle as an anvil hitting your head, and the entire Colin subplot.

Though nothing can top the cringeworthy sex dungeon episode where Kripke believes that Batman would realistically be a disgusting sexual deviant and cry in terror as his money is donated to BLM/Elizabeth Warren. Along with the fact he plays male sexual assault for comedy even though the victim is being assaulted by his childhood hero and lost his dad an episode ago. I am morbidly curious if Kripke can do something worse than that.
 
Last edited:
I can't wait to see how unhinged Kripke is going to be especially since he clearly thinks he's doing Punk Rock with this show , and being rebellious. Especially with how each season kept going downhill from Season 2 Season 1.
Click to expand...
The boys only had one good season and they threw its creator to the fucking wolves after it was over and replaced him with a smarmy far left jew, the rest is garbage.
 
FedPostalService said:
Because there’s a psyop to make the word “freedom” bad. Us Europoors will giggle and use it to laugh about Burgers like somehow the best thing Americans have is somehow a negative.
Click to expand...
It'd be funny if they unwittingly make Homelander sympathetic again. Instead of making him a fascist, he comes off as the champion of Yankee freedom.
 
LORD IMPERATOR said:
It'd be funny if they unwittingly make Homelander sympathetic again. Instead of making him a fascist, he comes off as the champion of Yankee freedom.
Click to expand...
At this point he's going to come off a Hitler by way of the imaginary version of Trump that only exists in liberals imagination.

That being said, the more time passes the more they should have killed Homelander off at the end of season two and swapped him out for Storefront, who exploits Homelander's name and legacy post death to create an army of super powered beings to take over the world.

Voight exploiting Homelander's image and name to shill stuff/advance their agenda and Stormfront making him a martyr to show other cares how Voight doesn't care about them to get them to join her revolution of the capes would at least take the show into new liberal metaphor territory of capes as a stand in for the middle class "being manipulated into revolting against their elite betters by a Nazi".
 
Last edited:
Grug said:
I really don't get this. There's all kinds of explicit everything (..except nude women) in this shitty show but God forbid an explicitly nazi character literally from the 1940s call someone a niggerkike faggot. Either the writers are complete pussies, or it doesn't occur to them at all, or they aren't allowed to, which wraps around to them being pussies. There's a fourth option, so retarded I hesitate to even suggest it; they want to rehabilitate Stormfront and, you know, being a superpowered nazi who genocides towns or whatever, that's one thing, but saying nigger? Kike? That's unforgivable.
Click to expand...
Late, but I think the reason why racist, Nazi villains like Stormfront are so mild is because writers who want to do political commentary are so afraid neo-Nazis will appropriate the imagery as their own and overshadow the original context, they censor themselves.
 
Cleverbot said:
Late, but I think the reason why racist, Nazi villains like Stormfront are so mild is because writers who want to do political commentary are so afraid neo-Nazis will appropriate the imagery as their own and overshadow the original context, they censor themselves.
Click to expand...
I think it is because they know their masks will slip and they'll do TOO good of a job writing the characters because they are actually racist themselves.
 
Grug said:
I really don't get this. There's all kinds of explicit everything (..except nude women) in this shitty show but God forbid an explicitly nazi character literally from the 1940s call someone a niggerkike faggot. Either the writers are complete pussies, or it doesn't occur to them at all, or they aren't allowed to, which wraps around to them being pussies. There's a fourth option, so retarded I hesitate to even suggest it; they want to rehabilitate Stormfront and, you know, being a superpowered nazi who genocides towns or whatever, that's one thing, but saying nigger? Kike? That's unforgivable.
Click to expand...
Herman Throwaway said:
I think it is because they know their masks will slip and they'll do TOO good of a job writing the characters because they are actually racist themselves.
Click to expand...

More than once, a left-leaning or left-adjacent author creates a faction or character representing those wacky Nazis, and those guys wind up being more fun or popular than the so-called "good guys" you're supposed to cheer for.
 
LORD IMPERATOR said:
Given how they're making Homelander's side more religious, wouldn't the slogan "Faith sets you Free" be more precise? Especially if you're sticking people in there for not being good Christian Americans. You could even make it so that the goal for the camps is to force the inmates to become good Christians or die.
Click to expand...
The concept definitely needed a little more time in the oven. So does Eric Kripke.
 
LORD IMPERATOR said:
More than once, a left-leaning or left-adjacent author creates a faction or character representing those wacky Nazis, and those guys wind up being more fun or popular than the so-called "good guys" you're supposed to cheer for.
Click to expand...
It's partly because, in the writer making it so obvious that everything is fundamentally against the bad guys, those factions become the ultimate underdogs. And then, on the other side, these writers tend to lean towards desperately sanitizing their heroes to the point of annoyance/blandness to make sure they hammer it in that they're not the bad guys.
 
TheAmbiguousLurker said:
It's partly because, in the writer making it so obvious that everything is fundamentally against the bad guys, those factions become the ultimate underdogs. And then, on the other side, these writers tend to lean towards desperately sanitizing their heroes to the point of annoyance/blandness to make sure they hammer it in that they're not the bad guys.
Click to expand...
True. But in the most obvious case I've seen is when the author associates the bad guys with values that the author assumes to be universally hated, because said values go against their personal beliefs, but in the end, it ironically endears the villain to the public who might see said values as good.

For example, if you have a libertarian author, he might make the bad guys have a government that's omnipresent, omniscient, and highly efficient, reigning in private enterprise and replacing it with public works programs and the like. But people living under broken countries and banana republics might actually appreciate a government that keeps its eye on things, reigns in the rich, and gets things done, instead of a government that kisses the asses of the rich, while issuing endless empty promises and accomplishing nothing.

Or you can have an irreligious author portray a villain faction as devoutly religious to the point where they'd send good people to die fighting to protect a temple instead of abandoning it and being more "rational" about things. But people who are religious might actually admire such a faction that is willing to fight tooth and nail for what they believe in, instead of abandoning their most cherished beliefs in the face of annihilation.

Meanwhile, the "good guys" they want you to worship aren't as fun as the characters from previous decades, they're the good guys because they support the "current thing", even though in some cases, especially in the case with The Boys, the good guys can be almost as vindictive and ill-tempered as the bad guys. Starlight and her team aren't as fun as say, Sonic the Hedgehog, nor do they exude the kind of moral strength that Captain Kirk or the GI Joes did. So it's kind of getting harder to root for them against Homelander, especially given how colossally incompetent they can be; they had the chance to kill him, but failed anyways.
 
Last edited:
Batman, as someone who tirelessly and hopefully attempts to improve things, would be the weirdest superhero to portray as a sex pest. Going “lol they’re a faggot” nukes any potential nuance you can draw from.
 
Cuban Pete said:
Batman, as someone who tirelessly and hopefully attempts to improve things, would be the weirdest superhero to portray as a sex pest. Going “lol they’re a faggot” nukes any potential nuance you can draw from.
Click to expand...
It's because they just hate the genre and see it as 'childish'. But their own conception of adult themes is just crude sex, poo, and gore. Nolan did a better job trying to explore around Batmans whole morality, and impact with his films, paying them more respect as a concept; and he had Batman systematically lose in every single one of them.

The people writing the Boys are just toilet humour enthusiasts that have managed to convince themselves that it's actually mature to make dick jokes.
 
Chunky Salsa said:
It's because they just hate the genre and see it as 'childish'. But their own conception of adult themes is just crude sex, poo, and gore. Nolan did a better job trying to explore around Batmans whole morality, and impact with his films, paying them more respect as a concept; and he had Batman systematically lose in every single one of them.
Click to expand...
Nolan's films were an experiment in applying superhero concepts to a realistic world, hence why despite the fact that it poked holes at the flaws of superheroes, it still had enough respect for them, ending Batman's story on a respectable note.

Chunky Salsa said:
The people writing the Boys are just toilet humour enthusiasts that have managed to convince themselves that it's actually mature to make dick jokes.
Click to expand...
Ironically enough, they're scared as shit of boobs. They're A-OK showing religious people getting eviscerated or showing men's cucumbers full-frontal style, yet if a female character gets too sexy, they tone that shit down. They have no problems with a black man getting turkey-slapped by a white dude's dong, yet they pan away from the lactation chick when she shoots milk at Homelander. These people are the kind who'd bully capeshit fans and religious people, but show them Uzaki-Chan or some other anime with curvaceous women and they'll fly off their handle and get severely triggered.
 
Last edited:
LORD IMPERATOR said:
Nolan's films were an experiment in applying superhero concepts to a realistic world, hence why despite the fact that it poked holes at the flaws of superheroes, it still had enough respect for them, ending Batman's story on a respectable note.


Ironically enough, they're scared as shit of boobs. They're A-OK showing religious people getting eviscerated or showing men's cucumbers full-frontal style, yet if a female character gets too sexy, they tone that shit down. They have no problems with a black man getting turkey-slapped by a white dude's dong, yet they pan away from the lactation chick when she shoots milk at Homelander. These people are the kind who'd bully capeshit fans and religious people, but show them Uzaki-Chan or some other anime with curvaceous women and they'll fly off their handle and get severely triggered.
Click to expand...
These kind of guys really can't help but insert their own fetishs in everything can they?
 
sixuglymidgets said:
These kind of guys really can't help but insert their own fetishs in everything can they?
Click to expand...
And it's not even anything remotely likeable by decent men. It's shit like having a black man get guzzled by jizz or slapped in the face by white cocks, it's having cocks explode because a tiny man that went inside enlarged at the wrong moment. It's having a nerd get sexually and psychologically tortured by a billionaire and an HR woman. Or a pastor with the powers of Mr. Fantastic banging gay dudes. It's just there for shock value and a big fat "fuck you" to Christians and superhero fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom