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

[Overly Serious]

Jews are turned on by Nazi women. This is known.
View attachment 9048496

At first I was like:


But then I was like:


Stopping before the Premise section would have been a good idea on my part.

 

[MrJokerRager]

He probably didn't expect that "I'll eat your shit" screencap to go as viral as it did, it is fucking everywhere. I've even seen boomers on Facebook posting it.

He's probably with his agent rn trying to figure out how to stop being known as the "I'll eat your shit" guy.

Get cast as Albert Wesker or replace Pedro as Mr Fantastic.

 

[whoishomermynameis]

0:51

 

[Tasty Tatty]

It's funny looking back at the original deconstruction of superheroes when within the span of a year superhero comics went from this

The word wasn't "deconstruction", but I think it's more like "fallen from grace", which I think it's or could be an interesting take on certain superheroes. Batman Beyond starts with a Batman who's so desperate that he had to use a gun, Spiderman 2 shows what happens when Peter Parker reconsider if being a hero is truly worth of abandoning his personal life, and you can even say the Archangel goes through it when he joins Apocalypse after being desperate for losing his wings. But the goal of this type of stories is to show that even the noblest of people can have setbacks and fall into temptation, only to reconsider and going back to what's important. These stories come from decades ago and it's not a new thing that they're making up. We can even say that we've had a lot of superheroes who aren't precisely nice people. I mean, Wolverine is not precisely a nice person to be around and he's done a lot of questionable things, yet he's always there to do the right thing.

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.

 

[Tyronneasaurus Rex]

The word wasn't "deconstruction", but I think it's more like "fallen from grace", which I think it's or could be an interesting take on certain superheroes. Batman Beyond starts with a Batman who's so desperate that he had to use a gun, Spiderman 2 shows what happens when Peter Parker reconsider if being a hero is truly worth of abandoning his personal life, and you can even say the Archangel goes through it when he joins Apocalypse after being desperate for losing his wings. But the goal of this type of stories is to show that even the noblest of people can have setbacks and fall into temptation, only to reconsider and going back to what's important. These stories come from decades ago and it's not a new thing that they're making up. We can even say that we've had a lot of superheroes who aren't precisely nice people. I mean, Wolverine is not precisely a nice person to be around and he's done a lot of questionable things, yet he's always there to do the right thing.

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.

You also have these narcissistic fags who believe that there's no such thing as good people, you find them a lot when discussing Game of Thrones or any prestige crime drama. Usually they're some sort of variant of straight nihilist who tell on themselves about how they view the world and morality as a whole.

To no shock, these people are absolutely abhorrent in their personal lives and have no friends. They want everyone to be as miserable as they are.

 

[Samuel Fuller]

But publicly distancing himself will. He's got a tightrope to walk which is to make it clear he doesn't approve it whilst being professional enough to not throw people who've employed him under the bus. But... he can do that. It only requires enough small comments on his part for people to get the message, because we know what it takes to get even a small breaking of the ranks from cast members.

He has the advantage that everyone has seen just how good he can be. Even me just watching some of S1 I was thinking: "This guy is really good." He brought a lot to the role.

To be fair to him, his performance was leagues above the material he was given. Karl Urban was in the first season, but somewhere in season 2 he went into pay check mode. Probably because he's a comic fan himself and signed on thinking it was going to be closer to the source.

 

[BubbaRobot887]

View attachment 9048338

I'd let her live if she sucked my cock.

I can fix her!

 

[regalterry]

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.

You also have these narcissistic fags who believe that there's no such thing as good people

Writers write what they know about, and we can safely assume this applies to leftist writers too.

Thus, when writing a character, they are inspired by themselves and the people they hang out with.

It's little wonder they are then shocked when normal audiences recoil in horror at what they've created, and unanimously label their character as unlikeable assholes with no redeeming qualities. They exist in a bubble where they never have to interact with the average normie, or God forbid, someone that actually disagrees with their stance.

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.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Why would Butcher need to be goaded into killing Homelander? It's not like he listens to The Boys and he always insists that everyone does things his way. Season 5 Homelander had lost all grasp on reality so him being aware of the situation enough to offer blowjobs for survival or taunt people into killing him is pretty dumb, he should have been clinging to his visions of angels and godhood right to the end so he goes out still believing he's better than everyone else. Plus Butcher being denied the satisfaction of finally getting revenge would work as motivation for his plan to kill all supes way better than his wife's son that he knows hates him telling him he hates him and his old as hell dog dying off screen.

Basically, in what I'd call my version of the S5 ending, Soldier Boy and Marie Moreau go with Butcher to confront Homelander, while everyone else fights off Homelander's Supes in the White House Lawn alongside the military. Marie holds down Homelander with her blood-bending, Soldier Boy depowers him, and Butcher kicks the shit out of him, but before he can land the killing blow, Soldier Boy restrains him, and Marie insists that they give HL the "Cersei Walk of Shame" treatment and have Homelander paraded in front of America and the world so that the world need not fear him anymore. They want to give him a fair trial and be either executed or imprisoned for life as a common criminal.

Butcher stands down, but Homelander, not wanting to be a captive trophy rotting in prison, goads Butcher by calling him a pussy. Homelander would use Becca's name and even say that if he could do what he did to Becca all over again, he would, that Becca squealed real good when he fucked her, and that she liked every second of it. That'd be enough to trigger Butcher, and he swats Marie and SB aside woth his tentacles and brutally kills Homelander. That way, Homelander has one last scene where he's shown to be intelligent and unwilling to give up. If he goes out, he'd rather go out on his own terms, as opposed to offering a blowjob like a pansy.

Yeah, sorry. I have only ever seen the show on a plane, so some character names may have gotten mixed up.

The main thing I tried to do with this rewrite is end the story so people could stop watching after the final episode. You know, the way TV shows used to work.

Not the way the modern economy works. If something makes money, stretch it out for as long as you could, so you can profit from it as much as possible. Hell, that was the case even back in the 80s and 90s.

Superheroes have been doing shitty things since decades ago, this ain't even a new concept. Maybe the comic was a deconstruction of the genre (I haven't read it, so I can't say much), but the show is obviously not following that either. It's a show, like many other adaptations, about the main writer's views using someone else's characters to have their project greenlighted because I don't think someone had just allowed "Let's kill and rape Trump", the movie.

It wasn't even a new concept even when the comic came out; The Watchmen predated the Boys comic by a good two decades. (Watchmen came out in 1986, the Boys comic came out in 2006) It was just Garth Ennis wanted to shit on capeshit comics and superhero conventions, so he created a super-powered CIA team that took down barely-disguised expies of other superheroes from DC and Marvel, to satisfy his raging hate-boner for them, because in his mind, superheroes ruined the medium of comics and made them too childish.

Which, is a fair criticism, but by the time the Boys came along, most superhero comics were snuff films in print format with characters in spandex, so by that point, kids have checked out of the comics industry, replacing it with manga and anime, and most western superhero comics at the time were being consumed by middle-aged men.

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.

He probably didn't expect that "I'll eat your shit" screencap to go as viral as it did, it is fucking everywhere. I've even seen boomers on Facebook posting it.

He's probably with his agent rn trying to figure out how to stop being known as the "I'll eat your shit" guy.

That final episode really ruined Anthony Starr's chances at decent aura. It was gross, humiliating, and pathetic, especially when the Homelander character was sold on how subtly threatening he can be, how someone who hides behind a wholesome image of corporate America, who smiles for families to take pictures with, can easily flip on a dime and snap your neck or laser you in half. That was his character's whole point, and him being reduced to wanting to suck Butcher off practically destroyed that.

How a character goes out permanently affects how people view said character retroactively. For instance, Daenerys Targaryen of Game of Thrones was seen as a self-insert fantasy for many women who sought a "strong female character" to embody, to the point where a decent amount of women named their daughters "Daenerys" or "Khaleesi". Then she turns into a genocidal conqueror who burns down a whole city in the final battle of her campaign to bring "freedom" to Westeros, (ironically what Homelander should have done) and a lot of former fans suddenly found it awkward to remember the times they were in love with the character.

The same goes for Homelander. He was the face of the Boys series. For him to go out like a pathetic piece of shit retroactively affects people who will watch the series in the future. They will no longer fear him or be excited when he shows up; they'll just remember him as the "blowjob man" or the "eat shit man". That's the kind of negative aura that would retroactively destroy a character's image.

Of course, people like Eric Kripke can't understand why that's damaging-it's disgusting and gross. It reminds me of how people negatively reacted to Michael Bay inserting sex jokes into a Transformers movie which is supposed to be for kids. There is a reason why, despite having sexy characters, most anime steer clear of becoming outright hentai, because if they crossed that narrow line, the negative attention they'd get might destroy the franchise they've built. Kripke crossed that line a long time ago with Herogasm, but even back then, at least Homelander was shown as a threat when Soldier Boy and a super-powered Butcher/Hughie combo weren't enough to stop him.

But in the S5 finale, this is supposed to be V1 Homelander they fought. A version of Homelander doped up with a strain of Compound V that was ten times more powerful than what he regularly had; it was so strong that it killed most people that they tested it with, and left few survivors such as Soldier Boy. Homelander should be, at that point, the Boys' answer to Broly from Dragon Ball, Thanos from Marvel, or Darkseid from DC. He should've been thrashing an entire army of Supes. Instead, he gets taken out by Butcher, Ryan, and Kimiko, when in Herogasm, he'd have crushed them or at least been able to escape them, since he escaped a much more experienced Soldier Boy, as well as a V'd up Hughie and Butcher.

V1 Homelander should've naturally ripped apart Kimiko, Butcher, and Ryan. Or at least escaped them to call for reinforcements. His laser vision should've been as strong as Soldier Boy's chest blast when the latter killed almost everyone in Herogasm. Instead, he's beaten and is forced to beg and make disgusting promises, which in turn, makes him look like a complete pussy in front of the whole world. What they should've done is have it so that originally, Ryan and Kimiko want to parade HL in front of the world so that they'd no longer fear him, and they get Butcher to agree, but then, as in my ending, HL would invoke Becca's name to get a rise out of Butcher, so Butcher kills HL, and the latter dies with a smile, leaving behind the world he hated at last.

You also have these narcissistic fags who believe that there's no such thing as good people, you find them a lot when discussing Game of Thrones or any prestige crime drama. Usually they're some sort of variant of straight nihilist who tell on themselves about how they view the world and morality as a whole.

To no shock, these people are absolutely abhorrent in their personal lives and have no friends. They want everyone to be as miserable as they are.

It's a result of the post-modern, cynical morality where it's no longer about objective good and evil, but subjective good and evil, and as a result, you get people who are narcissistic egotists who believe that anything that makes them happy is good and anything that does the opposite is evil, even if it means ignoring what is objectively good or evil.

Writers write what they know about, and we can safely assume this applies to leftist writers too.

Thus, when writing a character, they are inspired by themselves and the people they hang out with.

It's little wonder they are then shocked when normal audiences recoil in horror at what they've created, and unanimously label their character as unlikeable assholes with no redeeming qualities. They exist in a bubble where they never have to interact with the average normie, or God forbid, someone that actually disagrees with their stance.

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.

*Insert Eric Kripke seething about how the fans love Homelander and Soldier Boy while hating Starlight for being a victim-blaming prima-donna who aborted her kid behind Hughie's back.*

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.

Nobody I know gives a fuck about Hughie and Starlight, and at most, Butcher is seen as a necessary evil. Even Mortal Kombat knew this, and they had Homelander be the Boys' guest character along with Omni-Man from Invincible.

Get cast as Albert Wesker or replace Pedro as Mr Fantastic.

Albert Wesker is a good start. Maybe he can be an older Johnny Storm, as well.

The word wasn't "deconstruction", but I think it's more like "fallen from grace", which I think it's or could be an interesting take on certain superheroes. Batman Beyond starts with a Batman who's so desperate that he had to use a gun, Spiderman 2 shows what happens when Peter Parker reconsider if being a hero is truly worth of abandoning his personal life, and you can even say the Archangel goes through it when he joins Apocalypse after being desperate for losing his wings. But the goal of this type of stories is to show that even the noblest of people can have setbacks and fall into temptation, only to reconsider and going back to what's important. These stories come from decades ago and it's not a new thing that they're making up. We can even say that we've had a lot of superheroes who aren't precisely nice people. I mean, Wolverine is not precisely a nice person to be around and he's done a lot of questionable things, yet he's always there to do the right thing.

They're more anti-heroes than outright deconstructions, and they're typically assholes who are still on the side of the Angels. They're dicks, but they're the dicks who help our side out, so it's OK. Batman is typically a dick, Wolverine is usually a dick, but at least, they're dicks who fight for the cause of good.

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.

Modern deconstruction is just the authors hating what they're supposed to be satirizing, as opposed to a respectful satire the way Don Quixote did with Medieval Chivalry. It doesn't help that a lot of modern morality is just being vindictive towards the people you hate, whether the Left or the Right, so all you have are complete assholes being paraded as heroes despite acting like assholes, and not the productive kind like Wolverine or Batman.

 

[Tyronneasaurus Rex]

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.

 

[Zenos Yae Viator]

thinking it was going to be closer to the source.

as if the Source is really any higher brow than the show, I consider them equally fucking awful in completely different ways, at least the source isn't politically topical.

The comic juggles amazing moments with leagues of gross out sex and drugs and rape shit and the most heavy handed "its like a character you know, but they rape, or they are a Nazi" on and on and on.

Same with the show, little tiny diamonds in a sea of shit.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

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.

Given how Kripke turned V1 Homelander from what should have been Superman on steroids to the "blowjob/eat shit man" in the span of a single episode, it seems like a certainty. Anthony Starr had to fight with him to make Homelander more nuanced. Add in the fact that people really didn't like Starlight or Hughie, and it's a certainty that Kripke, in one last act of defiance against an audience who continued to disagree with him on his work, decided to make the villain they loved into a complete pussy offering blowjobs to his enemy.

as if the Source is really any higher brow than the show, I consider them equally fucking awful in completely different ways, at least the source isn't politically topical.

The comic juggles amazing moments with leagues of gross out sex and drugs and rape shit and the most heavy handed "its like a character you know, but they rape, or they are a Nazi" on and on and on.

Same with the show, little tiny diamonds in a sea of shit.

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.

 

[StarkRavingMad]

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.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

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

It was more a deconstruction of a superhero-obsessed media in the first few seasons; them making fun of Disney and the MCU, which was kinda neat.

As for the comics, it was far less deconstruction, and more Garth Ennis wanting to shit on actual superheroes from Marvel or DC by having expies of them get humiliated, tortured, or brutalized by his cool guys wearing black trench coats.

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.

Once Trump stops being a talking point, it's going to age like spoiled milk. Just like how anti-Bush commentary looks quaint nowadays.

 

[Zenos Yae Viator]

Once Trump stops being a talking point, it's going to age like spoiled milk. Just like how anti-Bush commentary looks quaint nowadays.

its basically already come to pass, oh sure the diehards and nutjobs are still forever going to hate him, but everyone else has realized that he isn't going to build the Camps to put the Gays and foreigners in to gas them, and now they are quietly disconnecting from the entire melodrama over him being the next Hitler.

Its what makes this show incredibly ironic and another small brick on the pile of actual radicalism, it all but justifies killing Trump, Trump supporters, and loudly declaring they deserve no mercy, an incredibly common occurence from media and commentators.

The Boys the show (and the comic) is painfully uncreative, just as Homelander is berated by Stan in both as being droll and uncreative, so is the show "Evil Corpo-Super Heros" and all they do is make a Red White and Blue Nazi Germany, nothing interesting occurs, you can have all sorts of things play out with people who are supposedly so powerful, yet for all their 'declared' power, Homelander's blows don't even cause the Oval Office to shake, he comes off as incredibly weak even at the height of his power and abilities.

saying someone is powerful and then depicting a street brawl is a joke, if you want your "Superman"/Strongest Character to be feared and respected for their power, they need a moment like in this show where the world strongest man is finally allowed to pull his Excalibur-esque sword, and doing so nearly rips the fabric of reality apart just by unsheathing it.