Chris Prusinowski Really? He actually seems fairly realistic in the setting of the TV series/comics. How a man who is seemingly nigh-invincible with Superman like powers but is raised in a terrible environment in a laboratory; his nihilistic and psychopathic tendencies the byproduct of such a hostile and merciless upbringing Theres a reason why he’s being called as one of the -best- villains of all time. And I absolutely agree with that. Psychologically, he makes sense to be the way he is, and he’s a lot more realistic than most over-the-top villains we’ve seen anywhere else
I honestly thought that it's at least partially making fun of the fact that Batman is the superhero that gets the most attention always when he is part of a story.
Even if GoT's ending was rushed, that doesn't mean that GRRM will do the same thing. DnD rushed seasons 7 and 8 because they wanted to start working on Star Wars. So instead of the nuanced, layered writing we got in seasons 1 through 6, they decided to only focus on the major points and completely breezed through everything in between. It's not that they're bad writers, because some of my favorite stuff was original content by DnD... Like Arya and Sandor in season 4. It's the fact that they somehow didn't want to take the time to finish the biggest show in TV history because of money AND their own personal agendas getting in the way. It will never make sense to me how HBO allowed them to shorten the seasons and end the show earlier than expected. GRRM should understand that his ending could be great as long as all of the blanks are filled in.
@@MFBloosh I'm not sure his ending can be great. The thing I love about Martin's writing is how he treads through tension and sets up mysteries. But it's shallow. The answer to these mysteries don't really mean much to us on Earth. What kind of ending can it have that will stick with us humans? I think Tolkien's ending was perfect and shines even now.
@MFBloosh The problem is, GRR Martin is 71 years old, severely overweight and not in the best medical condition. And it took more and more time between the release of the books. So how are the chances that he drops dead before he can finish the series?
@@michaelcardno9859 comics have a good premise but ruin it with shitty edgy stuff. Butcher bangs cia woman in her kitchen right then and there, starlight gets gangbanged, the 9/11 stuff, plenty more. For the same reason why superheroes movies are unrealistic in the way they portray benevolence, the boys' comic is over the top in a bad way in the way they portray the evil of supes.
Yeah there was a Superman story about why he needs the Clark Kent persona rather than being Superman 24/7. It kept him human and not Godlike
5 ปีที่แล้ว +141
@eviad Kill Bill is one of my favorite movies but that monologue suck ass (no the delivery tho, David Carradine was amazing). It describe Superman as a godlike alien who acts like a coward and patetic reporter because that's how he sees humanity. That's not how Superman sees humanity.
Ignacio Cañas Exactly! The real reason Superman is Clark Kent is because he was raised as Clark Kent. He was just a normal boy for so long, until he one day learned he was a man of steel that could do literally anything. But, the reality is that, ironically enough, the humans that he saves every day have more freedom and more choice than Superman ever could. They are allowed to decide their fate. Superman’s is already decided for him, in a way. He wants to be Clark Kent, because he wants to be free. Superman wants a chance to live a normal and quiet life, but is also too selfless to ever abandon his post. Which is why he cannot give up being Superman as long as Superman still exists within him. So having Clark Kent is an essential compromise he’s made to still remain capable of holding control over his own existence
@ So people perceived the monologue as incorrect because it was delivered by Bill, the antagonist who believes in that line of thought, hence his actions against the Bride, hence the conflict.
Watchmen just wasn’t very good at this (film version) it wasn’t very realistic and failed to really capture ‘what would real superheroes be like’. Snyder was way too concerned with everything looking cool for that to happen.
@@Th3-3nd I did like the Ultimate Cut, but I prefer the Director's cut because the narrative is a lot more focused and with the extended running time, there are some pacing issues that tend to crop up.
There's one Scene that says everything about the entire series in quite a simple way: the Scene of "Homelander" heating up the Gun of a Criminal to such a degree that it literally melts onto his hand... but the kids he is "Saving" are just staring at how cool he is. "The Boys" ain't just about showing how Super Heroism can be scary... but how people shouldn't ignore the consequences behind their Super-Powered actions.
... I just realized... I don't remember the gunpowder igniting and sending molten metal flying everywhere. In other words... That should've killed a lot of bystanders and doing that would've been stupid and reckless.
Ivanperez 128 It is possible though would be intensely difficult, if he pushes it to hard he bursts through it and if he tries to little nothing happens. He could do it best if he could find something large to push against it in order to disperse his force.
People don't seem to realize that Homelander isn't bad because he's human, it's because of his upbringing. He was raised in a lab, with detestable parental figures, and role models. While Superman was raised in a small town by loving parents that taught him compassion, kindness, and mercy as well as controlling his strength and helping others. Homelander could have been a decent human being it he had a decent childhood.
@@christbenitez8797 Its kinda already shown in the new clips they aren't going the same way with the comics since Black Noir isn't unhurtable and Stormfront isn't a man
@@boukh_h there's literally nothing wrong with having a username and pfp reminiscent of or identical to your favorite character, so you can fuck off too.
Maybe it's both? I could definitely see that though, many people worship celebrities or fall for the public persona they or their team creates for them when really they are terrible people re: Ellen
@@slemangerdy8407 Idk what your saying but yeah captain America really doesn't care about being a idol he's just doing the right thing. That's the reason why I want to watch falcon and the winter soldier it show's what happened after endgame and how the government is replacing him anyways have a good day.
@@CrimesForDimes i love action scenes, and his story fits well with the movie, but to idiolize his looks and try to be patriotic because of "My HeRo" doesn't make you a good person, most of people love him, they don't just like the movie, i am also waiting for the show it looks epic
i esspecially like how on starlights first day translucents priority is to discuss copyright infringment and illegal merchandising of their merchandise. it was only when homelander who was trying to give a good impression said to tell about someone they saved today the conversation shifted
That scene really got me, despite everything that already happened I was still naive ( just like starlight) and when he said they needed to talk about serious crimes I really didn't expect it to be about copyright
Even if Superman couldn’t lift the plane, he would have put as much effort into flying to and from the plane to save as many people as he could. Hell, he’d dive underwater when the plane crashed if it meant saving at least one person. Homelander didn’t even try
@@heyitsvonage2768 Also you: Idk what I'm talking about but I heard something that sounded fye from an unconfirmed biased source. If the book can be read it's not infinite.
I've been binge watching all your videos this last week, it's all super helpful and very well explained! Thank you for making these it really helps you see how subtle some dialogue is but how important the pay off can be if executed correctly. Excellent videos
Hey, I didnt know you watched this channel Love your animations Btw, just remember to take you time and dont let anyone force you to rush you to animate faster
One of my fave changes from the comics--besides Homelander--is that The Boys themselves aren't superpowered. Well, beyond the Girl. I hope it stays that way, for awhile at least. I really had trouble connecting to The Boys' mission to take out supes when they're suped up themselves. The entire thing just seem hypocritical. By keeping the main crew unpowered it makes their struggle to overcome the supes they're up against far more gratifying.
Well that is the point. The Boys in the comic are complete hypocrites. They're not as depraved but they are psychopaths. They are killers. Hughie is the hero because he hates the violence but the Boys LOVE it. Did you read it to the end? I don't want to spoil it for you but the ending is very telling.
@@99RedRedfake Oh I read the entire story. Still prefer this take on the characters. Looking forward to what they're going to take and what they're going to leave. Because all the characters have far more depth in here than they ever had in the comic.
@@djsosonut Well, I deeply disagree. Some of the Seven do, but they never the center piece. The Boys are so much weaker. I connected so much with the idea of ultra macho men being both completely toxic but necessary. Yet so dangerous once they don't have a purpose. It's like Ennis who himself is that macho man admits that men like Hughie are so much better for the world but so naive at the same time. Plus the sheer excessive pussification of superheroes felt catarthic XD The show feels like it pulls a lot of punches. The Boys are supposed to be military men. Real men. They're not supposed to struggle against superheroes. The supes are supposed to be so damn pathetic but think themselves so powerful. But the comic brilliantly refuses to make heroes out of the Boys. It keeps them, if not as bad as them, certainly not a force for good. It's brilliant and the show misses that so much in my opinion.
@@99RedRedfake All that depth you're seeing in the comic I'm not getting. It's was just Ennis being Ennis. Supes had depth? Where? Homelander was an incompetent manchild. That was his entire arc. Queen Maeve was basic eye candy and last minute turncoat. Damn near no presence in the story. The Deep had no depth. The Lamplighter was stuck playing with his poo. Sparkle was just a punching bad and Hughie's fuck buddy. Black Noir is the only one with any real depth of character, mainly cause he played everyone. Still, even that doesn't make much sense. I don't want to spoil the reveal just in case the show goes that route, but you should know what i'm talking about. And if he was made to be like that, at least the people that made him should've been able to catch on to what he was up to. Especially James Stillwell. (Probably my favorite character in the story. So callous and corrupt.) I think you're confusing sensation with depth. I don't mind if they don't the route of having full on group recliner circle jerks for shock value to show how depraved and damaged the supesin that world are. They can pull that punch. Ennis can be too Ennis sometimes. (Still remember him having one character have sex with a monument of meat in Preacher. I much prefer how they played that character and his obsession with meat in season one of Preacher.) I think the supes are far more interesting here. They aren't racist, homophobic, baby eating, pedos that it's easy to enjoy the Boys take out. They're damaged in a far less sensational but realistic way. Trapped by their fame in the roles they play and the things they do to stay there. Which makes things more grey when the Boys take them out or blackmail them. The Boys aren't heroes here either. Show Butcher blew up a house with a baby in it, on the slim chance he could take out Homelander. There is nothing heroic about that. That's what I enjoy. I like the show more because I like the characters more here. They're so deliciously messy, yet grounded in their hyper reality that is a funhouse mirror of our own. For me the show took something that I thought was just okay, and made it great.
I'll be honest, if nothing else, this analysis makes me appreciate Spiderman even more. The comic itself and its intended narrative goes so far out of the way to show that Spiderman is a kid in the beginning, that he makes mistakes, that people get hurt and he faces those consequences. Not just the people close to him either, people everywhere die in Spiderman stories and it messes with Peter on a level that many comics struggle to approach. If he weren't able to lead his dual life and continue hiding his identity, I think there could be a much darker version of his comics that parallels this series. He just happened to be loved by his Aunt and Uncle, so his nurturing was much more positive than Homelander's.
@@GaiusIntrepidus which makes me think what would Vought do if they found out that kid who had no record of having spider like powers is running around being a vigilante
Complex and layered characters are the bread and butter of any story. A good fictional world needs actions and consequences of these actions made by those characters.
That's not true. Many of the best books and movies in story doesn't have complex and layered characters. Fahrenheit 451, I, Robot, movies like Orange Clockwork, Blade Runner, etc. A good story is the one that can get your attention and make you forget details and enjoy the journey
@@someghostinthewild I agree with you that most stories on television like having iconic characters. But to my opinion (and I should have added that on my first comment), for a good story you need a cast of good characters who are not defined by one trauma (Harry Potter) or just a quirky flaw (any romcom) or just one bad/good decision (Superman who chooses no to kill people). They change because of *many* choices that they make or all the stuff that happened to them, in a realistic way. That's why I like complicated characters that will result in a realistic depiction of a fictional world (in my opinion, I prefer game of thrones than Lord of the rings). Nobody is simple and iconic. It's true that it depends on taste but my personal preference is a story lead by layered characters.
@@leazribi8388 frieza from saiyan arc was heartless and merciless monster with no remorse or sympathy and a terrifying badass he was pure evil to the core but still a total badass and a great villain/character
@@Anubis-xk4ht true. I also enjoyed dragon Ball as a kid. And all the Disney villains! But animations are meant to be exaggerated. The bad guys are really bad and can give you good conflict without complexity. It's basically "I'm gonna destroy the world and be green or purple cause that's the bad guy's colours." And the protagonist and any sane person would be against so you easily root for the hero. Plus your entertained by the witty jokes from the villains. I mean it's not bad but when you want to give a feel of realism while world building, a tiny bit more of complications is necessary.
@@leazribi8388 lmao frieza wasn't like any Disney villain and this sympathetic villains have been used too much say whatever you want but he was a great villain
I think superheroes are, literally, the secular world's version of mythology and religion. Recreating the gods, but in shapes and forms more comfortable to a modern audience. If superheroes existed, most of them would probably be either gods or dictators. Their powers are so far above that of human mortals, there simply is no comparison. Beings that can run so fast, bullets move as if through thick syrup. Beings that can destroy entire cities just by looking at them. Beings that can control the minds of every moral on the planet. There wouldn't be any mutant wars, at least, not with humans. We'd just be pets, slaves, and another endangered species. The real wars would be apocalyptic ragnarok struggles, with mountain ranges leveled and oceans turned to steam, before the hands of the gods bring the dead back to life and cause the forests to regrow, or time itself is reversed at a mere whim.
You're already presupposing that power and authority begets corruption or worship, that it is black and white, good or bad. God or dictator. Their emergence not taken after the fact what they were once or how they were brought onto the earth. What if one chose to be neither and live among humans? What if they do it in the shadows? Or sequestered themselves? You're treating superheroes like they're the Elder Dragons of MTG when in most cases, they are just plainly human beings as well. For all the shit religion gets, it literally is the cornerstone of morality, ethics and philosophy in any civilization.
I love that in contrast to comics, the Boys don't have any powers.... This gives total sense of danger, how normal people react to people with super powers. Beside the fact that they rely simply on guns, tactics make them look like regular criminals robbing banks. Criminals that Spiderman or Superman stop like every day. ... Imagine playing Spiderman PS4 and being defeated during regular crime fight on street during free roam xD you defeated bosses like Shocker, Scorpion, Rhino but you got knocked by a guy stealing old lady purse ;D
@@AveTrueToCaesar8212 I only hope they will reserve it for finale :o I prefer it when the Boys don't have powers :o it makes better contrast with the Seven
All that RR Martin says is ignored by D&D on season 8. It ended exactly like LOTR: Bran ruled fair and peaceful. And the Dothrakis, we don't care about them adapting to Westeros...
@@elpaladindeltrolling6037 it was only bitter because of how awful the ending is, and sweet because that travesty of a season finally came to an end. D and D are hacks.
This is why I don't like RR Martin, it's kind of like as if he can't suspend the reality of fantasy. sure there has to be tension and cruelty in a fantasy world, but you still have to understand that this is a fantasy world, talking just only said the basis of a hero's journey narrative and also a fantasy epic, the point of it is to escape to it and to hope for a better world.... Not filled with very awkward incest and rape. :/
@@MistCellaneous-5 If you're reading Game of Thrones hoping for escapism and a happy ending where the heroes win and live happily ever after, you shouldn't really be reading Game of Thrones. Just like people who want a light-hearted comedy at the moment probably shouldn't be watching a horror movie.
I think a lot of people have overused the term "deconstruction", which has been interpreted as turning the genre on its head. That is why we have so many self-claimed deconstruction of superhero that ended up as box office flops. Those successful case of "deconstruction" must have stories to tell in the first place. George R. R Martin created Game of Throne based on Medieval British history; Alan Moore satirizes not only superheroes but also Americanism in both pop culture and cold-war politics. Frank Miller simply used Batman-Superman rivalry to describe America's widespread fear and discontent in the 70s and 80s.
If you like this type of superhero story, there is one more movie that I don't often see referenced. Check out "Chronicle". Yeah it looks like another shaky-cam crapfest, but the characters are well developed and well acted. Basically, it takes an abused and suffering person and gives him the power of Superman.
Bill Lyons Yeah it’s pretty good, giving a depressed man who is furious with the unfairness of the world superpowers is really sad and really terrifying.
Man, Chronicle is gold. I wish Max Landis got to make his sequels, it would've been great. Andrew's character is so well developed and believable; his helplessness made me care for him so much. I love that movie
@@bigboibubba5528 Well, there's a sequel called Martyr and the script was already finished which it's in 2012. But that's sad because it was cancelled.
every time i read a comic the first thought i have is... what would happen if these things REALLY did happen. Watchmen was our first insight into that. Then there was Kick Ass and now this. Just because you have super powers doesn't automatically make you super. You are still a flawed human being like everyone else.
I think superheroes are, literally, the secular world's version of mythology and religion. Recreating the gods, but in shapes and forms more comfortable to a modern audience. If superheroes existed, most of them would probably be either gods or dictators. Their powers are so far above that of human mortals, there simply is no comparison. Beings that can run so fast, bullets move as if through thick syrup. Beings that can destroy entire cities just by looking at them. Beings that can control the minds of every moral on the planet. There wouldn't be any mutant wars, at least, not with humans. We'd just be pets, slaves, and another endangered species. The real wars would be apocalyptic ragnarok struggles, with mountain ranges leveled and oceans turned to steam, before the hands of the gods bring the dead back to life and cause the forests to regrow, or time itself is reversed at a mere whim.
I personally love traditional superheroes stories. I love the larger then life adventurers, I love the titanic battles and most of all I love the wholesomeness and altruistic of superheroes. I like seeing people do good things both in fiction and in real life. I was not really going to check out the show as I hated the comics series it was based and I am generally getting quite sick of superhero deconstruction as it quite over done. Oh sure if your only familiar the movies and TV shows it seems fresh to you but if your a comic reader like me you have probably already read quite a few deconstructions already. Lord knows there is no shortage of them in Indie comics. Don't get me wrong there have been some very good ones that offer new and interesting ways to look at superheroes but a lot of them just boil down to "what if the heroes were not so heroic". It's like Kurt Busiek said. "Superhero creators who engage in deconstruction fall into two categories: There are the guys who do it because it's easy, because it gets an audience reaction if you point out that superheroes must be a bunch of psychotic nuts. And there are the guys who do it because they're actually interested, and they're trying to get at what's going on underneath. They're interested in the process and the results." I just don't find the whole "if superheroes were real they be assholes" approach all that interesting. All that said this video has convinced me to give this show a chance. Sorry for the long commit but this video really got me thinking. Nice one mate.
You pretty much summed up my feeling toward magical girl and super heroes, just because its edgy and blacker than 13 black cat s does not make a deconstruction or good
The Boys has one of the darkest stories but one of the happiest endings really. That's the trick. The darker your story is, the more hardships your characters face only makes the victory sweeter.
To all the circus seals clapping their flippers off to the tune of "OMG, that's what the superheroes would be in real life!", you do realise that brutal, immoral or malicious superpowered characters exist in mainstream comics as well? They're called superVILLAINS. Some of them even pretend to be heroes. You cannot even say that "Boys" depicts the world without real superheroes, because that's not true - there's Starlight.
I'm telling you, it's like you ripped the thought right out of my mind through my nose! It's no different than any other story that leads you to a special place inside yourself. These are the same people that joined the "Thanos did nothing wrong" human, meme-linked fence. Oh, the hypocrisy. Starlight, in the show, was the purest form of the traditional hero to me. What happened to her, throughout the show, felt more like the embodiment of the contempt the creators and a notorious "executive producer" all have for real "Supes." I don't mind the original video post, but sometimes, we engender more bias in our praise than we realize, or even intend.
Here's more proof. Man of Steel failed for the same reason that "the Boys" succeeded; the deconstruction of super heroes. Zach Snyder didn't want to tell a wholesome story about a special "kid raised in Kansas" anymore than "the Boys" wanted to tackle the plight of the comic book superhero against diabolical "evil in the world." In either case, there is an oft hidden, seething contempt or irresistible urge to debunk the virtue and conviction that would create a superhero. I've seen this before. How much better would Sausage party have been if Seth Rogen wasn't hell bent on his "seething contempt or irresistible urge to debunk" Christian faith? Sometimes, when some people don't want to cop their own misgivings or shortcomings, they lash out at others who don't have those issues. Although I really enjoyed the Boys, the attempt of the showrunners to flip me off because they made it on the train in "time" only prevented me from returning the empty wallet they left on the bench.
Yes, The Boys has a lot of deconstructed superhero tropes, but it also has a lot of subverted ones. It's not just that they're not paragons of virtue, unlike the comic A-train kills Hughey's girlfriend not while fighting a supervillain, but buying drugs, the strech guy not only hides he's gay, he preaches against them and Homelander isn't a failed Superman, he is a straight up villain. And yes, the series gives the "superheroes" more dept, but also turns them from not good enough into actually evil.
The "super" part of superheroes has to do with morality also. I dont believe a character like superman could really exist but tony stark or captain america are pretty realistic archetypes of people. Tony grew a lot from being an alcoholic megalomaniac to going as far as to sacrifice himself for everyone.
Supermen exist all around us, but they're not usually recognized because merit isn't often the focus of our pop culture and politics. Kissinger getting a noble peace prize and living a long happy life is a great example.
4:05 I'm going to be honest, this movie already does not sound like my cup of tea at all just from this comment which is a microcosm of the biggest problem I have with so many "Superhero Deconstructions." They're not as smart as they THINK they are. Everyone of these movies tries to "Deconstruct" the superhero premise by going: "What if someone gained superpowers who WASN'T a good person??" and they approach this question with such condescending smugness that it's clear they think they were the first to come up with it. Except... they aren't. Even in that comment, the writer is blatantly wrong. The MCU has ALWAYS had greedy or selfish or otherwise flawed characters gaining superpowers. They're called SuperVILLAINS. And that's just it. These movies CLAIM they have some great insight into superheroes, but all they're doing is just showing characters who are BAD at being heroes, super or otherwise, and then trying to claim their selective sample is a more "realistic" take than the classic, even though it's actually much SHALLOWER. Showing only the failures, when Marvel has shown the successess AND the failures and all in between. And on a philosophical note, these movies send what I feel is a VERY toxic message that: "Heroes don't exist." It spreads an EQUALLY mythical viewpoint of a fantasy world where everyone's an asshole and Good=Dumb, which is a blatant falsehood dressed up as "realism".
I understand what you’re getting at but you have to remember that the Vought Supes are seen as heroes by the masses (but not by us, the audience). Supervillains in MCU are seen as supervillains by everyone. The Boys explores morally grey areas with protagonists and antagonists alike. While it’s certainly nothing new, I’d disagree that it’s “SHALLOWER”.
To be fair, Marvel's whole storyline since Civil War touched on the repercussions of innocent casualties / collateral damage due to the hero's actions. It's a huge thing in Black Panther as well. Sure, it's still in the Marvel formula, but at least they acknowledged this side of the story and used the opportunity to enlarge/complexify their world and explore a new kind of villain. This being said, The Boys does it a lot better, and I really appreciate that it's a core element of the show.
What's different about Marvel imo is that the heroes are too infallible. The only ones who actually still have problems AFTER becoming a super hero is Spiderman and the Guardians
@@buldockschannel1528 Bruce Banner and Tony Stark still have some pretty big problems they have to sort out after becoming heroes. Bruce’s problems are pretty self-explanatory, and Tony is practically the poster child for flawed superheroes. Iron Man 2 shows that Tony remains a very flawed person even after becoming Iron Man, and his PTSD from the events of Avengers leads him to create Ultron. And that disaster started a cascade of other problems that eventually led to Thanos winning in Infinity War.
i love the character building they did with the bad guys, Homelander is evil because he never had a family, he never really knew love, he was raised in a lab, And Queen Mav it was so sad to see she just wanted to have a relationship but she couldn't maintain it if she wanted to be this super hero. I love how the evil characters became real and we see that their evil nature was just a product of their environment. they didn't chose to be evil, they were just raised and fostered that way.
I mean its pretty much literally what happened in My Hero Academia before All Might came around. All For One was basically Homelander, he just preferred to stay in the shadows instead of seeking the spotlight.
George RR Martin should not be lecturing anyone about realism, considering the way he scoured 1,500 years of European history for the most horrific deeds he could find, before cramming them all together into a 20-year period as though that's a realistic depiction of medieval times. Everything from the Bloody Mummers to the flaying habits of the Boltons is over-the-top and sensational, and the cynic inside me believes he used this as a device to cover up the lack of actual plot. Martin gave us very vivid and detailed character studies, but if Westeros truly worked the way he wrote it then it would be depopulated within a handful of generations. Actual history has plenty of examples of wise kings ruling justly, a-la Aragorn, to go with the butchers and the monsters, and it's realistic to portray them; the true break from reality is to pretend that medieval society would be sustainable the way that Martin grotesquely depicts it.
Can i make a recommendation for all those who enjoy this show to look up the comic series "Uber" by Kieron Gillen. A series that goes about deconstructing the romanticization of the second world war & some of the archetypal supers heroes it established, as well as using super powered characters to highlight the horrors of war. While it's very easy to look at who the villains of the second world war are, it can be often glossed over just how many cities, homes, and generations of people were burned down and whipped out to stop them.
No problem, plenty of hidden gems out there to share around, if you're also into Roleplaying and tabletop games, you might like another one of his ongoing works "Die". Very different artist who's done one heck of a stylised and just about every panel is its own painting.
A bit late, but there's also the Reckoners series by Brandon Sanderson for those who're into reading. It's set in a post-apocalyptic world ruled by "super heroes" and is about a small team of regular humans trying to bring their tyranny down. It's well written and very enjoyable overall
personally I'm not interested in the application of "Realism." If anything, I prefer the exploration of potential. I am a sucker for redemption stories. It is very rare that a murderer changes his ways, finds the light, and tries to atone for his past evils or failures. But it isn't impossible. I like the encouraging thought, that anyone has that small chance of realizing their mistakes, and can seek their own justice to right the wrongs of their past.
If you like the Boys check out these comics. Irredeemable, Incorruptible and Jupiter's Legacy. They all do a great job of destructing the superhero genre. Jupiter's Legacy is being adapted into a Netflix series and is being filmed as we speak hopefully it turns out good.
The only thing sad here is the fact that "realistic" is people not being good. If anything good superheroes could leave an imprint on children and raise them into better people as they could have them as a reference point. Just leave them as good people. Just Let it be a reference
The point is they ARE good people, but they're put in real life circumstances, so they're also shitty people. Just like real humans lol, no one is perfect. I do think their needs to be more heroes who are little more selfless like Starlight shown though. It seems just about everyone in the super hero industry in The Boys is corrupt. This is one area I think OPM did a great job in showing what a corporate run super hero characters would be like.
@@JameboHayabusa thing is i met people. People as good as steve rogers and i met absolute piece of shits too . It's not unrealistic to have people like tony stark or thor. Are they perfect . Of course not, they had flaws . Tony is a straight up selfish asshole, who's arrogant . Doesn't give a shit about others lives. But he changes. Same with thor, arrogant shit who alwayss wants to pick a fight . People can be aa good as thor or steve rogers or peter parker . They can be shits, I'd rathee meet more people like steve types which like i said I've seen. Mostly cause I've lived with them for years. Media has an effect . You can't be like " this is it this is the reality" cause it's not. It can really change people.
The Boys is kind of like a reverse Watchmen. Watchmen was an amazing deconstruction that got adapted to an stylized cookie cutter superhero movie. The Boys was adapted from a good but a bit generic "dark and gritty" superhero comic to an amazing deconstruction in the TV series.
@@Pikashades the one that carbon copies 80% of the plot of a graphic novel that was entirely about the deglamorization of the superhero, portraying them as inherently ridicolous and broken individuals and utilizes the comic book golden age aesthetics of costumes and even plot points to an extent to draw an even sharper contrast, and what it does is fetishize them, their screen presence and everything that surrounds them; Moore says "look at this nutcase in a spandex costume who violates civil rights on the daily because he's a shell of a man who can't hold a regular job anymore, who in their right mind who'd worship him?" Zack Snyder goes "look how fucking cool Rorschack is with his coat in slow mo in the rain busting jaws, isn't it cool? Aren't silk spectre and nite owl awesome when they send a goon flying against a wall ten meters away with one punch and then have slow motion sex looking like victoria's secret models?" That's the movie. That movie is proof like no other than you can copy the plot and still fail to convey the story entirely, so yeah, it is a cookie cutter because instead of being a deconstruction of the genre it is just an edgier, darker, more allegedly "realistic" version of the same spandex suit action porn moore was criticizing; despite his writing doing all the work can to mend the dissonance, snyder's puerile directing tramples all those efforts
As glad as I am for this series' existance, I am also glad that the avengers and the jl weren't conceived during our time. Cause coming up with them in today's climate . . . They would end up like this, no doubt.
A very good reason why The Boys just plan sucks. Why would I want to watch a rendition of a superhero story that just continues to remind me how shitty the real world is?
@@chrisprusinowski5287 superhero stories are meant to get away from the reality and push us to do good. The boys is just a apparent thing called “what if superheroes were real?” even though it has nothing new to say other than “haha, look, the heroes are misusing their powers again”, it’s literally just supervillains running a oversized scam in the story.
The idea that having heroic (if still flawed) heroes who basically do the right thing is somehow boring, lame or tired is deeply troubling to me. Characters like Iron Man, Thor, Cap, Superman, Wonder Woman etc aren't supposed to be "realistic"; they're meant to be ideals. Complaining about these characters being too "good" is essentially the same as complaining about these characters being who they are. If you want Thor to be a mass-murdering psychopath who doesn't care about protecting innocent people, then sorry, that isn't the character that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created. If you want Tony Stark to be a selfish asshole who isn't willing to sacrifice himself in order to save the universe, then again, sorry. You're wishing for a different person than the one from the source material. This reminds me of when Zack Snyder said that he wanted Batman to get raped in prison. Stories like The Boys and Watchmen that show the real-world implications of superheroes are definitely valuable, but the idea that they are automatically superior to more traditional superhero stories seems to me quite dubious. I would argue that a number of MCU films (Winter Soldier, Civil War, Black Panther, Infinity War and Endgame) are among the best comic book movies of all time. At the end of the day, why can't we appreciate both?
Well said. Anti heroes and morally black characters are no substitute for traditional heroes and vice versa. Those characters all serve different roles so to completely disguised one or the other is just wasteful. Aspirational characters still and always will have there place. It's not like we don't have people in real who strive to do good in the world. A character can still be flawed without being a monster.
The problem is when those characters being "too good" is too unnatural. That happens a lot in superhero movies, sure we dont want Thor to be a murdering psychopath, but I still want him to feel natural.
Yea the edgy comic book writers thinks that making characters into an edgelord piece of shit are "unique" and better but it just fucking garbage. They could write a good adult superhero story without making them overly edgy but they dont have the writing talent.
I do hate the “Dark and gritty equals more realistic” trope. There are just as many logical flaws in The Boys universe. Also it’s unfair to say this is a “groundbreaking deconstruction” of the Hero genre when comics have been doing the dark and gritty takes for a while
It depends on how you are defining ‘realistic’. If you just mean whether there are inconsistencies in the story then yes, the Boys isn’t anything new. But I don’t think that’s what most people mean by realistic. They mean that it speaks to a more likely real life outcome of a common genre. The Boys is undoubtedly a more likely result of superheroes existing in the modern world than the MCU for example
W H If anyone thinks the government would allow any corporation to possess essentially nuclear weapons-level military power, they are living in a fantasy
I agree. I think Spiderman got it right with the balance. His story and world are so human and more relatable to me. It took me a while to really appreciate it.
@@wh5601 Not really. Its just an opposite extreme. A real life example would be something so shackled by bureaucracy and red tape that it's impossible to get anything done. The venture brothers is more "real." You know why these tropes keep being used? Because it's the law.
I mean... Satire and parody have existed a split second less than story and narrative itself. To blindly call The Watchmen the creation of Satire Comic Books is... Kinda ignoring the fact that it almost certainly wasn't. But yes, it was one of the first well-known ones, a direct inspiration for The Boys, and very important in making way for other approaches and parodies. (Then again, I mostly just don't really buy into the idea of genres because all story is kinda linked and genres deal more with theme and setting than actual meaning and what the story is really about... And yeah. I'm sure there was satire about age-old myths thousands of years ago. And I bet some would even be similar to Watchmen or The Boys in meaning and story.)
I'm a huge fan of the Boys, but do not bring Watchmen down to its level. For all its flaws, Watchmen actually has something interesting and slightly logical to say. The Boys is pure nihilism, which makes it just as unrealistic as the stories it is parodying. Only darker. Even Alan Moore noticed it shortly after the Watchmen era. He said a lot of writers started making up these excessively dark stories that had nothing going for them other than the fact that they were dark.
@@asherujudo7383 I love The Boys but you are 100% right. Its fun violent schlock whereas Watchmen is a bit more complicated. Both are great in their own ways.
3:13, I think you're forgetting the real RomCom formula: "Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, girl finds boy, boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl, girls dies in a tragic blimp accident over the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day." -The Naked Gun
I respectfully disagree with you assessment that _The Boys_ is any more realistic than your token summer blockbuster, especially when it comes to that old saying "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," which I find intellectually lacking when applied to superpowers. Studies have shown that _the exact opposite_ would happen: People who simulated being a Flying Brick in the vein of Superman were found to act more benevolent and polite to the researchers, as if the very thought of being like Superman caused them to feel the need to be altruistic. Going even further, superpower, to me, would probably be like becoming a giant animal because _nothing could harm you,_ so you be the most laid-back person ever. Think of elephants or blue whales, they're generally really relaxed and benevolent animals unless provoked. The Mythbusters tried to debunk the old cliche that elephants are afraid of mice, and they found that the colossal animals were _terrified_ of the rodents because they didn't want to step on them. I don't watch _The Boys_ because I hate Garth Ennis (a man that hates superheroes for very petty and superficial reasons), but I do see the need in its contribution to the genre, however that doesn't mean I have to _agree_ with it.
I've been leaning towards watching The Boys Karl Urban is a favorite of mine and I've been interested in the concepts and how they are executed. I didn't know Eric Kripke was the show runner, that seals the deal for me, he's great with character creation and development. This is a great video SavageBooks, thank-you for sharing your thoughts. Hayley ^_^
The incredibles was a visionary tale well ahead of its time now that i think about it. It opened with them being heroes and deal with a decent part of it with them trying to stay heroes and bob even crossing the line into criminal territory more than once
"Deconstruction" is a lousy and meaningless term used by bad writers that have zero creativity of their own. When Alan Moore made Watchmen or GRRM made ASOIAF, they have known a lot about their own genres, and know about a lot of other subjects other than their own field (Moore borrowed heavily from 80's politic and theater art; GRRM borrowed from British history and other historical fictions). Same thing can be applied to the Boys, which combine superhero genre to PR works, toxic celebrity culture, etc. Those works on so-called "deconstruction" won't work without creator understanding of the works. Those that just think deconstruction is 'to shit on past works with nothing interesting or insightful to say' will just repeat the same mistake of DCEU failures.
Yeah, some formulas work for a reason but its always nice to see a twist to it. The problem is focusing more on being different more than having substance.
Though I agree this story is good because it is different, I would not call it a necessary story that 'rescues' the audience. I think many supehero movies, comics and animated features/movies have dealt into really mature themes in the past but just didnt tell the same story that The Boys does. I admit that this story is original but I also believe it is just a story of the consequences of the circumstances that the characters are found. What I mean is that though it is rigorous(though with some leaps of belief), it is only so under the conntext of the story which is very narrow. That being said, many if not all suoerhero stories that claim to be rigorous are only so under the specific context the story is about. For instance, Watchmen is a rigorous in its discussion about the different spectrums of dedication to the fight for "Justice"- Where John strays towards not caring, Rorschach is steadfast to a fault in his lack of compramise to crime be it tainted by his past and beliefs. But what the story lacks on is the genuiene relationship between russia and America when someone like John can just invade. There is no discussion of this besides the nuclear tension being slightly on Americas favour but such a tension would not exist as John would eliminate all of that. Of course, a focused story is good in its own right but I also think that focused stories dont have to have all characters being deeply flawed for it to be realistic. Many stories involving Superman have inspected different aspects of superman and his relationship with people and though many are idealised, what makes that relationship any less valid than that shown in The Boys between the heroes and the population? I believe you cannot set out to just deconstruct a whollde genre s that leaves an unfocused story instead a true decontruction comes from the focused context it wishes to discontruct. For instance Alan Moore's "Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow?" decontructs the silver age superman as he wrestles with the changing times as the world wishes for grittier, morally grey stories. In it, Superman deals with loss of innocense and death. As for The Boys, its a great story about the comercialism of the superhero brand and its relationship to blind faith. The closest it gets to subversion is the aeroplane bit but even then the driven motivation in them not saving anyone is their drive to mentain their brand of perfect heros when they cearly are not. Superman under the situation, even if unable to save the whole plane would have attempted to save as many people as possible. Though interesting, the story has its flaws. 1) Babies being injected with superhero sereums in hospitals all over the USA with the permission of the parents and no one gets a whif of the rumors especially when a huge part of the show is based on the lie that they ae chosen by God. 2)The lack of military intevention over the acts of the superheros until proposed by the hero company itself 3)With the apparently rampant casualty count, the media isnt blowing up about it especially when in our world, such acts would be instantly picked by the sensational media. Of course all of these might have reasons behind them but I think show does a poor job in these three major catagories expcept for offhanded statements like "people just keep quiet"
I might get some heat for this, but here goes: I like this analysis, and its explanation of what The Boys is supposed to be. The problem is, that's not what The Boys is. What The Boys is is a cynical look at how all heroes are secretly terrible. Queen Maeve is a bitter cynic. Starlight is stupid and naive. A-Train and The Deep are pathetic and desperate. Homelander is a goddamn psychopath. The point of the show was to point out that the heroes are only human, with human flaws. Only that's not what happened. Instead what we have is a show with maybe... one likeable hero? And the rest you just put up with because Karl Urban is in the show. I'm not saying the heroes have to be saints. That would go against what the show is supposed to be about. But this is too far on the other end of the spectrum. There is no middle ground. Therefore, the complaint that the MCU characters don't "feel human enough" also applies to The Boys.
Seconded. A show only gets so much credit for trying. If it doesn't deliver on its promises then there's not much of value, in the end. I never felt like it was possible to understand the motivations of many of the characters in The Boys the way I might be able to understand a real person's. A person has habits and desires, and those things should lead to the choices they make. Many works have a problem where a person does something just because they are an asshole, or a saint, or whatever without a clear connection to some internal motivation. Good or bad, characters who are mere archetypes can't be complex or well understood or realistic. The Boys falls into that trap just as much, if not more, than many MCU films.
"what would superhéroes really be like in our world with the most rigorous application of reality" Not like in the boys thats for sure, edgy doesnt means "realistic", is just as much of a fantasy as any superman comic book is if not worse
The fact that you show watchmen twice in the montage about how cinema is dominated by superhero movies shows that you completely misunderstood what it is. The watchmen is the boys but better, it doesn't fall into the same category as the MCU smh
Honestly, I'd probably be consumed by revenge, if a loved one was killed the same way Robin was. It's one thing to have them killed in an accident, or even intentionally for whatever reason. It's another entirely to have the reason be recklessness, like a fucker who was juiced up on drugs, and then either making fun of it or playing it off. I don't wanna say Huey is right, but *can you blame him if he doesn't come around?*
I see him as a soldier in a war against Capes. Yes, vengeance kills a person, but that's what soldiers do. They go through hell so that others wouldn't. Rage and pain and revenge will consume him, but his sacrifice will allow others to avoid that.
GGX TriHard the S class might have some ego and problems of their own but I don’t think they’re quite as bad as the Seven yet. They atleast seem to have saving people as their number 1 priority
The violence and karl urban were fun but I've seen the exact same satire of comic book movies a thousand times before the Boys, the genre's been pretty saturated for a long time
Obligatory comment plugging Worm, a brilliant reconstruction of superhero tropes self-published as a web serial back in 2011-2013. Seems relevant, given the subject of conversation here.
Before I elaborate, I want to define my terms, because I frequently see the terms used interchangeably, and that can get confusing. Both decontruction and reconstruction generally take tropes that have become particularly saturated in a given genre, and seek to take them apart. The difference is in intent, and follow through. In deconstruction, the purpose of taking the tropes apart is to demonstrate them to be absurd, usually to the apparent detriment of the genre being deconstructed. In reconstruction, the purpose of taking the tropes apart is to understand what makes them so appealing within that genre, so as to better understand how to write effectively within that genre. Earlier, I called Worm reconstruction. That's because, while it absolutely takes apart superhero tropes, it obviously comes from a place of respect. Wildboar clearly loves superhero stories, but wants to ask tougher questions. He wants to know Superman's tax policy, if you will. I'd obviously also term A Song of Ice and Fire reconstruction. Murder Santa loves fantasy, and particularly Tolkein, but wants to ask tougher questions and explore deeper societal issues. Now compare this with the Watchmen comics, which was written by a bitter man who loathed the superhero genre. He didn't want to write more effectively within the genre; he wanted to see it destroyed. I bring up this distinction, because aside from coming from a different place, it also goes to a different place. Deconstruction, as I would define it, almost uniformly goes to a bleak, hopeless place, because the author has a bleak, hopeless attitude towards the genre he or she is deconstructing. Reconstruction might go to very dark places, but it will generally have a somewhat more optimistic view overall. I will disclaim that I have neither read The Boys, nor watched its adaptation. However, I have read and watched material about them, and my understanding is that the source material falls very squarely into deconstruction, a bleak, cynical world that indulges in edge for its own sake, where everyone is fundamentally corrupt to their very core and the world is a harsh, bitter place; the characters are not morally gray, they've all been set on moral fire and the resulting charcoal dipped in moral tar. And it sounds like this adaptation of The Boys took issue with that, sanding down some of the edge to deliver a more nuanced world and characters in what I would probably classify as reconstruction. All that to say, I think anyone who likes The Boys, the live action adaptation, will probably like Worm for similar reasons, whereas I suspect that anyone who likes The Boys, the original comic, will find that Worm is insufficiently edgy and optimistic for daring to portraying any character as being anything but narcissists and psychopaths. And, to that end, I think that, if Worm was inspired by the The Boys comic, it was because Wildbow was dissatisfied with the comic's reductive approach to the genre.
Deconstruction and subversion has become a cliche at this point. I want to see a producer with the balls to do a proper Superman archetype that is not secretly evil or messed up or boring or dark and gritty.
Not if done properly. Cap America was pretty cool, and with the right supporting characters and a proper foil, can make for some great stories / movies
I gotta say, the recent adoration of "The Boys" is very funny to me. Even when I first picked up the comic series around 2010 in my early 20's, I recognized it for what it was. Nothing more than typical edgy Garth Ennis crap. And now a decade later people are praising it unabashedly. It's so hilarious.
I loved this video. I just finished the first season of The Boys for the first time and I absolutely loved it. I've been trying to find a good deep dive into the show and I finally found yours. I will 100% be subscribing and coming back for more videos!
You can only deconstruct things once, also see how GOT ended and deconstruction is destructive to any actual narrative since it requires the original narrative to work and when everything becomes a deconstruction there is nothing left because everything has been destroyed.
@@theM4R4T So in your eyes, there's no fault for D&D when they oversaw the writing and were in a position to prevent it? Sorry, but you don't get a pass when it's your job to put all of the elements together and you settle for the low-hanging fruit that is the status quo the moment you run out of given material to work with. While we shouldn't negate the good work they did when they had source material to work with, it's another situation entirely to see what they did when they weren't handed what to do next - and that alone is sufficient enough to warrant the kind of criticisms they're receiving.
@@theM4R4T The part about passing the buck to the writers. A showrunner wears many hats, one of which is meant to screen the scripts that come through. It's a conflict of interest to expect positive results if you're both writing and approving the writing decisions, how can you be impartial enough to measure whether or not its up to snuff? W&B's experience in writing original material prior to GoT is full of incompetence, nearly everything they wrote was either cancelled early in the project's life or straight-out refused as inadequate to suit the needs of the project. Almost no one had even heard of these two prior to GoT for a good reason; adapting material is something they do well - admittedly - but original material is not.
I’ve been noticing a transition from the public craving stories of superheroes as a means of fantasizing about the best people can be to people having been made cynical through the utterly depressing state of the world and thus only being reminded of the lack of a superhero-esque attitude towards the betterment of all humanity within our world; as of late, seeing perfect people who dedicate their lives to upholding good and protecting the earth only reminds them that our world is run exclusively by people who couldn’t care less about the people they govern, and that a hero - one that doesn’t care about anything EXCEPT the people they protect - can’t exist in reality. Deconstructing the superhero genre empowers people, because it shows very flawed people working towards what they believe in an imperfect manner. Seeing a perfect idealized hero hurts, but seeing a flawed and relatable person standing up for their beliefs gives us hope that we who are unhappy with the state of the world can also defend our ideals and make a difference without being a perfect human specimen with superhuman abilities.
@@Liberator130 Oh yeah, but the narrative that fantasy was just full of Tolkien derivatives before GRRM is just stupidly false at best, and unabashedly cruel to the swathes of other fantastic authors at worst. His entire authorial generation is filled with people who actively subvert, enhance and innovate the genre. George has many contemporaries that can match and beat him in terms of scale of worldbuilding and plot, deep characterisation, intrigue and suspense, prose etc. I'm not trying to come off as superior or gatekeeping, I merely want the trend of treating Martin as either the saviour of the fantasy genre, or as the great olive branch who "matured" fantasy for a more mainstream audience, to be put to bed. It's poisonous for both the author and the genre, and it is an act of sycophantic nonsense
@@cayranm I hate to break it to you but aside from a few examples the genre was OVERWHELMED with Tolkien derivatives in every sense of the word. GRRM wasn't the only author but like 95% did this.
@@BlazingOwnager But the largest books in the genre currently, and have been for at least the last 30 years, are not Tolkien derrivatives. Every genre of storytelling is filled to the brim with lacklustre, uninspired trite, but those are not the books that define a genre. George does not define his genre, his books did not rise to the mainstream because they were so radically different, in both concept and quality, from every single other book in fantasy, he was just lucky to get a very good adaptation (for a while).
I'm so tired of dark "realistic" superhero stories. They're so played out and I'm just so fucking done with it. It gets to a point where subverting archetypes and making things super *dark* and """""realistic""""". I'm so fucking tired off this shit. Shazam was the most refreshing shit I've seen in years. Dark """"""""""""r e a l i s t i c"""""""""""" superheroes are the expectation now you're not subverting anything. It's not fun anymore.
Martin adores Tolkien, what are you talking about? He just wanted to tackles themes that Tolkien didn't. Also LOTR is overrated. Tolkien himself though is The Man
Looks like they're having it both ways. You cant "not" lift a plane while flying but ALSO stop a speeding armored vehicle by letting it hit you. You're not heavy enough to stop and you have nothing to brace against except the air behind you and a little bit of ground which would give out.
Traditional superhero movies aren't designed to say "people with these powers would be benevolent", it's that they SHOULD be. That's the power of fiction and myth-making, you aren't confined to the rules of reality. There absolutely is value in deconstruction, but in the world we live in today where people with great power use it for political corruption, mass murder, sexual misconduct, and ecological disaster, having grand scale stories of morality and virtue through analogous conflict are why the modern superhero movie has been able to succeed, and why reactionary films like BVS and Fant4stic failed by shoddily trying to apply "real science" and needless defacing cultural symbols. The Boys isn't great because it shows what happens to the extras of action set pieces (nobody wonders about the extras in literally any other subgenre of action movie with collateral damage), it's great because it demands that people have a responsibility in taking action towards holding people in power accountable for their harm to the world. And that dangerous people with power may even resemble heroes more than you think.
Homelander is one of the most terrifying TV villains Ive ever seen.
That smile is so unsettling
Josh043 P he deserved an Emmy for his performance
No, it isn't him. Its YOU GUYS!! 👍
I agree. But he also makes me laugh.
He's such a dumb over-the-top character.
Chris Prusinowski Really? He actually seems fairly realistic in the setting of the TV series/comics.
How a man who is seemingly nigh-invincible with Superman like powers but is raised in a terrible environment in a laboratory; his nihilistic and psychopathic tendencies the byproduct of such a hostile and merciless upbringing
Theres a reason why he’s being called as one of the -best- villains of all time. And I absolutely agree with that. Psychologically, he makes sense to be the way he is, and he’s a lot more realistic than most over-the-top villains we’ve seen anywhere else
Except for you Noir. Keep it up
@Michael Markowsky me too. I really hope it's not the same as the comic, honestly the reveal just wouldn't work in the show
I honestly thought that it's at least partially making fun of the fact that Batman is the superhero that gets the most attention always when he is part of a story.
@@gorkamorka41m84
Thought tek knight is batman
His name is literally Black Black
I think he is the real superhero, he's mute yet i never see him doing something bad manners and sinful though ...
Martin figures out how to answer his Tolkien question- don’t finish your books
Adam Dominguez he said by next year latest
He’s said that every year
Even if GoT's ending was rushed, that doesn't mean that GRRM will do the same thing. DnD rushed seasons 7 and 8 because they wanted to start working on Star Wars. So instead of the nuanced, layered writing we got in seasons 1 through 6, they decided to only focus on the major points and completely breezed through everything in between. It's not that they're bad writers, because some of my favorite stuff was original content by DnD... Like Arya and Sandor in season 4. It's the fact that they somehow didn't want to take the time to finish the biggest show in TV history because of money AND their own personal agendas getting in the way. It will never make sense to me how HBO allowed them to shorten the seasons and end the show earlier than expected. GRRM should understand that his ending could be great as long as all of the blanks are filled in.
@@MFBloosh I'm not sure his ending can be great. The thing I love about Martin's writing is how he treads through tension and sets up mysteries. But it's shallow. The answer to these mysteries don't really mean much to us on Earth. What kind of ending can it have that will stick with us humans? I think Tolkien's ending was perfect and shines even now.
@MFBloosh
The problem is, GRR Martin is 71 years old, severely overweight and not in the best medical condition. And it took more and more time between the release of the books. So how are the chances that he drops dead before he can finish the series?
that airplane scene gets me every time
Not for anyone who has a fear of flying.
In a good way or bad way
kittypie both, that shit was bone chilling
In the comics it's about 9/11. Even more dark
@@michaelcardno9859 comics have a good premise but ruin it with shitty edgy stuff. Butcher bangs cia woman in her kitchen right then and there, starlight gets gangbanged, the 9/11 stuff, plenty more. For the same reason why superheroes movies are unrealistic in the way they portray benevolence, the boys' comic is over the top in a bad way in the way they portray the evil of supes.
Wait, the boys isn’t about the vulture, green goblin, electro and rhino?
I get that joke but sadly no here lol
I think Spider-Man has like, over 200 villiains lol
😔😔
@@keylakettlemjardim8282 bro wtf
@@ynog0978 I do too and I die everytime I do 😅😂😥
Yeah there was a Superman story about why he needs the Clark Kent persona rather than being Superman 24/7. It kept him human and not Godlike
@eviad Kill Bill is one of my favorite movies but that monologue suck ass (no the delivery tho, David Carradine was amazing). It describe Superman as a godlike alien who acts like a coward and patetic reporter because that's how he sees humanity. That's not how Superman sees humanity.
@eviad That monologue is dumb.
Ignacio Cañas
Exactly! The real reason Superman is Clark Kent is because he was raised as Clark Kent. He was just a normal boy for so long, until he one day learned he was a man of steel that could do literally anything.
But, the reality is that, ironically enough, the humans that he saves every day have more freedom and more choice than Superman ever could. They are allowed to decide their fate. Superman’s is already decided for him, in a way. He wants to be Clark Kent, because he wants to be free. Superman wants a chance to live a normal and quiet life, but is also too selfless to ever abandon his post. Which is why he cannot give up being Superman as long as Superman still exists within him. So having Clark Kent is an essential compromise he’s made to still remain capable of holding control over his own existence
@ So people perceived the monologue as incorrect because it was delivered by Bill, the antagonist who believes in that line of thought, hence his actions against the Bride, hence the conflict.
@@awesomesharkhand1876 maybe it is supposed to be wrong, since he is after all the villain and all that
You namedropped Hancock over Watchmen.
Bravo *golfclap*
Very impressive.
Watchmen just wasn’t very good at this (film version) it wasn’t very realistic and failed to really capture ‘what would real superheroes be like’. Snyder was way too concerned with everything looking cool for that to happen.
Personally, I think the director's cut of Watchmen is the best version of that story ever made.
@@Liberator130 Ultimate Cut.
@@Th3-3nd I did like the Ultimate Cut, but I prefer the Director's cut because the narrative is a lot more focused and with the extended running time, there are some pacing issues that tend to crop up.
There's one Scene that says everything about the entire series in quite a simple way:
the Scene of "Homelander" heating up the Gun of a Criminal to such a degree that it literally melts onto his hand... but the kids he is "Saving" are just staring at how cool he is.
"The Boys" ain't just about showing how Super Heroism can be scary... but how people shouldn't ignore the consequences behind their Super-Powered actions.
... I just realized... I don't remember the gunpowder igniting and sending molten metal flying everywhere.
In other words... That should've killed a lot of bystanders and doing that would've been stupid and reckless.
True
Homelander: Lift the plane? How.. we dont have that kind of budget.
Christrulesall2 there’s no fucking ground what is he gonna lift it off
Ivanperez 128 It is possible though would be intensely difficult, if he pushes it to hard he bursts through it and if he tries to little nothing happens. He could do it best if he could find something large to push against it in order to disperse his force.
Zayin Darkmore yeah but a plane is made of multiple parts and isn’t one whole solid piece
Ivanperez 128 Yeah, honestly he should break off the wings, use one to push against the fuselage and slow it enough to carry and land it.
Ivanperez 128 even then it would be extraordinarily hard to do it and keep it in one piece. But it is plausible even if highly improbable.
People don't seem to realize that Homelander isn't bad because he's human, it's because of his upbringing. He was raised in a lab, with detestable parental figures, and role models. While Superman was raised in a small town by loving parents that taught him compassion, kindness, and mercy as well as controlling his strength and helping others. Homelander could have been a decent human being it he had a decent childhood.
Black Noire is more worst than homelander.
(Spoilers
@@christbenitez8797 it's in the comics. The show is obviously going it's own way.
This should be obvious and is heavily shown in the show
@@christbenitez8797 they're probably gonna change his backstory
@@christbenitez8797 Its kinda already shown in the new clips they aren't going the same way with the comics since Black Noir isn't unhurtable and Stormfront isn't a man
Glad to see The Boys getting the attention it deserves... And glad to see you being a man of culture
MCU is for babies
@@homelander1601 Fuck off, Mr. Superiority Complex
Abel Duviant hell yeah fuck that guy
His user name and pfp shows his over the top obsession
I mean I love the show but god damn
@@boukh_h there's literally nothing wrong with having a username and pfp reminiscent of or identical to your favorite character, so you can fuck off too.
All media is for babies, to stupify the cattle of mouthbreathers, only the struggle matters.
I think the Boys is less about if heroes were real, and more of a mockery on how people idolize heroes/celebrities.
right, for example captain America, which is chris evans in a cosplay trying to be patriotic with some unrealistic superhuman fight scenes in style
Nah, I think it's also about heroes being real. I mean that would TOTALLY happen. Companies would find a way to capitalize on them for sure.
Maybe it's both? I could definitely see that though, many people worship celebrities or fall for the public persona they or their team creates for them when really they are terrible people re: Ellen
@@slemangerdy8407 Idk what your saying but yeah captain America really doesn't care about being a idol he's just doing the right thing. That's the reason why I want to watch falcon and the winter soldier it show's what happened after endgame and how the government is replacing him anyways have a good day.
@@CrimesForDimes i love action scenes, and his story fits well with the movie, but to idiolize his looks and try to be patriotic because of "My HeRo" doesn't make you a good person, most of people love him, they don't just like the movie, i am also waiting for the show it looks epic
i esspecially like how on starlights first day translucents priority is to discuss copyright infringment and illegal merchandising of their merchandise. it was only when homelander who was trying to give a good impression said to tell about someone they saved today the conversation shifted
That scene really got me, despite everything that already happened I was still naive ( just like starlight) and when he said they needed to talk about serious crimes I really didn't expect it to be about copyright
The last time I was this early Tony Stark was building a suit, in a cave, WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!
"We're not Tony Stark..."
@@fredede1525 Tony Stark is a piece of shit. We should be happy we are nothing like him.
@@Pikashades lmao someone never saw more than 5 minutes of the first Iron Man
@@BlazingOwnager my opinion on him is based on the ending of Civil War.
Pikashades Wait, the comic book version or the movie version?
Homelander: I can't lift the plane. There's no ground.
Superman: Pathetic.
Also Superman: I can lift a book with infinite pages... It weighs infinity...
@@heyitsvonage2768 doesnt black adam like fuckin read it? to the end
Even if Superman couldn’t lift the plane, he would have put as much effort into flying to and from the plane to save as many people as he could. Hell, he’d dive underwater when the plane crashed if it meant saving at least one person. Homelander didn’t even try
@@masterzero7146 cause homelander is pretty much evil and has no morals because of where he grew up
@@heyitsvonage2768 Also you: Idk what I'm talking about but I heard something that sounded fye from an unconfirmed biased source. If the book can be read it's not infinite.
I've been binge watching all your videos this last week, it's all super helpful and very well explained! Thank you for making these it really helps you see how subtle some dialogue is but how important the pay off can be if executed correctly.
Excellent videos
Thanks so much Camila! I am glad you enjoyed my stuff :)
Hey, I didnt know you watched this channel
Love your animations Btw, just remember to take you time and dont let anyone force you to rush you to animate faster
Yooo, it’s cool to see you here. Good luck on your dialog writing
I just ended up here cos I was bingeing The Boys content, and who do I see in the comments? Sometimes it feels like you're everywhere, Camila!
One of my fave changes from the comics--besides Homelander--is that The Boys themselves aren't superpowered. Well, beyond the Girl. I hope it stays that way, for awhile at least. I really had trouble connecting to The Boys' mission to take out supes when they're suped up themselves. The entire thing just seem hypocritical. By keeping the main crew unpowered it makes their struggle to overcome the supes they're up against far more gratifying.
djsosnut
Agreed. This is a well thought out adaptational change.
Well that is the point.
The Boys in the comic are complete hypocrites.
They're not as depraved but they are psychopaths.
They are killers.
Hughie is the hero because he hates the violence but the Boys LOVE it.
Did you read it to the end? I don't want to spoil it for you but the ending is very telling.
@@99RedRedfake Oh I read the entire story. Still prefer this take on the characters. Looking forward to what they're going to take and what they're going to leave. Because all the characters have far more depth in here than they ever had in the comic.
@@djsosonut Well, I deeply disagree.
Some of the Seven do, but they never the center piece.
The Boys are so much weaker.
I connected so much with the idea of ultra macho men being both completely toxic but necessary. Yet so dangerous once they don't have a purpose.
It's like Ennis who himself is that macho man admits that men like Hughie are so much better for the world but so naive at the same time.
Plus the sheer excessive pussification of superheroes felt catarthic XD
The show feels like it pulls a lot of punches.
The Boys are supposed to be military men. Real men. They're not supposed to struggle against superheroes. The supes are supposed to be so damn pathetic but think themselves so powerful.
But the comic brilliantly refuses to make heroes out of the Boys.
It keeps them, if not as bad as them, certainly not a force for good.
It's brilliant and the show misses that so much in my opinion.
@@99RedRedfake All that depth you're seeing in the comic I'm not getting. It's was just Ennis being Ennis. Supes had depth? Where? Homelander was an incompetent manchild. That was his entire arc. Queen Maeve was basic eye candy and last minute turncoat. Damn near no presence in the story. The Deep had no depth. The Lamplighter was stuck playing with his poo. Sparkle was just a punching bad and Hughie's fuck buddy.
Black Noir is the only one with any real depth of character, mainly cause he played everyone. Still, even that doesn't make much sense. I don't want to spoil the reveal just in case the show goes that route, but you should know what i'm talking about. And if he was made to be like that, at least the people that made him should've been able to catch on to what he was up to. Especially James Stillwell. (Probably my favorite character in the story. So callous and corrupt.)
I think you're confusing sensation with depth. I don't mind if they don't the route of having full on group recliner circle jerks for shock value to show how depraved and damaged the supesin that world are. They can pull that punch. Ennis can be too Ennis sometimes. (Still remember him having one character have sex with a monument of meat in Preacher. I much prefer how they played that character and his obsession with meat in season one of Preacher.)
I think the supes are far more interesting here. They aren't racist, homophobic, baby eating, pedos that it's easy to enjoy the Boys take out. They're damaged in a far less sensational but realistic way. Trapped by their fame in the roles they play and the things they do to stay there. Which makes things more grey when the Boys take them out or blackmail them. The Boys aren't heroes here either. Show Butcher blew up a house with a baby in it, on the slim chance he could take out Homelander. There is nothing heroic about that.
That's what I enjoy. I like the show more because I like the characters more here. They're so deliciously messy, yet grounded in their hyper reality that is a funhouse mirror of our own. For me the show took something that I thought was just okay, and made it great.
I'll be honest, if nothing else, this analysis makes me appreciate Spiderman even more. The comic itself and its intended narrative goes so far out of the way to show that Spiderman is a kid in the beginning, that he makes mistakes, that people get hurt and he faces those consequences. Not just the people close to him either, people everywhere die in Spiderman stories and it messes with Peter on a level that many comics struggle to approach. If he weren't able to lead his dual life and continue hiding his identity, I think there could be a much darker version of his comics that parallels this series. He just happened to be loved by his Aunt and Uncle, so his nurturing was much more positive than Homelander's.
Basically spiderman upbringing is the same as superman
I actually had a thought experiment of putting Spider-man into the boys’ universe with the same origin
@@raheemaslam7363 he'd be less inclined to work with Vought and is serious about his job
@@GaiusIntrepidus which makes me think what would Vought do if they found out that kid who had no record of having spider like powers is running around being a vigilante
Complex and layered characters are the bread and butter of any story. A good fictional world needs actions and consequences of these actions made by those characters.
That's not true. Many of the best books and movies in story doesn't have complex and layered characters. Fahrenheit 451, I, Robot, movies like Orange Clockwork, Blade Runner, etc.
A good story is the one that can get your attention and make you forget details and enjoy the journey
@@someghostinthewild I agree with you that most stories on television like having iconic characters. But to my opinion (and I should have added that on my first comment), for a good story you need a cast of good characters who are not defined by one trauma (Harry Potter) or just a quirky flaw (any romcom) or just one bad/good decision (Superman who chooses no to kill people). They change because of *many* choices that they make or all the stuff that happened to them, in a realistic way. That's why I like complicated characters that will result in a realistic depiction of a fictional world (in my opinion, I prefer game of thrones than Lord of the rings). Nobody is simple and iconic. It's true that it depends on taste but my personal preference is a story lead by layered characters.
@@leazribi8388 frieza from saiyan arc was heartless and merciless monster with no remorse or sympathy and a terrifying badass he was pure evil to the core but still a total badass and a great villain/character
@@Anubis-xk4ht true. I also enjoyed dragon Ball as a kid. And all the Disney villains! But animations are meant to be exaggerated. The bad guys are really bad and can give you good conflict without complexity. It's basically "I'm gonna destroy the world and be green or purple cause that's the bad guy's colours." And the protagonist and any sane person would be against so you easily root for the hero. Plus your entertained by the witty jokes from the villains. I mean it's not bad but when you want to give a feel of realism while world building, a tiny bit more of complications is necessary.
@@leazribi8388 lmao frieza wasn't like any Disney villain and this sympathetic villains have been used too much say whatever you want but he was a great villain
I think superheroes are, literally, the secular world's version of mythology and religion. Recreating the gods, but in shapes and forms more comfortable to a modern audience. If superheroes existed, most of them would probably be either gods or dictators. Their powers are so far above that of human mortals, there simply is no comparison. Beings that can run so fast, bullets move as if through thick syrup. Beings that can destroy entire cities just by looking at them. Beings that can control the minds of every moral on the planet. There wouldn't be any mutant wars, at least, not with humans. We'd just be pets, slaves, and another endangered species. The real wars would be apocalyptic ragnarok struggles, with mountain ranges leveled and oceans turned to steam, before the hands of the gods bring the dead back to life and cause the forests to regrow, or time itself is reversed at a mere whim.
Damn fam write a book
I fell that someone would be good.
That last part kinda remind me to Kingdom Come...
You're already presupposing that power and authority begets corruption or worship, that it is black and white, good or bad.
God or dictator. Their emergence not taken after the fact what they were once or how they were brought onto the earth. What if one chose to be neither and live among humans? What if they do it in the shadows? Or sequestered themselves? You're treating superheroes like they're the Elder Dragons of MTG when in most cases, they are just plainly human beings as well.
For all the shit religion gets, it literally is the cornerstone of morality, ethics and philosophy in any civilization.
Smh power does not corrupt people. It only shows you what people truly are.
I love that in contrast to comics, the Boys don't have any powers....
This gives total sense of danger, how normal people react to people with super powers.
Beside the fact that they rely simply on guns, tactics make them look like regular criminals robbing banks. Criminals that Spiderman or Superman stop like every day. ...
Imagine playing Spiderman PS4 and being defeated during regular crime fight on street during free roam xD you defeated bosses like Shocker, Scorpion, Rhino but you got knocked by a guy stealing old lady purse ;D
And that's one of the reasons why the comic version of the Boys is generally not as good as the tv series.
I mean he had to beat an old lady with a stck to get that purse
@@dawnleacock6581 ;D
I’d imagine that Butcher will eventually get powers in order to properly combat Homelander, but the others might not.
@@AveTrueToCaesar8212 I only hope they will reserve it for finale :o
I prefer it when the Boys don't have powers :o
it makes better contrast with the Seven
All that RR Martin says is ignored by D&D on season 8.
It ended exactly like LOTR: Bran ruled fair and peaceful. And the Dothrakis, we don't care about them adapting to Westeros...
Eh...it's not a peaceful ending. Actually, it's a really bittersweet one. Like the one Martin wants to the franchise, actually
@@elpaladindeltrolling6037 it was only bitter because of how awful the ending is, and sweet because that travesty of a season finally came to an end. D and D are hacks.
This is why I don't like RR Martin, it's kind of like as if he can't suspend the reality of fantasy. sure there has to be tension and cruelty in a fantasy world, but you still have to understand that this is a fantasy world, talking just only said the basis of a hero's journey narrative and also a fantasy epic, the point of it is to escape to it and to hope for a better world.... Not filled with very awkward incest and rape. :/
The dothrakis? you mean the ones that died at the battle of winterfell then came back for the destruction of kingslanding?
@@MistCellaneous-5 If you're reading Game of Thrones hoping for escapism and a happy ending where the heroes win and live happily ever after, you shouldn't really be reading Game of Thrones. Just like people who want a light-hearted comedy at the moment probably shouldn't be watching a horror movie.
Gosh. Everyone in this comment section is so smart and sophisticated. Gosh.
Darn, all these crazy mother- (pardon my language) freakers are so garsh darn cool.
Fuck all y'all
Shiiieeett! Everybody's a fuckin pussy. Shiieeett!!!
If i had to re-title this video i would add: Rescuing us from superheroes "in the most redundant way possible".
I know right
I think a lot of people have overused the term "deconstruction", which has been interpreted as turning the genre on its head. That is why we have so many self-claimed deconstruction of superhero that ended up as box office flops.
Those successful case of "deconstruction" must have stories to tell in the first place. George R. R Martin created Game of Throne based on Medieval British history; Alan Moore satirizes not only superheroes but also Americanism in both pop culture and cold-war politics. Frank Miller simply used Batman-Superman rivalry to describe America's widespread fear and discontent in the 70s and 80s.
If you like this type of superhero story, there is one more movie that I don't often see referenced. Check out "Chronicle". Yeah it looks like another shaky-cam crapfest, but the characters are well developed and well acted. Basically, it takes an abused and suffering person and gives him the power of Superman.
Bill Lyons Yeah it’s pretty good, giving a depressed man who is furious with the unfairness of the world superpowers is really sad and really terrifying.
Man, Chronicle is gold. I wish Max Landis got to make his sequels, it would've been great. Andrew's character is so well developed and believable; his helplessness made me care for him so much. I love that movie
@@bigboibubba5528 Well, there's a sequel called Martyr and the script was already finished which it's in 2012. But that's sad because it was cancelled.
@@poweroffriendship2.0 very sad. rip
@@bigboibubba5528 I haven't even finished the script yet but if there's an opportunity to make a sequel, it could've been gold.
every time i read a comic the first thought i have is... what would happen if these things REALLY did happen. Watchmen was our first insight into that. Then there was Kick Ass and now this. Just because you have super powers doesn't automatically make you super. You are still a flawed human being like everyone else.
chicostephenson what about dark knight
I think superheroes are, literally, the secular world's version of mythology and religion. Recreating the gods, but in shapes and forms more comfortable to a modern audience. If superheroes existed, most of them would probably be either gods or dictators. Their powers are so far above that of human mortals, there simply is no comparison. Beings that can run so fast, bullets move as if through thick syrup. Beings that can destroy entire cities just by looking at them. Beings that can control the minds of every moral on the planet. There wouldn't be any mutant wars, at least, not with humans. We'd just be pets, slaves, and another endangered species. The real wars would be apocalyptic ragnarok struggles, with mountain ranges leveled and oceans turned to steam, before the hands of the gods bring the dead back to life and cause the forests to regrow, or time itself is reversed at a mere whim.
Don’t forget chronicle, that’s a great movie, very dark though
@@Ayeato Never watched that movie before, but thanks for mentioning it. Gonna watch it next time!
Theres a diference between being human and making mistakes, and, you know, the boys
I love that you called Civil War Avengers 2, accident or not,
we don't talk about Age of Ultron, Civil War is the real Avengers 2
@@tehcerialgamer not talking about avengers aou, then civil war wouldn't make sense
I literally combed through the comments to find this. because - I was gonna!
@@tehcerialgamer Fair enough
I personally love traditional superheroes stories. I love the larger then life adventurers, I love the titanic battles and most of all I love the wholesomeness and altruistic of superheroes. I like seeing people do good things both in fiction and in real life. I was not really going to check out the show as I hated the comics series it was based and I am generally getting quite sick of superhero deconstruction as it quite over done. Oh sure if your only familiar the movies and TV shows it seems fresh to you but if your a comic reader like me you have probably already read quite a few deconstructions already. Lord knows there is no shortage of them in Indie comics.
Don't get me wrong there have been some very good ones that offer new and interesting ways to look at superheroes but a lot of them just boil down to "what if the heroes were not so heroic".
It's like Kurt Busiek said. "Superhero creators who engage in deconstruction fall into two categories: There are the guys who do it because it's easy, because it gets an audience reaction if you point out that superheroes must be a bunch of psychotic nuts. And there are the guys who do it because they're actually interested, and they're trying to get at what's going on underneath. They're interested in the process and the results."
I just don't find the whole "if superheroes were real they be assholes" approach all that interesting. All that said this video has convinced me to give this show a chance. Sorry for the long commit but this video really got me thinking. Nice one mate.
Well said mate well said. Also off topic team iron man lol may he rest in peace.
This. 100% this.
@@JustShin11 Amen to that.
You pretty much summed up my feeling toward magical girl and super heroes, just because its edgy and blacker than 13 black cat s does not make a deconstruction or good
Your profile is Superman I can see why you don’t like these comics, your childhood hero Superman is the epitome, the omega, the prefect Boy Scout.
7:07 I see your a man of culture 😉
WRRRRRRRRYYYY
Oh ho, you're aproching me?
I cant beat the shit out of you without getting closer
What anime is that from?
Jojos Bizzare Adventure
The sex club the supes went to was the realest aspect of this show. That's exactly what would happen.
I haven't watched the Boys yet, what happens in the Strip club scene?
Archangeldawn it's more of a private club that offers every kind of sin the supers may want to partake in, including midair sex and lines of coke.
@@CamJames Don't forget the Ant-Man pussy dive
The Boys has one of the darkest stories but one of the happiest endings really. That's the trick. The darker your story is, the more hardships your characters face only makes the victory sweeter.
It hasn't ended yet though
_..a film that comes to mind that rigorously applied reality to superpowered individual is.._
Me: *WATCHMEN*
_...Hancock._
Close enough
Hancock is actually a much better fit to his point though. Watchmen as a movie was actually less grounded than Hancock, despite lack of popularity
To all the circus seals clapping their flippers off to the tune of "OMG, that's what the superheroes would be in real life!", you do realise that brutal, immoral or malicious superpowered characters exist in mainstream comics as well? They're called superVILLAINS. Some of them even pretend to be heroes. You cannot even say that "Boys" depicts the world without real superheroes, because that's not true - there's Starlight.
I'm telling you, it's like you ripped the thought right out of my mind through my nose! It's no different than any other story that leads you to a special place inside yourself. These are the same people that joined the "Thanos did nothing wrong" human, meme-linked fence. Oh, the hypocrisy. Starlight, in the show, was the purest form of the traditional hero to me. What happened to her, throughout the show, felt more like the embodiment of the contempt the creators and a notorious "executive producer" all have for real "Supes." I don't mind the original video post, but sometimes, we engender more bias in our praise than we realize, or even intend.
Here's more proof. Man of Steel failed for the same reason that "the Boys" succeeded; the deconstruction of super heroes. Zach Snyder didn't want to tell a wholesome story about a special "kid raised in Kansas" anymore than "the Boys" wanted to tackle the plight of the comic book superhero against diabolical "evil in the world." In either case, there is an oft hidden, seething contempt or irresistible urge to debunk the virtue and conviction that would create a superhero. I've seen this before. How much better would Sausage party have been if Seth Rogen wasn't hell bent on his "seething contempt or irresistible urge to debunk" Christian faith? Sometimes, when some people don't want to cop their own misgivings or shortcomings, they lash out at others who don't have those issues. Although I really enjoyed the Boys, the attempt of the showrunners to flip me off because they made it on the train in "time" only prevented me from returning the empty wallet they left on the bench.
Those exchanges between Hughie and Starlight in the last episode were pretty great, though I did think she forgave him rather too quickly.
Yes, The Boys has a lot of deconstructed superhero tropes, but it also has a lot of subverted ones. It's not just that they're not paragons of virtue, unlike the comic A-train kills Hughey's girlfriend not while fighting a supervillain, but buying drugs, the strech guy not only hides he's gay, he preaches against them and Homelander isn't a failed Superman, he is a straight up villain. And yes, the series gives the "superheroes" more dept, but also turns them from not good enough into actually evil.
Finally a comment from someone who also read the comics.
The "super" part of superheroes has to do with morality also. I dont believe a character like superman could really exist but tony stark or captain america are pretty realistic archetypes of people. Tony grew a lot from being an alcoholic megalomaniac to going as far as to sacrifice himself for everyone.
Supermen exist all around us, but they're not usually recognized because merit isn't often the focus of our pop culture and politics. Kissinger getting a noble peace prize and living a long happy life is a great example.
4:05 I'm going to be honest, this movie already does not sound like my cup of tea at all just from this comment which is a microcosm of the biggest problem I have with so many "Superhero Deconstructions."
They're not as smart as they THINK they are.
Everyone of these movies tries to "Deconstruct" the superhero premise by going: "What if someone gained superpowers who WASN'T a good person??" and they approach this question with such condescending smugness that it's clear they think they were the first to come up with it.
Except... they aren't. Even in that comment, the writer is blatantly wrong. The MCU has ALWAYS had greedy or selfish or otherwise flawed characters gaining superpowers. They're called SuperVILLAINS.
And that's just it. These movies CLAIM they have some great insight into superheroes, but all they're doing is just showing characters who are BAD at being heroes, super or otherwise, and then trying to claim their selective sample is a more "realistic" take than the classic, even though it's actually much SHALLOWER. Showing only the failures, when Marvel has shown the successess AND the failures and all in between.
And on a philosophical note, these movies send what I feel is a VERY toxic message that: "Heroes don't exist." It spreads an EQUALLY mythical viewpoint of a fantasy world where everyone's an asshole and Good=Dumb, which is a blatant falsehood dressed up as "realism".
YES. YES! FUCKING FINALLY! A GENIUS AMONG US!
all hype aside, i really think the main antagonists of the boys are just outright supervillains
I understand what you’re getting at but you have to remember that the Vought Supes are seen as heroes by the masses (but not by us, the audience). Supervillains in MCU are seen as supervillains by everyone. The Boys explores morally grey areas with protagonists and antagonists alike. While it’s certainly nothing new, I’d disagree that it’s “SHALLOWER”.
To be fair, Marvel's whole storyline since Civil War touched on the repercussions of innocent casualties / collateral damage due to the hero's actions. It's a huge thing in Black Panther as well.
Sure, it's still in the Marvel formula, but at least they acknowledged this side of the story and used the opportunity to enlarge/complexify their world and explore a new kind of villain.
This being said, The Boys does it a lot better, and I really appreciate that it's a core element of the show.
Marvel and dc comics have done this before tho
There has been multiple times before civil war that marvel went that route
What's different about Marvel imo is that the heroes are too infallible. The only ones who actually still have problems AFTER becoming a super hero is Spiderman and the Guardians
@@buldockschannel1528 Bruce Banner and Tony Stark still have some pretty big problems they have to sort out after becoming heroes. Bruce’s problems are pretty self-explanatory, and Tony is practically the poster child for flawed superheroes. Iron Man 2 shows that Tony remains a very flawed person even after becoming Iron Man, and his PTSD from the events of Avengers leads him to create Ultron. And that disaster started a cascade of other problems that eventually led to Thanos winning in Infinity War.
i love the character building they did with the bad guys, Homelander is evil because he never had a family, he never really knew love, he was raised in a lab, And Queen Mav it was so sad to see she just wanted to have a relationship but she couldn't maintain it if she wanted to be this super hero. I love how the evil characters became real and we see that their evil nature was just a product of their environment. they didn't chose to be evil, they were just raised and fostered that way.
I love how big business gets it grubby hands on the super heroes and makes loads of cash with them. That felt so close to reality for me.
This sounds oddly like something that could happen in the "My Hero Academia" universe outside of Japan.
Keep that kiddie shit away from me.
I mean its pretty much literally what happened in My Hero Academia before All Might came around. All For One was basically Homelander, he just preferred to stay in the shadows instead of seeking the spotlight.
I can't get in to it. It's extremely weird infused with strange dialog & ideas and porn
Captain Celebrity is literally just Homelander without the mass murder
@white america's worst nightmare lol how edgy.
George RR Martin should not be lecturing anyone about realism, considering the way he scoured 1,500 years of European history for the most horrific deeds he could find, before cramming them all together into a 20-year period as though that's a realistic depiction of medieval times. Everything from the Bloody Mummers to the flaying habits of the Boltons is over-the-top and sensational, and the cynic inside me believes he used this as a device to cover up the lack of actual plot. Martin gave us very vivid and detailed character studies, but if Westeros truly worked the way he wrote it then it would be depopulated within a handful of generations. Actual history has plenty of examples of wise kings ruling justly, a-la Aragorn, to go with the butchers and the monsters, and it's realistic to portray them; the true break from reality is to pretend that medieval society would be sustainable the way that Martin grotesquely depicts it.
Can i make a recommendation for all those who enjoy this show to look up the comic series "Uber" by Kieron Gillen. A series that goes about deconstructing the romanticization of the second world war & some of the archetypal supers heroes it established, as well as using super powered characters to highlight the horrors of war. While it's very easy to look at who the villains of the second world war are, it can be often glossed over just how many cities, homes, and generations of people were burned down and whipped out to stop them.
I'm glad I found your comment. That comic is great.
No problem, plenty of hidden gems out there to share around, if you're also into Roleplaying and tabletop games, you might like another one of his ongoing works "Die". Very different artist who's done one heck of a stylised and just about every panel is its own painting.
A bit late, but there's also the Reckoners series by Brandon Sanderson for those who're into reading. It's set in a post-apocalyptic world ruled by "super heroes" and is about a small team of regular humans trying to bring their tyranny down. It's well written and very enjoyable overall
@@max8m1 Thanks for the recommendation Wombat, I'll check it out some time.
personally I'm not interested in the application of "Realism." If anything, I prefer the exploration of potential.
I am a sucker for redemption stories. It is very rare that a murderer changes his ways, finds the light, and tries to atone for his past evils or failures. But it isn't impossible. I like the encouraging thought, that anyone has that small chance of realizing their mistakes, and can seek their own justice to right the wrongs of their past.
Huh. If you read books much, you would probably like a book I know.
Shadow of the Conqueror by Shad Brooks.
Watch bojack then
Unbreakable is by far the most underrated superhero film ever.
The trilogy as a whole really.
The most boring too!
Film that directed by Shyamalan, who did the last air bender? NO THANKS LMAO
@@gazoonman Shyamalan started out making great movies. His earlier works are actually really good.
Gazoon Man Yes, judge a director’s work based on a mistake he made several years after unbreakable was made. Brilliant
If you like the Boys check out these comics. Irredeemable, Incorruptible and Jupiter's Legacy. They all do a great job of destructing the superhero genre. Jupiter's Legacy is being adapted into a Netflix series and is being filmed as we speak hopefully it turns out good.
Watchmen : "who you?"
The boys : "I'm you, but not too complicated"
Homelander: I'm worlds best hero
Superman: hold my plane
Homelander: No.
The only thing sad here is the fact that "realistic" is people not being good. If anything good superheroes could leave an imprint on children and raise them into better people as they could have them as a reference point. Just leave them as good people. Just Let it be a reference
The point is they ARE good people, but they're put in real life circumstances, so they're also shitty people. Just like real humans lol, no one is perfect. I do think their needs to be more heroes who are little more selfless like Starlight shown though. It seems just about everyone in the super hero industry in The Boys is corrupt. This is one area I think OPM did a great job in showing what a corporate run super hero characters would be like.
@@JameboHayabusa this is correct.
as expected by BHNA.
@@JameboHayabusa supers are jot the good ones. They're total shit. The boys are good ones
@@JameboHayabusa thing is i met people. People as good as steve rogers and i met absolute piece of shits too . It's not unrealistic to have people like tony stark or thor. Are they perfect . Of course not, they had flaws . Tony is a straight up selfish asshole, who's arrogant . Doesn't give a shit about others lives. But he changes. Same with thor, arrogant shit who alwayss wants to pick a fight . People can be aa good as thor or steve rogers or peter parker . They can be shits, I'd rathee meet more people like steve types which like i said I've seen. Mostly cause I've lived with them for years. Media has an effect . You can't be like " this is it this is the reality" cause it's not. It can really change people.
The Boys is kind of like a reverse Watchmen. Watchmen was an amazing deconstruction that got adapted to an stylized cookie cutter superhero movie. The Boys was adapted from a good but a bit generic "dark and gritty" superhero comic to an amazing deconstruction in the TV series.
''stylized cookie cutter superhero movie'' what movie did you watch?
Both were based on "dark and gritty " superhero comics. Watchmen was one of the first, drawn in the 1980s.
@@Pikashades the one that carbon copies 80% of the plot of a graphic novel that was entirely about the deglamorization of the superhero, portraying them as inherently ridicolous and broken individuals and utilizes the comic book golden age aesthetics of costumes and even plot points to an extent to draw an even sharper contrast, and what it does is fetishize them, their screen presence and everything that surrounds them; Moore says "look at this nutcase in a spandex costume who violates civil rights on the daily because he's a shell of a man who can't hold a regular job anymore, who in their right mind who'd worship him?"
Zack Snyder goes "look how fucking cool Rorschack is with his coat in slow mo in the rain busting jaws, isn't it cool? Aren't silk spectre and nite owl awesome when they send a goon flying against a wall ten meters away with one punch and then have slow motion sex looking like victoria's secret models?"
That's the movie. That movie is proof like no other than you can copy the plot and still fail to convey the story entirely, so yeah, it is a cookie cutter because instead of being a deconstruction of the genre it is just an edgier, darker, more allegedly "realistic" version of the same spandex suit action porn moore was criticizing; despite his writing doing all the work can to mend the dissonance, snyder's puerile directing tramples all those efforts
@@marcogianesello6083 are you sure that is not you saying those things in Zack Snyder’s voice instead?
@@Pikashades well, look at the movie for reference
As glad as I am for this series' existance, I am also glad that the avengers and the jl weren't conceived during our time.
Cause coming up with them in today's climate . . . They would end up like this, no doubt.
A very good reason why The Boys just plan sucks. Why would I want to watch a rendition of a superhero story that just continues to remind me how shitty the real world is?
@@chrisprusinowski5287 superhero stories are meant to get away from the reality and push us to do good. The boys is just a apparent thing called “what if superheroes were real?” even though it has nothing new to say other than “haha, look, the heroes are misusing their powers again”, it’s literally just supervillains running a oversized scam in the story.
Superman isn’t a myth, he not supposed to be like us, “in our dark days, in our dark moments we imagine a men who would never fail us”
The idea that having heroic (if still flawed) heroes who basically do the right thing is somehow boring, lame or tired is deeply troubling to me. Characters like Iron Man, Thor, Cap, Superman, Wonder Woman etc aren't supposed to be "realistic"; they're meant to be ideals. Complaining about these characters being too "good" is essentially the same as complaining about these characters being who they are. If you want Thor to be a mass-murdering psychopath who doesn't care about protecting innocent people, then sorry, that isn't the character that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created. If you want Tony Stark to be a selfish asshole who isn't willing to sacrifice himself in order to save the universe, then again, sorry. You're wishing for a different person than the one from the source material. This reminds me of when Zack Snyder said that he wanted Batman to get raped in prison.
Stories like The Boys and Watchmen that show the real-world implications of superheroes are definitely valuable, but the idea that they are automatically superior to more traditional superhero stories seems to me quite dubious. I would argue that a number of MCU films (Winter Soldier, Civil War, Black Panther, Infinity War and Endgame) are among the best comic book movies of all time.
At the end of the day, why can't we appreciate both?
Well said. Anti heroes and morally black characters are no substitute for traditional heroes and vice versa. Those characters all serve different roles so to completely disguised one or the other is just wasteful. Aspirational characters still and always will have there place. It's not like we don't have people in real who strive to do good in the world. A character can still be flawed without being a monster.
The problem is when those characters being "too good" is too unnatural. That happens a lot in superhero movies, sure we dont want Thor to be a murdering psychopath, but I still want him to feel natural.
Yea the edgy comic book writers thinks that making characters into an edgelord piece of shit are "unique" and better but it just fucking garbage. They could write a good adult superhero story without making them overly edgy but they dont have the writing talent.
@@iliveinsideyourhouse1367 the boys is pretty good
@@wanderingoryx3710
The show is good but the comic is absolute garbage.
Don't throw shade at Booster Gold pls
He's a real hero just not one that anyone around him knows
I do hate the “Dark and gritty equals more realistic” trope. There are just as many logical flaws in The Boys universe.
Also it’s unfair to say this is a “groundbreaking deconstruction” of the Hero genre when comics have been doing the dark and gritty takes for a while
yea comics have been doing it for years, but it's hasn't been deconstructed this deeply on mainstream networks
It depends on how you are defining ‘realistic’. If you just mean whether there are inconsistencies in the story then yes, the Boys isn’t anything new. But I don’t think that’s what most people mean by realistic. They mean that it speaks to a more likely real life outcome of a common genre. The Boys is undoubtedly a more likely result of superheroes existing in the modern world than the MCU for example
W H If anyone thinks the government would allow any corporation to possess essentially nuclear weapons-level military power, they are living in a fantasy
I agree. I think Spiderman got it right with the balance. His story and world are so human and more relatable to me. It took me a while to really appreciate it.
@@wh5601 Not really. Its just an opposite extreme. A real life example would be something so shackled by bureaucracy and red tape that it's impossible to get anything done. The venture brothers is more "real." You know why these tropes keep being used? Because it's the law.
man, i'm amazed on how nobody's talking about how "The Watchmen" was the creation of the genre and a direct inspiration to this comic/serie.
I mean... Satire and parody have existed a split second less than story and narrative itself. To blindly call The Watchmen the creation of Satire Comic Books is... Kinda ignoring the fact that it almost certainly wasn't.
But yes, it was one of the first well-known ones, a direct inspiration for The Boys, and very important in making way for other approaches and parodies.
(Then again, I mostly just don't really buy into the idea of genres because all story is kinda linked and genres deal more with theme and setting than actual meaning and what the story is really about... And yeah. I'm sure there was satire about age-old myths thousands of years ago. And I bet some would even be similar to Watchmen or The Boys in meaning and story.)
Watchmen didn’t create this type of superhero story at all
@@TheSnoozeFox Do you know which ones kinda kicked the genre off? I'm quite curious about it now.
I'm a huge fan of the Boys, but do not bring Watchmen down to its level. For all its flaws, Watchmen actually has something interesting and slightly logical to say. The Boys is pure nihilism, which makes it just as unrealistic as the stories it is parodying. Only darker. Even Alan Moore noticed it shortly after the Watchmen era. He said a lot of writers started making up these excessively dark stories that had nothing going for them other than the fact that they were dark.
@@asherujudo7383 I love The Boys but you are 100% right. Its fun violent schlock whereas Watchmen is a bit more complicated. Both are great in their own ways.
The Boys has reinforced upon me that the biggest superhero from the DC universe is Jonathan Kent.
And Martha. Why did I say that name?!? Because she was as important to Clark's upbringing as Jonathan.
Having good parents is the real best super power
3:13, I think you're forgetting the real RomCom formula:
"Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, girl finds boy, boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl, girls dies in a tragic blimp accident over the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day."
-The Naked Gun
Goodyear?
@@LeviticusStroud No, the worst.
7:07 I was expecting a JJBA reference of some sort when this title popped up, and saw this.
TOKI WO TOMARE
Oh your approaching me? Instead of running away your approaching me? Event though your grandfather, Joseph, told you the secret of ZA WARUDO?
Look down
I respectfully disagree with you assessment that _The Boys_ is any more realistic than your token summer blockbuster, especially when it comes to that old saying "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," which I find intellectually lacking when applied to superpowers.
Studies have shown that _the exact opposite_ would happen: People who simulated being a Flying Brick in the vein of Superman were found to act more benevolent and polite to the researchers, as if the very thought of being like Superman caused them to feel the need to be altruistic.
Going even further, superpower, to me, would probably be like becoming a giant animal because _nothing could harm you,_ so you be the most laid-back person ever. Think of elephants or blue whales, they're generally really relaxed and benevolent animals unless provoked. The Mythbusters tried to debunk the old cliche that elephants are afraid of mice, and they found that the colossal animals were _terrified_ of the rodents because they didn't want to step on them.
I don't watch _The Boys_ because I hate Garth Ennis (a man that hates superheroes for very petty and superficial reasons), but I do see the need in its contribution to the genre, however that doesn't mean I have to _agree_ with it.
I've been leaning towards watching The Boys Karl Urban is a favorite of mine and I've been interested in the concepts and how they are executed. I didn't know Eric Kripke was the show runner, that seals the deal for me, he's great with character creation and development. This is a great video SavageBooks, thank-you for sharing your thoughts.
Hayley ^_^
I've really been enjoying it, despite Karl's rather dodgy British accent.
There are some remarkably gruesome scenes so prepare to be grossed out.
"...and more realistically depicted than a superhero like... Booster Gold could ever be"
So you've chosen, death
Ahh yes, I want a book where we learn how Aragorn handled the economy and tax issues of Gondor
The incredibles was a visionary tale well ahead of its time now that i think about it. It opened with them being heroes and deal with a decent part of it with them trying to stay heroes and bob even crossing the line into criminal territory more than once
"Deconstruction" is a lousy and meaningless term used by bad writers that have zero creativity of their own. When Alan Moore made Watchmen or GRRM made ASOIAF, they have known a lot about their own genres, and know about a lot of other subjects other than their own field (Moore borrowed heavily from 80's politic and theater art; GRRM borrowed from British history and other historical fictions). Same thing can be applied to the Boys, which combine superhero genre to PR works, toxic celebrity culture, etc. Those works on so-called "deconstruction" won't work without creator understanding of the works.
Those that just think deconstruction is 'to shit on past works with nothing interesting or insightful to say' will just repeat the same mistake of DCEU failures.
No it's not deconstruction is definitely a thing
I feel like I’m the only one who really doesn’t feel like deconstruction of any genre means it’s good
Deconstruction is a neutral term. Some of it can be shit.
Yeah, some formulas work for a reason but its always nice to see a twist to it. The problem is focusing more on being different more than having substance.
And eventually deconstruction of heroes will be just as tiresome a trope in live action as it is in comics.
Kinda already is
Though I agree this story is good because it is different, I would not call it a necessary story that 'rescues' the audience.
I think many supehero movies, comics and animated features/movies have dealt into really mature themes in the past but just didnt tell the same story that The Boys does. I admit that this story is original but I also believe it is just a story of the consequences of the circumstances that the characters are found. What I mean is that though it is rigorous(though with some leaps of belief), it is only so under the conntext of the story which is very narrow.
That being said, many if not all suoerhero stories that claim to be rigorous are only so under the specific context the story is about. For instance, Watchmen is a rigorous in its discussion about the different spectrums of dedication to the fight for "Justice"- Where John strays towards not caring, Rorschach is steadfast to a fault in his lack of compramise to crime be it tainted by his past and beliefs. But what the story lacks on is the genuiene relationship between russia and America when someone like John can just invade. There is no discussion of this besides the nuclear tension being slightly on Americas favour but such a tension would not exist as John would eliminate all of that.
Of course, a focused story is good in its own right but I also think that focused stories dont have to have all characters being deeply flawed for it to be realistic. Many stories involving Superman have inspected different aspects of superman and his relationship with people and though many are idealised, what makes that relationship any less valid than that shown in The Boys between the heroes and the population?
I believe you cannot set out to just deconstruct a whollde genre s that leaves an unfocused story instead a true decontruction comes from the focused context it wishes to discontruct. For instance Alan Moore's "Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow?" decontructs the silver age superman as he wrestles with the changing times as the world wishes for grittier, morally grey stories. In it, Superman deals with loss of innocense and death.
As for The Boys, its a great story about the comercialism of the superhero brand and its relationship to blind faith. The closest it gets to subversion is the aeroplane bit but even then the driven motivation in them not saving anyone is their drive to mentain their brand of perfect heros when they cearly are not. Superman under the situation, even if unable to save the whole plane would have attempted to save as many people as possible.
Though interesting, the story has its flaws.
1) Babies being injected with superhero sereums in hospitals all over the USA with the permission of the parents and no one gets a whif of the rumors especially when a huge part of the show is based on the lie that they ae chosen by God.
2)The lack of military intevention over the acts of the superheros until proposed by the hero company itself
3)With the apparently rampant casualty count, the media isnt blowing up about it especially when in our world, such acts would be instantly picked by the sensational media.
Of course all of these might have reasons behind them but I think show does a poor job in these three major catagories expcept for offhanded statements like "people just keep quiet"
That blanket scene!
Homelander is so detestable and so pitiable.
I might get some heat for this, but here goes:
I like this analysis, and its explanation of what The Boys is supposed to be. The problem is, that's not what The Boys is. What The Boys is is a cynical look at how all heroes are secretly terrible. Queen Maeve is a bitter cynic. Starlight is stupid and naive. A-Train and The Deep are pathetic and desperate. Homelander is a goddamn psychopath. The point of the show was to point out that the heroes are only human, with human flaws. Only that's not what happened. Instead what we have is a show with maybe... one likeable hero? And the rest you just put up with because Karl Urban is in the show. I'm not saying the heroes have to be saints. That would go against what the show is supposed to be about. But this is too far on the other end of the spectrum. There is no middle ground. Therefore, the complaint that the MCU characters don't "feel human enough" also applies to The Boys.
Seconded. A show only gets so much credit for trying. If it doesn't deliver on its promises then there's not much of value, in the end. I never felt like it was possible to understand the motivations of many of the characters in The Boys the way I might be able to understand a real person's. A person has habits and desires, and those things should lead to the choices they make. Many works have a problem where a person does something just because they are an asshole, or a saint, or whatever without a clear connection to some internal motivation. Good or bad, characters who are mere archetypes can't be complex or well understood or realistic. The Boys falls into that trap just as much, if not more, than many MCU films.
I really needed a video essay on The Boys. Thanks man. And it's well written and anlaysed. Keep up the good work
"what would superhéroes really be like in our world with the most rigorous application of reality"
Not like in the boys thats for sure, edgy doesnt means "realistic", is just as much of a fantasy as any superman comic book is if not worse
The fact that you show watchmen twice in the montage about how cinema is dominated by superhero movies shows that you completely misunderstood what it is. The watchmen is the boys but better, it doesn't fall into the same category as the MCU smh
Honestly, I'd probably be consumed by revenge, if a loved one was killed the same way Robin was. It's one thing to have them killed in an accident, or even intentionally for whatever reason. It's another entirely to have the reason be recklessness, like a fucker who was juiced up on drugs, and then either making fun of it or playing it off. I don't wanna say Huey is right, but *can you blame him if he doesn't come around?*
I see him as a soldier in a war against Capes. Yes, vengeance kills a person, but that's what soldiers do. They go through hell so that others wouldn't. Rage and pain and revenge will consume him, but his sacrifice will allow others to avoid that.
Martin subvert my expectations and finish your damn books!
"It shows the life of a hero every day , not just when there's a villain to fight"
Didn't One Punch Man do that?
OPM is just bald homelander in Japan
@@Thaddius0 except he isn't an asshole. Maybe a bit reckless when it comes to collateral damage though.
@@StardustLegend Yeah
No, because Saitama isn't famous. Fame hasn't got to his head like Homelander. But you can argue that the S Class are as evil as the Seven.
GGX TriHard the S class might have some ego and problems of their own but I don’t think they’re quite as bad as the Seven yet. They atleast seem to have saving people as their number 1 priority
The violence and karl urban were fun but I've seen the exact same satire of comic book movies a thousand times before the Boys, the genre's been pretty saturated for a long time
most people dont realize this but Hancock is Zeus...
Obligatory comment plugging Worm, a brilliant reconstruction of superhero tropes self-published as a web serial back in 2011-2013. Seems relevant, given the subject of conversation here.
Oh worm is a brillant execution of superhero deconstruction
Anyone who likes The Boys should read Worm. I think Worm was inspired by the original comic, or has many similarities to it.
Before I elaborate, I want to define my terms, because I frequently see the terms used interchangeably, and that can get confusing.
Both decontruction and reconstruction generally take tropes that have become particularly saturated in a given genre, and seek to take them apart. The difference is in intent, and follow through. In deconstruction, the purpose of taking the tropes apart is to demonstrate them to be absurd, usually to the apparent detriment of the genre being deconstructed. In reconstruction, the purpose of taking the tropes apart is to understand what makes them so appealing within that genre, so as to better understand how to write effectively within that genre.
Earlier, I called Worm reconstruction. That's because, while it absolutely takes apart superhero tropes, it obviously comes from a place of respect. Wildboar clearly loves superhero stories, but wants to ask tougher questions. He wants to know Superman's tax policy, if you will. I'd obviously also term A Song of Ice and Fire reconstruction. Murder Santa loves fantasy, and particularly Tolkein, but wants to ask tougher questions and explore deeper societal issues. Now compare this with the Watchmen comics, which was written by a bitter man who loathed the superhero genre. He didn't want to write more effectively within the genre; he wanted to see it destroyed.
I bring up this distinction, because aside from coming from a different place, it also goes to a different place. Deconstruction, as I would define it, almost uniformly goes to a bleak, hopeless place, because the author has a bleak, hopeless attitude towards the genre he or she is deconstructing. Reconstruction might go to very dark places, but it will generally have a somewhat more optimistic view overall.
I will disclaim that I have neither read The Boys, nor watched its adaptation. However, I have read and watched material about them, and my understanding is that the source material falls very squarely into deconstruction, a bleak, cynical world that indulges in edge for its own sake, where everyone is fundamentally corrupt to their very core and the world is a harsh, bitter place; the characters are not morally gray, they've all been set on moral fire and the resulting charcoal dipped in moral tar. And it sounds like this adaptation of The Boys took issue with that, sanding down some of the edge to deliver a more nuanced world and characters in what I would probably classify as reconstruction.
All that to say, I think anyone who likes The Boys, the live action adaptation, will probably like Worm for similar reasons, whereas I suspect that anyone who likes The Boys, the original comic, will find that Worm is insufficiently edgy and optimistic for daring to portraying any character as being anything but narcissists and psychopaths. And, to that end, I think that, if Worm was inspired by the The Boys comic, it was because Wildbow was dissatisfied with the comic's reductive approach to the genre.
@@Rotaretilbo thank you for this response
Rotaretilbo oh it’s so good man
Deconstruction and subversion has become a cliche at this point. I want to see a producer with the balls to do a proper Superman archetype that is not secretly evil or messed up or boring or dark and gritty.
Honestly, a "proper Superman archetype" sounds "boring"
Not if done properly. Cap America was pretty cool, and with the right supporting characters and a proper foil, can make for some great stories / movies
I gotta say, the recent adoration of "The Boys" is very funny to me. Even when I first picked up the comic series around 2010 in my early 20's, I recognized it for what it was. Nothing more than typical edgy Garth Ennis crap. And now a decade later people are praising it unabashedly. It's so hilarious.
SKALLRAG *sarcasm* Aren’t you so smart! *sarcasm*
r/iamverysmart
He talked about this in the video, the time the show came out waa very important in respext the super hero genre that it is parodying
I loved this video. I just finished the first season of The Boys for the first time and I absolutely loved it. I've been trying to find a good deep dive into the show and I finally found yours. I will 100% be subscribing and coming back for more videos!
for homelander it would've been possible to save those people somehow, he just wasnt trained for these types of situations/ and didnt want to.
I always love the conflation of realistic and bad/painful/terrible/grimdark
You can only deconstruct things once, also see how GOT ended and deconstruction is destructive to any actual narrative since it requires the original narrative to work and when everything becomes a deconstruction there is nothing left because everything has been destroyed.
Deconstruction does work , you just need to know how to write. Which is what dumber and dumber couldn't do for got
Blame the morons who wrote the show.
@@theM4R4T So in your eyes, there's no fault for D&D when they oversaw the writing and were in a position to prevent it? Sorry, but you don't get a pass when it's your job to put all of the elements together and you settle for the low-hanging fruit that is the status quo the moment you run out of given material to work with. While we shouldn't negate the good work they did when they had source material to work with, it's another situation entirely to see what they did when they weren't handed what to do next - and that alone is sufficient enough to warrant the kind of criticisms they're receiving.
@@LockeNarshe What exactly did I write that made you think I defend them?
@@theM4R4T The part about passing the buck to the writers. A showrunner wears many hats, one of which is meant to screen the scripts that come through. It's a conflict of interest to expect positive results if you're both writing and approving the writing decisions, how can you be impartial enough to measure whether or not its up to snuff?
W&B's experience in writing original material prior to GoT is full of incompetence, nearly everything they wrote was either cancelled early in the project's life or straight-out refused as inadequate to suit the needs of the project. Almost no one had even heard of these two prior to GoT for a good reason; adapting material is something they do well - admittedly - but original material is not.
5:28 Did we get answers to why a guy that throughout 7 seasons said he could never be lord of anything ended up being the King?
George R R Martin is probably the only person on earth that finished lord of the rings and thought “I wonder what Aragorns tax policy was?”
Ego, Thanos, Loki, Hela and Ronan are many examples, from Marvel, that not everyone with powers would be completely benevolent.
They aren’t human, they are aliens or beings of power it is not the same thing. Humans with powers is what he is referring to
@@thedilltrickle7486 Red Skull is an example
Also Ghost and Kaecillus
"Rescuing us from superhero stories" how revisionist.
I’ve been noticing a transition from the public craving stories of superheroes as a means of fantasizing about the best people can be to people having been made cynical through the utterly depressing state of the world and thus only being reminded of the lack of a superhero-esque attitude towards the betterment of all humanity within our world; as of late, seeing perfect people who dedicate their lives to upholding good and protecting the earth only reminds them that our world is run exclusively by people who couldn’t care less about the people they govern, and that a hero - one that doesn’t care about anything EXCEPT the people they protect - can’t exist in reality. Deconstructing the superhero genre empowers people, because it shows very flawed people working towards what they believe in an imperfect manner. Seeing a perfect idealized hero hurts, but seeing a flawed and relatable person standing up for their beliefs gives us hope that we who are unhappy with the state of the world can also defend our ideals and make a difference without being a perfect human specimen with superhuman abilities.
Didn’t they cover how it is being a normal person especially with the Spider-Man comics? Especially the older ones
Homelander actor is such a great actor !! that airplane scene...
"The World" I see you there DIO.
If you're making the argument that fantasy was revolutionised by GRRM, then you haven't read a lot of modern fantasy.
Elric of Melnibone was probably far more influential, but it doesn't have as much "immediate recognition" as talking about Martin right now.
@@Liberator130 Oh yeah, but the narrative that fantasy was just full of Tolkien derivatives before GRRM is just stupidly false at best, and unabashedly cruel to the swathes of other fantastic authors at worst. His entire authorial generation is filled with people who actively subvert, enhance and innovate the genre. George has many contemporaries that can match and beat him in terms of scale of worldbuilding and plot, deep characterisation, intrigue and suspense, prose etc.
I'm not trying to come off as superior or gatekeeping, I merely want the trend of treating Martin as either the saviour of the fantasy genre, or as the great olive branch who "matured" fantasy for a more mainstream audience, to be put to bed. It's poisonous for both the author and the genre, and it is an act of sycophantic nonsense
@@cayranm I hate to break it to you but aside from a few examples the genre was OVERWHELMED with Tolkien derivatives in every sense of the word. GRRM wasn't the only author but like 95% did this.
@@BlazingOwnager But the largest books in the genre currently, and have been for at least the last 30 years, are not Tolkien derrivatives. Every genre of storytelling is filled to the brim with lacklustre, uninspired trite, but those are not the books that define a genre. George does not define his genre, his books did not rise to the mainstream because they were so radically different, in both concept and quality, from every single other book in fantasy, he was just lucky to get a very good adaptation (for a while).
Homelander definitely could lift the plane he just felt it was to much effort and he didn’t really care to put that effort in.
It's not the tv show we deserve!
But it's the tv show WE NEED!
...really?
I'm so tired of dark "realistic" superhero stories. They're so played out and I'm just so fucking done with it. It gets to a point where subverting archetypes and making things super *dark* and """""realistic""""". I'm so fucking tired off this shit. Shazam was the most refreshing shit I've seen in years. Dark """"""""""""r e a l i s t i c"""""""""""" superheroes are the expectation now you're not subverting anything. It's not fun anymore.
Honestly Martin may have some good points but he's so arrogant and disrespectful of the real greats whose shoulders he lives on top of
Basically, cynicism is not inherently a virtue, or an indication of superior intelligence.
Martin adores Tolkien, what are you talking about? He just wanted to tackles themes that Tolkien didn't. Also LOTR is overrated. Tolkien himself though is The Man
I don't get Homelander's "there's nothing to stand on"... but he can fly.
Looks like they're having it both ways. You cant "not" lift a plane while flying but ALSO stop a speeding armored vehicle by letting it hit you. You're not heavy enough to stop and you have nothing to brace against except the air behind you and a little bit of ground which would give out.
I mean at least with the bank van it's you against it. That plain would literally crumble from its own weight
She impacted hard. Sure, feet burried in asphalt that bit aint quite enough, but at least something
Traditional superhero movies aren't designed to say "people with these powers would be benevolent", it's that they SHOULD be. That's the power of fiction and myth-making, you aren't confined to the rules of reality. There absolutely is value in deconstruction, but in the world we live in today where people with great power use it for political corruption, mass murder, sexual misconduct, and ecological disaster, having grand scale stories of morality and virtue through analogous conflict are why the modern superhero movie has been able to succeed, and why reactionary films like BVS and Fant4stic failed by shoddily trying to apply "real science" and needless defacing cultural symbols.
The Boys isn't great because it shows what happens to the extras of action set pieces (nobody wonders about the extras in literally any other subgenre of action movie with collateral damage), it's great because it demands that people have a responsibility in taking action towards holding people in power accountable for their harm to the world. And that dangerous people with power may even resemble heroes more than you think.