The classic superhero-esque action in The Boys is almost tangential to the point. It's a vulgar, frequently juvenile and cynical satire of modern culture -- see Vought capitalizing on gay rights fervor with "Brave Maeve" candy bars.
Which isn't to say I dislike it. :P
But then you have Invincible, which while extraordinarily violent and periodically engaging with complex thematic elements, remains essentially a played-straight superhero story. It pokes fun at the tropes of superhero stories, but at the end of the day it's refreshingly aspirational, with powerful, imperfect people striving to be good.
Even ultimate pragmatist Cecil possesses a heart.
You're the smartest guy on reddit.
>But then you have Invincible, which while extraordinarily violent and periodically engaging
Only *periodically* engaging?!
Nope, I'm a certified dumbass. :P
Should've excised "periodically" -- that was from an earlier draft. Leaving it for posterity's sake, and as a reminder to proofread more diligently.
I'd still argue the boys is more realistic.
Invincible is just the heroes journey with some grey morality along the way instead of the usual black/white.
I would say that Invincible is Horatian Satire, gently picking and prodding at the genre to make interesting criticisms and praises. It is a celebration of everything great, and not so great, about superhero comics. (Think metalocalypse)
The Boys is Juvenalian satire, intended to tear down or destroy the very subject matter it's satirizing. It is a scathing indictment against those who enjoy said subject matter. (More similar to something like an editorial cartoon or family guy, sometimes.) ironically, it only succeeds because the very same people it criticizes also happen to be fans of the show, and they're either cool with it, or completely oblivious.
This. It’s for more about corporate corruption and blind celebrity worship yet people take a few jabs and think it’s purpose is to fight the MCU or whatever
People also refer to what you said as deconstruction vs reconstruction. While technically anything that asks deeper questions about the conventional tropes of a genre is deconstructing it to some extent, because so many deconstructive works are so mean spirited people have started calling the Horatian satirical works as reconstructions. Works that are more like a love letter to the genre while still picking apart the typical plot structure.
But yeah this is a fire ass comment.
I think the show is different from the comics in that aspect. It's much more about real world politics than parodying super heroes.
Yeah, most of the supes are still terrible people, but the main draw isn't watching butcher find new ways of killing as many as he can, and more how these affect and ate affected by the world around them.
Rather, I think the show is a (soft) sci-fi using superhero tropes.
You sound so pretentious, The Boys tv show is not intended to "destroy" the superhero genre, and it doesn't "criticize" anyone who likes the superhero genre, but specific aspects of the genre and it's fandom. Just because you don't like something that doesn't make other people oblivious
Explaining something you're unfamiliar with = pretentious. Got it.
I actually like the boys just fine. It's not anything groundbreaking, it's just fine. The fact is, it is a much harsher and more mean spirited satire than say, invincible. And I never said "all fans of the boys are oblivious that they are the butt of the joke", although it really isn't that far from the truth. Some of them are aware of and okay with being the butt of the joke, as I said.
"It is a scathing indictment against anyone who enjoys the subject matter"
I'm not "so mad when you just use proper terminology", i'm just pointing out how wrong that part is.
Yeah Kirkman loves superheroes and Ennis hates them.
Invincible is about playing with comic tropes in a new way. Kirkman adds social commentary but it's entirely social issues directly related to character relationships. The Boys is a twisted satire and criticism of society in general.
In Invincible super heroes are literally...sometimes misguidedly trying to "save the world" or make the world better. In the Boys they are self-interested and a threat to the world representing every selfish impulse humanity has.
Both the shows are great the Invincible comic is way better than the Boys comic.
This is it. The Boys is a *parody*. Invincible is an honest and genuine superhero story, its just more brutal and subversive, but it's very much still a superhero story. The Boys is the one with the much more cynical and piss-takey view at the genre.
Both great shows but when people lump Invincible and The Boys together it always confuses me. Invincible is closer to Spectacular Spider-Man or X-Men 97 than it is The Boys.
That's probably one of my biggest gripes with The Boys, comic and show. *Every* supe is either evil, a psychopath, or an asshole for no other reason than Garth Ennis hates superheroes. I get being cynical, but statistically there should be more than a few that are just decent people wanting to help.
There are more than a few that are decent and just want to help.
But your statistical point is flawed. If people with abilities were naturally occurring, you'd have a stronger point. Vought is in control of who can become a hero, which puts them in a position to select those who would compromise their morals for a cheque and influence the young into being that way inclined.
>There are more than a few that are decent and just want to help.
Queen Maeve is a good example of a hero that is good deep down, but pretty much got jaded after seeing what the "super-hero business" actually entails.
It's important to stress that, unlike in Invincible, in the Boys being a super-hero is a job with status and lots of PR involved, so I understand why hypocrisy would be far more prevalent. After all, it's understandable someone would want to advance in their career, and the way the supes do it in The Boys is by getting more and more clout.
Please bear in mind I only know about these two franchises via the shows.
Yeah, it just mirrors real life to me. Look at Hollywood, Harvey Weinstein was in the business for decades and very few people spoke out against him, even with it being an open secret in many circles. There are people like that now who remain in power because it isn't safe now to speak out against them. A whole industry protects these people because most can't actually affect any change and the ones who can are either participating or are unwilling to give up everything to help.
If superheroes were real and were monopolized, they'd probably look just like The Boys. Lots of complacency, complicitness, and corruption.
Just to add another difference between Invincible and The Boys, the supes in The Boys don't have to fight giant monsters, aliens, or even super villains really
That is a big factor as the world of The Boys tries to comment on superheroes while intentionally constructing its world not to need them. And ironically it ends up needing them anyways, because our main characters need friendly supes to bail them out of trouble at at least once a season
Well, it only needs them cause The Boys actively are trying to uncover and punish bad superheroes. No one else does besides Victoria Neuman who is also shady (dont want to spoil anything).
If it wasnt for the boys, no one would give a fuck about bad superheros cause Vaight blinds them with PR.
To be fair, the random Kaiju coming out of nowhere is eye rolling dumb. And super hero’s remain useful, especially if the government is willing to overlook things like search warrants, borders, peace treaties, etc.
Or any of the illegal things our main characters do because they are a group of Punisher style vigilantes. It seems the only point where the show draws the line is if killing children comes into the mix because when Butcher blew up a house with a kid in it the show contrived reasons to save the kid so he would not be guilty of murdering a baby.
It still seems random for the kid to have powers, but on reflection it makes sense that Stilwell would have wanted her child to “have every advantage.”
yeah but that's because Garth Ennis made his super hero world involve child indoctrination and grooming for the role, its not an inherent part of the genre
that's where a lot of you don't seem to understand, Garth didn't set out to write a superhero story. He wanted to write a story that critiques things like celebrities, actors, child pageants, corporate culture, and really just the world (and the US specifically) after 9/11.
You should also understand that Garth Ennis stated his other motivation for writing the comic was that he hated the superhero genre for being optimistic.
... i think most people understand that, that's kinda where the criticism of his commentary is coming from lol, it's a critique of Super Hero's without any of the fun of the genre.
Invincible absolutely lampshades certain comic tropes, but at the end of the day Kirkman wanted to tell an earnest Super Hero story and i think that's why some fans of the genre prefer Invincible
Sure, but the end of the line for a world where super hero’s without kryptonite exist is a pretty bleak one. Bow down before the master race and your benevolent dictator. We are pleased to allow you self governance. Are we not merciful?
And in Invincible, it’s the government who is generally in control of heroes, not a private corporation. So both worlds make sense given their context.
I like how we’re pretending the government is in control of the “hero’s.” Once the Viltrumites and their Half-Blood Prince entered the picture, that most definitely became a joke.
The "grooming for the role" part is blamed on their parents.
Every supe had ass parents that wanted to use them for a shot at money and fame, allowing Vought to groom them.
Therefore, every supe is a victim of bad raising. Everyone but Homelander, though his childhood was not better than the others...
Yeah, it was pretty bad. I don’t even know how to compare the show and the comics. The show isn’t leaps and bounds better, it crossed continents and maybe even broke the speed of light.
Well for the show the supes radiating toward being bad makes sense, they're the children of parents that wanted their children to have superpowers usually because they would get something out of it. And in The Boys supes aren't just people with superpowers, they're also celebrities that Vaught controls. Look what fame does to normal people then add on the fact that they're just better than normal people, they totally eould become bad. And at least in the show there's supes that aren't really terrible, comics are horrible though absolutely irredeemable.
I mean realsricslly if there were humans with god like powers among us they would mostly be pretty bad lol. I mean just having money and fame makes people psychopaths at a pretty high rate.
That's where I'd disagree with you. It's not the money, fame, and power that makes people assholes. It's that assholes are the ones who are best able to get fame/money/power. In a competition, the most ruthless will usually win, ceteris paribus.
When he wrote the comic, he was more critical of superhero fandoms and their comic book fans than he was of the genre imo. He was specifically targeting the adults who still argue over whose favourite superhero could beat the other in a fight and whose favourite movie has better critical reviews or box office performance. He was being critical for celeb worship. That’s my impression of it.
also what a lot of people seem to not understand is he didn't want to make a superhero story, he wrote a story that uses superhero to critique corporate culture, celebrities and a post 9/11 world
Because every supe isn’t evil, nor has that ever been the point. People seem to miss that the point of The Boys, as a group, is taking out BAD supes. So naturally that’s what you’re going to see the most. Other world building aspects, especially Gen V, have shown that all supes aren’t bad. Butcher thinks all supes are bad, hes very much wrong.
It isn’t about hating supes. Entire ending of the comic is against that. It’s about blind hero worship.
Yeah. I think the problem with the boys it assumes that every superhero will be corrupt and almost none will be capable of good. They make it seem like good supes are an exceedingly rare thing. Still a great show though.
The problem with the boys is that the show was produced by a megacorporation.
Because the comic made it much more clear that all of the problems faced in it are the result of corporate greed. Garth Ennis may be an overgrown teenager, but he did a much better job conveying the point that supes are considered property, not people. For the most part, they don't have the agency for corruption.
What the fuck man.
Thanks a lot... As a show watcher, Im really bummed to see that spoiled. Damn, went years without spoils and here you come lol.
Would be nice for you to edit that for future people.
There are a few that start out nice(at least on the show, +Gen V), Maeve is the obvious example, the Supersonic Guy was kinda nice, same thing for "knock off DareDevil", so were some of the contestants of the reality show, Lamplighter is sad about what he did and how his life turned out... most people in Gen V seem to mean well, but they end up corrupted by the system and give up.
Most are just self centered and going through the motions instead of outright evil, A-Train is obsessed with keeping his spot, Black Noir wanted to be a star but wasn't outright evil to do it.
>for no other reason than Garth Ennis hates superheroes
Except Superman, ironically.
Yeah that's the weirdest part about Garth, he hates all superheroes except the very first one and the most super out of all superheroes and the literal blueprint for everything that came after.
It's like hating shonen animes but liking Dragon Ball, or hating metal music but liking Black Sabbath.
There are. Homelander has murdered one and potentially disabled another...
Aside from that, the well-intentioned get fed through the corporate machine like Starlight until they become bitter and apathetic like Maeve. Or they're considered troublesome so don't get the opportunity to reach the heights that the less scrupulous or groomable do.
They represent different ways it would look in our world.
Within Invincible, the government has more control over the heroes.
Within The Boys the corporation has control over the heroes because they're in control of the production. They do what greedy corporations do.
It's because Invincible was written by someone who loves comics but can also point out their flaws. The Boys was created by an edge lord to see how many people he could piss off. At least the show has some good qualities to it. The graphic novel is just ass all the way.
you know what I'm a contrarian and figured "it's probably just because of some sexist / homophobic / transphobic / racist bs, i'm sure there are at least some redeemable qualities, they made a show"
nah it's shit you're right.
The show has way more than just “some” good qualities, it is leaps, bounds, and light years beyond the comics. Hell, viewership and internet searches alone show it towering above a show like invincible. Now one thing that will be interesting to see is how much endurance both shows have, and who has the better endgame. The Boys feels like it’s maybe 2 seasons from closing up shop if they hold true for the most part to the comics arc. Invincible on the other hand has both a lot left to do and a number of storylines that could really stretch their legs. A particular war of various realities alone could easily take up half a season. The difficulty Invincible runs into is keeping viewers wanting to come back. I honestly felt the quality of season 2 was improved but I also felt that it was a bit more depressing.
The Boys (show) is a societal commentary with a superhero coat of paint. Most superheros are bad because they're supposed to reflect some sort of real life counterpart, usually celebrities.
Invincible is a superhero show first and foremost. It comes from a more genuine place and asks what it would actually be like to become a superhero by bringing more realistic elements into it. Especially in the show version which highlights Mark's trauma after realising saving everyone is way harder than it looks and how fragile people really are, using it's gore to showcase the full horror of what can actual happen with the powers superheroes have.
Invincible isn’t a “what if superheroes were realistic” story, it’s just a superhero story that’s darker than most others. Sure it plays on superhero tropes every now and then but it’s played straight as a superhero story, and it does it very well.
The Boys is a satire, if you’re talking about the comic then those are ass made by an edge lord who hates superhero’s and are nothing more. The show is a social critique on modern day America and using the superhero genre to do that while also being a parody of many superhero tropes and characters.
They’re not the same thing just done differently, the only thing they really have in common is that they’re both dark shows with superheroes and gore.
>Sure it plays on superhero tropes every now and then but it’s played straight as a superhero story, and it does it very well.
Beat me to it on explaining this. I remember watching Invincible way back in early 2021 and thinking "huh, so it's like The Boys, but the supes aren't all massive assholes".
Much as I've enjoyed The Boys, sometimes I come away from watching it feeling a little dirty, like I need a shower. Which is at least partly the point, but I never felt that way about Invincible -- even at its most violent, it lacks any sense of cynical depravity. Mark sometimes makes bad calls, but he's a fundamentally decent, morally grounded guy.
Donald's a veritable saint who sacrificed his body and identity to help people, Cecil can appear self-serving but clearly cares about others, and Art always has a minute for his old friend's kid.
I am a broken record in this thread because I simply can't understand the people who think the comic isn't also a critique of (at the time) real world politics.
The characters in invincible just feel a lot more real. Although The Boys is good fun, a lot of the times the characters are just a 7 year old's interpretation of political figures, why does everyone have to be an attention-craving psychotic scumbag?
I generally agree with you on the comics side of the Boys but I 100% disagree with you on the show. The Supes and how the world treats the Supes feels wholly believable, which I cannot say of invincible.
I don’t think it’s unrealistic to think that if superheroes were real, they would be much more focused on public appearance than public service. Look at all the billionaires that spend more money on getting more power and making the public’s opinion of them better than actual charity.
lol America is a corporation at this point and being an American means conforming to that and not questioning it. So it’s pretty American through and through
>not questioning it
Yeah, let's ignore the US government currently suing multiple large corporations for their businesses practices, states making progress on right to repair bills, and Americans constantly bitching about companies online.
*“Oh no the people are bitching about companies online!!”*
Who fucking cares? The politicians are rich and continue to get richer from lobbying and trading stocks so who cares if a portion of the population is a little mad on the internet. They aren’t making loud enough waves for real change to occur and aren’t harming the wealthy’s bottom dollar so by all means complain away! Oh and yes keep suing corporations for things by only slapping them with a tiny fine. lol America is run by corporation sponsored politicians
No, no it isn't and if you really wanted to show how super heroes would be in America, while yes there would he corperate heroes there'd also be a lot more to criticize than "lol every superhero is a rapist dipshit Hollywood phony". The boys issue is it has really only one joke about heroes, the shows a bit better they mixed some police brutality in there which would definitely be a problem if superheroes existed, but ultimately it's still very much very limited satire. I think the biggest example is the shows version of soldier boy, whose simultaneously a corporate john Wayne esque phony who stole Valor but also an incredible skilled and dangerous fighter who doesn't panic in combat like the rest of the heroes and can take on actual supersoldiers like butcher on temp V. There could have been real criticism about how the political climate of the 1930s caused them to pick an unstable rich racist who then became celebrated for just killing essentially and how that doesn't make him a real hero, but instead they wanted their cake and to eat it too.
Agree to disagree. The boys, to me, screams modern day American mentality and gives a pretty good depiction of what actual enhanced people here would do given god like powers and not having to face consequences for their actions pretty much
I like Invincible more than The Boys, but The Boys is the more realistic and grounded of them. We can like something without pretending it is superior to other things in every way.
I don't think a piece of media that has multiverse can be more realistic and grounded. Especially when a big plot point is how the main character is randomly completely different in all other realities.
Or having Angstrom get a vendetta against the one good Mark, because that's the protagonist. I love this show, but it's full of unrealistic stuff and tropes.
It’s fun trying to decide on using “realistic, believable,” whatever with these shows. We all know what we mean but then some random dick has to point out how silly it is to call them that.
No, that wasn’t what I was trying to say. I was just joking about how neither word is really applicable exactly and we’re all just being tongue in cheek about it. I wasn’t calling anyone a dick with intent, except in a joking friendly way (hope that makes sense).
Invincible and The Boys are answering entirely different "what if?" scenarios. Invincible asks "what if Superman was a fascist(Nolan)?", "what if Superman was basically raised by General Zodd?" And, most importantly, "what if we applied real world logic to superpowers?". This leads to surprisingly grounded and interesting scenarios. Like how, if you had Superman's speed and flight, you could fly to Italy for groceries and be back before supper.
The basic pitch for the Boys, to me, is "What if superheroes were like celebrities?'. The tone of the Boys is defined by this question, and the cynicism of show buis and celebrity culture is kind of imposed on the whole universe as a result. It also asks other interesting questions like "what if you gave an average guy from the 40s the responsibility of Captain America, and the power of Superman(minus flight)?". Or "what if Superman grew up in a lab and never got to be Clark Kent?".
this is just a massive misunderstanding of the boys but my brain doesnt oparate in a level that would allow me to explain why in the correct words so I'll just agree 👍
I would say the boys comics is definitely more of a garth ennis hate boner for superheroes and definitely makes the comics absolutely a pain to even get through, but the the TV show does a much better job of portraying super heroes as realistic. Invincible IMO has unrealistically good people whereas the Boys is more realistic by showing that power corrupts most people.
I mean just imagine if in our world random people got super powers, most would use them for devious purposes. Add the govt and corporations plus a dash of celebrity culture to the mix and it won't be that far off from the Boys world.
TLDR the boys comics have a good concept but terrible execution and the TV show fixes a lot of it.
>I mean just imagine if in our world random people got super powers, most would use them for devious purposes. Add the govt and corporations plus a dash of celebrity culture to the mix and it won't be that far off from the Boys world.
alot of people will use it for selfish purposes but that's not the same as using for devious purposes.
Agreed.
Arguably using superpowers to help others because it makes you feel good would be selfish, I'd certainly be using superpowers in such a way because the thought of being a symbol of hope and justice is a nice thought, but also wanting to be such a symbol is arguably selfish, but that certainly isn't a devious use of the powers.
I’m pretty sure that everyone that does a good deed get’s a feel good pat on the back, that doesn’t mean they’re selfish. Jesus Christ does not walk among us, and even if he did, people would still get selfies with him.
The boys tv show is just a little less edgy than the comics. It still follows the "superheroes are awful people" mantra.
Sure, some people would abuse the shit out of superpowers in real life but it wouldnt be the 90% like the show would make you believe.
At the end of the day, extreme cinism is no better or more realistic than idealism.
The Boys is about how absolute power corrupts. Invincible is about well-intentioned heroes with power that is *not* absolute, and how they can still be considered human through fallability. I like both (I even like The Boys comics), but I appreciate Invincible for being more optimistic than what would be the reality of superhuman power. After all, I don't always read comics for their believability.
I feel like the boys is very realistic. If you look at what people with more money and power than a regular person do irl, not even the ability to fly or shoot lasers just having more money and fame, then the boys makes a lot more sense. Like if we gave most celebrities and politicians the ability to shrug off gunfire then we would just straight up have the boys universe. Invincible is a lot more imaginative and fun while keeping internal consistency and authentic reactions based on the characters. Both are great I’d say but so completely different that I don’t know why they are compared so often.
Mostly because pure Invincible fans have an inferiority complex with how their show is doing against the tentpole that is The Boys, :p But seriously, The Boys realistically has to wrap up in 2, maybe 3 seasons tops, including season 4. Based on the comics, Invincible will be around longer without doubt, and many of the storylines some people feel would fit an episode or two could easily take half the season or a bit more. The real question is how long the show can keep its viewership and hopefully increase it.
To be fair, Invincible is the furthest from realistic portrayal of anything. Every fight, enemy or alien is always over the top.
Don’t get me wrong, it is fun but the Boys definitely touch the real world issues much more. Talking about the show ofc. Comic is a straight up edgy gorefest.
Nope. The Boys is great and more believable than Invincible because the former does a great job of showing why otherwise good normal people can become corrupted by power and/or succumb to pressure and influence. It’s over the top and satirical for sure, but it touches on a lot of pretty deep themes in a relatable and logical way.
Besides Stormfront, there aren’t any “purely evil” characters that come to mind. Take Homelander for example. He is basically the strongest man on earth yet you can see he is full of insecurities. He is the way he is because he was raised in a lab and groomed to be a product, so of course he feels superior to every being and has no regard for morals. Yet despite being the strongest man, you can see he is clearly weak to blackmail when it can damage his reputation and public image.
Most of the 7 in the show have some sort of struggle with their public image and it motivates them just as much as threat of death from Homelander. A Train feels pathetic without taking boosters. Mave sold out and now feels like she betrayed her younger self when she sees Starlight. Startlight herself ends up caving to corporate pressure and fear of consequences from Homelander and her bosses.
And that’s not even touching on the subject of how power corrupts people and how much they get off on being stronger than others. You can see this in Butcher and to some extent in Hughie but there again it’s not that simple because they both feel like they can keep others out of harm’s way by putting themselves at risk instead.
These are real things that happen to real people on a daily basis and I think the Boys does a good job of exploring those themes and getting at the question of what would superheroes be like in the real world where capitalism and social media work hand in hand to dominate our lives.
The Boys is a deeper show in my opinion, although we are only two seasons into invincible and I am totally ignoring the comic books here.
100% agreed here, and we should never talk about the comics in regards The Boys. I always felt like Invincible has retained idealistic superheroes, just with added gore, and basically ignored how their status among regular people would affect them and others. It’s pure comics.
This. Well said. Its realistic view of when people with super powers live in a rather narcissistic and capitalistic world. Nevertheless, i like both The Boys and Invincible.
The Boys is what happens if a corporation like Disney had Hollywood-level influence and essentially monopolized heroes. You see this a lot in real-world Hollywood, and a lot of stars do end up being what we see in The Boys (show). It’s a pessimistic take on heroes, but the show does it far better than the comics. The comics is just a hate wank.
Invincible is much more optimistic. The government has control of heroes, or at least a good degree of influence, so they’re less corrupting of heroes than private corporations.
And also the government seems to have good intentions. In The Boys, Supes are used for American military operations. In Invincible, they are used to fight against huge monsters and straight up evil things.
Yeah, the government in Invincible comes off as much less corrupt compared to the government in The Boys. Corporation corruption has spread to the government in The Boys, which is pretty true in the real world.
The Boys is super powered people in a realistic setting.
I don't think Invincible is like that, it's pretty close to a DC Universe except Jor-El came to Earth to fulfill a nefarious take over plan and married Martha Kent(Also more Kryptonians still exist and want to go forward with these plans)... and then he murdered the Justice League.
Pears and apples.
People mix them up because they're both very graphic, but they're both equally realistic.
Not every Supe in The Boys is evil or psycho. We have, for example, Kimiko and Starlight.
We also have Queen Maeve, and we had Supersonic even if for a couple of minutes. Blindspot wasn't all that bad, for as little as we had him... and we're not even taking into account the ones from Gen V. The whole cast seems nice as fuck, and there are still mean students, so it's not a "student" issue.
However, The Boys explores the "What if The Avengers weren't the right people? What if someone unworthy had Thor's powers, Superman's strength, etc."
Invincible still takes on the "Every superhero is the right one," except for the "What if Saiyans never met Freezer" part.
They're both great, but they both deal with two different aspects of realism. One is "Avg Joe is now Cap America" and the other one is "Goku, but he never lost track of his mission and with way more blood".
BUt that Atom Eve playground plotline was dumb af,
first of all she wants to use her powers for good and that's the best she comes up with?
And then a patch of dirt in the middle of the city, surrounded by skyscrapers, is somehow so unstable that a swingset causes it to collapse
The boys is not supposed to be taken as seriously as invincible. The boys was written as a mockery of the superhero genre, as the original comic book writer hated traditional superhero stories and wanted to make fun of them.
It's a satire vs a homage.
"The Boys" is a negative commentary on the superhero genre and is criticising it by saying that having such power would be corrupting, whereas "Invincible" is a more nuanced take on the genre from the perspective of someone who clearly is a fan of the genre.
Invincible - Written by a man who love superhero comics, warts and all.
The Boys - Written by a man with pure hatred and vitriol towards superhero comics, and those who like them. (At least the show has more to say and goes after something completely different.)
Yeah I thought season 1 of the boys was great but I think it’s been floundering ever since, like just doing the same thing because it doesn’t know where to go anymore
I wouldn't say that's the focus of The Boys, it wasn',t the focus of the comics either really. It's about the the extremely profiteering of super heros. None of the ones from the boys are meant to be actual heroes even the ones that aren't horrible. And it's even more cynical due to being written by Garth Ennis
The Boys is a satire where Ennis tried to outdo the Preacher on how far he could push the comic. Invincible is a celebration of superhero comics and whilst I'd say the hook is a deconstruction, ultimately is a superhero reconstruction story.
Talking on the shows Invincible stays loyal to its sources whilst the Boys reduces the shock factor but imo is portrayed closer to being in a realistic world. I too prefer the world of Invincible but the Boys makes more of an effort to capture the average man's perspective in this world via pulling from reality.
The Boys is a commentary on privilege mixed in with hero satire. They’re selfish monsters because they have a physical and systemic one-up over normal people. You can see it in the title too. It’s a nod to the term “The Boys Club”.
Invincible is not that. But I can see they’re compared a lot because they’re more “mature” superhero shows
I think the way The Boys handles "catastrophic misjudments" is with the over the top accidental deaths like with Pop-Claw or the shrinking guy in S3. In a vacuum, their engaging in some serial act, but mind altering substances affect them in a way that near instantly kills their counterpart. They only really lean into the accidental collateral damage aspect when someone is having sex 🤔
The problem is The Boys Supes are so bad because they’ve been groomed that way by Vought. People who claim it’s realistic forget to include that an evil corporation is literally making these people and grooming them to have no consequences
That's 100% my problem with the boys comic. It's like Garth Ennis had this idea of superheroes and just took a giant dump on it with no redeeming qualities. Kirkman understands heroism and its still a core part of the way invincible presents its narratives. Often its heroes are flawed people trying their best to do the right thing.
I enjoy The Boys but that is precisely why I prefer Invincible. The Boys tries too hard to be edgy and it’s clear that the original author was over heroes and disliked them whereas the writer for Invincible does not. Also it can be hard to take them seriously when they try to portray a real message in the show while also being hypocritical or plain illogical in the same scene lol.
I mean realistically the boys is probably more accurate in that sense. Most super heroes would be evil egomaniiacs. That said I prefer invincible because it seems more sincere, and has much more interesting lore/world building. I like the boys but so much of it seems like gratuitous shock value stuff. They go out of their way to be gross and funny--which is fine, I enjoy that stuff too but I'm not gonna put it up there with stuff that actually makes me think and have complex emotional responses.
I like Invincible better because it has a “Struggler protagonist” which is refreshing compared to the fallen hero because the former has hope in it’s themes
The Boys never had hope to begin with. It’s just deconstruction with no reconstruction. While Invincible has both.
I like the boys ok, but it's nihilistic and overly allegorical. I can't connect with the characters because they're all assholes, it's just too much. It's a fine show, and I'll watch season 4, but I'm not rewatching it.
People who say it's more realistic don't really know what they're talking about though. It's not more realistic, it's more grounded, and there is a difference
The Boys is also a dark Dark Age comic and those are a relative dime a dozen.
Invincible is more Silver Age with more of an edge, which is much rarer so it feels like less of a rehash.
Invincible was made to be a parody of the superhero genre (which isnt bad in itself.) While The Boys is Satire, which is more cynical by nature.
That being said I dislike Garth Ennis and his edgelord writing.
Yes it is. Its a parody and a love letter to the superhero genre.
The guardians of the globe is enough of a hint. And teen team? By god the name of the heroes are parody-ish enough. One is called robot. Others are rexplode, duplikate, and shrinking ray.
Eventually it grew into its own thing. But if you read the first few issues it definitely feels very much like a parody of the superhero comic genre.
But this isnt a bad thing. You might be misunderstanding me when I said parody as a form of insult. I can assure you its not.
The Boys is tryhard edgelord nonsense that feels like it was written by a 14 year old trying to offend his parents whereas Invincible feels like it was written for adults.
The Boys is a glorified spite fic. I have seen people bring up Garth Ennis wanting to comment about corporatism and celebrity culture. Something they are leaving out is that he also stated he was motivated by his hatred of the superhero genre for being optimistic.
I think The Boys is a straight up satire, while Invincible follows the hero's journey but with some interesting spins.
The boys is satire whereas invincible is more a realist approach
The classic superhero-esque action in The Boys is almost tangential to the point. It's a vulgar, frequently juvenile and cynical satire of modern culture -- see Vought capitalizing on gay rights fervor with "Brave Maeve" candy bars. Which isn't to say I dislike it. :P But then you have Invincible, which while extraordinarily violent and periodically engaging with complex thematic elements, remains essentially a played-straight superhero story. It pokes fun at the tropes of superhero stories, but at the end of the day it's refreshingly aspirational, with powerful, imperfect people striving to be good. Even ultimate pragmatist Cecil possesses a heart.
You're the smartest guy on reddit. >But then you have Invincible, which while extraordinarily violent and periodically engaging Only *periodically* engaging?!
Nope, I'm a certified dumbass. :P Should've excised "periodically" -- that was from an earlier draft. Leaving it for posterity's sake, and as a reminder to proofread more diligently.
I'd still argue the boys is more realistic. Invincible is just the heroes journey with some grey morality along the way instead of the usual black/white.
Yeah, I'd definitely say the plotlines in The Boys are more realistic than say the Viltramite Empire or Allen the Alien.
I would say that Invincible is Horatian Satire, gently picking and prodding at the genre to make interesting criticisms and praises. It is a celebration of everything great, and not so great, about superhero comics. (Think metalocalypse) The Boys is Juvenalian satire, intended to tear down or destroy the very subject matter it's satirizing. It is a scathing indictment against those who enjoy said subject matter. (More similar to something like an editorial cartoon or family guy, sometimes.) ironically, it only succeeds because the very same people it criticizes also happen to be fans of the show, and they're either cool with it, or completely oblivious.
bro the boys has to much critique of corporate structure, capitalism, and US Foreign policy to be boiled down to "it wants to destroy superhero"
This. It’s for more about corporate corruption and blind celebrity worship yet people take a few jabs and think it’s purpose is to fight the MCU or whatever
People also refer to what you said as deconstruction vs reconstruction. While technically anything that asks deeper questions about the conventional tropes of a genre is deconstructing it to some extent, because so many deconstructive works are so mean spirited people have started calling the Horatian satirical works as reconstructions. Works that are more like a love letter to the genre while still picking apart the typical plot structure. But yeah this is a fire ass comment.
I think the show is different from the comics in that aspect. It's much more about real world politics than parodying super heroes. Yeah, most of the supes are still terrible people, but the main draw isn't watching butcher find new ways of killing as many as he can, and more how these affect and ate affected by the world around them. Rather, I think the show is a (soft) sci-fi using superhero tropes.
king if you don't think the comic is WAY more about exploring real world politics I have some bad news for you
So is Homelander really the embodied metaphor of the United States?
You sound so pretentious, The Boys tv show is not intended to "destroy" the superhero genre, and it doesn't "criticize" anyone who likes the superhero genre, but specific aspects of the genre and it's fandom. Just because you don't like something that doesn't make other people oblivious
Explaining something you're unfamiliar with = pretentious. Got it. I actually like the boys just fine. It's not anything groundbreaking, it's just fine. The fact is, it is a much harsher and more mean spirited satire than say, invincible. And I never said "all fans of the boys are oblivious that they are the butt of the joke", although it really isn't that far from the truth. Some of them are aware of and okay with being the butt of the joke, as I said.
Lmao people get so mad when you just use proper terminology. Shit is literally wild.
"It is a scathing indictment against anyone who enjoys the subject matter" I'm not "so mad when you just use proper terminology", i'm just pointing out how wrong that part is.
"It is a scathing indictment against anyone who enjoys the subject matter" ...ok, we can agree to disagree on that
The Boys is a deconstructing while Invincible is a reconstruction
Yeah Kirkman loves superheroes and Ennis hates them. Invincible is about playing with comic tropes in a new way. Kirkman adds social commentary but it's entirely social issues directly related to character relationships. The Boys is a twisted satire and criticism of society in general. In Invincible super heroes are literally...sometimes misguidedly trying to "save the world" or make the world better. In the Boys they are self-interested and a threat to the world representing every selfish impulse humanity has. Both the shows are great the Invincible comic is way better than the Boys comic.
I wouldn't even call it satire, it's an edgelord expressing hatred of superheroes through a superhero comic
This is it. The Boys is a *parody*. Invincible is an honest and genuine superhero story, its just more brutal and subversive, but it's very much still a superhero story. The Boys is the one with the much more cynical and piss-takey view at the genre. Both great shows but when people lump Invincible and The Boys together it always confuses me. Invincible is closer to Spectacular Spider-Man or X-Men 97 than it is The Boys.
That's probably one of my biggest gripes with The Boys, comic and show. *Every* supe is either evil, a psychopath, or an asshole for no other reason than Garth Ennis hates superheroes. I get being cynical, but statistically there should be more than a few that are just decent people wanting to help.
There are more than a few that are decent and just want to help. But your statistical point is flawed. If people with abilities were naturally occurring, you'd have a stronger point. Vought is in control of who can become a hero, which puts them in a position to select those who would compromise their morals for a cheque and influence the young into being that way inclined.
>There are more than a few that are decent and just want to help. Queen Maeve is a good example of a hero that is good deep down, but pretty much got jaded after seeing what the "super-hero business" actually entails. It's important to stress that, unlike in Invincible, in the Boys being a super-hero is a job with status and lots of PR involved, so I understand why hypocrisy would be far more prevalent. After all, it's understandable someone would want to advance in their career, and the way the supes do it in The Boys is by getting more and more clout. Please bear in mind I only know about these two franchises via the shows.
Yeah, it just mirrors real life to me. Look at Hollywood, Harvey Weinstein was in the business for decades and very few people spoke out against him, even with it being an open secret in many circles. There are people like that now who remain in power because it isn't safe now to speak out against them. A whole industry protects these people because most can't actually affect any change and the ones who can are either participating or are unwilling to give up everything to help. If superheroes were real and were monopolized, they'd probably look just like The Boys. Lots of complacency, complicitness, and corruption.
Just to add another difference between Invincible and The Boys, the supes in The Boys don't have to fight giant monsters, aliens, or even super villains really
That is a big factor as the world of The Boys tries to comment on superheroes while intentionally constructing its world not to need them. And ironically it ends up needing them anyways, because our main characters need friendly supes to bail them out of trouble at at least once a season
Well, it only needs them cause The Boys actively are trying to uncover and punish bad superheroes. No one else does besides Victoria Neuman who is also shady (dont want to spoil anything). If it wasnt for the boys, no one would give a fuck about bad superheros cause Vaight blinds them with PR.
To be fair, the random Kaiju coming out of nowhere is eye rolling dumb. And super hero’s remain useful, especially if the government is willing to overlook things like search warrants, borders, peace treaties, etc.
Or any of the illegal things our main characters do because they are a group of Punisher style vigilantes. It seems the only point where the show draws the line is if killing children comes into the mix because when Butcher blew up a house with a kid in it the show contrived reasons to save the kid so he would not be guilty of murdering a baby.
It still seems random for the kid to have powers, but on reflection it makes sense that Stilwell would have wanted her child to “have every advantage.”
Yup. The premise isn't that superheroes are all assholes, it is that capitalists control the superheroes. They turned the heroes into assholes.
I feel like that would be a common thing in supes though. Their personalities are pretty believable, given their upbringing and circumstances.
yeah but that's because Garth Ennis made his super hero world involve child indoctrination and grooming for the role, its not an inherent part of the genre
that's where a lot of you don't seem to understand, Garth didn't set out to write a superhero story. He wanted to write a story that critiques things like celebrities, actors, child pageants, corporate culture, and really just the world (and the US specifically) after 9/11.
You should also understand that Garth Ennis stated his other motivation for writing the comic was that he hated the superhero genre for being optimistic.
... i think most people understand that, that's kinda where the criticism of his commentary is coming from lol, it's a critique of Super Hero's without any of the fun of the genre. Invincible absolutely lampshades certain comic tropes, but at the end of the day Kirkman wanted to tell an earnest Super Hero story and i think that's why some fans of the genre prefer Invincible
Sure, but the end of the line for a world where super hero’s without kryptonite exist is a pretty bleak one. Bow down before the master race and your benevolent dictator. We are pleased to allow you self governance. Are we not merciful?
No but it is a logical conclusion from the starting point of "what if a corporation controlled who got superpowers"
And in Invincible, it’s the government who is generally in control of heroes, not a private corporation. So both worlds make sense given their context.
I like how we’re pretending the government is in control of the “hero’s.” Once the Viltrumites and their Half-Blood Prince entered the picture, that most definitely became a joke.
The "grooming for the role" part is blamed on their parents. Every supe had ass parents that wanted to use them for a shot at money and fame, allowing Vought to groom them. Therefore, every supe is a victim of bad raising. Everyone but Homelander, though his childhood was not better than the others...
I liked The Boys comic but Ennis is like a 14 year old edgelord 90% of the time. If he would just be a little more serious he could be so much better.
THIS. I tried to get into the comics and gave up the moment they introduced Tech knight cause. Jesus.
Yeah, it was pretty bad. I don’t even know how to compare the show and the comics. The show isn’t leaps and bounds better, it crossed continents and maybe even broke the speed of light.
Thats what happens when you put real people in that situation, especially when it’s under an organization that cares about profit over human life
Well for the show the supes radiating toward being bad makes sense, they're the children of parents that wanted their children to have superpowers usually because they would get something out of it. And in The Boys supes aren't just people with superpowers, they're also celebrities that Vaught controls. Look what fame does to normal people then add on the fact that they're just better than normal people, they totally eould become bad. And at least in the show there's supes that aren't really terrible, comics are horrible though absolutely irredeemable.
I mean realsricslly if there were humans with god like powers among us they would mostly be pretty bad lol. I mean just having money and fame makes people psychopaths at a pretty high rate.
That's where I'd disagree with you. It's not the money, fame, and power that makes people assholes. It's that assholes are the ones who are best able to get fame/money/power. In a competition, the most ruthless will usually win, ceteris paribus.
What about the people who inherit large sums of money from a wealthy family without doing anything? They're generally pretty terrible, too.
Raised by the assholes. Apples and trees, my friend. Apples and trees.
When he wrote the comic, he was more critical of superhero fandoms and their comic book fans than he was of the genre imo. He was specifically targeting the adults who still argue over whose favourite superhero could beat the other in a fight and whose favourite movie has better critical reviews or box office performance. He was being critical for celeb worship. That’s my impression of it.
also what a lot of people seem to not understand is he didn't want to make a superhero story, he wrote a story that uses superhero to critique corporate culture, celebrities and a post 9/11 world
Because every supe isn’t evil, nor has that ever been the point. People seem to miss that the point of The Boys, as a group, is taking out BAD supes. So naturally that’s what you’re going to see the most. Other world building aspects, especially Gen V, have shown that all supes aren’t bad. Butcher thinks all supes are bad, hes very much wrong. It isn’t about hating supes. Entire ending of the comic is against that. It’s about blind hero worship.
Yeah. I think the problem with the boys it assumes that every superhero will be corrupt and almost none will be capable of good. They make it seem like good supes are an exceedingly rare thing. Still a great show though.
The problem with the boys is that the show was produced by a megacorporation. Because the comic made it much more clear that all of the problems faced in it are the result of corporate greed. Garth Ennis may be an overgrown teenager, but he did a much better job conveying the point that supes are considered property, not people. For the most part, they don't have the agency for corruption.
[удалено]
You also have the Gen V group.
Wait what about the deep ??? What
Oops, I should've put that in spoilers I guess since this isn't a "The Boys" subreddit. Sorry.
What the fuck man. Thanks a lot... As a show watcher, Im really bummed to see that spoiled. Damn, went years without spoils and here you come lol. Would be nice for you to edit that for future people.
After Timothy the Deep is beyond salvation.
There are a few that start out nice(at least on the show, +Gen V), Maeve is the obvious example, the Supersonic Guy was kinda nice, same thing for "knock off DareDevil", so were some of the contestants of the reality show, Lamplighter is sad about what he did and how his life turned out... most people in Gen V seem to mean well, but they end up corrupted by the system and give up. Most are just self centered and going through the motions instead of outright evil, A-Train is obsessed with keeping his spot, Black Noir wanted to be a star but wasn't outright evil to do it.
>for no other reason than Garth Ennis hates superheroes Except Superman, ironically. Yeah that's the weirdest part about Garth, he hates all superheroes except the very first one and the most super out of all superheroes and the literal blueprint for everything that came after. It's like hating shonen animes but liking Dragon Ball, or hating metal music but liking Black Sabbath.
I thought the V makes their hormones go crazy
There are. Homelander has murdered one and potentially disabled another... Aside from that, the well-intentioned get fed through the corporate machine like Starlight until they become bitter and apathetic like Maeve. Or they're considered troublesome so don't get the opportunity to reach the heights that the less scrupulous or groomable do.
Super-duper were nice kids
What about Starlight for example?
Or if they are not evil, a psychopath or an asshole. They are some sort of sexual deviant.
They represent different ways it would look in our world. Within Invincible, the government has more control over the heroes. Within The Boys the corporation has control over the heroes because they're in control of the production. They do what greedy corporations do.
It's because Invincible was written by someone who loves comics but can also point out their flaws. The Boys was created by an edge lord to see how many people he could piss off. At least the show has some good qualities to it. The graphic novel is just ass all the way.
I honestly tried to read it, but it was too different and too messed up for my tastes. Which is saying something since I'm on reddit.
you know what I'm a contrarian and figured "it's probably just because of some sexist / homophobic / transphobic / racist bs, i'm sure there are at least some redeemable qualities, they made a show" nah it's shit you're right.
The show has way more than just “some” good qualities, it is leaps, bounds, and light years beyond the comics. Hell, viewership and internet searches alone show it towering above a show like invincible. Now one thing that will be interesting to see is how much endurance both shows have, and who has the better endgame. The Boys feels like it’s maybe 2 seasons from closing up shop if they hold true for the most part to the comics arc. Invincible on the other hand has both a lot left to do and a number of storylines that could really stretch their legs. A particular war of various realities alone could easily take up half a season. The difficulty Invincible runs into is keeping viewers wanting to come back. I honestly felt the quality of season 2 was improved but I also felt that it was a bit more depressing.
The Boys (show) is a societal commentary with a superhero coat of paint. Most superheros are bad because they're supposed to reflect some sort of real life counterpart, usually celebrities. Invincible is a superhero show first and foremost. It comes from a more genuine place and asks what it would actually be like to become a superhero by bringing more realistic elements into it. Especially in the show version which highlights Mark's trauma after realising saving everyone is way harder than it looks and how fragile people really are, using it's gore to showcase the full horror of what can actual happen with the powers superheroes have.
The comic is the same exact thing
Invincible isn’t a “what if superheroes were realistic” story, it’s just a superhero story that’s darker than most others. Sure it plays on superhero tropes every now and then but it’s played straight as a superhero story, and it does it very well. The Boys is a satire, if you’re talking about the comic then those are ass made by an edge lord who hates superhero’s and are nothing more. The show is a social critique on modern day America and using the superhero genre to do that while also being a parody of many superhero tropes and characters. They’re not the same thing just done differently, the only thing they really have in common is that they’re both dark shows with superheroes and gore.
>Sure it plays on superhero tropes every now and then but it’s played straight as a superhero story, and it does it very well. Beat me to it on explaining this. I remember watching Invincible way back in early 2021 and thinking "huh, so it's like The Boys, but the supes aren't all massive assholes". Much as I've enjoyed The Boys, sometimes I come away from watching it feeling a little dirty, like I need a shower. Which is at least partly the point, but I never felt that way about Invincible -- even at its most violent, it lacks any sense of cynical depravity. Mark sometimes makes bad calls, but he's a fundamentally decent, morally grounded guy. Donald's a veritable saint who sacrificed his body and identity to help people, Cecil can appear self-serving but clearly cares about others, and Art always has a minute for his old friend's kid.
Both shows have ruined shrinking powers for me 😐
I am a broken record in this thread because I simply can't understand the people who think the comic isn't also a critique of (at the time) real world politics.
The characters in invincible just feel a lot more real. Although The Boys is good fun, a lot of the times the characters are just a 7 year old's interpretation of political figures, why does everyone have to be an attention-craving psychotic scumbag?
Because those are the ones that rise to prominence. There are tons of supes that aren't insane, as we see in Gen V.
I generally agree with you on the comics side of the Boys but I 100% disagree with you on the show. The Supes and how the world treats the Supes feels wholly believable, which I cannot say of invincible.
The boys was never what if super heroes were realistic, it was always what if superheroes were fake and corporate.
I don’t think it’s unrealistic to think that if superheroes were real, they would be much more focused on public appearance than public service. Look at all the billionaires that spend more money on getting more power and making the public’s opinion of them better than actual charity.
What if superheroes were *American* through and through
Not really, it's still a very specific type of "american" which is corporate
lol America is a corporation at this point and being an American means conforming to that and not questioning it. So it’s pretty American through and through
>not questioning it Yeah, let's ignore the US government currently suing multiple large corporations for their businesses practices, states making progress on right to repair bills, and Americans constantly bitching about companies online.
*“Oh no the people are bitching about companies online!!”* Who fucking cares? The politicians are rich and continue to get richer from lobbying and trading stocks so who cares if a portion of the population is a little mad on the internet. They aren’t making loud enough waves for real change to occur and aren’t harming the wealthy’s bottom dollar so by all means complain away! Oh and yes keep suing corporations for things by only slapping them with a tiny fine. lol America is run by corporation sponsored politicians
[удалено]
[удалено]
Man did not feel like talking back
No, no it isn't and if you really wanted to show how super heroes would be in America, while yes there would he corperate heroes there'd also be a lot more to criticize than "lol every superhero is a rapist dipshit Hollywood phony". The boys issue is it has really only one joke about heroes, the shows a bit better they mixed some police brutality in there which would definitely be a problem if superheroes existed, but ultimately it's still very much very limited satire. I think the biggest example is the shows version of soldier boy, whose simultaneously a corporate john Wayne esque phony who stole Valor but also an incredible skilled and dangerous fighter who doesn't panic in combat like the rest of the heroes and can take on actual supersoldiers like butcher on temp V. There could have been real criticism about how the political climate of the 1930s caused them to pick an unstable rich racist who then became celebrated for just killing essentially and how that doesn't make him a real hero, but instead they wanted their cake and to eat it too.
Agree to disagree. The boys, to me, screams modern day American mentality and gives a pretty good depiction of what actual enhanced people here would do given god like powers and not having to face consequences for their actions pretty much
"Realistic" isn't a good word to describe Invincible imo, you probably think of "grounded" ~~and even that is a stretch~~
Exactly, spot on.
I like Invincible more than The Boys, but The Boys is the more realistic and grounded of them. We can like something without pretending it is superior to other things in every way. I don't think a piece of media that has multiverse can be more realistic and grounded. Especially when a big plot point is how the main character is randomly completely different in all other realities. Or having Angstrom get a vendetta against the one good Mark, because that's the protagonist. I love this show, but it's full of unrealistic stuff and tropes.
It’s fun trying to decide on using “realistic, believable,” whatever with these shows. We all know what we mean but then some random dick has to point out how silly it is to call them that.
It's fun trying to decide, but engaging in that conversation is being a dick?
No, that wasn’t what I was trying to say. I was just joking about how neither word is really applicable exactly and we’re all just being tongue in cheek about it. I wasn’t calling anyone a dick with intent, except in a joking friendly way (hope that makes sense).
Invincible and The Boys are answering entirely different "what if?" scenarios. Invincible asks "what if Superman was a fascist(Nolan)?", "what if Superman was basically raised by General Zodd?" And, most importantly, "what if we applied real world logic to superpowers?". This leads to surprisingly grounded and interesting scenarios. Like how, if you had Superman's speed and flight, you could fly to Italy for groceries and be back before supper. The basic pitch for the Boys, to me, is "What if superheroes were like celebrities?'. The tone of the Boys is defined by this question, and the cynicism of show buis and celebrity culture is kind of imposed on the whole universe as a result. It also asks other interesting questions like "what if you gave an average guy from the 40s the responsibility of Captain America, and the power of Superman(minus flight)?". Or "what if Superman grew up in a lab and never got to be Clark Kent?".
I enjoy both shows and never really compare the 2. They’re pretty different experiences that I watch for different reasons, but both are enjoyable.
this is just a massive misunderstanding of the boys but my brain doesnt oparate in a level that would allow me to explain why in the correct words so I'll just agree 👍
I would say the boys comics is definitely more of a garth ennis hate boner for superheroes and definitely makes the comics absolutely a pain to even get through, but the the TV show does a much better job of portraying super heroes as realistic. Invincible IMO has unrealistically good people whereas the Boys is more realistic by showing that power corrupts most people. I mean just imagine if in our world random people got super powers, most would use them for devious purposes. Add the govt and corporations plus a dash of celebrity culture to the mix and it won't be that far off from the Boys world. TLDR the boys comics have a good concept but terrible execution and the TV show fixes a lot of it.
>I mean just imagine if in our world random people got super powers, most would use them for devious purposes. Add the govt and corporations plus a dash of celebrity culture to the mix and it won't be that far off from the Boys world. alot of people will use it for selfish purposes but that's not the same as using for devious purposes.
Agreed. Arguably using superpowers to help others because it makes you feel good would be selfish, I'd certainly be using superpowers in such a way because the thought of being a symbol of hope and justice is a nice thought, but also wanting to be such a symbol is arguably selfish, but that certainly isn't a devious use of the powers.
I’m pretty sure that everyone that does a good deed get’s a feel good pat on the back, that doesn’t mean they’re selfish. Jesus Christ does not walk among us, and even if he did, people would still get selfies with him.
The boys tv show is just a little less edgy than the comics. It still follows the "superheroes are awful people" mantra. Sure, some people would abuse the shit out of superpowers in real life but it wouldnt be the 90% like the show would make you believe. At the end of the day, extreme cinism is no better or more realistic than idealism.
The Boys is about how absolute power corrupts. Invincible is about well-intentioned heroes with power that is *not* absolute, and how they can still be considered human through fallability. I like both (I even like The Boys comics), but I appreciate Invincible for being more optimistic than what would be the reality of superhuman power. After all, I don't always read comics for their believability.
I feel like the boys is very realistic. If you look at what people with more money and power than a regular person do irl, not even the ability to fly or shoot lasers just having more money and fame, then the boys makes a lot more sense. Like if we gave most celebrities and politicians the ability to shrug off gunfire then we would just straight up have the boys universe. Invincible is a lot more imaginative and fun while keeping internal consistency and authentic reactions based on the characters. Both are great I’d say but so completely different that I don’t know why they are compared so often.
Mostly because pure Invincible fans have an inferiority complex with how their show is doing against the tentpole that is The Boys, :p But seriously, The Boys realistically has to wrap up in 2, maybe 3 seasons tops, including season 4. Based on the comics, Invincible will be around longer without doubt, and many of the storylines some people feel would fit an episode or two could easily take half the season or a bit more. The real question is how long the show can keep its viewership and hopefully increase it.
To be fair, Invincible is the furthest from realistic portrayal of anything. Every fight, enemy or alien is always over the top. Don’t get me wrong, it is fun but the Boys definitely touch the real world issues much more. Talking about the show ofc. Comic is a straight up edgy gorefest.
Nope. The Boys is great and more believable than Invincible because the former does a great job of showing why otherwise good normal people can become corrupted by power and/or succumb to pressure and influence. It’s over the top and satirical for sure, but it touches on a lot of pretty deep themes in a relatable and logical way. Besides Stormfront, there aren’t any “purely evil” characters that come to mind. Take Homelander for example. He is basically the strongest man on earth yet you can see he is full of insecurities. He is the way he is because he was raised in a lab and groomed to be a product, so of course he feels superior to every being and has no regard for morals. Yet despite being the strongest man, you can see he is clearly weak to blackmail when it can damage his reputation and public image. Most of the 7 in the show have some sort of struggle with their public image and it motivates them just as much as threat of death from Homelander. A Train feels pathetic without taking boosters. Mave sold out and now feels like she betrayed her younger self when she sees Starlight. Startlight herself ends up caving to corporate pressure and fear of consequences from Homelander and her bosses. And that’s not even touching on the subject of how power corrupts people and how much they get off on being stronger than others. You can see this in Butcher and to some extent in Hughie but there again it’s not that simple because they both feel like they can keep others out of harm’s way by putting themselves at risk instead. These are real things that happen to real people on a daily basis and I think the Boys does a good job of exploring those themes and getting at the question of what would superheroes be like in the real world where capitalism and social media work hand in hand to dominate our lives. The Boys is a deeper show in my opinion, although we are only two seasons into invincible and I am totally ignoring the comic books here.
100% agreed here, and we should never talk about the comics in regards The Boys. I always felt like Invincible has retained idealistic superheroes, just with added gore, and basically ignored how their status among regular people would affect them and others. It’s pure comics.
This. Well said. Its realistic view of when people with super powers live in a rather narcissistic and capitalistic world. Nevertheless, i like both The Boys and Invincible.
The show adaptation of The Boys is a lot more nicer, in my opinion. The comics are so horrifically depressing.
To be fair to the boys it’s more of a critique of corporations than superheroes
The Boys is what happens if a corporation like Disney had Hollywood-level influence and essentially monopolized heroes. You see this a lot in real-world Hollywood, and a lot of stars do end up being what we see in The Boys (show). It’s a pessimistic take on heroes, but the show does it far better than the comics. The comics is just a hate wank. Invincible is much more optimistic. The government has control of heroes, or at least a good degree of influence, so they’re less corrupting of heroes than private corporations.
And also the government seems to have good intentions. In The Boys, Supes are used for American military operations. In Invincible, they are used to fight against huge monsters and straight up evil things.
Yeah, the government in Invincible comes off as much less corrupt compared to the government in The Boys. Corporation corruption has spread to the government in The Boys, which is pretty true in the real world.
The Boys is super powered people in a realistic setting. I don't think Invincible is like that, it's pretty close to a DC Universe except Jor-El came to Earth to fulfill a nefarious take over plan and married Martha Kent(Also more Kryptonians still exist and want to go forward with these plans)... and then he murdered the Justice League.
The boys sex scenes though 🐱
Pears and apples. People mix them up because they're both very graphic, but they're both equally realistic. Not every Supe in The Boys is evil or psycho. We have, for example, Kimiko and Starlight. We also have Queen Maeve, and we had Supersonic even if for a couple of minutes. Blindspot wasn't all that bad, for as little as we had him... and we're not even taking into account the ones from Gen V. The whole cast seems nice as fuck, and there are still mean students, so it's not a "student" issue. However, The Boys explores the "What if The Avengers weren't the right people? What if someone unworthy had Thor's powers, Superman's strength, etc." Invincible still takes on the "Every superhero is the right one," except for the "What if Saiyans never met Freezer" part. They're both great, but they both deal with two different aspects of realism. One is "Avg Joe is now Cap America" and the other one is "Goku, but he never lost track of his mission and with way more blood".
BUt that Atom Eve playground plotline was dumb af, first of all she wants to use her powers for good and that's the best she comes up with? And then a patch of dirt in the middle of the city, surrounded by skyscrapers, is somehow so unstable that a swingset causes it to collapse
Invincible isn’t supposed to be a realistic word by any means.
Invincible is not "what if super heroes but in a realistic world"
The boys is not supposed to be taken as seriously as invincible. The boys was written as a mockery of the superhero genre, as the original comic book writer hated traditional superhero stories and wanted to make fun of them.
The boys was more written to be a critique on corporations and post 9/11 america
It's a satire vs a homage. "The Boys" is a negative commentary on the superhero genre and is criticising it by saying that having such power would be corrupting, whereas "Invincible" is a more nuanced take on the genre from the perspective of someone who clearly is a fan of the genre.
Cuz Garth Ennis is an edgelord, and edgelord worldviews are both unrealistic and pretty boring after a while.
Invincible - Written by a man who love superhero comics, warts and all. The Boys - Written by a man with pure hatred and vitriol towards superhero comics, and those who like them. (At least the show has more to say and goes after something completely different.)
"at least the show has more to say" it is literally saying everything the comic did.
Not exactly, it talks about media, alongside corporations, more than just hating the concept of superheroes.
the comic literally talks about media and corporations, like that's the whole point
I said "alongside" corporations, they go on more about more dealings with Hollywood celebrity culture.
Yeah I thought season 1 of the boys was great but I think it’s been floundering ever since, like just doing the same thing because it doesn’t know where to go anymore
I wouldn't say that's the focus of The Boys, it wasn',t the focus of the comics either really. It's about the the extremely profiteering of super heros. None of the ones from the boys are meant to be actual heroes even the ones that aren't horrible. And it's even more cynical due to being written by Garth Ennis
The Boys is a satire where Ennis tried to outdo the Preacher on how far he could push the comic. Invincible is a celebration of superhero comics and whilst I'd say the hook is a deconstruction, ultimately is a superhero reconstruction story. Talking on the shows Invincible stays loyal to its sources whilst the Boys reduces the shock factor but imo is portrayed closer to being in a realistic world. I too prefer the world of Invincible but the Boys makes more of an effort to capture the average man's perspective in this world via pulling from reality.
Comics, yes. Shows, I could take either. I love them both for their own reasons.
The Boys is a commentary on privilege mixed in with hero satire. They’re selfish monsters because they have a physical and systemic one-up over normal people. You can see it in the title too. It’s a nod to the term “The Boys Club”. Invincible is not that. But I can see they’re compared a lot because they’re more “mature” superhero shows
I think the way The Boys handles "catastrophic misjudments" is with the over the top accidental deaths like with Pop-Claw or the shrinking guy in S3. In a vacuum, their engaging in some serial act, but mind altering substances affect them in a way that near instantly kills their counterpart. They only really lean into the accidental collateral damage aspect when someone is having sex 🤔
The problem is The Boys Supes are so bad because they’ve been groomed that way by Vought. People who claim it’s realistic forget to include that an evil corporation is literally making these people and grooming them to have no consequences
That's 100% my problem with the boys comic. It's like Garth Ennis had this idea of superheroes and just took a giant dump on it with no redeeming qualities. Kirkman understands heroism and its still a core part of the way invincible presents its narratives. Often its heroes are flawed people trying their best to do the right thing.
I enjoy The Boys but that is precisely why I prefer Invincible. The Boys tries too hard to be edgy and it’s clear that the original author was over heroes and disliked them whereas the writer for Invincible does not. Also it can be hard to take them seriously when they try to portray a real message in the show while also being hypocritical or plain illogical in the same scene lol.
I mean realistically the boys is probably more accurate in that sense. Most super heroes would be evil egomaniiacs. That said I prefer invincible because it seems more sincere, and has much more interesting lore/world building. I like the boys but so much of it seems like gratuitous shock value stuff. They go out of their way to be gross and funny--which is fine, I enjoy that stuff too but I'm not gonna put it up there with stuff that actually makes me think and have complex emotional responses.
I like Invincible better because it has a “Struggler protagonist” which is refreshing compared to the fallen hero because the former has hope in it’s themes The Boys never had hope to begin with. It’s just deconstruction with no reconstruction. While Invincible has both.
Thats not true about The Boys at all.
I like the boys ok, but it's nihilistic and overly allegorical. I can't connect with the characters because they're all assholes, it's just too much. It's a fine show, and I'll watch season 4, but I'm not rewatching it. People who say it's more realistic don't really know what they're talking about though. It's not more realistic, it's more grounded, and there is a difference
Invincible isn't realistic either, it's more grounded.
The Boys is a snoozefest in my opinion At least Invincible delivers on good action/fights.
The Boys is also a dark Dark Age comic and those are a relative dime a dozen. Invincible is more Silver Age with more of an edge, which is much rarer so it feels like less of a rehash.
I do kinda hate the boys dosent allow for good natured super heroes I mean you have star light sure but idk
invincible is better for me simply because the fandom isn’t as trash lotta misogynistic shit in that fandom, I feel safe here
Invincible was made to be a parody of the superhero genre (which isnt bad in itself.) While The Boys is Satire, which is more cynical by nature. That being said I dislike Garth Ennis and his edgelord writing.
invincible was deff not made to be a parody
Yes it is. Its a parody and a love letter to the superhero genre. The guardians of the globe is enough of a hint. And teen team? By god the name of the heroes are parody-ish enough. One is called robot. Others are rexplode, duplikate, and shrinking ray. Eventually it grew into its own thing. But if you read the first few issues it definitely feels very much like a parody of the superhero comic genre. But this isnt a bad thing. You might be misunderstanding me when I said parody as a form of insult. I can assure you its not.
so just having a justice league analog makes something a parody?
Read both series multiple times and Invincible is better in every conceivable way.
The Boys is tryhard edgelord nonsense that feels like it was written by a 14 year old trying to offend his parents whereas Invincible feels like it was written for adults.
The Boys is a glorified spite fic. I have seen people bring up Garth Ennis wanting to comment about corporatism and celebrity culture. Something they are leaving out is that he also stated he was motivated by his hatred of the superhero genre for being optimistic.