# The Boys (Amazon) - Season 1 *spoilers*



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I enjoyed it, wasn't great but it entertained me enough to be upset when the season ended on that big reveal (that was pretty obvious going in.)


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Yeah, it was predictable.

There are a significant number of “B” actors in this series but I was a little surprised to see Elizabeth Shue killed off.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Beryl said:


> There are a significant number of "B" actors in this series but I was a little surprised to see Elizabeth Shue killed off.


Although she's probably the one they can least afford on a long-term basis!

The ending is VERY different from the way that situation played out in the comics...but I doubt even Amazon would want to do what the comic did (the baby killed its way out of the womb...which actually does a better job of explaining the intensity of Butcher's hatred of ALL supes).


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Talking about babies, did Butcher just kill Shue's baby?


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Talking about babies, did Butcher just kill Shue's baby?


Seems likely. I was surprised, but happy, to find Starlight was one of the bulletproof group.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> Talking about babies, did Butcher just kill Shue's baby?


Yeah.. He straight up murdered a baby, unless Homelander saved it, but he loathed it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

robojerk said:


> Yeah.. He straight up murdered a baby, unless Homelander saved it, but he loathed it.


He saved Butcher because he wanted to take revenge on him.

I guess taking revenge on a baby just isn't that much fun...


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Do we believe Homelander that the sex with Becca was consensual?
I think he probably saved the baby, too. Best way to save Butcher was to throw himself on Stillwell and absorb the blast. Of course he could have just shielded Butcher.

Were we supposed to read anything into the look of horror when Mesmer "read" Butcher? Or was it as simple as he saw that Butcher was about to kill him?


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

MacThor said:


> Do we believe Homelander that the sex with Becca was consensual?


The video of her exiting the room doesn't indicate sex was consensual. Moreover, Butcher's account of her sitting on that bench for four hours indicates a traumatic experience.

How can anyone refuse a guy who can easily kill you? It is no different from inmate saying "no" to a prison guard.

Homelander can't die too soon for me.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Beryl said:


> The video of her exiting the room doesn't indicate sex was consensual.


I agree---she looked too disheveled. If it were consensual, she would have straightened her clothes, etc before leaving...


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

It was very clearly rape. 

I like Homelander. A very interesting villain. I'll miss his very weird relationship with Shue.

I felt The Deep was mostly there for comic relief. Those two scenes (dolphin and lobster getting killed add he's trying to rescue them) felt oddly out of style with the test of the very adult content.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I'm hoping The Lamplighter comes out of retirement in season 2. He seems like he'd be a really cool superhero.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Finished the last 3 episodes last night... overall I really enjoyed the show. I do wish there had been SOME amount of season-ending closure but it seemed like everything was still up in the air so that was disappointing.

It didn't occur to me that Becca was pregnant until they admitted it. I figured she had complained to Vought about the rape (IMO it was intended to be rape) and they had gotten rid of her. Once they said she was pregnant it was clear that the baby hadn't really died in childbirth though.

Very interesting that it was Homelander who was distributing the V to terrorists around the globe. He was definitely a hard to pin down character.

I couldn't really understand why the supes didn't just quit and form their own company where they were in charge. I couldn't see any hold that Vought had on them, since they clearly don't have to be restocked with V on an ongoing basis. Sure, Vought is good at the marketing side but the supes are the jewels and there's no reason they couldn't have exerted more influence, or else started a rival company and hired equally talented people.

If this were to happen in real life, where the supes were the only thing standing between the U.S. and supe terrorists, I'm pretty sure that the government wouldn't simply let Vought continue to run the show. They'd take over in the name of national security, or maybe just draft the supes into the military so they were no longer employees of Vought. They're not technologies, they're U.S. citizens! I sort of thought that that would be one of the last episode actions, showing that Vought got too far out over their skiis and lost their assets.

I also wonder what will happen once the existence of V becomes more widely known: too many people know about it for it to be kept secret much longer. Once everyone knows that the supes were not chosen by God (or by genetics) but rather _created_ I wonder how people will respond. They were created as babies so in that way it's still like genetics: not their choice.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Oh, I also wonder how many of the seven know about V. Clearly Homelander knows since he was raised in the lab, and he told A-Train so he would help deliver the V. Starlight obviously didn't know before, so who else? Doubtful they would have told Deep. Translucent knew at least enough to point them to Popclaw and suggest there was some drug use involved IIRC. What about Maeve?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I thought this series was excellent. I can nitpick stuff like The Deep was a waste of tv electrons other than blackmailing Starlight to do what she did and Queen Maeve was really underused. But other than those two quibbles, it was very well done.

I thought Elizabeth Shue did a great job as Stillwell but I'm pretty sure that she can be replaced by another unscrupulous corporate bad guy from central casting.

I guess we'll find out in season 2 but I doubt that Homelander killed Stillwell's baby. I'd bet my farm and your farm that Homelander was the baby daddy. I have zero idea of what happened in the comic book series that I never heard of but my hypothesis is that he saved the baby because he figured out that he was the father or he finds out later that he killed his son and it drives him mad. 

All in all, this was an excellent series.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

This is one of those instances where I LOVE that I knew absolutely NOTHING about what this show was about. 

I turned on the first episode and thought - OH - a superhero show - great I'll watch. 
As it was slowly revealed that the super were the villains, I nearly fell off my chair - especially when Deep dropped his pants in the first episode.

I thought it was great - I binged the whole series in 2 days.


----------



## SWFan (Oct 6, 2002)

I enjoyed the show, looking forward to a season 2.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

robojerk said:


> Yeah.. He straight up murdered a baby, unless Homelander saved it, but he loathed it.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> He saved Butcher because he wanted to take revenge on him.
> 
> I guess taking revenge on a baby just isn't that much fun...


I think Homelander may have saved the baby too but not for anything good mind you. To experiment with the drug on the baby.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> I'd bet my farm and your farm that *Homelander was the baby daddy*. I have zero idea of what happened in the comic book series that I never heard of but my hypothesis is that he saved the baby because he figured out that he was the father or he finds out later that he killed his son and it drives him mad.


That's what I thought the big season ending reveal would be, after the blast the baby is unharmed because he's just like his dad (Homelander).

Also, I'm not to sure about Butchers wife being raped. She came out of the room all disheveled sure, but nothing that hasn't been seen in a thousand tv shows where someone just left a room, closet, car or other location after getting busy. She also looked shocked because maybe it was her first time with a super and from the earlier super club scene they're willing and able to do things normal people can't in the sack. I can lean either way on this one.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I enjoyed the season and look forward to season 2. 

Every time Stillwell mentioned Edgar I wondered if we'd see him. I was happy that we finally saw Edgar in the last ep and I was thrilled when he was played by Giancarlo Esposito. Hopefully we'll get more of Edgar next season!


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

wprager said:


> I felt The Deep was mostly there for comic relief.


Except for his introduction with Starlight he was pretty much wasted.



> Those two scenes (dolphin and lobster getting killed add he's trying to rescue them) felt oddly out of style with the test of the very adult content.


I laughed my ass off when the dolphin went flying :tearsofjoy:

Am I the only one who thinks Jack Quaid looks like Bill Hader? I found that very distracting.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Shakhari said:


> Am I the only one who thinks Jack Quaid looks like Bill Hader? I found that very distracting.


Not just his look, but he has that same almost deadpan, perpetually perplexed affect. I kept expecting Henry Winkler to show up!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

When do these VCU movies come out? I want to see Citizen Starlight


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

Shakhari said:


> I laughed my ass off when the dolphin went flying :tearsofjoy:


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Just finished this.
I had heard about the comic series before but didn't know much other than the barest premise.

I understand that it's much darker than this series but... damn...... this is dark.
You're not going to see this on the CW.
(And obviously, the Seven is more or less the Justice League.)

When they were debating on how to kill Translucent, I was thinking, "he has to breathe, right? Why not drown, poison, or asphyxiate him?"
Although putting C4 up his butt was somewhat inspired.

I did chuckle at Jim Beaver playing "Bobby Singer".


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JYoung said:


> When they were debating on how to kill Translucent, I was thinking, "he has to breathe, right? Why drown, poison, or asphyxiate him?"
> Although putting C4 up his butt was somewhat inspired.


That was one thing that bothered me, though. They went to painful lengths to show how invulnerable his skin is. So why didn't it contain the explosion? And if the C4 could blow apart the skin, then why couldn't a high-powered rifle bullet penetrate it?


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Did it blow apart his skin, or did everything come out through existing holes?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

heySkippy said:


> Did it blow apart his skin, or did everything come out through existing holes?


It blew apart his skin (there were fragments).


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

When was the actual comic book series started? It seems fairly modern. And inspired by DC and Marvel comics. And the recent movie series for both. 

Trying to figure out who the seven are based on. The Deep is obvious. Homelander? Superman like powers. But also Captain America like. In an evil way. Is Queen Maeve like Wonder Woman? Outfit looks sort of like that. Is Black Noir supposed to be Black Panther? Who is Starlight? Some combo of Wonder Woman and Supergirl?

Is Vought supposed to be Stark Enterprises without an obvious Tony Stark character?


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> When was the actual comic book series started? It seems fairly modern. And inspired by DC and Marvel comics. And the recent movie series for both.
> 
> Trying to figure out who the seven are based on. The Deep is obvious. Homelander? Superman like powers. But also Captain America like. In an evil way. Is Queen Maeve like Wonder Woman? Outfit looks sort of like that. Is Black Noir supposed to be Black Panther? Who is Starlight? Some combo of Wonder Woman and Supergirl?
> 
> Is Vought supposed to be Stark Enterprises without an obvious Tony Stark character?


2006. The 7 seems mostly inspired by the Justice League though it's not an exact match. Black Noir may be their Batman. I've only made it 4 episodes into this, and only a few issues of the comic way back when.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The comic ran from 2006-2012.

The Seven are straight-up JLA clones. Homelander is Superman. Tek Knight (not seen in the show) is Batman. Queen Maeve is Wonder Woman. A-Train is the Flash. Lamplighter was Green Lantern, but he never played a role in the show. Starlight is original; she's the "new girl."

Black Noir, I can't really get into without giving away some major plot points.

There were a ton more character in the comic, who were no doubt removed from the show to streamline things. They had a whole universe of X-Men teams (just like Marvel has), and that was a lot of fun. Little Hughie's first mission was infiltrating the X-Men teenage team (in the comic, the Boys have superpowers).


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That was one thing that bothered me, though. They went to painful lengths to show how invulnerable his skin is. So why didn't it contain the explosion? And if the C4 could blow apart the skin, then why couldn't a high-powered rifle bullet penetrate it?


Since Translucent is a new character to this show (not in the comics), I'm guessing that Kripke, Rogen, and Goldberg didn't really think that part out.
(And I can see the three of them coming up with the "C4 up the butt".)


----------



## domat (Apr 16, 2007)

JYoung said:


> Just finished this.
> I had heard about the comic series before but didn't know much other than the barest premise.
> 
> I understand that it's much darker than this series but... damn...... this is dark.
> ...


The comic book is very different then the show. The show IMO is much better then the comics.



Spoiler



One main difference is that in the comic the Boys are supes themselves by taking the V. They are easily able to defeat and kill a teen super hero team with bare hands.


----------



## domat (Apr 16, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That was one thing that bothered me, though. They went to painful lengths to show how invulnerable his skin is. So why didn't it contain the explosion? And if the C4 could blow apart the skin, then why couldn't a high-powered rifle bullet penetrate it?


As Drax would tell you, skin is thinner from the inside.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

domat said:


> The comic book is very different then the show. The show IMO is much better then the comics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really? I think the comic is FAR better than the show (although the show is still pretty good...which tells you how great I think the comics is!). And the difference you cite is one reason why...in the show, it makes no sense how the Boys can survive for more than, say, 15 seconds.

And as to your odd spoiler (it happens near the beginning of the comic, and has nothing to do with the show), they only kill one of them, and that one by mistake.


----------



## domat (Apr 16, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Really? I think the comic is FAR better than the show (although the show is still pretty good...which tells you how great I think the comics is!). And the difference you cite is one reason why...in the show, it makes no sense how the Boys can survive for more than, say, 15 seconds.
> 
> And as to your odd spoiler (it happens near the beginning of the comic, and has nothing to do with the show), they only kill one of them, and that one by mistake.


Put in spoilers just in case.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Very fascinating.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That was one thing that bothered me, though. They went to painful lengths to show how invulnerable his skin is. So why didn't it contain the explosion? And if the C4 could blow apart the skin, then why couldn't a high-powered rifle bullet penetrate it?


One could hypothesize that the super-strength of his skin was a property of his drug-induced super-power, and that as he was killed the super power disappeared, hence the super-cohesion of his skin went away too.


----------



## domat (Apr 16, 2007)

ej42137 said:


> One could hypothesize that the super-strength of his skin was a property of his drug-induced super-power, and that as he was killed the super power disappeared, hence the super-cohesion of his skin went away too.


Won't work as an explanation as they still couldn't destroy it after he died. That is why they dunked it.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

domat said:


> Won't work as an explanation as they still couldn't destroy it after he died. That is why they dunked it.


Without breaking a sweat I can come up with five explanations that fit the "facts" as presented. But why bother? You are making up rules for a someone else's magic system and then complaining that those rules are not consistent; they are your inferences, not part of the story.

We don't have a complete explanation of the physics of the V drug in-story. The "fact" presented was that the skin shredded with the death of the sup, and that was not a further plot point; it doesn't demand further explanation. It doesn't impact the logic of the story any more than hearing a metal on metal screech when someone draws a sword from a leather scabbard, or a villain that racks his pistol only when he's about to shoot the hero.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

ej42137 said:


> We don't have a complete explanation of the physics of the V drug in-story. The "fact" presented was that the skin shredded with the death of the sup, and that was not a further plot point; it doesn't demand further explanation. It doesn't impact the logic of the story any more than hearing a metal on metal screech when someone draws a sword from a leather scabbard, or a villain that racks his pistol only when he's about to shoot the hero.


Actually it does, since killing Translucent wasn't a passing, incidental act of no importance (that would be their decision to make invisible skin impervious, which also makes no sense but doesn't really matter); it was the central element of the plot of two episodes (the one where they kill him, and the one where they deal with the aftermath). And it doesn't fit in with the logic of the "facts" not in our world, but AS PRESENTED.

Sorry, it was just bad writing. And I'm not one of those people who excuses bad writing if it's science fiction or fantasy.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Actually it does, since killing Translucent wasn't a passing, incidental act of no importance (that would be their decision to make invisible skin impervious, which also makes no sense but doesn't really matter); it was the central element of the plot of two episodes (the one where they kill him, and the one where they deal with the aftermath). And it doesn't fit in with the logic of the "facts" not in our world, but AS PRESENTED.
> 
> Sorry, it was just bad writing. And I'm not one of those people who excuses bad writing if it's science fiction or fantasy.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where missing a whole super-skin and instead having bits of it was a key element. I'll have to watch it again, because I thought the point was killing the sup with C4 up his bum, not the condition of his skin afterwards. Thanks for cluing me in!


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

I thought the insides came out of orifices. I wasn’t as observant but will rely on the eagle eyes among us.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

ej42137 said:


> I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where missing a whole super-skin and instead having bits of it was a key element. I'll have to watch it again, because I thought the point was killing the sup with C4 up his bum, not the condition of his skin afterwards. Thanks for cluing me in!


No, the key element was killing Translucent. Since it was such a key element of the plot, good writing required that it be done in at least a vaguely logical method. But since you prefer making excuses for bad writing to logic, I'll just let it go.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

The way Translucent was killed is fine for me who will not-so-proudly admit to being a science dummy. Attach C4 to the outside, explosion may ding his carbon skin but the pressure goes outward and dissipates, barely causing him any damage. Up his bum, explosion liquifies his insides and kills him instantly. The pressure of the explosion has nowhere to go, builds up to the point it destroys the structural integrity, and his body is blown to bits. Whether or not any of that is plausible is on the whole irrelevant to me since I enjoyed S1 a lot and cannot wait for S2.

Also: The Boys Producer Explains Why [SPOILER]'s Explosive Death Defied Logic


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

It fits fine. The TV series likes the blood and guts stuff. This got us some good blood and guts.

But I guess Translucent will be this universe's Snap/Blip.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

mlsnyc said:


> Also: The Boys Producer Explains Why [SPOILER]'s Explosive Death Defied Logic


Thanks for the link. It is very satisfying.

I read Larry Niven's "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" not long after he wrote it. I also have a pretty good understanding of physics. Any superhero story is rife with these inconsistencies, the issue of Translucent's skin is just one of many that most people don't spot because they took their last science class in high school. What would be "bad writing" would be to bog down the story with explanations for every little detail; I don't think that would be watchable. "Good writing" is to use it judiciously in service of the story, as in the dialog between Homelander and Queen Maeve on the doomed plane.

(Examples: Translucent should logically die in a car crash when his brain rattles around within his skull. A shock wave from C4 applied externally should turn his body to jelly, even if his integument remains intact. Contrarywise, if his internal organs are somehow protected from shock, then a C4 enema shouldn't have killed him. One might expect the easiest obvious way to kill him would be carbon monoxide poisoning, but obviously he was protected from that happening by the Rule of Funny.)


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

It's like Armageddon. You can't hit the asteroid with a nuke; it will have no effect. But if you shove the nuke into an orifice, you can blow it up from the inside.
Or something.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

MacThor said:


> It's like Armageddon. You can't hit the asteroid with a nuke; it will have no effect. But if you shove the nuke into an orifice, you can blow it up from the inside.
> Or something.


I go with the producers' explanation. It makes no sense, but it looks cool so they did it anyway.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That was one thing that bothered me, though. They went to painful lengths to show how invulnerable his skin is. So why didn't it contain the explosion? And if the C4 could blow apart the skin, then why couldn't a high-powered rifle bullet penetrate it?


Agreed on both.

My immediate thought was to drown him. But after he blew up why was the skin in pieces? Should have had the skin contain the explosion but destroy his insides. Perhaps some items shoot out his eye and nose holes.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

uncdrew said:


> My immediate thought was to drown him ...


My first thought was that they should bury him in concrete and then drop him in the ocean.


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

Really enjoyed this, burned thru the episodes in a few days. Thought the changes in Hughie were pretty interesting as time went on.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

I didn’t understand why they didn’t keep him covered in flour while he was in that cage. Didn’t they want to see him at all times?


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Beryl said:


> I didn't understand why they didn't keep him covered in flour while he was in that cage. Didn't they want to see him at all times?


It was interesting how they'd go into the room with the cattle prod (or gun, saw, drill, explosive) and seem to have no problem hitting him.

But I get it. They probably did have some system in place that just didn't need to be seen on screen.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Beryl said:


> I didn't understand why they didn't keep him covered in flour while he was in that cage. Didn't they want to see him at all times?


Or paint or something. Especially before they fired that special bullet.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I finished it last night and enjoyed it...for the most part.

Homelander was the best thing on the show. The actor who portrayed him was great.
I hated the A-train character. He was a mess and and poorly written.
Starlight was great and less predictable than I expected her character to be.
Karl Urban was channeling Logan. Which was fine. But he survived way too many attempts on his life (as did most actually).
Hope to see more of Kimiko and Frenchie.
More of Queen Maeve too please.
Did anyone think the actor who portrayed Hughie was Michael Shannon's son? LOL
When Mesner appeared my wife said "oh wow Cher's son" (not kidding) LOL

Question, or did I miss something...how did Homelander know Becca and his son was still alive?


----------



## ehusen (Jan 7, 2002)

gossamer88 said:


> Question, or did I miss something...how did Homelander know Becca and his son was still alive?


When the story about the birth differed between Shue's character and the retired scientist, Homelander went back to the scientist and "squeezed" the truth out of him.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Why didn't they kill A-Train when they had the chance? And, did I miss an episode, but one ended with Starlight being killed, and the next had no mention of it.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Philosofy said:


> And, did I miss an episode, but one ended with Starlight being killed, and the next had no mention of it.


Starlight was killed? I don't recall that at all.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

She wasn't killed.

At least, not in the TV show. No idea about the comics


----------



## jdm5 (May 29, 2001)

Starlight was shot by Butcher (I think) - low quality YouTube video here: 




But they never mention it / show her recovery. Presumably her super powers just heal her.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

The inter webz suggest it was just a stun thing.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

She got better


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

To me it looked like she's bullet proof, not bullet proof like Homelander or Superman, but bullet proof enough it was more like she got punched really really hard and knocked the wind out of her, allowing them to make their escape. She may have had a bruise but she looked fine.


----------



## MizzouJames (Jul 15, 2019)

I never thought she was killed there. She took one shot directly to her chest, and then starts sitting up (without a huge hole, no less).. then she takes another shot, and is obviously breathing afterward (and once again, no blood, no hole in her chest).


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Being able to shrug off a .50 cal is probably a prerequisite for being in The Seven.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

From the Wikipedia on the show.. Episode 7.. Here is the last part of the episode synopsis



> Annie confronts Hughie, who explains Vought's use of Compound-V, and Butcher arrives shortly after to exfil Hughie after beanbag-shooting Annie.


Not sure how we are supposed to know it was a bean bag gun.. but there you go


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> From the Wikipedia on the show.. Episode 7.. Here is the last part of the episode synopsis
> 
> Not sure how we are supposed to know it was a bean bag gun.. but there you go


I...don't think it was. I think it was some idiot on Wikipedia who doesn't realize that Annie is bullet-proof.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I...don't think it was. I think it was some idiot on Wikipedia who doesn't realize that Annie is bullet-proof.


yeah.. Butcher doesn't seem like the guy to use a beanbag gun on a Supe.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

jsmeeker said:


> Not sure how we are supposed to know it was a bean bag gun.. but there you go


To Annie, a shotgun loaded with double ought buck is probably only a little more annoying than one loaded with beanbag rounds.

To be fair to the recapitulater, it wasn't clear that Anne bullet-resistant until near the end of the season.


----------



## type_g (Sep 9, 2002)

My thinking is simple, if there's no blood and she is able to sit up she ain't dead.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

My takeaway when I saw the scene was that Butcher's shots knocked Annie down and hurt like hell but didn't cause any permanent damage.
Much like if you or I were wearing a bulletproof vest when shot by Butcher.

I'm guessing that Annie is bullet proof to small arms fire but hit her with something like a howitzer shell or other artillery, it will cause damage.
Same as if Homelander hits her hard enough.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

JYoung said:


> I'm guessing that Annie is bullet proof to small arms fire but hit her with something like a howitzer shell or other artillery, it will cause damage.
> Same as if Homelander hits her hard enough.


That's what I was thinking.

Speaking of Homelander, I didn't read the comics, but I think back to how scared the rest of The 7 are of him, and the fact the show kind of purposely neglected to show the extent of his powers, made Homelander super scary to me. As I watched it I got the gist he's God like, completely invulnerable physically, and his strength may know no bounds. I might be wrong, but so far the show hasn't proven otherwise, and the way those around him behave like they're scared little mice, even other supers, convince me my theory is right.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I haven't read the comics either but I don't think that's a theory but the way Homelander is supposed to be.

Homelander is obviously based on the Superman archetype with a similar power set.
But he completely lacks Superman's moral compass and respect for human beings.
While he pretends to be good and upright, he's actually quite malevolent and is much more interested in himself as opposed to helping others.
And if you think about, someone with Superman's powers and that mind set?
It is a very scary thing and we've seen that Homelander has no problem killing people that get in his way and/or piss him off.
Plus, it was stated in the series that a number of people had tried to come up with weapons to stop him and no one had.

So with Stillwell and the Doctor gone, who's left to appeal to Homelander's better nature, assuming that he even has one.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

type_g said:


> My thinking is simple, if there's no blood and she is able to sit up she ain't dead.


I thought I saw at least a burn mark around her sternum as she sat up - s1e7 approx 54:15, like the last shot before credits. At first, I thought it was blood, but I guess it could just be a burn mark or something.

Just before that, after Hughie says "I'm so sorry", at approx 53:46, her shirt is clean, and we see the laser site appear on her chest.

My vote is bullets not beanbags. And agree she's not dead.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Since she's in pretty much the entire next episode, it's clear she's not dead.

That gun Butcher shot her with was a .50 caliber rifle. It uses cartridges as long as your hand. They don't make bullet proof vests that will stop it. If there's an upper limit to the definition of "small arms" this would be the gun.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Never saw that Annie zombie plot coming..


----------



## cbrrider (Feb 2, 2005)

robojerk said:


> As I watched it I got the gist he's God like, completely invulnerable physically, and his strength may know no bounds.


Not as powerful as Superman, since he couldn't save a crippled jet liner.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

cbrrider said:


> Not as powerful as Superman, since he couldn't save a crippled jet liner.




Am I the only one who laughed at that whole scene? Am I a bad person for doing so?


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

cbrrider said:


> Not as powerful as Superman, since he couldn't save a crippled jet liner.


I did not see it that way. I just assumed he could but did not care to. Especially since he was the dumbass that fried the dashboard with his heat vision.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

gossamer88 said:


> I did not see it that way. I just assumed he could but did not care to. Especially since he was the dumbass that fried the dashboard with his heat vision.


I didn't see it as not being powerful enough or not caring, but just not having a clue what he was doing. Granted, once he realized he had %$^#ed things up beyond all hope he wasn't exactly broken up about it, but he did vaguely try to follow orders and rescue the jet.

Saving people isn't what Supes are about. One of the whole points of the show is that in this world superheroes are kind of a joke when it comes to actually being superheroes. Their real job is just to give the impression of being superheroes so that Vought can profit from them. The "rescue" was an attempt by Vought to have them actually play the role (so they could get lucrative defense contracts), and it backfired horrifically but predictably.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I took the scene with Homelander saying he couldn't save the jet as a jab at the ridiculousness of Superman saving planes in comics and movies by flying underneath and holding them up. Homelander was completely correct that he wouldn't have anything to push against without punching a hole through the plane.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I think the real world physics of a super catching a plane like Superman doesn't make sense, like said above. I think there was no way to save those people, and keep Vought happy.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I didn't see it as not being powerful enough or not caring, but just not having a clue what he was doing. Granted, once he realized he had %$^#ed things up beyond all hope he wasn't exactly broken up about it, but he did vaguely try to follow orders and rescue the jet.
> 
> Saving people isn't what Supes are about. One of the whole points of the show is that in this world superheroes are kind of a joke when it comes to actually being superheroes. Their real job is just to give the impression of being superheroes so that Vought can profit from them. The "rescue" was an attempt by Vought to have them actually play the role (so they could get lucrative defense contracts), and it backfired horrifically but predictably.


He did his job very well. He was able to spin the outcome in a way that it benefitted Vought.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

heySkippy said:


> I took the scene with Homelander saying he couldn't save the jet as a jab at the ridiculousness of Superman saving planes in comics and movies by flying underneath and holding them up. Homelander was completely correct that he wouldn't have anything to push against without punching a hole through the plane.


Superman's catching and push abilities have been demonstrated to be more complex than just applying force from his hands. For example, consider the common scenario of catching Lois Lane just before she hits the ground from a great height; if Kal-El were to apply force through the surface of his hands sufficient to arrest her terminal velocity over a couple of feet, the result would be a Lois as dead as Gwen Stacy. Clearly the force applied by Superman is somehow applied generally to the object he is moving rather than specifically to the surface he touches; some kind of telekinesis rather than simple super-strength, an ability that Homelander lacks.

To expand on Superman _vs_. Homelander, another classic method of plane-saving is to use super-breath to support the plane into a gentle crash landing. Either Homelander does not have super-breath or he and Maeve did not think of that because they are just stupid. (I believe there is some in-story justification for the latter position; either way advantage Clark.)


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> I took the scene with Homelander saying he couldn't save the jet as a jab at the ridiculousness of Superman saving planes in comics and movies by flying underneath and holding them up. Homelander was completely correct that he wouldn't have anything to push against without punching a hole through the plane.





robojerk said:


> I think the real world physics of a super catching a plane like Superman doesn't make sense, like said above. I think there was no way to save those people, and keep Vought happy.


I agree that part of the (ahem) thrust of that sequence was to point out the real world problems of Superman (Or Iron Man or Captain Marvel) flying under the belly of a plane and lifting it up.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer but spitballing here, I'm wondering if it would have been possible for Homelander to go out to one of the engine mount points and apply thrust there (forward or reverse).
I mean that point is designed to take the force of a jet engine pushing against it.
And maybe bring the plane down in a controlled water landing/crash.

Admittedly, not an easy task and I'm doubtful that Homelander has the necessary aeronautical knowledge to pull off such a move as the real point of the sequence was that Homelander had essentially sentenced those people to death through his recklessness and he plain just didn't care what happened to them.

Mauve felt guilt but Homelander just didn't give a damn.
(And I find it interesting that the only ones on the Seven who seem to have any empathy are the women.)


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Saving people isn't what Supes are about. One of the whole points of the show is that in this world superheroes are kind of a joke when it comes to actually being superheroes. Their real job is just to give the impression of being superheroes so that Vought can profit from them. The "rescue" was an attempt by Vought to have them actually play the role (so they could get lucrative defense contracts), and it backfired horrifically but predictably.


Yes, _buuuuuuutttttt_ Vought wants to give the impression that they do save people, so sometimes, they actually do save some people, like in the opening scenes of episode one where Homelander catches those robbers and Mauve stops the truck from hitting the kids.

And there was the sniper they took out.

(Don't know if Mauve was working for Vought when she broke her arm saving that school bus though.)

But Vought also wants to carefully control the image so it looks like they direct the Seven to the easy gimmes of "Heroism".
(And why they didn't want Annie going out and doing her own investigating.)

I suspect that the big rescues are saved for the movies and thus are completely fictional.
(Or maybe it's like our current "reality" programming.)


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

JYoung said:


> I'm not an aeronautical engineer but spitballing here, I'm wondering if it would have been possible for Homelander to go out to one of the engine mount points and apply thrust there (forward or reverse).
> I mean that point is designed to take the force of a jet engine pushing against it.


More obviously he could push on the landing gear, which obviously supports the weight of the plane on landing. But none of these points would apply force through the center of mass, so all that would be accomplished would be to spin the plane about said center of mass.

If Homeland were to have super-speed, like Superman does, he could fly the plane by pushing on surfaces in sequence so as to spread and balance the loading on the structure. Even without super-speed one would think he could direct the flight of the plane by applying non-destructive levels of force to the air frame as needed. I imagine after he destroyed the plane's controls he just wanted to bury the evidence of his mistake. Either that or he just doesn't know much physics.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Well, this thread become fun for a bit after we moved past the Translucent talk. I knew it couldn't last.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

ej42137 said:


> More obviously he could push on the landing gear, which obviously supports the weight of the plane on landing. But none of these points would apply force through the center of mass, so all that would be accomplished would be to spin the plane about said center of mass.


Again just spitballing here, many years back, I read that commercial jets were designed to be able to fly on just one engine. (Probably not with terrific performance but good enough to make it to a safe landing area.)

I forget if the jet in question was a two engine one or had four engines but I'm guessing that the pilots have to go through simulations where they are reduced to one engine and have to compensate for the asymmetrical thrust of being on only one engine. Which I'm guessing is designed to be minimized.

So I don't think that pushing on one of the engine mounts would necessarily cause the plane to spin on it's center of mass.... unless of course, Homelander pushes (way) too hard, exceeding the thrust which would normally be there in a one engine only situation (which is quite possible considering that this is Homelander we're talking about. I tend to agree with you that he's no physicist).



jsmeeker said:


> Well, this thread become fun for a bit after we moved past the Translucent talk. I knew it couldn't last.


Hi!
Welcome to Tivo Community where we often discuss things like this. 

But we're talking about planes, Jeff!


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

JYoung said:


> Again just spitballing here, many years back, I read that commercial jets were designed to be able to fly on just one engine. (Probably not with terrific performance but good enough to make it to a safe landing area.)
> 
> I forget if the jet in question was a two engine one or had four engines but I'm guessing that the pilots have to go through simulations where they are reduced to one engine and have to compensate for the asymmetrical thrust of being on only one engine. Which I'm guessing is designed to be minimized.
> 
> ...


When a jet flies on one engine, the pilot compensates for the torque of unbalanced engines using the rudder. Homelander doesn't control the rudder in our scenario. He admitted he doesn't even know how to fly a plane, let alone trim a jet to fly one engine. Which he couldn't do anyway because he destroyed the controls.

Besides which, it's not the engines holding the plane up, it's the air flow over the wings.

Edit to add: Try pushing a model plane around using the tip of your finger. What happens if you push on the wing?


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

jsmeeker said:


> Well, this thread become fun for a bit after we moved past the Translucent talk. I knew it couldn't last.


You've been here 18 years, so long your name has become a verb. How can you still not know how TCF works?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

ej42137 said:


> You've been here 18 years, so long your name has become a verb. How can you still not know how TCF works?


Because he doesn't actually read the posts..?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

ej42137 said:


> You've been here 18 years, so long your name has become a verb. How can you still not know how TCF works?


I've suffered through so much.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Can we stop calling her "Mauve"?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

ej42137 said:


> When a jet flies on one engine, the pilot compensates for the torque of unbalanced engines using the rudder. Homelander doesn't control the rudder in our scenario. He admitted he doesn't even know how to fly a plane, let alone trim a jet to fly one engine. Which he couldn't do anyway because he destroyed the controls.


Well in a DC Comics story, Wonder Woman would physically get out on the tail and control the rudder while Superman provided the lift/thrust.
(I mean she had an Invisible Jet, right?  )
Of course, Superman wouldn't have recklessly destroyed the flight controls.

That does make me think about something else though, it's pretty much made clear that Homelander was raised in a Vought lab and since Vought appears to give the Seven the aforementioned "Gimme" missions to look good, it's quite possible that Homelander never had to deal with something as complicated as a "plane going down" rescue.
(And even if they dealt with previous hostage situations, I'm fairly certain that there was "collateral damage" that was covered up. Although I think Butcher knows.)


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Homelander is a textbook sociopath. Even if he had the ability, he would not have saved them...IMO...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

gossamer88 said:


> Homelander is a textbook sociopath. Even if he had the ability, he would not have saved them...IMO...


Oh, I think he would have. Not because we wanted to save them, but because it would have served his purposes to be seen as a great hero.

But failure didn't bother him a bit.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm amazed at how many of these threads turn into discussions about logic when the topic is pure fiction to begin with. I learned to stop picking apart plots and expose misinformation in TV shows and movies a long time ago. It just ruins any entertainment value it has to offer. My philosophy for shows like this is to just turn off my brain and enjoy the ride.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> I'm amazed at how many of these threads turn into discussions about logic when the topic is pure fiction to begin with. I learned to stop picking apart plots and expose misinformation in TV shows and movies a long time ago. It just ruins any entertainment value it has to offer. My philosophy for shows like this is to just turn off my brain and enjoy the ride.


My brain doesn't have that switch. And I like picking apart bad stuff on shows/movies. That is what these forums are for.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

gossamer88 said:


> My brain doesn't have that switch. And I like picking apart bad stuff on shows/movies. That is what these forums are for.


Hmmm, sounds like a manufacturing defect. I guess you'd rather pick apart plot holes than sit back and enjoy the show. I suppose in some dark corner of the universe that can be considered fun. I will admit that I do like to spot continuity issues in TV and movies, but I try not to let it interfere with my viewing pleasure. Probably one of the easiest to spot is the magic glass that changes fluid levels constantly when the person it sits in front of never even takes a sip. That and articles of clothing that inexplicably move about the person for no reason. However, trying to apply logic to any TV show or movie is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time. It's called poetic license. The writer will bend the laws of physics to obtain the desired cinematic effect no matter how ridiculous it may seem. If it bothers you then I would suggest either changing the channel or finding something else to occupy your time.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> Hmmm, sounds like a manufacturing defect. I guess you'd rather pick apart plot holes than sit back and enjoy the show. I suppose in some dark corner of the universe that can be considered fun. I will admit that I do like to spot continuity issues in TV and movies, but I try not to let it interfere with my viewing pleasure. Probably one of the easiest to spot is the magic glass that changes fluid levels constantly when the person it sits in front of never even takes a sip. That and articles of clothing that inexplicably move about the person for no reason. However, trying to apply logic to any TV show or movie is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time. It's called poetic license. The writer will bend the laws of physics to obtain the desired cinematic effect no matter how ridiculous it may seem. If it bothers you then I would suggest either changing the channel or finding something else to occupy your time.


Only bad writers. Good writers write, well, good stories that make internal sense.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

The writing of the scene with Homelander and the plane was good. The point of it wasn't really to save people. The point was to get the military to hire Vought to provides supes to them. If Homelander carried the plane to safety, it wouldn't have been as good as what really happened.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Only bad writers. Good writers write, well, good stories that make internal sense.


So true, but when it comes to Sci-Fi many of them like to rewrite the laws of the universe (quite literally in some cases). One instance that sticks in my mind is when they wrote a virus to inject into the alien spacecraft computer system in Independence Day to shut down their shields. It made the movie entertaining, but utterly unbelievable. It's things like this that I try not to dwell on or else it would completely ruin a good time. I'm far too critical about things in real life. I see movies and TV as escapist entertainment and I'd rather not ruin the moment by worrying about whether or not the story is factual or makes sense. Bending the rules doesn't necessarily make you a bad writer. It just means you have an imagination. Let's face it, every movie about a superhero bends the rules beyond the point of breaking yet we are mostly entertained by them. If you're going to nit-pick everything you see then you're missing the point.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I'm not annoyed about movies bending the rules of reality. I'm annoyed by movies bending their own rules...or rather, movies that can't be bothered to HAVE rules. And I'm especially annoyed by science fiction writers (and viewers) who don't think that sci-fi NEEDS rules. They think sci-fi is easier than regular fiction because you can do whatever you want to, whereas when it's done well it's harder than regular fiction, because you have to effectively create all the rules that are already there in reality for regular fiction. E.g., in Law & Order you don't have to think about how a gun works, because you already know (or can look it up on Wikipedia). But in sci-fi, if you have a blaster you can't just let it do whatever you want; you have to figure out how it works--not the technical details, but the effects it has--and what it can (and cannot) do.

Otherwise, you suck as a writer. And sadly, too many movie and TV writers who try to write sci-fi really suck at it.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm annoyed by movies bending their own rules...or rather, movies that can't be bothered to HAVE rules.


Amen brother!

And not just SF, but Fantasy too needs consistent rules. For that matter, mundane fiction also suffers when, as is all too common, it doesn't have consistent rules.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not annoyed about movies bending the rules of reality. I'm annoyed by movies bending their own rules...or rather, movies that can't be bothered to HAVE rules. And I'm especially annoyed by science fiction writers (and viewers) who don't think that sci-fi NEEDS rules. They think sci-fi is easier than regular fiction because you can do whatever you want to, whereas when it's done well it's harder than regular fiction, because you have to effectively create all the rules that are already there in reality for regular fiction. E.g., in Law & Order you don't have to think about how a gun works, because you already know (or can look it up on Wikipedia). But in sci-fi, if you have a blaster you can't just let it do whatever you want; you have to figure out how it works--not the technical details, but the effects it has--and what it can (and cannot) do.
> 
> Otherwise, you suck as a writer. And sadly, too many movie and TV writers who try to write sci-fi really suck at it.


So you didn't care for "rebuild the Great Wall of China" vision?


----------



## jeremy3721 (Feb 16, 2002)

It was kind of jarring watching Elizabeth Shue’s brains somewhat slowly burned out through her eyeballs. Like if they’d have prolonged the burn through another few seconds I might have trouble sleeping tonight.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

wprager said:


> Can we stop calling her "Mauve"?


This is the internet. If she gets mad enough about it, she might loose her mind and go rouge.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Got Prime a few days ago, started watching this. Love the dark humor, looks like a fun show.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Hcour said:


> Got Prime a few days ago, started watching this. Love the dark humor, looks like a fun show.


Yeah, watch the last episode and tell me if you're still laughing!


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I just started this a couple of days ago and am about 4 episodes in. Love it so far! At the end of episode 1 I figured out why I like it... Eric Kripke (of Supernatural fame) is one of the creators/writers! If I had known this I would have been on it right away.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

For some stupid reason I mistook Kripke for the guy who did Heroes. Initially I thought maybe this is how gritty Heroes would have been if it wasn't on network tv.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

gweempose said:


> My first thought was that they should bury him in concrete and then drop him in the ocean.


While we are at it, why did Translucent have to die? Besides being a good story starter, the other members of the 7 deserved to have c-4 up the bum a lot more than Translucent.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

cbrrider said:


> Not as powerful as Superman, since he couldn't save a crippled jet liner.


Not couldn't...didn't. He commented that " the nose dips" and some other hassle when it comes to saving a plane. He also wasn't willing to make the trips to save everyone. It was that scene where I realized he is not a hero.


----------



## dslunceford (Oct 19, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> One instance that sticks in my mind is when they wrote a virus to inject into the alien spacecraft computer system in Independence Day to shut down their shields. It made the movie entertaining, but utterly unbelievable.


This didn't bother me given the cinematic historical nod to "War of the Worlds"/simple human virus that defeats the alien invasion.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

dslunceford said:


> This didn't bother me given the cinematic historical nod to "War of the Worlds"/simple human virus that defeats the alien invasion.


That's actually believable considering it's biological. A computer virus only works if it's coded to the specific operating system. I sincerely doubt that the aliens in Independence day were using Windows or other earthly operating system.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

wprager said:


> For some stupid reason I mistook Kripke for the guy who did Heroes. Initially I thought maybe this is how gritty Heroes would have been if it wasn't on network tv.


FWIW, the creator of Heroes, Tim Kring, has a new show on USA called "Treadstone". It is based on Robert Ludlum's "Bourne Universe". Like the films, it is very heavy on action sequences.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Fixer said:


> FWIW, the creator of Heroes, Tim Kring, has a new show on USA called "Treadstone". It is based on Robert Ludlum's "Bourne Universe". Like the films, it is very heavy on action sequences.


It's based on the cinematic version of Ludlum's "Bourne" Universe, which as only a passing resembalence to the literary version.


----------



## UTV2TiVo (Feb 2, 2005)

Just binged this one. I liked it. I thought it balanced seriousness with dark humor pretty well. Looking forward to season 2.

As to the Homelander airplane scene, i agree with some others here that it was not so much that he couldn't physically save the plane but a combination of he couldn't be bothered with the effort and the fact that it might get out that he made mistakes.
Plus, it was a way for the writers to establish that Queen Maeve still has some heart left in her.


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)




----------



## Pokemon_Dad (Jan 19, 2008)

Season 2 drops September 4th.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Noice!!!


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

It is getting to the point that Giancarlo Esposito is playing the big bad in nearly every series I watch.


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

MacThor said:


> It is getting to the point that Giancarlo Esposito is playing the big bad in nearly every series I watch.


He does a great job


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Noticed this thread and was hoping to come in and find out the second season started two weeks ago. Bummed I have to wait a couple months yet.


----------



## Pokemon_Dad (Jan 19, 2008)

MacThor said:


> It is getting to the point that Giancarlo Esposito is playing the big bad in nearly every series I watch.





tigercat74 said:


> He does a great job


He does play some convincing bad guys! I recently noticed him as two different criminals in _NYPD Blue_ reruns from the Nineties, and particularly enjoyed his work in _Revolution_. He's been acting since the age of 8, has a long list of film and TV credits including several Spike Lee films, has won an Emmy or two, and in 2014 earned a star on the Hollywood walk of Fame.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Pokemon_Dad said:


> He does play some convincing bad guys! I recently noticed him as two different criminals in _NYPD Blue_ reruns from the Nineties, and particularly enjoyed his work in _Revolution_. He's been acting since the age of 8, has a long list of film and TV credits including *several Spike Lee films*, has won an Emmy or two, and in 2014 earned a star on the Hollywood walk of Fame.


( I hope this isn't a major issue to post this because some language)


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)




----------



## Pokemon_Dad (Jan 19, 2008)

"No actual aquatic mammals were harmed in the making of this film."


----------



## UTV2TiVo (Feb 2, 2005)

Man, that was gruesome. And so over the top. I love it that this show doesn't take itself too seriously.


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

Renewed for season 3
The Boys gets an early season 3 renewal


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

The Boys Season 2 Delivers Another Blow to the Established Streaming Model



> The Boys Season 2 is no longer going to release all its episodes at once on Amazon; instead there will be weekly releases and an aftershow.
> 
> Instead of having everything out at once, The Boys will release the first three episodes on Sep. 4, and then Episodes 4 through 8 will be released one per week through Oct. 9.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I'm actually perfectly OK with this.. It will make it a lot easier to have a good discussion about the show this way. It's the way Apple TV did it. Worked out fine for me. Also, didn't Disney+ do the same with "The Mandolorian" ?


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> I'm actually perfectly OK with this.. It will make it a lot easier to have a good discussion about the show this way. It's the way Apple TV did it. Worked out fine for me. Also, didn't Disney+ do the same with "The Mandolorian" ?


Hulu does this with some of their shows also.


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)




----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)




----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

I guess I have to start this show now!

'Supernatural's Jensen Ackles is heading to 'The Boys' in season 3


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

photoshopgrl said:


> I guess I have to start this show now!
> 
> 'Supernatural's Jensen Ackles is heading to 'The Boys' in season 3





> "When I was a child, I had a crazy, impossible dream - to provide Jensen Ackles with gainful employment," [Eric] Kripke said in a statement. "I'm happy to say that dream has come true. Jensen is an amazing actor, an even better person, smells like warm chocolate chip cookies, and I consider him a brother."


 (For the uninitiated, Kripke was a creator/showrunner on Supernatural for its first five seasons, and serves the same functions on The Boys.)


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Season 2 tomorrow (September 4)!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

photoshopgrl said:


> I guess I have to start this show now!
> 
> 'Supernatural's Jensen Ackles is heading to 'The Boys' in season 3


Season 3? I wonder when that will air in this covid world.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Looks like S2 is out a day early. I see the first three episodes are available.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The official logline for Episode 1:


> Season 2! New and improved! Now with 50% more explosive decapitations, terrorists, S&M hookers, cults, and a new pine fresh scent! But wait, there's more! 2X MORE blood, guts and gore than the other leading brands! This exclusive offer is available only on Amazon Prime Video! Don't delay! Order now!


----------



## KungFuCow (May 6, 2004)

Watched the first episode already. If the rest of the season goes like this, we wont be disappointed.

Wait for the HOLY SH*T moment. LOL


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

I am just starting the series so can we make a separate thread for season 2?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

photoshopgrl said:


> I am just starting the series so can we make a separate thread for season 2?


Hey, nobody's stopping you!


----------



## KungFuCow (May 6, 2004)

Season 2 Thread

The Boys (Amazon) Season 2 *Spoilers*


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Binged this over the long weekend and enjoyed it. I had watched E1 awhile back and didn't like it that much, but with all the talk about S2, I figured I'd give it another shot. Once I got into it, it was fun. It was different seeing the superheroes as anti-heroes, and total a-holes. I knew nothing about this comic before (well I'm not really a comic book person, not since I was 12 anyway), but I enjoy the more well done SH movies. Looking forward to S2 but I'll wait for the season to be over and binge it again.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

Just started watching this series. Got through S1 last night. Won't venture into the S2 thread until I am done with that, whenever it is.

Really like the show so far. My opinion is that Becca was not raped. They way she came out of the room is a but uncertain, but I would have thought she would have taken off running instead of leaning against the wall and casually putting her shoes on. But it's a sensitive topic and I don't want to go down a path about how a woman should act. It was just what I thought as I saw the scene. I could very well be wrong.

But adding to that was her sitting on the bench for hours before leaving for good. My interpretation was that she new she was pregnant at that point and realized the extent of what happened (whether consensual or not) and then she went to Vogt (sp?) to tell them and that was when she "disappeared".

Butcher assumed she was raped because in his mind how could his loving wife cheat on him.

But, we might never know what actually happened. Although with the ending scene of S1, maybe we actually will in S2 or in the future.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

bryhamm said:


> Just started watching this series...


You're in for quite a ride.


----------

