double whammy: the boys and invincible

Now that most of you have finally come to the realisation that Super hero movies aren't all that, you look to fill the void left by not watching the next Marvel movie. And this is where The Boys and Invincible fit in, as they are super hero movies but they subvert expectation - except I don't feel like this solves the problem.

 

 

 

The main problem with both of these TV Series is that they end up asking the exact same question:  

 

What if you had Superman - but he was bad? 

 

Now, this conundrum is all well and good to mull over for a few minutes but when it comes time to draw out a multi-hour, multi-season runtime, I'm not sure we really care about the answer. In both series we ramp up the gore and show the results from unbridled super powers. That may be fun for a moment but then we need filler to pad out the runtime until the next sadistic expression of bad taste is realised. 

 

I would say that both TV series are best watched solely for the first season. Whereas The Boys focuses their time on following a rebellion against 'Supes', Invincible focuses on what possible reason 'Superman' would kill all the other super heroes in the first episode. Both make for compelling watching, as we know that the rebellion will need to use their wits to get through their battles whereas Invincible focuses on the lengths Omni-man (AKA Superman) will take to avoid being discovered.

And then, due to the success, Season 2 (etc.) was made

This is when both series fall down. You cannot continue a story once the novelty of the question has worn off. This is when they are inevitably forced to start padding out the story with more characters, more less-compelling questions and *snore* relationships and double-crosses. I would argue that both stories would be significantly better if they had concluded by the end of the first season, although, I would say that The Boys fared slightly better than Invincible, as they did have better writing and performances. I'm pretty sure JK Simmons read his lines while driving to the supermarket whereas Karl Urban maintained his intensity - but both subsequent seasons were incredibly pointless.

The Boys just leans into shock value with puerile examples like:

• Mini dude kills his boyfriend by sneezing on cocaine while inside his colon
• Mini chick needs to puke (i.e. bulimia) to get small and then plays with her boyfriends' (now) giant dong
• Superman has a mommy fetish
• Some bad dude has a tentacle porn extendo dick

Invincible just bores you to death with stupid conundrums like:

• Can't maintain superhero persona and school life (snoooorrrre)
• Can't maintain superhero persona and girlfriend (uggggghhhh)
• Invincible kills a bad dude who was trying to kill his family - and then feels really bad
  (move over, mini chick) 
• 90% of the season does not actually progress the plot
  

The Boys does at least have an underlying plot for each season but still has plenty of padding - especially with can't-be-killed Kimiko and pansy-ass French dude - but at least they curtail their padding to a mere 70% of the runtime.

 

In conclusion, I don't have a satisfactory conclusion which doesn't end up leaving a bitter taste in my mouth. Both series would have been better as a one-page answer to the initial question than something which should be scrutinised over multiple seasons. The one thing I can say is that we perhaps need to move back to a world where story is front-and-center. We have exhausted all things super at this point - subversion or naught - we cannot continue forwards with this futile effort just because in prior years we had found success. Spectacle means nothing if we all know that it's not real. Jackie Chan falling off a building has far more gravitas than knocking a superhero through a planet. We have all become desensitised when it comes to the fantastical whereas good storytelling remains as compelling as the day it was first invented.

the state of cinema

So, I watched Lightyear recently and, sweet Jesus, did it miss the point by a light-year. Not only was the film boring, the whole impetus of the film was on the edge of pointless. Worst of all, we didn't even care if Buzz succeeded in the end.

This film is the epitome of the Disney formula: bland protagonist,  entertaining sidekicks, bland message about facing your fears and, apparently, the main message was that you should be content with residing in an alien hellscape? Okay ...

 

I don't think I'm spoiling anything when I state that the Zerg are created by a time traveling future version of Buzz ... and he kills future Buzz. Way to keep it upbeat, there, Disney. So, not only is the story not worth watching, nor the hero worth supporting, you also get to watch him kill himself to 'save' the world. That'll keep the kiddos entertained, eh? How on earth did this plot get greenlit?

The main thought which kept running through my head is, who is this for? This is not for children, and it's certainly not for lovers of Toy Story. The story is meant to be an origin story for the Buzz action figure ... except it's set in the future ... and the origin of The Zerg is destroyed ... and the heroism of Buzz is destroyed ... and, somehow, the story serves only to deliver a message of acceptance and making the most of their bleak situation (yes, really).

Earlier in my life I dreamt of setting up a home theater in a spare room. Now, I'm not sure there's any point. Outside of films like Top Gun Maverick, there's little reason to sit down and watch a movie anymore - not when you could be doing your taxes, pulling molars out with your bare hands or watching necrosis set in from a flesh-eating bacteria. All of those options are better than watching Lightyear ... and that's a problem

How to be trendy

Oh, technology, you malcontented minx. You push me towards the new but without thinking through the consequences. It has taken you many moons to reach parity with the superiority of CRT's just to pull the rug out once more with the introduction of 'transparent' OLED. Even the Emperor's new clothes had better fidelity, compared to what this provides. Case in point:

You can get an infinitely better image at many magnitudes less money so outside of the party trick of resurrecting dead rappers, this serves no purpose. And, to add salt to the wound, it costs far more? Colour me unimpressed.

Which brings me to my latest discovery: if you remember, I had a small diatribe about my audio lagging due to the absence of a dedicated audio jack on my phone. Well, I fixed that. All it took was a USB-C to 3.5mm headphone jack converter. This allows me to avoid the annoyances surrounding charging, lag and the 'bluetooth tax' related to getting a wireless set of headphones. Overall, I am very happy, but still annoyed, that I need to thwart their attempts to push technology which is objectively inferior to that which its attempting to replace. It always helps to take a step back before you blindly follow the next trend. Your sanity and wallet will thank you.