Are they any deconstructions themselves worth deconstructing? My money would be on the boys since it’s critiquing corporate shit while being made by Amazon as well as completely ignoring the existence of supervillains just to make its story work
De-deconstructions
>completely ignoring the existence of supervillains
one of them is leader of the 7, anon...
I mean a comicbook style supervillain, someone like the joker or the green goblin who just wants to kill
They are all already dead because superheroes in The Boys aren't a bunch of giant fricking babies scared to rip someone's head off for being a c**t because it might make them feel like a meanie.
There was a Superman story called "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice & the American Way?" that was adapted into a movie called 'Superman vs The Elite' that deconstructed the deconstruction of "Superheroes should kill".
Was that where Superman coerced the goons by beating them up and saying "under your rules, I could clearly kill you first, so for your own sake let's stick to my rules where I'm not allowed to kill you"?
I always found it cowardly how the victims of supervillain recidivism weren't even a part of the equation when it came to comparing their two philosophies. Surely that's the juicy part of the argument? Obviously it's also important which system would last longer, granted, but that seems like the less interesting angle to explore.
If Supes bit the bullet and claimed that upholding his ideals is worth the sacrifice, I think that would've been more interesting. It's like how most Westerners wouldn't throw out democracy if it elects a bad leader; they'd rather try to find solutions within the system.
You may also be able to draw parallels to first/second amendment defenders or people defending capitalism. All people who would want to mitigate downsides while staying inside the system.
I'd argue the deconstruction at some point becomes its own animal with its own tropes that you can pick apart. Tho I guess depending on how you do it, the result may no longer qualify as a deconstruction:
If it shows that some aspect is trying too hard to be gloomy, more pessimistic than history would imply for example, it would probably be classified as a Reconstruction.
>superheroes in The Boys aren't a bunch of giant fricking babies scared to rip someone's head off for being a c**t because it might make them feel like a meanie
There's an ocean of difference between feeling bad about killing someone, wanting to kill someone, and enjoying killing someone because you see yourself as a higher being.
Whatever this comment is defending, it isn't The Boys.
Does it really matter which breed of high horse the rider rode in on if they shot all the bad guys?
Holy shit I almost took this seriously. I've been here too long.
Just like the rest, you have no counterpoint, so you both behave like, and are, a clown. Image related.
>you both behave like, and are, a clown
Because I decided not to engage in a meaningless argument?
I'm supposed to counter your insult to my tastes and intelligence?
To what end? You're not gonna change your mind and neither am I.
Are we talking about the comic or the show
The comic's explanation is that "supervillains" are superheroes who went off the message or rebelled and Vought needed to get rid of them
That’s part of the deconstruction. In real life, criminals don’t wear brightly colored costumes with villainous names announcing that they’re villains. Real life villains either commit crimes in secret and try to look nondescript or they’re people who are able to do immoral things legally.
>In real life, criminals don’t wear brightly colored costumes with villainous names announcing that they’re villains.
I mean we fought a world war with those kinds of people. Twice.
And lost, "Indians".
I don't follow.
They used that as propaganda to its soldiers, which thought they were heroes. Well except the crazy prisoners branch
We can never rule out the existence of someone like Zodiac.
Given how much of an attention-whoring homosexual he was/is, I wouldn't be surprised if the stupid costume is intentional.
His whole thing basically screams of being an IRL equivalent of "please give me a (You)".
>De-deconstructions
Actual nonsense. "Deconstruction" is already a term stretched far beyond its original definition.
>ignoring the existence of supervillains just to make its story work
It actually makes sense given the nature of Compound V. Superpowers, and therefore, most super-powered people are corporate products. Also, if any threats did arise, they would be neutralized because these heroes kill readily.
You can't deconstruct a deconstruction anymore than you can bring a dissected frig back from the dead.
Deconstructions are interesting int he same way a dissection is. They allow us to learn a lot about the animal. But it still kills the animal to learn more about it. So it is with deconstructions like The Boys and Watchmen.
Marshal Law needs a good ripping. It's the progenitor of the stupid "Batman beats up poor people" and "golden age heroes disgrace real vets" and "superheroes just uphold the status quo" takes.
Here's your deconstruction of deconstruction.
Most deconstructions aren't even that. They're just "what if character, but had feelings?" or "what if superheroes, but racism?" or "what if this trope, but not this trope?"
A GOOD example of a deconstruction I haven't seen in practice but have seen toyed with/commented upon is "what if superhumans actually exist and society collapsed as a result?"
You can find a guy named Yuli Ban who at least pitched a story like that with picrel, where the initial idea was that a near-godlike DBZ entity is forced to live on Earth and chooses to mostly stay hidden and generally out of trouble, but the whole "status quo is god" is actually enforced by her very existence because it turns out that because she can literally destroy a planet, there isn't actually anything anyone can do about her if she did decide to go crazy beause the criminal justice system and legal system and global economies are not actually equipped to deal with the consequences of someone that much stronger than a normal human. There's also the question of stuff like people potentially worshipping this character as a god and forming uncritical death cults and the question of how culpable such a person is for disasters occuring that they could have stopped. All of this stemming as a question against the usual "deconstruction" that cities in superhero movies would be filled with disgruntled residents and insurance companies having to cover for the damages of big battles, when in actuality, the very existence of a person who could wipe out a country with a ki blast all but invalidates just about every concept of civilization on principle and we'd probably wipe ourselves out without any need for some titanic battle or supervillain.
That's an example of a "deconstruction." Not "these superheroes have to grapple with depression and anxiety." We don't really get real deconstructions, just these half-assed "I'm a writer who reads TV Tropes and is self-aware"shows and comics
That's a very cool concept indeed, though it's not that original or novel because even some superhero comic writers from the 60s were grappling with that question
"If Superman can move far beyond the speed of light and blow away entire planets, does that make him liable for manslaughter if someone falls to their death screaming for help or if a hurricane destroys a town, killing hundreds?"
Writers don't really think of that because why would they, but you're right. A real deconstruction would think of that and run with it.
>what if superhumans actually exist and society collapsed as a result?
Watchmen kind of did this.
>A GOOD example of a deconstruction I haven't seen in practice but have seen toyed with/commented upon is "what if superhumans actually exist and society collapsed as a result?"
Didn't Warren Ellis do this with Supergod?
Not really, society doesn't collapse at the existence of superhumans, it collapses because of large-scale destruction brought about by the superhumans. Additionally, only three superhumans in Supergod are objectively shown to be sapient, the sentience of a some of them is questionable, and only one is shown to be proactive and operating on his own terms.
Supervillains as a concept are heavily based on the high-profile outlaws of the Wild West and Public Enemies era, several of whom engaged in self-promotion.
>Most deconstructions aren't even that. They're just "what if character, but had feelings?"
How dare you imply Superman doesn't have feelings.
A de-deconstruction would just be straightforward Golden Age/Silver Age comics. You could make a decent chunk of change selling these stories to brainlets that enjoy the deconstructions.
>A de-deconstruction would just be straightforward Golden Age/Silver Age comics.
No.
The Boys is not a deconstruction, it's revisionist.
Explain the difference.
This entire thread is filled with "YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO LIKE RORSCHACH Y'KNOW" homosexuals. Why do these types of comics attract so many of these types?
I'ma let you in on a little secret, OP. The Boys is just as much a superhero show as the capeshit it and Garth Ennis tries to shit on. The trick is that they just put the supervillains in gaudy costumes and capes with flamboyant names, and dressed the superheroes in tight black leather jackets and names you'd get from Inglourious Basterds or The Expendables.
I think in theory the comic book version of the boys is better just like an edgy schlocky parody of the comic industry. The boys the show is shit because it’s a very safe corporate version of corporation is bad. They don’t even parody the mcu or Dceu which would be my first thought when doing a adaptation of the boys