Fuck Yeah Man! The Boys are back in town!

GABBO GABBO GABBO

God I am fucking horrible with stupid puns.

Anyway, the motherfucking BOYS starts next week.
http://www.dccomics.com/comics/?cm=5734

It's a five year maxi-series by Garth Ennis and Darrick Robertson and as of right now I'm making it a rule that everyone pick up the first issue.
A rule.

[edit: Check that fucking preview dogs.]

Spectre-x

Hahahahahaha.

Simon Pegg?

Munch

Oh hey! A Garth Ennis series where some badass protagonists that don't take no guff fuck up those stupid spandex-wearing superheroes! What a new and interesting concept! Do you think it'll have a bunch of grotesque mutilations and possibly an Irish protagonist?

Seriously, I like Ennis' stuff, but it seems like the old, "Let's embarrass those faggy superheroes with gratuitous mutilation and mockery" formula is one that Ennis has done before. I loved it in Hitman, I liked it in Punisher, and I became pretty tired of it by The Authority and Kev mini-series. I'll try the first issue out to see if it's anything new though, since I really do enjoy the way he writes. I just get tired of every main character being some badass modern cowboy archtype.

lostwords

The preview looked awesome, especially the last panel. I pretty much buy anything Ennis does, so I'm down for this. Is it set in the Wildstorm universe, I'm guessing? I hope they streamline the crap out of that universe.

Alexan Drite

Only because it's a rule, I'm going to go and pick it up. I have been wanting to get into some Wildstorm for a while now anyways.

BUT just from reading the preview it got me thinking:
It seems to be almost a played out thing, (or perhaps it's just that the limited works I've read all tend to deal with this subject). Super powered beings need to be put in check, super powered beings cause collateral damage, and the mortals are dealing with the fallout of their vigilante power housing.

Thematically it actually is seems fairly easy and understandable twist on the traditional super hero motif. Shift the view point slightly, make all those pows and whams reflect collateral damage, play off of one of many themes (Who watches the Watchmen, Absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc), and throw in the twist of "Well even though these guys are causing damage, it's for a greater good." And you’ve got the comic. It also hits home as that twist is the predominate moral crisis of the 20th+ century (Made real ultimately in the second world war and especially its explosive finish). More so it is a twist on the traditional moral problem of the super hero "With great power comes great responsibility to act," or "evil wins when good men do nothing.".
(I’m reminded of a panel in For All Seasons where Superman asks “What if one man – just one man – could’ve stopped all this destruction? And he didn’t…”)

While these stories are interesting, I think ultimately the moral conclusion drawn from such a work really leaves a downer, and is unromantic(?). How am I, American citizen, America literally being a Super Power, supposed to respond to that? Is the US NOT supposed to respond to say, (super villains) in Iran seeking to build nuclear weapons, and (super villains) in Darfur committing mass genocide? Is the US not supposed to, even if it requires vigilantism, such as when we enforce international standards or laws, and go it alone and try to build the world better in a democratic, more stable place?

I think, it's a startling contrast to the comics of the 1940s, which even before the US was in the war with Germany was having Superman fly over and stop the soviets and Nazis. Especially when you consider that American politics is at a tipping point between two extremes of action, and the impact that these comics have on the readership. Now I'm sure there are plenty of people, especially on these boards, who feel that a return to isolationism and inaction may be preferable. But then again, these comics and those politics rarely come up with an alternative. How does one deal with super-villains without superheroes? Even something this past month like Israel/Lebanon. One man in the United States had the power to end that, and he choose not to, (for a variety of reasons that isn't worth getting into here). But he DID have the power to stop it. What does this comic tell us about that.

I don't know, just some ideas I've been thinking about. And I know people will say, “oh hoho, comic books are about punching stuff, not philosophy.” But the authors in these comics always seem to go most of the way on the argument without ever taking the extra few steps. And in a time when people, of all ages, need an answer desperately to these big moral issues these comics are dealing with… At least the comics of world war 2 had an answer (however crude it was), but today’s do not.
I don't know...

Munch

lost4words28 wrote:

The preview looked awesome, especially the last panel. I pretty much buy anything Ennis does, so I'm down for this. Is it set in the Wildstorm universe, I'm guessing? I hope they streamline the crap out of that universe.

Newsarama said a while back, during an interview with Ennis, that easily maligned fanboys could rest assured that none of their favorite obscure characters would be killed, as it's not set in any pre-existing universe.

Alexan Drite wrote:

How does one deal with super-villains without superheroes?

I liked how Powers answered this with numerous police losing their lives fighting supervillains because fuck, no matter how big your balls are you can't stop the bulletproof guy that shoots lasers out of his fist with bullets and determination. Unless you're Deadshot or something.

GABBO GABBO GABBO

Munch wrote:

Seriously, I like Ennis' stuff, but it seems like the old, "Let's embarrass those faggy superheroes with gratuitous mutilation and mockery" formula is one that Ennis has done before. I loved it in Hitman

If that's what you thought Hitman was about I'd say that you missed the point of the series.
Now is it something Ennis is prone to do from time to time? Yes. But I'd never belittle his work by claiming that it's what his stories are all about.

wwtMask

Alexan Drite wrote:

Only because it's a rule, I'm going to go and pick it up. I have been wanting to get into some Wildstorm for a while now anyways.

BUT just from reading the preview it got me thinking:
It seems to be almost a played out thing, (or perhaps it's just that the limited works I've read all tend to deal with this subject). Super powered beings need to be put in check, super powered beings cause collateral damage, and the mortals are dealing with the fallout of their vigilante power housing.

Thematically it actually is seems fairly easy and understandable twist on the traditional super hero motif. Shift the view point slightly, make all those pows and whams reflect collateral damage, play off of one of many themes (Who watches the Watchmen, Absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc), and throw in the twist of "Well even though these guys are causing damage, it's for a greater good." And you’ve got the comic. It also hits home as that twist is the predominate moral crisis of the 20th+ century (Made real ultimately in the second world war and especially its explosive finish). More so it is a twist on the traditional moral problem of the super hero "With great power comes great responsibility to act," or "evil wins when good men do nothing.".
(I’m reminded of a panel in For All Seasons where Superman asks “What if one man – just one man – could’ve stopped all this destruction? And he didn’t…”)

While these stories are interesting, I think ultimately the moral conclusion drawn from such a work really leaves a downer, and is unromantic(?). How am I, American citizen, America literally being a Super Power, supposed to respond to that? Is the US NOT supposed to respond to say, (super villains) in Iran seeking to build nuclear weapons, and (super villains) in Darfur committing mass genocide? Is the US not supposed to, even if it requires vigilantism, such as when we enforce international standards or laws, and go it alone and try to build the world better in a democratic, more stable place?

I think, it's a startling contrast to the comics of the 1940s, which even before the US was in the war with Germany was having Superman fly over and stop the soviets and Nazis. Especially when you consider that American politics is at a tipping point between two extremes of action, and the impact that these comics have on the readership. Now I'm sure there are plenty of people, especially on these boards, who feel that a return to isolationism and inaction may be preferable. But then again, these comics and those politics rarely come up with an alternative. How does one deal with super-villains without superheroes? Even something this past month like Israel/Lebanon. One man in the United States had the power to end that, and he choose not to, (for a variety of reasons that isn't worth getting into here). But he DID have the power to stop it. What does this comic tell us about that.

I don't know, just some ideas I've been thinking about. And I know people will say, “oh hoho, comic books are about punching stuff, not philosophy.” But the authors in these comics always seem to go most of the way on the argument without ever taking the extra few steps. And in a time when people, of all ages, need an answer desperately to these big moral issues these comics are dealing with… At least the comics of world war 2 had an answer (however crude it was), but today’s do not.
I don't know...

Gah...that post could've seriously been summed up in two paragraphs, tops. Brevity and clarity wins on the internet.

Anyway, I think your point has some merit, even if it strays into some political waters that should be relegated to D&D. The only problem I see is that you're trying to draw parallels between the comic world and the real world and make some kind of justification for super powers doing whatever they think they should in the name of "good". That sounds nice, but you're using comics to illustrate this point. Seriously, comics, which, in the end, strip away the nuance and complexity to present a story in which we can tell the good from the bad. Doing that in the real world is foolish, so making serious comparisons is useless. The USA may be the lone super power, but that doesn't give us the right to act with impunity and to absolve ourselves of consequences. Just because we're top dog doesn't mean we're always right. Good and bad is relative to who you're talking to. This idea of the USA being some super hero rescuing nations and bringing peace is stupid idealism. When people don't want or need your help but you insinuate yourself into their lives anyway, you're not a vigilante or hero, you're a villain.

Munch

Manifest wrote:

Munch wrote:

Seriously, I like Ennis' stuff, but it seems like the old, "Let's embarrass those faggy superheroes with gratuitous mutilation and mockery" formula is one that Ennis has done before. I loved it in Hitman

If that's what you thought Hitman was about I'd say that you missed the point of the series.
Now is it something Ennis is prone to do from time to time? Yes. But I'd never belittle his work by claiming that it's what his stories are all about.

I wasn't trying to imply that was all it was about. I just said it was in there, what with the walking caricature Nightfist, Section 8, and Tommy vomiting on Batman's shoes. Now it also had some of the most touching moments in comics. The deaths of any of Tommy's friends were always extremely emotional, and the theme of brotherly camaraderie, family, and friendship that ran throughout the book were all really well handled. Ennis even did one of the best Superman stories I've ever read.

But the book also served as an outlet for Ennis to make fun of how absurd superheroes can be. By now Ellis, Moore, and Ennis have all succeeded in pointing out that yes, superheroes can be very silly and don't always make much sense. Why is this something that we need an entire series to revisit? What is this series going to say that hasn't been said before? If it's something new and interesting, hey, cool. But if it's just a group of Punisher clones going after superheroes, I don't see the point. It just seems gratuitous to me, especially these days when superheroes have moved so far into dark, villainous territory all by themselves.

Romero Zombie

I picked this up yesterday and loved it. Thanks for the suggestion/rule Manifest

Scooter

Personally, I don't care if it's been done before, I think I could stand to see it again.

SA

Just got done reading it.

Good stuff. I'll be picking up #2.

JohnDoe

Munch wrote:

Manifest wrote:

Munch wrote:

Seriously, I like Ennis' stuff, but it seems like the old, "Let's embarrass those faggy superheroes with gratuitous mutilation and mockery" formula is one that Ennis has done before. I loved it in Hitman

If that's what you thought Hitman was about I'd say that you missed the point of the series.
Now is it something Ennis is prone to do from time to time? Yes. But I'd never belittle his work by claiming that it's what his stories are all about.

I wasn't trying to imply that was all it was about. I just said it was in there, what with the walking caricature Nightfist, Section 8, and Tommy vomiting on Batman's shoes. Now it also had some of the most touching moments in comics. The deaths of any of Tommy's friends were always extremely emotional, and the theme of brotherly camaraderie, family, and friendship that ran throughout the book were all really well handled. Ennis even did one of the best Superman stories I've ever read.

But the book also served as an outlet for Ennis to make fun of how absurd superheroes can be. By now Ellis, Moore, and Ennis have all succeeded in pointing out that yes, superheroes can be very silly and don't always make much sense. Why is this something that we need an entire series to revisit? What is this series going to say that hasn't been said before? If it's something new and interesting, hey, cool. But if it's just a group of Punisher clones going after superheroes, I don't see the point. It just seems gratuitous to me, especially these days when superheroes have moved so far into dark, villainous territory all by themselves.

If we're going by that logic, we can cancel the thousands of standard superhero titles out there right now.

Conditional_Axe

I thought there were some moments of absolute brilliance in it, but an awful lot of crap, too. I won't be back for #2. I love Preacher to death, but I haven't managed to like much else by Ennis (save Hitman, which I haven't read). It just seems too gratuitous and bleak.

Servo

Conditional_Axe wrote:

It just seems too gratuitous and bleak.

i think that's what makes his punisher series great, actually

Scooter

Having now read it, I have to say that the scene where [spoiler:3d89a45f43] the bastard walks into the office of a woman who hates him and is instantly fucking her on her desk [/spoiler:3d89a45f43] almost lost me. What the fuck was that?

Mai-Kero

Servo wrote:

Conditional_Axe wrote:

It just seems too gratuitous and bleak.

i think that's what makes his punisher series great, actually

The punisher series is great because it's well-written and badass.

The Boys just seems like Ennis is doing it to fill a quota on tough-talking guys in long coats who hate people who can fly. There's no point to it, so far.

Servo

well, i haven't read the boys yet

but

it doesn't get much bleaker or more gratuitous than punisher: the end

bobgorila

I read it yesterday.

It seems like it has promise, but nothing much really happens in this issue.

The first scene in Scotland with Simon Pegg though... man.

Conditional_Axe

bobgorila wrote:

I read it yesterday.

It seems like it has promise, but nothing much really happens in this issue.

The first scene in Scotland with Simon Pegg though... man.

I liked all of the Wee Hughie bits, actually, but actively hated about 85% of the scenes with Butcher.

grendel824_

I haven't read this yet, as I'm really behind on my comics reading and I also save my favorites (or at least ones that I expect will be favorites, like The Boys) for last, but I have a question:

I recall hearing somewhere that the main characters are actually supposed to be representative of some of the more famous British comics writers (like Grant Morrisonn, Warren Ellis, and Ennis himself). Is this true? Is there anything in the first book that might point in that direction, at least? It'd be kinda cool if there really was that kind of subtext to it...

Malkor

I just got the second issue. More buildup.

Lux

grendel824_ wrote:

I haven't read this yet, as I'm really behind on my comics reading and I also save my favorites (or at least ones that I expect will be favorites, like The Boys) for last, but I have a question:

I recall hearing somewhere that the main characters are actually supposed to be representative of some of the more famous British comics writers (like Grant Morrisonn, Warren Ellis, and Ennis himself). Is this true? Is there anything in the first book that might point in that direction, at least? It'd be kinda cool if there really was that kind of subtext to it...

I haven't heard of that anywhere, and Grant Morrison isn't british.

The Cow

Lux wrote:

grendel824_ wrote:

I haven't read this yet, as I'm really behind on my comics reading and I also save my favorites (or at least ones that I expect will be favorites, like The Boys) for last, but I have a question:

I recall hearing somewhere that the main characters are actually supposed to be representative of some of the more famous British comics writers (like Grant Morrisonn, Warren Ellis, and Ennis himself). Is this true? Is there anything in the first book that might point in that direction, at least? It'd be kinda cool if there really was that kind of subtext to it...

I haven't heard of that anywhere, and Grant Morrison isn't british.

He is from Scotland, which is part of Great Britain. He's not English, though, no.

The Nameless One

Spectre-x wrote:

Hahahahahaha.

Simon Pegg?

Thank you, it's not just me!

Fuck me, is this book awesome. Read the first two issues in one sitting on the weekend, absolutely gagging for more. Ennis' claim that it will "out-Preacher Preacher" doesn't seem that unbelievable on the strength of its beginning.

Must read stuff :^:

Ghost Rider 2099

So far every issue has had a page of doggy style, usually early in the issue. So there is that.

Malkor

Ghost Rider 2099 wrote:

So far every issue has had a page of doggy style, usually early in the issue. So there is that.

lol .I went back and looked for it in the second issue.

grendel824_

Lux wrote:

I haven't heard of that anywhere, and Grant Morrison isn't british.

Get an encyclopedia.

Grant Morrison is from Scotland. Scotland is in.... drumroll please... Britain.

laughterkillsme

wwtMask wrote:

Gah...that post could've seriously been summed up in two paragraphs, tops. Brevity and clarity wins on the internet.

Anyway, I think your point has some merit, even if it strays into some political waters that should be relegated to D&D. The only problem I see is that you're trying to draw parallels between the comic world and the real world and make some kind of justification for super powers doing whatever they think they should in the name of "good". That sounds nice, but you're using comics to illustrate this point. Seriously, comics, which, in the end, strip away the nuance and complexity to present a story in which we can tell the good from the bad. Doing that in the real world is foolish, so making serious comparisons is useless. The USA may be the lone super power, but that doesn't give us the right to act with impunity and to absolve ourselves of consequences. Just because we're top dog doesn't mean we're always right. Good and bad is relative to who you're talking to. This idea of the USA being some super hero rescuing nations and bringing peace is stupid idealism. When people don't want or need your help but you insinuate yourself into their lives anyway, you're not a vigilante or hero, you're a villain.

wwtmask, YES.

Ghost Rider 2099

Malkor wrote:

Ghost Rider 2099 wrote:

So far every issue has had a page of doggy style, usually early in the issue. So there is that.

lol .I went back and looked for it in the second issue.

I told you. You doubt me? Me!?

BAH!

Malkor

[spoiler:4061bfecc6]SUCK IT![/spoiler:4061bfecc6]


The next issue better be epic.

muninn

So far we had three issues of buildup, and not much substance. This series better pick up or I will drop it like a hot potato, Ennis or not.