Express RX-78
kiwifarms.net
It's basically the writers taking all the most exciting/appealing parts of the early issues and putting them together to attract viewers as quickly as possible since they only had 8 hour long episodes.
Amazon's Invincible - thoughts?
- Thread starter vulgar
- Start date
well, i think the re-ordering also makes more narrative sense. the comic has an issue where the pacing is actually too fast at the start. someone pointed out it felt like Kirkman was insecure about his writing, but thought his Omniman twist was a real winner so he rushed the story to get to it.
the tv show treats Omni-mans betrayal as an apocalyptic worst case scenario event.
the comic treats it as something that just kinda happens and is resolved very quickly.
Atatata
kiwifarms.net
A few weeks ago, YT music critic Shawn Cee started up a TV/movie channel so he could stream Invincible.
Though, I’m not sure if he actually read the comic in question.
So far, he watched the last six episodes and he still has it up on his channel:
God of Nothing
kiwifarms.net
I too have a guilty pleasure for reaction channels. Invincible is one of those shows perfect for them, which is good and bad.
LORD IMPERATOR
kiwifarms.net
That's the point. Moore helped create edgelord superheroes, but seeing so many wannabe-copycats really gets to him and makes him dislike it. Especially since to him, works like Watchmen had a message about the dangers of having real-life superheroes attempting to balance the world with things like superior intelligence, superpowers, or technology, yet the newer edgelord cynical capeshit stuff just ends up being snuff films for comic fans.
That's the problem with a lot of British satirical writers. They didn't figure out that the things they wanted people to mock ended up attracting people to that which they were mocking. The same thing happened with Warhammer 40K and Judge Dredd; instead of abhorring the Space Marines and the Judges as violent, fascist, over-the-top dipshits whose answer to every question is a bullet in the head or a fist to the face, people ended up liking that shit and thinking it was badass. People thought Rorschach was a badass when Moore wanted people to despise him. Down to the point where even the movie version of Rorschach even emphasizes his badass factor instead of his nutball factor.
I've never understood the whole problem with killing bad guys and superheroes. I mean, sure, I can understand a hero sparing a hobo who knocked up a grocery store because he's starving, or the kid who was stealing money to survive, but when you're dealing with the kind of nutcases who can and will kill others if given the chance, killing them is doing the world a favor. This is why I can barely relate to modern capeshit heroes who still debate whether or not it's right to kill a supervillain when we all know that the fucker will escape jail and kill a thousand people all over again before the heroes rough him up and send him back to prison.
The author obviously improved since the last time he wrote the story. But the whole twist thing still remains rather weak, especially when one compares it to other would-be conquerors or evil Superman characters. If he went full Palpatine and empowered the villains with Viltrum tech, he could have them wipe out the Guardians and eradicate the world governments, then he could easily swoop in, eradicate the villains, and take over as supreme leader of the planet while appearing completely innocent. The way Nolan does things just makes it seem that he's a lousy spy/conqueror.
Good for those of us who seek amusement. Bad for those who worry about having a populace with some literary knowledge. It's the Game of Thrones syndrome all over again where people get shocked over things that have been portrayed in older books all over again, because they never bothered to pick up the books after seeing their first episode.
i never understood peoples issues with this when it's more or less like real life. different people have different views on things. Batman won't kill partly due to his PTSD over his parent's dying and things like his Father who was a doctor instilling in him the idea that all life is worth saving.
Superman won't kill because of his belief in hope and that people deep down can be good if you just give them the chance or show them the way.
where as on the other side you have people like Wonder-woman, Jason Todd, John Constantine and many many more I can name off the top of my head who have very little issue with killing.
but the big grand reason is "comics are a never ending story so we can not kill off established villains"
that's just the nature of the business. even if everyone got what they wanted and Batman straight up killed Joker, do you think Joker is really going to stay dead? So why ruin Batman's character for it?
Both the animated series and comics are pretty good. In fact, I'd argue the former is just straight up better than the comics. Say what you will about Kirkman's weaknesses and barely disguised fetishes, but even he knows his pacing could have been much better and how much more interesting pre-insect "fan" Omni-Man is if he actually showed conflict and humanity even as he's busy empire-building.
The woke shit and teenage romance stuff? Still the least interesting parts. Look, I'm here for the character analysis and big ideas, not for an insipid love triangle. Thank god the stuff that happens later on is more galactic in scale.
Still, I'll take it over the Boys (either version, although I do think the graphic novel is enjoyable to read in the same way a train crashing into a schoolbus of autistic kids is to watch), Irredeemable, or Watchmen any day.
The woke shit and teenage romance stuff? Still the least interesting parts. Look, I'm here for the character analysis and big ideas, not for an insipid love triangle. Thank god the stuff that happens later on is more galactic in scale.
Still, I'll take it over the Boys (either version, although I do think the graphic novel is enjoyable to read in the same way a train crashing into a schoolbus of autistic kids is to watch), Irredeemable, or Watchmen any day.
LORD IMPERATOR
kiwifarms.net
- Highlight
- #209
That's the problem. They try to make edgelord comic stories with bad guys who aren't afraid to kill, yet they still want to pad things out and make it so that the hero cannot kill them because it would kill interest in the franchise if they run out of bad guys.
Why not just have the heroes fail to kill the bad guys? Have it so that when defeated, a bad guy who is too evil to be locked in a prison would know when to fold and leave before the heroes capture him? Here's an idea for a serious villain: have this powerful bad guy whom the heroes cannot defeat at first. Then have the heroes overcome him. But instead of him being locked up in prison, he escapes. Or he uses his influence in society and his contacts within the political authorities to force the heroes to leave him alone. Or at most, the heroes get him to a draw, and he leaves before the fight becomes a protracted battle. There's many ways to have a serious villain appear again and again by having him or her be able to escape the heroes' grasp instead of repeatedly escaping a revolving-door prison that no one in their right mind would trust after the bad guys break out of it for the umpteenth time.
That, and if they want to have villains that go through revolving-door prisons, have some comic relief villains who do minor crimes on the side. That way, it makes sense for the heroes to repeatedly just capture them and send them to jail instead of attempting to kill them because their crimes are minor.
Batman's character is already ruined. He makes no sense whatsoever. The old Batman still had PTSD from his parents' death, but even the one from the Michael Keaton Batman films has no problems killing bad guys like the Joker. The new Batman just seems too arbitrary. He's the kind of nutball who will continuously save someone who will kill thousands, perhaps even millions, in the future, just to satisfy some moral code that makes him sleep better at night. It would just be better if the Joker manages to get away when his plans go awry, since that would show him as an elusive mofo and a skilled strategist who knows when to leave once he's lost the game.
He's obviously gotten better with time, and he's trying to edge out the flaws in his previous work with the animated series. If I were to put a word to describe it, the comic series is a sort of outline, or prototype, and the animated series will be the final, more refined version, made after the author has seen what works and what doesn't work.
Yeah, the teenage and woke stuff was the weakest part of the show. Hopefully they focus more on the upcoming Viltrumite War and the larger-scale events with the story.
It depends. I don't think it outranks Watchmen, since that book actually has a lesson to teach about the dangers of superheroes' effects on society at large. Invincible, for all its good parts, just seems like your run-of-the-mill superhero show with some twists and turns thrown in for good measure.
then we'd have 80 years of Batman failing to catch the Joker.
is that any better?
i'd be happy to continue this conversation with you in the comic thread.
LORD IMPERATOR
kiwifarms.net
I would actually prefer that. The Joker and Batman, consistently failing to kill each other for 80 years. The unstoppable force meeting the immovable object.
Yeah, sure, let's go there. Link?
The reason many heroes don’t just kill their villains besides the meta one is that they will just keep taking the easy route and eventually just keep killing every villain there is. Aside from that there are heroes who have strong moral codes that prevent them from killing or would be traumatized by the thought of it especially if they are teen heroes. The way you want all heroes to basically follow blind utilitarian ethics is really stupid.
Yes because a bunch of random super villains with no experience with technology would be perfect for killing the guardians and not make him look suspicious at all. Furthermore Nolan pretty much did things well, really it’s the whole family thing that threw him off and pretty much developing human feelings which he never experienced before. Then again you’re the same autist who wanted Mark to side with Nolan for a girl being a bitch to him.
Bruh do you not know what fun is? Not everyone has read every book or comic book and it’s not the downfall of society you autistic retard. That’s such a petty and autistic thing to judge based on the existence of reaction videos.
LORD IMPERATOR
kiwifarms.net
And the blood of every person that villain kills when they get out of the local revolving-door prison is on the hands of said hero who spared them.
Seriously. I can understand sparing common thieves, rapists, and even the occasional sociopath, but most villains pose just as much danger to the free world as the average Nazi SS Officer or Al-Qaeda terrorist, perhaps even more. So how is it that it's OK to kill muggles that Uncle Sam wants you to kill, but not crazed terrorist criminals or superpowered whackos who wouldn't bat an eyelash if they destroyed a city?
Many of the villains in Invincible have experience with tech. The Mauler Twins, for one, and Doc Seismic for another. Machine Head is also another tech-oriented villain who can also hire other villains for the job. Nolan can easily use an alter-ego to give Viltrumite technology to such villains and have them wipe out the Guardians and the world governments, then Omni-Man can turn around and kill them all once they've served their purpose, so he could easily swoop in and go full Regime Superman on the planet and prepare it for assimilation into the Viltrum Empire.
Also, a being that's as old as Nolan (thousands of years) is affected by human feelings due to him having a family......that mystifies me. Maybe if he was 30 or 50, that story could work, but given his age, at this point, he should have lots of family by now from conquered planets. I'm surprised he doesn't have an army full of half-breed Viltrumite bastards born from women in the worlds he conquered. Or at least, he'd be so old that he could barely form emotional ties after seeing so many people pass away through the millennia.
I do know what fun is. And reaction videos are fun. But sometimes, it's hard to take society seriously when they ask questions like this:
When anyone who's read the comic or even booted up the Image Comics wiki would already know the answer.
That's like, imagine if the Lord of the Rings movies under Peter Jackson were released today, and people start asking questions like "Will Sauron ever be defeated?" when every person who's even skimmed the books knows the answer, and the answer has been clear for years.
Last edited:
Wouldn't that be more on government incompetence than the actual heroes. If the heroes are turning in villains for their crimes, then it says more about the justice system that kills them. Even then when heroes get used to killing villains, it can still lead to them just killing everyone else especially if they had strict moral codes before (i.e. Like Batman) so they break apart mentally. Not every hero is going to be perfectly fine with what they do like The Punisher.
It's still a retarded plan that relies on finding the perfect villains who are competent and given how strong Omni-Man himself is, he could just destroy everything on his own if he were to just hire randies to do the work for him. Also it is out of character for Viltrumites to even do that since their society is built on Darwinistic teachings so it makes no sense to empower weak villains to take out those who are supposedly already weaker than you. It's like getting a bunch of animals to fight each other just to get rid of a bunch of animals instead of doing it yourself. That sounds cruel but that's how Viltrumites viewed humanity and other species.
I like how you use a video that directly discredits your point and literally addresses "BUT THE COMICS HAVE THE ANSWER ALREADY" which is in this case that the adaptation can probably change things around especially with events in the show and how Omni-Man has been more brutal.
Even then most people have an easier time to watch or listen to a youtube video than reading a comic so they can do other things with their time. To add on, people like to theorize about things and just finding answers from comics would not be fun for them. Of course there are lazy people but if these videos are enough to question your faith in society, that is really pathetic.
LORD IMPERATOR
kiwifarms.net
They're both responsible. The government and the hero failing to kill them. Also, killing in self-defense is legal in most nations and states, so what's stopping a super-hero from doing that? Especially against someone who would make your average Nazi SS Officer or Al-Qaeda terrorist look like a gentle teddy bear by comparison? Again, I can understand sparing common crooks, it's the whole "sparing supervillains" thing that has me spinning. And again, turning over a homicidal super-villain to an inept government that won't kill him is just as stupid as letting him go, because that's essentially what you're doing.
Hence why I actually had no problems when Mark Grayson tried to kill Conquest. Dude was going to kill him and everyone he loved, he needed to die. Mark didn't necessarily succeed the first time around, but at least, it's the thought that counts. And he finally succeeded eventually. No moral problems there.
The point is, Nolan could have done that to A) get the world to trust him as their sole savior and B) get rid of anyone that could get in his way. Killing the Guardians makes him a suspect and makes it all the more likely that the world, which includes his now-empowered son, might turn against him and make the job of conquest that much harder. Shit, if Mark didn't save him, that kaiju monster would have killed him, and those cyborgs were also capable of hurting him.
Maybe. Maybe not. But the question is already answered somewhere else, which makes it the equivalent of people asking whether or not Sauron can be defeated when the Lord of the Rings movies came out. The fact is, one version of Omni-Man did all those horrible things that he did in the show, and was still redeemed. So that answers the question with yes.
Lazy people can also just boot up a wiki or look online and see how the books concluded it. And yes, it does make me question my faith in society, because it shows that they're not willing to be literate to answer their questions. Even literate enough to read an internet article that can have all the answers to their questions in Cliffsnotes format.
Express RX-78
kiwifarms.net
To be fair they literally have the Mauler twins just for this in Invincible and I bet there will be more villains in the future.
The Burton films are noted for being nowhere near comic accurate as Burton never cared about the comics in the first place. He just put his weirdo aesthetic over everything and it just so happened to work (in 1989 at least imo, never really liked Returns outside of how it looked).
This raises the question of if original comics from this point on will be thinly veiled TV show and movie pitches instead of works made for the comic medium. The MCU's basically taking characters from the comics and doing whatever they want to them without any care for the source material, not that the new stuff they come out with is any good comics or movie wise.
Who's gonna say no to a TV show?
LORD IMPERATOR
kiwifarms.net
At least with the Mauler Twins, sometimes the heroes or the good guys try to kill them, hence why the survivor has to clone himself to produce another.
And I liked them better than the comics, the latter of which just ended up being this merry-go-round with a status quo that never changes. The Batman comics get static and boring.
Why not? Most comic authors would be thrilled to see their creations onscreen, and studios are more likely to green-light a franchise if there is already source material. So it would be to the interest of would-be show-writers to make a comic for their idea first, and if it works, they can then market it to the studios or companies as a potential TV show or film, since they have source material that sells.
Not that many people, I presume.
Last edited:
6MillionCoofs
kiwifarms.net
You don't need to imagine people asking those questions, that's exactly what happened when the films came out. People asking questions about how long completed and easily accessible works of fiction will go is not new.
LORD IMPERATOR
kiwifarms.net
Not where I'm from. Most people I knew when the films were coming out already knew the story at the time, knew Sauron will fall, because the books were popular enough they even had a renaissance DECADES before the films came out. They were just curious how the films would depict it.
With works like the Star Wars Original Trilogy, they were treading in unknown waters, so asking whether or not someone would be defeated or redeemed was a question that really didn't have an answer. But when it comes to Lord of the Rings and Invincible, well, the books have been out there for years, and even those who did not pick up the books can easily look things up online. The question shouldn't be "can Omni-Man be redeemed?" It should be "will the show follow the story from the books?" Because there is an honest chance they might go full Game of Thrones on us and NOT follow the books after a certain point.
6MillionCoofs
kiwifarms.net
You'd think they would have realised that giving characters conviction and making things fun to read are going to make people like your work.
That does not mean they take it seriously. No one takes 40k or Dreed seriously. They just aren't horrified by it because if they were they would never have read the work in the first place.
How writers always miss this is baffling to me.
I hope it doesn't follow the books. It got boring when Omni-Man left for ages and then got real convoluted.
