Bergamot

I guess I won't mind so much, just so long as it doesn't become necessary to watch the other show in order to continue to follow the original one and have it make sense. I don't know though, the more I hear Kripke talk about next season, the more I start to be convinced that I am interested in the characters on The Boys much more than I am in the universe that the show has created for them. If the show does not have interesting stories for the characters I am already invested in, bringing new characters into that universe and telling stories about them instead is not going to hold my attention.

She was really underused, especially in this season. I liked her as a character, though. I liked how every time she came to the rescue of the Boys, she was kind of rolling her eyes at herself, as if she was saying to herself, "I can't believe I am helping these idiots again. This is a really bad idea!" But she did it anyway. I liked her rough, unsentimental mentoring of Starlight, and how her bark was always worse than her bite. I liked her sarcasm, like when she told Annie, "You know what would've been better though? Actually busting me out." And I liked the way we saw her throughout the series fall into the depths of despair, but still manage to come out on the other side. I did not like her telling Annie that Annie metaphorically "saved" her, though, because I don't think that gives enough credit to Maeve herself. And I am doubtful at what she says about Annie not needing her anymore, since Annie is just so awesome. Those statements sound more like the writers trying to puff up Annie as a character than a statement of truth. If they had followed Maeve's leadership, Homelander would have been toast. I am sorry to see her go.

That's another thing I wondered about in the article I just referenced. Speaking of next season, Kripke says: Now, maybe I will love these new characters, but it does sound like just another way to stall and avoid dealing with Homelander -- the Boys will be going after these new, more dangerous Supes. It's obvious that nothing significant is going to happen with Homelander versus Butcher and the Boys until the show is ending, but the delay is starting to look increasingly artificial and inorganic. Also, I'm not sure that adding even more regular characters to the show is a good idea. I actually think they would do better with fewer of them. The strain on the writers to include every single regular character in every single episode is starting to show. I mean, did we really need to have two separate scenes where the Deep has sex with an octopus? 🙄 Well, it is still early days yet. Hopefully we will also be getting some spoilers for Season 4 that I can feel excited about!

It’s too late now, of course, but here is the way I would have changed things this last season if I could, in order to set them up for next season. 1) Have the Boys accidentally discover Soldier Boy while looking for a weapon against Homelander, but instead of them deciding to use him as the weapon, he temporarily joins them as a Supe that is working with them against Vought, just as Kimiko and Starlight and Maeve did, in order to get his revenge. 2) In order to make this even possible, have MM’s vendetta for killing his family be against Homelander, rather than having it be something that Soldier Boy did. 3) In the season finale, have Soldier Boy find out that Homelander is his son, and decide to join him and become his ally. 4) This would set up a different tug-of-war for next season, where you have Homelander on one side and Butcher and the Boys on the other, with Soldier Boy in the middle, and both of them trying to get him to fight on their side. Now THAT would be a season I would be looking forward to!

Yeah, I have to say that this does not make me feel really excited about next season. The thing is, he is just a child. It is not going to be difficult to manipulate him by promising him that you will always love him and take care of him and give him whatever he wants. It's not like we are going to see Ryan making weighty moral decisions about his own soul and the fate of the world at his age. This sounds to me like the only way to make this work. The problem with it that I see, has to do with something Kripke himself says about Season 3 in this article: "The Boys' Showrunner Teases What (and Who) Is Next for The Seven & Co." Kripke should have paid attention to his own words here while planning Season 4, because there is no way that I can see Ryan as a character filling this role. He is going to be the catalyst, and is going to be "controlling the story in a way", but neither the character or the actor playing him has the necessary charisma. As a result there is going to be a big empty hole in the middle of the story. I am not optimistic.

I wasn't really that interested in Black Noir; he was not a character that stood out for me. I know he did for others, I just don't agree with them about his importance or his wonderfulness as a character. The odd thing to me, though, is that

Here is an article about the fate of Black Noir. (Contains spoilers.)

I guess it is possible that it is something like that. I don't know, though, it seems as if the writers thought her "Maniac" dance would just be a cute scene for Kimiko, comparable maybe to her imaginary "I Got Rhythm" dance routine with Frenchie. But this was not imaginary, and it came across as bizarre and completely implausible, to say the least.

When Homelander brings out Ryan and introduces him to Soldier Boy, you can see SB give Butcher an angry, sideways glance which clearly says, "Thanks a lot for telling me about this, asshole!" (It's right after Ryan says "Hi Grandpa".) Butcher of course refuses to meet Soldier Boy's gaze. But yeah, for once Butcher should have been open about the situation instead of relying on his constant secretiveness, concealment, and deception, which I know is a well-established character trait of his but which is getting very tiresome. As you say, maybe it would not have changed anything but there was a chance it would have.

Respect for Frenchie! A DENTAL PLAN FOR FRENCHIE!! 😊 I'm glad that I wasn't the only one who thought she was written very out-of-character. And I hadn't even taken note of the fact that she smacked Frenchie the way she did, but I agree, very OOC. I actually looked to see who wrote the episode, as if that would explain it somehow, but I don't know anything about the writers for this show. All I know is that this part of it was badly written. I saw a review of the episode which said that in one interview the actress had mentioned the "mon couer" speech as one of her favorite scenes, because Kimiko was able to help Frenchie. So I am going to stick with that as my Kimiko character note for this episode and ignore the other stuff.

I have to say that Frenchie was pretty adorable when he got all giddy at the opportunity to exercise his new-found freedom of speech! “No! My cake hole will remain OPEN!” and “We all deserve paid vacation days, and a dental plan!” Hahaha! Go, Frenchie! 😄 And this was preceded by such a lovely scene with Frenchie and Kimiko, where she encourages him to break free from the chains of his past. It is thanks to Kimiko that Frenchie realizes that he can keep his cake hole open if he wants to! I did not like Kimiko’s little dance video though, where she enjoys her music as she stabs and bludgeons and pulverizes the guards to death. I thought her joyous dancing as she prepared to kill them was pretty creepy, actually. What was this supposed to be showing us about her? I preferred the Kimiko who killed people when she had to, because it was her job – but never seemed to have fun with it, and often was conflicted and tormented about it. I would welcome hearing any different takes on this, but I just did not like it. This is one reason why I was not happy when Kimiko decided to get her powers back, although I understand why she did it. I feel like the writers for the show just wanted her to be a Supe again not because it was a necessary part of her story, but because they think it looks so cool to have a tiny, pretty woman be capable of literally tearing her enemies to pieces.

Haha! Well, just in case -- staff person, can you please tell Kripke that at some point I would like to see the return of Soldier Boy? (And by the way, you can also pass him the word that I still haven't forgiven him for the Season 5 finale of Supernatural!! 😡)

Yes, it was, and I think his openness with her was the right thing to do, but there was something about the scene that made me just a bit uneasy. The fact is that to satisfy his need for revenge, MM rejected the idea that they could use Soldier Boy to take out Homelander. So now, because of MM and the others, Soldier Boy is out of the picture, but Homelander is still very much around to do his thing. As far as I know, Janine did not care about Soldier Boy, but from what we have seen, she is a huge Homelander fan. And basically MM has helped ensure that Homelander will still be there for all those who follow him. Maybe MM will work on convincing Janine that Homelander is one of the bad superheroes (although he doesn’t bother to mention this as he is explaining how he got revenge against Soldier Boy) but will she believe him? Just punching Todd in the face every time Todd defends Homelander is not going to be very convincing to her. Especially since I’m sure her stepfather will be working on reinforcing her Homelander love by feeding her the lies he is swallowing himself. I bet that the next thing you know, she will be joining the Ryan Superhero Fan Club, and getting a poster of him to hang up in her bedroom. And it was sweet when she told MM that he is her hero, but to me it sounded a little too close to Homelander’s catchphrase: “No, Daddy, YOU’RE the hero!” Anyway, maybe all this means nothing, but it wouldn’t be the first time that a cult figure has caused a schism among members of a family, by any means.

Okay, this is valid -- victories for them as individuals. I don't know, though, the way that they all seemed so pleased with themselves in that gathering at the office just rubbed me the wrong way. I think it would have worked better for me if they first had acknowledged how pointless and costly their efforts to bring down Homelander and Vought had been, rather than acting as if they had won in the end. And then maybe encouraged each other because of the things you mention, as a reminder that they still had found something that was important.

Yes it really does. I have to admit that I felt annoyed by the scene at the end, with the good guys gathered together at their office, all comfortable and united and full of smiles, as if they had achieved some kind of victory. What exactly did they accomplish? With a lot of effort and the use of not a small amount of violence, they located Soldier Boy and freed him from captivity, went to great lengths to convince him to help them against Homelander, brought him to the confrontation -- and THEN, just as he was about to do what they asked, they prevented him from doing it, teamed together to attack him and bring him down, and ensured that he ended up back in the captivity that they themselves had released him from in the first place. Good job, team! Not to mention that Homelander is now even more unleashed and dangerous than he was before, and has Ryan in his clutches. Rather than looking happy and relaxed, they all should be sitting around with their heads hanging down in defeat and despair, because they totally failed and now things are worse. But hey, they are all getting along together so well, so I guess that is the important thing.

Well, I am glad that Butcher wanted to protect Hughie, but it would be more impressive if it wasn't only because Hughie reminds him of his brother. Also, he apparently was fine with the idea that using Soldier Boy to take out Homelander might cause collateral damage to the people in the building. But when the possible collateral damage included Ryan, all of a sudden it was totally unacceptable to him. Like I said, I'm not seeing this as a big moral triumph on his part.

Ha, good question! In general I found the motives of a lot of the "good guys" to be very confusing. Was using Soldier Boy to take out Homelander such a bad idea, that preventing him from actually doing this can be presented as a moral triumph?

Maybe they wouldn't have! Maeve survived, even though she lost her powers. And Homelander and Ryan are stronger Supes than she is. (Or was, I guess.) I think it is highly possible that they just both would have been de-powered. You're right, though, that is on Butcher.

I hope that Maeve survives!

It was awful seeing what happened to Noir. But I have seen some online comments elsewhere -- not here -- that woobify him as a sweet kid and excuse the fact that he kills people because he has brain damage. I am far from being an expert in neuroscience, but I don’t think that having brain damage automatically equals an inability to choose not to kill people. And if this actually were true of Black Noir, it just seems all the more reason that he should be dealt with, for the safety of humanity. I feel the same way about Homelander. Like Black Noir, I do feel pity for him. I think about Homelander as a small boy, clutching his little blue blanket for comfort in the “bad room”, and I think about how maybe he didn’t have to turn out the way that he did. But then I think about how as an adult, he forced that terrified, desperate, and helpless young girl off the edge of the roof to her death, just because he was having a bad day. So yeah, if they can’t be controlled or contained (if that is even possible with Supes like them), then they need to be put down, in order to protect the ordinary people around them.

Yes, I thought his reaction to finding out that he has a son was very interesting. Something made him go from “No one’s the new me, pal!” to “What father wouldn’t want that for his son?” I wonder if we will get a chance to learn more about what was going on there. I hope so!

I am loving Jensen's portrayal of Soldier Boy on The Boys, but another character that I really like on that show is Kimiko. I can't help noticing how much she reminds me of Dean. She was raised from childhood to be a warrior. She has always been used as a weapon by those who were her authority figures. She had a brother that she would do anything to save. She will sacrifice herself to protect her family. She says that she wants to use her abilities to do good things for people. She thinks of herself as a monster. One question that I was thinking about. Kimiko of course has Frenchie; does Dean have a "Frenchie" in his life? I know that a lot of people would immediately suggest Sam or Castiel, but neither of them works for me as a good comparison. As Hughie would say -- "for many ... many good reasons"! In some ways, I might compare Benny to Frenchie. Benny met Dean when he was at his most feral and savage in Purgatory, but somehow he still saw something in Dean and grew to love and respect him. Also he accepted Dean for who he was, and didn't want to change Dean into what he thought he should be. And in the end he did not feel that Dean owed him anything. Anyway, seeing the similarities between Dean and Kimiko, it is not surprising that I like her as a character as much as I do!

I like this very much! Works for me. I admit that sometimes I find Kripke's comments on his own shows to be less than helpful, shall we say (not always, but sometimes), and I would do better to just look at what the show itself is saying. As you say, Marseille seems further away and more impossible to reach than ever now, but I haven't quite given up all hope for them! (I'm sure that it has not escaped your attention, but I can see so many similarities between Kimiko and a character from another show that I know we both love, whose initials are D.W.! 😊 But I guess I need to take that discussion to that show's forum!)

I think my problem with Kimiko’s storyline goes back to my discomfort with Kripke’s theme, which I think is too simplistic, that Compound V only reveals who you really are, and that Kimiko has now discovered the truth about herself. So who is Kimiko really? I think that Kimiko believes that stabbing that man 17 times does mean that she is a monster. But maybe reacting with rage and violence against someone who is torturing those you love and about to murder you is not inappropriate and does not mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with you. Of course Kimiko is very damaged. She was stolen from her parents as a child, raised by the Shining Light to be turned into a soldier, and then injected with Compound V to be molded into a weapon. That is why she is filled with rage and the capacity for violence. But she also has gentleness inside her and the capacity for love, and she is worth everything Frenchie has done to save her. I agree that she does feel trapped, and of course I understand why she would want to be able to use her powers to protect her family. But choosing to have powers again doesn’t feel like her exercising her freedom to decide who she is, more like acknowledging that she can’t escape the trap she is in. I also feel like she thinks that means she has to say good-bye to dancing, and watching “Singing In The Rain”, and kissing Frenchie. And maybe she thinks that she doesn’t even deserve those things because of who she is. I hope that it is not true that she feels this way and that she does continue to work on herself, as you say. I wish that someday she would get the chance to go to Marseille.

I like Kimiko as a character a lot, but I was disappointed with the way they had her decide she wanted her powers back. As a friend pointed out to me, she was able to save Frenchie from Little Nina without them, using her considerable skills as a fighter, her grit, and her courage. I admired her a lot for that. I feel like her getting her powers back is a reset for plot purposes, rather than showing any growth for the character. I don’t get why saving Frenchie without her powers made her feel like she is a monster, whereas having the ability to save him with her powers is somehow empowering. Kimiko was so tormented by the thought of the children at Vought Land who got caught up in her and Frenchie’s pursuit of the Countess, and by the fear shown by the Russian women who witnessed her using Supe powers to kill. She hated the effect her use of her powers had on them. But what happens now when she uses her powers? Does she tell any future traumatized children or terrified women, “It’s okay! Everything’s fine! I CHOSE to have these powers!” How does that fix everything? We have seen that the use of Supe powers inevitably comes with collateral damage; is Kimiko okay with that? I tend to think that M.M. was the one who had it right, when he said that NO ONE should have powers like the Supes have. Not even those who justify it by asserting that it is okay because they want to use it to do good things. I also have a problem with Kripke’s idea that Supe powers reveal who you really are inside. It’s just not that simple. What if Homelander was raised as a normal child in a family with a loving mother and father? Would he still have turned out to be a murderous psychopath, because “that’s who he really was inside” from the moment he was born? It could have been in his genes, or it could have been something Compound V did to him, or it could have been the childhood he was forced to have because he was a Supe. I guess that seeing what happens with Ryan might tell us more.