The Ultimate Superheroines Forum

The Boys Season 3 is going to be the Herogasm story, according to Eric "Gee Officer" Kripke.
No release date announced yet, but at this point I'm guessing 2022.

From the Vought News Network clip commercial parody of "My Pillow" (there will be new clips released on the 7th of each month) though, it does seem like they're going to lean even more into outright criticism of right-wing/nationalist/patriotic politics (the other clue being that Kripke said he'll be making Solider Boy look "worse" than Homelander).

Other news seems to be the concoction of a Boys spinoff show about the college-age superhero team G-Men (a parody of the X-Men). It's been cast with some beautiful young actresses (looks like they have Storm, Jean Grey and Emma Frost analogues, among others) but there has been no shooting as of yet.

Can't wait to hopefully eventually see the entire video of Starlight's contemporary Christian pop-styled "Never Truly Vanish" but for now here's the VNN clip which has portions of it, as well as an "extended" version of the song piecing together clips from S2 EPs 2 and 7.

They also cast the actress for Crimson Countess (Scarlet Witch parody)

https://www.thewrap.com/laurie-holden-t ... -season-3/

She's 51 ! Maybe not the best choose... but who knows.

Well the Rock is pushing 50 and he's playing Black Adam so...

I gave up on the prospects of hot chics in a movie or TV show a long time ago. You are NEVER going to see a Raquel Welch ever again.

As for this show, who's the audience. I doubt its a bunch of red staters or fly over country people. In fact, given big tech cut off their voices, most of them won't be watching anything with any "woke" messages so all the studio is doing is talking to an echo chamber.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Well the Rock is pushing 50 and he's playing Black Adam so...

I gave up on the prospects of hot chics in a movie or TV show a long time ago. You are NEVER going to see a Raquel Welch ever again.

As for this show, who's the audience. I doubt its a bunch of red staters or fly over country people. In fact, given big tech cut off their voices, most of them won't be watching anything with any "woke" messages so all the studio is doing is talking to an echo chamber.

You don't think Erin Moriarty's Starlight is 'hot'?

Or Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman?

Or Elizabeth Olsen's Scarlet Witch?

Damselbinder wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Well the Rock is pushing 50 and he's playing Black Adam so...

I gave up on the prospects of hot chics in a movie or TV show a long time ago. You are NEVER going to see a Raquel Welch ever again.

As for this show, who's the audience. I doubt its a bunch of red staters or fly over country people. In fact, given big tech cut off their voices, most of them won't be watching anything with any "woke" messages so all the studio is doing is talking to an echo chamber.

You don't think Erin Moriarty's Starlight is 'hot'?

Or Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman?

Or Elizabeth Olsen's Scarlet Witch?

Actually no. I think they are OK. Not hot. I wouldn't go see a movie with them in it as the driving reason nor watch a TV show. They are slightly above girl next door IMO. And I don't see females in the same caliber of build (but feminine) as Hemsworth, Cavill, Mamoa, Pine, Evans, Pratt. Simply put hollywood right now are 611s, 6s females who hang out with 11s males.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Damselbinder wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Well the Rock is pushing 50 and he's playing Black Adam so...

I gave up on the prospects of hot chics in a movie or TV show a long time ago. You are NEVER going to see a Raquel Welch ever again.

As for this show, who's the audience. I doubt its a bunch of red staters or fly over country people. In fact, given big tech cut off their voices, most of them won't be watching anything with any "woke" messages so all the studio is doing is talking to an echo chamber.

You don't think Erin Moriarty's Starlight is 'hot'?

Or Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman?

Or Elizabeth Olsen's Scarlet Witch?

Actually no. I think they are OK. Not hot. I wouldn't go see a movie with them in it as the driving reason nor watch a TV show. They are slightly above girl next door IMO. And I don't see females in the same caliber of build (but feminine) as Hemsworth, Cavill, Mamoa, Pine, Evans, Pratt. Simply put hollywood right now are 611s, 6s females who hang out with 11s males.

I mean this is all subjective, I grant you, but - Gal Gadot "slightly above girl next door"? Man, you've got some high standards.

Damselbinder wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I mean this is all subjective, I grant you, but - Gal Gadot "slightly above girl next door"? Man, you've got some high standards.

There I would say yes she's way above average BUT not what I like. And I've read she's rumored to be out as WW anyway come next movie. But that's a rumor.

Added:
I'm also not the group who screams women like Godot need to go. The whole anti-beach body crowd. The fat acceptance crowd. THOSE are the ones cancelling women who are way above average. Its one thing to have high expectations, its another when the bar is so low anyone can step over it.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Can't wait to hopefully eventually see the entire video of Starlight's contemporary Christian pop-styled "Never Truly Vanish"

Apparently it was posted last month:

Imagineer wrote: ↑

2 years ago

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Can't wait to hopefully eventually see the entire video of Starlight's contemporary Christian pop-styled "Never Truly Vanish"

Apparently it was posted last month:

Thanks! For some reason I couldn't find it when I searched.

They are really making full use of Erin Moriarty's talents, combining both a great singing voice and her ruthless comedic parody of Celine Dion.

And yes, Mr. X., she is hot.

Starlight is a real Angel, she is beautiful and reminds me of the virginal image of what She-Ra or some other magical mythical warrior woman should be. Blonde, petite, perfect eyes and face....the package deal!! She also reminds me of Sophitia, a Character in a game Soul Calibur that I played so much as a little girl, always wanted to be a blonde warrior like her.

Very, very late to the party here. I just finished binge watching Season 1 of The Boys and found it very worthwhile. Just starting Season 2 and looking forward to that. The actor playing Homelander has done a straight out fantastic job! Need to see more of Lady Maeve kicking ass. Kudos to the production and writing teams of this series. For me, it's great.

Welcome onboard Season 1 is definitively one of the best superhero shows of all time. S2 a little bit disappointing (imho) but ok.

helstar wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Welcome onboard Season 1 is definitively one of the best superhero shows of all time. S2 a little bit disappointing (imho) but ok.

Disappointing here and there, yes, but the four-way F/F battle (I won't reveal any more since Dr Dominator hasn't gotten there yet)
in The Boys Season 2 is the largest all-superheroine fight to ever grace a TV screen from a mainstream production.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

helstar wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Welcome onboard Season 1 is definitively one of the best superhero shows of all time. S2 a little bit disappointing (imho) but ok.

Disappointing here and there, yes, but the four-way F/F battle (I wo
n't reveal any more since Dr Dominator hasn't gotten there yet)
in The Boys Season 2 is the largest all-superheroine fight to ever grace a TV screen from a mainstream production.

Wow! Okay, I'm up for that. Eyeballs ready. Finger on slo-mo remote ... and GO!!

I liked Season 2 only slightly less than the first season. Looking forward to S3.

The Boys' Vought Corporation parody of "Plus" streaming services!



And slightly older, a parody of Fox News from Vought's 7 on Seven.
It contains the first live-action appearance of Crimson Countess, and the hilarious "Queen Maeve''s Inclusive Kingdom", "
where you can use any pronoun you want to".

I remain hopeful that Instagram and OnlyFans and pop music will continue to nudge vavavoom back toward mainstream acceptability in Hollywood casting -- and that The Boys has not had its last cheeky moment of satirically objectifying its superheroines.

Another new video from Vought for the holiday season.
This time, Brave Maeve went to great lengths to provide blankets and her signature Pride Bars for the LGBTQ homeless. You go, girl!
And don't forget to check out the video comments for the endless Youtube roleplayers. The Boys' fanbase is amazing.
Stop the war on Christmas!

About The Boys. I recently binged seasons 1-2. I had been put off by their tendency to have characters (particularly their heads) exploding all over everyone on screen. Still a little gruesome for me.

I do appreciate that they're somewhat even-handed offenders of popular culture, parodying mega-churches, jingoistic patriotism, LGBTQ-sucking up corporations, and particularly Disney (overconfident rodent I think they said), as well as the big bad being the evil big pharma.

I did think their Monty-Python-esque takedown of one of the Nazi villains was a little ridiculous especially as the climatic moment. Of course they do have that tendency as with The Deep's eviscerated whale friend and his somewhat sexually ambiguous relationships with sea mammals.

And who can fail to see Queen Maeve's Inclusive Kingdom (filled with Pride Bars) as the ultimate empty virtue-signaling trope that I'm sure annoys those it pretends to flatter?

All in all, a creepy, ultra-violent, very offensive, cringe-worthy show, whose 3rd season I'll undoubtedly watch.

That's what I enjoyed about the show as well, the corporate hijacking of rainbow people and virtue signalling and how fake it was like when the corporate busy body woman walked in on Queen Maeve and found her with a man and got mad it would ruin her lesbian persona for the company.

No comments on the cartoon spin off "Diabolical" ?

helstar wrote: ↑

2 years ago

No comments on the cartoon spin off "Diabolical" ?

I'd say people should check out Episodes 4 and 8, specifically.
Episode 4 for the sexy scenario, and Episode 8 for some earlier history of The Seven which is now official canon for the series.
The rest is pretty ridiculous and unnecessary - and yes, I did watch all of it.

Haven't seen the 8th yet

I liked the 3rd episode also because Butcher and Hughie are depicted exactly like in the comics.

helstar wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Haven't seen the 8th yet

I liked the 3rd episode also because Butcher and Hughie are depicted exactly like in the comics.

Yeah, that could be someone's third choice, especially since you also see some nice shots of Maeve.

But if I had to pick a 3rd place runner-up I'd pick Episode 5 -

Spoiler

it's a withering commentary on modern mainstream media's tiptoeing around the creation of original black superheroic characters...there are echoes of shows like Black Lightning, Black-ish, Naomi, Proud Family, and others. The main superheroine character is like a cross between Nafessa Williams' Thunder and the recent animated portrayals of Vixen, which is to say, despite having a textbook 'post-modern' hairstyle, she is smokingly desirable. And despite being involved in odious projects like The Talk, writer/comedienne Aisha Tyler had a great idea when she created this superhero power-couple who only get horny for each other hopped up on adrenalin after a good battle against supervillains. It's not the first time someone's tried that premise, but the results can be quite hot. One could easily make a fetish video out of it.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

despite having a textbook 'progressive' hairstyle, she is smokingly desirable.

I'm trying to figure that one out. So...she wasn't wearing a MAGA cap, but you got hard anyway?

Bert wrote: ↑

2 years ago

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

despite having a textbook 'progressive' hairstyle, she is smokingly desirable.

I'm trying to figure that one out. So...she wasn't wearing a MAGA cap, but you got hard anyway?

Oh come on.

Bert wrote: ↑

2 years ago

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

despite having a textbook 'progressive' hairstyle, she is smokingly desirable.

I'm trying to figure that one out. So...she wasn't wearing a MAGA cap, but you got hard anyway?

Politics, people! Have to agree with Mr X on this one, Bert. Play nice!

Oh, I'm sorry. Shevek's dig at "progressives" is perfectly fine, but when I counter his statement with a corresponding comment I'm the bad guy. You folks need to decide whether politics is always offside, or only some of the time.

A political drive-by is okay. Shooting back is not.
Conduct your own political drive-by without directly acknowledging the original and we can go several rounds before giving up on another topic.

Bert wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Oh, I'm sorry. Shevek's dig at "progressives" is perfectly fine, but when I counter his statement with a corresponding comment I'm the bad guy. You folks need to decide whether politics is always offside, or only some of the time.

Looking in after a couple of months off: I was explicitly nervous when the no-politics "rule" was instituted that it would be used to specifically punish people for "talking back" to the various wingnuts on the forum who otherwise wilfully carpet-bomb the entire place with their shitty-assed retrograde politics with zero consequence.

So it has turned out to be. No surprises. Cowardice just is what it is, and cowards are who they are. It's a pity. Had those parameters been actually enforced even-handedly, some real conversations could have ensued.

Yes, mods and site owner, I'm fully aware I just explicitly called you a pack of cowards out in the open. Do feel free to ban me for it. I won't be back. (EDIT: Oh, who the hell am I kidding? If I care enough to say this, of course I'll be back. Et voila. I need to stop saying this. )

NotUv2 wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Bert wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Oh, I'm sorry. Shevek's dig at "progressives" is perfectly fine, but when I counter his statement with a corresponding comment I'm the bad guy. You folks need to decide whether politics is always offside, or only some of the time.

Looking in after a couple of months off: I was explicitly nervous when the no-politics "rule" was instituted that it would be used to specifically punish people for "talking back" to the various wingnuts on the forum who otherwise wilfully carpet-bomb the entire place with their shitty-assed retrograde politics with zero consequence.

So it has turned out to be. No surprises. Cowardice just is what it is, and cowards are who they are. It's a pity. Had those parameters been actually enforced even-handedly, some real conversations could have ensued.

Yes, mods and site owner, I'm fully aware I just explicitly called you a pack of cowards out in the open. Do feel free to ban me for it. I won't be back.

I just now tried and failed to post a comment due to a problem with my tablet. I was making the point that being a moderator on this site is an unpaid position and that reviewing the many threads here for political carpet bombing isn't always immediate or easy for us.

I personally am not a fan of the "no politics" policy but I'm a huge fan of civility and when I see personal statements directly aimed at specific members rather than trash talking about virtue signaling or whatever, that has usually been my cue to step in. I apologize if the moderators are coming off as inept or cowards. It isn't on purpose. I will try to do a better job. It would help greatly if people tried to police their own attitudes a bit more and take to heart what we have in common more than what our differences are.

The world is a very tense place right now so let's give each other some slack, please.

NotUv2 we can have differences without being enemies. Peace brother.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

there are echoes of shows like Black Lightning, Black-ish, Naomi, Proud Family, and others.

I think those characters are a parody of Black Panther and Storm, and the ''daughter'' is a metaphor of the audience (who at first wanted them back, then see how it ended -worse-, so they say ok ok fine, go separate ways in different comic arcs, better !).

helstar wrote: ↑

2 years ago

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

there are echoes of shows like Black Lightning, Black-ish, Naomi, Proud Family, and others.

I think those characters are a parody of Black Panther and Storm, and the ''daughter'' is a metaphor of the audience (who at first wanted them back, then see how it ended -worse-, so they say ok ok fine, go separate ways in different comic arcs, better !).

You're probably correct, Helstar. I just checked Comic Vine, and although "Nubian Prince" is an original character created for the series, "Nubia" was definitely a Storm parody in The Boys comics. So all Aisha Tyler had to do was connect those two characters, who are parodies for unoriginal black character names, and hilarity ensued.

DrDominator9 wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I was making the point that being a moderator on this site is an unpaid position and that reviewing the many threads here for political carpet bombing isn't always immediate or easy for us.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't explain at all incidents where you explicitly side with right-wing posters, who instigated the interactions, and try to tell other posters that if they just don't talk back or just pretend that what's plainly happening is not happening, everything would be fine.

That's not an "overworked, unpaid volunteer" decision. That's a policy decision. It is specifically a decision to wield the "no-politics" "ruie" against the majority of your community in favor of a select few obnoxious nutcases who -- I suspect, outside of their utter lack of control about dragging their wingnut politics into every little possible thing -- have connections as creators with the board's owner.

That's what you're doing, to be clear. Every time you try to tell a member that "if you just didn't say anything, everything would be fine," what you're deliberately doing is weaponizing the supposed "no-politics" rule against your community. I'm not going to stop saying that this is what is happening. It is extremely clear that this is what is happening. It is revoltingly craven, and it is utterly irresponsible. I will keep telling you that in the frankest possible terms until you stop doing this bullshit or until I am no longer here. I do not care, anymore, which of those it is. I fucking called that this was how the "rule" could be deployed, and I am incredibly disappointed to have been proved so completely correct.'

Like, the time to intervene against "politics" in the above exchange was obviously when "textbook 'progressive' hairstyle" came up. (The fuck does that even mean?) But the point where you decided to scold someone was the response and not the initiation, and to scold them specifically for daring to respond. What enforcing the "no politics" rule even-handedly would look like is your sanctioning the instigator here and having developed the situational awareness -- because you have to know this person is a perpetual baiter and instigator -- to simply do this as a matter of course instead of working up excuses to muzzle anyone who replies to them.

If it were me, I would've just banned political extremism and banned its proponents at the first excuse they gave me. Easier and more coherent solution. But this is what y'all chose, and you're stuck with enforcing it across the board or being exposed as being feckless. I sympathize with your position to some extent, but there are limits.

This kind of thing, in particular, is a common pattern with the specific member in question. I have to call it out: not a few months ago I was told that if I'd pretended said member's obvious political dog-whistles were something other than they plainly were, and if I hadn't exposed them as what they were, everything would've been fine. That's not a "no politics" policy. That's a "protecting wingnut provocation from dissent" policy. At least own up to what you're doing.

It's not feasible to hide that you're doing it or to keep cloaking this behind the excuse of being volunteers. Many of us have been volunteer moderators, I've been one. I've been a volunteer moderator on forums frankly much more active than this one by a long shot. Being one did not divest me of common sense. I want you to stop hiding and own up to what the real policy actually is.

I will discuss the "no politics" rule with the other moderators to see how to deal with things as even-handedly as possible without crushing the discourse here but I fear it's a Kobiashi Maru situation.

DrDominator9 wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I will discuss the "no politics" rule with the other moderators to see how to deal with things as even-handedly as possible without crushing the discourse here but I fear it's a Kobiashi Maru situation.

It's not. The list of people who constantly post provocative political statements is very short. Since Mr. X and Dazzle1 have moderated their output and that other nut with multiple usernames seems to have wandered off, there is only one. Shevek is incredibly prolific here, what with constantly hawking his video series as well as often posting on comic, movie and television threads. I can understand how just keeping up with his flood of posts is a challenge. In the comment in question on this thread, the objectionable part was hidden in a spoiler blind, making it that much harder to police. But it's one guy. Just demand that he cut that shit out. He needs you more than you need him.

And Shevek, by his very nature, is toxic to the community as a whole. People like him spreading his verbal diarrhea is what has been driving people slowly away from this forum board. Who wants to deal with a poser like him when he posts twenty or thirty times a week, dominating the conversation with his whiny diatribes against women and liberals?

Everyone has a hard enough time getting by without having to listen to Shevek obviously falling in love with the sound of his OWN voice. Ughh, no thank you.

download/file.php?id=55617

So this isn't a political post?

No, that's just a straight up fact!

DrDominator9 wrote: ↑

2 years ago

No, that's just a straight up fact!

sigh

Shakeshift wrote: ↑

2 years ago

And Shevek, by his very nature, is toxic to the community as a whole. People like him spreading his verbal diarrhea is what has been driving people slowly away from this forum board. Who wants to deal with a poser like him when he posts twenty or thirty times a week, dominating the conversation with his whiny diatribes against women and liberals?

I count myself in this category — I'm not very active, or very political, but every time I jump on here, I'm bombarded with Shevek's posts where he sees oppression against men, him etc. in everything. I've started avoiding the posts with his name on them, but it has had a chilling effect on this whole place. It's usually little semi-snide comments where he thinks he's being subtle about his butt-hurt, but he's not. I wish that could get clamped down on.

Basically, the remaining instigator is Shevek. And he's an instigator because he knows the board will side with him and protect him. Because he knows you lack the simple guts to sanction or ban him. I have to assume that's because he has some kind of personal relationship with the board's owner, so I guess Hypnotic is going to have to decide whether he wants a buddy or to be managing an online community. If he wants the former, he doesn't need a forum; he can just hang with Shevek on Facebook or whatever.

I don't see what value Shevek is bringing to this space --- I mean to an extent I do, his reviews and contributions would be 100% fine without the obsessive wingnut political baiting, trolling, dog-whistle politics and overall bullshit that he cannot, apparently, refrain from, I want to like Shevek but he is apparently either determined for that not to happen or just stupid -- but I 100% do not understand the policy decision to protect that piece of shit from dissent and to twist the "no politics" rule to that purpose.

And that is what y'all have chosen to do, to be clear. It is not possible to sit down at your keyboard, tell people not to talk back to Shevek and everything will be fine, and not know what the fuck you're doing. Being a volunteer moderator does not tank your IQ or nerf your cognitive capacity, I am fucking done with even pretending to accept that excuse: you have to know what you're doing when you behave that way. The first and second instances of this bullshit that I encountered were months apart. Both were equally stupid and craven. Neither was excusable. And I do not believe at this point that they happened randomly. I'm not blaming the mod team, except insofar as they're prepared to be part of a disgraceful masquerade that really has to have originated with Hypnotic.

It is very obvious that. as I suspected it might be, the "no politics" rule was created to suppress dissent and eliminate irritants for Hypnotic's buddies. That the "rule" was the forum siding against the bulk of its membership and any possible future membership b/c Hypnotic simply lacks the stones to confront and ban Shevek for his constant and gratuitous provocation. I have nothing but contempt for this. This is community management at its most craven and incompetent, and ti's really on Hypnotic, the mod team are caught in the middle and if I were one of them, I would've quit long ago.

I suspect actions have been taking place behind the scenes. For some time now, Mr.X and Dazzle1 have been much less inclined to insert their political views, although both continue to post. My guess is they were contacted privately and read the riot act. Time will tell, but the same has likely now happened with shevek.

Bert:
When you have done anywhere near as much as Mr. X for this genre then feel free to criticize him. The idea of some non-impartial moderator 'reading the riot act' to such a giant in the field is both disgusting and ludicrous.
GW

Bill Cosby did a lot for comedy. Does that make him beyond criticism? What about Lance Armstrong? Your statement makes no sense.

Bert wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I suspect actions have been taking place behind the scenes. For some time now, Mr.X and Dazzle1 have been much less inclined to insert their political views, although both continue to post. My guess is they were contacted privately and read the riot act. Time will tell, but the same has likely now happened with shevek.

No I stopped because posters retaliated against me by trying to convince people to not join my site and called me racist and a white supremacist over simple discussions.

I was not read some riot act.

Bert wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Bill Cosby did a lot for comedy. Does that make him beyond criticism? What about Lance Armstrong? Your statement makes no sense.

So I sexually harassed 60 women? I used drugs? I somehow cheated? I all EVER did was engage in discussion. I NEVER name called, threaten to dox, tried to get people to not join a site, called people racist, screamed at someone hysterically about benign issues. (all of this has happened to me btw)

NotUv2 wrote:I don't see what value Shevek is bringing to this space

Yes he contributes A LOT. All his comic line and conference stuff he posts? Samples and reviews of indie devs. You don't see that?

NotUv2 wrote:It is very obvious that. as I suspected it might be, the "no politics" rule was created to suppress dissent and eliminate irritants for Hypnotic's buddies.

I believe YOU specifically and Bert and others demanded this rule.