Invincible Excels at Maximizing Problematic Superhero Tropes, But I’m Convinced 1 Has Now Been Done to Death

Viltrumites are Invincible’s strongest characters, from the full-blooded warriors to those like Oliver and Mark Grayson who share DNA with other species. Naturally, the war between evil Invincible variants and, later, the Viltrumite warrior Conquest should be destructive. While these revelations played well in the comics, the massive destruction they caused began to lose impact over time. This isn’t new, of course.

In the second episode of Invincible, viewers saw Omni-Man destroy an entire planet full of aliens called Flaxans. In the first season finale, his fight with Mark caused incredible devastation. Ironically, increasing this destructive impact in Season 3 was meant to keep these events from simply repeating what already happened. Yet, this escalation is just as likely to inure audiences to the violence as it is to make it more horrifying and dramatic. While this is a problem that extends beyond just Invincible, knowing what’s coming in Robert Kirkman’s saga suggests this problem is only going to get worse.

Invincible Builds on the Comics' Deconstructionist Take on Superheroes

Robert Kirkman Is Able to Examine the Genre Without Being Cynical About It

Prolific comics creator Robert Kirkman sees the animated series as a «second draft» of the story he told in the comics. It also comes at a time when most audiences have seen enough superhero stories that a deconstructionist take on the larger myth is both warranted and welcome. Invincible uses the familiar framework of a superhero universe to interrogate the idea of superheroes themselves. Mark is, essentially, every kid who grew up reading comics and dreamed of being the most powerful hero in a world full of them. Invincible then interrogates that notion.

«This is his transition from his late teens into adulthood… To have a character like Powerplex shining a light on some of the darker aspects of what Mark has done in the past [allows him to] question where he stands.» — Robert Kirkman in an interview.

While this may seem similar to Eric Kripke’s The Boys, superheroes aren’t the focus of the show. It offers a deeply cynical allegory about power and its effect on the world using corporate-made superheroes. Invincible features heroes who aren’t paragons of virtue like those seen in the Marvel or DC universes. Yet, they still care about helping people, saving lives, and doing the right thing. They choose to serve humanity, though they each have their own way of doing so.

In Season 3, Invincible evokes Zack Snyder’s DC films, specifically the scale of destruction during the titular hero’s fights. Yet, Superman’s battle with Zod pales in comparison to the worldwide carnage wrought by Conquest and the Mark Grayson variants who attacked the show’s version of Earth. Not only that, but Mark learns the opposite lesson from Kal-El. He decides that rather than mercy and restraint, his villains deserve death. Ironically, Mark is not concerned about killing the villains who ravage innocents and destroy cities, but those who specifically threaten the people he cares about the most.

Superheroes Are Inherently Dangerous, Which Is Why They're a 'Power Fantasy'

Godlike Beings Earnestly Trying to Serve Humanity Is Important to the Superhero Myth

The Viltrumites are clearly interpretations of Kryptonians, which is why they are so powerful and destructive. While some see it as childish, Superman’s chief appeal isn’t his power, but rather his pure moral compass. The fantasy isn’t his god-like powers, but rather that someone with such abilities would choose to be of service rather than rule. While the Man of Steel final battle is destructive, the entire second film in Snyder’s trilogy is about the fallout from that. Mark has experienced that lesson three times over.

In the comics, Invincible is joined by other heroes in the Image Comics universe, like Savage Dragon, Spawn and others unavailable for use in the series.

While still a mostly faithful adaptation, the series makes changes to the «Invincible War» storyline. The devastation it inflicted is not one of them. Mark’s journey over the season forces him to recant his vow not to take lives by killing versions of himself. When fighting his variants or Conquest, he doesn’t even try to move the fight from populated areas. While I understand this is partly the point, it undermines Mark’s emotional struggle. If he’d at least tried to move the fight and failed, his guilt and anger would carry more weight.

The Invincible War is an allegory for real-world conflicts, specifically those fought by «superpowers.» I deployed to Iraq with the US Army as part of a war effort that was avoidable and caused more harm than good. Nonetheless, among those I served with, a crucial metric for determining a mission’s success was the lack of collateral damage. Other forces in that conflict, however, tried to cause as much destruction as possible. To those who saw it firsthand, every casualty was personal and horrifying. For those who didn’t, it seemed as though a sense of numbness towards the scope of human tragedy grew proportionally with the number of casualties.

The Collateral Destruction Caused by Superheroes Continues to Pointlessly Escalate

Invincible Has Already Overplayed the Massive Destruction Beings Like Him Cause

The 1996 film Independence Day blew up the White House, the Empire State building, and a handful of other locations. This shocked audiences, but after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the destruction of a single building or even a city street seemed tame by comparison. Superman and Zod wrecked Metropolis. The Avengers and Ultron destroyed Sokovia. Invincible, taking advantage of the freedom of animation, makes that destruction also seem tame. The first season finale shocked me because the fight between Mark and Nolan was so personal and because of the scale of destruction Omni-Man committed just to hurt his son. Season 3’s devastation was worse, but instead of greater emotion, I felt that shameful numbness.

• Early 2000s superhero films usually staged the final battle in a secluded area or confined the destruction to a city street or two.
• After The Avengers, the third-act fight destruction escalated, most prominently in Man of Steel, released a year later.

In fairness, the storytellers wanted the audience to care, and maybe it worked for other viewers. Perhaps because I viewed the season through a critical lens, I let obvious narrative escalation and visual spectacle get in the way. There was promise in the Powerplex arc, seemingly another parallel to Snyder’s films, Batman v Superman (though the comics did it first). Mark taking stock of the lives he failed to save, even though it wasn’t his fault, was great. I hoped Conquest wouldn’t show up until Season 4, or Mark would take Conquest to the Moon for their fight. Instead, Mark seemingly relished the opportunity for more destruction.

Perhaps for most viewers, Invicible versus Conquest was Season 3’s best fight, but it failed to resonate with me. In both versions of this story, I view Mark as every kid who grew up reading comics and dreamed of being a hero. If he didn’t care who his fight with Conquest killed or what it destroyed, then neither could I. Whereas the Season 1 scene with Nolan and Mark decimating the subway car wrenched my heart, the similar scene with Mark and Conquest on the beach lacked any of that emotional punch. Intended to draw a direct connection to that moment of helplessness, for me, it played as near-pointless repetition.

Invincible Has Limitless Potential, but Bigger Destruction Has Diminishing Returns

Even With the Freedom of Animation, Invincible Can't Go Much Bigger

The first and most scathing deconstructionist take on superheroes is Watchmen, and its only superhero could destroy every Viltrumite with a stray thought. Many others have followed from The Boys to Powers to Jupiter’s Legacy. What sets Invincible apart is how Kirkman and company captured the flawed humanity in the heroes without cynicism. Mark, the Guardians of the Globe, and Cecil, in his own way, want to protect innocent lives. Failing to do so is narratively rich and makes for great drama. In animation, there are no limits, and perhaps that’s why Invincible‘s final Season 3 episodes felt like needless escalation for its own sake.

Despite these complaints, I think Invincible Season 3 is bold, satisfying, and emotional. Overall, it’s more excellent storytelling from talented writers, animators, and performers. If anything, the show is a victim of its own success. There was simply no way the series could effectively raise the level of spectacle without losing its connection to the humanity behind the destruction. My love of superheroes is almost genetic. My mother is herself a nerd who introduced me to Star Trek, Star Wars and comics before I formed permanent memories. Poring over her collection of old issues of Silver Surfer and Superman’s Girlfriend Lois Lane is, apparently, how I taught myself to read before kindergarten.

The DC Comics’ characters are in their ninth decade of existence, and their Marvel counterparts are only about 20 years more recent. While some might diagnose my reaction to Invincible Season 3 as «superhero fatigue,» this longevity suggests it doesn’t exist. Robert Kirkman agrees that any such fatigue evaporates with fresh, character-focused storytelling. Ironically, Invincible sacrificed this perspective for shots of entire city skylines crumbling away. The escalating level of destruction was meant to increase viewers’ emotional devastation. Only instead of horror, sadness and shock, there was only numbness bordering on disinterest.

Seasons 1-3 of Invincible are streaming on Prime Video, and Season 4 is currently in production.