In many ways, yes, I agree. Season 1 was the most “cohesive”: a clear goal, clear stakes, the heroes really scramble as best they can, and that creates drive. Plus there was still novelty—the very idea of “supes as a toxic corporation” felt fresh back then, and the series didn’t try to be a drama, a political satire, a farce, and shock‑content all at once.
But Seasons 2–3 (and especially 4) already show that the show lives by the principle “we need another season or two, but we’re not giving the finale yet.” So circles appear around the water: Homelander is about to break, then holds together again; “The Boys” split up, then regroup; Butcher seems like he could have been taken out long ago, but the script keeps throwing a stop‑cannon. At the same time there are strong individual episodes/arcs, but the overall story cohesion is weaker.
Regarding Season 4, I understand the feeling of it being “off the rails”: there’s a stronger tilt toward current satire and at times it feels like the characters do not act in ways logical to them, but rather what’s needed to push a scene or a point. Although it’s lively in places, it’s as if it’s no longer a “story about the boys versus the supes,” but a “showcase of the madness of The Boys’ world,” where plot is secondary.
If you want, I can be specific: what exactly in Season 4 threw you off the most—character motivations, pacing, or the feeling that “nothing moves”?
