The Boys: Diabolical, Amazon Prime Video's animated anthology spin-off series, has an official release date – and it's a risky one, considering what else is being released on the same day.
As part of Amazon's Fanimation Week, a celebration of Prime Video 's animated offerings that runs until January 21, it was announced that The Boys: Diabolical will launch on Friday, March 4.
To coincide with the release date reveal, a brief first-look trailer was also unveiled, which shows that the The Boys spin-off show will be packed with as much R-rated content as the main series:
The Boys: Diabolical's launch date means it'll land on Amazon's streaming service before The Boys season 3 , which is due to arrive in early June. But, while that means we'll be getting more content in The Boys' universe earlier than expected, Diabolical's release puts it in direct competition with another superhero property – and it's a battle that Diabolical may not win.
Why? Because The Boys: Diabolical's March 4 release date will pit the show against none other than one of the greatest superheroes of all time: Batman.
The beloved DC Comics vigilante's latest movie reboot – The Batman – arrives exclusively in theaters on March 4. And, given that it's one of the most keenly anticipated films of 2022 , that spells bad news for The Boys: Diabolical.
As much as superhero and comic book fans enjoy Amazon's adaptation of The Boys, let's be clear here: whether they're live-action or animated, they can't hold a candle to The Dark Knight.
Batman regularly finds himself in the top five positions whenever a new 'best superheroes ever' list is produced. And with good reason – he's a tragic character, albeit one with extremely cool gadgets, vehicles and unlimited cash reserves, who operates in the gray area between right and wrong.
He has a rogues' gallery of enemies that are the envy of most other superheroes. And the Caped Crusader has some of the most beloved comic and graphic novel stories ever written, including The Long Halloween, The Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, Batman: Year One, and Hush.
So Batman's popularity and illustrious history will always win out in a battle against a lot of other superhero properties – and we're including The Boys here.
Sure, The Boys: Diabolical has a few things going for it. For one, it's a TV show that'll be available on a streaming service. Fans, then, will be free to watch it at their leisure, knowing full well that it'll be available to view at any time and on any device. The option to watch episodes as they're released weekly, or wait until the final entry is released and binge them in one go, is another factor in Diabolical's favor.
Compare that to The Batman, which won't land on HBO Max – WarnerMedia's streaming platform – until 45 days after it's released in theaters. That means Batman aficionados will have to catch it in cinemas if they don't want to wait until they can stream it in their own homes.
The Boys: Diabolical's restricted (R) rating means that fans of mature content will get their fill of blood/gore, bad language, and sex and drug references. Meanwhile, The Batman has received a PG-13 rating. Yes, we expect the Robert Pattinson-starring flick to push the boundaries of its PG-13 rating – it looks gritty and fairly violent, all things considered – but we won't see any Ben Affleck Batman-style killings in The Batman, unlike what was on show in Zack Snyder's Justice League .
But Diabolical's release on the same day as The Batman is a big gamble. In keeping with The Boys' underdog status when Billy, Hughie and company go toe-to-toe with the villainous Supes in the main Prime Video series , Amazon Studios is taking on a massive rival in Batman. Clearly, it has a lot of confidence in Diabolical, and Prime Video's executive team won't back down from a fight, even if it means duking it out with one of the most popular superheroes ever.
Even so, we think that The Boys: Diabolical will play second fiddle to The Batman on March 4. Despite the ongoing pandemic, Spider-Man: No Way Home proved that film fans will still flock to theaters to see the biggest films as soon as they're released.
We expect the next DCEU movie to have the same allure as its comic-book movie rival, especially during opening weekend. If that's the case, The Boys: Diabolical may struggle for views in the first week post-launch. Yes, it'll draw in viewers throughout its episodic run, but we can't see Diabolical overthrowing The Batman and being declared the winner on March 4. In fact, we're so confident that, if it does win the day, we'll eat Batman's cowl.
Hey Google, Congress needs to do more to rein in the tech industry, not less
Kent Walker, President of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer for Google and parent company Alphabet, wrote a long blog post this week that argues that the "anti-tech" bills the US Congress is considering threaten to break important Google services and literally threaten the health of the public. I'm not kidding.
There's a lot to unpack in the post, but Google's argument boils down to three essential points: US technological competitiveness, user security, and user experience.
The first is almost laughable as a defense once you take a moment to consider what Google is actually saying. Essentially, the argument goes that if Google needs to get permission from "government bureaucrats" (in other words, regulators looking out for the public interest) in order to launch new features or fix problems, it would put American companies at a competitive disadvantage against foreign companies.
What they really mean is Chinese companies, since only the state-aligned tech giants of China like Tencent have anywhere near the power of American tech companies, which should tell you a lot more about American tech than anything else.
The kicker is the argument that "Foreign companies could also routinely access American technology as well as Americans' data."
First, foreign companies routinely access American technology because American companies sell it to them. Huawei phones were running Android OS right up until Huawei got sanctioned by the US Government, let's not forget.
If Google is concerned about Chinese companies tearing down their products and reverse engineering them, well, that's been a part of business for as long as there has been business. If you want to avoid that, don't sell them your products. You don't get to have it both ways.
Then, there's the argument that foreign companies can routinely access American's data, and so, presumably, restricting US tech companies' ability to do so puts US tech at a competitive disadvantage. In other words, Google is implicitly arguing for a race to the bottom on privacy protection against companies operating in authoritarian countries. No thanks.
The other two arguments need some further unpacking though, since they get to the heart of the anti-trust debate currently bubbling up in the tech world.
Will anti-trust legislation harm user security?
Google claims that it "is able to protect billions of people around the world from cyberattacks because we bake security and privacy protections into our services," and that "These bills could prevent us from securing our products by default, and would introduce new privacy risks for you."
Sounds ominous, but the examples Google cites don't do the legwork it things they do. First, "The bills could hamper our ability to integrate automated security features if other companies offer similar features. For example, we might be prevented from automatically including our SafeBrowsing service and spam filters in Chrome and Gmail to block pop-ups, viruses, scams and malware."
Notice that Google doesn't say that users will be necessarily be left vulnerable. This would only be an issue if someone else offered a similar service: in other words, competition. I thought competition was a good thing for innovation?
What about breaking apart the connections between Google services? Would this limit Google's ability to "detect and protect you against security risks that use security signals across our products"?
That is entirely possible, but Google does not say what kind of threats those are, and why they and they alone can prevent them. Couldn't a competing service actually be better at detecting these threats? Maybe, maybe not, but why does Google have the exclusive right to decide that question in its favor?
Google also says that "when you use Google Search or Google Play, we might have to give equal prominence to a raft of spammy and low-quality services." That's right, only the low-quality and spammy services and apps that pay Google advertising dollars are allowed to be displayed prominently.
What's more, this argument implicitly gives Google the right to determine whether an app or service is "low-quality". First, have you seen the Google Play marketplace? They are already failing on this front. What does low-quality mean to Google? Who knows, they get to decide that for us, and competing apps and services to Google's own products could suffer as a result.
The real kicker though is the claim that "These bills may compel us to share the sensitive data you store with us with unknown companies in ways that could compromise your privacy."
This is Google's entire business model in a nutshell. Google already does this, it's just that Google charges for access to that data. Also, "data you store with us" is a funny way to say "data we collect about your online activity," but I can see why they'd want to go with the former phrasing, rather than the latter.
Does anti-trust legislation break features that help customers and small businesses?
Google rightly notes that "When you come to Google Search, you want to get the most helpful results." That's why so many Google search requests return search results filled with ads above the fold of the search results page. But I digress.
"If you search for a place or an address," Google says, "we may not be able to show you directions from Google Maps in your results." Thanks Google! No one knew how to get anywhere before you integrated Google Maps into everything.
Google says that without Google Search and Maps integration, information about a local businesses Google collects might not "highlighted" in Search, like hours of operation, foot traffic, etc. This could hurt business and customers alike, but Google doesn't say how. Maybe they, too, are millennials who are too anxious to dial the listed phone number and ask what time the business closes. Whatever did we do before Google came along? We were such lost little lambs.
Likewise, if Gmail, Calendar, and Docs aren't integrated to work "seamlessly" businesses would suffer. Again, they don't provide any specifics of so onerous a situation that only tightly controlled integration between Google's services can solve the problem.
It's not about ensuring that a business is completely locked into its ecosystem of services and making them more money, they're doing this as a service to small businesses. Totally on the up and up.
Finally, there are some arguments Google deploys in its blog post that are genuinely...distasteful. "As just one example, if you search for 'vaccine near me,' we might not be able to show you a map of vaccine locations in your community."
Sure, that may be true, but you can also Google "vaccines 10036" or any other zip code and get the same information, which most people are going to do anyway. What's offensive about this is Google is deploying a public health crisis as an excuse to defeat antitrust regulation that may threaten its bottom line.
It does something similar when it says "When you have an urgent question — like 'stroke symptoms' — Google Search could be barred from giving you immediate and clear information, and instead be required to direct you to a mix of low quality results."
If Google wanted, it could ask that an exception be made in any anti-trust legislation for terms that might signal a health emergency—a carve-out that few, if any, legislators would be inclined to reject. The government already has tech companies label misinformation about Covid-19 in its results, so it's not like exceptions for safety reasons can't be made.
Instead, Google is using a particularly frightening edge case as an argument to defeat ongoing anti-trust effort. The suggestion here is you either let Google engage in its current business practices, which many legislators consider monopolistic, or you might not be immediately told that you or your loved one could be having a stroke and will have to wade through misinformation to figure it out on your own, which would sure be a shame. The gall is genuinely gobsmacking.
Google's defense of itself actually shows that it has invaded too far into everyday life
All you need to do is ask "What does Google do?" to see the problem. It's not one thing, its increasingly everything. It runs the vast majority of phone and tablets in the world. It is the world's largest search engine by miles. It is just about the only way you can ever get directions, it is how most of us communicate, and increasingly, it's how most of us conduct our daily business.
It is everywhere, and Google is saying that simply severing the connection between these services and allowing competition into the mix could break everything. If that is the case, then it is far too powerful to remain in one piece. No one company should have so much power over so much of what we do in our day-to-day lives, even down to knowing whether or not a loved one is having a stroke.
And it's not just Google. Facebo—I mean, Meta—wants to be the only way you connect and interact with friends and family. Amazon is increasingly the backbone of the entire internet, to the point where a server outage in one of its data centers can bring down thousands of apps and websites all at once.
Google's defense of its business practices, and those of the tech industry more broadly, does the exact opposite of what it intended. It lays out a convincing case for why it and every other tech behemoth needs to be checked by the only entity powerful enough to do so: the government. With every passing day, the tech industry is showing us that it clearly can't be trusted to do so of its own accord.
The Boys season 3: release date, trailer, cast, plot and more
The Boys season 3 is less than two months from release – and, oh boy, are we diabolically excited for its return.
One of the biggest Prime Video shows will return to our screens this summer after a near two-year hiatus. While its delayed launch owes much to the ongoing pandemic, we have had a spin-off show – The Boys Presents: Diabolical – to tide us over until The Boys season 3 arrived. You can check out our chat with Diabolical showrunner Simon Racioppa for even more tidbits on its development, if you wish to do so.
Still, we're delighted that we'll be reunited with Billy, Hughie and company very soon. Judging by the R-rated superhero series' latest trailer, it seems like The Boys season 3 will be the funniest, goriest, and weirdest entry yet. Suffice to say, then, we can't wait.
While we continue to twiddle our thumbs before the show's return on Prime Video , though, what do we know about its next instalment? We recently learned what the episodic titles for season 3 will be, which key season 2 character won't be appearing in the show again, and why The Boys' third season will be its bloodiest yet.
Below, you'll find even more information about The Boys season 3, including its teaser trailer, expanding cast, potential plot threads, and more. Spoilers follow for The Boys' first two seasons and its graphic novel counterpart , plus potential spoilers for the upcoming season .
The Boys season 3 release date: June 3, 2022
The Boys season 3 will exclusively launch on Prime Video on June 3, 2022 .
The season's first three episodes will arrive simultaneously on that date, with subsequent episodes releasing weekly after that point. Check out the tweet below for an official rundown of when each episode will arrive, including the much anticipated entry regarding the comic series' fan-favorite storyline, aka Herogasm:
Meanwhile, the episode titles for The Boys season 3 have apparently leaked online ahead of schedule. According to The Boys Instagram fan account Vought_hq, these are the eight titles for each entry in the upcoming season:
Naturally, we (and you) should take the above with a big pinch of salt for the time being. There's every chance that these are the season 3 episode titles, but we can't verify whether they are yet. Episodes 1 and 6 seem legitimate, given what we know about certain plot points (more on these later). As for the others, they all have ties to the comics – you can read more via this Reddit post if you really want story spoilers – we'll have to wait and see. Hopefully, Amazon Studios will reveal all if and when a new trailer (or press release) is dropped in our laps.
The Boys season 3 finale will be with us on July 8, which might be just in time for any Independence Day-style episode that the show's creative team might have cooked up. We should say that we have no insider information on season 3's plot, but it would be fun if The Boys' third season gave us an explosive finale at a fireworks-laden time of year.
The Boys season 3 trailer: check out the first teaser
The Boys season 3's official trailer was released online after its unveiling at SXSW 2022. Given it's less than two minutes long, there's a lot packed into its runtime – so much so that Billy's own lazer eye superpowers are arguably the least shocking moment of what's on show.
We get our first footage of Jensen Ackles' Soldier Boy and his fellow Payback team members in action, parallels between Antony Starr's Homelander and Karl Urban's Billy Butcher (aside from the lazer eyes), and lots of tense and dramatic moments. There are also numerous clips of usual mature content, and a fair chunk of footage that shows off the more surreal side of the show and comic series.
You only need to look at the clips of a boyband Supe group, plus Frenchie and Kimiko's fever dream dance sequence, to see how much more satirical and weird The Boys season 3 can get. If it continues to be a perfect counterpoint to the TV series' darker elements, we're only too happy to see more, too.
Unsurprisingly, the third season's first proper trailer was flagged for the amount of explicit content within. Per The Metro , The Boys season 3's teaser was flagged over 20 million times for its abundance of blood and other mature material.
The first proper trailer comes two months after a brief teaser was released. If you missed that upon its initial reveal, you can watch it below:
The 45-second long trailer didn't give anything away about what this season will be about. However, it does give us a good indication about where Homelander's head is at as we head into the show's third season.
Standing alongside adversary Starlight with a bunch of paparazzi taking photographs in The Seven's main headquarters, Homelander puts on a very forced smile as cameras flash around him. That smirk, though, slowly makes way for a more solemn face as the teaser progresses, which may tease Soldier Boy's arrival or some other form of bad news. We'll find out more soon enough.
The Boys season 3 cast: who's returning and who's new?
Here's the full cast list for The Boys season 3:
The Boys season 3 cast should also feature a few more returning characters, but there's no official word on whether they'll appear yet. That could include Laila Robins as ex-CIA Deputy Director Grace Mallory, although it looks like we'll see a younger version of her at least, judging by one brief moment in the trailer.
The biggest season 3 casting news is that Supernatural's Jensen Ackles (aka Dean Winchester) has been hired to portray Soldier Boy, the first ever Vought-manufactured superhero. We'll dive into what Soldier Boy's arrival could mean later on.
In addition to Ackles' Soldier Boy, Laurie Holden ( The Walking Dead ) Sean Patrick Flanery (Dead Zone), Nick Wechsler (Dynasty) and Miles Gaston Villanueva (Nancy Drew) have joined the show as Crimson Countess, Gunpowder, Blue Hawk and Supersonic respectively.
Of the above quartet, only Crimson Countess and Gunpowder have appeared in the comics. Both could be described as villains – though such things are relative in The Boys universe – with Crimson Countess a riff on WandaVision ’s Scarlet Witch, and Gunpowder a weapons expert. Interestingly, Gunpowder briefly appeared in a TV interview in The Boys season 1, though he was played by a different actor.
Deadline has reported that Katia Winter (Blood & Treasure) has been cast as Little Nina. In the graphic novels, Little Nina is a Russian mob boss who has a penchant for sex toys, but we're still waiting on official confirmation from Amazon on her potential arrival. Deadline also claims that Frances Turner (The Man in the High Castle) will portray Monique, the wife of Mother's Milk in season 3. Kristen Booth (The Hot Zone: Anthrax) and Jack Doolan (Marcella) will also appear as Supe siblings Tessa and Tommy, aka the TNT Twins.
One actor who won't be back for more is Aya Cash, who played Stormfront in season 2. Speaking to Metacritic , Cash said: "The Boys comes out on June 3 and I'll be watching with the rest of you guys, unfortunately. That's my update." Of course, Cash could be trying to throw us off the scent of her making a cameo appearance, but it doesn't seem that way to us.
Finally, could season 3 be the final time that we see Starr, well, star as Homelander? Per Variety , the actor was recently arrested in Spain for reportedly assaulting a young chef. The Boys cast member has since received a 12-month suspended prison sentence and a fine, but it's unclear if he'll remain in the role for future seasons.
The Boys season 3 plot: what can we expect?
Spoilers follow for The Boys season 2 and the graphic novels.
Despite the trailer's arrival, there's still no official plot synopsis for season 3. Based on the teaser, though, we can speculate on what will go down.
For starters, it looks like the TV show will finally explore a key component of the comic series' plot – i The Boys dosing themselves up with Compound V to level the playing field with the Seven, Payback, and other Supes.
Well, Billy will be taking Compound V – or a variation on it, considering the stuff he takes is green, whereas Compound V is blue. Judging by the footage, it seems he'll get lazer eyes to go alongside the superhuman strength he acquires in the comics, too. Unless that's a bait and switch on the TV show's part. Maybe Billy has a nightmare that he's turning into Homelander – he's taking Compound V, after all – which is where the lazer eyes bit could come from. We suspect those clips are based in reality, though, as Billy will need more than just superhuman strength to go toe-to-toe with Homelander and company.
Whatever powers he gets, it looks like he's going to take the fight to Homelander. We see the leader of the Seven looking very concerned (is that a bruise on his right cheekbone, too?) at one point in the teaser. So maybe Billy's doled out some punishment on Homelander, and now the latter realizes he's got a worthy adversary who could end up doing significant damage to him – or, even worse, kill him outright.
Whatever's got him spooked, he's clearly shaken by it. We see Homelander take his frustrations out on A-Train – who has undergone a makeover since he was readmitted to the Seven. He's also seen milking a cow, which is presumably his way of coping without Madelyn Stillwell's breastmilk. Go figure.
There are plenty of other season 2 plot threads that the show needs to pick up, or bring to a close.
With Stormfront not set to return, Congresswoman Victoria Neuman seems to fit the bill as the next big bad (that is, if you discount Billy's potentiall villainous turn). She was outed as the Supe who explodes heads in season 2's final scene, so Neuman may have an antagonistic role to play moving forward.
That means things could get bad for Hughie. As we've seen, The Boys have temporarily disbanded, with Hughie now working for Neuman. We don't know how long it'll be before Hughie realizes that his new boss is as bad as Homelander, or what Neuman's master plan is, but he'll find out soon enough. The Boys are sure to reunite when things start going south again, so expect Hughie to return to the fold if he learns of Neuman's true motives.
Meanwhile, Soldier Boy is primed to cause some chaos, and his graphic novel backstory hints at some really mature content that's likely to appear in the TV adaptation. In the comics, there are two versions of Soldier Boy, but the show will introducie the first generation's version.
Soldier Boy is a Supe who becomes a US icon during World War II, but his backstory isn't as honorable as the general public think. He ends up killing his fellow Supes, as well as US soldiers, during one specific mission. Lieutenant Greg Mallory, whose gender has been changed for the TV show, kills Soldier Boy in the comics as recompense. However, given that this Soldier Boy is alive and well in the TV universe, his backstory and character arc need to be altered.
The arrival of Soldier Boy also ushers in the the introduction of Payback. Dubbed the "second most popular superhero team" behind The Seven, Payback are the team led by, in the comics at least, the second iteration of Soldier Boy. Stormfront is also a member of this unit, so her live-action counterpart already has ties to the TV show's version of Soldier Boy.
Season 3's first episode is titled 'Payback' – as revealed by Eric Kripke on Twitter . This might be a subtle tease about how Homelander plans to exact revenge on certain individuals, but it's more likely to hint at Payback's arrival. The trailer suggests that we'll see Soldier Boy and Payback in action during the Vietnam War, so expect this storyline to form a key part of the season 3 premiere. As showrunner Eric Kripke told Deadline in June 2021: "A big element of the comics actually are flashbacks to World War II and Vietnam. I always really loved it because you got to see how the superhero phenomenon didn’t just affect the present, but how it affected parts of the past as well."
Soldier Boy's appearance will also introduce one of the graphic novels' most shocking storylines: Herogasm, which sees Vought's superhero line-up travel to a remote tropical island to engage in a massive, secret company-organized orgy.
At the time of publication, Herogasm was considered to be the most controversial moment in the entire series. Even so, we expect it to be as R-rated and sexualized (with a modern update for today's audience, mind you) when the Herogasm storyline arrives as part of episode 6.
Kripke has teased Herogasm's sequence, saying that filming it was the "craziest dailies" that he'd ever seen. Speaking to Vanity Fair , Kripke doesn't think that anything else that he films (for the TV adaptation) will ever top it.
Herogasm won't be only surreal moment we'll see in The Boys season 3. Speaking to Entertainment Weekly at SXSW, Chace Crawford, who plays The Deep, joked that he may never be hired to star in another production again, based on what his character gets up to it in season 3.
"I can't give too much away, it's weird," Crawford said before Ackles interjected: "I remember reading that stuff [in the script] and you sent me a text message. And I have to go find it, but I think it was something like, 'I don't know how I'm gonna be able to work after this'", to which Crawford replied: "I think I did send that [text]."
Meanwhile, we should expect the bloodiest instalment in the series yet. Speaking to Den of Geek , Laz Alonso, who plays Mother's Milk, said: "I do remember, during episode 3, hearing the head of the makeup department talking to one of her girlfriends about ordering more blood. (She said) that they had already gone through more blood by episode 3 than they had through the entire season 2."
There are other less important plot points that need some form of resolution, too.
Compound V – the substance that gives people superpowers – isn't being released to the general public anymore. It'll be interesting to see if this is the first and last time that it'll be offered out, or if it'll still fall into the wrong hands and lead to the emergence of new supervillains.
Additionally, there's bound to be more infighting among The Seven. A-Train and Starlight have been readmitted to the team, but The Deep hasn't. Homelander is still a member, so no doubt he'll be gunning for Starlight. Add in the fact that Black Noir is in a vegetative state after suffering a peanut allergy in season 2 (although it looks like he's recovered by the start of season 3), and Queen Maeve's presence in The Seven, and things could get ugly fast.
Season 3 may also be taking a note out of Avengers: Endgame's book and jumping forward in time. Per on-set photographs, The Boys season 3 may occur in 2024, judging by a poster where real-life Senator Ted Cruz is making a presidential run:
Speaking of politics, Kripke hasn't been shy in saying that season 3 will focus on how The Boys reflects present day (and historical) America, among other themes.
"In the third season, we got interested in the history of the Vought universe and its fractured reflection of the United States," he told The Hollywood Reporter . "It’s like how people say that there are “good old days” and that somehow there’s some sort of past that we need to be great again and return to.
"Make America great again for who exactly? [In] Soldier Boy... we’re able to delve into issues as disparate as toxic masculinity and racism and some of the wars we’ve been through. We’ve been able to explore not just the here and now but the past – and that’s exciting."
The Boys season 3: YouTube miniseries bridges the gap between seasons 2 and 3
To tide fans over until season 3's arrival, a YouTube tie-in series has covered the wider Boys universe in more general terms.
'Seven on 7' with Cameron Coleman is a news-style episodic miniseries that bridges the gap between seasons 2 and 3. Starring Matthew Edison as the titular news anchor, it's broadcast on the fictional Vought News channel and details the latest news surrounding the world's greatest superhero group, as well as secondary Supes and other important characters.
Speaking to The Wrap , Kripke said 'Seven on 7' is "all real, canon stuff", so it'll contain interesting snippets for fans to keep abreast of ahead of season 3. Check out all seven episodes below:
The Boys season 3: how many seasons will there be?
Kripke has revealed that he's planned for five seasons. However, he also teased the prospect of more instalments in October 2020:
It's unsurprising, seeing as Supernatural – the show that made Kripke's name – was originally supposed to run for five seasons, but ended up making it to 15.
Kripke may decide, then, that The Boys needs more time to wrap up its story. There are 72 issues of Ennis and Robertson's comics and, while the TV show has gone in its own direction story wise, there's enough plot left to tell for at least three or four seasons.
Besides, assuming audiences continue to watch The Boys, Amazon is likely to keep renewing its biggest TV show for as long as possible. In other words, you can bet on The Boys running for a number of seasons yet.
Regardless of how the main series runs for, The Boys universe is here to stay. The Boys Presents: Diabolical, an animated anthology spin-off series, has already released on Prime Video. And, based on a tweet from Kripke, some of its standalone tales are actually canon in the TV adaptation:
We're also getting an unnamed live-action, Hunger Games-style TV show that'll follow a bunch of college age Supes as they look to graduate from the only Supe-oriented school in the US. Per Deadline , though, the show's lead actors have departed the project recently, so it's unclear when we'll see this series land on Prime Video.
Still, it seems that The Boys is here for the long haul. Even if the mainline show only gets another two seasons, we don't expect it to end until 2024 or 2025 at the earliest. We have plenty of other Prime Video content to tide us over until then, but we'd be delighted if The Boys runs for as long as possible. We can't imagine a world without Billy, Hughie and company right now. Over to you, Amazon.