Robert Kirkman personally killed Invincible movie script as “absolutely horrible”

Robert Kirkman didn’t just critique the Invincible movie idea. He says he personally stopped it because the script was, in his words, “absolutely horrible.” Speaking at the Annecy Animation Festival, the comic book writer said it was “just embarrassing, just bad,” adding that it became “a fun lesson because you fight for the opportunity to write your screenplay and then you personally keep the project from happening because you did that.”

That blunt veto is the plot twist behind a franchise most people now associate with Prime Video success, not production hell. Kirkman’s rejection of the film script happened long before Invincible landed as a series, but the consequence is clear today: the show is now one of Prime Video’s most popular programs, and the creators are working toward Season 5. Season 6 has just been announced too, with The Boys star Jack Quaid joining the cast.

For decision-makers, this is a reminder that IP outcomes do not always hinge on marketing budgets or star casting. Sometimes the biggest lever is a quality gate, and sometimes the gate is literally the creator shutting the door. Kirkman’s framing matters because it exposes a specific incentive mismatch that can happen in entertainment deals: everyone can be incentivized to keep a project alive, but creators, especially ones with ownership or creative authorship, can be incentivized to protect the work from dilution. If the script is “embarrassing” and “bad,” the creator’s call is not about protecting ego. It is about preventing the brand from becoming a worse version of itself.

Kirkman also describes the emotional and governance layer of that choice: he fought for the opportunity to write a screenplay, then stopped the project from happening because his effort did not produce something he could stand behind. That dynamic is rare, and it is exactly why it resonates in boardrooms and studio exec meetings. The default strategy in many industries is to let a draft become a production, then iterate later. Entertainment is different because the cost of a visible miss is not just money, it is reputation. A bad adaptation can poison consumer expectations and make later seasons or future projects harder to monetize.

There is also a second-order effect for anyone managing a portfolio of audience-facing products. When a company commits to a series, the continuity is the pitch. Invincible is now benefiting from that continuity, which is one reason a show can outperform a hypothetical film even if the film had momentum in development. The series format gives you repeated chances to calibrate tone, pacing, and character decisions. A movie, by contrast, compresses everything into one high-stakes pass. Kirkman’s “absolutely horrible” assessment suggests he viewed the script as failing that calibration, making the series path more defensible.

Meanwhile, the movie idea is not dead in the way fans might assume from a creator’s blunt quote. Kirkman previously spoke about wanting to make a live-action movie, and in early 2026 he shared that the movie is still in development, while also saying he does not really have any new updates yet. He told Screen Rant, “It’s definitely a long process and it’s something that hopefully will come together sooner rather than later.” He added that “our focus right now is on the show and making sure that the show is all it can be,” with “movement here and there behind the scenes,” but “nothing that we can reveal just yet.”

From a market and operational standpoint, that’s how entertainment projects often work when the stakes are high. Development can be long, and companies may keep multiple tracks open because audience demand and financing structures can change. But the existence of “movement” without public disclosure hints at the kind of internal prioritization that affects planning across teams. If your show pipeline is strong, a film adaptation must either add value or wait until the right script and production conditions exist. Kirkman’s earlier intervention suggests he would rather delay than ship a version he thinks is “just embarrassing.”

For peers managing similar IP, the strategic stake is bigger than one franchise. When creators act as a final quality backstop, they shape what investors and executives can realistically promise. The show is already proving the demand thesis, and with Season 6 announced and Jack Quaid joining the cast, pressure will rise to keep momentum without lowering standards. Kirkman’s story argues for a clear principle: the ability to stop a project is not a failure mode, it can be a growth strategy. In a world where content pipelines run on inertia, that kind of veto is a competitive advantage.