The Incredible Hulk TV show

[Willets Point]

Where does Spiderman on the Electric Company fall into the tv superhero continuum?

[Vic Sage]

But that's what i mean... once you go down that road, is any fantasy story then eligible as a "superhero" story? Hercules is an ancient greek myth. He has no secret identity, no costume per se, no "headquarters" or "lair". Is he a superhero? Clearly, he's "super" and he's a "hero"... but a "superhero"? It's harder to say.

writer Kurt Busiek has said that there are five chief elements to a story that make it a "superhero story":
1. A superhuman ability (or several);
2. A nickname or code-name;
3. A costume;
4. A quest;
5. A milieu -- a catch-all for parts of the superhero environment such as a secret headquarters, an arch-villain, and other such staples.

Busiek's rule is that if a story has three out of five of those elements, it can be fairly called a superhero story.

So, how would you categorize "Hercules" under this narrower definition? Obviously, he has superhuman strength (#1) and, while he doesn't have a single overarching quest, he leads a heroic life, so maybe you can grant him #4. But he has no definitive costume, name (other than his own) or superheroic milieu. As a half-mortal, he does not reside in Olympus, and tbough he vanquished certain monsters, he has no recurring villain.

Now contrast Hercules with Thor, another god of antiquity, but one who falls much more within classic "superhero" definitions.
* As the god of thunder, he has superpowers;
* in the Marvel comics version, he has a secret identity ... Dr. donald Blake (or whoever it is they use now);
* his costume includes the norse helmet and his mighty hammer, Mjolnir,
* his quest is the protection of Midgard (earth);
* his milieu includes his fellow Norse gods, the realm of Asgard, and his villianous brother Loki, with whom he is in constant conflict.

Now, how about Tarzan?

[Guest AG/DC]

More importantly, limiting ourselves to primetime series adaptations of superhero stories, where does The Incredible Hulk rank.

My prediction: if you're being honest, pretty high.

[Vic Sage]

MY RANKINGs:
1) Adventures of Superman (1952-1958)
2) Batman (1966-1968)
3) Wonder Woman (1976-1979)
4) Incredible Hulk (1978-1982)
5) Flash (1990-91)
6) Lois & Clark (1993-97)
7) Smallville (2001-present)
8) The Tick (2001-02)
9) Superboy (1988-92)
10) Swampthing (1990-93)
11) Nightman (97-98)
12) Amazing Spider-man (1978-79)
13) Sable (1987)
14) Witchblade (2001-02)
15) Blade (2006)
16) Birds of Prey (2002-03)
17) Shazam! (1974-76)

[Benjamin Grimm]

Strangely enough, I've never seen Smallville.

Of the series Vic ranked, these are the ones I remember having watched, and my order of preference:

1) Adventures of Superman (1952-1958)
2) Flash (1990-91)
3) Lois & Clark (1993-97)
4) Wonder Woman (1976-1979)
5) Incredible Hulk (1978-1982)
6) Batman (1966-1968)
7) Shazam! (1974-76)

[Willets Point]

the realm of Asgard

He said "ass-guard."

[Guest AG/DC]

Really? You've got nothing good to say above about The Adventures of Superman, save for George Reeves bringing some big screen class to the small screen. (I agree.) But that's the best superhero adaptation ever?

Lois wasn't sexy or smart. Perry White wasn't funny. Seemingly half the plots revolve around the bumbling professor causing the world to go kerflooey with a cheap camera trick.

It's got none of the charm of the early cartoons that preceeded it. And that's the best superhero adaptation ever?

[nymr83]

Vic Sage wrote: writer Kurt Busiek has said that there are five chief elements to a story that make it a "superhero story": 1. A superhuman ability (or several); 2. A nickname or code-name; 3. A costume; 4. A quest; 5. A milieu -- a catch-all for parts of the superhero environment such as a secret headquarters, an arch-villain, and other such staples. Busiek's rule is that if a story has three out of five of those elements, it can be fairly called a superhero story. So, how would you categorize "Hercules" under this narrower definition? Obviously, he has superhuman strength (#1) and, while he doesn't have a single overarching quest, he leads a heroic life, so maybe you can grant him #4. But he has no definitive costume, name (other than his own) or superheroic milieu. As a half-mortal, he does not reside in Olympus, and tbough he vanquished certain monsters, he has no recurring villain.

Batman doesn't even meet #1

The TV Hercules DOES have recurring villains: his brother Ares, his stepmother Hera, and to some extent Xena and Zeus.

He might even be described as having a quest, or several quests. Its been awhile since i saw the show (it ended in '99 and i never watched reruns) but the opening credits even say that he "journeyed the earth battling the minions of his wicked stepmother Hera." If i remember correctly the last season was spent on a big long quest around the world.

[TransMonk]

What, no Greatest American Hero?

[Vic Sage]

I've already acknowledged the many flaws of the original superman tv show, and maybe my preference is purely nostalgic. But so might yours be.

But the reason I ranked it 1st is because there has yet to be, in my opinion, a particularly good superhero tv series based on any of the established characters, and i think the top 5 are all pretty much equally mediocre, in different ways. But in addition to my personal preference, there is the matter of cultural impact. You have to remember that, when Reeves was flying around on TV in the 1950s, superhero comics were being burned by PTA and church groups, banned from newsstands, preached and prosyletized against by minisiters and psychiatrists, and investigated by senate sub-committees. Comics had turned to romance, westerns and funny animals, as well as SF and horror (which had its own problems).

So, that Reeves kept Superman flying as an American hero during this era was no small feat.

I really didn't much like the HULK show. I certainly don't think its in any way superior to Batman or Wonder Woman.

I think THE FLASH had the potential to eventually be the best tv adaptation ever. But it was not to be.

All the best tv adaptations of comics have been animated. I'm still waiting for a good (not even great) live action one.

[Vic Sage]

Batman doesn't even meet #1

Yes, but the point was to meet at least 3 out of 5, not all 5, criteria. I didn't watch the "hercules" tv show; i was discussing the mythic version, but if you can identify the defining criteria in the show, then that's fine by me. I wasn't arguing about it, just trying to establish some reasonable criteria for defining it.

What, no Greatest American Hero?

i did mention it, in the post above discussing "fictional" superhero tv shows. But its not an adaptation of an existing comic book character.

[Guest AG/DC]

I really didn't much like the HULK show. I certainly don't think its in any way superior to Batman or Wonder Woman.

Well, I think it's superior in many ways. Batman is superior in many ways. I'll give Batman the top slot. It knew what it was and ran with it. Wonder Woman was all kinds of dumb, but initially pretty true to it's source material, and superior in one way --- it's the show that helped me discover my latent heterosexuality. So, that may be seen as one big way.

Your point about The Adventures of Superman is well taken. I still defy anybody to choose it over your other three top choices as their viewing for a week --- what with his flat chest and jingo propaganda. But you're right that there's a compelling case for all of your top four as number one.

I guess we should have The Lone Ranger in there, as he qualifies on four of five traits in the Kurt Busiek test. When I was a kid, WPIX (I think) ran re-runs of Batman/Superman/Lone Ranger back-to-back-to-back after school (I wasn't big on homework), and I found the LR episodes more watchable than Supe even then. Check it out --- they had a brand new episode every week!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lone_Ranger_Television_Episodes

[TransMonk]

Vic Sage wrote: i did mention it, in the post above discussing "fictional" superhero tv shows. But its not an adaptation of an existing comic book character.

You did...completely missed it, my bad.

[metsmarathon]

c'mon... what about my secret identity? no love for jerry o'connell?

[Vic Sage]

mm, it is mentioned. see above.

as for LONE RANGER, it was, like GREEN HORNET, not a comic book character adaptation. It was a radio program, adapted to tv. There were subsequent Lone Ranger comic book adaptations (just as there was of Tarzan, and other pulp characters either from literature, radio or films), but the character didn't start as a 4-colored 2 dimensional superheroe whose adventures were told in sequenced panels.

Interestingly, GREEN HORNET wss actually a spinoff of the LONE RANGER, with the Hornet being Britt Reid, nephew of the Lone Ranger - Captain John Reid

Now an argument can certainly be made that FLASH GORDON deserves mention, since Alex Raymond's character began as a newspaper comic strip in 1934, pre-dating the comic book superhero. But if you include it, there is only a terrible 1954 series, and a terrible 2007 series, both of limited duration, low ratings and negative critical reaction.

[Guest AG/DC]

Bidi Bidi Buck Rogers, I thought should qualify then. But wikipedia tells me he began life as Anthony Rogers in a pair of novellas, before he became a comic strip star.

[Vic Sage]

superhero: the secret origin of a genreis a great book; a dissertation on the definitions of the genre.

http://www.amazon.com/Superhero-Secret-Origin-Peter-Coogan/dp/193226518X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213900800&sr=1-1

[stevejrogers]

Defenders of the Batman series will say that it was doing what the comics were doing at the time. Batman wouldn't become the dark brooder the movies and animated series of the 80s and 90s until Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight" came along.

I would say Hulk gets a ton of points off for me because of the way the they essentially created their own mythos for the Banner character. Hell, because "Bruce" is a "typical" homosexual name (whatever the hell that means) they changed the name to "David Banner."

Which in hindsight probably did give the producers more license to make the show completely brand new, with no real relationship to any thing that ever happened in the comics.

Although I believe Stark Industries gets a mention somewhere, but Tony/Iron Man is never mentioned.

They did do some backdoor pilots for possible "spinoffs" for other Marvel based characters in the TV movies. The Return of The Incredible Hulk features Donald "Thor" Blake, I have not seen this to tell you much about how "true" they stick to Thor and Thor's mythos.

The Trial of The Incredible Hulk (which features a young Michael Imperioli in a small role) does feature Matt "Daredevil" Murdoch and Wilson "Kingpin" Fisk (play by Rhys Davis, who seems a bit short for the role).

While the characters do ring true for both Daredevil, (Daredevil's origin story and reason for being is the same as the comics) and Kingpin, the setting and ancillary characters are a bit off.

1) It is clearly not New York City/Hell's Kitchen. Looks like somewhere in the mid-west standing in for mid-town Manhattan in the middle of a lush area.

2) Not only is Murdoch seen to be a more high powered lawyer than his comic counterpart, they flip the sexes of their version of Foggy Nelson (Murdoch's partner) and Karen Page (their secretary).

It is good, for a late 80s TV movie especially if you forget the fact that you aren't watching "Daredevil" and "Kingpin" from the comics, but rather this TV show's version of them.