seekquaze

No, which might be a good thing considering it was the Hulk's show and how gods have been treated in Marvel. All we know is Hercules is generally in the same league as some of the Hulks. His only real episode strength feet was causing a small earth quake by stamping his foot on the ground and causing some rocks to sprout up.

I didn't see a post on it, but Hercules guest starred on an episode of the animated Hulk: Agents of SMASH fittingly titled "The Tale of Hercules." The series itself has very mixed reviews so I thought I would throw in my two cents of Herc's appearance. The episode features Hulk and Hercules teaming up to stop Pluto from turning everyone on Earth to stone.

The Good:

1. Publicity - Some say any publicity is good publicity and in this case this is correct. We get a basic introduction to Hercules and his corner of the universe. They got his personality mostly correct, at least the Herc from the older comics and we learn he is super-strong an a major cultural figure and has been for thousands of years. Not bad for bringing him out of nowhere.

2. They explained his ego. - To say Hercules has a massive ego in this episode is an understatement, but they at least bothered to explained where it came from. Virtually anyone would be arrogant if they had been worshipped for thousands of years and were one of the greatest heroes to have ever lived.

3. He is the national hero of Greece - This is one idea I really liked and wouldn't mind if it was developed more in the comics. Hercules is explained as staying away from the Avengers and other heroes because he spends most of his time protecting Greece.

The Bad

1. The Voice - I have seen the episode several times and the voice just doesn't work for me. It sounds too high pitched or something. Minor, but a strike against it.

2. He is a Greek Thor. - There is little in the episode to set him apart from the Avengers Assemble Thor except a bigger ego. He is even revered to as a Greek Thor in the episode. Both are super-strong gods who love battle and smash things. Olympus is visually less interesting than Asgard and Hercules own ego quickly grates on the nerves of anyone around him. If Hercules were to appear in Avengers Assembly hopefully they would do something to make him more distinct from Thor. This of course is contrary to the comics where Thor is usually the more serious, less battle hungry one who acts as a foil for Hercules.

3. Hulk has to show Hercules what a "true hero" is like. - This is the part that really got to me and what killed this episode for me. Maybe I am overreacting, but when taken both on its own and with Thor's animated appearances over the past ten years or so it gets annoying. Usually, when a character guest stars or has an episode that centers around them they prove why they are a great hero or at least have a decent showing. Nearly anytime gods are featured, it is to show how incompetent they are and how much better humans are compared to them. It makes one wonder how they survived so long before the Avengers showed up.

In this episode, Hercules is so arrogant that he cannot take anything seriously. It is only after he screw's up big time and Hulk tells him how to be a true hero that he gets his act together. Yes, throughout the episode he is depicted as a skilled, incredibly strong fighter, but that level of buffoonish arrogance has always bothered me. And as far as I can recall it only really occurs when gods are involved.

Anyone else have thoughts on the episode?

Gods from other mythologies or stories featuring lesser developed Olympians. Leave out Thor, Ares, Pluto and Typhon unless you do something new with them like force Ares and Hercules to team-up. Have Hercules team up with other Olympians like Artemis or Apollo. Or test himself against gods from other pantheons. Bring in Amaedeus Cho only to finish the storyline about his missing sister.

As the god of war, people assume Ares is the ultimate soldier. A master of pretty much all weapons and forms of combat. A good if not excellent tactician bravely charging into battle leading men to victory due to vast knowledge and experience. One writer went so far as to describe Thor as the warrior, Hercules as the fighter, and Ares as the soldier. Yet isn't he a poor soldier and tactician? He often disobeys orders and pursues his own agenda regardless of orders or how it affects others. The few battles he has planned have him abandoning the element of surprise or use of any resources aside from a direct attack that promises high casualties on his side and maximum resistance from the other.

The big kicker is we have this quote: The chain of command. Rules of engagement. This Geneva Convention thing. Medical evac. Supply lines. The white flag. The Red Cross. Worrying about evacuees and refugees. Taking prisoners. Losing the battle but winning the war. Cursed diplomats. The proper standard of grooming. Sensible things like having enough bullets before you go into battle. That's the dung my sister cares about. I'm the other God of War.

So Ares ignores virtually everything needed to win a war and more often then not gets his butt kicked because he ignore all of this? How many wars has he actually won? Is he a poor god of war then or only a good one if you restrict him to the killing and slaughter aspects of it?

Personally, I am looking forward to this. Hopefully, it will do what Incredible Hercules failed to do. The latter started out with the idea Hercules would try to take things more seriously only to quickly revert back to Hercules the Buffoon. Worse, he really blew it at the end when he nearly destroyed the entire universe.

If Hercules' labors and heroic feats are truly worthy of deep respect then they would have to have been a real danger to him and he would not have been able to clown around like he usually does in battle. The interview is correct and Hercules comes off as kind of costing through life. He is supposed to be a master warrior, but has rarely shown it over the years relying on brute strength and toughness to see him through. He may not be as good at battle tactics, strategy, and overall military knowledge, but Herc should be just as good and knowledgeable with weapons. In many ways, Hercules is a softer version of Ares. Herc could easily make a god of war. The only real reason I do not see him as one is Athena is better at the mental aspects and Ares has far greater enthusiasm for the more military and killing aspects. Marvel Hercules has always been more of a brawler than a killer.

And I hope it will portray him in a way where he gets as respected as Thor. His clowishness can make it hard to respect him. Thor is the guy who parties yet usually retains a dignified manner. Herc is the guy who gets drunk and is later filmed dancing naked in the streets who then throws people through windows who interrupt his fun. It is kind of difficult to hold the same respect for tabloid fodder.

As for the new costume, I like all of it except the unnecessary codpiece. It just looks...weird.

Pak states four times that his opinion does not matter and it is up to the reader. This means his opinion holds no more weight than a reader's opinion. You demand I accept what a source says as holy truth while claiming what the same source says does not matter when it disagrees with you. That does not work. You give no reason why his opinion holds more weight when four times he has stated it does not nor when he was ambiguous in the interview itself which you use to claim him saying that "Zeus cheated."

By this point you have made it clear you are going to ignore any thing that disagrees with your opinion and have offered no evidence to back up why my criticisms or comparisons are wrong other than it disagrees with your view point. You demand I accept Pak's word as gospel while ignoring it when it suits you. Your only claim that "Zeus cheated" relies on one interpretation of the spirit of a poorly worded agreement and at the same time ignoring all of the criticisms I have made of that. Since you refuse to address any of this and have offered the only evidence being "Zeus cheated because doing so makes the Hulk look better" I do not see the point of any further debate.

Except Pak himself has stated only on a previous page of this very discussion that his opinion does not matter. So he has gone on record saying he does not have the final say in it.

And given how similar this issue is compared to the other instances I have mentioned where other writers have used the ambiguity of terms for things to be added or subtracted in agreements along with the fact in the real world the difficulty of ambiguity is often the reason agreements and contracts are written out, tend to be rather long, and often need a third party to decide on what the wording means there is more to say on the matter. In light of all this, refusing to even address it is pretty much admitting that you have no good counter argument for it and are only sticking with the idea "Zeus cheated" because it paints the Hulk in a better light with nothing to really substantiate it except for repeating it over and over again.

I do not think Zeus cheated, but I am willing to entertain the possibility I am wrong and that Zeus did cheat if someone can provide a reasonable counter to the problem I have with the claim that "Zeus cheated." Namely, the ambiguity of the agreement combined with the long tradition of the letter of the agreement being the only thing that matters and the tendency in fantasy/science fiction literature for magical beings to have a wide latitude in interpreting wishes/agreements and often adding or subtracting clauses beyond what the wish maker intended. In these stories and to many readers of such stories these interpretations are perfectly "legal" because the stick to the letter of the agreement and each side may have a different idea of what the spirit is. Sometimes it is a malicious intent on the other party's part. Often though it is merely different mindset due to culture or species. Zeus is a being who by all rights would have a different mindset.

It comes down to spirit of an agreement vs letter of rules/agreement. In fiction, it is common for entities to keep the letter of an agreement, but interpret the spirit differently for one reason or another especially when the agreement is rather vague and fails to take into account certain things like the fact Zeus has magic. Hulk may have interpreted the spirit to be fighting up close and no magic. Zeus sounds like he interpreted it to be fighting up close with magic channeled through his fists. After all, Hulk would be free to channel any power he had through his fists. The only thing Hulk specifically requested was for Zeus to fight him up close and not to vaporize Hulk from a distance. Zeus channeling his godly powers through his fists was never mentioned and may never have occurred to Zeus considering how used he is to fighting with his powers. Since it was never mentioned, why should Hulk's interpretation of the spirit of the agreement automatically be superior over Zeus's interpretation of the agreement?

@atheistknowledge:

I don't consider interviews much because of the writers tendency to say whatever the fan asking the question wants them to say which is how Pak comes across in those interviews. And again there are different ways to interpret the agreement since Zeus technically used his hands. Zeus never said he would use his fists alone. He said he would use his fists which he did. He used his fists augmented by magic.

Please address the point I have made about the tendency in fantasy for magical beings to keep the letter of the agreement while interpreting the spirit to be different then what the requester intended. That is the crux of the argument as to whether Zeus cheated or not.

Except as I pointed out above there was nothing in the agreement about that as long as Zeus channeled the power through his fists which he did. The only parts of the agreement officially stated was Zeus would not vaporize Hulk from a distance and instead give him an up close fight using his fists. Zeus just interpreted it as having the right to channel his godly powers through his fists. Like I stated, there is a long tradition in fantasy literature of mystical entities interpreting agreements differently than the "wisher" (in this case the Hulk) and such agreements whether due to malicious intent or different mindset due to species, cultural background, etc.

"Cheating" only occurs when one breaks the letter of the rules. Zeus did not break the letter of the rules. The spirit usually does not matter much in vague agreements like this because each individual might have different interpretations of what the spirit is due to mindset, cultural background, etc. The letter of the agreement is the only part that matters. Unless you can prove Zeus channeling his godly powers through his fists violated the stated terms of the agreement or that this agreement was somehow different from the other examples I listed I don't see what else there is to discuss or what point there is to the claim that Zeus "cheated."

Did Zeus interpret the agreement in a way different then what the Hulk may have interpreted? Yes, that is possible given his radically different background. At worse, did Zeus act like a major butthole in how in interpreted the agreement assuming he did know what Hulk may have meant? Yes, that is possible. But did Zeus "cheat" by breaking the letter of the agreement? No, he did not unless you can somehow prove otherwise and prove how it is different from similar type agreements found in numerous fantasy stories where a mystical entity is magically bound to follow the letter of the agreement, but is free to interpret the agreement often by adding or subtracting things to it.

Except Pak has avoided saying that. The first time was where he said it was questionable if Zeus cheated and something about Zeus throwing a lighting bolt in the end when Zeus did not throw a lighting bolt. The second time he responds he says opinion does not matter and it is up to the readers to decide. The only part he does state is he thinks Zeus did draw upon his godly might to some extent...which still doesn't mean Zeus cheated for the reasons I stated above.

I think Pak knows how serious some fans take this so he has avoided giving a straight answer.