Hercules, Disney's Beautiful Hot Mess: a Video Essay

Long ago, in the far land of ancient (Burbank), the Golden Age of the powerful (animation) and extraordinary (directors) and the greatest and strongest of all these (directors) was the mighty (Musker and Clements ). -Our story really begins... -With “The Great Mouse Detective”. Not really. Well, not really. You could easily say it starts before that, but for our purposes let's say it starts with "The Great Mouse Detective." Now, this movie had four directors credited: these two guys named John Musker and Ron Clements among them. And The Great Mouse Detective did it... It's nice that Disney was willing to give some of these directors bigger projects.

Now Jeffrey Katzenberg was in charge of Disney animation at the time and he wanted to return Disney Animation Studios to its former glory. Then, at a pitch meeting in 1985, Ron Clements presented two notable projects: an adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" and what was effectively "Treasure Island" in space. And Jeffrey Katzenberg said, "That sounds kind of stupid, maybe we'll keep working on it. But that mermaid thing seems legit, let's do it." And Clements said "okay." And so, with his former "The Great Mouse Detective" co-director, John Musker, they go off and make "The Little Mermaid." "The Little Mermaid" ended up being a huge hit for the studio and ushering in a new era of animation.* So they go back to Katzenberg and say, "Hey, about that Treasure Island..." And Katzenberg says, " Hey!

Actually, "One of our former animators has been working on this intricate and deeply artistic Arabian Nights theme for about a decade, so we're going to rip it out and publish it before he can finish his." "Okay." And then Musker and Clements make "Aladdin." And "Aladdin" makes even more money for the studio. And suddenly Disney is back on track, and in large part thanks to those two guys. two big hits under their belt, Musker and Clements come back to Katzenberg and say, “Hey, look how successful we are. Can we please do the treasure planet now?" And Katzenberg says, "I don't know, it still sounds pretty stupid.

But I'll tell you what, make me one more movie that does incredibly well at the box office, something that has every commercially viable element imaginable, which makes it impossible. "If you fail, I'll let you make the project you really care about." . And lo and behold, so these guys could finally make their beloved "Treasure Planet". First they had to create the most commercially viable thing you can imagine. Aggressively designed to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible, referencing so many popular things from the '90s, fitting into an 89-minute running time, and combining such dissonant tones and styles that audiences across the country said, "Yeah, that was good." .

I guess". This movie is not a disaster. Inner pipe. It's going to be big. There's a lot to like, both its villain and its art design are among my favorites in all of Disneydom.* But the movie didn't do well upon its release and Disney basically swept it under the rug. And years have passed since 1997, empires have risen and fallen, entire civilizations have been wiped off the map, without ever finding the answer to that burning question: Why did Disney's "Hercules" underperform? I mean, I know. It is one of the most important topics of our days. And you know...

Nobody is brave enough to talk about it. Except me. And obviously there is a lot to talk about. Look how long this

video

is. Because it's not actively bad. There's actually a lot of great things in this movie, but why is it overall not as good as the sum of its parts? I have spent the better part of two decades unraveling this mystery. Someone has to do it. Apparently. I consider "Hercules" as a whole to be the weakest of the '90s Disney films. And this was a decade when gargoyles were singing and dancing rhyming "Adonis" with "croissants." Now when I say weak, I don't mean actively inept.

See the review of "The Phantom of the Opera" for that. And I don't mean to be inaccurate with the source material either. If you, like me, were an insufferable 12-year-old at the time, most of your criticism probably boiled down to you not being true to the mythology. And just for clarity, I call him "Hercules," not "Heracles." Just get that out of your system comment, whatever, I don't care. When I talk about "parts versus whole," "Hercules" had elements that were really cool, but when put together they just didn't fit. I think "Pocahontas" is the worst of the Disney movies of the 90s because it is more boring and less good.

Look how I shined.* But I also call it a stronger movie because the parts fit, the tone is consistent, the stakes are high, and the motivations are clear. "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" has a similar, though inverted, tonal problem as "Hercules," but again, it has a much stronger ensemble. I probably never would have realized the tone problem if I hadn't come across "Hercules The Animated Series" when I was in college. There are definitely some failed episodes in that, especially considering the budget was basically $10 an episode once the movie underperformed and some main characters that are really annoying.

The ladies go crazy for the sardine and onion breath. But I think the animated series embodies what the movie should have been. Did you sell your soul after school and on weekends to Hades? "The Animated Series" doesn't worry about those huge plot contrivances. It completely ignores the really important plot point of the movie that Hades didn't know Hercules was alive the whole time. Which is good because that never made sense anyway. What I think "Hercules" wanted to be was what "The Emperor's New Groove" actually managed to do: a comedic take on a mythologized story. Sincere, sure, but ultimately a fun game that never took itself too seriously.

What are the chances that trap door brought me here? What Hercules ended up being was everything under the sun! Which I guess was kind of inevitable, given that the company ordered you to do everything for everyone and whether or not you can do your passion project is at stake. Let's discuss. This movie is a comedy. Possibly more than any other Disney film that came out that decade. Two words. I am retired. At least when it comes to marketing. That wouldn't be a problem even worth mentioning except that it has some of the darkest stuff in all of Disneydom.* Hercules!

Be aware! Meg? No! Yes, that woman was just crushed by a multi-ton stone column. I'm just using this scene as an example. This whole climactic scene where Hercules goes and fights the titans is punctuated by this tonal yo-yo. Megara is crushed and somehow still breathing. Well. Hercules runs off and all sense of urgency regarding Megara is lost. We return to that comic tone again. Wow, did my hair fall out? It almost seems like the gods didn't really need Hercules. Now look how your old man works! Did they just need something like that? Moral support or cheerleader?

And this scene goes by very quickly. Zeus launches a pair of lightning bolts. Hercules sucks them into the Giant Tornado and throws them into the sky and the plot explodes. And that's the end of that. And they laugh and high-five and then Hades reminds them that Meg is dying. As if Hercules had completely forgotten about that little detail. Meg! And then, less than 30 seconds after some crazy nonsense, -we're down here like... -No! Yes, this movie has a tone problem. Although it's not as bad as "The Hunchback." And since you guys love that nit-picky plot shit, I'm going to go ahead and get it out of there before I get into the deeper stuff.

I mean...Who are we kidding? I love it too. I feel like there's a difference between a plot hole and just a fabrication. But I don't think it's necessarily a black and white thing. It's more of a gradient. That said: Hades orders his henchmen to kill Hercules when he was a baby, and he doesn't find out they failed until 18 years later. What was that name? Hercules. Hades apparently doesn't talk to any of the gods. I mean, this guy is your nephew. How come you couldn't kill him for 18 years? He could be a different Hercules. Zeus ordered all the gods to go find him, thinking that at least he would have sent a memo to the underworld.

Also, Hades, you seem like a smart guy who wouldn't want to check, make sure your clumsy minions did the job? You mean if he finds out? I mean, it's not like they're related or anything. -We know everything. -The destinations. What's wrong with these scissors? The thread is not cut. I thought you knew everything. Hades, the villain, makes two deals with Hercules and keeps both. Hades' deal is broken. He promised that he wouldn't hurt me. Hercules, the hero, makes a deal with Hades and doesn't keep it. You take it out. She goes. You stay. Our heroe. Anyway, that's not so much a plot hole as it is raging hypocrisy.

But I guess that's what happens when your villain is much nicer than your hero. Actually, I'd love to see a version of this where Hercules keeps his end of the deal and Meg leaves and he stays and... It becomes like "Beauty and the Beast" and at first they hate each other, but Hades learns to change his ways and it's just a love story forever. Damn, I would fucking watch that movie. If you can prove that you are a true hero on Earth, your divinity will be restored. I can't just turn you into a God, is that a hard and fast rule for a true hero to achieve godhood?

Or does it only apply to former gods who drank Hades' mortality juice? Speaking of which, how do we avoid Hercules' immortality? First you are going to turn the little sunspot into a deadly one. Hades has this juice, floating in a room dedicated to the juice that robs the gods of their immortality. He calls it the pink juice room of him. Where did he get the juice? Who knows? Why does he only have one juice? Who knows? Why hasn't he used it on Zeus before this? Hercules has a dog tag. Is that in case Zeus forgets his name?

The ticking of the clock of the covering planets is arbitrary, boring and lazy. In precisely 18 years, the planets will align. I mean it's not like a plot hole, really, it's just a weak watch. Like: on this day the planets will form a fatal tornado and you couldn't do your divine lightning before that, but now you can because the fatal tornado moved the water out of the way, I guess. On the other hand, many things in Greek mythology are arbitrary. See? He ate some pomegranate seeds. Now that means she has to come stay with me half the year, every year.

That's according to the rules I just made up. Zeus has no problem driving the titans underground the first time, but now with an army of gods they are defeated almost immediately. Maybe they just got lazy. And possibly the biggest continuity error in any Disney movie. This movie has a lot of problems like that and they are much more egregious than other Disney movies, but unlike the "Phantom" review, again, we already covered this kind of stuff, I'm not really going to talk about the filmmaking. a lot. In this one, we'll focus on structure, character, theme, and influence.

So let's start with influence. Translating the story for a modern audience, Musker and Clements stated that Hercules appealed to them because it would allow them to make a superhero story while also commenting on the world of famous athletes and endorsement deals. Well. Here's the thing, I can see where you'd get that ancient Greek hero equals superhero plus sports star, but endorsement deals? No, put a pin in that, we'll get back to that. Pin that to the wall. Let's start with the hero. Turns out I'm a hero. The Greek idea of ​​a hero, although it has some similarities, is not the same as our modern idea of ​​a hero.

For the Greeks, heroes in this context were historical figures of cultural importance who did exceptional things or had exceptional abilities and were almost always descended from Zeus because Zeus moved. But they were important figures, not necessarily likeable ones. And the Greek heroes also had deep flaws. And I don't mean "flawed," like breaking a man's neck to save the world "and did I do the right thing?" imperfect, I mean, as if he went into a God-induced murderous panic and murdered his wife and his defective children. Hercules did a lot of fucked up things. A Disney hero is about as far from the traditional Greek hero as you can get.

Greek heroes always have tragic flaws. Every Disney protagonist in the '90s' tragic flaw was clumsiness. He's too dangerous to be around normal people! A whole Bella Swans canon. But let's say that, for the sake of argument, our modern mythology defines a hero as a superhero. In that case, a hero is defined by his selflessness. On the contrary, Greek heroes sought more glory. You know that Odysseus did not undertake an odyssey for the greater good. They were more defined by their importance to theculture than for its inherent goodness. And in that way they have more in common with, say, King Solomon of Israel than with Superman, a historical/religious figure rather than an ideal of morality.

So the solution here to make this work for our modern definition of a hero is that in this version of ancient Greece, being a hero is like a job that one can aspire to. He's just another car chaser. You know, like a professional athlete. Which is an interesting idea and I think it works as a concept, but they have a lot of wiggle room in terms of story because most people, while familiar with the strongman Hercules archetype, aren't familiar with any of his stories. The checklist of what people would have associated with the word Hercules in 1997 plus Kevin Sorbo would have been: A, Greek B, strong.

And that's it. He is a little Hercules. He shows off your muscles again. Hercules, Hercules, Hercules. Of course, nerds knew about the 12 labors of Hercules and that Hades wasn't "the bad guy," but if you're a normal guy in 1995, the darkest thing you probably knew about Hercules is that Arnold Schwarzenegger once played him. That's no joke, right? Some have said... I've said that this movie borrows almost nothing from mythology, in terms of its story, and that's not entirely fair. In "Hercules", the main threats come from the titans. Olympus would be like this. At the beginning it refers to the great battle called the Titanomachy...

Okay. And then came Zeus. Anyway, mythologically Hercules had nothing to do with it and the titans never came out, but there was a lesser known myth known as the gigantomachy. Where the gods of Olympus fought a group of giants instead of titans. There was a prophecy in this that said the giants would only be defeated if a mortal helped the gods and Hercules helped with that. So in this movie they basically combined gigantomachy and titanomachy, and that's fine. So the titans and Hercules are basically a mix of everything: giants, titans, and cyclops. And the 12 labors of Hercules are there, only referenced visually during a montage and then again here.

So these guys clearly did their homework. There is a lot more rooted in Greek mythology here than people realize. That said, most of the stories' influence doesn't come from that. The two main influences on Disney's "Hercules" are "Superman" and "Rocky." Rocky is a ragtag underdog story about a poor but brave boxer who gets his chance when world heavyweight champion Apollo Creed decides to fight a nobody for an easy, high-profile victory. But Rocky trains very hard and to everyone's surprise, he goes the full 15 rounds against Creed, who barely wins, but in reality Rocky wins because he loves it. -I love you. -I love you.

And Superman is a Christ allegory about an alien man who arrives on Earth already endowed with powers of superhuman strength and compassion and who was instructed by his alien ghost's father to set a good example for humans. For this reason, above all, because of his capacity for good, I have sent him to you, my only son. Hercules has to train, like Rocky, despite having been divinely gifted by him as Superman. This is discarded in the movie because he is clumsy, so he doesn't really need to learn how to do it, but rather how to control what he's already been given.

So instead of letting the movie be something new and not too derivative. All I want to do is go the distance. -I can go to the end. -Go the distance. Go to the end. The core of the movie is trying to mix "Rocky" and "Superman." It's not bad, but not only is it over the top in terms of things to try to combine, but it's also too derivative. Because inspiration is one thing, but this movie goes out of its way to let you know how much it's standing out from other movies and that in the back of your mind, you always remember in this subconscious way that not only is this movie not letting itself be its own movie. but from these other, better films, it's taking off.

Maybe you don't hate Kid Rock's "All Summer Long." Singing sweet home Alabama all summer long But it's always going to be this weird mix of "Sweet Home, Alabama" and Werewolves of London that, if you think about it, is like "what?" Sports movies often end with a big game at the end, and superhero movies tend to have the heroes' motivation derived from some sense of duty to serve and protect the masses. With great power comes great responsibility. As a sports movie, there's no big match that Hercules is training for, and as a superhero movie, the hero part is just a means to an end.

You will have your chance. You just need some kind of catastrophe. Mega at one point even tells Hercules that he doesn't really care about the people he aims to save. Children? Caught? Phil, this is great! You're really excited about this, aren't you? The film has a dismissive attitude towards the general population. Or they are malicious. Yes, and who are you? Or critical. Have you ever reversed a natural disaster? Or mindless sycophant. They are just a means to an end. The story of Rocky and the story of Superman are not complementary. So when you combine them, you have a Rocky movie where Rocky doesn't know what he's training for and a Superman movie where Superman feels no sense of duty to people and is only a hero to them because they tell him that Doing so will get you what you want. he he he wants.

So, remember how we put a marker on filmmakers who wanted to comment on celebrity endorsements? OK that's fine. Now we go back to that part. When you're watching a movie, any movie, basically everything you see on the screen will contain some type of shorthand. For example, here is Hercules kneeling and praying to Zeus. -Mighty Zeus. -Now, a good guy in ancient Greece probably would have brought a goat and sacrificed it on that altar, you know, instead of kneeling and praying like a Christian, doing things the right way. The public associates kneeling with mercy, so this is shorthand.

And this has nothing to do with historical accuracy but with the use of shorthand to get information to the audience using cultural knowledge that the audience is presumably familiar with. Pop culture references have become an increasingly popular form of shorthand in animation since Aladdin and this film has plenty of that. The great hero's 30-minute training displaced bronze buns. The public is familiar with these things, and without the lines being explicitly drawn, our mid-90s audiences are still able to draw the lines between "Hercules" and famous athletes who are rich and endorse products. I'm an action figure!

Hercules is not only Rocky and Superman, he is also Michael Jordan. There's my main man, Michael Jordan. In this one is a pair of Air Jordans from Nike. From Pain using Air-Hercs to Panic consuming Not-McDonald's that Hercules has been endorsing from celebrities. Nothing more than net. I think we'll be here for a while. I suggest you get a Big Mac. How does this thematically relate to the movie? After training with Phil, Hercules goes to Thebes, which is a thinly veiled version of New York that dates back to 1997. -Do you want to buy a sundial? -Whatever. This is the big city where Hercules is going to do it.

Hades then stages a battle intending to kill Hercules, but inadvertently turns him into an overnight sensation. After that, we get a montage of all these references to sports stardom signing autographs, fans wearing their jersey, appearance fees, royalties, action figures, sweatshops making their product, promoting fast foods, Air Jordans... Our Herc has to spend money. Yes, money, wow! Here's the thing: Hercules doesn't say, "I'm going to be a hero and that will bring me fame and fortune, yeah!" Fame and fortune followed him indeed. So there was never a point where he sought wealth and fortune and then discovered the error of his ways.

He never tries to win Meg over with her fame and fortune, he's just there. And this would have worked if Hercules had a more arrogant starting point or perhaps equated fame and fortune with personal worth, you know, like Aladdin did. If Jasmine found out that I was actually a seedy street rat, she would laugh at me. -And Spider-Man did it. -Cool car. This indicates why Kuzco is a much more compelling character. He was genuinely flawed and arrogant and eventually learned the error of his ways. I'm not saying Hercules had to be like Kuzco, but in order for wealth and fame to not be framed as the point of being a true hero, he needed to want it, but never cared about any of it, this is not a character flaw.

What is the point? He doesn't corrupt him at all, doesn't make him selfish, doesn't make him lose sight of what it means to be a hero. In the end the references end up being somewhat hollow. It's less a commentary on the culture of endorsements of famous athletes or an homage to Rocky than it is simply trying to remind the audience of something they're already familiar with without really exploring it. Chosen One narratives are easy to write because then we don't need to find a good, compelling reason why our hero is the center of the conflict, but it's hard to make them interesting because there's no good, compelling reason why our hero is the one. center of the conflict.

And you realize that the journey stories of the most popular heroes do not involve a prophecy proclaiming them as the chosen ones. I will take the ring to Mordor. Frodo was not prophesied, Katniss was not prophesied, Luke Skywalker was not prophesied. They were all ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances by chance, plot reasons, or wanting to do something. The only truly cast character in the Star Wars universe is Anakin... We all remember how that turned out. You were the chosen one! Even Harry Potter ends up being more of a parody of chosen ones narratives than a properly interpreted chosen ones narrative.

She showed interest in you because she believes that you will also be chosen. But I am the chosen one. Your chosen unit comes into play more and how people treat you than in regards to the actual plot, and most of the individual stories' conflicts have more to do with the periphery of the universe as a whole than with the fact that that Harry is the only person who can save the world. Which ultimately turns out not to be true. The chosen narrative was analyzed in even more detail in the "Lego Movie." You are the one the prophecy spoke of.

You are the special one. And the final point is that there is no chosen one. I think it's chosen when narratives work better in TV shows than in movies. Compare this to something like "Buffy", who was one of a long line of chosen ones and could die at any moment. "Avatar the Last Airbender" and "The Legend of Korra" take a similar approach with their chosen ones, their stories dealing with the everyday. Disney movies mostly stayed away from prophecies of the chosen one. The closest we get is probably "Aladdin." Reveal to me who can enter the cave.

Aladdin's chosen unit is what takes him to the cave to get the lamp, but this aspect is completely finished by the end of the first act of the film. And the rest of the movie's conflict has nothing to do with that. The film's momentum is entirely driven by the characters' motivation and is rooted in what is at stake. Simba's bow has an element of destiny. You are my son, the only true king. But this has more to do with duty than with prophecy. And Hercules, the only reason Hades has anything against Hercules is because Fate told him to, because of the prophecy.

And by the end of the movie they haven't built up any enmity, because they don't really know each other and have no reason to disagree besides the prophecy. And again compare this to the TV show where they do meet each other and develop a dynamic. Hey, if I could turn one person to stone, I'm glad it was Jerkcules, I hate that kid. The only thing that makes Hercules special, the only reason Hades pays attention to him, is a prophecy that Hercules has no idea about. Almost every iota of the plot's momentum is manufactured by inventions outside of Hercules' control.

So the result is a story that is not being pushed by actions or characters to villain, but is pulled by the nose. by the plot of destiny. So if you want to learn about screenwriting and structure, Disney's Hercules is the perfect vehicle for the structure of the baby's first three acts because it is outlined so carefully and clearly. And if you're wondering why I'm taking the time to go through this, it's because I'm trying to save you. Trying to save him from student loans. Don't go to film school, watch Internet

video

s. Hercules has a very simple and very traditional three-act structure.

So we can use this as an opportunity to examine story structure as it relates to Hollywood films.Background. We learn who Hercules is and how the universe works. -Excuse me? -If Hercules fights, you will fail. Inciting incident. Hades hears the prophecy that Hercules will defeat him. This leads Hades to turn Hercules into a mortal. This is it, don't you see? Maybe they have the answers. Attack point. Hercules discovers that he is adopted. Now, some people say that the point of attack and the inciting incident are the same and they are wrong. The triggering incident sets the plot in motion, the point of attack is the moment when the central conflict and character motivation appear and the main action of the story can be set in motion. -The central conflict: -I feel like I don't really belong here.

Hercules wants to know where he belongs. This culminates at the end of the first act, Hercules presenting his central conflict to Zeus, Zeus telling them how to solve it. If you can prove that you are a true hero on Earth, your divinity will be restored. This is called blocking, also known as the end of act 1. Our hero has his mission and now he goes out to find it. -I will not let you down, father. -Go be a real hero, Hercules, and that will resolve your central conflict. The second act is usually divided into two segments; in "Hercules", these two segments are very clearly defined.

A first culmination occurs at the end of the first half of the second act, in "Hercules", where he proves himself by defeating the Hydra. The midpoint is Hercules achieving fame and fortune. It's also important to know that the midpoint doesn't necessarily fall right in the middle of the movie. "The Lion King" has an unusually long first act and a very short second act, so the midpoint, which is where he meets Nala, occurs about 60% of the way through the film. Well, I have to burn. There's a whole cosmos up there waiting for me. -Hey, my name. -The end of act 2 also sees the resolution of the main tension, in this case Hades frees the titans.

While creating new tension for Act 3: the Titans! Now that we have been freed, we have to go defeat them. This is called "the main culmination" and usually coincides with the hero at his lowest point. Once again, our hero is a zero. . -Hercules! -Twist in the third act. Meg sacrifices herself for Hercules, Hercules regains his strength. The twist in the third act is important because it changes the focus of the final tension, the main tension is no longer "will we defeat?" Titans?" Which is part of what makes his little dead end where he actually goes and defeats the Titans even more problematic because of the tone.

Wow, did my hair fall out? It's "Will Meg die? "The stakes are much higher. Climax. Hercules sacrifices himself for Meg and becomes a true hero. Now here's the thing, the central conflict: feeling like I belong. The central conflict in almost all the Disney movies of the 90s was about self-identity and finding oneself. And "Hercules" is probably the most open in that sense along with "Tarzan", they both have the same central conflict "I'm an outsider and I want to know where I belong" and the same resolution "this sexy lady is where I belong." -Resolution: -You were willing to give a life* to rescue this young woman.

So the resolution resolves the conflict between sports star equals selfish and superhero equals selfless, but it doesn't resolve Hercules' central conflict. Which brings us to… In script terms, motivation is described as “want versus need.” In a story, a character needs to grow, change, or learn something to achieve a satisfying character arc. Not all the time, but in Disney movies, yes, all the time. And in general, want and need are related but not necessarily the same. The character is motivated by a "desire" established in the first act. I want to be where the people are I want adventures in the great outdoors somewhere Just to live a day out there And his growth is detailed by fulfilling a need at the end of the third act. -Aladdin wants: -We will be rich, we will live in a palace. -Need: -I have to stop pretending to be something I am not. -Simba wants: -Unless you can change the past. -Need -Yes, the past can hurt, but the way I see it, you can run from it or learn from it.

So one day Hercules discovers that he is adopted and goes to find out what is happening. "Why do I feel so out of place, Mom and Dad?" You will find out well. Good. Go well. Good. Perfectly good starting point. And then he meets Zeus and Zeus says, "Hey, you're my son and you need to learn how to become a hero so you can be a God again." And Hercules says, "Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I'll learn to be a real hero." -So Hercules wants: -To find where I belong. And his need, which is to be selfless, is the mark of a true hero.

Well, one doesn't really build the other. This culminates in him sacrificing himself for Meg, which would indicate that he needed to learn that being a hero was sacrificing himself but that really has nothing to do with his main motivation which is to find out where he belongs or figure it out. some character defect. He was always a kind and innocent guy. He's not the most altruistic, but he's not exactly selfish either. And the nicest guy, the non-cocky Hercules, wants basically the same things as Aladdin, but he gets it halfway through the movie. He never has to accept himself to be respected by the masses.

So self-sacrifice is noble, sure, but it's not a highlight for his character like it was for, say, Kuzco, who was selfish, or Aladdin, who pretended to be something he wasn't. Basically, her desire for him, her sense of belonging, and her need for him, her selflessness, really have nothing to do with each other. One doesn't resolve the other, which creates a weak character arc. And you could say "But Hades?" But Hades' plot is not relevant to Hercules' motivation, because at no point does Hercules find out about the prophecy, and he doesn't even meet Hades until the end of the movie.

Which also makes this matchup a little weak. Let her go! I've been waiting for this moment for 10 minutes. Look at Aladdin again. What he and Jafar are fighting, namely the Genie, is directly related to Aladdin's character growth. There is a point where Aladdin decides that he will not let the Genie go because he helps him maintain his facade. Without you I'm just Aladdin. But his character arc culminates in him letting the Genie go, and Aladdin's growth also relates to the antagonist Jafar because letting the Genie go is something Jafar would never do. At its core, the problem with Hercules' motivation is that, unlike all the other Disney characters, it is not an internal motivation.

But if I don't become a true hero, I will never be able to reunite with my father, Zeus. He doesn't want to be a hero because he wants to, he wants it because they told him to. Some of the most memorable characters of the last 20 years, Walter White, Tony Soprano, Cersei Lannister, Daniel Plainview. These characters do some fucked up things and are rarely, if ever, sympathetic, but the audience interacts with them a lot because they are so motivated. You are fucking right. And you see this more on television because you have so much more time to really explore the depth and nuance of the characters and I use these characters as examples not because they belong in Disney movies, but to illustrate that it is more important for a character to be motivated. than being understanding or relatable.

Hercules is certainly the latter, but not the first. And while on a personal level I really hate most movies that have some sort of designed "you lied to me" conflict. (Let's ignore that). Meg's character arc is much stronger than Hercules' because the stakes are higher, her dilemma more intense, and his motivations clearer. Although her history has taught her that she cannot trust men or her own feelings, something that her malicious gay boyfriend Hades details explicitly. This one is different, it's honest and sweet. -Please... -He would never do anything to hurt me. - He is a boy! -You deserve a better movie, Meg.

In fact, everyone in this movie deserves a better movie: Meg deserves a better movie, Hercules deserves a better movie, Hades deserves a better movie. Phil...not really. No Phil, fuck Phil. I'm real too. When I say I like this movie that's what I mean, I like the characters, I like the style, I like the idea, the tone... You know, when it's being funny and really enjoyable. I don't like the essence of the thing and it's one of the most important parts of any movie. To be clear, I don't want to say that there is nothing risky or new or innovative in this film, much less that it has the first Disney heroine who starts out allied with the bad guy.

And that not only does she have a past with men, but she must be close to 30, given how tired she is of the world. Well, you know how men are, they think no means yes, and getting lost means taking me to yours. Don't worry, the dwarf here can explain it to you later. Like I said screw Phil. The risk of going with a straight comic villain is one of the best things about the film, despite the tonal problems. This is also the first Disney movie since "Fantasia"... Yes... to have black character names. Yes, 1997. That's how long it took.

This is one of the most stylized in the Disney canon, thanks in large part to the filmmakers hiring Gerald Scare as a concept artist. He was a New York cartoonist, but at the time he was most famous for doing the art for Pink Floyd's "The Wall." And the style that Bufanda came up with for the film was quite extravagant, but you can totally see his influence on the final product. And here's the sad irony of "Hercules," like Hercules learning to be a hero as a means to a different, unrelated end, Musker and Clements made "Hercules" as a means to a different, unrelated project.

They had to do this to earn what really mattered to them. Katzenberg left Disney in 1994 under not-so-friendly circumstances, but the studio kept Katzenberg's promise and "Treasure Planet" exists. I found it quite unforgettable and to this day it is the biggest flop that Musker and Clements were involved in. And I don't take "schadenfreude" in that, let me be clear, I actually have a lot of respect for these guys and what they've done for animation, but it didn't ruin them. They are fine. They are fine. Everything good and memorable about "Hercules" comes from the filmmakers taking risks. And that's the essence of really great movies, it's a combination of risk and cliché, of novelty and safety.

The "art" is in how to intertwine the two. So that's all. We can finally put to rest the long-standing mystery of what exactly made "Hercules" so "meh" in the eyes of the public and Disney, and for those of you who look down on me and people like me who have tried for It took so long to do this dissection of "Hercules" that I tell you: "There are dozens of us." Dozens!