Long ago, in the faraway land
of ancient (Burbank) the Golden Age
of powerful (animation) and extraordinary (directors) and the greatest, strongest
of all these (directors) was the mighty
(Musker and Clements.) -Our story actually begins...
-With "The Great Mouse Detective". No, really. Well actually no.
You could easily say it begins before that but for our purposes let's say it
begins with "The Great Mouse Detective". Now, this film had four
credited directors: these two guys named John Musker
and Ron Clements among them. And The Great Mouse Detective
did... Ok enough 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 bring Disney
Animation Studios back to its former glory. So, in a pitch meeting in 1985
Ron Clements pitched two projects of note: an adaptation of Hans Christian
Andersen's, "The Little Mermaid", and what was effectively,
"Treasure Island" in space. And Jeffrey Katzenberg was like: "That sounds kind of stupid,
maybe keep work-shopping that. But that mermaid thing seems legit,
let's do that." And Clements was like "okay". And so with his former "Great Mouse Detective"
co-director John Musker, they go off
and make "The Little Mermaid". "The Little Mermaid" ended up
doing gangbusters for the studio, and ushering a new era
of animation.* So they come back to Katzenberg like
"Hey, so about that Treasure Island..." And Katzenberg is like "Hey! Actually,
one of our former animators has been working on this intricate
and deeply artistic Arabian nights type thing for like a decade
so let's rip that off and release it before
he can even finish his." And they're like "Okay". And then Musker and Clements
go make "Aladdin". And "Aladdin" makes even
more money for the studio. And suddenly Disney's
back on track, and no small part thanks
to those two guys. So now with two big hits
under their belt, Musker and Clements
go back to Katzenberg like "Hey look how successful we are.
Can we please make treasure planet now?" And Katzenberg is like "I don't know,
that still sounds pretty stupid. But I tell you what,
you make me one more movie that does impossibly well
at the box office, something that has every commercially
viable element imaginable thereby rendering it
impossible to fail I'll let you make your project
that you actually care about." And lo, so that these guys could finally
make their beloved "Treasure Planet". They first had to create the most
commercially viable thing you can imagine. Aggressively tailored to appeal
to as wide a demographic as possible, referencing as many popular 90's things,
fit in 89 minute run time and combining
such dissonant tones and styles that audiences
across the land went: "Yeah, it was okay.
I guess." This movie is not a disaster. Indoor plumbing.
It's gonna be big. There's a lot about it
that I like, both its villain and its art design ranked
among my favorites in all of Disneydom.* But the film didn't do well
upon release and Disney then basically
swept it under the rug. And years have passed since 1997, empires have risen and fallen, entire civilizations
swept off the map, all having never found the answer
to that one burning question: why did Disney's "Hercules"
underperform? I mean, I know. It is one of the most important
issues of our day. And, you know... No one is courageous enough
to talk about it. Except me.
And obviously, there's a lot to talk about. Look at how long this video is. Because it's not actively bad. There is a lot, in fact,
that is great about this movie, but why is it on the whole not
as good as the sums of its parts? I've spent the better part of two decades
unraveling this mystery. Someone got to do it. Apparently. I count "Hercules" as a whole as generally
the weakest of the 90's Disney movies. And this was a decade with
singing dancing gargoyles rhyming "Adonis"
with "croissants". Now, when I say weak,
I don't mean actively inept. See "The Phantom
of the Opera" review for that. And I don't mean being inaccurate
to 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 it not being faithful
to the mythology. And just for clarity's sake,
I'm calling 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 great, but when put together
it just didn't really jive. "Pocahontas" I think, is the worst
of the 90's Disney movies because it's more boring
and less good. See how I glittered.* But I call it also a stronger
movie because the parts gel, the tone is consistent,
the stakes are high, and the motivations are clear. "Hunchback of Notre Dame" has a similar
albeit flipped tone problem as "Hercules", but again,
has a much stronger whole. I probably would have never even
noticed the tone problem if I hadn't run across "Hercules The
Animated Series" when I was in college. There are some definite duds
of episodes in that, especially considering
the budget was basically $10 per episode once the movie underperformed and some main characters
that are really fucking annoying. The ladies go wild for
sardine and onion breath. But I think the animated series embodies
what the movie should have been. You sold your after school
and weekends soul to Hades? "The Animated Series" doesn't bother
with those massive plot contrivance. It completely ignores the really important
plot point in 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 succeeded in doing,
a comedic take on a mythologized history. Sincere sure, but ultimately a fun romp
that never took itself too seriously. What are the odds that
trap door led me out here? What Hercules ended up being was
every fucking thing under the sun! Which I guess
was kind of inevitable, given that you were
instructed by corporate to make it everything
to everyone and whether or not you get to make
your passion project is on the line. Let's discuss. This movie is a comedy. Arguably more than any other Disney
movie that came out that decade. Two words.
I am retired. At least as far
as the marketing goes. That wouldn't be a problem
or even noteworthy except that this has some
of the darkest stuff in all of Disneydom.* Hercules! Look out! Meg?
No! Yep, that woman just got crushed
by a several ton stone column. I only use this one
scene as an example. This entire climactic scene
where Hercules goes and fights the titans is dogged
by this tonal yo-yoing. Megara gets squished,
somehow she's still breathing. Okay. Hercules races off and all sense of Megara
related urgency is lost. We revert right back
to that comedic tone. Whoa, is my hair out? It almost feels like the gods didn't
really need Hercules. Now, watch your
old man work! They just needed like? Moral support or cheerleader? And this scene goes by so fast. Zeus lobs
a couple of lightning bolts. Hercules sucks them into the Tornado
Giant and lobs them into the sky and the plot explodes. And that's the end of that. And they're laughing
and giving high-fives and then Hades reminds
them that Meg is dying. Like Hercules had completely
forgotten about that little detail. Meg! And then less than 30 seconds
after wacky nonsense, -we're down here like...
-No! Yeah, this movie's got
a tone problem. Not as bad as "Hunchback",
though. And since you people love
that nitpicky plothole crap, I'm gonna go ahead and get that out
of the way before we get into the deeper stuff. I mean...
Who are we kidding? I love it too. I feel like there is a difference between
a plot hole and just a contrivance. But I don't think it's necessarily
like a black or white thing. It's more of a gradient.
That said: Hades orders his minions
to kill Hercules as a baby, and he doesn't find out
that they failed until 18 years later. What was that name again? Hercules. Hades apparently doesn't talk
to any of the gods. I mean, this kid's your nephew. How did you miss that you failed
to kill him for 18 years? That's might be
a different Hercules. Zeus ordered all of the gods
to go look for him, think he'd have at least
sent a memo to the Underworld. Also Hades,
you seem like a smart guy you wouldn't want to check, make sure
your bumbling minions got the job done? You mean, if he finds out? I mean, it's not like they're related
or anything. -We know everything.
-The Fates. What's the matter
with these scissors? The thread won't cut. I thought you knew everything. Hades, the villain,
makes two bargains with Hercules and keeps both of them. Hades' deal is broken. He promised I wouldn't get hurt. Hercules, the hero,
makes one bargain with Hades and does not keep it. You get her out.
She goes. You stay. Our hero. Anyway, that's not really a plot hole
so much as a raging hypocrisy. But I guess that's
what you get when your villain is way more
likable than your hero. Actually, I'd love to see a version of this
where Hercules keeps his end of the bargain and Meg goes
and he stays and... It turns into like "Beauty and the Beast"
and they kind of hate each other at first but Hades learn
to change his ways and it's just a love story
for the ages. God damn, I would watch
the shit out of that movie. If you can prove yourself a true hero
on Earth your godhood will be restored. I can't just make you a God, is that a hard and fast rule
any true hero attains godhood? Or does it only apply to ex-gods
who drank Hades' mortality juice? Speaking of which how do we get
around Hercules' immortality? First you're gonna turn
the little sunspot mortal. Hades has this juice, floating in a room
devoted to the juice that robs gods
of their immortality. He calls it his pink juice room. 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 clock of the planets lining
is arbitrary and lame and lazy. In 18 years, precisely, the planets will align. I mean it's not like a plot hole,
really, it's just a weak-ass
ticking clock. Like: on this day the planets will
make a doom tornado and you couldn't do your
god lightning thing before that but you can now because the doom tornado
got the water out of the way, I guess. Then again, a lot of shit
in Greek Mythology is arbitrary. See? She ate some
pomegranate seeds. So now that means
she has to come stay with me for half the year,
every year. That's according to the
rules I just made up. Zeus has no problem getting
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 a lot more egregious
than other Disney movies, but unlike with "Phantom" review, again,
we already covered this sort of thing, I'm not really going to talk
about the filmmaking so much. In this one,
we're going to concentrate on structure, character,
theme and influence. So let's start with influence. In translating the story
for a modern audience, Musker and Clements claimed
that Hercules appealed to them because it would allow them to do
a superhero story while also commenting
on the world of celebrity athletes and endorsement deals. Okay. Here's the thing, I can
see where you would get that ancient Greek hero equals superhero
plus sports star, but endorsement deals? No, put a pin in that,
we're gonna come back to that. Pin that up on the wall. Let's start with the hero thing. I happen to be a hero. The Greek idea of a hero,
while bearing some similarities, is not the same
as our modern idea of a hero. For the Greeks heroes were in this context
historical figures of cultural import who either did exceptional things
or had exceptional abilities and were almost always
descended from Zeus because Zeus got around. But they were important figures,
not necessarily nice ones. And also Greek heroes
were deeply flawed. And I don't mean "flawed" as in snapping
a guy's neck to save the world "and did I do the right thing?"
flawed, I mean like flew into a
murderous God induced panic and murder your wife
and children flawed. Hercules did
a lot of fuckup shit. A Disney Hero is about as far cry as one
can get from the traditional Greek hero. Greek heroes
are always tragically flawed. Every Disney protagonist
in the 90's tragic flaw was clumsiness. He is too dangerous to be around
normal people! An entire canon of Bella Swans. But let's say that,
for the sake of argument, a hero is defined by our modern
mythology as a Super Hero. In that case a hero is defined
by their selflessness. By contrast Greek heroes were more
about quests for glory. You know Odysseus didn't go odyssey-ing for the greater good. They were more defined by their importance
to the culture than by their inherent goodness. And that way they have
more in common with, say, King Solomon of Israel
than Superman, a historical/religious figure rather than
some ideal of morality. So the workaround 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 one can aspire to. He's just another chariot chaser. You know,
like professional athlete. Which is an interesting idea
and I think 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 for what
people would have associated with the word
Hercules with in 1997 besides Kevin Sorbo would
have been: A, Greek B, strong. And that's about it. He's a little Hercules.
Show your muscles again. Hercules, Hercules, Hercules. Like sure, nerds knew about
the 12 labors of Hercules and that Hades wasn't
"the bad guy", but if you're a normie
back in 1995 the most obscure thing
you probably knew about Hercules is that Arnold Schwarzenegger
played him once. That is no joke, it is? Some have stated... I have stated that this movie borrows
almost nothing from the mythology, in terms of its story,
and that's not entirely fair. In "Hercules", the main threats
come from the titans. Olympus would be that way. At the beginning it references
the big battle which is called the
titanomachy... Okay. And then along came Zeus Anyway, mythologically Hercules
had nothing to do with that and the titans never got out but there was a less well-known myth
known as the gigantomachy. Where the gods of Olympus fought
a bunch of Giants rather than titans. There was a prophecy in this that had it
that the giants would only be defeated if a mortal was to help the gods
and Hercules did help out with that one. So in this movie they
basically combined the gigantomachy and
the titanomachy, and that's fine. So the titans and Hercules
are basically a mush of everything Giants, Titans, the cyclops. And the 12 labors of Hercules
are there sort of, they're just referenced visually
during a montage and then again here. So these guys clearly
did their homework. There is much more here rooted in Greek
mythology than people give it credit for. That said the bulk of the stories
influence is not from that. The two main influences in Disney's
"Hercules" are "Superman" and "Rocky". Rocky is a ragtag underdog
story about a poor but plucky boxer
who gets his chance when the heavyweight champion of
the world, Apollo Creed, decides to have a fight
against a nobody in order to stage
a high-profile easy win. But Rocky trains really hard,
and to everyone's shock manages the whole 15 rounds against
Creed who only barely wins but really Rocky wins
because love. -I love you.
-I love you. And Superman is a Christ's allegory
about an alien man who comes to Earth already gifted with
superhuman strength powers and compassion and who was instructed
by his alien ghost dad to go set a good example
for the human. This reason above all,
their capacity for good I have sent him you, my only son. Hercules has to train,
like Rocky, despite having been divinely given
his gifts like superman. This is written off in
the movie as he's clumsy so he doesn't really need to learn
how to do the thing, but rather how to control the thing
that he's already been given. So rather than letting the movie be its own
new thing that isn't overly derivative. All I wanna do
is go to distance. -I can go the distance
-Go the distance. Go the distance. The core of the film is trying to
mush "Rocky" and "Superman". It's not wrong, but it's not only a stretch in terms
of things to try to combine, it's also just way too derivative. Because inspiration is one thing
but this movie goes way out of its way to let you know just how much
it's lifting from other movies that in the back of your mind, you're always reminded in
this subconscious way how not only is this movie not letting
itself be its own movie but of these other better movies,
it's lifting from. Like maybe you don't hate
Kid Rock's "All summer long". Singing sweet home Alabama
All summer along But it's always gonna be
this weird mush of "Sweet Home, Alabama" and Werewolves of London which given a second thought
is like "what?" Sports movies typically end
with a big match at the end, and Superhero movies tend to have the heroes
motivation derive from some sense of duty to serve and protect the masses. With great power,
comes great responsibility. As a sports movie there is
no big match Hercules is training for, and as a superhero movie the hero part
is just a means to an end. You'll get your chance.
You just need some kind of catastrophe. Mega at one point
even calls Hercules out on how he doesn't really care about
the people he portends to want to save. Kids? Trapped? Phil, this is great! You're really choked up about this,
aren't you? The movie kind of has a mean dismissive
attitude towards the populace at large. They are either catty. Yeah, and who are you? Or judgmental. I have you ever reversed
a natural disaster? Or mindlessly sycophantic. They are just a means to an end. Rocky's story and Superman's story
are non complimentary. So by combining 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 the people and is only a hero to them
because he's told that doing so will get him
what he wants. So do you remember how we put a pin
in the filmmakers wanting to comment on celebrity
endorsement? Well, okay.
We're back to that part now. When you're watching a movie,
any movie, basically everything you see on the screen
will contain some form of shorthand. For instance, here is Hercules getting
down on his knees and praying to Zeus. -Mighty Zeus.
-Now, a good boy in ancient Greece probably would have brought a goat
and slaughtered it on that altar, you know, rather than getting down
on his knees and praying like a christian, do things the proper way. The audience associates getting on
their knees of piety therefore this is shorthand. And this has nothing to do
with historical accuracy and everything to do with using shorthand
to get information to the audience using cultural knowledge the audience
is presumably familiar with. Pop-culture references became an
increasingly popular form of shorthand in animation ever since Aladdin and this movie has a lot of that. The great Hero's 30-minute workout
scrolled buns of bronze. The audience is familiar
with these things and without the lines
being drawn explicitly our mid-nineties audience is
still able to draw the lines between "Hercules" and celebrity athletes
being wealthy and endorsing products. I'm an action figure! Hercules isn't just Rocky
and Superman he's also Michael Jordan. There's my main man,
Michael Jordan. In this is a pair of
Air Jordan from Nike. From Pain wearing Air-Hercs to Panic consuming the Not-McDonald's
that Hercules has been celebrity endorsing. Nothing but net. I think we're gonna be here a while.
I suggest you go get a Big Mac. How does this tie
into the film thematically? After he trains with Phil,
Hercules goes to Thebes which is a thinly veiled version
of New York that was already dated in 1997. -Wanna buy a sundial?
-Whatever. This is the big city
in which Hercules goes to make it. Then Hades stages a battle with
the intent of killing Hercules, but inadvertently makes him
an overnight sensation. After that we get a montage with all
of these references to sports stardom signing autographs, fans wearing
his jersey, appearance fees,
royalties, action figures, sweatshops making your product,
endorsing fast foods, Air Jordans... Our Herc has to cash burn Yeah, money, whoo! Here's the thing: Hercules
doesn't set out like "I'm going to go be a hero and that will
net me fame in fortune, yay!" Fame and fortune just kind
of happened to him incidentally. So there was never a point
where he sought out wealth and fortune, and then learned the error
of his ways. He never tries to win Meg
over with his fame and fortune, is just kind of there. And this would have worked if Hercules had
a more arrogant starting point or maybe had equated fame and fortune
with personal worth, you know, like Aladdin did. Did if Jasmine found out
I was really some crummy street rat, she'd laugh at me. -And Spider-Man did.
-Cool car. This points to why Kuzco is a much more
compelling character. He was genuinely flawed
and arrogant and eventually he learned
the error of his ways. I'm not saying Hercules
needed to be like Kuzco, but for wealth and fame to be framed
as not the point of being a true hero he kind of needed to want it, but he never cared about any of that,
this isn't a character flaw. What's the point? It doesn't corrupt him at all,
it doesn't make him egotistical, make him lose sight of what it
means to be a hero. In the end the references
end up kind of being hollow. It's less a comment on celebrity athlete
endorsement culture or homage to Rocky, than it's just trying
to remind the audience something they're already familiar
with without actually exploring it. Chosen one narratives
are easy to write because then you don't need to come up with
a good and compelling reason for why our hero
is the center of the conflict, but they're hard to make interesting
because there's no good and compelling reason for why our hero
is the center of the conflict. And you notice that most popular
heroes journey's stories don't involve a prophecy proclaiming
them to be the chosen one. I will take the ring to Mordor. Frodo wasn't prophesied,
Katniss wasn't prophesied, Luke Skywalker
wasn't prophesied. They were all ordinary people
thrust into extraordinary circumstances by chance or plot stuff
or them wanting to do a thing. The only real chosen one 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 send-up of chosen when narratives than a chosen one
narrative played straight. She showed interest in you because
she thinks you'll too chosen one. But I am the chosen one. His chosen one-ness comes into
play more and how people treat him than as it pertains
to the actual plot, and most of the conflicts
of the individual stories have more to do with the periphery
of the universe as a whole rather than the fact that Harry
is the only person who can save the world. Which ultimately turns out
not to be true by the by. The chosen one narrative was even more
pointedly dissected in the "Lego Movie". You're the one the prophecy spoke of.
You're the special. And the whole point of that ends up
being that there is no chosen one. I think chosen when narratives
work better in TV shows than in movies. Contrast this
with something like "Buffy", who was one in 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
to their chosen ones their stories are about
the day-to-day dealing with it. Disney movies mostly stayed away
from chosen-one prophecies. The closest we get
is probably "Aladdin". Reveal to me the one
who can enter the cave. Aladdin's chosen one-ness is what
gets him into the cave to get the lamp, but this aspect is completely done and over
with by the end of act one of the film. And the rest of the film's
conflict has nothing to do with it. The momentum of the film is fully
propelled by character motivation and is rooted in actual stakes. Simba's arc
has an element of destiny to it. You are my son,
the one true king. But this has more to do
with duty than prophecy. And Hercules the only reason Hades
has it in for Hercules is because the Fates told him to,
because prophecy. And by the end of the film they
have built up to no enmity, because they don't
really know each other and they have no reason to be at odds
with each other besides prophecy. And again contrast this
with the TV show where they do know each other
and do develop a dynamic. Hey, if I could only
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 any attention to him at all is a prophecy that
Hercules has no idea about. Nearly every iota of plot momentum
is manufactured by contrivances outside
of Hercules' control. So the result is a story that
is not being pushed by actions or character to villain but
is instead being pulled by its nose. by the plot
contrivance of destiny. So if you want to learn about
screenwriting and screenplay structure Disney's Hercules is the perfect vehicle
for baby's first three act structure because it is so carefully
and clearly delineated. 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 it from the student loans.
Don't go to film School, watch internet videos. Hercules has a very simple,
very traditional three act structure. So we can use this as an opportunity
to examine story structure as it pertains
to Hollywood movies. Backstory. We learn who Hercules is
and how the universe works. -Excuse me?
-Should Hercules fight, you will fail. Inciting incident. Hades hears
the prophecy that Hercules will defeat him. This leads Hades to turning
Hercules into a mortal. This is it, don't you see?
Maybe they have the answers. Point of attack.
Hercules finds out that he's adopted. Now, some people say that point of attack
and inciting incident are the same thing and these people are wrong. The inciting incident
sets the plot in motion, the point of attack is the moment the central
conflict and character motivation appears and the primary action
of the story can get moving. -The central conflict:
-I feel like I really don't belong here. Hercules wants to find out
where he belongs. This culminates
at the end of act one, Hercules presents his central conflict
to Zeus, Zeus tells them how to fix it. If you can prove yourself a true hero
on Earth, your godhood will be restored. This is called a lock-in, also known
as the end of act 1. Our hero has his quest
and now he goes out to quest it. -I won't let you down, father.
-Go be a true hero, Hercules, and that will solve
your central conflict. Act two is typically
split 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", it's where he proves himself
by defeating the Hydra. The midpoint is Hercules
attaining fame and fortune. Important to know also 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 really short second act, So it's midpoint, which is
where he meets up with Nala, happens around 60%
through the movie. Well, gotta blaze. There's a whole cosmos
up there waiting for me. -With hey, my name on it.
-The end of act 2 also, generally sees the resolution
of the main tension, in this case Hades releasing
the titans. Sound the alarm! While building a new tension
for act 3: the titans now having been released,
now we have to go defeat them. This is called
"the main culmination" and usually coincides with the hero
being at his lowest point. Our hero's a zero.
Our hero's a zero. Again, illustrated
really really clearly here. -Hercules!
-Twist in the 3rd act. Meg sacrifices herself
for Hercules, Hercules gets his strength back. Twisting the third act is important because
it shifts the focus of the final tension, the main tension is no longer
"will we defeat the Titans?" Which is part of what makes his little
cul-de-sac where he actually does go and whackly defeat
titans all the more problematic for the tone
by the by. Whoa, was my hair out? It's "will Meg die?"
The stakes are much higher. Climax. Hercules sacrifices himself
for Meg, becomes a true hero. Now here's the thing,
central conflict: To feel like I belong. The central conflict in pretty much
all of the 90's Disney movies was about self-identity
and finding themselves. And "Hercules" is probably the most overt
in that regard alongside "Tarzan", both have the same
central conflict "I am an outsider, and I want
to find out where I belong" and same resolution "this sexy
lady is where I belong". -Resolution:
-You were willing to give you a life* to rescue this young woman. So the resolution resolves
the conflict between sport star equals self-serving
and superhero equals selfless, but it does not resolve
Hercules' central conflict. Which brings us to... In screenplay terms, motivation
is described as "want versus need". In a story a character
needs to grow or change or learn something
for a satisfying character arc. Not all the time, but in Disney's
movies, yeah, all the time. And generally the want
and the need are related but aren't necessarily
the same thing. The character is motivated
by a "want" set up in the first act. I want to be
where the people are I want adventure
in the great wild, somewhere Just to live one day
Out there And their growth is detailed by meeting
a need at the end of the third act. -Aladdin want:
-We'll be rich, live in a palace. -Need:
-I gotta stop pretending to be something I'm not. -Simba want:
-Unless you can change the past. -Need
-Yes, the past can hurt, but the way I see it
you can either run from it, or learn from it. So one fine day Hercules finds out
he's adopted, and he goes to find out
what's up. "Why do I feel so out of place
Mom and Dad?" You'll find out good.
Good. Go. Fine. Good. Perfectly good starting point. And then he meets Zeus and Zeus says:
"Hey, you're my son and you need to learn
to become a hero, so you can be a God again." And Hercules is like
"Okay, that makes perfect sense. I'll go learn to be a true hero." -So Hercules' want:
-To find where I belong. And his need which is
being selfless is the mark of a true hero, Well, one doesn't really build
to the other. This culminates when he
sacrifices himself for Meg, which would indicate that he needed to learn
that being a hero was self-sacrificing but that doesn't really have anything
to do with his main motivation which is to find out
where he belongs or to resolve
some character flaw. He was always kind of
an innocent nice guy. Not the most altruistic,
but not exactly selfish either. And the nicest guy
Not conceited Hercules wants basically
the same things as Aladdin, but he gets that
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 culminating moment for his character
like it was for, say, Kuzco who was selfish or Aladdin who was pretending
to be something he wasn't. Basically his want,
a sense of belonging and his need,
being self-sacrificing don't really have anything
to do with each other. One does not resolve the other
which makes for a weak character arc. And you could say
"But Hades?" But the Hades' plot isn't
relevant to Hercules motivation, because at no point does Hercules
even learn about the prophecy, and he doesn't even meet
Hades up until the end of the movie. Which also makes this
showdown kind of limp. Let her go! I've been waiting for this
moment for 10 minutes. Look again at Aladdin. The thing that he and Jafar
are fighting over, namely the Genie is directly related
to Aladdin's character growth. There is a point where Aladdin
decides he won't let the Genie go because the Genie
helps him maintain his facade. Without you I'm just Aladdin. But his character arc
culminates with 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's motivation is that unlike all of the other Disney characters,
it's not an internal motivation. But if I don't become a true hero,
I'll never be able to rejoin my father, Zeus. He doesn't want to be
a hero because he wants it, he wants it because
he was told to. Some of the most memorable characters
in the last 20 years, Walter White, Tony Soprano,
Cersei Lannister, Daniel Plainview. These characters
do some fucked up shit and are rarely, if ever sympathetic,
but the audience engages with them highly because they are highly
motivated. You're goddamn right. And you see this more on television
because you have a lot more time to really explore character depth
and nuance 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 to be sympathetic
or relatable. Hercules is certainly
the latter but not the former. And even though on a personal level I really
hate most movies that have some sort of "you lied to me" engineered conflict.
(Let's ignore that). Meg's character arc
is much stronger than Hercules' because her stakes are much higher,
her dilemma more intense, and her motivations clearer. Even though history has taught her that
she can't trust men or her own feelings, which her bitchy gay boyfriend
Hades details explicitly. This one is different, he's honest,
and he's sweet. -Please...
-He would never do anything to hurt me. -He's a guy!
-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... actually no.
Not Phil, fuck Phil. I'm real too. When I say I'm fond of this movie
that is what I mean, I'm fond of the characters,
I'm fond of the style, I'm fond of the idea,
of the tone... You know, when it's being fun, and actually enjoyable. The bones of the thing
I am not fond of and that is one of the most
important parts of any movie. To make it clear I do not mean to say
that there was nothing risky or new or innovative in this movie,
far from it, it has the first Disney heroine who
starts out in league with the bad guy. And who's not only got
a past with men, but she's got to be pushing 30,
given how world-weary she is. Well, you know how men are,
they think no means yes, and get lost means
take me on yours. Don't worry shorty here
can explain it to you later. Like I said fuck Phil. The risk of going with
a straight comedic villain is one of the best things in the movie,
despite the tonal problems. This is also the first
Disney movie since "Fantasia"... Yeah... To have named black characters. Yep, 1997.
That's how long it took. This is one of the most stylized
of the Disney canon, thanks in large part to the filmmakers
hiring Gerald Scarfe as concept artist. He was a new Yorker cartoonist,
but at the time he was most famous for doing
the art for pink Floyd's "The Wall". And the style Scarf came up
with for the movie was pretty out-there, but you can totally see its
influence in the finished 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 thing in order to
earn the thing they actually cared about. Katzenberg left Disney in 1994
under not very friendly circumstances but the studio made good on Katzenberg's
promise and "Treasure Planet" exists. I found it pretty unmemorable and to this day is the biggest flop
Musker and Clements were involved in. And I take no
"schadenfreude" in that let me be clear, I actually
really respect these guys and what they've done
for animation, but it didn't ruin them. They're fine.
They're doing fine. Everything good
and memorable about "Hercules" stems from the filmmakers
taking risk. And that is the essence
of really great films, it is a combination of risk
and of cliche, of new and of safe. The "art" is in how you weave
the two together. So now that's it.
We can finally put it to rest the long-standing mystery
of what exactly made "Hercules" kind of "meh" in the eyes
of the public and dud and Disney, and to those of you who
look down on me and people like me
who just tried for so long to do this "Hercules"
dissection thing to you I say:
"There are dozens of us." Dozens!
Lindsay Ellis is one of my favorite people on youtube, its always great to see her videos get shared around.
Interesting but i really wish she wouldn't keep eating and drinking on mic. Makes my skin crawl.