MovieChat Forums > Hercules (1997) Discussion > This movie is part of the 'Try-Hard Trio...

This movie is part of the 'Try-Hard Trio'


What do I mean by "Try Hard Trio?" Well, let me explain. Back when The Little Mermaid came out, Disney was out of the dark ages. Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King continued the success with Disney Animation. All 4 Disney films have become Disney classics.

However, Pocahontas came out things began to change. Pocahontas did not receive the same glowing reviews like the previous 4 films. Though it won Oscars and made money. It was a "Flop pretending to be a hit." Outside the "Colors of the WInd" section of the movie, there is literally nothing interesting or memorable about the movie. The only other good moment in the movie is "Just Around the River bend" because you can tell it is reminiscent of the classic Disney heroine musical moment. The animation is very good. But outside of that, the film is not memorable, the romance is predictable, the characters are not interesting, it is Dances with Wolves/Ferngully/Avatar/Brother Bear preachy story (which has been overdone), and tries too hard to be the next "Disney Classic." Out of all the DIsney Princesses, she is the least popular. Disney gives her an occasional experience in parks and merchandising but that's it. Girls go to Disney to see Belle, Rapunzel, Cinderella more than Pocahontas.

Next is The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I love the story of Hunchback, but it is certainly not an adaptable story for children. Same with Les Miserables. Now, you may say "Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia and others have scary moments for kids." Yes, but there is one thing that is different from those films compared to The Hunchback of Notre Dame. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is an adult novel dealing with the moral decay and corruption that was going on in France at that time (Same with Les Miserables). Themes of lust, religious hypocrisy, and other stuff are not in other Disney films. Now, is it bad that Hunchback has those themes? No, that is what makes the book great. But for a Disney audience? If Disney made Les Miserables, Fantine would have to be a beggar woman instead of a prostitute. Doesn't work because it takes away the emotional impact of Fantine becoming a prostitute. Well with Disney's Hunchback, they "cleaned up" the story while trying to keep some adult stuff to make it work. Sorry but it doesn't. That makes the film totally and dramatically uneven. The moment with the Gargoyles are the biggest proof of that point. So that is the main problem with Hunchback. Parents and kids did not connect with the film. The reason it has a "cult" following is because the teenage and young adult demographic connect with the themes of this story and they like the daring edgy stuff in this film. While it is daring for Disney to touch on themes of lust, it comes across as "Oh look at us we can create an adult Disney movie and yet we have cute characters like the gargoyles." Eh NO. So I look at Hunchback as a NonDisney film. If the Gargoyles and Disney cliches were not present and this movie was made by Don Bluth or some other animation studio, then this movie would be a masterpiece for sure. But we are stuck with what we have. The film made less the previous Disney films which showed the decline with Disney.

Now, Hercules. Pocahontas was too preachy, The Hunchback of Notre Dame was too dark, now we have an Aladdin like film YAYYYYehhhh. This film REALLY tries too hard. The songs are not memorable at all, Gospel with Greek Mythology? Look the gospel music fit with The Princess and the Frog, but not this film. Hercules's characters and songs fall really flat. Aladdin was memorable because he was interesting a relatable. Hercules is not interesting at all. He lacks the depth of Aladdin and the chemistry between him and Meg is certainly not as strong as Aladdin and Jasmine. it feels forced. That is the problem with Hercules, everything feels forced and not original. The animation is not great. Yea, Aladdin has some cartoony moments but they worked. This one is really dumbed down. Now Hades is a good villain because of James Wood's voice work. Frollo same deal. But overall, nothing stands out with this film. They tried to promote Hercules so much with a TV series, kingdom Hearts and some park stuff but it was very short lived and the movie made even less that its predecessors.

The only Disney films after the Lion King and before the slump of the early 2000s (excluding Lilo & Stitch) that were able to be almost just as good as the early 90s classics are Mulan, Tarzan and even Fantasia 2000. Mulan and Tarzan made more money and connected with audiences. The thing I get disappointed is that they don't promote Mulan and Tarzan as much (though WAY more than Pocahontas, Hunchback and Hercules). 1998-early 2000 was small period of Disney magic returning. But anyway the reason I call Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Hercules the "Try Hard Trio" is that Disney tried too hard to make these films the huge successes of the "fabulous four." Instead they lost their grip. These movies may have their followings but they do not a 'classic' status for sure. No diamond editions for these films. I'm feel that Mulan and Tarzan should receive diamond editions but I'll have to wait on that I guess.

reply

Well, what you call the "Try-Hard Trio" are my three favorite Disney movies, so clearly the effort worked for some people.

I love the darkness and social-justice themes of Hunchback and Pocahontas (both of which have incredible music), and Hercules also has great music, and I found him to be a much more likeable hero than Aladdin or Simba. Tate Donovan voiced him perfectly. Plus, I think the relationship with Herc and Meg is one of Disney's greatest ever. They both sacrificed their lives for each other (so did Pocahontas and John). That's way more powerful than the high-school-crush-level romance we see from Ariel and Eric and even Aladdin and Jasmine, even though some people see them as a strong couple because Jasmine loved him in spite of his low-breeding.

reply

Someone above mentioned about loving these movies because it is Nostalgia factor and I can believe that. I think that the reason fans like most of you, defend these movies is because you all grew up with these movies. I did too. But as I grew older (plus I took film and animation classes) and I got to see these movies with new eyes, i can see why 1995-1997 was not Disney's strongest period with animated movies. These things can happen with any studio. Disney started strong with The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion king. Then, Disney went through a small creative slump with Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Hercules. Disney bounced back with Mulan and Tarzan. But this isn't the first time this has happened with Disney. Look at The Sword in the Stone for example. The Sword in the Stone was released during Walt's lifetime. During Walt Disney's life, he created some of the greatest animated movies. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, Bambi, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians and The Jungle Book. All have stood the test of time and have become beloved classics. And at first, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi, Alice in Wonderland and Sleeping Beauty failed at the box office but have been given a second chance. However, The Sword in Stone is the only film (Outside of the package films) that has not been able to be given that second chance. Why? Well, just like the Try-Hard Trio, it has not resonated like the 12 Disney classics and the "fabulous four." So yes, i am putting The Sword in Stone along side with Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Hercules.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Well, I like "The sword in the stone" and "Robin Hood" very much. They both are set in Medieval England, which will make them automatically interesting for a history nerd like me. Sure, maybe they aren't any flawless masterpieces. But that is not the same thing as them being bad movies. On the flip side, I could never like "The fox & the hound". (I found it way too pessimistic and depressing.) So I guess that we have to agree to disagree...

Yeah, the '80s in particular is now seen as a dark age for Disney. "The great mouse detective" and "Oliver & Co" were hits back in their day though, even if especially "Oliver & Co" has aged poorly accordig to most reviewers of the 2010s. And as for the '90s, I have to like both "The hunchback of Notre-Dame" and "Hercules". Sure, they didn't make as money as the "fabulous four". But how exactly does that make them bad movies?

Intelligence and purity.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you on Pocahontas. It's my favourite Disney film of all time. The animation is stunning, the music is incredible (Alan Menken's score is my favourite Disney soundtrack) and the story is actually incredibly powerful. The themes of colonisation, racism, discrimination and love across two different races isn't remotely dull. Don't forget, Avatar and Brother Bear came out after Pocahontas, you can't really say the story had been overdone at that point when those films hadn't even been released.

Dean and I do share a more profound bond. I wasn't going to mention it - Castiel

reply