Chances for a SE Hercules DVD?

[Disney's Divinity]

My major problem with Hercules is that all of the characters are cocky a-holes who I have a major problem sympathising with. ...Unlike Hunchback, where I found Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Pheobus all to be likeable characters.

See, that's where I'm the complete reverse. I found all the characters in Hunchback (other than Frollo and Clopin) to be bland and boring. Esmerelda and Phoebus are some of most forgettable characters Disney's had--though I have to wonder if that's partly because of the choice of celebrity voice actors who aren't emotive enough for an animated film--and Quasi is nothing more than a repeat of Ariel and Aladdin combined with the Beast. Hercules, on the other hand, is one of the few male protagonists they've had that I've legitimately liked, and Megara is personally one of my favorite characters from Disney altogether.

And, although I don't agree that it was better than the movie, I thought Hercules was one of the few good movie-based series they had.

[SpringHeelJack]

I mean poll dancing, really?

Really? You mean the 5 seconds of a fully clothed Esmeralda swinging extended from a spear? You found that offensive like Frollo?

No, he apparently is referring to some sort of dance Esmeralda did while waiting to see her public opinion numbers. That must have been one of the deleted scenes found on the laserdisc, I guess.

[Goliath]

Because it deals with religious (christian) hypocrisy, the evils religion (christianity) can drive powerful people to commit, and the concept of sin and lust. Right?

Because it was maybe the heaviest of all the Disney Animated Films to date and the source material maybe a bit too mature for a children's film. I mean poll dancing, really? It lacked the fun that both "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Lion King" had and was trying too hard to be "adult." Both of the latter films however were able to actually draw adults in while still having that fun Disney sensibility these films are known for. That's why. "Hercules," while not perfect, did a better job of that.

Oooooh, come on! Why don't you just admit it? Admit that you think the film "should not be part of the Classic canon" (which is something different entirely from just not liking it), because of the way it depicts christianity --in a very unflattering light. Those other reasons you mentioned simply don't ring true. Was the ancient Greek mythology a better source for a children's film? Violence, rape, adultry, incest, murders, fathers killing sons and vice versa etc. etc. Yet you don't mention that when discussing Hercules. And then the 'fun'-argument. It's possible that you did go to the bathroom everytime the gargoyles were on screen, so you missed them, but somehow that doesn't sound likely to me. So there was more than enough fun --too much so, is the common opinion among fans. And if there was one film which tried too hard to be adult, is your praised Lion King, with its ridiculous afterlife-Mustafa in the sky. But that's a depection of your religion you're alright with, so that's what gets your praise.

And don't misunderstand me. You have every right to feel that way. Obviously. You can have whatever motivations you want for not liking certain films, and you can have all the opinions you want. That's not what I'm arguing against. I just wish you wouldn't be such a hypocrite about it. If that is how you really feel, why hide it? Be proud of it.

[The_Iceflash]

I never saw the film as showing Christianity in an unflattering light. In all my years watching it, I never found Christianity to be the beacon of evil in the film. I found the man who took advantage of his power and status as the one who represented evil.

[Goliath]

I never saw the film as showing Christianity in an unflattering light. In all my years watching it, I never found Christianity to be the beacon of evil in the film. I found the man who took advantage of his power and status as the one who represented evil.

That's entirely possible. But the bad guy's motivation comes from his religion. His religion justifies (in his mind --and, history has shown it, in the minds of a lot of people) the crimes he's committing, to the point where he thinks he's serving God with his deeds. And *that's* why milojthatch is objecting to it, in my opinion.

[The_Iceflash]

I never saw the film as showing Christianity in an unflattering light. In all my years watching it, I never found Christianity to be the beacon of evil in the film. I found the man who took advantage of his power and status as the one who represented evil.

That's entirely possible. But the bad guy's motivation comes from his religion. His religion justifies (in his mind --and, history has shown it, in the minds of a lot of people) the crimes he's committing, to the point where he thinks he's serving God with his deeds. And *that's* why milojthatch is objecting to it, in my opinion.

Good point. I can certainly see where it can interpreted that way. I always saw it though as Frollo trying to "rebel" in a sense against the rules of the Church. (i.e going to drag Esmeralda out of it after she claimed 'sanctuary') while at the same time using it to justify his actions out of fear.

Remember this line: "Don't worry, Minister Frollo learned years ago to respect the sanctity of the church" that the archdeacon told Frollo when he tried to drag her out and arrest her? That there made it clear to me that Frollo repeatedly broken and defied rules that he was obliged to follow in the position he was. That showed that he chose to disregard whatever rules he was supposed to follow and do whatever it takes to get what he wants. He hid behind the religion and in his mind, twisted it to make it seem like what he was doing was ok even though fellow people (like the archdeacon) knew what he was doing was wrong and challenged him on it.

They saw he was manipulating the "sanctity of the church" to justify his actions. He had little respect for the "sanctity of the church". I believe he feared it and that's why he felt he had justify his actions religiously. (In the hellfire sequence we see him making excuses and you can see it when the archdeacon tells him the consequences of killing Quasimodo's mother. It was that fear which was the reason he took in Quasimodo in the first place.)

Frollo is kinda a sad character. Evil yet he felt he needed approval and justification for his actions out of his own fear. He seems like a guy who may have had childhood issues in regards to feeling like he needed someone's approval for everything he did. After he grew up and his parents were out of the picture he used religion to seek approval and justification for his actions.

[Scarred4life]

Good point. I can certainly see where it can interpreted that way. I always saw it though as Frollo trying to "rebel" in a sense against the rules of the Church. (i.e going to drag Esmeralda out of it after she claimed 'sanctuary') while at the same time using it to justify his actions out of fear.

Well, if he was really trying to rebel, why wouldn't he have just killed Quasimodo in the well? He would have, but the Archdeacon told him it was against their religion, and it would threaten his immortal soul ("And for the first time in his life, of power and control. Frollo felt a twinge of fear, for his immortal soul") So, if he was in fact trying to rebel, he would have rebelled further by drowning Quasi even though it was against his religion.

Remember this line: "Don't worry, Minister Frollo learned years ago to respect the sanctity of the church" that the archdeacon told Frollo when he tried to drag her out and arrest her? That there made it clear to me that Frollo repeatedly broken and defied rules that he was obliged to follow in the position he was.

That line was in reference to him killing Quasi's mother even though she claimed 'Sanctuary', and that's why he took Quasi in, as a penance. It wasn't because he repeatedly broke rules. It was just saying that ever since that night, Frollo should respect the Sanctuary; he had learned his lesson. Then, he tried to remove Esmeralda from the Church, so he could arrest her. Now, he either held absolutely no respect whatsoever for the Church, or, he was so firm in his belief that Esmeralda needed to be captured that he thought it was okay to break the sanctity of the church in order to arrest her.

[Disney Duster]

With the church, and in a way, the saints and even God, making Frollo feel guilty and thus keep Quasimodo, and then the church gargoyles smiting the wicked Frollo, as Frollo said God would, it shows a clear distinction between using religion for bad, and pure untainted spirituality of religion itself.

[The_Iceflash]

Good point. I can certainly see where it can interpreted that way. I always saw it though as Frollo trying to "rebel" in a sense against the rules of the Church. (i.e going to drag Esmeralda out of it after she claimed 'sanctuary') while at the same time using it to justify his actions out of fear.

Well, if he was really trying to rebel, why wouldn't he have just killed Quasimodo in the well? He would have, but the Archdeacon told him it was against their religion, and it would threaten his immortal soul ("And for the first time in his life, of power and control. Frollo felt a twinge of fear, for his immortal soul") So, if he was in fact trying to rebel, he would have rebelled further by drowning Quasi even though it was against his religion.

His fear and need for approval from it limited how much he rebelled. Kinda like a kid. He had a "I'll do what I want" attitude but only took it so far because of 1, his fear and 2, when he was reminded of the consequences.

Remember this line: "Don't worry, Minister Frollo learned years ago to respect the sanctity of the church" that the archdeacon told Frollo when he tried to drag her out and arrest her? That there made it clear to me that Frollo repeatedly broken and defied rules that he was obliged to follow in the position he was.

That line was in reference to him killing Quasi's mother even though she claimed 'Sanctuary', and that's why he took Quasi in, as a penance. It wasn't because he repeatedly broke rules. It was just saying that ever since that night, Frollo should respect the Sanctuary; he had learned his lesson. Then, he tried to remove Esmeralda from the Church, so he could arrest her. Now, he either held absolutely no respect whatsoever for the Church, or, he was so firm in his belief that Esmeralda needed to be captured that he thought it was okay to break the sanctity of the church in order to arrest her.[/quote]

I don't think he respected the Church, period. He feared it yes but that didn't stop him from doing things he thought he could get away with. His actions against the Church itself showed his lack of respect for it and his using the Church to justify actions against people showed his lack of respect for the Church and his fear of it. If in his mind he can use the Church to justify his actions then he had nothing to fear from them. Only when he can't (like when he kills Quasi's mom, he tried to justify it, once he realized he couldn't that's when we saw him get overcome with fear.) does he fear it.

[The_Iceflash]

With the church, and in a way, the saints and even God, making Frollo feel guilty and thus keep Quasimodo, and then the church gargoyles smiting the wicked Frollo, as Frollo said God would, it shows a clear distinction between using religion for bad, and pure untainted spirituality of religion itself.

It definitely shows religion used for good and bad. The good being the archdeacon and such and the bad being Frollo. It shows what happens when someone corrupts it and uses it for their own personal gain and it shows what happens when someone uses it for the good of others and other selfless reasons.

[milojthatch]

Also, the Rotten Tomatoes scores for both films:

Hercules: 84 %: Fast-paced and packed with dozens of pop culture references, Hercules might not measure up with the true classics of the Disney pantheon, but it's still plenty of fun.

Hunchback: 73 %: Disney's take on the Victor Hugo classic is dramatically uneven, but its strong visuals, dark themes, and message of tolerance make for a more-sophisticated-than-average children's film.

IMDB:

Hercules: 6.8
Hunchback: 6.5

So despite what you might think, Hercules is the better film according to general consensus. But only by a tiny bit.

And yet Hunchback was the bigger financial success:

Hunchback: $100,138,851 (domestic) vs. Hercules: $99,112,101 (domestic)

Hunchback: $225,200,000 (foreign) vs. Hercules: $153,600,000 (foreign)

Totals: $325,338,851 vs. $252,712,101

Even though Hunchback cost more, it still made more times it's budget (more than 3) than Hercules (less than 3).

I mean poll dancing, really?

Really? You mean the 5 seconds of a fully clothed Esmeralda swinging extended from a spear? You found that offensive like Frollo?

I'd be careful using box office returns TOO much in defending your argument. When it comes to sequels and Disney Animated films, the box office is as much inspired by the last film as it is the current. After "Pocahontas" and "Hunchback," it would take another "Lion King" to do much at the box office. But surprise, surprise, right after "Hercules," "Mulan" does well, with "Tarzan" doing even better.

As far as being "offended," originally I wasn't at all and gave little thought to it, although I still did question the choice of making this story a DAC, and also knew MANY people who were truly offended. But, as I've gotten older and wiser, and I see the World differently then I did as a child, and with the reality that in a few years I'll most likely be a father myself now that I'm married, well let's say I do questions what I'm ok with and what I'm not in movies, even Disney ones. The poll dancing scene wasn't even the worst of it, I think Frollo's song "Hellfire" was kind for risque for a children's film.

Does that mean you'd agree? Based on your comments thus far, I seriously doubt it. You seem to be offended by people being offended. Good for you by the way for feeling that way, but realize that there are a number of people, mostly parents, who don't feel comfortable with some of what is in "Hunchback." Not much more to really say honestly, it is what it is. Sorry if that upsets you and disrupts your groove.

Beyond that, it just wasn't Disney's best by any stretch of the imagination. Not their worst, but not tehir best. Clearly the weak link in the Modern Golden Age of Disney Animation.

My major problem with Hercules is that all of the characters are cocky a-holes who I have a major problem sympathising with. ...Unlike Hunchback, where I found Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Pheobus all to be likeable characters.

See, that's where I'm the complete reverse. I found all the characters in Hunchback (other than Frollo and Clopin) to be bland and boring. Esmerelda and Phoebus are some of most forgettable characters Disney's had--though I have to wonder if that's partly because of the choice of celebrity voice actors who aren't emotive enough for an animated film--and Quasi is nothing more than a repeat of Ariel and Aladdin combined with the Beast. Hercules, on the other hand, is one of the few male protagonists they've had that I've legitimately liked, and Megara is personally one of my favorite characters from Disney altogether.

And, although I don't agree that it was better than the movie, I thought Hercules was one of the few good movie-based series they had.

I tend to agree. Very bland, very boring.

Because it was maybe the heaviest of all the Disney Animated Films to date and the source material maybe a bit too mature for a children's film. I mean poll dancing, really? It lacked the fun that both "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Lion King" had and was trying too hard to be "adult." Both of the latter films however were able to actually draw adults in while still having that fun Disney sensibility these films are known for. That's why. "Hercules," while not perfect, did a better job of that.

Oooooh, come on! Why don't you just admit it? Admit that you think the film "should not be part of the Classic canon" (which is something different entirely from just not liking it), because of the way it depicts christianity --in a very unflattering light. Those other reasons you mentioned simply don't ring true. Was the ancient Greek mythology a better source for a children's film? Violence, rape, adultry, incest, murders, fathers killing sons and vice versa etc. etc. Yet you don't mention that when discussing Hercules. And then the 'fun'-argument. It's possible that you did go to the bathroom everytime the gargoyles were on screen, so you missed them, but somehow that doesn't sound likely to me. So there was more than enough fun --too much so, is the common opinion among fans. And if there was one film which tried too hard to be adult, is your praised Lion King, with its ridiculous afterlife-Mustafa in the sky. But that's a depection of your religion you're alright with, so that's what gets your praise.

And don't misunderstand me. You have every right to feel that way. Obviously. You can have whatever motivations you want for not liking certain films, and you can have all the opinions you want. That's not what I'm arguing against. I just wish you wouldn't be such a hypocrite about it. If that is how you really feel, why hide it? Be proud of it.

I think you see hypocrisy where none exists. Seriously, for your own sake, leave this foolish quest to argue and challenge religion. Learn the lessons Ahab didn't. Stop hunting your white whale. My reasons for not liking this one as much (I've yet to say I hate it, even though various people on this bored keep trying to tell me that that is what I think. Thanks for that by the way letting me know how I think!) have nothing to do with religion. But, if that is really where you want to go, I think your analysis that the film depicts Christianity in a negative light is frankly flawed. What it showed was how different people within a religion can see and react to religion, and what they see it as. Five people can hear the same sermon and get five different beliefs of what the pastor was trying to say.

Frollo represented those who use religion in ways it was not meant to be used, but Esmeralda shows what a Christianity is REALLY about by how she treats and acts around Quasimodo. Need I remind you who she was singing to during her song? Even Phoebes shows us TRUE Christianity by his action, especially by protecting Esmeralda with the sanctuary of the church and by saving that poor family later on. Now are we done with this? Can we move on? Don't by the way be so blinded to think that the high and mighty ONLY come from the religious and faithful. I think you'll find it can come from anyone or anywhere.

Now, I hope we all got that out of our system. Can we either get back to what the post was REALLY about, or just let it die? I know no one will hear me, but what the hey, I guess I'll try anyway.

[Flanger-Hanger]

The poll dancing scene wasn't even the worst of it...

I wouldn't disagree, it's just complaining of "poll dancing" is a new one to me when it comes to what might be considered objectionable in this movie. I've never seen it mentioned before online.

Does that mean you'd agree? Based on your comments thus far, I seriously doubt it. You seem to be offended by people being offended.

Only when I find something to be oddly offended by. To me, you see more resque dancing on any given dancing competition TV show than in that scene in the movie.

No I don't think that Hunchback is a perfect DAC, or even the best of the 90s. The box office numbers were just show as an interesting comparison because the film people thought was better did worse at the box office.

[ajmrowland]

THe "Pole Dancing" scene was in Hunchback, when Esmerelda's struttin' her stuff during the Festival of Fools.