I actually haven't gotten familiar with Hadestown yet—I think I dread it, having been burned too many times. But I've heard good things about it, so I'll likely brave it someday!
okay but Someone was Wrong on the Internet & EVEN WORSE it was about your Special Interest! maybe I'm a bit TOO autistic but I think you were just fine
(not me still cranky about someone else declaring that no way was that a Savannah cat when IT WAS TOO NEITHER THIS HAS BEEN A SPECIAL INTEREST OF MINE SINCE BEFORE LOIOSH WAS BORN I KNOW THESE THINGS HEY ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME)
I think fealty to source material is proportionate to depth of interpretation. If you're working with broad, crayon-like strokes — like Disney's "Hercules", or any of their comedic features for that matter — then we can tolerate a lot of interpretation. Likewise if one were writing a whimsical, Douglas Adams-y take on the material. However in media where there's more richness and detail, and more tapping into what made the original myths compelling, there's a natural expectation for a more informed approach that reflects the essence and details of its source. Hence we have different standards for Shakespeare's Henry VIII and the musical Six.
That is fair and true. Disney's "Hercules," and also the Percy Jackson series (which has a less unhinged but still not quite mythically faithful Hades), are made for kids and have a deliberately silly vibe. So I see why they went that direction. I think part of my beef is that Disney has such a humongous reach—far more these days than Aeschylus or Ovid or even Homer—that people who weren't raised on D'Aulaires like us just accept those interpretations as canonically accurate.
Disney went on to have a live-action Hades character in "Once Upon a Time," who is based on the "Hercules" version (and thus is not really an improvement, though not a surprise, since "Once Upon a Time" is just a huge mashup of all things in established Disney canon). But having those two seemingly separate and very popular versions out there probably helped cement the public impression that this is what Hades is like, in the myths. I think not enough people question what Disney habitually does to all their stories—i.e., they overlay a predetermined set of themes and character types onto each show/movie so it fits the Hashtag Disney Brand. Which obviously is working great for them, but...yeah. Changes have been made, and a lot of the audience doesn't seem to know that.
Would love your take on Hadestown's representation of him!!
I actually haven't gotten familiar with Hadestown yet—I think I dread it, having been burned too many times. But I've heard good things about it, so I'll likely brave it someday!
It’s definitely a different take on him than the examples here! Plenty of interpretive license taken but he’s a more complicated character.
okay but Someone was Wrong on the Internet & EVEN WORSE it was about your Special Interest! maybe I'm a bit TOO autistic but I think you were just fine
(not me still cranky about someone else declaring that no way was that a Savannah cat when IT WAS TOO NEITHER THIS HAS BEEN A SPECIAL INTEREST OF MINE SINCE BEFORE LOIOSH WAS BORN I KNOW THESE THINGS HEY ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME)
😂 I so get you! How dare they doubt your cat ID!
Thank you for the validation. It's something of a curse at times, knowing way more than average about a subject.
& like! we all have That Thing! that we know Stuff about! that's just how it works*!
* if you're neurospicy, which literally everyone I hang out with on purpose is, because we're the only people who make sense
And the older I get, the more I realize all the ways I’m neurospicy. 😃
as whomst among us,
I think fealty to source material is proportionate to depth of interpretation. If you're working with broad, crayon-like strokes — like Disney's "Hercules", or any of their comedic features for that matter — then we can tolerate a lot of interpretation. Likewise if one were writing a whimsical, Douglas Adams-y take on the material. However in media where there's more richness and detail, and more tapping into what made the original myths compelling, there's a natural expectation for a more informed approach that reflects the essence and details of its source. Hence we have different standards for Shakespeare's Henry VIII and the musical Six.
That is fair and true. Disney's "Hercules," and also the Percy Jackson series (which has a less unhinged but still not quite mythically faithful Hades), are made for kids and have a deliberately silly vibe. So I see why they went that direction. I think part of my beef is that Disney has such a humongous reach—far more these days than Aeschylus or Ovid or even Homer—that people who weren't raised on D'Aulaires like us just accept those interpretations as canonically accurate.
Disney went on to have a live-action Hades character in "Once Upon a Time," who is based on the "Hercules" version (and thus is not really an improvement, though not a surprise, since "Once Upon a Time" is just a huge mashup of all things in established Disney canon). But having those two seemingly separate and very popular versions out there probably helped cement the public impression that this is what Hades is like, in the myths. I think not enough people question what Disney habitually does to all their stories—i.e., they overlay a predetermined set of themes and character types onto each show/movie so it fits the Hashtag Disney Brand. Which obviously is working great for them, but...yeah. Changes have been made, and a lot of the audience doesn't seem to know that.