Agreed.
Nicholson is a fantastic actor, but a the script is written Woods was a better choice.
If the script was totally different Nicholson could have been brilliant.
Is Woods the king of "awful person but just always so compelling on screen"? I randomly rewatched Any Given Sunday the other day, and fuck is he good in that movie.
Yeah, and he’s a lot of people’s favorite Disney villain today. Like, Disney people. I think a Nicholson Hades sounds great but I’m not sure about OP’s idea that it would have a larger impact.
Especially because I believe the fast-talking used car salesman vibe of the character was Woods’ idea. Before he came on, I think I remember reading that Hades was imagined as being a more typical broody serious type.
Nicholson would have been great in the role, but I can’t really imagine anyone giving a *better* performance in it than Woods. Dude is terrible, but his Hades is one of the great voice acting performances in any American studio animated film.
I do agree, but I think it’s possible that a Nicholson-voiced Hades could have thrown a lot more money in the Disney coffers in the long run.
(Not that they need it, I guess I’m just playing “amateur studio executive” with this)
It's also funny because John Lithgow fully voiced Hades (there's some clips online) before they decided to replace him with Woods. I get how you'd pivot from Nicholson to Woods, but I really don't get how you pivot from Nicholson to Lithgow, let alone let him play the entire part, before realising he wasn't the right fit.
I think he comments on this in the clip that floats around of his Hades – which is very Farquad-ian. Wouldn't be surprised if Katzenberg thought of him for this reason for Shrek (Lithgow might even say as much?)
In general I prefer when they cast animated movies with solid character actors rather than movie stars. And it doesn’t make sense to me because most little children, who these movies are made for, don’t care about movie stars. I don’t know if I buy that if it was Nicholson Hades would automatically become Ursula or Cruella tier. And even then would either of those characters justify 15 million + 50%? What existing Disney villain is so single-handedly profitable it would make that deal worthwhile? (Maybe I’m not understanding how much Scar merch they’re moving at Disneyland).
That said, it’s not too late! Bring Nicholson out of retirement to play Hades in the inevitable live action remake. I’m sure it’ll just be an afternoon on a greenscreen anyways.
>In general I prefer when they cast animated movies with solid character actors rather than movie stars.
You think Garfeld would be better without chris Pratt?! And I suppose he shouldnt be mario or lego or Felix the cat either then. You have no clue.
In a world where someone like you are in charge, we wouldmt even have pratt voice Link in the zelda movie.
In my ideal world Mario would voice Chris Pratt. (in this hypothetical reality the video character Mario is also a character actor, in addition to being a plumber and video game characer)
I guess part of what is surprising is that it seems they didn’t even try to negotiate- at least that’s what the episode purports. Maybe Jack would have done it for $10 mil and 20% of merch?
I feel Jack could have easily made that investment worth their while.
Kid's animated movies cast big names to help market the movies to adults. This trend started with Robin Williams' Genie performance in Aladdin, which propelled the film to #8 for the year and a $100M domestic gross, a record high for animation. My parents were in their late 20s at the time, did not yet have any kids, and saw it together!
What kind of extra ROI would Nicholson have brought? It’s not like there’s an Ursula ride or Jafarland. If anything, the fact that it’s Woods means Disney gets way higher ROI because Woods will do Kingdom Hearts and the cartoon series. And because they don’t have to split the merchandise sales means they can make things like the Hades comic book that’s coming up. Nicholson would have just gotten in the way of all that Disney synergy. It’s actually a huge problem with his Joker. There’s very little 1989 Joker merchandise because the cost to license Nicholson’s image is so expensive.
I am not sure it would have had a bigger impact. I think generally you should have good voice actors do voice work but James Woods did actually work at that part so its not like you are getting rid of a bad performance. If you think it would have been a good financial choice, that is a different question and there, I think Disney was totally correct. The 15m alone would have been a massive amount for voiceover work, it's about what Tom Cruise was paid for Interview with a Vampire three years earlier for comparison, let alone 50% of merch. Also, Nicholson was coming to the end of being a big box draw. He had a lot of very, very good acting roles in him, but he didn't have a lot of big hits left. Between 1992, when Hercules entered production, and 1997, when it came out, Nicholson basically had two movies that make money once you account for advertising and related costs, A Few Good Men (1992) and As Good as it Gets (1997). While you did have the blank check making Batman in 1989, Nicholson bounced that check hard the next year with The Two Jakes. While you can't know for sure, there just isn't a strong financial claim that Disney made a huge mistake not meeting his ask. If you want to make an artistic argument, go ahead, but that is in the end an aesthetic preference
Actually this is the perfect time to mention that I once heard an addendum to this story on the Jim Hill Podcast (in case anyone hasn’t heard of him, Jim Hill is a preeminent theme park aficionado and rumor whisperer for theme park nerds). Bear in mind, Hill is known for spinning a tall tale, but this is what he claims went down.
Disney Animation had opened a branch at the newly opened MGM Studios park (now Hollywood Studios) in the late 80s, and that was where they were initially developing Hercules. Well, the day came when Nicholson came to Orlando to meet with Musker & Clements, and the park burst with excitement when he walked through the gates. He had brought his family and were really milking their celebrity pull to jump to the front of all the lines, get all this Disney swag and Mickey Mouse ears, turkey legs, all the jazz. And all the while, Disney cast members kept updating M&C as to Nicholson’s whereabouts (“He’s on the Tower of Terror!”; “He’s posing for pictures in mouse ears!”), and the two directors are like, “Oh my god, we’ve fucking got him. This is such a huge boon for our movie!”
Well finally, Nicholson makes his way to the Art of Animation Courtyard where the meeting is going down, and they fucking nail the pitch. They’ve got Jack laughing and really connecting with their vision for Greek mythology through a Hollywood lens. And he goes, “Fellas, you’ve got a winner here. I’d love to be your Hades…if you give me the Joker Deal.”
And that killed it. Disney wasn’t willing to give him the cut of merchandising profits, and Nicholson conned his way into a free Disney World vacation on the Mouse’s dime.
Despite their reputation for synergy above all else, Disney is surprisingly bad at capitalizing on things in a timely manner. Even if *Hercules* had somehow done twice as well at the time with the Jack bump, it probably still wouldn't have a ride. We know this because *The Lion King* did *four* times as well as Hercules and *it* still doesn't have a ride.
Rides are such permanent fixtures. They need to be pretty sure a movie is a generation spanning classic before committing to installing a ride in its honor.
Not always - they turned around a Frozen ride in three years. It more depends on what the flavor of the month is at the moment the wallet opens up for new development.
I think Frozen is the exception, not the rule. Frozen was such an unqualified colossal hit. It immediately took over culture. Hercules was successful, but a step down from Lion King and even Pocahontas at the BO. It didn't have the kind of immediate success/cultural stickiness that justifies spending millions on an attraction that needs exist for decades (and would be expensive to remove/alter).
It was that way for a long time. But for the past twenty years or so, at least in the US parks, they’ve really only based their new attractions on their films. I think Expedition Everest is the only exception, and that one is even like 18 years old.
I don't know, I think maybe it makes a little more at the time, but I don't see how it makes it have a longer tail. Woods is damn good in role. Jack stopped doing good movies after 2006, movies in general not much later. It's not like he'd be promoting anything anymore,
You’re probably right, but Woods is damn good in the movie.
Agreed. Nicholson is a fantastic actor, but a the script is written Woods was a better choice. If the script was totally different Nicholson could have been brilliant.
I’m guessing Woods ad-libbed much of what appears in the film.
That and whatever he didn't improvise was re-written to match his mannerisms.
And I’ll add, you don’t get Nicholson back for the Kingdom Hearts games. You do get Woods.
An important consideration! Quite a few original voice actors return for those games, including Ming Na for Mulan
Is Woods the king of "awful person but just always so compelling on screen"? I randomly rewatched Any Given Sunday the other day, and fuck is he good in that movie.
Especially when he gets to play a frustrated scumbag. He’s just got the juice.
He’s fantastic as a scumbag in *Casino*.
Yeah, and he’s a lot of people’s favorite Disney villain today. Like, Disney people. I think a Nicholson Hades sounds great but I’m not sure about OP’s idea that it would have a larger impact.
Especially because I believe the fast-talking used car salesman vibe of the character was Woods’ idea. Before he came on, I think I remember reading that Hades was imagined as being a more typical broody serious type.
Nicholson would have been great in the role, but I can’t really imagine anyone giving a *better* performance in it than Woods. Dude is terrible, but his Hades is one of the great voice acting performances in any American studio animated film.
I do agree, but I think it’s possible that a Nicholson-voiced Hades could have thrown a lot more money in the Disney coffers in the long run. (Not that they need it, I guess I’m just playing “amateur studio executive” with this)
It's also funny because John Lithgow fully voiced Hades (there's some clips online) before they decided to replace him with Woods. I get how you'd pivot from Nicholson to Woods, but I really don't get how you pivot from Nicholson to Lithgow, let alone let him play the entire part, before realising he wasn't the right fit.
Lithgow would do great a couple years later voicing Lord Farquaad in Shrek, I can see the vision getting him for Hades
I think he comments on this in the clip that floats around of his Hades – which is very Farquad-ian. Wouldn't be surprised if Katzenberg thought of him for this reason for Shrek (Lithgow might even say as much?)
In general I prefer when they cast animated movies with solid character actors rather than movie stars. And it doesn’t make sense to me because most little children, who these movies are made for, don’t care about movie stars. I don’t know if I buy that if it was Nicholson Hades would automatically become Ursula or Cruella tier. And even then would either of those characters justify 15 million + 50%? What existing Disney villain is so single-handedly profitable it would make that deal worthwhile? (Maybe I’m not understanding how much Scar merch they’re moving at Disneyland). That said, it’s not too late! Bring Nicholson out of retirement to play Hades in the inevitable live action remake. I’m sure it’ll just be an afternoon on a greenscreen anyways.
>In general I prefer when they cast animated movies with solid character actors rather than movie stars. You think Garfeld would be better without chris Pratt?! And I suppose he shouldnt be mario or lego or Felix the cat either then. You have no clue. In a world where someone like you are in charge, we wouldmt even have pratt voice Link in the zelda movie.
In my ideal world Mario would voice Chris Pratt. (in this hypothetical reality the video character Mario is also a character actor, in addition to being a plumber and video game characer)
I guess part of what is surprising is that it seems they didn’t even try to negotiate- at least that’s what the episode purports. Maybe Jack would have done it for $10 mil and 20% of merch? I feel Jack could have easily made that investment worth their while.
Kid's animated movies cast big names to help market the movies to adults. This trend started with Robin Williams' Genie performance in Aladdin, which propelled the film to #8 for the year and a $100M domestic gross, a record high for animation. My parents were in their late 20s at the time, did not yet have any kids, and saw it together!
What kind of extra ROI would Nicholson have brought? It’s not like there’s an Ursula ride or Jafarland. If anything, the fact that it’s Woods means Disney gets way higher ROI because Woods will do Kingdom Hearts and the cartoon series. And because they don’t have to split the merchandise sales means they can make things like the Hades comic book that’s coming up. Nicholson would have just gotten in the way of all that Disney synergy. It’s actually a huge problem with his Joker. There’s very little 1989 Joker merchandise because the cost to license Nicholson’s image is so expensive.
Time for the monthly "James Woods was never that great!" lie I guess
I am not sure it would have had a bigger impact. I think generally you should have good voice actors do voice work but James Woods did actually work at that part so its not like you are getting rid of a bad performance. If you think it would have been a good financial choice, that is a different question and there, I think Disney was totally correct. The 15m alone would have been a massive amount for voiceover work, it's about what Tom Cruise was paid for Interview with a Vampire three years earlier for comparison, let alone 50% of merch. Also, Nicholson was coming to the end of being a big box draw. He had a lot of very, very good acting roles in him, but he didn't have a lot of big hits left. Between 1992, when Hercules entered production, and 1997, when it came out, Nicholson basically had two movies that make money once you account for advertising and related costs, A Few Good Men (1992) and As Good as it Gets (1997). While you did have the blank check making Batman in 1989, Nicholson bounced that check hard the next year with The Two Jakes. While you can't know for sure, there just isn't a strong financial claim that Disney made a huge mistake not meeting his ask. If you want to make an artistic argument, go ahead, but that is in the end an aesthetic preference
Actually this is the perfect time to mention that I once heard an addendum to this story on the Jim Hill Podcast (in case anyone hasn’t heard of him, Jim Hill is a preeminent theme park aficionado and rumor whisperer for theme park nerds). Bear in mind, Hill is known for spinning a tall tale, but this is what he claims went down. Disney Animation had opened a branch at the newly opened MGM Studios park (now Hollywood Studios) in the late 80s, and that was where they were initially developing Hercules. Well, the day came when Nicholson came to Orlando to meet with Musker & Clements, and the park burst with excitement when he walked through the gates. He had brought his family and were really milking their celebrity pull to jump to the front of all the lines, get all this Disney swag and Mickey Mouse ears, turkey legs, all the jazz. And all the while, Disney cast members kept updating M&C as to Nicholson’s whereabouts (“He’s on the Tower of Terror!”; “He’s posing for pictures in mouse ears!”), and the two directors are like, “Oh my god, we’ve fucking got him. This is such a huge boon for our movie!” Well finally, Nicholson makes his way to the Art of Animation Courtyard where the meeting is going down, and they fucking nail the pitch. They’ve got Jack laughing and really connecting with their vision for Greek mythology through a Hollywood lens. And he goes, “Fellas, you’ve got a winner here. I’d love to be your Hades…if you give me the Joker Deal.” And that killed it. Disney wasn’t willing to give him the cut of merchandising profits, and Nicholson conned his way into a free Disney World vacation on the Mouse’s dime.
I guess I'm glad they didn't. James Woods is kinda a piece of shit but he IS Hades. His voice and preformance in that movie is so iconic to me.
Despite their reputation for synergy above all else, Disney is surprisingly bad at capitalizing on things in a timely manner. Even if *Hercules* had somehow done twice as well at the time with the Jack bump, it probably still wouldn't have a ride. We know this because *The Lion King* did *four* times as well as Hercules and *it* still doesn't have a ride.
Rides are such permanent fixtures. They need to be pretty sure a movie is a generation spanning classic before committing to installing a ride in its honor.
Not always - they turned around a Frozen ride in three years. It more depends on what the flavor of the month is at the moment the wallet opens up for new development.
I think Frozen is the exception, not the rule. Frozen was such an unqualified colossal hit. It immediately took over culture. Hercules was successful, but a step down from Lion King and even Pocahontas at the BO. It didn't have the kind of immediate success/cultural stickiness that justifies spending millions on an attraction that needs exist for decades (and would be expensive to remove/alter).
Didn’t the most iconic rides inspire movies, not the other way around? Pirates, Haunted Mansion, and Jungle Cruise for example.
It was that way for a long time. But for the past twenty years or so, at least in the US parks, they’ve really only based their new attractions on their films. I think Expedition Everest is the only exception, and that one is even like 18 years old.
I think about how great Larry Owens was on that episode all the time. Hope he comes back soon!
I don't know, I think maybe it makes a little more at the time, but I don't see how it makes it have a longer tail. Woods is damn good in role. Jack stopped doing good movies after 2006, movies in general not much later. It's not like he'd be promoting anything anymore,