Hunchback Issues

[quasimodo1384]

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is one of my favorite Disney movies of the post-Walt era. But, I've noticed a lot of people don't like it because they say the book is better. I for one am not one to compare two COMPLETLY different genres, but I'm curious now. I just thought I'd start a thread about why people do/do not like. But, can we please try to be nice to each other? Alright, fire away!

[Malibu Minion]

I don't like that movie and I really can't explain why.

[Flint]

I like one of the songs, that's about it.

The problem with Hunchback is they tried to make a sappy, heartwarming family movie from a novel that was a serious indictment of the hypocracy and fundamental evil of the Christian church.

It's like trying to make Earth Girls are Easy into A Tale of Two Cities.

[Socapex]

I like a couple of the songs. But this movie wasn't all that. And it definetely isn't a family friendly story like Flint said. The scene with that priest guy talking about killing the gypsy...yeah. Just a little disturbing to see in animation.

[Aladdin]

I'm not a big fan of the movie either. The Gargoyle song is one of the lowlights of this movie. Clopin rubs me the wrong way, too. The only humor that works in this movie is from Phoebus, other than that, this movie just isn't a lot of laughs and doesn't have your traditional happy ending.

The characters, Frollo, Esmeralda, Phoebus, offer more of a complete 3 dimensional personality than your traditional 2-d toon movies. But Quasi, less real than his co-stars. With him talking to Gargoyles and sliding down the gutters of Notre Dame don't help a bit. Then he swings around like Tarzan.

They would have been better off, leaving out the kiddie elements, and making Hunchie more a realist person. That would have at least made the movie more respectable. Instead you have this serious movie mixed with inane moments, and a main character that can't be taken for real.

[CrazyDreamer]

This happens to be my favorite Disney movie and I just watched it last night, strangely enough. I've had many debates with my friends about what works in it and what doesn't and I'll be the first to admit that it should not have a G rating.
The animation itself is stunning. All of the stained glass and candles and architecture... Plus, I happen to be a fan of stories that have less than "happily ever after" endings. I've read the book and agree that it's a completely different experience from the movie and can't really be compared to it (just like I wouldn't compare Little Mermaid to the Hans Christian Anderson version- they're two separate works). And don't even get me started on how much I love the music (but I suppose that if choral music isn't your thing, you might dislike it).
I think that a lot of people don't give Hunchback a chance, wanting a classic Disney princess story, and instead getting a grittier drama. It's not your typical animated film, and I think that might be why it appeals to me so much.

[Mousekiteer]

Like you, quasimodo1384, I absoluetly ADORE the film. It's my ultimate favorite Disney animated feature. But as I explained in another thread, I believe it doesn't get a lot of recognition because of the risky elements it had. Purists of the book hated it because they screwed up a lot of things, it was a lot more 'adult' than many other of the Disney films and leave it said that Roy didn't want to see it happen. Critics respected it while the general American audience wasn't willing to grow up as the company did. It was restricted mostly of the expectations of the Disney name.

The only real problems I had with it is the fact the gargoyles were very distracting. Sidekicks are usually used as a way to connect the younger audience to the movie. But they seemed out of place and un-necessary because the atmosphere itself was serious. It was one too many. You had the gargoyles, Dijali and Clopin. It was a little stuffy as they all clamored out in competition for humor.

Oh, and my music teacher was one of the tenors used in the chorus.

Even now as I watch the movie, I do get a little taken a back when Frollo grabs Esmerelda and takes a whiff of her hair. Creepy as it is, that scene's pretty hot.

If you're wondering as the original tale goes...

Spoiler

Phoebus was a playboy and helped sentenced Esmerelda and her mother to death. Even old Quasi dies.

[quasimodo1384]

The only real problems I had with it is the fact the gargoyles were very distracting. Sidekicks are usually used as a way to connect the younger audience to the movie. But they seemed out of place and un-necessary because the atmosphere itself was serious. It was one too many. You had the gargoyles, Dijali and Clopin. It was a little stuffy as they all clamored out in competition for humor.

I'll give you that, and I completly agree...I wasn't a huge fan of the gargoyles, and I would also agree with any of you who said that it isn't the most child friendly Disney film. For me however, the fact that it isn't the classic happy ending is what appeals to me most (along with the music of course). I just think the music is some of the most powerful in any Disney film. "Out There," "Heaven's Light," and "God Help the Outcasts" are some of my favorite songs ever.

[Malibu Minion]

Has anyone seen Hunchback 2 yet?

[Mousekiteer]

Has anyone seen Hunchback 2 yet?

I have! Despite the cheapness of it all, I was happy that Quasi finally got a girlfriend.

[Gemini Cricket]

I thought the animation was amazing in the film. I liked most of the songs also. But the movie tried to accomplish too much in my opinion. It wanted to be serious and silly all at the same time. Several additions/changes bugged me: making Frollo a judge, Quasimodo's talking gargoyle allies and Esmeralda's goat friend. Weird choices. The movie just seemed to have an identity crisis throughout.


And enough with the formulaic Disney Musicals: The exposition intro song, the 'I want' song, the show stopping song, the romantic song, the villain's song etc. (Except in Hunchback, they traded the romantic song for an extra 'I want' song.)

[desertdweller]

Keeping in mind that this complex and beloved novel was sanitized and brought to a level for children, I found the film to be very well done. I admit to being annoyed at times with the gargoyles but spectacular visual delights and an unusually dark tone not usually found in a Disney animated film made it something quite unique.

The background paintings are exceptional. The detail and realistic renderings remind me of the early films such as PinocchioSleeping Beauty was re-released in selected theaters in 70mm and I talked a group of artist friends into seeing it. None of them had ever seen the film except in a pan and scan version on video and were simply in awe of the scope and beauty of that film when seen on the large screen.

[Reaver]

I thought of this as a Lucas-esque move. You have a good story, some great art, good acting performances, but then they had to throw some goofy silliness in to try to reach the younger audiences... Jar-Jar? Ewoks? C3P0 as comic relief ("What a drag." ptuy!!)? there's no need for any of them. And there was no need for the Gargoyles. Heaven forbid Disney do a film that was a little higher up on the maturity scale, right? The fact is, though, that they needn't have tried to cater to the kiddies. Had they focused on the story being what it was, it would have been 100% better. A New Hope didn't cater to children, and I'd say it did pretty well in theatres, with a huge demographic. Visually, this one one of their best, with Beauty and the Beast going neck and neck with it on the sheer visuals. I've been to Notre Dame, and it's more beautiful and impressive in person. But not by much. That's the best praise I can give for the visuals.

In the end, a movie that could have been great turned out being merely so-so. But then, I liked Prince of Egypt a lot, and it didn't do very well theatrically, so what do I know?

[Xharryb]

Sleeping Beauty was re-released in selected theaters in 70mm and I talked a group of artist friends into seeing it. None of them had ever seen the film except in a pan and scan version on video and were simply in awe of the scope and beauty of that film when seen on the large screen.

AGREED! I'm still dissapointed every time I pop in this video, because I remember how blown away I was by the visuals when i first saw it in theaters.

I also absolutely love the music. Coming from a theatrical background, I've always felt it to be a very stage worthy bunch of music (even more so than some of the other films that have made it successfully onto the stage).

I will easily conceed that if what you are looking for is a true telling of the original Hunchback story, this isn't the film for you. Heck, I was one of the haters originally who refused to see it because "how can they Disneyfy Hunchback?!?!" then a friend dragged me into the theater and said "listen." As soon as Clopin started hitting high notes, I was hooked. You have to set the proper expectations for the film you're viewing.

[IndyJn511]

Clopin's singing rocks my socks off! I personally love the film. I, however, have never read the book. And since when do movies do a good job of imitating the book they are based on? The movie is stunning, and the song ACTUALLY move the story along! That said, it does move a little fast, but other than that, the music is beautiul, the visuals stunning, and the story rather entertaining.

[yensid98]

HUNCHBACK like almost all of the modern Disney films has a split personality. One the one hand it wanted to broaden the notion of what most usually think of as a Disney film and on the other it wanted to be a rolicking kiddie flick. These goals are so oppositve that the movie was doomed to fail. However, there is much to praise in HUNCHBACK.

I adore it's sondtrack. It's the most complicated, interesting, daring soundtrack the studio has ever come up with. Just ignore that awful Gargoyle mess that is "A Guy Like You" (that spilt personality rears it's head in every aspect of the film).

The artistry in backgrounds, character design, animation and effects are astounding. Undeniably, HUNCHBACK is the height of modern Dsiney artistry. I'm floored by it's beauty every time I watch it. Numerous times during my first viewing I had tears and sharp intakes of breath from visuals alone.

Combine the daring music and astounding visuals with a story that is mainly a very dark, deep and moving story and you've got an amazing experience. But to fully appreciate it you have to sit through lame goat jokes and childish Gargoyles continually barging in and ruining the experience.

I love HUNCHBACK but there is no denying it is a very flawed film. I also agree with Roy Disney that this was not a story that Disney should have tackled to begin with. Disney is a family-friendly comapny but the Hunchback story is not a simple easy story, in fact it's controversial. I'm amazed that it was ever green lit. To do it justice Disney would have had to ignore much of their core audinece. I think they did the best that they could have. This is a case where all the success of films like MERMAID, BEAUTY & THE BEAST and LION KING went to everyones heads. They figured they could do anything and forgot who they were. Still, I wouldn't trade HUNCHBACK. Without it I would have missed out on many hours of wonder and joy.

I thank Disney for the wonderful mess that is THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME.

[Flint]

HUNCHBACK like almost all of the modern Disney films has a split personality. One the one hand it wanted to broaden the notion of what most usually think of as a Disney film and on the other it wanted to be a rolicking kiddie flick. These goals are so oppositve that the movie was doomed to fail.

And that, my friends, is what happens when you use focus groups. Or let management weigh in on creative issues.

[Orcatime]

Of all the Disney villains, Frollo tops the list of despised in my book. The music is what really sells the movie to me though.

Someone mentioned about why the choice to make Frollo a judge instead of a Catholic priest. Hmmmm, how to get the point across .......Disney is not in the habit of intentionally offending and alienating anyone who has money to their name. Given how America for all intents and purposes is a Christian country, it is not wise to offend the Catholic congregtation that would be going to see this with their kids.

I agree with Mr. Disney. The content was extremely difficult to convey to a 10 year old. However, that being said, had the project NOT been greenlighted I most likely would not have been inclined to even read the book.

[Soulquarian]

I never read the book, so I don't really have a basis for comparison, but I watched for the first time as a kid, and I had no problem with it. While the tone was a bit darker than most, and the story a bit harder than traditional Disney, I still think of it as one of the better Disney films...

As for the book, well look at Disney as a whole! What movie based on a story/book hasn't been adapted? It happened with Snow White, Little Mermaid, Song of the South, Beauty and the Beast...

Disney tried to make Song of the South tried to make a heart-warming, family story about a series of stories that dealt with slavery. Same difference.

Over the years, I just looked at Disney as independent. I never tried to compare their stories. They were their own seperate entity.

That having been said, I like Hunchback!

[Michelle]

I don't hate this movie, but my friends do. They complain that the ending is just too sad.

I liked it, but I haven't seen it since it came out (and I was nine or ten).

The fact that it's so loathed bums me out since it decreases the chances of there ever being an animated Les Mis..